Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • YOU DON’T HIT WOMEN. Sorry guys, but, yes, we all understand that women are pret

    YOU DON’T HIT WOMEN.

    Sorry guys, but, yes, we all understand that women are pretty much all some degree of crazy. But a far as I can tell it’s their right to be crazy. It may even be a necessity for them. But as long as they aren’t trying to pierce the surface of your body with a foreign object, you don’t hit them.

    Ever. Never ever.

    There are certain costs of doing business so to speak. Ignoring crazy is one of them. Remind women that your life is yours to live and that the only ‘good’ is one that suits both your interests according to your own priorities. There is no abstract good.

    The way it works is, that in the womb, we get brain damaged by the mother, as part of the process of turning off what is female and turning on what is male. What remains is what’s male. And yes, it takes us longer to mature because of that in-utero damage to our brains. We have to sort of ‘grow around’ it to compensate for the damage. In exchange we get to be not-crazy: factual and rational, and perfectly happy in a world with food, beer, and fire to stare at. They get stuck in their world of crazy, empathic, and irrational, so that they can understand children, and be maniacally driven to care for such annoying things as babies (and us).

    So you know, it’s just a cost of doing business.

    You don’t hit them. Ever. You walk away. You keep your own bank accounts, off shore it if you must. But you walk away. Believe it or not there are far more women in this world than men, and they need us more than we need them. ‘Cause we have much lower maintenance costs by our nature. Just how it is. The trend looks like about a third of men, and as much as forty percent will drop out of participation in the work force, and out of self sacrifice for society. (If we aren’t there already to some degree.)

    Let the market do its work.

    Better to be John Galt than a woman-beater.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-12 08:05:00 UTC

  • VIOLENCE IN IDLE HANDS By my faith and honor, Our women do mock us, And daily de

    VIOLENCE IN IDLE HANDS

    By my faith and honor,

    Our women do mock us,

    And daily demonstrate,

    Our mettle is all bred out.

    And they give their bodies,

    to the lust of foreign youth

    To new-store Europa

    With bastard sons.

    Lest we rise and remember,

    Whence came our repose,

    Mined from violence mastered

    To multiply our numbers fold.

    We herded the world, unwanted,

    From ignorance into wealth,

    And in folly dreamed us creditor

    While debtors envious evade.

    Our women, they do mock us,

    And daily prattle, with scorn,

    Debtors too, forgotten:

    “Their mettle is all bred out”

    Words complain, rest abstains,

    Patience excuses, uncertainly refrains.

    Debts enforced by violence,

    or abandoned through convenience.

    The greatest virtue is violence used,

    In defense of blood entombed.

    Whose interest sustains us,

    But whose principle has run out.

    Conviction and Intolerance,

    Heady violence, unforgiving demand,

    Virtues in their context,

    But lost in idle hands.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-10 12:34:00 UTC

  • Which One Do You Prefer, A Socialist Or Capitalist Economy?

    I WILL DO MY BEST. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER.

    The question poses a false dichotomy. 

    A socialist economy is logically impossible, and demonstrably impossible since the socialist method of production provides neither incentives, nor the pricing system necessary for the competitive satisfaction of wants and needs. We don’t have a choice of a socialist economy.

    Instead, the question is, given that a MIXED economy appears to be necessary to satisfy:
    (a) the requirement for providing people with incentives to participate in needed work regardless of their preference for work;
    AND
    (b )the means of economic calculation and planning in real time provided by money and prices;
    AND
    (c) to provide sufficient redistribution to satisfy the demand for state intervention, and to prevent the lower classes from rebellion, and to reduce the cost of their suppression;
    THEREFORE
    which BIAS do you prefer: i) greater retention of profits in the hands of those who produce it, OR ii) greater distribution of profits to those who do not produce it.  With the understanding that labor is of declining and near zero value, and that ORGANIZING PRODUCTION dynamically in real time under constant risk is the challenging part of the economy, not the labor involved in production which is at best a commodity that is easily replaced.

    The problem does not appear to be which mixed economy, but the intergenerational transfer of wealth dependent upon constant economic growth, while at the same time such redistributive wealth suppresses breeding rates of the most productive individuals.  As such societies must ‘feed the ponzi scheme’ by immigrating a permanent underclass as the native population shrinks.

    The germans have probably developed the superior model: make sure your working class is the worlds best working class, and the upper classes will take care of the rest. The American model looks like a failure since trying to get everyone to join the middle class (of independent professionals) is not possible because not enough people possess the genetic talents to fulfill those positions without training via repetition that is greater in cost than the benefit produced. 

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    So since I cannot prefer a socialist, and there is no capitalist economy extant, and the only economies that do exist other than the very impoverished countries, are mixed, I prefer a mixed economy, since it is the only choice available. But I prefer one that does not depend on a genetic ponzi scheme.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-one-do-you-prefer-a-socialist-or-capitalist-economy

  • Which One Do You Prefer, A Socialist Or Capitalist Economy?

    I WILL DO MY BEST. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER.

    The question poses a false dichotomy. 

    A socialist economy is logically impossible, and demonstrably impossible since the socialist method of production provides neither incentives, nor the pricing system necessary for the competitive satisfaction of wants and needs. We don’t have a choice of a socialist economy.

    Instead, the question is, given that a MIXED economy appears to be necessary to satisfy:
    (a) the requirement for providing people with incentives to participate in needed work regardless of their preference for work;
    AND
    (b )the means of economic calculation and planning in real time provided by money and prices;
    AND
    (c) to provide sufficient redistribution to satisfy the demand for state intervention, and to prevent the lower classes from rebellion, and to reduce the cost of their suppression;
    THEREFORE
    which BIAS do you prefer: i) greater retention of profits in the hands of those who produce it, OR ii) greater distribution of profits to those who do not produce it.  With the understanding that labor is of declining and near zero value, and that ORGANIZING PRODUCTION dynamically in real time under constant risk is the challenging part of the economy, not the labor involved in production which is at best a commodity that is easily replaced.

    The problem does not appear to be which mixed economy, but the intergenerational transfer of wealth dependent upon constant economic growth, while at the same time such redistributive wealth suppresses breeding rates of the most productive individuals.  As such societies must ‘feed the ponzi scheme’ by immigrating a permanent underclass as the native population shrinks.

    The germans have probably developed the superior model: make sure your working class is the worlds best working class, and the upper classes will take care of the rest. The American model looks like a failure since trying to get everyone to join the middle class (of independent professionals) is not possible because not enough people possess the genetic talents to fulfill those positions without training via repetition that is greater in cost than the benefit produced. 

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    So since I cannot prefer a socialist, and there is no capitalist economy extant, and the only economies that do exist other than the very impoverished countries, are mixed, I prefer a mixed economy, since it is the only choice available. But I prefer one that does not depend on a genetic ponzi scheme.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-one-do-you-prefer-a-socialist-or-capitalist-economy

  • MEANS OF FEMINIST OPPRESSION OF REALITY? CENSORING THE INTERNET Uh ho. What?. Sh

    http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/NEXT MEANS OF FEMINIST OPPRESSION OF REALITY? CENSORING THE INTERNET

    Uh ho. What?. Shaming and Rallying don’t work on the internet?

    Your rejection is powerless? You words can’t carry their own weight?

    You can’t claim that you were open to physical threats on the internet?

    Why do you think men spend more time here than women?

    Words disempower your politicking. But please tell me when you have the right not to be sneered at, jeered, insulted, ridiculed, threatened via twitter messages….

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 17:35:00 UTC

  • NECESSARY, PREFERENTIAL AND LUXURY PROPERTIES OF GOVERNMENT A) NECESSARY PROPERT

    NECESSARY, PREFERENTIAL AND LUXURY PROPERTIES OF GOVERNMENT

    A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES

    The NECESSARY properties of of a government are

    1) provide a means of resolving differences without the use of violence (ie: to create a monopoly of violence within a geography.)

    2) To provide a means of resolving differences requires a definition of property rights.

    3) To prohibit alternative definitions of property rights from being imposed by force, theft or fraud, (or immigration.)

    These are the minimum properties of a government.

    B ) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES

    In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following:

    4) To provide a means of investing in commons (human and physical infrastructure) by prohibiting free-riding, privatization, and competition when investing in commons.

    5) To provide a means of cooperation between classes where privatization, free riding, rent seeking and competition prevent cooperation between classes.

    6) To reduce both transaction costs and fraud by implementing weights, measures and currency.

    7) To perform as an insurer of last resort against catastrophes.

    These are advantageous properties of government.

    C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES

    In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES:

    8 ) Redistribution of all kinds, both in services, and in direct payments.

    9) Inter-temporal redistribution from young to old, rather than saving and lending from old to young. (But this is very fragile.)

    These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation.

    The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’.

    The government we have today, has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and created both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 13:43:00 UTC

  • Recent Interview “The anarcho-libertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues fo

    http://www.hanshoppe.com/2014/01/taxes-are-expropriation-interview-in-wirtschaftswoche/Hoppe’s Recent Interview

    “The anarcho-libertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues for a state-free society. Where government has, for example, no right to compel the citizens to pay taxes to finance armed forces.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 13:38:00 UTC

  • MAYBE, THAT LIBERTY COMES OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN True, maybe that libertaria

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/search/label/libertarianismTRUE MAYBE, THAT LIBERTY COMES OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN

    True, maybe that libertarianism is applied autism.

    That doesn’t change the fact that conservatives just aren’t terribly intellectual. And if you’re a conservative intellectual, its pretty hard not to work with the libertarians.

    So, how does one, build an intellectual movement in the conservative river of discourse? I gotta tell you that I don’t believe you can. Mencius did a pretty good job, but honestly, it’s hard to find a even a libertarian that can understand anything terribly complicated.

    And it’s impossible to find a conservative.

    And that’s exasperating.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-06 17:42:00 UTC

  • Rothbardian ethics preserve the ability to ‘cheat’ by all but violence and the c

    Rothbardian ethics preserve the ability to ‘cheat’ by all but violence and the crudest of frauds – and rothbard supports that preservation with the argument that the market will naturally suppress that cheating. However, transaction costs alone, ensure that such suppression can’t occur. And that’s before we add in the remaining external costs of low trust.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-05 18:52:00 UTC

  • RESPECTING THE PERSON OR THE IDEAS OR CONFLATING THE TWO (interesting) (toleranc

    RESPECTING THE PERSON OR THE IDEAS OR CONFLATING THE TWO

    (interesting) (tolerance as tax evasion)

    Do you separate respect for the person from respect for their ideas or do you make the solipsistic error of conflating a persons beliefs which they can change with their physical body which they cannot?

    One can say:

    i) that we coexist peacefully,

    ii) that we compete peacefully,

    iii) that we cooperate on different ends peacefully,

    iv) that we cooperate on the same ends peacefully.

    If someone possesses a catastrophic error, and you wish to cooperate with them, what is the impact of letting them hold on to silly ideas?

    Well, they can have whatever silly idea they want as long as it doesn’t affect your ability to cooperate on ends together.

    It is possible to possess ideas, values, beliefs, traditions, myths, metaphysical value judgments that are not merely differences in tastes, but which actively PREVENT cooperation on certain types of ends and means.

    If your culture denies reality, provides no means of correction of knowledge, provides no means of correction of individual thought, and at the same time, we know we must use science to understand that which we cannot perceive and sense directly, and such that

    TEACHING COOPERATION ON MEANS IF NOT ENDS

    In solipsistic argument, respect is for the purpose of raising children who do not yet have the ability to cooperate in the world. At some point we must become adults, or be the wards, subjects and victims of adults forever. One becomes an adult at the very point where one abandons solipsistic argument (the one you’re making probably) and distinguishes between the meaningless errors of children which they may grow out of, and the meaningful errors of adults that they may not grow out of.

    Tolerance in children is necessary for pedagogy. Tolerance in adults is only logically necessary for tastes, but not for truths. If you do not correct the errors in thinking of yourself and your fellow citizens then you are a conspirator in the conspiracy of ignorance, and a threat to society – and to man. Just as you are a threat to a society and to man if you fail to enforce and adhere to manners, ethics, and morals.

    TOLERANCE AS “FREE RIDING, CHEATING AND STEALING”

    If you do not enforce and adhere to manners (ethics of signals), ethics (participatory ethics), and morals (ethics of externalities) then you are not paying the behavioral ‘tax’ for living in a society – you are a tax cheater so to speak in the normative system of costs. if you are less ABLE to pay normative taxes, that is the same as if you are less ABLE to pay real taxes – in both cases these are statements of your willingness and ability.

    In other words, if you let adults around you believe that which is economically dangerous to the polity, then you are just trying to save yourself the cost of paying for the normative infrastructure, just like any other tax cheat is trying to save himself the cost of paying for physical infrastructure.

    You can say that you are not competent (productive enough) to pay that normative tax, but if that is so, then you of course, like any other person who evades taxes, no right to speak about norms.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-05 07:14:00 UTC