Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Propertarian Horizontal Class Theory

    PART 1: AWARENESS, INFLUENCE, INCENTIVE AND COERCION SPECTRUM OF INFLUENCE (a) Ignorance – none (b) Awareness – speech (c) Influence – speech (d) Incentive – exchange (e) Coercion – violence (f) Enslavement – perpetual violence INCENTIVES Incentives are factors that motivate and influence the actions of individuals. Something that an influencer can use to provide a motive for a person to choose a particular course of action. Organized cooperative activities in a social setting — such as cooperation for the purpose of economic production — depends upon each of the participants having some sort of incentive to behave in the required cooperative fashion. Different societies (and even different organizations within the same society) vary considerably in the nature of the incentive systems upon which they characteristically rely to organize their common projects. — from Johnson (with edits) I. PERSONAL CATEGORIES OF INCENTIVES (Johnson) ——————————————– Incentives may be classified according to a number of different schemes, but one of the more useful classifications subdivides incentives into three general types: MORAL INCENTIVES, COERCIVE INCENTIVES and REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVES. A person has a COERCIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions. A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation. A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange. All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives. II. POLITICAL: THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES (Doolittle) ————————————————- The Three Coercive Technologies. 1) FORCE: Tool: Physical Coercion Benefit: Avoidance Benefit Strategic use: Rapid but expensive. “Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.” 2) WORDS: Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive. “Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.” 3) EXCHANGE: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit – Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources. III. STRATEGIC: POWER / THREE TYPES OF POWER —————————————– Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling. There are only three forms of power possible: 1) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals) vs 2) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges and Politicians) vs 3) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation). It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.

  • Propertarian Horizontal Class Theory

    PART 1: AWARENESS, INFLUENCE, INCENTIVE AND COERCION SPECTRUM OF INFLUENCE (a) Ignorance – none (b) Awareness – speech (c) Influence – speech (d) Incentive – exchange (e) Coercion – violence (f) Enslavement – perpetual violence INCENTIVES Incentives are factors that motivate and influence the actions of individuals. Something that an influencer can use to provide a motive for a person to choose a particular course of action. Organized cooperative activities in a social setting — such as cooperation for the purpose of economic production — depends upon each of the participants having some sort of incentive to behave in the required cooperative fashion. Different societies (and even different organizations within the same society) vary considerably in the nature of the incentive systems upon which they characteristically rely to organize their common projects. — from Johnson (with edits) I. PERSONAL CATEGORIES OF INCENTIVES (Johnson) ——————————————– Incentives may be classified according to a number of different schemes, but one of the more useful classifications subdivides incentives into three general types: MORAL INCENTIVES, COERCIVE INCENTIVES and REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVES. A person has a COERCIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions. A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation. A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange. All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives. II. POLITICAL: THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES (Doolittle) ————————————————- The Three Coercive Technologies. 1) FORCE: Tool: Physical Coercion Benefit: Avoidance Benefit Strategic use: Rapid but expensive. “Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.” 2) WORDS: Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive. “Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.” 3) EXCHANGE: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit – Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources. III. STRATEGIC: POWER / THREE TYPES OF POWER —————————————– Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling. There are only three forms of power possible: 1) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals) vs 2) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges and Politicians) vs 3) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation). It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.

  • The Female Arms Race Against Men: 'how Many People Can I Rally'?

    (draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.

  • The Female Arms Race Against Men: ‘how Many People Can I Rally’?

    (draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.

  • The Female Arms Race Against Men: 'how Many People Can I Rally'?

    (draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.

  • The Female Arms Race Against Men: ‘how Many People Can I Rally’?

    (draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.

  • Aristocracy Is Just Self Defense

    We had it backwards. Aristocracy simply didn’t adapt to the change in membership in the cult of property rights fast enough. If you can’t convince the anti-aristocrats to go along and create an ‘aristocracy of everybody’ promised by the enlightenment, then the alternative is natural Aristocracy: Self Defense. Pay people to get married, cohabitate, and breed. Pay the poor and unable, not to have children. Tax, impoverish, and punish those that are dependent. Care for the physically disabled. Just how it is. Otherwise. No families. No morality. No high trust. Married class vs unmarried class warfare.

  • Aristocracy Is Just Self Defense

    We had it backwards. Aristocracy simply didn’t adapt to the change in membership in the cult of property rights fast enough. If you can’t convince the anti-aristocrats to go along and create an ‘aristocracy of everybody’ promised by the enlightenment, then the alternative is natural Aristocracy: Self Defense. Pay people to get married, cohabitate, and breed. Pay the poor and unable, not to have children. Tax, impoverish, and punish those that are dependent. Care for the physically disabled. Just how it is. Otherwise. No families. No morality. No high trust. Married class vs unmarried class warfare.

  • If I ever see any man physically abuse a woman again, I will kill him. With joy,

    http://enpundit.com/watch-one-year-abusive-relationship-one-minute-video/ABUSE

    If I ever see any man physically abuse a woman again, I will kill him. With joy, and without remorse. If I knew who the guy in this video was, I’d take care of it myself – I put up with enough of that against my mother.

    We are overly servile to the law. The world would be a lot better place if meting out justice was done quickly and passionately by any group of men supplied with twenty feet of rope. The best cure for domestic violence is beating the man to near death and hanging him of the nearest bridge.

    Women are, we men all know, largely nuts. They are impulsive, deceitful, violent, manipulative and abusive creatures. They have to be. They have us around them all the time and we’re dangerous.

    But that doesn’t mean anything. You hurt a woman, every man worthy of the name should end your miserable existence.

    I call bullshit on ‘shelters’ and eduction and all other soft-nonsense remedies.

    We just need more rope.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-25 11:11:00 UTC

  • PROBLEM IS CIVIL OBEDIENCE Disobey the state

    http://daily.represent.us/matt-damon-blows-your-mind/THE PROBLEM IS CIVIL OBEDIENCE

    Disobey the state.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-25 03:21:00 UTC