Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • TO THE STATUS OF FARM ANIMAL: THE STORY OF YOUR ENSLAVEMENT – IT”S WORSE THAN OR

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58AWELCOME TO THE STATUS OF FARM ANIMAL: THE STORY OF YOUR ENSLAVEMENT – IT”S WORSE THAN ORWELL’S ANIMAL FARM

    I am not a libertarian that requires every one of our factions to put forward rigid analytical arguments in pursuit of some absolutely persuasive scripture.

    Like Roderick Tracy Long, proposes, I think any advocate of liberty must be accommodated if at all possible, as long as they expand interest in and passion for liberty. We scribblers largely debate other scribblers, but political movements are won or lost by numbers, and ideology aims not to produce either internally consistent argument or empirical evidence for purposes of persuasion. The purpose of ideology is to motivate the passions of the many to act. If religion required articulated reason, and empirical support, the world would be populated by atheists.

    Now, Molyneux’s attempts at analytical philosophy are pretty weak. But his sentiments, his analogies, his narratives, and his advocacy advance ideological and sentimental liberty, even if they don’t really contribute to analytical rigor in our field.

    Stefan’s recent video “The Story Of Your Enslavement” is exceptionally well done. It promotes a very simple meme by analogy to farming, that unites the sentiments and aggravates the passions.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

    It’s great work. And please share it. Even those of who dismiss ideology and seek the certainty of the ratio-scientific can appreciate the craftsmanship – the ARTISTRY, in this kind of message.

    It’s brilliant.

    Curt

    (PS: If you don’t think so, then you’ve never seen the effect of Schoolhouse Rock. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-20 10:31:00 UTC

  • NECESSITY VS PREFERENCE It is all well and good to attempt to construct politica

    NECESSITY VS PREFERENCE

    It is all well and good to attempt to construct political and ethical philosophy as the family becomes the village, the tribe becomes the city with a division of labor, and the people become the nation with an anonymous market.

    It is necessary to do so.

    But preferences must compete with necessities. We may prefer something but it must in practice be possible.

    We can temporarily distort necessity, as we with fiat money – because we can. We can permanently distort morality by sanctioning competition as virtuous – because we can.

    But in human history there are many preferences and few necessities.

    Those tools that compensate for our limited intellectual abilities: our senses, perception, memory, reason, calculation, and planning are the necessities of human existence.

    We adapt our norms and institutions to those necessities. Not the other way around.

    We are not wealthier than our cave dwelling ancestors. The only human currency is time.

    But through the division of knowledge and labor we have increased the purchasing power of our time to levels unimaginable to those who came before us.

    Romantic, egoistic, anthropocentric vanities encourage us to believe we make directional choices in our evolution but we do not. We seize opportunities good and bad. We forgo opportunities good and bad. And we pay or gain the consequences – by trial and error.

    Then we congratulate ourselves on our wisdom, and justify to ourselves our errors.

    The future is opaque and kaleidic.

    At best, we can attempt to improve our suite of tools, and choose those norms and institutions that increase our sense, perception, memory, calculation, planning, and information sharing.

    So that we constantly narrow the scope of our trial and error, and in doing so, increase the purchasing power of out time in this earth.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-19 06:01:00 UTC

  • The Difference Between Legal Equality and Civil Inequality

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL EQUALITY AND CIVIL INEQUALITY: PROFILING AND 27-1 RATIOS

    Print
    Lies are lies, even if they are comforting lies. Falsehoods are falsehoods even if they are comforting falsehoods. In my work, I have to deal with facts, if I want to find new solutions to the failings of western social democracy. I can’t do that if people believe falsehoods. THE NECESSITY OF RATIONAL ACTION Justice must be blind, but the rest of us must not be.

    “…The problem is that profiling is an indispensable part of a living a safe, rational life…. ” – Taki’s Blog

    Author John Derbyshire said exactly the same thing last year, and lost his job for it. His job, in the dark enlightenment movement, is to point out the failings of enlightenment and postmodern thought. He tries to do it with british humor. Which may work or not. But that’s his work, just like most people in the dark enlightenment. I defended him, and the Village Voice called me a member of the ‘hard right’. I’m actually a left-leaning libertarian by most accounts, making me a classical liberal on most things. But a conservative on the nature of man. That is because both left liberalism and right morality appear to consist largely of correct propositions – even if they are poorly stated in archaic or silly language. HARD FACTS AND UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS That the law must treat all of us equally for it to be a just law, the fact is that we are not equal as individuals, and as groups we exaggerate those inequalities. And while the law MUST treat us equally to function justly, we CANNOT treat each other equally and function safely.

    “…There actually are huge statistical differences in behavior by demographic groups. For example, an obscure Obama Administration report admitted: “…While young [age 14 to 24] black males have accounted for about 1% of the population from 1980 to 2008…(b)y 2008, young black males made up about a quarter of all homicide offenders (27%). “…Yet to many Americans these days, the thought of noticing giant facts such as this 27-to-1 ratio seems like blasphemy against the Declaration of Independence’s “proposition” that “all men are created equal.”

    POSTMODERN RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN LAW It is as irrational to attempt to preserve the falsehood of equality, as it is to preserve any other RELIGIOUS FALSEHOOD. This falsehood alone is enough to convict Postmodernism as a civic RELIGION, and therefore ban it from inclusion and support of state action. Law must consist of truth, or it cannot be just.

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL EQUALITY AND CIVIL INEQUALITY: PROFILING AND 27-1 RATIO

    http://takimag.com/article/the_failure_of_profiling_racists_steve_sailer/printTHE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL EQUALITY AND CIVIL INEQUALITY: PROFILING AND 27-1 RATIOS

    Lies are lies, even if they are comforting lies. Falsehoods are falsehoods even if they are comforting falsehoods. In my work, I have to deal with facts, if I want to find new solutions to the failings of western social democracy. I can’t do that if people believe falsehoods.

    THE NECESSITY OF RATIONAL ACTION

    Justice must be blind, but the rest of us must not be.

    “…The problem is that profiling is an indispensable part of a living a safe, rational life…. ” – Taki’s Blog

    Author John Derbyshire said exactly the same thing last year, and lost his job for it.

    His job, in the dark enlightenment movement, is to point out the failings of enlightenment and postmodern thought. He tries to do it with british humor. Which may work or not. But that’s his work, just like most people in the dark enlightenment.

    I defended him, and the Village Voice called me a member of the ‘hard right’. I’m actually a left-leaning libertarian by most accounts, making me a classical liberal on most things. But a conservative on the nature of man. That is because both left liberalism and right morality appear to consist largely of correct propositions – even if they are poorly stated in archaic or silly language.

    HARD FACTS AND UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS

    That the law must treat all of us equally for it to be a just law, the fact is that we are not equal as individuals, and as groups we exaggerate those inequalities. And while the law MUST treat us equally to function justly, we CANNOT treat each other equally and function safely.

    “…There actually are huge statistical differences in behavior by demographic groups. For example, an obscure Obama Administration report admitted:

    “…While young [age 14 to 24] black males have accounted for about 1% of the population from 1980 to 2008…(b)y 2008, young black males made up about a quarter of all homicide offenders (27%).

    “…Yet to many Americans these days, the thought of noticing giant facts such as this 27-to-1 ratio seems like blasphemy against the Declaration of Independence’s “proposition” that “all men are created equal.”

    POSTMODERN RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN LAW

    It is as irrational to attempt to preserve the falsehood of equality, as it is to preserve any other RELIGIOUS FALSEHOOD. This falsehood alone is enough to convict Postmodernism as a civic RELIGION, and therefore ban it from inclusion and support of state action.

    Law must consist of truth, or it cannot be just.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-17 04:27:00 UTC

  • POP NEWS : ZIMMERMAN QUESTION I assume that I don’t understand something. But, i

    POP NEWS : ZIMMERMAN QUESTION

    I assume that I don’t understand something. But, if you live in a neighborhood that has gone from largely homeowners to a significant number of renters, and experienced a proportional increase in crime, and you form a block watch, and you follow someone, and he smacks you for it, and you shoot him for smacking you for just watching him, I don’t see the issue.

    If I make someone nervous who doesn’t know me my reaction is to introduce myself, state why I am there, and make them comfortable, which is what I’d want someone to do for me in the same circumstances. Its just civic duty.

    I mean, why is it ok to smack someone who is out trying to protect the neighborhood, and following you? Objecting to that is sort of an admission that you are up to something.

    Watching a person in public is not a violation of any right I’ve ever heard of. But smacking someone for watching you certainly is. And shooting someone who is smacking you for watching them seems entirely rational, since you violated his body by initiating violence.

    What don’t I understand?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-14 18:46:00 UTC

  • The Source Of Private Property Is Violence

    [T]he source of property is the organized application of violence to create it. Even on Rothbard’s Crusoe island, the violence that creates the property of the island FOR Crusoe is provided by the barrier of the sea. (That the see is analogous to the ghetto, which is the model of rebellion rothbard was using whether he know it or not, is obvious and ironic.) But Rothbard’s logic is flawed. The correct analogy is that on an infinite flat plain evenly distributed with people, how do you create the institution of private property so that one person’s will and wisdom can concentrate capital for future production and use? By the application of violence to create that institution. Can an individual do it? Not against numbers. No individual is powerful enough. But can a group do it? Yes. A group requires another group to counter it, which produces diminishing returns for those members, who are more incentivized to also obtain property than reverse their claims. An organized group can create private property by the application of violence. The source of private property is the organized application of violence to create it. Arguments that try to justify private property by some other means, moral or utilitarian, are in fact, attempts to buy the right of private property at a deep discount. And nobody’s selling at that price. You have to rase the price pretty high. And violence is a very high price. The source of private property is violence. Private property is a right one gains in exchange for the commitment to others who share the desire for private property, to use violence to preserve private property for one and all. No other method is possible.

  • The Source Of Private Property Is Violence

    [T]he source of property is the organized application of violence to create it. Even on Rothbard’s Crusoe island, the violence that creates the property of the island FOR Crusoe is provided by the barrier of the sea. (That the see is analogous to the ghetto, which is the model of rebellion rothbard was using whether he know it or not, is obvious and ironic.) But Rothbard’s logic is flawed. The correct analogy is that on an infinite flat plain evenly distributed with people, how do you create the institution of private property so that one person’s will and wisdom can concentrate capital for future production and use? By the application of violence to create that institution. Can an individual do it? Not against numbers. No individual is powerful enough. But can a group do it? Yes. A group requires another group to counter it, which produces diminishing returns for those members, who are more incentivized to also obtain property than reverse their claims. An organized group can create private property by the application of violence. The source of private property is the organized application of violence to create it. Arguments that try to justify private property by some other means, moral or utilitarian, are in fact, attempts to buy the right of private property at a deep discount. And nobody’s selling at that price. You have to rase the price pretty high. And violence is a very high price. The source of private property is violence. Private property is a right one gains in exchange for the commitment to others who share the desire for private property, to use violence to preserve private property for one and all. No other method is possible.

  • Putting Violence Back Into Polite Political Discourse – Once Sentence At A Time

    [P]rivate property is unnatural to man, even if it is necessary for mankind do produce a division of knowledge and labor. Private property was a technical innovation that allowed males to take control of reproduction that they had lost with the invention of gossip, cooperation and spears, and to do so without resorting to in-group violence, or violence against women. Private property was granted and gained in exchange for service in the creation and preservation of private property. Monogamy was a compromise. It was an unnatural compromise. Women, having obtained the vote, did not seek equal rights to property, but rents and privileges, and they are now able to use the state to extract rents from aggregate productivity regardless of gender – albeit mostly male productivity. And women are abandoning seeking rents from a single male’s productivity through marriage. It’s in women’s interest to violate private property, and regain reproductive and economic control through the state rather than through marriage or sex. Marriage doesn’t make sense for women unless they can capture an alpha, and even then its a question of benefits versus compromises. Marriage doesn’t make sense for men at all. The logical outcome for men is to free ride as much as possible, and avoid having any property at all. For those men that desire property, it cannot be obtained by majority decision. As such, it must be maintained by either exchange – buying off the rentiers – or by violence – preventing the rentiers. AND THAT IS WHAT THE DATA SAYS. Men and women are doing the logical thing. What else would we expect them to do? We may be irrational moral voters, but we are certainly rational moral consumers. The source of property is use of violence to create the institution of property against the will of the majority. Only then is property an asset worthy of seeking by the middle and lower classes who which also to be enfranchised in the prosperity that results from the formal and informal institutions of private property. (It’s thankless work, you know. …. Putting violence back into polite political discourse, one sentence at a time. 😉

  • PUTTING VIOLENCE BACK INTO POLITE POLITICAL DISCOURSE (One sentence at a time.)

    PUTTING VIOLENCE BACK INTO POLITE POLITICAL DISCOURSE

    (One sentence at a time.)

    Private property is unnatural to man, even if it is necessary for mankind do produce a division of knowledge and labor.

    Private property was a technical innovation that allowed males to take control of reproduction that they had lost with the invention of gossip, cooperation and spears, and to do so without resorting to in-group violence, or violence against women.

    Private property was granted and gained in exchange for service in the creation and preservation of private property.

    Monogamy was a compromise. It was an unnatural compromise.

    Women, having obtained the vote, did not seek equal rights to property, but rents and privileges, and they are now able to use the state to extract rents from aggregate productivity regardless of gender – albiet mostly male productivity.

    And women are abandoning seeking rents from a single male’s productivity through marriage.

    It’s in women’s interest to violate private property, and regain reproductive and economic control through the state rather than through marriage or sex.

    Marriage doesn’t make sense for women unless they can capture an alpha, and even then its a question of benefits versus compromises.

    Marriage doesn’t make sense for men at all.

    The logical outcome for men is to free ride as much as possible, and avoid having any property at all.

    For those men that desire property, it cannot be obtained by majority decision. As such, it must be maintained by either exchange – buying off the rentiers – or by violence – preventing the rentiers.

    AND THAT IS WHAT THE DATA SAYS.

    Men and women are doing the logical thing. What else would we expect them to do? We may be irrational moral voters, but we are certainly rational moral consumers.

    The source of property is use of violence to create the institution of property against the will of the majority. Only then is property an asset worthy of seeking by the middle and lower classes who which also to be enfranchised in the prosperity that results from the formal and informal institutions of private property.

    (It’s thankless work, you know. …. Putting violence back into polite political discourse, one sentence at a time. 😉

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-12 10:24:00 UTC

  • The Causal Problem Of Government Is The Same Causal Problem Of Ethics: The Incorrect Assumption Of The Value Of Monopoly

    [W]hy on earth, would you assume, that ethical principles must assume we agree upon ends? Seriously? Why is it that the study of ethics assumes that there are optimum ends for all? That’s, really, ABSURD on it’s face, isn’t it? I mean. That’s ridiculous. Why not that ethics agree upon means, but not ends? Is ‘group think’ or ‘group-ness’ such an instinct? I think not. I think it is fear of making the wrong decision about which group to belong to. Or simply a cover for theft… We have spent millennia now trying to apply the rules of the family and extended family and tribe to the market, and to justify takings, and thefts and redistributions so that there can be a monopoly of ethical statements. But that’s not necessary. The market doesn’t require that at all. We cooperate on means, but not ends. We don’t even largely know wo we’re cooperating with. The same is true in banking. We don’t know what use our money is put to. We cooperate with people in exchange for interest. The market, and banking, are institutions that help us cooperate on means even if not on ends. [I]f we instead of monopolies imposing homogeneity via law (commands), our institutions relied upon the voluntary exchange of property (contracts) between GROUPS with different property rights internal to the groups, but consistent across the groups, then Law and monopoly are means of one class forcing another class. Democracy is an attempt to legitimize forcing transfers between classes. But why can’t our classes conduct exchanges? There isn’t any reason.