Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • THE CAUSAL PROBLEM OF GOVERNMENT IS THE SAME CAUSAL PROBLEM OF ETHICS: THE INCOR

    THE CAUSAL PROBLEM OF GOVERNMENT IS THE SAME CAUSAL PROBLEM OF ETHICS: THE INCORRECTLY ASSUMPTION OF THE VALUE OF MONOPOLY 🙂

    Why 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.

    If 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-08 10:17:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM: SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL. 1) “Do not confuse absence of volatility wit

    LIBERTARIANISM: SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL.

    1) “Do not confuse absence of volatility with absence of risk.”

    2) “Avoid optimization; learn to love redundancy. … Redundancy (in terms of having savings and cash under the mattress) is the opposite of debt. … Overspecialization also is not a great idea.”

    3) “What is fragile should break early, while it’s still small. Nothing should ever become too big to fail.” …. “Compensate complexity with simplicity.”

    4) “No socialization of losses and privatization of gains”…..”No incentives without disincentives: capitalism is about rewards and punishments, not just rewards.”

    5) “[Build] an economic life closer to our biological environment: smaller firms, a richer ecology, no speculative leverage — a world in which entrepreneurs, not bankers, take the risks, and in which companies are born and die every day without making the news.”

    LIBERTARIANISM IS LOVE OF THE SMALL: ITS JUST MATH.

    (All quotes from Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-07 11:02:00 UTC

  • The majority does not desire freedom. Is freedom equivalent to private property

    The majority does not desire freedom.

    Is freedom equivalent to private property rights, and are private property rights equivalent to voluntary exchange?

    If so, people desire to consume voluntarily, but demonstrably not to produce voluntarily. Money may be equal in purchasing power regardless of who holds it. But it is not equally productive regardless of who holds it.

    Therefore there is a structural advantage to intelligence, will, and discipline under capitalism. It is a virtuous advantage, thats true. But an advantage.

    Only a minority desire Freedom. Liberty. Property rights. Voluntary exchange.

    To the rest of the world freedom means freedom to consume. Not responsibility for limiting all transfers to voluntary exchange in the market. And it is praxeologically irrational to expect them to.

    This difference between normative libertarian ethics and dscriptive ethics is significant. And denial that the praxeologial incentives for people to organize into groups seeking non productive participation in profits is evidence of the intellectual failure of the framework of thought.

    Our argument is that un the long run we all benefit. And its true. However the majority demonstrate little concern for the long run. In fact social status is largely a function of time preference.

    So, given our numerical inferiority, we can use violence to preserve our rights as did our ancestors. But begging for them by weak argument is a demonstrated failure. 🙂

    Or we can develop solutions for institutions that, like the market, do not require us to cooperate on ends, or even norms.

    We cannot logically agree on morals, ethics, and norms. Not when we no longer reproduce, produce, and vote as families and aggregate our interests, but instead, reproduce, produce, and vote as individual actors, whereupon our differences are not masked by family interest, but expressed as individual interest.

    In particular, the addition of women to the labor and voting pools has led to policy, unlike that of the family, that systemically seeks rents: women vote to marry the state. Not their husbands.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-05 06:15:00 UTC

  • IS THUGGERY 😉

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/seattle-gay-pride-marchers-viciously-beat-christian-street-preacher-videoPROGRESSIVISM IS THUGGERY 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-05 04:28:00 UTC

  • WISH OUR MILITARY WAS THIS VIRTUOUS

    http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-egypt-military-ultimatum-20130701,0,7120476.storyI WISH OUR MILITARY WAS THIS VIRTUOUS

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-01 15:48:00 UTC

  • Libertarianism and Justificationism

    [A]ny political system wich seeks to implement involuntary transfers must be based upon justification. Any political system which seeks to implement voluntary transfers need not be based upon justification. But this is an INSUFFICIENT ANSWER to the problem. This sounds quite simple. However, the first problem is not voluntary versus involuntary transfer, but the distribution of control between the monopoly of private (several) property, and the prohibition on monopoly of control under the shareholder relations of common property (the commons) – and the difficult means by which commons are privatized without the conduct of free riding, profiting from interference, profiting from fraud by omission, profit from fraud, profit from privatization of the commons, profiting from rent seeking, from organizing for the purpose of extraction (taxes) and corruption, takings and war. It is true that private property improves both incentives and calculation, and reduces the friction, but the problem is that even at that point, the system of property rights is in fact a shareholder agreement, and there are very different moral arguments over the distribution of the proceeds produced by the corporation and its members. This question is not trivial, especially with the introduction of women into the voting pool, since women’s biological moral code, demonstrated by their voting pattern, is by definition one of rent seeking and totalitarian equality. Their moral code is not ‘wrong’ for them. It is very wrong for productive males. These problems are not trivial. And libertarianism’s argument that LIBERTY is a universal desire has been demonstrated to be false. CONSUMPTION has been demonstrated to be a universal desire. But not Liberty. [A]ll moral codes and the philosophies that justify them are in fact, class philosophies. It is illogical for one to adopt a philosophy that is a disadvantage to one and an advantage to another – especially if that advantage plays out over the long rather than the short run. I hope this was more helpful than confusing.

  • “…the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with

    “…the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law.” – Bastiat. The Law.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-24 10:27:00 UTC

  • YOU CAN’T GET AROUND IT. Equalitarianism requires Totalitarianism. And women pre

    YOU CAN’T GET AROUND IT.

    Equalitarianism requires Totalitarianism.

    And women prefer both. They vote as blocks to demonstrate that they prefer both. Always. While some men prefer them, most women prefer them. And between some men and most women, the totalitarians have a slight majority in our republican democracy.

    Without women’s votes, women would have property rights equal to men, but not political privileges to vote for totalitarianism, and against the family.

    Men may have made western civilization over 5000 years, but women will either convert it to middle eastern, and eastern tyranny, or make us vulnerable to biological conquest by middle eastern tyranny, in less two centuries.

    It’s counter intuitive, but paternalism was made possible by the technology and fighting for property: over land and the domestication of animals, was the innovation that allowed the west to escape its matriarchal poverty, by forcing the creation of private and familial property.

    Matriarchy is equalitarianism in poverty. And equalitarianism is tyranny. Paternalism is private property and meritocracy. The difference is equality of outcome in maternal poverty or equality of opportunity in paternal prosperity.

    (Still working on this argument a bit.)

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-24 09:54:00 UTC

  • Islamic Fundamentalism is a Totalitarian Political Movement, Not a Religion.

    (Following up on Salman Rushdie’s argument that Islam is a weaponized and militarized religion) Serious Stuff – The New Republic [T]he author reiterates the point that Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian political movement. I’ve been saying this for years. And it’s true. It may be structured as a religion, the way marxism was a religion structured as a science, but it’s a political movement. We had to defeat the east repeatedly in our history. The greeks held the east at bay, and the romans conquered it to keep it at bay. We arguably lost to christianity until the Germans freed us from it. We could have lost to marxism and communism, but we spent the west coming to a stalemate. We have lost our will to keep islam at bay. Partly because Heroic Aristocracy is alien to the majority. Totalitarianism is man’s preferred state. We should observe the actions of those who say otherwise. Because man demonstrates an interest in the fruits of the market. But he does everything possible to avoid participating in it. And women in particular seem to love it to their own detriment. For some reason, women seem to confused: their desire for collective opinion is in fact, a desire for totalitarianism. They are the same. It’s genetic. Women just havent been responsible members of the political universe long enough to incorporate that reality into their oral history. Women have taken the country left. Period. End of story. 🙂 (how much trouble will that get me in?)

  • Property, Praxeology And Violence

    Polish_nobility_in_1697

    [U]nfortunately, while humans demonstrate a preference for the consumption that is made possible by the combination of private property, the division of knowledge and labor, and the experimental innovation the market drives us to, humans also demonstrate an equal preference for violence, theft, fraud, omission, interference, free riding, privatization of the commons, socialization of losses, rent seeking, corruption, organizing for the purposes of extortion, and organizing for plunder and conquest via war. All of these forms of theft from the most direct to the most subtle, in the absence of the threat of violence, are easier means of competition than is the risky and personal act of speculative production we must engage in, if we choose to compete in the market for goods and services. Only a minority of us demonstrate a preference for the market, and by consequence, demonstrate a preference for private property: which is to eschew, at high cost to ourselves, the tempting portfolio of thefts – and instead work to consume exclusively via voluntary, informed, exchange that is the product of guesswork, planning, foresight and risk. For these reasons – these praxeologically obvious reasons – any portfolio of property rights, from the most collective, to the most individual, to the most totalitarian, and within that portfolio, the scope property ranging from simple personal possessions to complex anonymous contractual commitments; has been and must be imposed on a body of people by the threat of violence. [T]he concept and practice of liberty was created by egalitarian aristocrats who granted property rights to those who equally respected property rights of their peers, and who fought to preserve them at great personal cost. Moral arguments as to the utility of private property are specious. They are an attempt to obtain the right of private property at a discount – despite the fact that the majority do not favor those rights for either themselves or others. That the enlightenment’s emergent middle class philosophers tried to justify taking power from the aristocracy by fabricating moral and utilitarian arguments was a necessary political ruse at the time. But we if we desire to preserve our vestiges of freedom we should not confuse that ruse with the factual reality that all systems of property rights are imposed by the threat of violence. It is praxeologically illogical to suggest that those who would compete better in the absence of private property, should suffer lower state in order to yield to the desires of those others who may be more successful under private property. This makes no sense. As such, the only defense is the offensive application of organized violence for the purpose of implementing one system of property rights and obligations over another. [A]ristocracy is a functional synonym for private property – and private property a right gained in exchange for reciprocity both in the respect of private property and the obligation to use one’s wealth of violence to ensure the perpetuation of the portfolio of property rights that we call ‘private property’ at the expense and exclusion of all other possible portfolios of property rights.