Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • IN A BAR. A GUY FROM COMPUWARE. HE TRIES TO START A FIGHT WITH ME. AND UNTIL TOD

    IN A BAR. A GUY FROM COMPUWARE. HE TRIES TO START A FIGHT WITH ME. AND UNTIL TODAY I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHY.

    Three years ago, or so, maybe four. I’m in a bar at a fashionable restaurant with some friends. And this drunk guy from two tables over comes up to me and says “do you remember me?” and sticks out his hand.

    Now, I never forget a face. Ever. I recognized his face. But I couldn’t place him. And honestly, I was just stumped. So, as usual, I shook his hand, and stalled for time while I tried to remember where I knew him from.

    He says “I know what you did”. Now, when a drunk guy says something like that to me, I gotta tell you that this particular farm boy’s first instinct is to hit as hard and as fast as I can – ’cause nothing good is likely to follow.

    However, I’m also with four guys, the place is packed, I’m a regular, and there are really good bouncers. Besides, even if he gets going I’m not sure he’s too threatening in his current state, and I’m not sure it’s clear yet to others that he’s begging for a fight – and I don’t like unnecessary imperial entanglements.

    I still can’t place the guy. Until he tells me he’s a salesman from Compuware, that we cancelled a deal with when the credit crash picked up steam. And so I get this confused look on my face – because I’m genuinely confused.

    Now, you know, you can abuse me all you want. I know who I am. I know how and why I make decisions and I’m ok with the decisions that I make. And god knows that I’m not exactly a nice negotiator – I’m ruthless about money. And I have a mercenary view of ethics in negotiations. But if you come after one of my partners, both of whom are virtuous to such a fault that I want to wring their necks at times, all bets are off, and so are all barriers.

    My partner Steven is about as level headed as god has made a human being. And he has told me, maybe a month or two earlier, that the Compuware software can’t do what we need. And that we’re going to have to back out of it. Not only can’t they do it but we’re starting to get really nervous about revenue and sales, and it’s expensive software. So we don’t want to be in a position where we have trouble paying for it either. So it’s just better right now if we make a few mods to our own code and suffer through the current crisis.

    So the next thing I say is that “Steven is the most honest man I know, and if he says it won’t do it, then it won’t do it, and that’s all I know, all I want to know, and all I need to know.”

    At which point he starts coming at me with F-bombs, and one of the guys he works with starts pulling him backwards away from me.

    I know I have got him now, and it’s evident to everyone in the bar that he’s loaded and violent, so I have moral authority to find his jaw if necessary. But his friends prevail, and drag him out of the place.

    Unfortunately, I never really understood why he was so pissed. I just discounted it out of hand as losing a commission and being drunk. But, this morning, sitting here, I realize that he thought we were playing them for information so that we could develop our internal software on our own. It never occurred to me before, and I feel stupid for not getting it.

    At least that makes sense. Of course, it’s not true. But then, that’s one of the problems with ethics and asymmetry of knowledge. It also one of the problems of assuming that you understand the motivations and incentives of others.

    Even if their software would have done the job (it wouldn’t) It would have been far cheaper to buy their software than to develop our software ourselves – that this is logically self evident is why it didn’t occur to me. But the cash flow impact of modifying our fragile and aged existing software ourselves albiet very slowly was less risky than trying to heavily modify an already expensive piece of software using external consultants, and the cash flow impact of a liability of that size on the balance sheet given that our bank had just failed, and our customers were spending less money.

    Unfortunately, had he talked to me as a gentleman, I would have explained this. But he talked to me as an impassioned drunk. And I never had the opportunity.

    I don’t so much mind if people dislike or are angry with me when I screw up. But it really bothers me when people dislike or are angry with me for things that I don’t do.

    We go back to Montaigne: In life it seems that we are disliked by people who blame us for accidents, but are forgiven or ignored by those whom we have done intentional injustice.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-26 02:54:00 UTC

  • “I propose to define as libertarian any political position that advocates a radi

    “I propose to define as libertarian any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals.” – Roderick Tracy Long

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 21:48:00 UTC

  • “The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics i

    “The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule.” – F. A. Hayek

    (Thanks to Monica Fackelmayer)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 06:09:00 UTC

  • RIGHT TO A JOB? VS RIGHT TO WORK? Is having a job a right? Are jobs something th

    RIGHT TO A JOB? VS RIGHT TO WORK?

    Is having a job a right? Are jobs something that a society is obliged to provide to each individual?

    SOME OK ANSWERS BY OTHERS, BUT I WILL GIVE A BETTER ONE

    A right is something provided by a contract. We can in theory create a contract that states that every person has a right be as attractive as a victoria’s secret model. The problem is, that the provision isn’t enforceable because (a) we don’t know how to do that (b) it probably isn’t possible (c) the consequence of even trying would probably be really bad (somehow… although I can’t think of any at the moment.)

    NEGATIVE RIGHTS, are things do by avoiding doing something: killing, torturing, harming, stealing, fraud, are all things we can avoid doing. And since it means avoiding something, we can, every single one of us, avoid killing, torturing, harming, stealing, fraud and all such damage to life and property.

    Jobs are called POSITIVE RIGHTS. They require resources, and resources that no one has to provide.

    One can have a right to a job in the sense that no one can be prohibited from working, who is willing, by a government. That is a negative right. It is a right to engage in work. It says no one may restrain another from engaging in the voluntary trade of his effort in exchange for something that he wants (money.) But one cannot have the right to have a job provided, because (a) we don’t know how to do that (b) it probably isn’t possible (c) the consequences of even trying would be really bad.

    The international declaration of human rights contains a number of provisions (22-26) are positive rights, which were included in order to satisfy the then-powerful communist governments, the same way the north was required to allow for slavery in the constitution inorder to gain the compliance of the south.

    The question is whether positive rights are possible to provide. Or whether it is only possible to provide insurance against destitution (which appears possible). This important question isn’t yet answered because we haven’t been doing it long enough to be sure. It certainly appears that both Europe and the USA are having significant economic, cultural and demographic problems because of these policies – which can only be satisfied with the use of ponzi schemes.

    (And yes, I am happy to argue with anyone on this point including our favorite left wing Nobel Prize winner.)

    Cheers

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 05:49:00 UTC

  • THE POSTMODERN RELIGION, AND ITS POLITICAL WING: LIBERALISM The left is a klepto

    THE POSTMODERN RELIGION, AND ITS POLITICAL WING: LIBERALISM

    The left is a kleptocracy, and its religion is postmodernism.

    “In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consistency can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims.

    1) On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.

    2) On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.

    3) Values are subjective—but sexism and racism are really evil.

    4) Technology is bad and destructive—and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.

    5) Tolerance is good and dominance is bad—but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.

    There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next. Postmodernists are well aware of the contradictions—especially since their opponents relish pointing them out at every opportunity.

    Consider three more examples, this time of clashes between postmodernist theory and historical fact.

    1) Postmodernists say that the West is deeply racist, but they know very well that the West ended slavery for the first time ever, and that it is only in places where Western ideas have made inroads that racist ideas are on the defensive.

    2) They say that the West is deeply sexist, but they know very well that Western women were the first to get the vote, contractual rights, and the opportunities that most women in the world are still without.

    3) They say that Western capitalist countries are cruel to their poorer members, subjugating them and getting rich off them, but they know very well that the poor in the West are far richer than the poor anywhere else, both in terms of material assets and the opportunities to improve their condition.

    In the modern world, Left-wing thought has been one of the major breeding grounds for destruction and nihilism. From the Reign of Terror to Lenin and Stalin, to Mao and Pol Pot, to the up-surge of terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s, the far Left has exhibited repeatedly a willingness to use violence to achieve political ends and exhibited extreme frustration and rage when it has failed.”

    – Excerpted from Hicks, Stephen R. C. Explaining Postmodernism, chapter six.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 03:10:00 UTC

  • Is Having A Job A Right?

    SOME OK ANSWERS BY OTHERS, BUT I WILL GIVE A BETTER ONE

    A right is something provided by a contract. We can in theory create a contract that states that every person has  a right be as attractive as a victoria’s secret model.  The problem is, that the provision isn’t enforceable  because (a) we don’t know how to do that (b) it probably isn’t possible (c) the consequence of even trying would probably be really bad (somehow… although I can’t think of any at the moment.)

    NEGATIVE RIGHTS, are things do by avoiding doing something: killing, torturing, harming, stealing, fraud, are all things we can avoid doing.  And since it means avoiding something, we can, every single one of us, avoid killing, torturing, harming, stealing, fraud and all such damage to life and property.

    Jobs are called POSITIVE RIGHTS. They require resources, and resources that no one has to provide.

    One can have a right to a job in the sense that no one can be prohibited from working, who is willing, by a government. That is a negative right. It says no one may restrain another from engaging in the voluntary trade of his effort in exchange for something that he wants (money.)  But one cannot have the right to have a job provided, because (a) we don’t know how to do that (b) it probably isn’t possible (c) the consequences of even trying would be really bad.

    THe international declaration of human rights contains a number of provisions (22-26) are positive rights, which were included in order to satisfy the then-powerful communist governments, the same way the north was required to allow for slavery in the constitution inorder to gain the compliance of the south.

    The question is whether positive rights are possible to provide. Or whether it is only possible to provide insurance against destitution (which appears possible).  This important question isn’t yet answered because we haven’t been doing it long enough to be sure. It certainly appears that both Europe and the USA are having significant economic, cultural and demographic problems because of these policies – which can only be satisfied with the use of ponzi schemes.

    (And yes, I am happy to argue with anyone on this point including our favorite left wing Nobel Prize winner.)

    Cheers
    Curt

    https://www.quora.com/Is-having-a-job-a-right

  • What Reservations Do You Have About Liberal Principles?

    Liberalism is the political wing of a religion.  That religion is Postmodernism.  Postmodernism was created as a linguistic attack on reason, in order to find a solution to seizing political power, given the failure of socialism in theory and in practice.

    Irrational contradiction is a necessary and pervasive tactic in the postmodern religion. Instead of believing in mystical divinities, this religion attributes false properties to mankind, then advocates belief in natural contradictions, very similar to jewish and christian contradictions, in order to avoid attacks by reason against their arguments.  THere is absolutely NOTHING different between the religion of liberals (Postmodernism) and the religion of social conservatives (christianity) except that postmodernism puts power in the state, and american protestant christianity is an organized opposition to the state. Both of which are fighting for power to control the state, in order to protect their interests.

    EXAMPLES OF LIBERAL (POSTMODERN) IRRATIONALITY

    (from Hicks)

    THE POSTMODERN RELIGION, AND ITS POLITICAL WING: LIBERALISM
    The left is a kleptocracy, and its religion is postmodernism.

    “In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consistency can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims.

    1) On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.

    2) On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.

    3) Values are subjective—but sexism and racism are really evil.

    4) Technology is bad and destructive—and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.

    5) Tolerance is good and dominance is bad—but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.

    There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next. Postmodernists are well aware of the contradictions—especially since their opponents relish pointing them out at every opportunity.

    Consider three more examples, this time of clashes between postmodernist theory and historical fact.

    1) Postmodernists say that the West is deeply racist, but they know very well that the West ended slavery for the first time ever, and that it is only in places where Western ideas have made inroads that racist ideas are on the defensive.

    2) They say that the West is deeply sexist, but they know very well that Western women were the first to get the vote, contractual rights, and the opportunities that most women in the world are still without.

    3) They say that Western capitalist countries are cruel to their poorer members, subjugating them and getting rich off them, but they know very well that the poor in the West are far richer than the poor anywhere else, both in terms of material assets and the opportunities to improve their condition.

    In the modern world, Left-wing thought has been one of the major breeding grounds for destruction and nihilism. From the Reign of Terror to Lenin and Stalin, to Mao and Pol Pot, to the up-surge of terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s, the far Left has exhibited repeatedly a willingness to use violence to achieve political ends and exhibited extreme frustration and rage when it has failed.”

    – Excerpted from Hicks, Stephen R. C. Explaining Postmodernism, chapter six.

    https://www.quora.com/What-reservations-do-you-have-about-liberal-principles

  • The Religion of Postmodernism as a Reformation of Christianity

    [T]HE PURPOSE OF RELIGION IS TO CONCENTRATE POLITICAL POWER Either as a resistance, or as a military force. That is the purpose of a religion. EIther to take power, or to resist power. Religions concentrate human efforts. POSTMODERNISM IS A REFORMATION OF CHRISTIANITY Postmodernism is just the most recent religion in a long history of religions. 7) Postmodernism is a reformation of Protestantism. – Resisting Capitalism in response to the failure of socialism in both theory and practice (1960ad). 6) Socialism is a reformation of catholicism – French, then german, then worldwide resistance to anglo industrial capitalism. (1850ad) 5) Protestantism is a reformation of Catholicism. – Germanic countries exiting Mediterranean taxation and occupation. (1520ad) 4) Islam is a reformation of Judaism and Christianity – Enabling arab conquest of the Byzantines and Sassanids who were exhausted by war with each other. (600ad) 3) Christianity (Catholicism) is a reformation of Judaism. – adaptation to the roman conquest. (80ad), and eventual success by mobilizing the underclasses and women. Made possible by exhaustion of seafaring Rome by conquering landed Europe. 2) Judaism is a reformation of Zoroastrianism. – Exiting persian conquest, as a means of unifying various tribes. (650bc) 1) Zoroastrianism was authored by Zarathustra (Zoroaster) ( 1500-1000bc) Exiting the stone age, and adapting to the agrarian revolution, in order to concentrate political and military power, possibly to separate western tribes from eastern tribes. Religion is the means by which we make people believe untrue things in order to get them to cooperate according to one scheme or another.

  • Rights, Punishment and Human Rights

    [W]hen someone violates NATURAL RIGHTS (life, liberty, property, by fraud, theft or violence) we punish them by removing their NATURAL RIGHTS, by imprisoning them. Natural rights are NECESSARY RIGHTS to engage in cooperation via exchanges within society: life, liberty, and property. We pay for our natural rights by forgoing our opportunity for fraud, theft and violence. We also pay for access to opportunities to interact with others by paying the cost of effort to deonstrate manners, and the cost of forgone opportunities for stealing from others by respecting ethics and morals. For violations of normative laws, we are ostracized from opportunity (boycotted) rather than punished or incarcerated. But we retain our natural rights as long as we can find someone to voluntarily exchange with us who does not refuse to boycott us because of our manners, ethics and morals. However, we do not remove anyone’s HUMAN RIGHTS any longer for any reason. This is in no small part, because we are wealthy enough that deprivation from society and consumption alone are enough to coerce people into respecting both natural laws, and for normative laws. The international declaration of human rights was created in no small part to control the abuse of individuals by communist countries. It is a DESIRED list of rights. This DESIRED list of rights is a CONTRACT between GOVERNMENTS. This contract is a TREATY. This treaty demands that member countries hold governments accountable for the treatment of individuals, and to sanction those countries if they do not. Even to the point of replacing a government for their abuses of their individuals. It is important that we understad that this charter is a treaty by governments that like a treaty for the promise of mutual defense, binds other countries such that they are required to use legal, financial and economic sanctions against countries that violate the rights that the charter agrees all people in all countries, regardless of government, possess. In effect, as a worldwide treaty, it is a worldwide constitution for that limits the powers of governemnts. This is waht RULE OF LAW means: it means that governemtns, and the people in them, are limited to the actions that are allowed in their constitutions. Rule of law does not mean that there are laws. It means that the government itself is bound by law. The Charter of human rights is a very simple document. It is vaguely divided into sections. The first few are restatements of NATURAL LAW. After that there are a variety of prohibitions against the government, that require that all people in society must be treated equally before the law. That they have the right to live ordinary lives, marry, have a family, make friends, earn a living, Articles 23, 24, 25, and 26, were necessary to gain the support of the socialist and communist countries, in the same way that the north was required to allow slavery in order to gain the signatures of the south during the american civil war. This is the primary problem with the declaration of human rights: is that these are not possible, not testable, and not achievable except in rare circumstances and for short periods of time – and they create a moral hazard as well as perverse incentives. These are POSITIVE rights. And positive rights can only exist as preferences, not rights. Article 29 specifies how you PAY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, and that is by granting them to other people equally. Rights require exchange. Without exchange the term ‘rights’ is meaningless. One does not HAVE human rights as if they fall from heavens. One is granted them by others, and pays for them over one’s lifetime by granting the same rights to others. Otherwise the document is not terribly different from the American Bill of Rights. What I hope to get accross here is that these are not divine rights, nor necesary and therefore natural rights, they are human rights, and human rights are those that we choose to require, by threat of force and economic punishment, that all governments must hold to.

  • WAR War is the means by which one set of property rights and allocations within

    WAR

    War is the means by which one set of property rights and allocations within a geography is replaced by the application of violence with another set of property rights and allocations.

    I don’t write much about war because it’s emotionally loaded, and I don’t see it as any different from any other form of human activity – it’s just a really expensive activity, a really risky activity, and unfortunately, a necessary and pervasive activity.

    I don’t view war as good or bad. It is either necessary to obtain, restore, or implement, property rights of one set or another. My only concern is whether those rights are higher trust, more individualist or lower trust tyrannical rights.

    (Thanks to Brian Anderson for the reminder.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-06 16:25:00 UTC