Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Jefferson’s Virtue Of Violence

    Today, on United Liberty, the daily Jefferson quote was:

    “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush (1800)

    Freedom is created by, and maintained by, the use of violence, and a man’s capacity for violence is his political wealth. The promise he will use his violence to create freedom, is met with the lack of his need to use it for any purpose whatsoever. It is a wealth sparely spent with high returns.

  • Conservative Complaints About The Social Security Scheme

    The conservative complaints with social security are that it is not a fund, but a state-expanding tax. Nothing was paid into it, and therefore it is simply a current tax to redistribute from young producers to old consumers who failed to save. And secondly, that this tax also funds an intrusive and abusive government. These are structural complaints, not complaints about ambitions or outcomes. The original creators’ ambition for this tax was to create an insurance scheme for the minority of people who lived past 65. Except, people vastly live beyond 65 today. In other words, the tax went from low to high risk because of unforeseen consequences. The conservative objection to liberal hubris is that they are asked to absorb risk because of the STRUCTURE of this system, which is now a form of intergenerational welfare, rather than the form of insurance that it was designed to be. The solution to this structural problem is as follows: 1) to convert from an inter-temporal redistributive and high risk tax to a low risk insured savings program. 2) To change from income tax to balance sheet tax. 3) To have the government participate in, and redistribute, profits from the use of credit money – credit money which is borrowed from and secured by the promise of labor by the average person. This set of changes would eliminate benefits at a specified multiple of the mean. It would unfund government bureaucracy. It would insert more money into the economy as investment capital, and decrease the negative effect of inflating the monetary supply on savers.

    [callout title=It’s A Tax]social security … not a fund, but a state-expanding tax. Nothing was paid into it, and therefore it is simply a current tax to redistribute from young producers to old consumers. [/callout]

    The general argument against the correction of the social security system, is that if we increase the tax by 2% and change the age slightly, that the system as it stands would be fully funded. To which I’d counter, only if that 2% comes from balance sheet weight, not income. Because for a vast number of companies that are not subsidized by the financial markets, 2% would be half of their annual profits, and this failure would have to be built into the system. I see no reason to rely upon assumption that the 20th century, which consists largely of the greatest external advantage that a nation has ever experienced, can be used to project the future. It is not logical to ask decreasingly populous generations facing increasing worldwide competition to support a longer living and increasingly expensive class of retirees, when instead, retirees should have saved to lend money to the generations that follow. These advantage are not sustainable, and even if they are, the system currently asks all to risk in order to fund current government, rather than all to save, to insure their mutual success. The belief that we will continue our economic advantage is the myth of american exceptionalism. Savings is sustainable – in any culture. But not the assurance of worldwide competitive advantage which can be redistributed. As an entrepreneur, I do not fear the market. I fear that the government will extort enough from the entrepreneurial class that they will abandon their belief that they can outpace the predatory state. Tax individuals not by income but by balance sheet. Progressively tax companies for market participation. Eliminate the double tax system on dividends. Increase the tax on speculative returns.

    [callout title=Fears]I fear that western advantage, which was demographic, technical and military, will be neither demographic, technical, or military. And that the very institutions that were limited enough to guarantee us our freedom will be the institutions by which we are permanently enslaved and impoverished.[/callout]

    I fear that the bureaucracy, as in the UK, will become a predatory class living on a virtually enslaved population. I fear that western advantage, which was demographic, technical and military, will be neither demographic, technical, or military. And that the very institutions that were limited enough to guarantee us our freedom will be the institutions by which we are permanently enslaved and impoverished. It is easy to rate the success of any government by the direct redistribution divided by the cost of government employees, and seek to constantly improve the ratio, just as we do for non-profits.

  • The Virtue Of Violence

    The Virtue Of Violence: “We do not forego violence in exchange for democracy, we forgo violence in exchange for creating and accessing the market. Democracy is simply a means of hiring and firing the administrators of our markets. We do not exist to serve democracy. Democracy exists to serve the market. And should it cease to do so, it ceases the only reason for its legitimacy or use, and is simply a means of whereby the masses destroy the accumulated prosperity of the market in the greatest act of theft and ruin that a humans can perpetuate. If we are no longer cooperating in order to maintain our market. Then we no longer need to cooperate to maintain our government. And as such, we no longer need to restrain our violence, so that we may recreate a market and a means of administrating it. The principles of non violence and non aggression are a means of stealing from us whenever the market is circumvented by those we hire to administrate it. It is an act of deception and fraud. It is an infinite discount on our contribution of forgone opportunity for the purpose of creating the market. That is the true meaning of the word ‘freedom’: to spend the currency of our violence in creation of the market, our respect for property such that we may cooperate in a division of labor, our time and efforts in the creation of products and services to participate in the market, and our rewards for having done all of the above. Violence is the source of the market, and the market the source of our prosperity, cooperation, and happiness. Violence and it’s use in creating and maintaining the market, is man’s greatest achievement. Violence is a virtue because it is the amount of violence possessed by men, and their creativity in and capacity for using it, and the use of it to create the market, that is the prerequisite for prosperity, and division of labor.” And there is no other argument for the source of the market, our actions in maintaining it, other than we are slaves or children instead of free men, capable of any creative or destructive act we choose. And I will not surrender my violence, and pay the cost of forgone opportunity to create a market from which I, my family, my friends, my tribe, my culture, may prosper, so that someone may enslave me.” – Curt Doolittle Curt Doolittle’s writes on libertarian economics and conservative politics at Capitalism v3.0, and hosts the Libertarian And Conservative Roundtable news feed – a set of syndicated articles opinions and news in the english language from across the web. (From Our Facebook Page)

  • Violence Is A Beautiful Word

    Violence is a beautiful word. But its beauty is absent from our discourse. I’m going to put violence into libertarianism. I’m going to put violence back into politics and economics. Violence, violence, violence, violence violence.   There. I said it again.  Get used to it. I’m going to fix our civilization and its political system by revealing the elephant in the room. I’m going to talk about violence as a virtue.  Something to be cherished, and loved, and appreciated. Because the source of our prosperity is in our violence. Markets, Freedom, Property, the product of the organized use of violence. And no use of violence has ever been so peaceful, so fruitful or so enjoyable.

    Roman Warriors

  • Pooling Information Is Laundering Information – Governments Are Money Launderers

    What’s the difference between money laundering, general accounting principles as they are currently practiced, the process of taxation, the use of fiat money to create general liquidity, the practice of monthly financial reporting, and the process of electing government officials as proxies for sovereign actions? Nothing. These are all examples of pooling. Pooling information so that causality is removed from that information. They are distortions of the human system of cooperation and coordination. They are an act of money laundering so that the causes and origins of that money can be attributed to mythical causes, rather than identified or deduced to the actual, rational ones. Truth is causality. We can have redistributive government. We can have safe monetary policy. We can disempower the governments ability to generate and foster class and group conflict. We just have to create a form of government that prevents pooling. Pooling is laundering. Laundering is the primary tool of those who commit fraud. Sound incomprehensible to you? It isn’t. It’s actionable. It’s not expensive. It will transform humanity as much as has industrialization. It will radically increase the rate at which humans solve problems together. It will concentrate capital for productive ends, and deliver the results to the populace. We developed libertarianism to stop state theft, and state dissolution of society, and the state’s empowerment of luddite systems of metaphysics like Marxism and Socialism. But in our ambition to do so we lost the purpose of property and trade. We lost our sense of community. Of the general costs of running society that are paid by all men. Of our need to cooperate in groups with others around the world. Libertarianism is a defensive posture. Like conservatism, we need an offensive posture. We need something to promise people in order to maintain our freedom to be the creative class, and to create a competitive society. The answer was laying there since Weber. We were so busy defending ourselves that we didn’t see that answer. Great minds like Hayek and Mises failed. Keynes failed and achieved the opposite of his intent. They were too enamored of the Civic Republican tradition and too optimistic about government. I know that answer. That answer is a program. It will empower conservatives with a message. It will retain a meritocratic society and the propensitiy for hard work, innovation, competitiveness, and retain the most important feature of any culture, it’s symbols of STATUS as those that are founded in the heroic tradition’s self sacrifice and competition for the common good. We can restructure government. We can do it in the USA with amendments. We can rid ourselves of the IRS and the specious justification of government interference in our lives. We can redistribute what is justly the wealth belonging to the people in need. We can. Capitalism 3.0. The Credit Society.

  • The State’s Moral Hazard, The States Immoral Mandate, and The Solution To Both

    Rafe Champion on The Austrian/Keynesian Marriage from The Coordination Problem.

    …the problem of regime uncertainty which the Keynesians address by saying you will get all the certainty you need from our helpful interventions. But we have long ago reached the point where most of the interventions are the problem, not the solution. Uncertainty is a fact of life and maybe the role of good policy is to provide political and legal stability – not certainty but a reasonably stable institional framework where people can plan for the future with some expectation that they will not be shafted by the next political or administrative decision. If the institional framework is badly broken it need to be fixed but as Roger likes to remind us, that can only be done by piecemeal, experimental steps to handle unintended consequences.

    (Note “Regime Uncertainty” is a term meaning “uncertainty created by fear of government intervention”.) Pietro Follows

    #1: monetary policy is a cost-socializing technology which reduces the costs and risks of investment, causes bubbles and pushes for a type of overconsumption called “equity extraction”: consumption out of unreal wealth, i.e., capital consumption (Machlup described the same process). #2: moral hazard makes irresponsibility and recklessness privately rational, and the bubble economy is the result. This is the transmission mechanism in its most abstract form: cost socialization begets coordination problems in terms of bad incentives and false information. #3: at the certain moment either (3a) the monetary drug is no longer available or insufficient, maybe because of inflationary fears (exogenous credit crunch), (3b) the financial structure is no longer capable of transmitting monetary stimuli because it is broke (endogenous credit crunch, which, as the famous rapper Freddie H sang “That credit crunch ain’t a liquidity trap, just a broke banking system”), or (3c) the economic structure is no longer capable of sustaining overconsumption (real resource crunch, whose result is normally a scarcity of circulating capital, like raw materials, that in fact have skyrocketed the first 12 months of the recession, and are rising now that someone ventures to talk of a recovery). In ABCT there is (3a) (the Fed takes away the punch bowl) and (3c) (the economy collapses because of capital structure problems), but there is no explicit analysis of (3b), i.e., systemic risk. I think that a breakdown of the financial system due to an unsustainable financial structure, such as excessive leverage, monetary multipliers, reliance on foreign credit, reliance on liquidity, maturity mismatch (30y mortgages vs 3m commercial paper!) is a more apt description of the recent crisis than problems in the capital structure. … An unsustainable financial structure is not an aggregate demand problem: it’s the legacy of a past moral hazard problem which causes a dearth of capital and a crisis. There is no path to a new equilibrium which does not pass through a credit crunch, the repayment of debts, massive deleveraging, exposure to maturity mismatch, and thus a reduction in investment levels.

    The question then, becomes one of quantity. How do we know how much social insurance and risk reduction is maximal? The moral hazard then exceeds risk taking on the part of individuals, and in turn becomes risk-mandating, when all participants in the bubble economy must not only forgo opportunity for gain, but instead, will be driven out of business if they fail to participate in the risk. This is what happened to bankers who need to keep clients, and employees, buliders who need to keep banking relationships, and subcontractors, business owners who see competitors using low priced capital to compete rather than superior products, services and prices, and the general public who fears missing an opportunity for gain, and losing both status material opportunity. That is the definition of a bubble: the point at which social-insured capital is being consumed as a defense against opportunity loss, rather than as an offense for the purpose of increasing production, increasing choice, and reducing prices. The problem for economists and policy makers is either knowing when this inflection point happens. Or knowing when it must occur. This knowledge cannot be achieved by monetary policy – it is a WEAK LEVER for managing an economy. That weakness is well known, and well understood. Our desired ends can only be achieved by LENDING, not monetary policy. The difference is the knowledge one has of MONEY IN THE AGGREGATE , which is zero, and the knowledge one has of his LOANS, which by is greater than zero. While it may not approach ONE, it is far greater than zero. Instead, we print money at public expense and give the proceeds (interest) to the people who do the WORK of the state: large capital firms, and they determine it’s use. The state should make loans to private industry and the state should collect the interest as earnings by the citizens for the purposes of redistribution. The government needs to become a bank that makes loans into an economy for the purposes of increasing production, competitiveness and therefore employment, not a re-distributor in the economy for the purposes of increasing consumption and achieving full employment by MANDATING the LOSS of competitive production. Fundamentally, we must transform elements of the physical world for human consumption. Fundamentally, money is a store of human effort. Borrowed money, or printed money, is a borrowing against future human effort. And future effort is lower if we invested in production increases. This is sensible borrowing. And future effort is higher if we increase consumption by borrowing against the future, but do not increase production by the act of borrowing. That is NOT sensible borrowing, it is simply self deception and over consumption. Property is an institutional tool for divinding up the labor of human interacdtion with the physical world into digestible and managable pieces by our limited and somewhat frail human minds. Loans are a type of property. They help us break up the world into estimable bits and pieces. Property solves a KNOWLEDGE PROBLEM. Property makes things CALCULABLE. Money is a means of making PROPERTY commensurable. (Money is a unit of measure, a method of account) But money is a PROXY for property. You cannot measure money itself in a meaningful way. YOu can only measure the objects that it represents. By putting unmeasured, chaotic money, into an economy, you have no control over whether that money goes to consumption (negative redistribution) or production (positive redistribution). The confusion over the nature and purpose of government’s monetary dictatorship is a KNOWLEDGE PROBLEM. Loans are a way of atomizing borrowing against the future so that the results are knowable, or at least estimable and calculable. Instead of investing in nuclear power plants, a new power grid, and perhaps electric vehicles, or new roads, all of which would produce vast wealth, we invested in speculations and gambling on the tech boom, then in houses, then in commercial real estate, all without increasing production (houses are consumption not production because external groups cannot compete to produce them) or decreasing prices (we increased prices). Without increased production we cannot increase redistribution. The goal of policy should be productivity increases, not employment. We can have our cake and eat it too. But we have to get away from the myth of democratic and socialist government, and the tools of law and monetary policy. And instead we need to move most of government into the banking sector, and treat our government as the bank that we wish it to be, using the technology of bankers and insurance companies, not the technology of ancient tyrants, who were, to the letter, to a man, tyrants because they used law and tax, because that is the only technology available to them We do not need laws and taxes. We need loans, credit and interest. There is only one law, and that is property. We can have our redistribution and we can measure it. We just need to deprive our government of the ability to issue laws and levy taxes, and print irresponsible money, and instead, constrain it to the use of money EARNED by investment on behalf of the citizenry in productive increases. All of which would be calculable. All of which would enable and encourage freedom. And all of which would help social classes work together rather than at odds. What I cannot understand is why so few people have come to this conclusion in human history. Why the great economists were so enamored of the state and the republican tradition, why some others so enamored of individual rebellion against the state that they failed to see it. Why a few people during the Great Depression managed to figure it out, but failed to compete against the socialists. We need to replace our system of government so that it embraces the use of fiat money for the purposes of insurance, governance, social order, and redistribution. We live in the credit society, not the law society. Now we need a government of the credit society.

  • Time For Violence: Judicial Activism And The New Supreme Court Nominee

    The difference between conservatives and socialists, is that conservatives believe that the government was constructed so that the legislature makes laws, and the court overturns those that are unconstitutional. That is the purpose of the court: to guarantee that the laws that are made adhere to the constitution, and to guarantee that the adjudication of conflict is according both to the laws and to the constitution. But the constitution can be changed. There are methods of change in our constitution. These methods are the right to call a constitutional convention, which requires a majority, and legislation, which requires a majority. There are no methods of change that require a minority. That is not democracy. That is the abuse of our system, circumvention of the constitution. There are no methods of change that do not require legislative change. And legislative change must be obtained by the consent of the majority. Judicial activism on the other hand, is circumvention of our democracy. And judicial activism has been the means by which most of our constitution has been abridged. The general approach has been to tolerate judicial activism because a constitutional convention would expose the nation to too much risk. However, it does not state that judicial activism poses the nation to the risk of civil war, rather than constitutional convention. A constitutional convention would, almost certainly, return rights to the states and to individuals. The constitution is the set of rules that limits what a government can do. They are not the rules by which liberals agree to play. The county is, and always has been, center-right. The left does not want this constitution to prevail. It wants no limits on government. It wants to have an upheaval, a constitutional convention held by fiat – against the very document that gives them political power: the constitution. It wants to change the public hearts and minds to favor ‘compassion’ and democracy over the rules by which the nation was established. The constitution is the rules by which conservatives agree to play. By allowing the left to change the dialog to one of injustice rather than rules, we do not force them to use the rules by which our democracy operates. if however, the rules of the interchange are ‘whatever we can get away with’, or the rules are whetever rules one side chooses to adhere to, then we are not playing by the rules. if we don’t play by the rules then there are no rules, there is no constitution, and there is no need to refrain from violence, because the very premise of our non-violence is the principle of peaceful competition according to those rules. Since the constitution is being circumvented by the left, and by conspiring with an activist judiciary that acknowledges that the constitution is now unworthy of respect,and must be circumvented, then we cannot hope to call a constitutional convention. Since the left ignores the constitution, and the right respects it, we are no longer agreeing to play by the rules that we agreed to. We are simply fools clinging to a fantasy while our opposition abuses the document and processes by which we constrain ourselves to peaceful democratic politics.. We cannot restore our civilization. We can enumerate the changes we wish to make to our country, or we can break it into pieces. Given the size of our country, and the vast different cultures that inhabit the new england, the south, Texarcana, the great lakes, the River and Plains, the pacific northwest the mexican southwest, it may be best to come up with a new federal government in each of those different cultures, and substantially weaken the federal government so that it cannot oppress us. It may instead be better to simply update the constitution with greater protections. It may be better to simply return all power to the states. But this trend toward totalitarianism cannot continue. Freedom is the restraint of individual violence in return for property rights. There is no other form of democracy that is not Bonepartism. (Bonepartism means that the masses elect a totalitarian and are volunatarily made unfree.) I am advocating violence. I am going to continue to advocate violence. At first it must be civil disobedience. But it must grow to upheaval. Because if we do not play by the rules, then I no longer need to restrain my violence. Conservatives no longer need to constrain their violence. It is time for violence. Some men are capable of petty interpersonal physical violence. Some are capable of rabblery and protest. Some of us are capable of revolution and civil war. We are threatened by the myth of the general strike. We are threatened by the idea of revolution by the left, we are threatened with personal violence in order to institute change, by the left. We believe that these malcontents will simply learn. They will conform. That we are safe in our patience. We tolerate this abuse because we are confident in our system. But that system has failed. We must understand that we cannot hold onto pacifism and restraint. And that if we do we are not acting on conviction but convenience. We don’t need half the population to create change. We don’t need a quarter of it. We don’t need a tenth of it. We need one man in one thousand to be willing to take action in an organized manner, and we can restore our freedom. Under the rules of the civic republican tradition, a tradition you may not even be able to articulate, or even understand, except as habits and emotions, you agreed to restrain your violence as men, for the common good, in an effort to create a meritocratic society, as long as the rules were adhered to by everyone. Instead you find that you are sacrificing, that you may have to live in poverty in old age, that your civilization will become another Bonapartist state, so that the left can immigrate us out of power under the rubric of compassion and democracy. So stop confusing your complacency with conviction. You pay for government by forgoing opportunity to use your violence. YOu could, if you wanted, use that violence, use fraud, use deception, break the rules, for your own benefit. Each time you dont you pay the cost of building a society. You pay for whatever society you get. So you are paying for this one. EAch deposit you make pays for this society. Each time you forgo and opportunity. Each tax you pay. Each abuse of your freedoms you tolerate, pays for this society. Prepare to withdraw your deposit. You have been saving violence into a bank for most of your life. It’s time to withdraw it. To spend it. It’s a hefty sum. And with that violence you can buy your civilization back.

  • Violence Is The Source Of Freedom

    Prior to an important meeting of prominent advocates of freedom, Mises stated roughly, that:

    1) Laissez-faire means ‘let the consumer decide’, it does not mean chaos prevails.

    I translate this more clearly and accurately as ‘a responsible parent forces her child to make decisions’ so that inter-temporal decision making becomes one of the child’s most adept skills. The civic republican tradition states that if a man is successful in life his duty is to help parent, ie: manage and govern, the society, thus spreading his wisdom to others in the community. This is quite contrary to the democratic religion of secular humanism that states that all men have equal merit in political actions.

    2) Hayek’s plan relies upon the support of that segment of the population that is comfortable as they are, but not willing to muster the political effort to preserve the freedom that gives them that comfort.

    I state this fact more simply: ‘Freedom is, has been, and will be, the desire of the creative minority.’

    Civilizations are ruled by minorities willing to use violence or fraud to maintain their positions. Since fraud is expressly what the creative minority seeks to avoid, because trade without recourse to violence requires refraining from fraud, the creative minority can retain it’s freedom only by force, or be constrained by the force or fraud of others.

    It is because violence is both meritocratic and epistemologically fruitful when combined with the need to enfranchise sufficient numbers of the minority to maintain rule. That is why the creative, competitive, and military class built western society. Secular humanism is simply a system of fraud that seeks to transform those costs for maintaining social order into a system of fraud or financial coercion. Violence that is used to defend the system of voluntary trade we call Laissez-Faire, is the most honest of human actions. Pacifism and monotheistic religion are simply a cost reduction effort on the part of the ruling class so that fraud can be supplanted for violence.

    The purpose of the creative class then is to maintain sufficient capacity for violence that it can maintain sufficient capacity to rule, and as rulers, preserve their freedom.

    The use of violence is necessary in order to create the freedom needed to unleash the societies’ creative forces while oppressing its tendency to corruption. Corruption is the normal human response to lower risk and labor in an effort to circumvent the market economy while forcing others to participate in the market economy.

    Violence applied to preserve freedom, that is, voluntary trade and property, is not only honest, it is constructive, and it is the optimum method for human prosperity and cooperation.

    One need not force all men to be free. One need only have sufficient force that he is free.

  • The Threat Of Revolt, The General Strike, And The Myth Of Non-Violence

    A tactic used by the vocal left is the threat of violence, or revolt if their needs are not met. The tactic of revolt is ancient. This modern version of revolt is a product of The Myth Of The General Strike. (I am referring to Burnham’s treatment) The contemporary version is the Economic Armageddon and Political Upheaval of the classes. The opposing argument is the libertarian argument for private property, and private capitalism, and the Randian version of Atlas shrugging. Both of these are myths of the general strike. The argument, or myth in any of it’s versions, is disingenuous. Workers will eventually relent, be replaced, or the businesses close. Entrepreneurs will be replaced by others. It is the state who would suffer it’s loss of legitimacy in the event of failure. But a new group would take over in government, and life would go on. An analysis of history tells us that it is much easier for the minority with wealth to pay another minority to violently oppress the peasantry, and to obtain their compliance going forward with commercial incentives and rewards, than it is for a peasantry to organize a movement of a general strike. In fact, the government conducts all general strikes, because without government suport and threats of government violence on business people, they would largely be irrelevant. When a ruling class loses it’s will for violence, the society loses it’s binding mythology. It simply opens it’s ranks for a different group to take over the ruling class, and redefine the existing network-map of property rights, and the dispensation of them. However, provided that the ranks of the elite are open to absorb those ambitous people from all classes, and the elite retain sufficient willingness to use violence, the myth of the revolt is specious. Because people simply need leaders in order to revolt. Before an elite allows itself to be displaced, it commits fraud. They verbally ally themselves with ‘the people’. All societies determine the scope of private and group property differently. There are limits to the scope of private property. Property is necessary because of the limits of people’s knowledge in time. However, there are points at which certain forms of private property deny service to consumers, (such as misuse of intellectual property rights) and therefore it is theft from consumers. Why? Because consumers forgo the opportunity for violence, and in doing so pay for the cost of creating that private property. So denying the market a good in order to increase prices and profits is a theft of the costs paid by consumers to create the opportunity for private property. So the limits to private property come from artificial scarcity (denying a good to market), whereas reinforcement of private property comes from the There are limits to the scope of public property, because there are limits to the amount of knowledge that can exist in any person’s mind, and limits to decision making among groups of individuals, and distortionary effects (basically, perceived risk reduction, limited by the amount of knowledge of the largest population able to exercise it’s will) and the rapidity of timely action, and because of the limits of timely action, limitations on the opportunity cost for the group. ie: increases in private property are an opportunity cost reduction for a group. The purpose of the union movement is to allow the populists to use threats against the capitalists, without fear that the capitalists can respond in kind, and thereby allow government to profit from intermediation, thereby forming an alliance between the unions and the state, regulated only by the long term (and therefore easily imperceptible) impact of their intervention on tax revenues. Violence should not be eliminated from our discourse. It is a ruse. Starting with a principle of non violence is and always shall be a ruse. The fact is, that ALL movements that presume non-violence are attempts at theft of the cost needed to create private property. Costs are the only means of honest political dialog. Both direct costs and opportunity costs. The Principle of Non-violence is fraud. Plain and simple. Period.

  • A Subtle Redefinition In Opportunity Cost

    I am going to redefine Opportunity Cost from the difference between one choice and another, to include the opportunity of expending violence. Because that is the FIRST cost that they pay in every transaction. I’m going to redefine Time preference from the silly Austrian implication that all purchasing decisions are made primarily by price, to the acknowledgement that all prices are in fact habits, and that decisions are made primarily by the culmination of OTHER factors, (and logically must be since prices are rarely different in any meaningful way) such that Time Preference is the aggregate approach to either consumption or capitalization. Such that a high time preference in the classical sense means consumption, and therefore is a short time preference, and that low time preference in the classical sense means capitalization, and therefore is a long time preference. A subtle difference, but the difference is meaningful: people do not care about prices between one object and another as much as they care about the other properties. In a universe of aesthetic rather than material differences, Prices simply allow people to categorize similar choices together so that they can apply other preferences, social biases, and subsidies. Because unlike the idea types to derive from marginalism’s attempt to make possible quantification, people actually ACT in the way I describe, even though that way is resistant to modeling.