No, I don’t encrypt my email. I don’t hide. I don’t say what I don’t mean. And I mean what I say: that my purpose is to overthrow the united states government and restore my rights as an englishman, and to demand rule of law, contractual government and truthful speech in matters of economics, politics, trade and law.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-17 09:01:00 UTC
(A Call To Classical Liberalism)
[R]on Paul committed political suicide, in an act of profound moral cowardice, joining the Mises Institute in their decades of ideological suicide, by using the hardship of real people as an excuse to produce propaganda against the monopoly bureaucratic state – a fight in which the Ukrainians themselves are more the victim of than any other people.
It was an act of unconscionable immorality, demonstrating the immorality of libertine free rider libertarianism – But moreover it violates the western aristocratic moral imperative that is the source of all liberty: that any who desire to be free of tyranny in pursuit of property rights, shall have our alliance, if we obtain their alliance in return. The west was constructed using this ethic.
The low-trust, free riding, Rothbardian ethic of the Ghetto mandates that we walk away from all fights that are not directly initiated against us. But under this ethic, not only would the west never have arisen, but neither would have liberty, because liberty was the result of this system of ever-expanding alliances between families, tribes, city states, and nation-states: the reciprocal grant of sovereignty over life and property in exchange for reciprocal insurance in the defense of life liberty and property. This exchange is the origin of liberty and property rights, and all men sought this status, and the prosperity it gave them, by demonstrating their commitment in martial service to one another. This is the only source of rights that is existentially possible – every alternative justification is a mere verbal excuse to escape the high cost of constructing a condition of liberty by taking responsibility for using, and spending, your wealth of violence, to construct and preserve it.
The war for liberty is not against the nation state – if anything we must re-nationalize liberalism to save the west – but instead, libertinism, like marxism, socialism, postmodernism and neo-conservatism, are a war intentionally produced by cosmopolitan separatists against western solidarity, for the purpose of preserving their dual-ethical social model, and its dependence upon free riding on the martial strength, martial expense, and martial risk, of others. There is no possibility for one to claim moral righteousness by free riding upon the costly defense of others, and no moral righteousness not coming to the martial aid of all those who seek to join the alliance of free men. It is merely free riding: theft. An act of fraud by which one seeks to obtain the expensive liberty at a discount. If this escapist strategy is followed to its end, it will leave a people homeless, diasporic, and dependent upon the kindness and charity of host people, nations, and civilizations. It has. It does.
What differentiates the west from the west is not the six apps that Nial Ferguson compliments us for – they are effects, not causes. The source of those six apps, and the west’s ability to innovate faster than all other civilizations combined, despite our poverty, small numbers, and distance from the origin of the bronze age, is that we discovered the truth, we speak the truth, we trust because we speak the truth, we hold each other accountable for speaking the truth, and we exchange the promise of our ready and willing hand of violence in the defense of the life liberty and property of our allies. Western excellence is the result of the unique western reliance upon truth as the most expensive, and most disciplined commons ever constructed by man.
Reality intervenes on all ideals, but the west, western ethics, western prosperity, and western liberty, evolved because more often then not, we preserved sovereignty with the reciprocal commitment for truth and violence, and we appeal to the jury of our peers as a test of both.
So, leave Ron Paul, and his marxist-inspired allies. Return to classical liberalism and abandon the immoral ethics of the Ghetto. Unless you prefer to live in one. Because the ghetto is the result of those ethics libertines espouse.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
WEB SITE
http://idontsupportronpaul.com/
LOU ROCKWELL GETS OFFENDED
http://www.lewrockwell.com/…/troika-seeks-to-purge-ron-paul/
TARGET LIBERTY GETS OFFENDED
http://www.targetliberty.com/…/sfl-faction-starts-website-t…
RULE OF LAW IS SACRED TO WESTERN MAN
–“our prophet is sacred to us”–
Rule of law is more sacred than our lives. Rule of law requires we speak, and understand the truth, not myth. The reason for the velocity of western advancement in all fields is that we tell the truth whether it hurts or not, whether it offends or not, a man must earn respect by speaking the truth, not myth, rather than receive respect for his folly. Western man has systematically eliminated error from mans mind by demanding the truth in all walks of life.
As a political question then, why does a man have a right to believe false things? We cannot stop him from his beliefs in false things, but we can stop him from spreading his beliefs in false things. We can prevent it from his speech. We can prevent it from his publications. We can prevent it from his commerce, his law, and his politics.
The source of western exceptionalism is truth telling – even if it hurts.
Muslims living in the west are not given special privilege to escape our most sacred value: truth.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-12 05:13:00 UTC
—“Depending upon one’s conception of rights and what they logically entail or are incompatible with, it’s not difficult to see, for example, that the corpus of the libertarian program, in logical terms cannot countenance “add-ons” in so far as they are obligations that legitimate the use of force. The shortest, most concise illustration of how this follows from the premise that there is only one negative right, namely to not be aggressors against. Philosophers, such as Roderick Tracy Long argue that this positive thesis of one negative right entails a second negative thesis that logically denies and additional positive rights. If the former is granted, the latter follows, in virtue of the logical character of the obligations it entails.”—
Ok, so, the reason it’s a nonsense argument is because the definition is circular. More precisely, “petitio principii”, or less precisely, “begging the question”. Like many cosmopolitan, authoritarian, questions-that-are-not-questions, aggression is a conclusion, not a premise. It is a justification. And like many cosmopolitan arguments it is reinforced by the use of in-group guilt (shaming), despite the fact that it is an out-group argument (attempt to preserve separatism.)
So lets look at it….
The term “Aggress” is like “Good”. It means nothing without context. And that is the first deceptive use of the term aggression. One must aggress against something. So we must know what that something is. Otherwise it is, like all obscurant verbal deceptions in incomplete sentence – left incomplete as a means of deception. Just as use of the verb ‘to-be’ is nearly always a means of obscuring one’s ignorance, or one’s intentional obfuscation of causal relations.
It is impossible to define aggression without defining property. So the principle deception involved when most moral intuitionists state their position is that they rely on the INTUITIVE definition of property of the audience, while assuming a narrower definition of property themselves. In the Rothbard Hoppe case, they refer to physical property – intersubjectively verifiable property. However, this eliminates all possible commons, and licenses all unethical and immoral action.
Then, when questioned, Rothbardians give one of the following excuses:
(a) people can make contracts for that. But if they did, then what would the basis of that law be? and would they not ostracize all non-adherents in order to reduce transaction costs and increase compliance? Isn’t that the rational and demonstrated action – everywhere?
(b) “the market will take care of it through competition.” Except that we can prove empirically that it doesn’t. In fact, we need extraordinary levels of suppression of immoral and unethical behavior for market competition to form.
(c) “It’s meant only to be a guiding principle, not a basis for law.” Well then why not just use the definition of property necessary for a basis of law or morality?
I could also just say that do we not force people to pay restitution in the case of accidents? Are accidents aggression? No. They are violations of property. Are immoral and unethical actions that cause loss to others mutually productive? (No) So are they rational to tolerate? (no). Do we retaliate against others for immoral and unethical actions? (yes) So aggression is insufficient for describing necessary conditions of human cooperation (Yes). And aren’t all attempts to justify defining these things as aggression — even though they are not — just verbal deceptions? They are ’caused losses’, right? So don’t we retaliate against caused losses, and isn’t retaliation what we seek to eliminate – just as much as seeking to eliminate caused losses?
Well a rothbardian then attempts another deception: “Well that would mean competition is a ‘bad’, since it imposes losses.” But the honest man says, “No, in fact people do treat price competition as immoral (although not quality competition) and we have merely trained one another out of objecting to it by explaining that it is a cost of producing the incentive to innovate.”
Why is it that Rothbard picked aggression, out of all the possible criteria for moral definitions? Why does no other group select this argument?
When, I could just as easily ask,” How can we prevent retaliation for immoral and unethical actions – how can we license parasitism?” And conclude aggression.
Or I could ask “How can we free ride upon another’s expensive-to-produce commons?” And come to aggression.
Or I could ask, “What defines both criminal, ethical, and moral, conduct?” And come to aggression.
Or I could ask, “How can I define ethical, moral and just using the terms of prohibited actions between states (aggression), between internal polities (separatism), and just ignore the fact that internal polities pay the costs of defense?” And I would come to aggression.
Why would anyone in the world pick aggression as a definition, UNLESS the purpose of picking aggression was to justify the conclusions contained in it?
Why, if aggression is not sufficient for law, and not sufficient for ethics and morality, is it meaningful? If you start with the presumption of aggression, WHY start with it?
In propertarianism, I start with the question: “Why should I not kill you and take your women and your stuff? Oh? Cooperation might be more beneficial? Under what conditions would cooperation be more beneficial than killing you and taking your things? I see! As long as it’s mutually beneficial. As long as I get more than I would if I killed you and took your women and your things.” That would be the evolutionary attempt to solve the problem.
I could also start with the question: “What incentives make it possible for the rational formation of a voluntary polity?” In that case, transaction costs prohibit the rational formation of a voluntary polity under aggression; and furthermore, other polities demonstrably exterminate such low trust competitors. That would be the rational solution to the problem.
I could also start with the question “Under what definitions of property has liberty demonstrably evolved?” In which case I would see that only under total prohibition on immoral and unethical as well as criminal actions. That would be the empirical approach to the question.
I could ask the question, “How can morality and law be constructed synonymously?” That would be the institutional approach to the problem.
I could ask a lot of possible questions that are much more obvious, and NOT circular. So why is it that I would make a circular argument?
The only logical reasons to start with aggression are (a) to justify prohibition on retaliation for immoral and unethical actions, (b) to justify non-contribution to the commons (free-riding separatism). Aggression is a means of defining low trust, parasitic, separatist ghetto ethics as ‘good’ despite the fact that all empirical evidence suggests that it makes a people unable to hold land, dependent upon a host population, and open to perpetual attempts at extermination.
So, why would an honest person start with something as arbitrary as the rather elaborate concept of ‘aggression’?
Well the answer is, he wouldn’t. Which is why no honest person ever has.
The libertarian is unaware that any argument sufficiently complex to overwhelm reason must be resolved through intuition – and that libertarian moral intuition is false (incomplete). In other words, libertarians are suckers for certain categories of lies. Just like all humans are suckers for certain categories of lies – all for the same reason.
(ASIDE: This overloading, suggestion, and appeal to intuition as a means of using internal biases to deceive the audience is the secret to the cosmopolitan and rationalist verbalisms. My goal over the next year or two is to fully undermine the cosmopolitan and german rationalist argument structures and demonstrate them for what they are: lies. The anglo enlightenment argument is wrong: universalism, aristocracy of everyone, the rational actor. But it isn’t a lie. And that’s what science does for us: it unmasks lies.)
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
L’viv (Lion) Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-01 13:28:00 UTC
We have 1.1M lawyers in america. That’s one for every 300 people. Ukraine needs about 8,000 judges (1/5000 people), and about 20,000 lawyers (1/2000) people.
It’s not a complicated problem. Rule of law is all you need.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-29 08:14:00 UTC
HAYEK AND HOPPE – INSUFFICIENT
Hayek is right that a condition of liberty can only be constructed by organically evolutionary (common) law of property. Hoppe is right that institutions can replace monopoly bureaucracy.
However, Hayek has no solution to making such a condition universally preferable; and Hoppe has no solution to the provision of the commons, nor for constructing a condition of liberty. Neither address the influence of the family or the intergenerational means of reproductive production or the entry of women’s socialistic biases into the sphere of politics – and neither addresses the problem of the conflict between the reproductive interests of the classes. Neither solves the problem of a heterogeneous post-agrarian, and possibly post familial, institutional system. Yet that is the set of conditions that we find ourselves in.
I think I have persuasively argued that over the long term (anyone can benefit from implementing technology that was invented by others in the sort term), high velocity economies are only possible under liberty, and that liberty is only possible under high trust, and that only law under universal standing can construct high trust and liberty, and that those most interested in maintaining this structure are those in the lower middle class and upper proletariat, who are willing to fight to un-constrain their superiors, so that they can gain the privileges of the group with the best leaders. This is why the working classes are conservatively biased – they will fall in status and material possession without the advantages given them by support – the enablement – of their elites.
So we can look at the successes of philosophers but also look at their failures. Hoppe tries to both preserve cosmopolitan separatism and reconstruct the hanseatic league. But this is not possible without the use of violence, exclusion, and the taking of territory sufficiently advantageous to produce the incentives to join such a polity, nor the economic advantage necessary to see it persist.
Hoppe’s solution of starting a clean polity isn’t a solution at all. It’s the equivalent of communism for libertines.
Territory is obtained, held, informal institutions constructed, formal institutions implemented, and monuments built, by the use of violence to do so by those desirous of obtaining advantage for themselves and their people.
Peace, is not an intrinsic good. The intrinsic good is the perpetuation of your family, tribe, and people in competition with other families tribes and peoples.
Everything else is just a better way of getting there.
And the alternative is conquest and suicide. Both of which we are victims of.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-21 06:41:00 UTC
THERE IS PLENTY OF ARISTOCRACY LEFT
There is plenty of aristocracy around left to repopulate senates, houses and thrones. First, even in all of the west, it’s a small number of people in total. Second, having a long (low) time preference isn’t rocket science either. It’s mostly genetics and family habits. Nobility – traditionalists and historians – are around if you look for them. The purpose of nobility is to judge – not lead. Leadership is for priests and public intellectuals. Nobility just limits the arena to commerce and construction of commons – not political power.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 05:13:00 UTC
(worth repeating)
–“The whole anglo philosophical and political fantasy of equality has been a disaster for mankind. We must be equal in property rights and equal under the law, but that’s so that we may coordinate our actions as specialists, and succeed as specialists – not so that we can act as equals.”–
(worth repeating)
–“The whole anglo philosophical and political fantasy of equality has been a disaster for mankind. We must be equal in property rights and equal under the law, but that’s so that we may coordinate our actions as specialists, and succeed as specialists – not so that we can act as equals.”–
(worth repeating)
–“The whole anglo philosophical and political fantasy of equality has been a disaster for mankind. We must be equal in property rights and equal under the law, but that’s so that we may coordinate our actions as specialists, and succeed as specialists – not so that we can act as equals.”–
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-12 04:11:00 UTC