Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • New Video Rendering. Trying to end the NAP Fraud forever. 37 minutes. Pretty tho

    New Video Rendering. Trying to end the NAP Fraud forever. 37 minutes. Pretty thorough. Just me no interviewer. Not sure that’s so good.

    Not sure it’s going to convert as many libertarians as I want to but it’s going to give them nowhere to run. If there was anywhere left to run anyway.

    Makes me so painfully aware that I”m in the same mental construct as David Gordon. Because I hear his speech pattern and mental processing in my own voice. I hoped I was less nerdy. I tried very hard to be less nerdy. lol Or maybe that speech pattern is a necessary byproduct of analytic argument. That’s possible. But I won’t give myself that out. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 13:06:00 UTC

  • WHY THE NAP/IVP IS JUSTIFICATION FOR THIEVERY AND FRAUD —“you remove the NAP f

    WHY THE NAP/IVP IS JUSTIFICATION FOR THIEVERY AND FRAUD

    —“you remove the NAP from the class of individual choice”—

    Then if NAP is just a means of individual choice, and not a moral proposition, then why would one choose to avoid moral choices? Except to act immorally? Which is my criticism. The NAP was adopted by rothbard as a half truth in order to perpetuate ghetto ethics.

    It’s a logical box. You wont’ get out of it. Rothbardianism is objectively immoral.

    It is insufficient for a personal determination of rational action. It is insufficient for interpersonal moral decidability. And it is insufficient for a political basis for law. And its insufficient for the basis of anarchic polity, and therefore it is insufficient for the basis of liberty.

    So if it is insufficient for each of these criteria: decision, non-retaliation, and economic and political cooperation, and sufficient basis of cooperation for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state as method of decidability… then what is it’s function other than to allow one to engage in deceits?

    So the NAP is a fraud by suggestion, just as I have stated, because it is nothing more than an attempt to escape paying the high cost of liberty, through the mutual defense of one another’s property-en-toto from the imposition of costs, by organized application of violence to demand and enforce restitution for those costs.

    So it’s not just that the NAP is insufficient for moral action, it is that the NAP is an attempt both to justify parasitism by non violent means, and justify non payment of insurance.

    That is not liberty. That’s cunning thievery.

    That’s the end you know. You can try all you want. But rothbardian immoralism falsely labeled with the term liberty is merely another great cosmopolitan lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 03:53:00 UTC

  • FROM AGGRESSION TO NON AGGRESSION This should help people understand how the NAP

    FROM AGGRESSION TO NON AGGRESSION

    This should help people understand how the NAP was a cunning lie.

    -3) – You can choose to aggress against the property en toto of others. This is called predation. But you must defend yourself against retaliation and extermination. (Usual criticism of Islamists)

    -2) – You can choose to aggress against the private and common property but not life of others. This is called thievery. But you will experience retaliation for it. (usual criticism of gypsies)

    -1) – You can choose not to aggress against the life and physical property of others but retain the possibility of parasitic existence through deception. But you will experience retaliation. (usual criticism of jews)

    0) – You can choose not to aggress against the property en toto of others and by doing so it is almost impossible to invoke retaliation. This is called boycott. But you cannot defend your property en toto, private property, or life from those of superior means who wish to deprive you of it.

    +1) – You can engage in productive exchange with others, both benefit and not invoke retaliation. This is called trade. But you cannot defend your property en toto, private property, or life from those of superior means who wish to deprive you of it.

    +2) – You can engage in reciprocal insurance of others and thereby obtain insurance from them. This is called Liberty. So that you can defend your property en toto, private property, and life from those who wish to deprive you of it.

    +3) – You can invest your profits in the commons in exchange for status (increased opportunity and discounts), or productivity (increased returns), and cooperate for the defense of those commons from privatization and destruction. This is called a polity. (Europa)

    +4) – You can actively impose property-en-toto upon others both to reduce your costs and to improve your returns. This is called pacification. (Usual example is Rome, British Empire, American Empire)

    Non Aggression against property-en-toto (demonstrated property), is sufficient for non-retaliation. Reciprocal insurance of property-en-toto is sufficient for defense and the formation of a polity. Contribution to the commons is sufficient for obtaining compound intergenerational returns. Pacification is sufficient for the evolution of civilization.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 02:54:00 UTC

  • How Would Our Lives Change Under Truthfulness?

    (note that this is a Socratic Dialog and Edward is playing devil’s advocate in order to force me to articulate the ideas. I dont want to miscast his intentions. 🙂 ) [Q]UESTION: How would our lives change if pseudoscience were prohibited from the commons?

    Give the government the power to define and prohibit pseudoscience. Rushton would have been executed for sure. Sounds like the high road to tyranny.—Edward Fürst

    Why would we give the government such power? Defense of the informational commons, like that of water, air, and land, is a property right like any other. And as a property right, It’s a matter for judges, not government.

    Are judges not government functionaries? – Edward Fürst

    Are they? Is it necessary that they be? Did they evolve as such? Operationally, judges (conflict resolution over property) are necessary and government (production of commons) is preferential. Lets go through the difference between non-discretionary organizations, and preferential. NECESSARY FUNCTIONS (RULE)

            UTILITARIAN FUNCTIONS (PRODUCTION) The Voluntary Organization of Production. Meaning: – Industry, Entrepreneurship, (free association) – Finance, Banking, (hypothesis) – Craftsmanship, Distribution, Trade (theory) – and Consumption. (law) The Voluntary Organization of Reproduction. – Meaning “Family” (reproductive provision). PREFERENTIAL FUNCTIONS (GOVERNMENT) Academy (education production), Government (commons production), Hospital (healthcare production) Church(insurance provision),

            Let me get this straight: Rothbard and Mises promoted pseudoscience. Authors of pseudoscience should be punished and suppressed. Therefore, if you had your druthers, Rothbard and Mises should have been punished and suppressed for their writing? And that is your idea of liberty? —Edward Fürst

            As to the past, We didn’t know. Now we know. As to the present, there exists a general principle of rule of law: it cannot be retroactively applied. As to the future lets work through it… So let me ask the question again, if we incrementally suppress pseudoscience in the commons, and we know the full scientific method, then what would be the consequences. My idea of liberty is non-imposition of costs. 🙂

            Ok. You say now “we” know. As far as i’m concerned, “we” don’t know anything but that you along with all the Keynesians, monetarists, socialists, communists, and fascists disagree with Mises/Rothbard. So far you have not won me to your side, but i am still gradually reading through your work. Regardless, given your premises that you have delivered the ultimate gospel of True Science (IE your synthesis of Northern European enlightenments) “we know” now that Mises and Rothbard, how should i be “suppressed” and “punished” for continuing to espouse their ideology? — Edward Fürst

            Are you trying to profit from your espousal?

            Why sure! Spreading the ideas of what i consider to be liberty is of great profit to me. Maybe im contributing to real change and maybe i’m just inflating my ego. Regardless, it feels good and is therefore profitable. But enough with the rat-faced, demonic, jewish semantics. Let’s say i’m Tom Woods for instance: i make my living publishing books In the Rothbardian tradition. What is my punishment? — Edward Fürst

            1) well that is not the definition of profit, it’s the definition of pleasure. Profiting would require that you sell something, and calculate the difference between costs of inputs and rewards from outputs. Analogies are not truths, they are merely meaningful. 2) Do you think anyone would object to your utterances as falsehoods or deceits, under which involuntary transfer would be conducted? 3) Do you think that what you’re arguing can pass the tests of categorical consistency(non-conflation), internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, morality (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of costs upon that which people have obtained by the same means), Full Accounting, Limits, and Parsimony? 4) If not, then could you state why they fail these tests of truthfulness and morality, or why you do not know whether they do or now? In other words could you include a warning of incompleteness? If one cannot perform this due diligence such that he can warranty his actions against harm, then one can for forced to pay restitution. And informational restitution like pollution of air, land, and water is costly – most often a large multiple of the original discount achieved by the pollution. Lastly, rejection of this demand is how you tell the difference between a LIBERTINE (imposer of costs) and a LIBERTARIAN (non-imposer of costs). THE HIGH COST OF TRUTHFULNESS The Costs of Truth http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/the-costs-of-truth/ The Truth is Expensive http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/07/truth-is-expensive-but-the-returns-warrant-it-and-morality-demands-it/ Lies and Opportunity Costs http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/lies-damned-lies-and-opportunity-costs/ The Cost of Teaching Truth http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/the-cost-of-teaching-truth/ Truth Avoiders are Taking Discounts http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/those-who-fear-truth-are-taking-discounts/ Truth is Enough http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/22/the-high-cost-of-truthfulness-but-truth-is-enough/

          • How Would Our Lives Change Under Truthfulness?

            (note that this is a Socratic Dialog and Edward is playing devil’s advocate in order to force me to articulate the ideas. I dont want to miscast his intentions. 🙂 ) [Q]UESTION: How would our lives change if pseudoscience were prohibited from the commons?

            Give the government the power to define and prohibit pseudoscience. Rushton would have been executed for sure. Sounds like the high road to tyranny.—Edward Fürst

            Why would we give the government such power? Defense of the informational commons, like that of water, air, and land, is a property right like any other. And as a property right, It’s a matter for judges, not government.

            Are judges not government functionaries? – Edward Fürst

            Are they? Is it necessary that they be? Did they evolve as such? Operationally, judges (conflict resolution over property) are necessary and government (production of commons) is preferential. Lets go through the difference between non-discretionary organizations, and preferential. NECESSARY FUNCTIONS (RULE)

                    UTILITARIAN FUNCTIONS (PRODUCTION) The Voluntary Organization of Production. Meaning: – Industry, Entrepreneurship, (free association) – Finance, Banking, (hypothesis) – Craftsmanship, Distribution, Trade (theory) – and Consumption. (law) The Voluntary Organization of Reproduction. – Meaning “Family” (reproductive provision). PREFERENTIAL FUNCTIONS (GOVERNMENT) Academy (education production), Government (commons production), Hospital (healthcare production) Church(insurance provision),

                    Let me get this straight: Rothbard and Mises promoted pseudoscience. Authors of pseudoscience should be punished and suppressed. Therefore, if you had your druthers, Rothbard and Mises should have been punished and suppressed for their writing? And that is your idea of liberty? —Edward Fürst

                    As to the past, We didn’t know. Now we know. As to the present, there exists a general principle of rule of law: it cannot be retroactively applied. As to the future lets work through it… So let me ask the question again, if we incrementally suppress pseudoscience in the commons, and we know the full scientific method, then what would be the consequences. My idea of liberty is non-imposition of costs. 🙂

                    Ok. You say now “we” know. As far as i’m concerned, “we” don’t know anything but that you along with all the Keynesians, monetarists, socialists, communists, and fascists disagree with Mises/Rothbard. So far you have not won me to your side, but i am still gradually reading through your work. Regardless, given your premises that you have delivered the ultimate gospel of True Science (IE your synthesis of Northern European enlightenments) “we know” now that Mises and Rothbard, how should i be “suppressed” and “punished” for continuing to espouse their ideology? — Edward Fürst

                    Are you trying to profit from your espousal?

                    Why sure! Spreading the ideas of what i consider to be liberty is of great profit to me. Maybe im contributing to real change and maybe i’m just inflating my ego. Regardless, it feels good and is therefore profitable. But enough with the rat-faced, demonic, jewish semantics. Let’s say i’m Tom Woods for instance: i make my living publishing books In the Rothbardian tradition. What is my punishment? — Edward Fürst

                    1) well that is not the definition of profit, it’s the definition of pleasure. Profiting would require that you sell something, and calculate the difference between costs of inputs and rewards from outputs. Analogies are not truths, they are merely meaningful. 2) Do you think anyone would object to your utterances as falsehoods or deceits, under which involuntary transfer would be conducted? 3) Do you think that what you’re arguing can pass the tests of categorical consistency(non-conflation), internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, morality (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of costs upon that which people have obtained by the same means), Full Accounting, Limits, and Parsimony? 4) If not, then could you state why they fail these tests of truthfulness and morality, or why you do not know whether they do or now? In other words could you include a warning of incompleteness? If one cannot perform this due diligence such that he can warranty his actions against harm, then one can for forced to pay restitution. And informational restitution like pollution of air, land, and water is costly – most often a large multiple of the original discount achieved by the pollution. Lastly, rejection of this demand is how you tell the difference between a LIBERTINE (imposer of costs) and a LIBERTARIAN (non-imposer of costs). THE HIGH COST OF TRUTHFULNESS The Costs of Truth http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/the-costs-of-truth/ The Truth is Expensive http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/07/truth-is-expensive-but-the-returns-warrant-it-and-morality-demands-it/ Lies and Opportunity Costs http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/lies-damned-lies-and-opportunity-costs/ The Cost of Teaching Truth http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/the-cost-of-teaching-truth/ Truth Avoiders are Taking Discounts http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/those-who-fear-truth-are-taking-discounts/ Truth is Enough http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/22/the-high-cost-of-truthfulness-but-truth-is-enough/

                  • Progressives *Must* Lie

                    [P]rogressives cannot tell the difference between wishful thinking and deceit. And when they came they prefer deceit. Lying is necessary to frame kleptocracy as virtuous, theft as moral and dysgenia as good.

                  • Progressives *Must* Lie

                    [P]rogressives cannot tell the difference between wishful thinking and deceit. And when they came they prefer deceit. Lying is necessary to frame kleptocracy as virtuous, theft as moral and dysgenia as good.

                  • Why is it that brutal honesty is such an effective political weapon in a democra

                    Why is it that brutal honesty is such an effective political weapon in a democracy? lol It’s not the honest man. It’s all the liars that created a vacuum by disrespecting voters.

                    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 09:42:00 UTC

                  • Progressives cannot tell the difference between wishful thinking and deceit. And

                    Progressives cannot tell the difference between wishful thinking and deceit. And when they came they prefer deceit.

                    Lying is necessary to frame kleptocracy as virtuous, theft as moral and dysgenia as good.

                    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 02:39:00 UTC

                  • Clinton: Don’t let Trump ‘bully his way into the presidency’ Doolittle: Don’t le

                    Clinton: Don’t let Trump ‘bully his way into the presidency’

                    Doolittle: Don’t let Clinton Lie her way into the presidency.

                    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-05 12:37:00 UTC