Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Don’t Confuse Cheating On Your Normative Taxes With Tolerance And Love.

    [I]t is irrelevant what you think of other cultures, and the people in them – unless they ignore you, it is only relevant what they think of you. Thinking is no counter to competition. It is merely self-congratulatory discounting to confuse conviction with convenience, and tolerance with letting the boat sink because bailing is someone else’s job.

    Tolerance and submission are no more intrinsic goods than violence and domination. The question is only whether one is suppressing parasitism and forcing each other into the market, or one is permitting parasitism and allowing others to escape the transformationary struggle to enter the market.

    So before you congratulate yourself on your tolerance and morality you must determine if you are expanding parasitism or suppressing it.

    Curt Doolittle ( All – This is the propertarian analysis of the problem – the only answer is what we will obtain in exchange. The only viable material anotehr has to exchange is his adoption of norms and higher trust so that he does not increase transaction costs.)

  • Curt, since you and I are on the opposite sides of the right-left spectrum,what

    Curt, since you and I are on the opposite sides of the right-left spectrum,what do your think about this new up-down spectrum? It seems rather relevant to the long-term goals of your work.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 09:16:00 UTC

  • DON’T CONFUSE CHEATING ON YOUR TAXES WITH TOLERANCE AND LOVE. It is irrelevant w

    DON’T CONFUSE CHEATING ON YOUR TAXES WITH TOLERANCE AND LOVE.

    It is irrelevant what you think of other cultures, and the people in them – unless they ignore you, it is only relevant what they think of you. Thinking is no counter to competition. It is merely self-congratulatory discounting to confuse conviction with convenience, and tolerance with letting the boat sink because bailing is someone else’s job.

    Tolerance and submission are no more intrinsic goods than violence and domination. The question is only whether one is suppressing parasitism and forcing each other into the market, or one is permitting parasitism and allowing others to escape the transformationary struggle to enter the market.

    So before you congratulate yourself on your tolerance and morality you must determine if you are expanding parasitism or suppressing it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 08:08:00 UTC

  • (another run at it) (I am never going to get this down…) Only three means of c

    (another run at it) (I am never going to get this down…)

    Only three means of coercion are available to man:

    1) Force (punishment): Master violence, law and War

    2) Remuneration (payment): Master trade, finance, and economy

    3) Gossip (ostracization): Master Moral Argument

    What Remains? Artisianship and Chivalry:

    Neither Craft nor Chivalry are means of coercion, they are necessary means of survival and care-taking. They improve the commons that Force makes possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 07:38:00 UTC

  • ITS DONE: NOW THE ONLY SOVEREIGNTY IS NUCLEAR WEAPONS Well, it’s done. Putin has

    ITS DONE: NOW THE ONLY SOVEREIGNTY IS NUCLEAR WEAPONS

    Well, it’s done. Putin has managed the west and conquered eastern Ukraine, first by direct conquest of crimea, second by organizing insurrection, supplying it, holding an election and invading it. The matter appears done. What could have been accomplished by purchase was accomplished by destruction. He is, and has proven he is, one of the most powerful men in the world.

    (Western fools, eastern fools, a world of fools.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:50:00 UTC

  • HOW DO WE OBTAIN LIBERTY? THE ANSWER IS IN TRANSACTION COSTS The answer to the q

    HOW DO WE OBTAIN LIBERTY? THE ANSWER IS IN TRANSACTION COSTS

    The answer to the question of how we obtain liberty is found in transaction costs: At what point are local transaction costs sufficiently suppressed that the remote and explicit costs of a state, no longer preferable to the local costs of everyday existence?

    You would think that this would have been OBVIOUS to a group of philosophers who depend upon economics, and lay claim to the superiority of economics as the means of achieving prosperity, and therefore upon prosperity for the justification of their arguments.

    But instead they get lost in an endless circular discussion of ‘morality’ – in a remembrance-ritual for a church that has abandoned us to universalism and mysticism.

    Whereas, morality is reducible to the evolutionary necessity of prohibiting the imposition of costs on others.

    And where transaction costs determine the demand for an authority in the form of a state to either impose an order, or to prohibit retaliation, or both.

    And where rule of law reliant upon property-en-toto, provide means of resolution of conflicts (retaliation), and therefore a reduction of demand for an authority to impose order, or prohibit retaliation – the state.

    So the only question is, how much suppression of the imposition of costs is necessary for the rational choice between transaction costs of criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial actions, and the payment to an authority that imposes order, metes punishments, and prevents retaliation?

    The answer is, that you’re going to have a society that looks a lot more like classical liberalism than one that looks like anarcho-capitalism.

    In retrospect it’s one of those things that should have been stupidly obvious.

    Apparently the appeal of justifying one’s biases is greater than the appeal of ascertaining necessary causal properties of reality.”

    Justification always rules.

    Curt Doolittle

    Liberty: The Philosophy Of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:41:00 UTC

  • GETTING THE ARGUMENT RIGHT – CONSTRUCTION OF COMMONS It is not that there is no

    GETTING THE ARGUMENT RIGHT – CONSTRUCTION OF COMMONS

    It is not that there is no common good we can know, it is that, even if we can determine a common good, the monopoly state bureaucracy cannot construct a common good without an equally or worse, damaging set of externalities – by its mere existence. If a common good is truly possible to construct, the government (a body of people negotiating a contract with one another to whom all citizens must agree), can construct it without the aid of a monopoly bureaucracy – assuming that the first common goods that have been constructed are property and rule of law – and then contract out the execution of those commons to individuals who can be fired if they fail to perform, and held accountable for those failures by restitution, punishment or even death.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 10:03:00 UTC

  • THE “RUSE” OF MORAL PRINCIPLES LIBERTY CAN ONLY EXISTS UNDER RULE OF LAW, AND TH

    THE “RUSE” OF MORAL PRINCIPLES

    LIBERTY CAN ONLY EXISTS UNDER RULE OF LAW, AND THEREFORE ONLY UNDER EXPRESSION OF GENERAL RULES EXPRESSED AS LAW.

    The only question is the scope of permissible law: the range of property humans intuit to aspire to acquire, that the community agrees to organize and apply violence to defend. And that which we are willing to defend depends entirely upon the marginal indifference of our political needs. Which is why diverse polities have lower trust and higher demand for more authoritarian intervention, and more homogenous polities have higher trust and less demand for authoritarian interventions.

    So no, despite the attempted distraction via overloading and framing of libertines, a ‘moral principle’ is just a deceptive argument, and a ‘guiding principle’ is just a ruse – a justification for not solving the very hard problem: of that which we consider to be property by our actions, and that which we are willing to enforce with our actions.

    Everything else is just an elaborate deception or convenient justification. In the cast of libertines, it’s an excuse to intentionally conflate libertinism with libertarianism. And worse, it’s an attempt to forbid the law from use as a means of retaliating against free riding, imposed costs, and involuntary transfers (all synonyms), each of which makes cooperation irrational.

    So the purpose of libertinism is to use a moral principle as a ruse to define a limit to the law, that specifically licenses free riding, imposed costs, and involuntary transfers – the labels we use for these thefts include unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – by prohibiting both physical and legal retaliation for them.

    Worse, since the western competitive advantage is our ability to construct commons free of privatization, including the commons of property rights themselves, libertinism is an well designed attack on our ability to produce commons, and therefore our reproductive and competitive evolutionary strategy. Libertinism is as genocidal for the west as is the Cathedral’s democratic secular socialist humanism’s universalism.

    And I use the term “justification” as a synonym for self-deception – and yes, it is possible for our genes intuitions to deceive our consciousness through overloading. Just as it is possible for others to deceive us through loading, framing then overloading. That is why religions work in the construction belief despite overwhelming experiential evidence. Unconscious selection bias exists and is testable. Suggestion exists and is testable. There is no reason why evolution would favor a superiority of reason over intuition. That would a losing proposition.

    The only question is, what scope of suppression of involuntary transfers (imposed costs/free riding) is necessary for liberty to be rationally preferable over a state that imposed universal rules? The answer is to the rational question is found in transaction costs. At what point are local transaction costs sufficiently suppressed that the remote explicit costs of a state are no longer preferable?

    The moral ruse has harmed the course of liberty. Thankfully, the question, reframed as transaction costs, and rational choice, necessary to eliminate demand for the state, can restore the course of liberty.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 06:55:00 UTC

  • MODERN WARFARE The military threat to states, and to societies, is no longer mec

    MODERN WARFARE

    The military threat to states, and to societies, is no longer mechanized weaponry invasion, but population invasion, insurrection invasion, and ideological invasion.

    Once we have nuclear weapons, military invasion is too costly.

    I’ve been studying this problem for quite a few years, and the muslims have demonstrated that they are applying the most advanced military strategy possible: population, insurrection, and ideology as ‘combined arms’.

    Its cheaper, more effective and economically difficult to resist.

    Russia has not conquered Ukraine with tanks, but with insurrection, propaganda, and population.

    This is the superior strategy for conquest in the post-nuclear era.

    The only solution is to re-nationalize liberalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 06:06:00 UTC

  • Kristina Protsenko and Roman Skaskiw I have not been following closely enough. C

    Kristina Protsenko and Roman Skaskiw

    I have not been following closely enough. Can you tell me what’s going on in the East? Especially that Putin was just voted most powerful man in the world yet again by one of the publishers?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 02:57:00 UTC