Curt Doolittle

Theme: Predation

  • The Evolution of Suppression of Free Riding

    [E]volution:

    1) Higher Income reduces opportunity costs and risk (liberalism). Lower income increases opportunity cost and risk(conservatism).

    2) Economic velocity is produced by the centralization of rents, which lowers local (productive) transaction costs at the expense of high total cost (taxation).

    3) Once rents are centralized, we seek to obtain or privatize (redistribute) those rents (economic liberalism) through enfranchisement.

    4) In a perfect world we seek to eliminate those rents (anglo classical liberalism).

    5) But the diversity of ability leads to class warfare since meritocracy is valuable only to a minority, and rents, and parasitismare beneficial to the majority..

    6) In a perfect world we pay the less able, parasitic, and rent seeking minority directly for the maintenance of the meritocratic commons, and thereby circumvent the parasitism of the bureaucratic, and political classes. And perhaps more importantly, prevent the misallocation of capital.

    7) To accomplish this perfect world requires we develop institutions that allow us to produce commons, and pay people for producing those commons: meritocracy included.

    GRAPH

    X-Axis: Equalitarian/Socialist-Compromise/Social Democracy – Meritocratic/Classical Liberal Monarchy.
    Y-Axis: Totalitarian- Democratic – Anarchic
    Z-Axis: Wealth (elimination of transaction costs by the suppression of free riding)

    Suppression of parasitism comes first. Centralize it to eliminate it locally. Then outlaw it, and eliminate it from the central bureaucracy. Economic velocity is determined by the suppression of free riding in all its forms at all levels in the polity.

    (Read Emmanuel Todd’s Invention of Europe. Ricardo Duchsene’s Uniqueness of the West, Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty, Hoppe’s Democracy the God that Failed, and follow my humble efforts.)

    Cheers

  • Capitalism and the Capitalist System?

    [A]ll Social, economic and political orders require: 

    (1) The suppression of predation and parasitism,
    (2) the establishment of an allocation of property,
    (3) a construction of a means of resolving disputes, and;
    (4) a means by of organization of production.

    Totalitarian: It can be organized involuntarily: the elimination of private property, planning and slavery in many of its forms.

    Capitalist: It can be organized voluntarily by the use of private property, money, and prices.

    Mixed: It can be organized by a mix of private property, money, and prices, and the totalitarian construction of commons. (Which is what we do today). 


    A market forms under any condition in which goods are constructed for the purpose of exchange. 

  • Capitalism and the Capitalist System?

    [A]ll Social, economic and political orders require: 

    (1) The suppression of predation and parasitism,
    (2) the establishment of an allocation of property,
    (3) a construction of a means of resolving disputes, and;
    (4) a means by of organization of production.

    Totalitarian: It can be organized involuntarily: the elimination of private property, planning and slavery in many of its forms.

    Capitalist: It can be organized voluntarily by the use of private property, money, and prices.

    Mixed: It can be organized by a mix of private property, money, and prices, and the totalitarian construction of commons. (Which is what we do today). 


    A market forms under any condition in which goods are constructed for the purpose of exchange. 

  • suppression of predation and parasitism, the establishment of an allocation of p

    http://www.quora.com/What-is-capitalism-and-capitalist-system-market/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1The suppression of predation and parasitism, the establishment of an allocation of property, a means of resolving disputes, and the organization of production must be constructed.

    Totalitarian: It can be organized involuntarily: the elimination of private property, planning and slavery in many of its forms.

    Capitalist: It can be organized voluntarily by the use of private property, money, and prices.

    Mixed: It can be organized by a mix of private property, money, and prices, and the totalitarian construction of commons. (Which is what we do today).

    A market forms under any condition in which goods are constructed for the purpose of exchange.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 11:01:00 UTC

  • What Is Capitalism?

    The suppression of predation and parasitism, the establishment of an allocation of property,  a means of resolving disputes, and the organization of production must be constructed.
    1. Totalitarian: It can be organized involuntarily: the elimination of private property, planning and slavery in many of its forms.
    2. Capitalist: It can be organized voluntarily by the use of private property, money, and prices.
    3. Mixed: It can be organized by a mix of private property, money, and prices, and the totalitarian construction of commons.  (Which is what we do today). 
    A market forms under any condition in which goods are constructed for the purpose of exchange.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-capitalism

  • What Is Capitalism?

    The suppression of predation and parasitism, the establishment of an allocation of property,  a means of resolving disputes, and the organization of production must be constructed.
    1. Totalitarian: It can be organized involuntarily: the elimination of private property, planning and slavery in many of its forms.
    2. Capitalist: It can be organized voluntarily by the use of private property, money, and prices.
    3. Mixed: It can be organized by a mix of private property, money, and prices, and the totalitarian construction of commons.  (Which is what we do today). 
    A market forms under any condition in which goods are constructed for the purpose of exchange.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-capitalism

  • The only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny. They only means

    The only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny. They only means of constructing property is to raise the cost of parasitism.

    We can raise costs by a) gossip – meaning shaming, b) economic ostracization – meaning boycott, and c) violence.

    a) does not work for obvious reasons – the incentives to act as a parasite are superior under redistributive government. b) does not work, since we are actively prohibited by law from ostracization and separatism.

    Therefore (c) violence, is our only choice. Since even with small numbers we can dramatically raise the cost of parasitism upon us, and the destruction of our family and civilization.

    Thankfully, at no time in human history, save perhaps during the sea people’s period, has civilizatino been so fragile.

    It is the easiest period in which we can restore our liberty.

    or lose it forever.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-03 04:58:00 UTC

  • LONG IS WRONG: ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM CAN BE DISMISSED – AND BECAUSE IT IS IRRA

    http://c4ss.org/content/37046ROD LONG IS WRONG: ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM CAN BE DISMISSED – AND BECAUSE IT IS IRRATIONAL, AND AN IMMORAL JUSTIFICATION OF PARASITISM

    The argument against the NAP is that it is irrational for one to engage in cooperation, and therefore respect property rights – which themselves are the terms of cooperation – unless the suppression of aggression against one includes the total prohibition of aggression against all that I have paid for with non-aggressive actions.

    NAP, under intersubjectively verifiable property preserves all forms of deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking while prohibiting retaliation for deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking. And it is non-rational to engage in cooperation, and therefore respect for property of *any* kind, while deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking (in fact, all acts of aggression against that which one has non-aggressively acted to obtain) are not prohibited by the agreement to cooperate.

    Why this entirely irrational Rothbardian justification we call the NAP under intersubjectively verifiable property (physical things) has survived is almost inconceivable until we recognize loading, framing, overloading, suggestion and cognitive biases plague both our arguments and our evaluation of them. And the fact that the argument itself persists, despite its irrationality, is in itself evidence of the necessity of prohibiting aggression through loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion.

    For anarchic property rights to come into existence they can only exist as a mutual prohibition on aggression against all one has obtained through non-aggression.

    The American people have staked an electoral signage at every election booth: “NO GHETTO ETHICS WANTED”

    Liberty always has been, and only can be, the result of a total prohibition on aggression against all that one has obtained without aggression, the requirement for truthful speech, a requirement for warranty of one’s speech, and the requirement that we profit only from contribution to productivity.

    These are the minimum criterion under which cooperation is rational and the common organic, polycentric law is sufficient in scope to provide a means for the resolution of differences that demand for the state is eliminated.

    As far as I know this is the end of the argument and Rothbardian ethics, and the NAP under intersubjectively verifiable property is a closed issue left open only as a desperate appeal by those with no new solution to the problem of the practical achievement of liberty.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 03:37:00 UTC

  • EXAMPLE OF ROTHBARDIAN IMMORALITY: ROTHBARDIAN RENT SEEKING Under human moral in

    EXAMPLE OF ROTHBARDIAN IMMORALITY: ROTHBARDIAN RENT SEEKING

    Under human moral intuition, and therefore under Propertarianism, one cannot seek rents (engage in parasitism). Any profit must be obtained through an increase in productivity. That is because cooperation is irrational otherwise. And because property rights are the result of cooperation (not a natural law, not a gift of god, not a natural right, or any other such attempt at deception.)

    As such, ***unproductive profit is theft that is committed by the collection of economic rents on the institution of private property***. In other words, telcos can charge by volume but not by content. That is rent seeking. The same for roads: one could charge by weight(wear and tear), but not by content. One might not permit explosives, but he cannot charge by content.

    This is the very opposite of the Rothbardian attempt to justify parasitism while outlawing retaliation. Because Rothbard’s NAP is an attempt to do just that: preserve parasitism, preserve deceit, and dismiss the requirement for productivity, and to deny retaliation for parasitism and deceit.

    ERIK FAIR ON NET NEUTRALITY

    –“For a very long time during early History of the Internet, the Internet Service Providers (ISP) were not the telephone companies – they were independent businesses buying fixed-price leased lines from the TelCos, and they passed on that pricing structure: no usage (byte) charges.

    But that’s not very profitable. So now that the TelCos are the ISPs, they want to use their Duopoly position & pricing power to extract economic rents by charging by the byte, and (if the can) charging by the value of each byte. It’s rape of the customer.

    So the currently “free” Instant Messaging (IM) and Social Networks might actually cost you extra to access from your ISP, independent of anything you might be paying WhatsApp, or Facebook (if anything).

    The proper Economic Policy is to divorce Internet Infrastructure (carriage of bits) from applications/protocols (what those bits mean and how they are potentially valued), i.e. AT&T should not be allowed to own Netflix. Further, we need to bring back “unbundling of the local loop”, i.e. you should be able to buy Internet service from multiple ISPs atop the exact same wires, fibres, or coax, so that we have real competition there once again, and the owners/operators of that wire, fiber, or coax must be required to charge exactly the same price per bandwidth to all comers atop their infrastructure.”– Erik Fair (Quora)

    Rothbard was no less of an advocate for parasitism than was Marx.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 03:09:00 UTC

  • MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART II —“who is the parasite, the mother or the fetus?

    MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART II

    —“who is the parasite, the mother or the fetus?”—

    The mother parasitically consumes the life of the child killed.

    The mother parasitically imposes costs on society if she is not capable of provision.

    The only non violation of the prohibition in parasitism that we call morality is to bear, and support a child.

    As such the entire feminist movement other than property rights rendering all equal under the law is an immoral deceit for the single purpose of escaping resposubikity for her inability to control her impulsesu. Just as the entire penal system exists to punish men who act parasitically, the moral code, property rights and family structure evolved to prevent women from engaging in parasitism.

    The manorial system and our prudish morality existed largely to prevent reproduction by immoral women who would then subject the rest of us to moral hazard – in other words, bearing a child one cannot support is a form of entrapment. A deceit. A fraud. A theft.

    Women need oppressing in reproduction since they use parasitism as a reproductive strategy.

    The west evolved faster because we supprssed our underclasses from reproducing.

    Women have used democracy to reinstitute parasitism as the primary means of reproductive strategy.

    The historical narrative is one of demonic males. But the equally obvious historical narrative is parasitic females.

    This is profound. It is quite the opposite of the anglo enlightenment argument that has failed under democracy.

    It is quite the opposite of the feminist narrative.

    The operational narrative is that man rose out of barbarism by controlling the reproduction of parasitic females through the institutions of family and property rights.

    And socialism(male) and feminism(female) is just another attempt to regress into dysgenic reoroducion.

    The conflict is not between classes but between eugenic and dysgenic reproduction.

    Marx was not only wrong, he was a justificationary fraud.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 03:38:00 UTC