Theme: Predation

  • “Parasitism robs everyone of Liberty. Let’s see if Rothbardians are at ease with

    —“Parasitism robs everyone of Liberty. Let’s see if Rothbardians are at ease with this. :)”— Jorge Alfredo Olortegui Oneeglio


    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-19 06:03:00 UTC

  • MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART 1 As mother, you do not have the moral justification

    MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART 1

    As mother, you do not have the moral justification to kill your offspring unless your offspring will kill you – all other arguments are illogical.

    You certainly CAN kill your offspring for other reasons, just as I can kill you for other reasons, or you can kill anyone else for other reasons.

    Now, you might say that killing is pragmatic. And I have no problem with killing. But you cannot deceive others by obscurant argument that you are not killing. You are in fact, killing.

    As for Parasitism: a child is not parasitic for the simple reason that it is an offspring (kin). You acted to create the child. It is the reason that you exist.

    As for taboos: the purpose of traditional taboos is moral and logical: you should take all precautions possible so that you kill as infrequently as possible.

    But that said, we should preserve the stigma that one is killing, precisely because one is in fact, killing. Murder is murder. Whether we choose to prosecute murderers is a matter of willingness. But our willingness to prosecute murderers is a choice, while the act of murder is a fact.

    I have no problem with killing. I argue that we need to do a LOT of killing at present. But I have a problem with deceit. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of killing the unborn and not killing the repeated violent offenders.

    But then, that’s feminism’s deceit at play: (a) women are victims and devoid of responsibility for their actions, and (b) women are fully capable of military participation, and membership in the special forces. OR (a) abortion is a woman’s right, and (b) we cannot raise animals for fur. OR (a) abortion isn’t murder, and (b) women’s almost universal insistence that their children are good, and (c) women’s almost universal defense of their criminal and murderous offspring.

    All speech is justification. The question is only whether we justify moral or immoral action. And moral action is that which does not break the contract for cooperation. And the contract for cooperation is one in which we do not impose costs upon others.

    **So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.** )

    The parasitic argument cannot hold, since demonstrated feminist behavior in all walks of personal and political life, is parasitic.

    While I could write an entire book on the subject, using thousands of similar examples, as far as I know the last sentence: ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.*** is the final word on the matter.

    Unpleasant truths are unpleasant truths.

    THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARGUMENT: SPEAK TRUTH.

    I am not making such a grand argument really. There is nothing of moral equivalency about it. Instead, it’s a very simple, but profoundly important argument: “BE TRUTHFUL”.

    If moral discussions appear complicated, or paradoxical, then falsehoods are contained in the propositions.

    Just as mothers must discipline children, men must discipline men. Violence occurs when the accumulated incentives are insufficient to discipline men. Violence also occurs when incentives outweight costs. (Crimea/Donbas, Kuwait, Hungary).

    But deception, is just deception, and makes rational resolution of differences impossible. That is why this debate is interesting. It is very simple. It is not a moral question. It is not a question between mother and child. It is a question of what we will tolerate from one another while still maintaining cooperation.Political order being our most complex form of cooperation.

    Feminism, like its male counterpart socialism, is an elaborate verbal game of loading and framing in order to use guilt to obscure and justify parasitism. And democracy is merely a slow road to socialism: parasitism.

    S THE ONLY MORAL GOOD IS TRUTHFUL, FULLY INFORMED, VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE IN THE ABSENCE OF PARASITISM

    The only common good is not a singular, monopoly optimum, but voluntary exchange (cooperation) in the absence of parasitism(non-cooperation) for the purpose of constructing commons.

    All majority-rule mandates are lost opportunities for voluntary and mutually beneficial cooperation. ie: theft.

    Curt

    PS: You should read these posts as follow-up.

    1) MURDERING THE UNBORN — PART II

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10153259110292264

    2) HONESTY, TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUTH (PART III)

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10153259239887264

    3) WE MAY NOT CHOOSE TO PUNISH MURDER. BUT ITS AN ACT OF MURDER. (PRELUDE)

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10153255381997264

    (Note: Moral rules are justificationary because they are contractual. Conversely, the search for truth is critical).


    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-19 03:25:00 UTC

  • THE POSTMODERN AND FEMINIST LIARS FOR WHAT THEY ARE: PARASITES The technique we

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacquishine/its-a-shameSHAMING THE POSTMODERN AND FEMINIST LIARS FOR WHAT THEY ARE: PARASITES

    The technique we call Shaming (which is the public use of gossip), evolved (like gossip), as a means of controlling alphas by rallying support from many in order to limit the few.

    Gossip is one of the three possible means of social coercion:

    (1) Violence (murder, harm, loss, deprivation, threat),

    (2) Remuneration (credit, gift, payment or exchange, promise), and

    (3) Gossip (compliment, criticism, guilting, shaming, rallying, and ostracization).

    Whether Gossip, Violence or Remuneration is used, is immaterial. Gossip, Violence, and Remuneration are neutral actions. The questions are only (a) whether gossip, violence or remuneration are used to stop or prevent parasitism, or whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are used to create parasitism. And (b) whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are performed truthfully or dishonestly.

    The uncomfortable truth is that all advancement in civilization has been the result of the construction of private and semi-private (group commons) property. And that individuals have NOT BEEN OPPRESSED, but that they reproduce without the ability to support themselves, in an attempt to parasitically reproduce at the expense of others.

    In large part, the majority in the middle and upper middle classes, seek to prevent parasitism by the political elites, and seek to prevent parasitism by the lower classes who are insufficiently productive to maintain themselves – especially as technological innovation advances.

    So the feminist narrative that the author Jacqui Shine attempts to use as yet another form of shaming, is itself a deceit: she says people are oppressed when in fact they and their parents are parasites. She says the struggle throughout history was not Malthusian, but against oppression. Neither of which is true. So this entire argument is an immoral, parasitic attempt to justify the desire of women to reproduce parasitically without demonstrating that they are worthy of reproduction.

    That is the scientific and economic analysis. The moral analysis is that Jacqui’s argument is an immoral one. The logical and economic argument is that she engages in fraud as an attempt to obscure theft. And that this fraud is perpetrated by an obscurant deceit. And that she uses rallying and shaming to obscure this deceit.

    Those are the facts.

    Now, the question is, why do we not shame liars in all their parasitic forms?

    Of which Postmodernists, and Feminists are the most expert perpetrators. j

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 07:39:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM’S IMPROVEMENT OF SHAKESPEARE “Love all, trust a few,

    ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM’S IMPROVEMENT OF SHAKESPEARE

    “Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none. Punish the wicked, defeat aggressors, and kill the evil. Only free riders turn the other cheek. Nobility pays the cost of creating good.”

    “Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.”

    — William Shakespeare (All’s Well That Ends Well)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-29 14:11:00 UTC

  • I agree to cooperate, even if it is to my detriment, as long as cooperation does

    I agree to cooperate, even if it is to my detriment, as long as cooperation does not devolve into justification for parasitism.

    The moment that we are no longer cooperating, but you are engaging in parasitism, and particularly when the state is engaging in parasitism, then I no longer agree to cooperate.

    But what does that mean? “I no longer agree to cooperate?” It can only mean two things.

    The first, is that I boycott opportunities for cooperation. The second is that I return to predation.

    Boycott is the only choice available to the weak.

    Predation is the choice available to the strong.

    My name is legion. We are many. And we are strong.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-21 03:08:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS MORALITY? (from elsewhere) Cooperation is extremely beneficial. As we ev

    WHAT IS MORALITY?

    (from elsewhere)

    Cooperation is extremely beneficial. As we evolved cooperation, we evolve instincts to prefer it. But Cooperation opens the door to parasitism, which negates the value of cooperation. So we evolved moral instincts that inform us to punish parasites and parasitism. In economics this parasitism is referred to more gently as ‘free riding’.

    That which is moral is that which is productive non-parasitic, and provides incentives to cooperate. That which is immoral is that which is unproductive, parasitic, and reduces incentives for cooperation.

    Most groups develop tolerances for, and reward for, mutual insurance. Insurance is not parasitic as long as it is not a form of dependency. Tolerance for paying this insurance normally decreases with kinship distance. Few cultures develop insurance regardless of kinship difference.

    Westerners were successful in both outbreeding (eliminating cousin marriage), and in generating widespread trade. And western culture for ancient reasons, uniquely favors truth-telling. The (protestant) west developed high trust, breaking the kinship barrier to insurance.

    So the (protestant) west was able to (in *fact*) produce the most moral society: the greatest restraint of parasitism, and therefore by consequence, the greatest economic output by systematically suppressing all free riding (parasitism).

    Whereupon, as a result of political inclusion during the enlightenment, the marxists, socialists and feminists via the novelty of democracy, systematically worked to use their newfound influence in government to circumvent the suppression of parasitism, and they institutionalized parasitism via the state – despite it’s eradication from institutionalization in norms.

    As limits to parasitism, and the fragility of parasitism , and the accumulated malincentives of parasitism became visible, the western state evolved however, into a vast insurance company. And the general principle it operates by is Rawlsian: “produce the greatest parasitism that does not kill the incentives of the host”.

    The question is, whether this general rule produces a society that is sustainable or not. Progressives advance it because they have faith in technology, conservatives resist it because they have little faith in the nature of man.

    Conservatives are correct in their understanding of man. Progressives correct in the (temporary) benefit of tolerating parasitism.

    But, the American experience as misinformed the world: the sale of cheap land is our equivalent of the ‘curse of oil’.

    The oil producers do not evolve advanced economies because of the malincenives of oil. Westerners destroy their high trust society because of the malincentives of selling cheap land to immigrating members of low trust societies without forcibly indoctrinating them into high trust western cultural norms.

    We are only as moral as we can get away with avoiding. Morality evolved AFTER self interest. And most of us seek parasitism wherever possible, whenever we will not be punished for it.

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-21 02:21:00 UTC

  • Progressivism as algorithm: what is the greatest amount of parasitism that does

    Progressivism as algorithm: what is the greatest amount of parasitism that does not kill the host?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-20 04:58:00 UTC

  • KILL THE HOST AND THE DISEASE WILL DIE

    KILL THE HOST AND THE DISEASE WILL DIE


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-06 02:28:00 UTC

  • Gold Diggers are the Wife Beaters of Men

    Gold Diggers are the Wife Beaters of Men.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gaYyNk7QA


    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-28 10:35:00 UTC

  • I want to create a national progressive registry. So we know who to kill

    I want to create a national progressive registry.

    So we know who to kill.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-24 10:21:00 UTC