Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Only negative freedoms can exist – both logically, operationally, and empiricall

    Only negative freedoms can exist – both logically, operationally, and empirically. What you mean is you want the privilege of theft from men.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-18 13:40:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163083223242596352

    Reply addressees: @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163082996360126467

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux You mean, they promote methods of theft from men to women. Why do you cover thefts, rent seeking, pseudoscience, sophism and lies instead of engaging in exchange? What do you have to offer such them men should not remove the thefts you impose upon them?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1163082996360126467

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux You mean, they promote methods of theft from men to women. Why do you cover thefts, rent seeking, pseudoscience, sophism and lies instead of engaging in exchange? What do you have to offer such them men should not remove the thefts you impose upon them?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1163082996360126467

  • You mean, they promote methods of theft from men to women. Why do you cover thef

    You mean, they promote methods of theft from men to women. Why do you cover thefts, rent seeking, pseudoscience, sophism and lies instead of engaging in exchange? What do you have to offer such them men should not remove the thefts you impose upon them?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-18 13:39:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163082996360126467

    Reply addressees: @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163045608149663744

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163045608149663744

  • The future is south africa. Where leftists kill every white person they can find

    The future is south africa.
    Where leftists kill every white person they can find.
    And then make up justifications for the redistribution of everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 18:55:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162800162336649217

    Reply addressees: @sabanaut @TIME

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162641037808025600

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162641037808025600

  • ( … more) There are limits to the scope of private property. Property is neces

    ( … more)

    There are limits to the scope of private property. Property is necessary because of the limits of people’s knowledge in time. However, there are points at which certain forms of private property deny service to consumers, (such as misuse of intellectual property rights) and therefore it is theft from consumers. Why? Because consumers forgo the opportunity for violence, and in doing so pay for the cost of creating that private property. So denying the market a good in order to increase prices and profits is a theft of the costs paid by consumers to create the opportunity for private property. So the limits to private property come from artificial scarcity (denying a good to market), whereas reinforcement of private property comes from the

    There are limits to the scope of public property, because there are limits to the amount of knowledge that can exist in any person’s mind, and limits to decision making among groups of individuals, and distortionary effects (basically, perceived risk reduction, limited by the amount of knowledge of the largest population able to exercise it’s will) and the rapidity of timely action, and because of the limits of timely action, limitations on the opportunity cost for the group. ie: increases in private property are an opportunity cost reduction for a group.

    The purpose of the union movement is to allow the populists to use threats against the capitalists, without fear that the capitalists can respond in kind, and thereby allow government to profit from intermediation, thereby forming an alliance between the unions and the state, regulated only by the long term (and therefore easily imperceptible) impact of their intervention on tax revenues.

    Violence should not be eliminated from our discourse. It is a ruse. Starting with a principle of non violence is and always shall be a ruse.

    The fact is, that ALL movements that presume non-violence are attempts at theft of the cost needed to create private property.

    Costs are the only means of honest political dialog. Both direct costs and opportunity costs.

    The Principle of Non-violence is fraud.

    Plain and simple.

    Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 19:50:50 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102628396190935050

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102628393880515362

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    The Threat Of Revolt, The General Strike, And The Myth Of Non-Violence 28 Monday Dec 2009 Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized ≈ Leave a comment A tactic used by the vocal left is the threat of violence, or revolt if their needs are not met. The tactic of revolt is ancient. This modern version of revolt is a product of The Myth Of The General Strike. (I am referring to Burnham’s treatment) The contemporary version is the Economic Armageddon and Political Upheaval of the classes. The opposing argument is the libertarian argument for private property, and private capitalism, and the Randian version of Atlas shrugging. Both of these are myths of the general strike. The argument, or myth in any of it’s versions, is disingenuous. Workers will eventually relent, be replaced, or the businesses close. Entrepreneurs will be replaced by others. It is the state who would suffer it’s loss of legitimacy in the event of failure. But a new group would take over in government, and life would go on. An analysis of history tells us that it is much easier for the minority with wealth to pay another minority to violently oppress the peasantry, and to obtain their compliance going forward with commercial incentives and rewards, than it is for a peasantry to organize a movement of a general strike. In fact, the government conducts all general strikes, because without government suport and threats of government violence on business people, they would largely be irrelevant. When a ruling class loses it’s will for violence, the society loses it’s binding mythology. It simply opens it’s ranks for a different group to take over the ruling class, and redefine the existing network-map of property rights, and the dispensation of them. However, provided that the ranks of the elite are open to absorb those ambitous people from all classes, and the elite retain sufficient willingness to use violence, the myth of the revolt is specious. Because people simply need leaders in order to revolt. Before an elite allows itself to be displaced, it commits fraud. They verbally ally themselves with ‘the people’. All societies determine the scope of private and group property differently. (more…)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102628393880515362

  • ( … ) Militial participation requires no more than the personal use of violenc

    ( … )

    Militial participation requires no more than the personal use of violence to protect property rights. The use of the militia is to create and preserve property rights. The use of judges is to resolve conflicts without violence. The use of democratic government is not to create laws, but to create physical commons. The use of public intellectuals, is to carry on the public debate over which commons we may choose to invest in, and which not. The use of ‘religion’ and literature is to teach us these necessary and immutable laws of human cooperation so that we never forget them – and by forgetting them lose our freedom.

    You cannot obtain the right of private property at a discount. It is an extremely costly right to possess. It is an extremely costly right to maintain. Those who attempt to gain freedom – property – at a discount, will obtain an inferior product to those who pay for a better one. And the only currency of freedom -property – is violence.

    Be armed. Be willing. Be vigilant. And Act.

    —–
    Curt Doolittle
    Kiev, 2013
    “Putting violence back into liberty one sentence at a time.”

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 11:04:36 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102626326990301651

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102626324305161814

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE by CURT DOOLITTLE on SEPTEMBER 7, 2013 THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY: THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE I (we) may not be able to coerce you into accepting freedom – individual monopoly of control over property obtained by voluntary exchange production or homesteading – as a superior form of cooperation to all other forms of cooperation. But you may not coerce me (us) into abandoning freedom as our preferred, committed, required, demanded and threatened form of cooperation. THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY IS VIOLENCE The source of property is the use of violence to create, obtain, and protect it. Only those who performed militial service created private property. Only those who performed militial service obtained private property. Only those who perform militial service will keep private property. A militia is a voluntary alliance of property owners whose common interest is the preservation of private property rights. A militia is not the same as an army, any more than freedom is the same as liberty. You create freedom by using violence. You request or desire liberty from someone else. The purpose of a libertarian government is to create private property through the organized application of violence to create it. And libertarian pacifists and moralists are in fact the reason we are losing it. VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE. Violence is a virtue not a vice. If all rights are property rights. If property defines morality, then violence to create property is the first moral action upon which all other morality rests. We should encourage the mastery of violence in all men at all times, and the exercise of violence by all men at all times, in the defense of property rights, the highest form of morality that a man can display. Because by acts of violence to preserve property he pays the highest contribution to morality possible. Defense of property does not require words. It requires actions. FREEDOM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH MILITIA The only free people are, and must be, a people whose government is a militia, and whose resolution of disputes over property is decided by judges using the single rule of private property as their criteria for adjudication. A militia is synonymous with enfranchisement. No one else has paid for his or her right of property. They merely free ride on the expenses of others. Therefore, political democracy is synonymous with militial participation. No other meaning is possible. All other attributions are acts of theft by fraud. ( … )

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102626324305161814

  • THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE by CURT DOOLITTLE on SE

    THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE
    by CURT DOOLITTLE on SEPTEMBER 7, 2013

    THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY: THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE

    I (we) may not be able to coerce you into accepting freedom – individual monopoly of control over property obtained by voluntary exchange production or homesteading – as a superior form of cooperation to all other forms of cooperation. But you may not coerce me (us) into abandoning freedom as our preferred, committed, required, demanded and threatened form of cooperation.

    THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY IS VIOLENCE

    The source of property is the use of violence to create, obtain, and protect it.
    Only those who performed militial service created private property.
    Only those who performed militial service obtained private property.
    Only those who perform militial service will keep private property.

    A militia is a voluntary alliance of property owners whose common interest is the preservation of private property rights. A militia is not the same as an army, any more than freedom is the same as liberty. You create freedom by using violence. You request or desire liberty from someone else.

    The purpose of a libertarian government is to create private property through the organized application of violence to create it. And libertarian pacifists and moralists are in fact the reason we are losing it.

    VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE.
    Violence is a virtue not a vice. If all rights are property rights. If property defines morality, then violence to create property is the first moral action upon which all other morality rests.

    We should encourage the mastery of violence in all men at all times, and the exercise of violence by all men at all times, in the defense of property rights, the highest form of morality that a man can display.

    Because by acts of violence to preserve property he pays the highest contribution to morality possible.

    Defense of property does not require words. It requires actions.

    FREEDOM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH MILITIA
    The only free people are, and must be, a people whose government is a militia, and whose resolution of disputes over property is decided by judges using the single rule of private property as their criteria for adjudication. A militia is synonymous with enfranchisement. No one else has paid for his or her right of property. They merely free ride on the expenses of others.

    Therefore, political democracy is synonymous with militial participation. No other meaning is possible. All other attributions are acts of theft by fraud.

    ( … )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 11:03:55 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102626324305161814

  • **A CATALOGUE OF ERRORS, AND AN AVALANCHE IN BANKING** From April 18th, 2009 1 –

    **A CATALOGUE OF ERRORS, AND AN AVALANCHE IN BANKING**

    From April 18th, 2009

    1 – PHILOSOPHICAL ERRORS

    Knowledge of property and its use does NOT SCALE. The reason we have property is so that we can break the world into comprehensible and known components that we can use to cooperate with each other by exchange and therefore specialize and increase production. This is the most important principle: Knowledge of property cannot scale and the stability of any price, including any collateral, is an illusion. There is no numeric or formulative substitute for personal human knowledge of economic activity. None. Period, end of story.

    2 – FINANCIAL ERRORS

    Risk is not measurable AT SCALE, because we cannot measure the unknown, nor can we predict large corrections. In other words, risks cannot be summed if they make use of prices.

    Priced collateral is not meaningful in a world of credit money, which at every moment invalidates any price.

    We should seek to maximize opportunities at lowest cost, not maximize interest at minimum risk.

    Banking is a knowledge problem, not a mathematical problem. Personal knowledge of property is required for forecasting its future value. This is because the categories that determine cause and effect change constantly.

    We need to “definancialize”1 savings and retirement, because there are no means of forecasting such things over time, and any assumption of perpetual growth is a fantasy.

    3 – EDUCATIONAL ERRORS

    Our education system seeks to treat finance, economics, and sociology as disciplines open to quantitative analysis in order to establish rules, rather than the virtue of collected history and wisdom, and a record of the quantitative analysis and expressed rules as a history that is constantly open to interpretation.

    Our education system seeks to teach people formulae which are invalid so that they can avoid collecting accumulated wisdom, rather than seeking to endow them with accumulated wisdom and the analytical tools to interpret currently collected data for comparison to accumulated wisdom. Educators make this mistake in order to simplify the job of TESTING students, who, if subjected to tests of accumulated wisdom rather than technical expression, would fare far worse, and consume much more of the educator’s time.

    Our education system seeks to confer on social science the same argumentative weight as physical science, confusing the fact that in physical science we discover something that exists already. In social science we manufacture the future, and there is nothing to be discovered, only created.

    4 – POLITICAL ERRORS

    Our political system seeks to replace governance by means of religious conformity with governance by economic efficiency so as to justif the accumulation of power in order to advance the interests of groups, and to do so when economic efficiency is impossible to determine and risk is impossible to measure. It does this instead of increasing the rate of production and a seizing and exploiting every possible opportunity for every individual independent of his class or group membership, which would allow all groups to benefit by the success of other groups by the use of credit, rather than for some groups to profit at the expense of others by privatizing wins and socializing losses.

    Our political system seeks to pit groups against each other by the use of laws, and allows politicians to hold themselves unaccountable for production by the use of taxes (which are a penalty for productivity), and to tax people according to income so that they can keep them servants of the state, rather than facilitating group cooperation by the use of credit, holding themselves accountable by funding the state by the collection of interest, and taxing citizens by their balance sheets so that they can become independent of the state.

    Some classes in society use banking, credit, and interest to socialize losses and privatize wins, using fiat and credit money that is paid for by all, but rewards that are collected by few. This does decrease prices for all. But it also creates class warfare.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 09:26:00 UTC

  • **ANOTHER ROUND ON PAPARAZZI** April 21st, 2010 to Peter Surda April 21, 2010 at

    **ANOTHER ROUND ON PAPARAZZI**

    April 21st, 2010

    to Peter Surda April 21, 2010 at 2:35 am

    However, it is still a person’s asset, regardless of price, because people ACT as if it is an asset, and that asset has material value to individuals, which we can determine by surveying the ACTIONS that people take, businesses take, regarding their reputation

    But this is valid with regard to anything, not only reputation. This does not help define property, it confuses. Any change has a negative effect on someone. Does that mean that any action whatsoever is a property right violation?

    This is one of the reasons why I reject the notion of immaterial trespass. Instead, I humbly propose that only those immaterial negative effects that are defined in contracts are to be prosecuted (i.e. contract violations).

    Furthermore…

    Property is a claim on an opportunity to make use of any object, material or abstract, upon which men can act.

    It is not necessary to own immaterial goods to make use of them, therefore from the existence of an opportunity you cannot imply ownership. As I said before, with immaterial goods, anything causally related is “making use of”.

    We can create representations of abstracts, can’t we? We’ve created plenty of them. I can stake a claim on land. I can form an abstract entity called a joint stock corporation, and then sell shares. I can marry someone and get a marriage certificate. I can get a receipt for a deposit. I can sign a contract. I can buy an option. I can wager a bet.

    Why can’t I stake a claim on a formulae? Or a brand or trademark? Or a design or patent? Simply because they require uniqueness against a broader pool of people, because are treated as first-come first-serve exclusivity, rather than an auction model, and because the market cannot expand to provide better and more accurate service than does the state.

    These registries try to prevent copying and bypassing investment (theft) rather than parallel innovation, which is in the market interest.

    Under the Hoppian property scheme land registries are maintained and protected by insurance companies and private firms instead of the state. But to limit the scope of property is to limit the competitive ability of groups to compete against other groups. The problem is that the government owns the registry and terms by which abstracts are registered, while denying the purpose for which we enact the registry: to encourage capital investment so that goods and services can be rapidly brought to market at lower risk rather than through direct subsidy. But in turn these devices can be used to prevent products and services from entering the market, and in particular, products and services that do not require capitalization, and that they too often endure long enough to create artificial monopolies. Book protections that persist beyond one generation of offspring of the author.

    Banks regulate their own ‘market’ of loans. Each stock market has regulations. Why can’t we have markets for other claims? Why can’t we auction off uses of a design, rather than simply deny competitors to the market. it’s the state monopoly that’s the problem.

    Material trespass and immaterial trespass are simply conventions driven by the ease of registry. In a man’s mind he can know his physical property, and know that any other object is not his physical property. If we could catalog ideas just as easily, would we not treat them as such? We do. We create ‘pointers’ to externally reference memories. They’re real world representations of abstractions.

    Is the purpose of the libertarian program to create a platform for cooperation and trade, to minimize the potential for government corruption, interference, theft, bureaucracy, waste, violence, class warfare, and exploitation using the evidence of how men actually act? Or is to create another silly religion that is contrary to the behavior of human beings, or is it just another absurd metaphysics like Marxism?

    A libertarian society must be one by consent – or we need to abandon the principle of non violence and implement it by force. And if it’s to be a society of consent, then it must reflect human behavior in order to gain consent. Human behavior, and the evolution of our knowledge, dictates that we leave the system for definition of property and the registry thereof open to innovation. Not closed, and limited to material constructs.

    The general body of arguments on this topic are reductio and illusory because of it. The real issue at hand is that in the division of labor, specialized knowledge is required to in order to innovate, and innovation in all but the black swan areas requires capital concentration, and markets are best served by their own division of labor in the act of policing fraud and theft, or even of registrations of claims against property. Government is not an innovative organ, and it is a corrupt and slow moving one.

    The issue instead, is to adopt a Hoppian division of labor and competition rather than a Rothbardian Luddite program, or a government-run monopoly program that by it’s very nature is expressly counter to the innovation, division of labor and specialization of knowledge needed to keep pace with our innovations, almost all of which, are currently ABSTRACTIONS. In this EXPANDING WORLD, the Hoppian model of privatization and risk management using insurance schemes rather than the monopoly of government is a superior answer than that of the Rothbardian Luddite model, which artificially Harrison-Bergeron’s” the civilization – to a man.

    If we can protect several property so that it can be invested in. We can protect abstract property so that it can be invested in. The institutional problem is registration and regulation. Not Rothbardian abstinence. And not to get a population to adhere to an absurd metaphysics. But to create institutions wherein real human beings can interact using real human innovations, almost all of which are abstractions, and most of which are now beyond individual comprehension. ( Property requires memory. Institutions are a form of social memory. Institutions educate indirectly. Memory becomes behavior. Behavior becomes normative.) Our problem is institutions, not beliefs. Actions not words.

    And any libertarian, and anarchic program that would simply force people to prefer to resort to violence to resolve differences, or which would impoverish the greater body of people by making them less competitive against other groups (which Rothbardian property would do) is simply to exchange the prosperity of the market for abstract registry of opportunities for the poverty of the bazaar society. It is regression. It is to limit man to the industrial age. It’s a Luddite philosophy.

    The anarchic research program’s undermining of the historic legitimacy of the state is separate from the use of non-state (insurance) institutions to maintain both real and abstract property.

    Focus on the right problem. Private, competitive, market institutions that divide knowledge and labor and provide service over government monopoly institutions that provide corruption, theft and incompetence.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 09:01:00 UTC

  • Or whatever truths and ir-reciprocities they deny. History is what it is. Usury

    Or whatever truths and ir-reciprocities they deny. History is what it is. Usury at 300% interest, Baiting into property Seizure, Selling alcohol at credit, prostitution, slave trading, Tax collection. All people must equally face their historical crimes, not just europeans.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 02:52:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162195501665652736

    Reply addressees: @nickuva

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162179724753416192

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nickuva

    The world hates it when Jews refuse to agree to whatever lies and indignities people want to put upon them. https://t.co/UIvn73J9f0

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162179724753416192

  • There is a lot of value in ‘starting over’ so to speak. But mostly, if they don’

    There is a lot of value in ‘starting over’ so to speak.

    But mostly, if they don’t (a) give me my data or (b) unblock my account, I can start the class action, and I will have a blast with it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-14 18:52:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161712295669641216

    Reply addressees: @SiliconEdge @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161709206761639936

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161709206761639936