Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Rothbard’s Ethical Ghetto

      Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the strong’s ability to use violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to entrap, lie, cheat and steal. Liberty was created at the point of a sharp metal object, by heroic males, as a means of suppressing all forms of cheating on the backs of others. Rothbard’s pretense is simply a means of justifying parasitism on that hard won liberty. There is nothing libertarian about Rothbardian ethics. Its just a complex philosophical lie to justify immoral and unethical theft.

  • Rothbard's Ethical Ghetto

      Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the strong’s ability to use violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to entrap, lie, cheat and steal. Liberty was created at the point of a sharp metal object, by heroic males, as a means of suppressing all forms of cheating on the backs of others. Rothbard’s pretense is simply a means of justifying parasitism on that hard won liberty. There is nothing libertarian about Rothbardian ethics. Its just a complex philosophical lie to justify immoral and unethical theft.

  • Rothbard’s Ethical Ghetto

      Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the strong’s ability to use violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to entrap, lie, cheat and steal. Liberty was created at the point of a sharp metal object, by heroic males, as a means of suppressing all forms of cheating on the backs of others. Rothbard’s pretense is simply a means of justifying parasitism on that hard won liberty. There is nothing libertarian about Rothbardian ethics. Its just a complex philosophical lie to justify immoral and unethical theft.

  • "Libertarian" Shouldn't Mean "Stupid"

    LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “STUPID” What libertarian means to me is: (a) a preference for liberty above all other political preferences, and (b) that all rights can be reduced to property rights, and (c) that I actively pursue obtaining liberty for myself and other a daily basis by sacrificing my time and effort to pursue it. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “WRONG” It does NOT mean that I agree with rothbardian ethics. Or that I think rothbard’s strategy of relying on the work of the french anarchist and jewish resistance movements, instead of the process by which property evolved in the high trust societies. In fact, I am pretty confident rothbard was a little bit right, but damagingly wrong. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “FAILED” So if libertarian means failing, and being wrong, then I’m not libertarian. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “ROTHBARDIAN” If you mean ‘rothbardian’ then no I am not a rothbardian since that would be irrational. LIBERTY IS THE PRODUCT OF ARISTOCRACY: The organize application of violence for the purpose of suppressing all involuntary extractions – including criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt and conspiratorial actions. All of them. PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE WHAT’S LEFT ONCE YOU SUPPRESS ALL CHEATING. Property rights are what remain once we do that. You can suppress less, and have weaker property rights, and suppress more and have stronger property rights, but the velocity of your economy and therefore your wealth is predicated on the degree of suppression of involuntary extraction you suppress through the organized application of violence.

  • “Libertarian” Shouldn’t Mean “Stupid”

    LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “STUPID” What libertarian means to me is: (a) a preference for liberty above all other political preferences, and (b) that all rights can be reduced to property rights, and (c) that I actively pursue obtaining liberty for myself and other a daily basis by sacrificing my time and effort to pursue it. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “WRONG” It does NOT mean that I agree with rothbardian ethics. Or that I think rothbard’s strategy of relying on the work of the french anarchist and jewish resistance movements, instead of the process by which property evolved in the high trust societies. In fact, I am pretty confident rothbard was a little bit right, but damagingly wrong. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “FAILED” So if libertarian means failing, and being wrong, then I’m not libertarian. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “ROTHBARDIAN” If you mean ‘rothbardian’ then no I am not a rothbardian since that would be irrational. LIBERTY IS THE PRODUCT OF ARISTOCRACY: The organize application of violence for the purpose of suppressing all involuntary extractions – including criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt and conspiratorial actions. All of them. PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE WHAT’S LEFT ONCE YOU SUPPRESS ALL CHEATING. Property rights are what remain once we do that. You can suppress less, and have weaker property rights, and suppress more and have stronger property rights, but the velocity of your economy and therefore your wealth is predicated on the degree of suppression of involuntary extraction you suppress through the organized application of violence.

  • "Libertarian" Shouldn't Mean "Stupid"

    LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “STUPID” What libertarian means to me is: (a) a preference for liberty above all other political preferences, and (b) that all rights can be reduced to property rights, and (c) that I actively pursue obtaining liberty for myself and other a daily basis by sacrificing my time and effort to pursue it. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “WRONG” It does NOT mean that I agree with rothbardian ethics. Or that I think rothbard’s strategy of relying on the work of the french anarchist and jewish resistance movements, instead of the process by which property evolved in the high trust societies. In fact, I am pretty confident rothbard was a little bit right, but damagingly wrong. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “FAILED” So if libertarian means failing, and being wrong, then I’m not libertarian. LIBERTARIAN SHOULDN’T MEAN “ROTHBARDIAN” If you mean ‘rothbardian’ then no I am not a rothbardian since that would be irrational. LIBERTY IS THE PRODUCT OF ARISTOCRACY: The organize application of violence for the purpose of suppressing all involuntary extractions – including criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt and conspiratorial actions. All of them. PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE WHAT’S LEFT ONCE YOU SUPPRESS ALL CHEATING. Property rights are what remain once we do that. You can suppress less, and have weaker property rights, and suppress more and have stronger property rights, but the velocity of your economy and therefore your wealth is predicated on the degree of suppression of involuntary extraction you suppress through the organized application of violence.

  • Is Philosophy A Vehicle For Theft?

    Is nearly all of philosophy then, outside of logic, an artful construct for the purpose of justifying theft? One can justify suppression of, prevention of, and restitution for, the taking of discounts. (thefts) One can justify the selection of one priority of investment over another. But one cannot argue for the necessity of a monopoly of investments. Nor the mandatory enforcement of participation in investments, other than the suppression of free riding. One can argue the necessity for a homogeneity – monopoly – of property rights for the purpose of logically resolving disputes over property and contract – albeit, private property solves that problem, and articulated shareholder rights, retains that ability even under complexity. But once a monopoly of property rights exists, one cannot argue the necessity for a monopoly of law making. In fact, logic and evidence suggest precisely the opposite is true: that laws evolve and evolve best under the common law, since they must be interpreted by ordinary citizens, and are open to constant revision without external approval as the world evolves. The failure of the common law was (a) its usurpation by the state, and (b) failure to define property rights sufficiently in the face of industrialization. (c) its use by the middle class to dispossess the aristocracy, and consequential use by the proletarians and feminists to dispossess the middle classes. Philosophy is quite simple really. It’s only complicated if you’re trying to lie. And theft requires lying. And lying is best covered by obscurity. Cheers.

  • Is Philosophy A Vehicle For Theft?

    Is nearly all of philosophy then, outside of logic, an artful construct for the purpose of justifying theft? One can justify suppression of, prevention of, and restitution for, the taking of discounts. (thefts) One can justify the selection of one priority of investment over another. But one cannot argue for the necessity of a monopoly of investments. Nor the mandatory enforcement of participation in investments, other than the suppression of free riding. One can argue the necessity for a homogeneity – monopoly – of property rights for the purpose of logically resolving disputes over property and contract – albeit, private property solves that problem, and articulated shareholder rights, retains that ability even under complexity. But once a monopoly of property rights exists, one cannot argue the necessity for a monopoly of law making. In fact, logic and evidence suggest precisely the opposite is true: that laws evolve and evolve best under the common law, since they must be interpreted by ordinary citizens, and are open to constant revision without external approval as the world evolves. The failure of the common law was (a) its usurpation by the state, and (b) failure to define property rights sufficiently in the face of industrialization. (c) its use by the middle class to dispossess the aristocracy, and consequential use by the proletarians and feminists to dispossess the middle classes. Philosophy is quite simple really. It’s only complicated if you’re trying to lie. And theft requires lying. And lying is best covered by obscurity. Cheers.

  • WE NEED A NEW MATHEMATICAL REVOLUTION ON THE SCALE OF CALCULUS : THE UNIT OF COM

    http://shar.es/QBhQ0YES WE NEED A NEW MATHEMATICAL REVOLUTION ON THE SCALE OF CALCULUS : THE UNIT OF COMMENSURABILITY IN THAT MATHEMATICS, IS PROPERTY, AND ITS GRAMMAR IS MORAL

    The mathematical order of big data? Property.

    1) Humans (life) is acquisitive.

    2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things.

    3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire.

    4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions.

    5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer)

    6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under.

    6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it.

    (I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-14 03:48:00 UTC

  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PROPERTY Ever since google started buying up AI firm

    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PROPERTY

    Ever since google started buying up AI firms, I keep coming back to my previous argument that (a) humans are acquisitive, and (b) the unit of commensurability is property, (c) prices determine ‘value’ and many things are priceless, and (d) our emotions are changes in state of inventory, (e) an AI constructed in, and reasoning according to those those terms would of necessity operate as humans would.

    I think others will beat me to it. But if I lived long enough I would like to try something of that nature.

    Now, most of us who studied this topic back in the seventies, eighties and nineties understand that google has the necessary properties to create the first really superhuman AI. A “Neuromancer” scale intelligence. Because the first requisite for intelligence is memory.

    But memories must be commensurable.

    And the unit of commensurability is property.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-12 03:22:00 UTC