Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Which One Do You Prefer, A Socialist Or Capitalist Economy?

    I WILL DO MY BEST. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER.

    The question poses a false dichotomy. 

    A socialist economy is logically impossible, and demonstrably impossible since the socialist method of production provides neither incentives, nor the pricing system necessary for the competitive satisfaction of wants and needs. We don’t have a choice of a socialist economy.

    Instead, the question is, given that a MIXED economy appears to be necessary to satisfy:
    (a) the requirement for providing people with incentives to participate in needed work regardless of their preference for work;
    AND
    (b )the means of economic calculation and planning in real time provided by money and prices;
    AND
    (c) to provide sufficient redistribution to satisfy the demand for state intervention, and to prevent the lower classes from rebellion, and to reduce the cost of their suppression;
    THEREFORE
    which BIAS do you prefer: i) greater retention of profits in the hands of those who produce it, OR ii) greater distribution of profits to those who do not produce it.  With the understanding that labor is of declining and near zero value, and that ORGANIZING PRODUCTION dynamically in real time under constant risk is the challenging part of the economy, not the labor involved in production which is at best a commodity that is easily replaced.

    The problem does not appear to be which mixed economy, but the intergenerational transfer of wealth dependent upon constant economic growth, while at the same time such redistributive wealth suppresses breeding rates of the most productive individuals.  As such societies must ‘feed the ponzi scheme’ by immigrating a permanent underclass as the native population shrinks.

    The germans have probably developed the superior model: make sure your working class is the worlds best working class, and the upper classes will take care of the rest. The American model looks like a failure since trying to get everyone to join the middle class (of independent professionals) is not possible because not enough people possess the genetic talents to fulfill those positions without training via repetition that is greater in cost than the benefit produced. 

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    So since I cannot prefer a socialist, and there is no capitalist economy extant, and the only economies that do exist other than the very impoverished countries, are mixed, I prefer a mixed economy, since it is the only choice available. But I prefer one that does not depend on a genetic ponzi scheme.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-one-do-you-prefer-a-socialist-or-capitalist-economy

  • Which One Do You Prefer, A Socialist Or Capitalist Economy?

    I WILL DO MY BEST. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER.

    The question poses a false dichotomy. 

    A socialist economy is logically impossible, and demonstrably impossible since the socialist method of production provides neither incentives, nor the pricing system necessary for the competitive satisfaction of wants and needs. We don’t have a choice of a socialist economy.

    Instead, the question is, given that a MIXED economy appears to be necessary to satisfy:
    (a) the requirement for providing people with incentives to participate in needed work regardless of their preference for work;
    AND
    (b )the means of economic calculation and planning in real time provided by money and prices;
    AND
    (c) to provide sufficient redistribution to satisfy the demand for state intervention, and to prevent the lower classes from rebellion, and to reduce the cost of their suppression;
    THEREFORE
    which BIAS do you prefer: i) greater retention of profits in the hands of those who produce it, OR ii) greater distribution of profits to those who do not produce it.  With the understanding that labor is of declining and near zero value, and that ORGANIZING PRODUCTION dynamically in real time under constant risk is the challenging part of the economy, not the labor involved in production which is at best a commodity that is easily replaced.

    The problem does not appear to be which mixed economy, but the intergenerational transfer of wealth dependent upon constant economic growth, while at the same time such redistributive wealth suppresses breeding rates of the most productive individuals.  As such societies must ‘feed the ponzi scheme’ by immigrating a permanent underclass as the native population shrinks.

    The germans have probably developed the superior model: make sure your working class is the worlds best working class, and the upper classes will take care of the rest. The American model looks like a failure since trying to get everyone to join the middle class (of independent professionals) is not possible because not enough people possess the genetic talents to fulfill those positions without training via repetition that is greater in cost than the benefit produced. 

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    So since I cannot prefer a socialist, and there is no capitalist economy extant, and the only economies that do exist other than the very impoverished countries, are mixed, I prefer a mixed economy, since it is the only choice available. But I prefer one that does not depend on a genetic ponzi scheme.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-one-do-you-prefer-a-socialist-or-capitalist-economy

  • HOW MacDONALD ADDRESSES THE WESTERN/JEWISH CONFLICT VS A PROPERTARIAN EXPLANATIO

    HOW MacDONALD ADDRESSES THE WESTERN/JEWISH CONFLICT VS A PROPERTARIAN EXPLANATION – WHICH I THINK IS MORE PRECISE.

    (Fascinating. You know, I wouldn’t think this would be all that controversial. It’s politically incorrect. But you know, it is what it is. Groups need strategies. Western people are better killers than anoyone else on earth becuase they have better spatial reasoning, higher trust in one another and lower impulsivity. Westerners also tend to be extremely fascinated with technology, for thousands of years. And they used that to conquer the world despite their small numbers. We call this Imperialism.

    I can critique every culture, and it’s in fashion now to do so, as we all explore why the west succeeded and others did less so, particularly China.

    So why is it that this topic is so un-PC? Because it’s true?

    I care about this argument because it is addressable under propertarianism. In fact, under propertarian analysis it’s just blatantly obvious. So it’s an amazing sort of test of the explanatory power of propertarian argument: structure of production + structure of reproduction + structure of group in context of other groups = property rights. And thats because otherwise, the group would cease to survive. It can’t function any other way.

    Propertarianism renders all moral, ethical and institutional strategies commensurable.

    And yes, I know I get crap for this stuff but you know its REALLY fascinating. 🙂

    Kevin MacDonald’s Argument:

    —————————

    “My logic is as follows: I see conflicts of interest between

    ethnic groups as part of the natural world. The only difference between conflicts between Jews and non-Jews compared to garden variety ethnic conflict stems from the fact that for over a century, Jews have formed an elite in various European and European-derived societies, an elite with a peculiar profile: deeply ethnocentric and adept at ethnic networking; wealthy and intelligent, aggressive in pursuit of their interests, prone to media ownership and the production of culture, and hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the societies in which they form an elite.”

    “As an elite, Jews have wielded power that is vastly disproportionate to their numbers, so that anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior are to be expected when Jewish power conflicts with the interests of others.”

    “The various themes of moderm anti-Semitism all boil down to the Jewish role as a hostile elite whose attitudes and behavior are in conflict with the interests of others: economic domination in many parts of Eastern and Central Europe prior to World War II; cultural subversion via the Jewish role in the media and intellectual life (e.g., removing Christian symbols from public places); facilitating the displacement of native populations via mass migration into Western societies; dual loyalty because of Jewish sympathies with foreign Jews, especially Israel since 1948; and the history of Jews as a hostile elite in the USSR during the period when it became the most

    murderous regime in European history.”

    “Since I believe that these propositions are intellectually defensible, and since these propositions, if believed by non-Jews, would cause them to attempt to lessen Jewish power and thereby further their own interests, it is indeed the case that my work could be said to provide intellectual legitimacy to anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior.”

    “But this isn’t really any different from claiming that Zionist theories provide intellectual legitimacy to the dispossession of the Palestinians, or that psychoanalysis or the Frankfurt School provide intellectual legitimacy to anti-Western attitudes. At the end of the day, what counts is whether indeed my writings are intellectually defensible.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 19:12:00 UTC

  • DISCOUNTS (minor refinement to the list and order) –CRIME– Murder Violence The

    DISCOUNTS

    (minor refinement to the list and order)

    –CRIME–

    Murder

    Violence

    Theft

    –ETHICS–

    Blackmail

    Usury

    Fraud

    Fraud by omission

    Fraud by obfuscation

    –MORALITY—

    Profit without contribution

    Profiting from disadvantage

    Profiting from suffering

    Profit from Interference in the acts of others

    Externalization of costs

    Privatization of the commons

    Socialization of losses into the commons

    Free riding

    –POLITICAL MORALITY–

    Rent seeking

    Corruption

    Extortion

    Conspiracy

    Monopoly (government is technically a monopoly)

    –POLITICAL CONQUEST–

    Ostracization and Displacement

    Conquest through Overbreeding

    Conquest through Immigration

    Conquest through religious conversion

    Conquest through Enslavement

    Conquest through war.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 18:55:00 UTC

  • Recent Interview “The anarcho-libertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues fo

    http://www.hanshoppe.com/2014/01/taxes-are-expropriation-interview-in-wirtschaftswoche/Hoppe’s Recent Interview

    “The anarcho-libertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues for a state-free society. Where government has, for example, no right to compel the citizens to pay taxes to finance armed forces.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 13:38:00 UTC

  • Conversation with Libertarian Friend (LF) (happiness) LF: “Curt, that means prop

    Conversation with Libertarian Friend (LF)

    (happiness)

    LF: “Curt, that means property rights aren’t binary, but a spectrum.”

    CD: “Yes. That’s right. It means that property rights increase as we suppress increasing categories of discounts. It means that different societies can, because they are homogenous or heterogeneous, suppress different levels of discounts, and benefit from those increasing discounts – or lose if they cannot obtain discounts.”

    (Later)

    LF: “You know that, this means that libertarians can’t claim the moral universal high ground? Liberty is just something you want or don’t.”

    CD: “Yes.”

    LF: “There are a lot of moralistic libertarians that won’t like this.”

    CD: “Yeah… Well. Just how it is. I don’t get to choose whether something is true or not.”

    (Later)

    LF: “This is big. This is going to revolutionize……”

    CD: “Yeah. Maybe. I think so..”

    (Wonderful to be understood.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-05 18:47:00 UTC

  • MARRIAGE STRUCTURES AMONG NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES (Note: basically what we get ou

    MARRIAGE STRUCTURES AMONG NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

    (Note: basically what we get out of history is that women are in greater control when we combine both property rights and high male morality due to warfare. You’d think if the feminists figure this out they’ll renew the draft and vote to send us off to war in large numbers. lol )

    “Exclusive monogamy was the rule among the Iroquois and a few of their neighbors. This is to be expected in cultures in which matrilineal descent and matrilocal residence were coupled with female ownership and control of agricultural land and houses, not to mention the unusual authority of women in political affairs. Here the men literally moved in with their wives, who could divorce them merely by tossing their personal effects out of the door of the longhouse….”

    “The only other area where female dominance approached this level was that of the western Pueblos in the Southwest. Here the picture was similar, and exclusive monogamy prevailed. The other instances of exclusive monogamy were scattered and occurred in both bilateral and patrilineal societies. They do not lend themselves to any ready explanation.”

    “Sororal polygyny — that is, the marriage of a man to two wives who were sisters — probably occurred wherever polygyny was to be found. A number of Plains tribes had no other form. A man in this society was especially anxious to acquire an eldest sister as a first mate, with an eye on acquiring her younger sister if and when he could afford them…. [I]t is easy to see that polygyny had more utility in societies where male mortality in hunting and warfare was high. The Plains was one of these areas. Among the Eskimos, where a man had more difficulty in supporting multiple wives, the extremely high male mortality was offset by female infanticide. This partially explains the more modest amount of polygyny present in the Arctic.”

    (Note: Equilibria in everything)

    -HBD CHICK

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-05 17:03:00 UTC

  • Is nearly all of philosophy then, outside of logic, an artful construct for the

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-01 15:58:00 UTC

  • THE “ONE LAW” IS THE PROHIBITION ON DISCOUNTS. Private property is merely a tool

    THE “ONE LAW” IS THE PROHIBITION ON DISCOUNTS.

    Private property is merely a tool for the prohibition of discounts.

    Eh… I’m the only one who gets it. But that’s the answer. we’ve been all caught up in promoting and defending private property against the state, but that’s been a distraction.

    We must suppress all discounts, or at least, as many as possible by the organized use of violence, in order to expand the scope and value of the market.

    If we expand the discounts to just cover violence theft and fraud, private property results. But that is PRIMITIVE private property.

    If we expand the discounts to all forms of discount both public and private, we end up with HIGH TRUST PROPERTY.

    Rothbard gave us PRIMITIVE private property, and propertarianism gives us HIGH TRUST private property.

    Conservatives will tolerate and embrace high trust private property and I am very much convinced that at least for christian european libertarians, I can convince them that high trust private property is superior to rothbard’s primitive private property.

    The difference is that we must use violence to suppress all discounts, and with that knowledge we see liberty in a completely different light: we must use force to implement high trust property rights at all times, and at every opportunity.

    And conversely, we cannot possess high trust private property without the constant, vigilant use of organized violence to suppress discounts.

    When all discounts are suppressed, individuals have no choice but to seek to serve others in the market.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-30 10:20:00 UTC

  • A LIBERTARIAN ISLAND NEAR DETROIT [A creative…] “project conceived by real est

    A LIBERTARIAN ISLAND NEAR DETROIT

    [A creative…] “project conceived by real estate developer Rod Lockwood. He has outlined plans to buy Belle Isle, a 982-acre public island park in the Detroit River, and transform it into an independent commonwealth with its own laws, regulations, and taxes (or lack thereof). Investors would buy the island from the city for $1 billion and then sell lifetime citizenship for $300,000. The extra $1 billion would help the city pay off its debts, and the lax regulations and low taxes would act as a magnet for investment, says Lockwood.”

    “We would expect a quarter of a trillion dollars in capital would be brought onto the island,” says Lockwood. “Detroit would have its own Singapore in its backyard.”

    -Reason Magazine

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-28 07:41:00 UTC