Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE IS NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT (Re-Posted from elsewhere

    http://www.propertarianism.com/defining-propertarianism/THE NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE IS NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT

    (Re-Posted from elsewhere for archival purposes.)

    THE NAP IS AN EPISTEMIC TEST

    The NAP is an EPISTEMOLOGICAL TEST. It lets us know what actions are ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, constructive or destructive of a peaceful social order.

    The NAP states only that you do not INITIATE violence -aggression – against others or their property. It does not mean that we do not DEFEND ourselves or property if we or our property is subject to involuntary transfer or damage.

    INSUFFICIENCY

    We do not argue that the NAP is a SUFFICIENT informal institution for a social order. And it does not address formal institutions at all, only limits them. But it is SUFFICIENT test of ethics and morality for political statements in ANY social order. It is sufficient test of ethics and morality necessary for the development of a division of knowledge and labor. And the prosperity that results from a division of knowledge and labor is a universal demonstrated preference of all polities.

    PROPERTY AS A SPECTRUM

    The question that the NAP does not answer, is the definition of property and it’s distribution between the individual and the commons. That is because libertarian ethics does not allow for informal commons, only explicitly stated shareholder agreements as the vehicle for commons, and private property as the only form of property morally extant.

    So the NAP does not expressly state that only private property exists and can exist, in a moral social order, but it is implied, and all libertarians simply assume it’s obvious (but it’s not.)

    COMPACT WITH BROAD EXPLANATORY POWER

    The NAP is an exceptionally good theory because it is COMPACT, has universal explanatory power, is testable and falsifiable both logically and empirically.

    THE DEFINITION OF PROPERTY

    Now, just so that I can help better intellectually arm fellow libertarians, there is a definition of property: “That which people act as if is their property.” We talk about PRIVATE property. And we advocate the reduction of all rights to PRIVATE property rights.

    I’ve enumerated it here under ‘Scope of Property Rights’: http://www.propertarianism.com/defining-propertarianism/

    THE ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

    So it’s not that we lack a definition of property it’s that the allocation of property between the individual and the commons varies with the family structure that the individual comes from, and the structure of production he comes from, and the moral intuitions that he or she has, which appear to be genetic, and largely correlate gender.

    THE DEFINITION OF LIBERTARIAN

    As for liberty, I think that the definition of libertarian is well established and has finally been empirically established by data from Jonathan Haidt: libertarian is a preference to grant freedom from coercion higher moral status than the other five moral instincts. The left treats harm-care highest, and almost exclusively, and the right treats all six moral values equally.

    That is what libertarians share in common. We simply use different arguments and different institutional solutions to advocate for our desired moral bias.

    ARTICULATING OUR IDEAS

    So neither of these statements helps us a great deal in arguing in FAVOR of libertarianism over some other clam. But they help us in articulating our ideas clearly.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-12 05:16:00 UTC

  • MATRILINEALITY IN BONOBOS IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY AREN’T INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO

    MATRILINEALITY IN BONOBOS IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY AREN’T INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO HAVE PROPERTY – BUT

    The goal of Feminism is to restore female control over society by sexual exchange rather than property rights. And to do so by eliminating property rights. (Which in feminist terms means ‘sharing equal responsibility for children’.) And to eliminate property rights through Incremental socialism. Using majority rule where they have the numbers.

    (Dear ladies, no need to read this and get mad at me. I’m for equal rights. But not for female privilege, or equal outcome. )

    Maternal societies are statistically insignificant, tend to be outcasts from larger more successful societies, have very small populations, and are dirt poor.

    Pacifist, sedentary, earth worshipping, matrilineal agrarianism was natural to western europeans – and so was small-size, short life spans, and low birth weights.

    Innovative, mobile, expansionist, sun-worshipping, pastoralist paternalism was the INNOVATION that made regular access to meat, Reason, Science, technology and the CONCENTRATION OF CAPITAL possible.

    Women don’t concentrate capital. They favor the uniform tyranny of equalitarianism. They want the economy to be based upon sex and affection, not productivity. That’s why “equality” is the cause of poverty. The incentives are for sex not for production.

    The depth of where this argument goes will demonstrate why evolution tested both models and the masculine model survived the test.

    The Fact is, that the intellectual reformation currently in progress is demonstrating in every discipline that both postmodern and feminist dogma consists of ideological argument unsupported by the the data.

    Period.

    People choose prosperity (freedom to choose to consume) in all circumstances. That is the test of ‘happiness’. Not survey data. Not subjective judgement. If it relies upon survey data, or subjective interpretation rather than demonstrated preference then it is not science. It’s propaganda.

    We have to forgive Jill Hamilton, who writes otherwise titillating chick-pop articles that cross into male interest because she is not an academic or public intellectual. She must find material that catches eyeballs. Thats her job, and as readers its the job we want her to do.

    But as an eyeball catcher, one must be somewhat cautious, if not infinitely skeptical of academic propaganda.

    Jill could have positioned this book as questionable but fun to consider, without personally committing to support of it or its ideas. And in doing so both caught eyeballs and preserved her journalistic credibility.

    It’s not understood by journalists (who aren’t generally from the top of the class by the way) that the number of academic papers and books that survive scrutiny is minuscule, and almost all of them – at least with regard to the big questions – are produced by a handful of intellectuals at our most prestigious universities.

    The current exception is probably Jonathan Haidt who, from Virginia has reformed most of our understanding of political morality. But assuming he continues he’ll end up teaching at the top ten at some point.

    But we must keep in mind that the entire feminist and progressive programs were based on work by women like Jane Goodall and her followers who told us how nice primates were in nature. When in fact, that entire generation’s work in the study of nature and of anthropology was universally false. Chimps are brutal raping predatory murderers. In fact, the only animal that shares our understanding of intentionality, or our social structure, is the domestic dog.

    Feminism, liberalism and postmodernism are simply the names we have given to communism and socialism now that those two programs have failed in both theory and practice.

    ========

    TO: CURT DOOLITTLE

    FROM: Afiq Syamim Salleh

    “Chimps are brutal raping predatory murderers”

    Wait..you miss on bonobos,it’s a matriarch,very promiscuous,less violent than chimps and the closest DNA related to humans.We’re heading for that future(possible).I’m sure feminist are very happy if humans are more like bonobos.

    =========

    TO: AFIQ SYAMIM SALLEH

    FROM : CURT DOOLITTLE

    Good point. But bonobos don’t have, and aren’t capable of, establishing property and a division of labor.

    It’s property and the division of labor that creates both prosperity and Paternalism by removing reproductive control from the female exchange of sex and affection under hunting and gathering, to the exchange of property for the purpose of coordinating production, and forcing reproduction to be based upon productivity and innovation.

    Most feminist academics know this, as well as did the Marxists, since Engels wrote about it in the 19th century.

    It’s not that females are in control that makes Bonobos maternalistic, it’s that they lack the intelligence and ability to coordinate their actions in a division of knowledge and labor.

    Cooperation among apes is unique to man. Period. The idea of apes helping one another is…. impossible. Absurd.

    Yet it is possible for dogs.

    Just to make feminists frustrated now and then with their fantasies, I tend to remind them that while there are no female jack the rippers, the most fruitful serial killer was indeed female. And while you once and awhile get a Curie, you’ll never get a female Newton.

    Maternalism is regression to primitivism. Paternalism was an evolution. An evolution made possible by the development of property.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-10 19:35:00 UTC

  • MATRILINEALITY IN BONOBOS IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY AREN’T INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO

    MATRILINEALITY IN BONOBOS IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY AREN’T INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO HAVE PROPERTY – WHICH IS WHY FEMINISM IS A SOCIALIST STRATEGY: THE ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    The goal is to restore female control over society by sexual exchange rather than property rights. By eliminating property rights. (Which in feminist terms means ‘sharing equal responsibility for children’.)

    (Dear ladies, no need to read this and get mad at me. I’m for equal rights. But not for female privilege. Or equal outcome. )

    Maternal societies are statistically insignificant, tend to be outcasts from larger more successful societies, have very small populations, and are dirt poor.

    Pacifist, sedentary, earth worshipping, agrarian matrilineality was natural to western europeans – and so was small-size, short life spans, and low birth weights.

    Innovative, mobile, expansionist, sun-worshipping, pastoralist paternalism was the INNOVATION that made regular access to meat, Reason, Science, technology and the CONCENTRATION OF CAPITAL possible.

    Women don’t concentrate capital. They favor the uniform tyranny of equalitarianism. They want the economy to be based upon sex and affection, not productivity. That’s why “equality” is the cause of poverty. The incentives are for sex not for production.

    The depth of where this argument goes will demonstrate why evolution tested both models and the masculine model survived the test.

    The Fact is, that the intellectual reformation currently in progress is demonstrating in every discipline that both postmodern and feminist dogma consists of ideological argument unsupported by the the data.

    Period.

    People choose prosperity (freedom to choose to consume) in all circumstances. That is the test of ‘happiness’. Not survey data. Not subjective judgement. If it relies upon survey data, or subjective interpretation rather than demonstrated preference then it is not science. It’s propaganda.

    We have to forgive Jill Hamilton, who writes otherwise titillating chick-pop articles that cross into male interest because she is not an academic or public intellectual. She must find material that catches eyeballs. Thats her job, and as readers its the job we want her to do.

    But as an eyeball catcher, one must be somewhat cautious, if not infinitely skeptical of academic propaganda.

    Jill could have positioned this book as questionable but fun to consider, without personally committing to support of it or its ideas. And in doing so both caught eyeballs and preserved her journalistic credibility.

    It’s not understood by journalists (who aren’t generally from the top of the class by the way) that the number of academic papers and books that survive scrutiny is minuscule, and almost all of them – at least with regard to the big questions – are produced by a handful of intellectuals at our most prestigious universities.

    The current exception is probably Jonathan Haidt who, from Virginia has reformed most of our understanding of political morality. But assuming he continues he’ll end up teaching at the top ten at some point.

    But we must keep in mind that the entire feminist and progressive programs were based on work by women like Jane Goodall and her followers who told us how nice primates were in nature. When in fact, that entire generation’s work in the study of nature and of anthropology was universally false. Chimps are brutal raping predatory murderers. In fact, the only animal that shares our understanding of intentionality, or our social structure, is the domestic dog.

    Feminism, liberalism and postmodernism are simply the names we have given to communism and socialism now that those two programs have failed in both theory and practice.

    ========

    TO: CURT DOOLITTLE

    FROM: Afiq Syamim Salleh

    “Chimps are brutal raping predatory murderers”

    Wait..you miss on bonobos,it’s a matriarch,very promiscuous,less violent than chimps and the closest DNA related to humans.We’re heading for that future(possible).I’m sure feminist are very happy if humans are more like bonobos.

    =========

    TO: AFIQ SYAMIM SALLEH

    FROM : CURT DOOLITTLE

    Good point. But bonobos don’t have, and aren’t capable of, establishing property and a division of labor.

    It’s property and the division of labor that creates both prosperity and Paternalism by removing reproductive control from the female exchange of sex and affection under hunting and gathering, to the exchange of property for the purpose of coordinating production, and forcing reproduction to be based upon productivity and innovation.

    Most feminist academics know this, as well as did the Marxists, since Engels wrote about it in the 19th century.

    It’s not that females are in control that makes Bonobos maternalistic, it’s that they lack the intelligence and ability to coordinate their actions in a division of knowledge and labor.

    Cooperation among apes is unique to man. Period. The idea of apes helping one another is…. impossible. Absurd.

    Yet it is possible for dogs.

    Just to make feminists frustrated now and then with their fantasies, I tend to remind them that while there are no female jack the rippers, the most fruitful serial killer was indeed female. And while you once and awhile get a Curie, you’ll never get a female Newton.

    Maternalism is regression to primitivism. Paternalism was an evolution. An evolution made possible by the development of property.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-10 14:13:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN MISSION 1) CORRECTION To correct libertarian morality by completing

    LIBERTARIAN MISSION

    1) CORRECTION

    To correct libertarian morality by completing it with propertarian morality necessary and sufficient to preserve a high trust society.

    2) RECONSTRUCTION

    To reconstruct libertarianism relying entirely on ratio – scientific arguments.

    3) REDIRECTION

    To focus libertarian argument on postmodernism rather than socialism, now that we have sufficient evidence to do so.

    4) ENFRANCHISEMENT

    To provide a rational, scientific language of sufficient scope and depth to unite conservatives and libertarians using propertarian reasoning to explain libertarian formal institutions and conservative (aristocratic) informal institutions (norms), as mutually dependent sets of institutions.

    5) JUSTIFICATION

    To restore violence as the first, necessary, and sufficient requirement for creation and persistence of the institution and of property, and the freedom and liberty that result from it.

    6) RESULT

    To provide a means for a minority of those of us who prefer property rights, freedom to act and liberty from constraint to obtain and persist all, and to justify that means as morally necessary, obligatory, and just.

    The bourgeoise are free riders: thieves. Aristocracy is earned. It is not a right. It is demanded. It is taken. And it is taken by force if needed.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-08 11:39:00 UTC

  • The Necessity, Virtue And Morality Of Organized Violence

    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. 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.”

  • The Necessity, Virtue And Morality Of Organized Violence

    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. 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.”

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

    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 on property – as a superior form of cooperation to all other forms of cooperation. But you man not coerce me (us) into abandoning freedom as our preferred, committed, required, demanded and threatened form of cooperation.

    The source of property is the use of violence to 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.

    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.

    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. I requires actions.

    The only free people is 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.

    The use of the militia is to create property rights. The use of judges is to resolve conflicts without violence. The use of 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.

    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.

    —–

    Curt Doolittle

    Kiev, 2013

    “Putting violence back into liberty one sentence at a time.”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-07 05:34:00 UTC

  • Property Rights And Taxes As Loans

    (ironic humor) The exchange of free riding, fraud, theft and violence for property rights functions as an involuntary loan of the opportunity to consume by way of free riding, fraud, theft and violence, on the unproductive. In exchange for which, at some later time, they receive the service of less toil, lower prices and greater variation, and freedom from slavery. Under democracy, the unproductive tax the income of the productive, so that the unproductive receive the same benefit as if they were productive. The problem is that the productive need the unproductive to have money to spend, in order to maintain momentum (velocity) in the economy, from which the productive benefit. So as long as the tax money of the productive is given to consumers, and not the government, and not to competing social interests, it’s a necessary and reasonable exchange of value – instead of a forced loan of free riding, fraud, theft and violence from the unproductive for the purpose of consumption, it’s a forced loan from the productive to the consumer. Now, if the productive could SAVE enough that when they got off the hamster wheel of velocity, that they could maintain their standard of living, I kind of think that this system works in a sort of madcap kind of way. I don’t like it very much. Because the hamster wheel is really risky for entrepreneurs. And I don’t want to suppress the lottery effect. that drives innovation under capitalism. But it might be possible to solve the problem of rewarding entrepreneurship differently from investment and lending. I think, if I work a little bit more at this I can explain it all in moral language that average ‘folk’ can understand. ‘Cause the language of man is morality not empiricism. The world we have made is a hysterically funny place.

  • Property Rights And Taxes As Loans

    (ironic humor) The exchange of free riding, fraud, theft and violence for property rights functions as an involuntary loan of the opportunity to consume by way of free riding, fraud, theft and violence, on the unproductive. In exchange for which, at some later time, they receive the service of less toil, lower prices and greater variation, and freedom from slavery. Under democracy, the unproductive tax the income of the productive, so that the unproductive receive the same benefit as if they were productive. The problem is that the productive need the unproductive to have money to spend, in order to maintain momentum (velocity) in the economy, from which the productive benefit. So as long as the tax money of the productive is given to consumers, and not the government, and not to competing social interests, it’s a necessary and reasonable exchange of value – instead of a forced loan of free riding, fraud, theft and violence from the unproductive for the purpose of consumption, it’s a forced loan from the productive to the consumer. Now, if the productive could SAVE enough that when they got off the hamster wheel of velocity, that they could maintain their standard of living, I kind of think that this system works in a sort of madcap kind of way. I don’t like it very much. Because the hamster wheel is really risky for entrepreneurs. And I don’t want to suppress the lottery effect. that drives innovation under capitalism. But it might be possible to solve the problem of rewarding entrepreneurship differently from investment and lending. I think, if I work a little bit more at this I can explain it all in moral language that average ‘folk’ can understand. ‘Cause the language of man is morality not empiricism. The world we have made is a hysterically funny place.

  • (IRONIC HUMOR) PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TAXES AS LOANS The exchange of free riding, f

    (IRONIC HUMOR) PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TAXES AS LOANS

    The exchange of free riding, fraud, theft and violence for property rights functions as an involuntary loan of the opportunity to consume by way of free riding, fraud, theft and violence, on the unproductive. In exchange for which, at some later time, they receive the service of less toil, lower prices and greater variation, and freedom from slavery.

    Under democracy, the unproductive tax the income of the productive, so that the unproductive receive the same benefit as if they were productive.

    The problem is that the productive need the unproductive to have money to spend, in order to maintain momentum (velocity) in the economy, from which the productive benefit.

    So as long as the tax money of the productive is given to consumers, and not the government, and not to competing social interests, it’s a necessary and reasonable exchange of value – instead of a forced loan of free riding, fraud, theft and violence from the unproductive for the purpose of consumption, it’s a forced loan from the productive to the consumer.

    Now, if the productive could SAVE enough that when they got off the hamster wheel of velocity, that they could maintain their standard of living, I kind of think that this system works in a sort of madcap kind of way. I don’t like it very much. Because the hamster wheel is really risky for entrepreneurs. And I don’t want to suppress the lottery effect. that drives innovation under capitalism. But it might be possible to solve the problem of rewarding entrepreneurship differently from investment and lending.

    I think, if I work a little bit more at this I can explain it all in moral language that average ‘folk’ can understand. ‘Cause the language of man is morality not empiricism.

    The world we have made is a hysterically funny place.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-01 05:18:00 UTC