Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • POP NEWS : ZIMMERMAN QUESTION I assume that I don’t understand something. But, i

    POP NEWS : ZIMMERMAN QUESTION

    I assume that I don’t understand something. But, if you live in a neighborhood that has gone from largely homeowners to a significant number of renters, and experienced a proportional increase in crime, and you form a block watch, and you follow someone, and he smacks you for it, and you shoot him for smacking you for just watching him, I don’t see the issue.

    If I make someone nervous who doesn’t know me my reaction is to introduce myself, state why I am there, and make them comfortable, which is what I’d want someone to do for me in the same circumstances. Its just civic duty.

    I mean, why is it ok to smack someone who is out trying to protect the neighborhood, and following you? Objecting to that is sort of an admission that you are up to something.

    Watching a person in public is not a violation of any right I’ve ever heard of. But smacking someone for watching you certainly is. And shooting someone who is smacking you for watching them seems entirely rational, since you violated his body by initiating violence.

    What don’t I understand?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-14 18:46:00 UTC

  • The Source Of Private Property Is Violence

    [T]he source of property is the organized application of violence to create it. Even on Rothbard’s Crusoe island, the violence that creates the property of the island FOR Crusoe is provided by the barrier of the sea. (That the see is analogous to the ghetto, which is the model of rebellion rothbard was using whether he know it or not, is obvious and ironic.) But Rothbard’s logic is flawed. The correct analogy is that on an infinite flat plain evenly distributed with people, how do you create the institution of private property so that one person’s will and wisdom can concentrate capital for future production and use? By the application of violence to create that institution. Can an individual do it? Not against numbers. No individual is powerful enough. But can a group do it? Yes. A group requires another group to counter it, which produces diminishing returns for those members, who are more incentivized to also obtain property than reverse their claims. An organized group can create private property by the application of violence. The source of private property is the organized application of violence to create it. Arguments that try to justify private property by some other means, moral or utilitarian, are in fact, attempts to buy the right of private property at a deep discount. And nobody’s selling at that price. You have to rase the price pretty high. And violence is a very high price. The source of private property is violence. Private property is a right one gains in exchange for the commitment to others who share the desire for private property, to use violence to preserve private property for one and all. No other method is possible.

  • The Source Of Private Property Is Violence

    [T]he source of property is the organized application of violence to create it. Even on Rothbard’s Crusoe island, the violence that creates the property of the island FOR Crusoe is provided by the barrier of the sea. (That the see is analogous to the ghetto, which is the model of rebellion rothbard was using whether he know it or not, is obvious and ironic.) But Rothbard’s logic is flawed. The correct analogy is that on an infinite flat plain evenly distributed with people, how do you create the institution of private property so that one person’s will and wisdom can concentrate capital for future production and use? By the application of violence to create that institution. Can an individual do it? Not against numbers. No individual is powerful enough. But can a group do it? Yes. A group requires another group to counter it, which produces diminishing returns for those members, who are more incentivized to also obtain property than reverse their claims. An organized group can create private property by the application of violence. The source of private property is the organized application of violence to create it. Arguments that try to justify private property by some other means, moral or utilitarian, are in fact, attempts to buy the right of private property at a deep discount. And nobody’s selling at that price. You have to rase the price pretty high. And violence is a very high price. The source of private property is violence. Private property is a right one gains in exchange for the commitment to others who share the desire for private property, to use violence to preserve private property for one and all. No other method is possible.

  • Putting Violence Back Into Polite Political Discourse – Once Sentence At A Time

    [P]rivate property is unnatural to man, even if it is necessary for mankind do produce a division of knowledge and labor. Private property was a technical innovation that allowed males to take control of reproduction that they had lost with the invention of gossip, cooperation and spears, and to do so without resorting to in-group violence, or violence against women. Private property was granted and gained in exchange for service in the creation and preservation of private property. Monogamy was a compromise. It was an unnatural compromise. Women, having obtained the vote, did not seek equal rights to property, but rents and privileges, and they are now able to use the state to extract rents from aggregate productivity regardless of gender – albeit mostly male productivity. And women are abandoning seeking rents from a single male’s productivity through marriage. It’s in women’s interest to violate private property, and regain reproductive and economic control through the state rather than through marriage or sex. Marriage doesn’t make sense for women unless they can capture an alpha, and even then its a question of benefits versus compromises. Marriage doesn’t make sense for men at all. The logical outcome for men is to free ride as much as possible, and avoid having any property at all. For those men that desire property, it cannot be obtained by majority decision. As such, it must be maintained by either exchange – buying off the rentiers – or by violence – preventing the rentiers. AND THAT IS WHAT THE DATA SAYS. Men and women are doing the logical thing. What else would we expect them to do? We may be irrational moral voters, but we are certainly rational moral consumers. The source of property is use of violence to create the institution of property against the will of the majority. Only then is property an asset worthy of seeking by the middle and lower classes who which also to be enfranchised in the prosperity that results from the formal and informal institutions of private property. (It’s thankless work, you know. …. Putting violence back into polite political discourse, one sentence at a time. 😉

  • PUTTING VIOLENCE BACK INTO POLITE POLITICAL DISCOURSE (One sentence at a time.)

    PUTTING VIOLENCE BACK INTO POLITE POLITICAL DISCOURSE

    (One sentence at a time.)

    Private property is unnatural to man, even if it is necessary for mankind do produce a division of knowledge and labor.

    Private property was a technical innovation that allowed males to take control of reproduction that they had lost with the invention of gossip, cooperation and spears, and to do so without resorting to in-group violence, or violence against women.

    Private property was granted and gained in exchange for service in the creation and preservation of private property.

    Monogamy was a compromise. It was an unnatural compromise.

    Women, having obtained the vote, did not seek equal rights to property, but rents and privileges, and they are now able to use the state to extract rents from aggregate productivity regardless of gender – albiet mostly male productivity.

    And women are abandoning seeking rents from a single male’s productivity through marriage.

    It’s in women’s interest to violate private property, and regain reproductive and economic control through the state rather than through marriage or sex.

    Marriage doesn’t make sense for women unless they can capture an alpha, and even then its a question of benefits versus compromises.

    Marriage doesn’t make sense for men at all.

    The logical outcome for men is to free ride as much as possible, and avoid having any property at all.

    For those men that desire property, it cannot be obtained by majority decision. As such, it must be maintained by either exchange – buying off the rentiers – or by violence – preventing the rentiers.

    AND THAT IS WHAT THE DATA SAYS.

    Men and women are doing the logical thing. What else would we expect them to do? We may be irrational moral voters, but we are certainly rational moral consumers.

    The source of property is use of violence to create the institution of property against the will of the majority. Only then is property an asset worthy of seeking by the middle and lower classes who which also to be enfranchised in the prosperity that results from the formal and informal institutions of private property.

    (It’s thankless work, you know. …. Putting violence back into polite political discourse, one sentence at a time. 😉

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-12 10:24:00 UTC

  • ‘Rights’ and Fuzzy Language: You Demand Rights. You Can’t ‘Have’ Them Without an Exchange.

    (Contrary to Searle’s nonsense. More in line with Bentham’s nonsense. Minor improvement to Hoppe. ) [Y]ou DEMAND contractual RIGHTS in EXCHANGE for entering into a CONTRACT with others for some specific terms – and in the libertarian bias we demand absolute private property rights, and the right of first possession by transformation and homesteading. Other people agree to NONE, SOME or ALL of those demands, in exchange for their specific terms. Non-aggressing on some terms, and preserving the opportunity to aggress on others. One cannot ‘have rights’ without the presence of others to grant them in exchange.

      But without the consent of others, one cannot ‘have or possess’ them. [T]he majority of the world cultures and subcultures evolved an allocation of each’s portfolio of property rights between the private and the commons on one axis, and between a) normative (habits, manners, ethics and morals), b) real (land, built capital, portable property, and c) artificial (intellectual property, limited monopoly privileges) on the other axis. Those DEMANDS do you very little good without the ability to enforce your demands. In the case of private property, the coalition of statists is powerful enough to deny you demands, and force you to adhere to THEIR definition of property rights. Might doesn’t make best. Might doesn’t make right. Might makes possible whatever property rights you have demanded. So you must possess the might to institute the property rights you desire.

    • Genies Can’t Be Put Back Into Bottles

      [C]lassical Liberalism cannot be restored with women in the voting pool. Property rights can’t be restored with women voting. It’s not possible. Marriage cannot be restored with high participation rates of women in the work force. Birth rates can’t be restored with women in high participation in the work place. Intergenerational saving can’t be restored because of social programs and tax rates for intergenerational redistribution – boomers spent their income and their grandchildren’s. Immigration can’t be reversed so cultural identity, and civic participation can’t be recreated. Growth can’t be restored with the globalization of the work force. We have consumed much of the low hanging fruit of industrialization and work force participation. Progressives are philosophically wrong, historically and empirically wrong, and conservatives and libertarians are living under the illusion of putting the genie back into the bottle. But, we have developed new institutions before. We’re going to have to do it again. But those institutions will not include universally homogenous property rights. They can’t. Because property rights correspond to the moral intuitions of those that make use of them, and males and females have competing reproductive strategies and corresponding moral codes. In male terms, women are immoral, and vice-versa. Marriage was a truce that worked during agrarianism. That truce is over. We’re back at war. And women have the numbers on their side. Property is the product of the organized application of violence by a minority willing to create it. Property isn’t a moral preference of the majority. The majority are free riders and rent seekers. It’s human nature writ large.

    • GENIES CAN’T BE PUT BACK INTO BOTTLES Classical Liberalism cannot be restored wi

      GENIES CAN’T BE PUT BACK INTO BOTTLES

      Classical Liberalism cannot be restored with women in the voting pool. Property rights can’t be restored with women voting. It’s not possible. Marriage cannot be restored with high participation rates of women in the work force. Birth rates can’t be restored with women in high participation in the work place. Intergenerational saving can’t be restored because of social programs and tax rates for intergenerational redistribution – boomers spent their income and their grandchildren’s. Immigration can’t be reversed so cultural identity, and civic participation can’t be recreated. Growth can’t be restored with the globalization of the work force. We have consumed much of the low hanging fruit of industrialization and work force participation.

      Progressives are philosophically wrong, historically and empirically wrong, and conservatives and libertarians are living under the illusion of putting the genie back into the bottle.

      But, we have developed new institutions before. We’re going to have to do it again. But those institutions will not include universally homogenous property rights. They can’t. Because property rights correspond to the moral intuitions of those that make use of them, and males and females have competing reproductive strategies and corresponding moral codes. In male terms, women are immoral, and vice-versa.

      Marriage was a truce that worked during agrarianism. That truce is over. We’re back at war. And women have the numbers on their side.

      Property is the product of the organized application of violence by a minority willing to create it. Property isn’t a moral preference of the majority. The majority are free riders and rent seekers. It’s human nature writ large.

      (Reposted with multiple typos fixed)

      Source date (UTC): 2013-07-09 16:42:00 UTC

    • CHICKS RULE UNLESS GUYS CREATE PRIVATE PROPERTY 😉

      http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/ww930/supplement-early-human-kinship-was-matrilinealREADABLE: CHICKS RULE UNLESS GUYS CREATE PRIVATE PROPERTY 😉

      Source date (UTC): 2013-07-08 09:42:00 UTC

    • FUZZY LANGUAGE: ‘RIGHTS’ (Contrary to Searle’s nonsense. More in line with Benth

      FUZZY LANGUAGE: ‘RIGHTS’

      (Contrary to Searle’s nonsense. More in line with Bentham’s nonsense. Minor improvement to Hoppe. )

      You DEMAND contractual RIGHTS in EXCHANGE for entering into a CONTRACT with others for some specific terms – and in the libertarian bias we demand absolute private property rights, and the right of first possession by transformation and homesteading.

      Other people agree to NONE, SOME or ALL of those demands, in exchange for their specific terms. Non-aggressing on some terms, and preserving the opportunity to aggress on others.

      One cannot ‘have rights’ without the presence of others to grant them in exchange.

      i ) One can suggest the world will be better for all if we grant each other certain rights.

      ii ) One can ‘demand rights’ in order for cooperation instead of conflict.

      iii ) One can ‘need and require necessary’ rights from others in order to survive.

      But without the consent of others, one cannot ‘have or possess’ them.

      The majority of the world cultures and subcultures evolved an allocation of each’s portfolio of property rights between the private and the commons on one axis, and between a) normative (habits, manners, ethics and morals), b) real (land, built capital, portable property, and c) artificial (intellectual property, limited monopoly privileges) on the other axis.

      Those DEMANDS do you very little good without the ability to enforce your demands. In the case of private property, the coalition of statists is powerful enough to deny you demands, and force you to adhere to THEIR definition of property rights.

      Might doesn’t make best.

      Might doesn’t make right.

      Might makes whatever property rights you have.

      So you must possess the might to institute the property rights you desire.

      Source date (UTC): 2013-07-08 08:32:00 UTC