Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • FOUR LEGAL MODELS AND BLACKMAIL Given that necessary morality is objectively def

    FOUR LEGAL MODELS AND BLACKMAIL

    Given that necessary morality is objectively defined (in-group cooperation: the prohibition on free riding), and unnecessary moral rules are defined (in-group signals and rituals) and out-group cooperation is also defined (rothbardian ethics – the ethics of states) we can look at four possible permutations of representing the causes of criminal, ethical and moral in-group conflict under different legal prohibitions:

    1) ILLEGAL or LEGAL and NON-MORAL: If two people want to engage in blackmail, but the victim doesn’t want to prosecute, then there is no crime, because without a state there is no one else to make the claim of wrongdoing.

    2) ILLEGAL: If blackmail is illegal, because it is immoral, and the party wants to sue, he can.

    3) LEGAL: If it is not illegal but it is immoral, then the victim has no other recourse but violence.

    I do not see how one can claim innocence if one aggresses via blackmail, then is murdered for his aggression.

    4) MINIMUM LEGAL SCOPE, FREEDOM OUTSIDE THAT SCOPE. So that means the fourth scenario is that violence is of course always available as a means of settling unethical and immoral conflicts. So the law can only be used for rothbardian levels of conflict (crime) and violence remains available for unethical and immoral actions.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 13:17:00 UTC

  • WHY DID WE HAVE TO CREATE YET ANOTHER FORM OF MYSTICISM? Natural rights? Intrins

    WHY DID WE HAVE TO CREATE YET ANOTHER FORM OF MYSTICISM?

    Natural rights? Intrinsic rights?

    OMG. It was the 20th century for goodness sake. What kind of idiot would suggest you “had” (owned, possessed) the equivalent of a soul?

    The source of any property right is anothers grant of it in exchange for the same, for the duration of your cooperation.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 09:24:00 UTC

  • THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. I don’t free

    THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE

    I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. I don’t free-ride on others labors then justify my liberty. I don’t claim my freedom is innate. Or a natural law. Or a gift of the gods. Instead, I claim that property rights are obtained in contractual exchange from others who likewise promise to defend that liberty – those property rights.

    It’s my moral obligation to fight for the self determination of any people who seek to be free. It is only through this agreement that I obtain my freedom, we obtain our freedom, and free men increase in number.

    I’m not afraid of violence. I worship it. I covet it. I want to collect it. To celebrate it. To honor it. Because with enough of it I can free myself, and others from the tyranny of the state.

    Sic Semper Tyrannis.

    The state should fear us. The state shall fear us. And once they fear us we shall win.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-06 04:16:00 UTC

  • AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS: THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF MATHEMATICS, BUT OF MORALITY 1) If

    AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS: THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF MATHEMATICS, BUT OF MORALITY

    1) If you look at mainstream economics as the study of human behavior demonstrated by the record of human actions, then I think it’s an excellent means of conducting research in social science. And, by and large, that is what the economic community engages in, and how most of them describe their work. Because the canons of science suggest that such a claim is all that they can make.

    2) If you look at mainstream economics as the source of government policy which can be used to maximize all available opportunity for consumption, then some economists might argue that is true although a lot might also argue that their work is used for that purpose but should not be, since their science is too young to be used for that purpose.

    3) if you look at mainstream economics as a means by which to justify ‘dishonest socialism’ under the Keynesian model of forcible redistribution without control of the means of production, and a tool by which to undermine western exceptionalism, then it’s really not hard to make that argument.

    4) If you look at economics as the study of moral human cooperation, then austrian economics (or at least, praxeological analysis) exposes the immorality of political intervention in the economy and the consequences of that intervention over the long term. Unfortunately the progressive argument – which can only be settled empirically if and when we demonstrate that they are wrong by catastrophic failure – is that the short term good accomplished (the acceleration of the reproductive rates of the lower classes) compensates for any harm in the long term, and in the long term technology (and our supposed infinite wisdom) will solve that problem in the long run for us.

    CLOSING

    The problem is that under majority rule and monopoly government, we cannot allow the dishonest socialists, and moral and honest austrians to conduct their experiments in parallel. Were we able to divide our polity either internally (by class) or externally (by separate states) we could run this empirical test. I would assume that under that test the keynesian group would reproduce and generate consumption through reproduction that could not be matched by the innovation of the austrian group – since generating demand through innovation is more expensive a research program than generating demand through malthusian reproduction.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 12:22:00 UTC

  • MORAL REALISM: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING. (pulled out and reposted) Liberta

    MORAL REALISM: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING.

    (pulled out and reposted)

    Libertarianism argues that Non Aggression, (NAP) + Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (IVP) constitute a universal moral natural law. This is ‘almost real’. And any claim that natural rights or natural law exist is to claim moral realism (constant correspondence.)

    Now, I disagree with IVP and NAP, because I have learned that human moral standards are universally higher than that. That no groups exist and can exist by treating internal members as such. And that peoples who use the NAP with outsiders are usually outcast and exterminated.

    However, if we look at universally demonstrated human behaviors, we see that it is quite possible to identify a small number of constant moral constraints upon our action. And that these moral constraints reflect our reproductive strategies – and must. Further, that all cultures may implement more or less of these moral constraints, and that many of these moral constraints are mixed with signaling (which is not a moral constraint, but a signal of commitment to moral constraints – usually ritualistic costs that one must bear). This means that all moral systems include the universal moral rules, a level of adoption of those rules that suits their reproductive structure within the particular moral structure of production available to them, and a body of rituals and signals. And that all moral codes in all groups can be reduced to technical descriptions on the axes I have described.

    If this is true, and I am correct, and I think the evidence suggests that I am correct, then the underlying moral code is on that is in favor of cooperation while prohibiting free riding, where failing to engage in cooperation is also free riding. As such, the underlying moral intuition begins with the prohibition on free riding. Further that depending on a number of environmental variables such as geography and competition, humans will produce predictable moral codes, albeit a wide variety of signals. And yes, the genders differ in the distribution of weights that they give to those underlying moral codes.

    As such, we have finally uncovered the logic and science of morality. And as such, morality is both real, and non arbitrary.

    Thus the only means of moral action we possess is voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange, free of negative externalities, in which we contributed to production. It implies that one cannot refuse a trade that causes one no loss, takes no effort, exposes one to no risk, and benefits another.

    Everyone has something to trade. Even if it’s merely respect for life, property, manners, ethics, morals and rituals. And that is enough to trade for the benefits of the market, and the opportunity to conduct other trades with those who likewise enter into the bargain.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 09:09:00 UTC

  • WHY WOULD YOU CHOOSE ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS OVER ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS? I mean, what k

    WHY WOULD YOU CHOOSE ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS OVER ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS?

    I mean, what kind of person wants it to be legal to lie, cheat, deceive, but not use violence against those who lie, cheat and deceive?

    It’s not complicated.

    Rothbard was wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-01 10:24:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS (worth repeating) –“Under rothbardian

    PROPERTARIAN ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS

    (worth repeating)

    –“Under rothbardian ethics the buyer must beware, and under propertarian ethics the seller must beware. Propertarian ethics put warranty in the hands of the person with the greatest knowledge and therefore produces the least asymmetry of knowledge. ‘ —

    Propertarian ethics solve the problem of libertarian morality.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 03:19:00 UTC

  • It's Up To Rothbardians To Demonstrate That They Are Not Morally Blind…

    … advocates of a parasitic, immoral, unethical ideology, rejected by all but a dysfunctional minority; and by their profligate advocacy of an unethical, immoral, parasitic, regressive, and therefore politically impossible criteria for a voluntary social order, have impeded and harmed the preservation and expansion of our liberty. [W]e cannot look to the ghetto – a state within a state – for institutional, legal, and moral insight. We must look to Aristocracy, the militia, the common law, the absolute nuclear family, and the total suppression of free riding, in all its forms, for our moral, legal and institutional insight. Because only Aristocratic Egalitarians of european history have produced liberty in any form. The vast majority of humans do not want liberty. But all wish to enjoy the prosperity that results from the aristocracy’s suppression of free riding, and the increased velocity of production and trade that results from that undesired suppression of free riding. [T]he use of organized violence to eliminate free riding by a willing and committed minority, the admission into enfranchisement of those who demonstrate such a commitment, and the desire of, and incentive for, the unenfranchised to participate in the wealth of the market produced by the violent suppression of free riding, is the only means of obtaining liberty. Everything else is merely the pretense of liberty by permission of others, and the free riding upon those who fight to preserve liberty against the pervasive human preference to free ride whenever possible. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.

  • It’s Up To Rothbardians To Demonstrate That They Are Not Morally Blind…

    … advocates of a parasitic, immoral, unethical ideology, rejected by all but a dysfunctional minority; and by their profligate advocacy of an unethical, immoral, parasitic, regressive, and therefore politically impossible criteria for a voluntary social order, have impeded and harmed the preservation and expansion of our liberty. [W]e cannot look to the ghetto – a state within a state – for institutional, legal, and moral insight. We must look to Aristocracy, the militia, the common law, the absolute nuclear family, and the total suppression of free riding, in all its forms, for our moral, legal and institutional insight. Because only Aristocratic Egalitarians of european history have produced liberty in any form. The vast majority of humans do not want liberty. But all wish to enjoy the prosperity that results from the aristocracy’s suppression of free riding, and the increased velocity of production and trade that results from that undesired suppression of free riding. [T]he use of organized violence to eliminate free riding by a willing and committed minority, the admission into enfranchisement of those who demonstrate such a commitment, and the desire of, and incentive for, the unenfranchised to participate in the wealth of the market produced by the violent suppression of free riding, is the only means of obtaining liberty. Everything else is merely the pretense of liberty by permission of others, and the free riding upon those who fight to preserve liberty against the pervasive human preference to free ride whenever possible. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.

  • It's Up To Rothbardians To Demonstrate That They Are Not Morally Blind…

    … advocates of a parasitic, immoral, unethical ideology, rejected by all but a dysfunctional minority; and by their profligate advocacy of an unethical, immoral, parasitic, regressive, and therefore politically impossible criteria for a voluntary social order, have impeded and harmed the preservation and expansion of our liberty. [W]e cannot look to the ghetto – a state within a state – for institutional, legal, and moral insight. We must look to Aristocracy, the militia, the common law, the absolute nuclear family, and the total suppression of free riding, in all its forms, for our moral, legal and institutional insight. Because only Aristocratic Egalitarians of european history have produced liberty in any form. The vast majority of humans do not want liberty. But all wish to enjoy the prosperity that results from the aristocracy’s suppression of free riding, and the increased velocity of production and trade that results from that undesired suppression of free riding. [T]he use of organized violence to eliminate free riding by a willing and committed minority, the admission into enfranchisement of those who demonstrate such a commitment, and the desire of, and incentive for, the unenfranchised to participate in the wealth of the market produced by the violent suppression of free riding, is the only means of obtaining liberty. Everything else is merely the pretense of liberty by permission of others, and the free riding upon those who fight to preserve liberty against the pervasive human preference to free ride whenever possible. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.