Theme: Responsibility

  • “Justice was not, is not, and will not be”—(Macâh). I am not so pessimistic. T

    —“Justice was not, is not, and will not be”—(Macâh).

    I am not so pessimistic. Too much evidence to the contrary. Moral men make moral justice. Immoral men fail to. The problem is in making moral men. And what I have learned this year, is that it is not so much a problem of making moral men, as in eliminating and preventing immoral men from existing.

    So far, hanging appears to work best.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 14:00:00 UTC

  • and Morality are proscriptive (what we shall not do). Not what is optimum for us

    http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/662995287376568320/photo/1/large?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=662995287376568320Ethics and Morality are proscriptive (what we shall not do). Not what is optimum for us to do. https://t.co/L9sA3prJkX


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 09:09:00 UTC

  • It is this difference between moral (negative) and heroic (positive) that we con

    It is this difference between moral (negative) and heroic (positive) that we conflate and confuse. Both are good. But – vs +.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 08:30:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662910013812416512

    Reply addressees: @DIA_operative

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662654572024893440


    IN REPLY TO:

    @DIA_operative

    @curtdoolittle I don’t make that claim, but merely that the freedom of capital to act on its own expenditure is ‘good’.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662654572024893440

  • The only moral ‘good’ is prohibitive: refraining from the imposition of costs. A

    The only moral ‘good’ is prohibitive: refraining from the imposition of costs. All else accumulative is heroic, not moral.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 08:29:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662909814423617536

    Reply addressees: @DIA_operative

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662654572024893440


    IN REPLY TO:

    @DIA_operative

    @curtdoolittle I don’t make that claim, but merely that the freedom of capital to act on its own expenditure is ‘good’.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662654572024893440

  • That does not prevent us from objectively determining who has conducted an invol

    That does not prevent us from objectively determining who has conducted an involuntary transfer that causes retaliation.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 15:25:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662651974488334336

    Reply addressees: @DIA_operative

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662644389307482112


    IN REPLY TO:

    @DIA_operative

    @curtdoolittle Also you remain in the libertarian paradigm of universal ethics. There’s no one right way for every man.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662644389307482112

  • But it is to the demonstrable advantage of men to act objectively immorally – an

    But it is to the demonstrable advantage of men to act objectively immorally – and most do.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 15:24:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662651786390540288

    Reply addressees: @DIA_operative

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662644389307482112


    IN REPLY TO:

    @DIA_operative

    @curtdoolittle Also you remain in the libertarian paradigm of universal ethics. There’s no one right way for every man.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662644389307482112

  • Instead of truthfulness, the left has diluted libel, slander, duel, and deceit –

    Instead of truthfulness, the left has diluted libel, slander, duel, and deceit – all of which were punishable in our past.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 14:45:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/660105185600135168

    Reply addressees: @mariamarty16

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659861813568368640


    IN REPLY TO:

    @mariamarty16

    Stephen Hicks sobre Igualdad:
    https://t.co/uHau9FPyCD https://t.co/QGWUK8P96O

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659861813568368640

  • “The highest tax the moral man pays into the commons is to duel and defeat the i

    —“The highest tax the moral man pays into the commons is to duel and defeat the immoral man.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 07:52:00 UTC

  • WALTER BLOCK’S IMMORALISM Walter is an immoralist. Not an amoralist, or a morali

    https://www.biv.com/article/2015/10/economic-freedom-report-sparks-fraser-institute-bi/ON WALTER BLOCK’S IMMORALISM

    Walter is an immoralist. Not an amoralist, or a moralist, but an immoralist: he is the only remaining advocate of eastern european, cosmopolitan, low-trust, ghetto ethics.

    For some reason it has eluded him that any anarchic society must eliminate incentives that create demand for the state, not gossip, rally and shame people who demand the state as a means of preventing and punishing parasitism. Walther’s ethic, like Rothbards, is based upon volition and the preservation of ‘cheating’, rather than the prevention of conflict and retaliation that force people to engage in production, distribution and trade.

    That it is the very ethic for which his ancestors were nearly exterminated, in every era of history, seems to be lost on him.

    The only liberty that is possible is that which western high trust civilization created: rule of law applicable to all, and the requirement for productive, fully informed, voluntary, exchange free of externality of the same criteria – thereby prohibiting murder, theft, violence, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, free riding, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest and war.

    The western ethic evolved to prevent retaliation and preserve the peace, to allow the construction of commons and to prohibit the devolution of individuals by appealing to their base instincts, thereby distracting them from productive work.

    Walter’s ethic, like Rothbard’s, is one of parasitic and predatory encouragement of hyper-consumption in order to transfer wealth that would otherwise be capitalized in the commons into the hands of those who undermine that commons.

    The first principle of ethics is not volition. It is “Why do I not kill or enslave you and take your women and your property?”. The answer is, it is preferable to let you remain alive and free if and only if you give me no reason to do otherwise by engaging in productive action that causes no harm to me, my kin or our commons.

    We have killed nearly all people in history who engaged in immoral actions, and until the 20th century hung one half to one percent of the population, which combined with manorialism and seasonality of nature produced the most eugenic society on earth, which was responsible in no small part for our prosperity.

    Walter is of that class of men who wants to reduce people to hedonistic barbarism so he can profit from their devolution by parasitic predation upon them, while claiming he is a moral man.

    That is the truth of it. That is the truth of cosmopolitanism. That is the truth of rothbardian libertinism.

    Liberty can be brought into existence only under rule of law, under the total prohibition on parasitism, and insured by the community by the codification of that prohibition in property rights, and the martial requirement for productive action in order to participate in the commons produced by those who engage in productive action.

    By conflating terminology as the Germans have done since Kant, Rothbard tried to achieve by appropriating the term liberty, what the left had achieved through the appropriation of the term liberal, and by telling a half truth, that allowed pathologically altruistic westerners to sympathize with the words stated, then using their intuition to supply the unstated consequences with altruistic rather than parasitic intentions.

    Most of the deceits of the 19th and 20th centuries (Hayek’s imprecisely named, new era of mysticism) were accomplished by Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard, the Frankfurt School, and the Keynesians, Postmodernists, Feminists, Rawlsians and Continentals: verbal deceptions to justify theft by one means or another by a combination of conflation, obscurantism, loading, framing, and overloading, in order to cause overwhelm frail human reason, and to rely upon suggestion to achieve what science and reason could not. That this is the same technique used by the monotheists in each era is not lost on all of us. We are just now, since Pinker threw exiting the second attempt at overthrowing science and reason: the first with babylonian mysticism distributed through immigrants, slaves and women, and the second through pseudoscience, immigrants and women newly enfranchised into democracy.

    End the lie. Rothbardianism is not an argument for liberty, but an argument for libertinism – not only a fraudulent attempt to escape genetic, normative-behavioral and physical payments for the commons. But an argument in favor of theft of the commons.

    The closure of the Stoic schools and the forcible introduction of Christianity is one uncompensatable and profoundly immoral crime enough for all of western history to tolerate. The usurpation of the social sciences, the academy, the media, and the state was the second attempt to bring about another age of mysticism, and another dark age.

    Science, Truth, Morality and Law, will succeed this time around. The only libertarianism necessary or possible is under rule of law mandating productivity for membership in the commons that we call the market. Because only under the total prohibition on parasitism is demand for the state both eliminated, and local transaction costs reduced sufficiently that it is rational to prefer an anarchic polity over a statist one.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 08:45:00 UTC

  • ONLY THE WEAK NEED COMFORTS (answering a young critic) As for critiquing people

    ONLY THE WEAK NEED COMFORTS

    (answering a young critic)

    As for critiquing people from the past, I am explaining what they did. (as far as I know my analysis is correct, because it has so much more explanatory power than every other alternative.) And that is what a scientist does.

    My criticism is that they are employing Cosmopolitan Jewish Enlightenment methods of conflationary argument to authority and attempting to reconstruct jewish law. I have made this same criticism of the Germans (kantians and idealists trying to recreate the church authority), and the same criticisms of the French; and I’ve made the criticism of the British as well (trying to create an aristocracy of everyone, and their descent into status seeking by demonstration of empty moral authority at their civilization’s expense.)

    The purpose of criticizing these people is to destroy the false promise of ashkenazi libertinism (rothbardianism), and Ashkenazi Economics (it’s not Austrian it’s Ukrainian – Mises is from L’viv – the town I’m in that was previously part of the austo hungarian empire). And to destroy the false promise of the conflationary germans trying to recreate the catholic church in secular terms. And destroy the fallacy of equality of the Anglos and the ambition of an aristocracy of everyone.

    And with those possibilities ended, to reconstruct our ancient heritage of nature worship, excellence and beauty worship, soft eugenics, testimonial truth, sovereignty, and rule of law.

    False prophets, lying philosophers, and dishonest pseudoscientists are the same class in every era merely making use of new technologies of deception.

    There are three technologies of coercion: force (physical), gossip(verbal), and remunerative (commercial). if a man need gossip it is because he is weak.

    We conquered the world because we invented truth and paid the high cost of telling it. It is the most expensive commons we have ever created. It has been the most durable commons we have ever created. But women in the modern era performed the same function as women in the Christian era: they overthrow aristocracy with religion. Its just that this religion now comes in three forms that appeal to three different classes: religion for the lower and lower middle, philosophy for the middle class, pseudoscience for the upper middle classes. And the aristocratic classes: military, have been driven from political participation and silenced through ridicule and gossip.

    So as far as I know I have answered your criticisms and turned them ’round. If you need that which you claim to, then you are a boy, not a man – and certainly not a transcendent man. 😉

    Only the weak need comforts.

    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-27 04:18:00 UTC