Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • What I Learned From Lew Rockwell

    What I Learned From Lew Rockwell http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/21/what-i-learned-from-lew-rockwell/

    Source date (UTC): 2012-02-21 16:12:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/171990798655700992

  • Karl Smith Is A Better Public Intellectual Than Paul Krugman

    Karl Smith Is A Better Public Intellectual Than Paul Krugman http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/21/karl-smith-is-a-better-public-intellectual-than-paul-krugman/

    Source date (UTC): 2012-02-21 14:11:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/171960176075751424

  • Karl Smith Is A Better Public Intellectual Than Paul Krugman

    Today, Karl reminds us that he has been harping for a long time on the fact that we could borrow money very cheaply during the recession — actually, with negative real costs — and put it to use in the economy. This post is another example of why Karl Smith is a better public intellectual than Paul Krugman, and why we need to get Karl a top ten news media publication vehicle. In the end, no matter how many insights Krugman has had in the field, he is an ideologue advancing a METHOD for intellectual, and personal reasons, not a practical intellectual seeking meaningful solutions to tactical problems. Krugman is the proverbial hammer looking for a rusty Keynesian, government-expanding, nail.

    [callout]Please encourage informed people to read Karl’s work on Modeled Behavior. Karl is both an exceptional analyst, a moral public intellectual, and an accessible teacher.[/callout]

    Karl Smith is the real thing: a public intellectual with potential to be the rarest of creatures: a statesman. A “skeptical empiricist” who is willing to employ a far wider toolset, constantly seeking innovative means of altering the economy. The only thing Karl needs to do is incorporate the practical reality of the use of political systems as the pursuit of power by interest groups, who have permanent, irresolvable, mutually exclusive, conflicting goals, not only because of differences in group preferences, ability and resources, but because of the conflict between the conservative constrained vision of hubristic human nature, and the progressive unconstrained vision of egoistic human nature. And the conflict between the conservative desire to regulate birth rates among the lower classes and to accumulate capital, and the progressive desire to expand the birth rates of the lower classes, and distribute and consume capital. Politics is the pursuit of power. Political systems exist to resolve conflicts between groups who compete for power. The “Common Good” is an accidental byproduct of the political competition between groups who seek expansion of power, rents, status, and opportunity. Karl, like most sentimental Progressives, (in contrast to his Smithian intellectual framework) believes that the future is uncertain and we can and must adapt to it. Conservatives believe that the scope of the kaleidic future can be narrowed if we ‘do no harm’ in the short term. One cannot make meaningful economic policy in a democratic polity without treating political powers as materially meaningful weights which must be applied to any model, and an integral part of any consequential recommendation for political action. Ignoring politics is unscientific. Plain and simple.

  • Propertarian Brick At A Time: Developing A Political Language For “Anglo America

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/21/what-i-learned-from-lew-rockwell/One Propertarian Brick At A Time:

    Developing A Political Language For “Anglo American Aristocratic Martial Commercial Conservatism”.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-02-21 11:11:00 UTC

  • Is Not A Solution: Providing An Alternative To Paul Krugman. I want to make Karl

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/21/karl-smith-is-a-better-public-intellectual-than-paul-krugman/Criticism Is Not A Solution: Providing An Alternative To Paul Krugman.

    I want to make Karl Smith the person on the left-of-center that conservatives engage with, and get Karl a major media outlet. We cannot develop compromise policies with ideologues. So the other side needs a better voice. And to do that, we have to protect the other side’s public intellectuals from our own ideologues.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-02-21 09:09:00 UTC

  • An Propertarian Interpretation Of The Timeline Of Philosophy

    The history of philosophy can be reduced to the five struggles: 1) First, between man’s primary desire to retreat into the limits of his senses in the face of evolving complexity, and his reluctant acknowledgement that he must learn and employ the tools of reason and calculation in order to extend those limited senses, despite the discomfort these unintuitive abstract tools subject him to. 2) Second, the conflict between his preference for the material ease of the division of labor and his emotional discomfort at the consequential alienation caused by post-tribal, post familial, and increasingly individualistic commercial society. 3) Third, between the comfort of historical norms and the precious status we each achieve by adhering to them, and the opportunity of economic, technical and organizational innovation that of necessity disrupts those norms. 4) Fourth, the need to develop justification of our system of norms such that we can resist or conquer the economic strategies, organizational strategies, and status signals embedded in competing systems of norms.” 5) And fifth, the most disturbing: between the masculine aristocratic inter-temporal instinct to concentrate capital and to constrain the breeding and consumption of the lower classes, and the feminine communal instinct to perpetuate her genes no matter how she has bred them, and her defensive posture of granting others the same opportunity, despite that it threatens us with Malthusian fragility, and eternal poverty. These five conflicts define the history of philosophy as an attempt to justify existing norms, or an appeal to modify them so that we may adapt to the future or regress into the past. The Real Class Struggle is not hierarchical, it’s vertical. The proletarians are simply the tools of each. There are only three forms of human persuasion and three forms of political persuasion:

      Martial

            Public Intellectual

                  Entrepreneurial

                    The Philosophical Eras:

                    • POST ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY 1970-> ( Abandonment of the transcendental program and complete reliance on natural sciences )

                      2) Postanalytic philosophy makes use of the methods of analytic philosophy, but opposes its transcendental aspirations and its assumption that we’re engage in a process discovery rather than invention. 3) Postanalytic philosophy is also referred to as Postphilosophy: the notion that philosophy no longer serves its historical role in society, having been replaced by the natural sciences and the wide availability of literacy, media, and information. Notes:1)I have very little confidence in the symbolic system outside of using very simple diagrams. And political philosophy, by its nature, requires that we use common language in an effort to make our ideas accessible to non specialists who can then proselytize our ideas to the common man. As such, I see symbolic systems as a convenient but self-defeating shorthand that serves only to inhibit us from achieving our goals.)2)I believe the discipline of philosophy can add value to the post-analytical era, not just in ensuring the fitness of minds, but that philosophers must reorder causal categories using empirical information so that new useful narratives can be added to the political discourse in order to assist in the evolution of norms from those that are beneficial in and older technological and organizational state to those that will be more beneficial in the new technological and organizational state.

                      • ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY 1900-1960 ( Incorporation of Natural Sciences, abandoning history, abandoning religion, abandoning norms, while retaining the transcendental program. )

                      The term “analytic philosophy” refers to a method of argument that emphasizes clarity – testable rather than normative statements. It uses:

                              Analytic philosophy is identified with specific philosophical commitments (many of which are rejected by contemporary analytic philosophers), such as:

                              • THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REVOLUTION
                              • THE CONTINENTAL COUNTER-REVOLUTION AGAINST ANGLO EMPIRICISM
                              • THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION III – ANGLO EMPIRICISM NORTHERN ITALIAN RATIONALISM AND GERMANIC LITERACY Empiricism, Restoration of monarchies, And The Return To Reason
                              • THE REVOLT AGAINST REASON AND MODERNITY 70AD->1400 ( Incorporation of Magianism – The Spread Of Ignorance From Augustine To William Of Ockham )
                              • THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION II – RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE – The First Commercial Society ( Greek Rationalism – The Emphasis On Human Actions – Empirical Pragmatism )

                                2) The principle that the logical clarification of thoughts can only be achieved by analysis of the logical form of propositions, often using the formal grammar and symbolism of a logical system of notation. The logical form is a way of representing a proposition in similarity with all other propositions of the same type. 3) The rejection of heavily loaded and inarticulate philosophical systems in favor of attention to detail, exposing causal relations, using ordinary, clear language. But practically speaking, the analytical program was an attempt to turn philosophy into a natural science, to retain philosophy’s historical public importance by pursuing the transcendental program. And it was a total failure outside of improving the philosophy of science. Empiricists Adapt To Modernity ( Attempts To Retain Historical Norms In The Face Of The Agricultural and Industrial Revolution, Science and Darwin ) The Germans And The French Hold On To History, Hierarchy And Privilege. France As The Most Backward Country In Europe The Anti-Empirical French Moralists The Bloody Revolution As Proof Of Failure The Third Attempt At Germanic Expansion The Marxist Religion As A Revolt Against Modernity The Return Of Science The Return Of Commercial Society In Italy The Move Of Trade From The Mediterranean to the Atlantic The Rise Of British Empirical Pragmatism The Downfall Of Islamic Disruption Of Trade The Scholastic’s React To The Conquistadors The Printing Press And Germanic Craftsmanship The The Second Attempt At Germanic Expansion The Roman Problems Of Administering A Landed Empire Rather Than A Naval Empire The Abrahamic Invasion and Conquest The Surrender to Immigration and Over-expansion The Justinian Oppression Of Northern Europe The Augustinian Attempt At Assimilation. The Plagues And The Shortage Of Coinage The Jewish Revolt Against Reason The Islamic Revolt Against Reason The Hindu Revolt Against Reason The Chinese Revolt Against Reason The Arab Conquest of Mediterranean Trade  

                                  • GREAT TRANSFORMATION I – THE AGRARIAN REVOLUTION AND RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS ( The Scriptural Religions – Uniting The Tribes – The Agrarian Era )
                                  • NATURAL RELIGION ( Rituals Staring With Sacrifice )

                                  A Few Timelines Of Philosophy Elsewhere: The Basic Philosophy Alternative To WikipediaThe Thompson Wadsworth Philosophy TimelineThe Western Philosophy Movements TimelineRIT’s Timeline of Major PhilosophersThe HyperHistory Wall ChartPeter von Stackelberg’s Comparative History Chart

                                • A SWEET PARAGRAPH FROM THIS MORING’S WORK ON PHILOSOPHY “This history of philoso

                                  A SWEET PARAGRAPH FROM THIS MORING’S WORK ON PHILOSOPHY

                                  “This history of philosophy can be reduced to the five struggles:

                                  1) First, between man’s primary desire to retreat into the limits of his senses in the face of evolving complexity, and his reluctant acknowledgement that he must learn and employ the tools of reason and calculation in order to extend those limited senses, despite the discomfort these unintuitive abstract tools subject him to.

                                  2) Second, the conflict between his preference for the material ease of commercial society and his emotional discomfort at the consequential alienation caused by post-tribal, post familial, and increasingly individualistic commercial society.

                                  3) Third, between the comfort of historical norms and the precious status we achieve by adhering to them, and the opportunity of economic, technical and organizational innovation that of necessity disrupts those norms.

                                  4) Fourth, the need to develop justification of our system of norms such that we can resist or conquer the economic strategies, organizational strategies, and status signals embedded in competing systems of norms.”

                                  5) And fifth, between the masculine aristocratic inter-temporal instinct to concentrate capital and to constrain the breeding and consumption of the lower classes, and the feminine communal instinct to perpetuate her genes no matter how she has bred them, and her defensive posture of granting others the same opportunity, despite that it threatens us with Malthusian fragility.

                                  These five conflicts define the history of philosophy as an attempt to justify existing norms, or an appeal to modify them so that we may adapt to the future or regress into the past.”

                                  Source date (UTC): 2012-02-19 12:15:00 UTC

                                • A Reply To Paul Craig Roberts: We’re Not Exporting Democracy. We’re Exporting Co

                                  A Reply To Paul Craig Roberts: We’re Not Exporting Democracy. We’re Exporting Consumer Capitalism. http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/17/a-reply-to-paul-craig-roberts-were-not-exporting-democracy-were-exporting-consumer-capitalism/

                                  Source date (UTC): 2012-02-17 20:09:29 UTC

                                  Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/170600778493472768

                                • Getting To Denmark

                                  Getting To Denmark http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/17/getting-to-denmark/

                                  Source date (UTC): 2012-02-17 19:49:57 UTC

                                  Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/170595862634958848

                                • Getting To Denmark

                                  This has a distinctly Chinese authoritarian tone to it. And that’s OK. If we can admire the Chinese for their current economy we can admire the rest of their political edicts too: Economists, social scientists, public intellectuals and politicians all use the Nordic Fallacy: the goal of making every country like Denmark. ie: a small homogenous germanic protestant country surrounded by other germanic protestants, with no exterior enemies and no need for self defense, and no strategic resources. We might ask, why we don’t ‘get to Switzerland’ which as a country has a far harder political problem. That said, here is how the average country can Get To Denmark:

                                  1. Any state larger than 10M must secede a territory sufficient to reduce it to 10M.
                                  2. Outlaw Consanguineous marriages out to three generations (This is the most important tactic one can take.)
                                  3. Outlaw non-english foreign web access, video, television channels, and literature. (english is Lingua Franca of business and science, that’s the only reason to grant it an exception.)
                                  4. Outlaw and eliminate non christian and or non-secular religious buildings, businesses, and associations.
                                  5. Raise the age of consent to 21, and the age of marriage to 25 with severe penalties, including prison or permanent deportation and tattooing.
                                  6. Require proof of sustainable income in order to have a child, with loss of the child, permanent imprisonment or deportation as the consequence.
                                  7. Enumerate all Property Rights within an immutable constitution, and require all legislation passed to demonstrate why it is permitted by the constitution.
                                  8. Use lottocracy rather than democracy to rotate political positions every two years.
                                  9. Outlaw job protection for anyone who directly or indirectly serves the government.
                                  10. Get a king and queen. The nordics have them. Monarchs are the only form of government people understand and the most common in history – and the tend to stop people from seeking too much political power, or being too ridiculously ambitious.
                                  11. Mandatory eduction in the western cannon for all citizens regardless of their age at immigration. Religion doesn’t matter as much as the western cannon does. It’s secular but the moral christian values are pervasive and unavoidable.
                                  12. Mandatory use of single language. Period. No exceptions. Give tickets for it if you have to.
                                  13. Mandatory civil service for women (delay marriage, and forcibly indoctrinate into cultural norms, with extended work, loss of fertility, and prison for abdication.)
                                  14. Mandatory military service for males (Forcible cultural indoctrination with physical punishment and loss of fertility for abdication.)
                                  15. Zero Tolerance Policy with 3 strikes life prison sentences. (Harsh prison sentences have been successful in the USA as a deterrent.)

                                  That’s what it will take to get to ‘Denmark’. Twenty years of that and you’ll have a solid polity with redistsrbutive instincts. That’s exactly what the european monarchies and nation states did. It’s what the Chinese are doing. And that’s why no one will get there. And in case find that list objectionable, I don’t usually do this but I’ll quote Rand:

                                  “It’s only human,” you cry in defense of any depravity, reaching the stage of self-abasement where you seek to make the concept “human” mean the weakling, the fool, the rotter, the liar, the failure, the coward, the fraud, and to exile from the human race the hero, the thinker, the producer, the inventor, the strong, the purposeful, the pure–as if “to feel” were human, but to think were not, as if to fail were human, but to succeed were not, as if corruption were human, but virtue were not–as if the premise of death were proper to man, but the premise of life were not.

                                  In other words, the progressives forgive all possible depravity and call the coward, lazy and fools heroic. While those of us who work daily with discipline and courage are called selfish and inhuman. Nonsense. Time to be done with the cult of guilt: No guilt. No white guilt, no christian guilt, no colonial guilt, no male guilt. Take it back. Take it back now. We did the world the greatest favor since the domestication of plants and animals. Ask for respect not forgiveness.