Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • (Diary) I was supposed to attend the Kiretsu Forum today, which is the local ang

    (Diary)
    I was supposed to attend the Kiretsu Forum today, which is the local angel VC org that I find does the best job of promoting new and emerging companies. I can’t quite make it unfortunately (stomach problems). So sorry folks. But I do want to compliment them on their work. And recognize that I’m missing the opportunity to look into these great companies and investments.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 18:26:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922720275826897372

  • Reforming Politics: The Problem of “Manufacturing Consent or Obedience” Requires

    Reforming Politics: The Problem of “Manufacturing Consent or Obedience” Requires Truthful Speech

    A recent post someone railed against politics without recognizing “The problem of manufacturing consent” – or under tyranny, the problem of manufacturing obedience.
    Unfortunately like many he is missing the point: politics is necessary for the formation of the spectrum of obedience to consent. And he’s presuming it isn’t possible to constrain politicians to truthful reciprocal and moral limits when addressing the polity (market) when in public, to the public, in matters public.
    This is a common conservative failing: if the conservative does not understand what to do, claim the problem is unsolvable. Or, worse, which is almost universal among conservatives, and is responsible for conservative political factions: “whatever I understand (a hammer) is what I will propose as the solution (a nail)”. This is why (a) conservatives cannot ally as easily as consumptives (progressives) and (b) why conservative initiatives almost always fail and (c) why previous solutions came out of libertarians and classical liberals and NOT conservatives.
    One must sell. Politics is the art of sales of consent or obedience necessary for organizing populations in the production of commons. And the only value of societies and polities is this concentration of human attention, effort, and resources to produce commons which provide discounts on everything to all despite whatever price is required.
    Politics is merely a market at large scale trying to sell the public a portfolio of possible costs and returns. The fact that the public vastly varies in capacity to comprehend requires pragmatisms. And worse, means that the message must appeal to the median of the distribution of the ability of the polity. Ergo the greek and roman aristocracy’s legendary political speeches, those of the founding fathers (the only equivalent), followed by postwar mass media and mass democracy and the total loss of aristocratic responsibility by their replacement with middle and proletarian class politicians, and the utter failure of credentialism in the bureaucracy.
    The solution of course is to constrain political speech to the truthful (testifiable) reciprocal (ethical and moral) fully accounting for costs and externalities (full accounting), and prohibiting pseudoscientific claims about humanity (human marginal indifference).
    This would effectively end the problems we all complain about and also end the cultural divide – as the left is dependent upon lying and pseudoscience as much as the right is dependent upon moralizing.
    So, we have a market for the suppression of lying called the courts, and we merely need to facilitate the suppression of this lying and fraud and pseudoscience such that political speech is prohibited from it’s industrialization of lying over the past few centuries.

    Of course, we ‘scienced’ lying such that it can be embeded in law, and political speech constrained to the truthful reciprocal and fully acounted. So the technical side is solved.

    It’s the political salesmanship prior to enacting it that’s going to be the problem. 😉

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 18:20:03 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1922718567637909536

  • I live to serve. 😉

    I live to serve. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 17:57:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922712928320455115

  • (Diary, Nonsense) Why is it, that there are these days, when we just need a bit

    (Diary, Nonsense)
    Why is it, that there are these days, when we just need a bit of a ‘vacation day’. And on this particular day, despite that I consume nearly no alcohol, it feels like one of those days where a few coronas with lime and lunch is the most productive thing you’re capable of. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 17:57:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922712878433669331

  • Western Foundations: Why The Anglosphere is Independent and the Continent Subser

    Western Foundations: Why The Anglosphere is Independent and the Continent Subservient: Laws

    • Common Law (Post Hoc, Sovereignty of the People):
      Empirical Commonality: Common law emerged organically in England, rooted in local customs and community practices, reflecting a “bottom-up” approach. It embodies the commonality of the people, where law derives legitimacy from shared traditions and judicial decisions that resonate with societal norms.
      Sovereignty: The people’s sovereignty is implicit, as judges, accountable to precedent and public scrutiny, interpret law in ways that align with evolving social values. This aligns with the post hoc approach—law is shaped after observing real-world disputes and outcomes.
      Concurrency of Legislative Contract: Statutes in common law systems (e.g., Magna Carta, later parliamentary acts) arise as a social contract, supplementing but not overriding judicial precedent. Parliament, representing the people, codifies laws in response to societal needs, maintaining a balance with judicial autonomy.
      Historical Context: England’s relatively decentralized feudal structure and early parliamentary traditions (e.g., 13th-century Parliaments) fostered a system where law was seen as a collective enterprise, not a state monopoly.
    • Napoleonic/Continental Law (Propter Hoc, Sovereignty of the State):
      Theoretical and Authoritarian Origins: Continental law, especially post-Napoleonic, is grounded in Roman law and codified under centralized state authority (e.g., Napoleon’s Civil Code of 1804). It reflects a top-down approach, where the state, as the embodiment of reason, dictates legal norms.
      Sovereignty: The state holds sovereignty, with codes designed to unify and control diverse populations under a single rational framework. This propter hoc reasoning assumes laws are valid because they stem from the state’s authoritative design, prioritizing uniformity over local variation.
      Authoritarian Tendencies: The codification movement (e.g., in France, Prussia) aimed to eliminate judicial arbitrariness and feudal fragmentation, but it centralized power in the state, often under monarchs or strong bureaucracies, sidelining popular input.
      Historical Context: The absolutist monarchies and fragmented legal systems (e.g., customary laws in pre-revolutionary France) necessitated centralized codes to consolidate state power, especially after the French Revolution.
    • Common Law (Trusted Judges in England):
      Historical Trust: By the time common law matured (12th-13th centuries), English judges, often appointed by the crown but operating in a relatively stable and localized system, were seen as trustworthy stewards of justice. The development of stare decisis and public court proceedings ensured accountability to both precedent and community expectations.
      Empirical Role: Judges resolved disputes based on observed facts and customary practices, reinforcing the post hoc method. Their rulings were pragmatic, grounded in real cases, not abstract theories.
      Cultural Factor: England’s insular geography and early unification under a single crown reduced the need for heavy-handed state control, allowing judges to act as mediators of community norms rather than state agents.
    • Continental Law (Untrusted Judges):
      Historical Distrust: On the continent, judges in pre-codification eras (e.g., under feudal or ecclesiastical courts) were often viewed as corrupt, biased, or beholden to local lords or the church. The French Revolution, for instance, targeted judicial arbitrariness as a symbol of old regime oppression.
      Theoretical Solution: Codification aimed to curb judicial discretion by providing clear, state-sanctioned rules. The propter hoc approach trusted the state’s rational codes over individual judges, who were seen as potential sources of inconsistency or abuse.
      State Oversight: Judges in continental systems became functionaries, applying codes under state supervision, with less autonomy than their English counterparts. This reflected a broader distrust of decentralized judicial power in fragmented or absolutist states.
    • Common Law (Empiricism):
      Common law’s post hoc reasoning is inherently empirical, building on observed judicial outcomes and societal practices. It aligns with thinkers like Locke or Burke, who valued tradition and incremental change over abstract ideals.
      The “commonality” of the law—its rootedness in shared customs—ties it to the people’s lived experience, not theoretical constructs. This makes it adaptive but sometimes inconsistent.
    • Continental Law (Rationalism):
      Continental law’s propter hoc reasoning is rationalist, drawing from Enlightenment ideals (e.g., Montesquieu, Rousseau) and Roman law’s systematic approach. Codes are designed to reflect universal principles, assuming the state can codify reason itself.
      This theoretical foundation prioritizes predictability but can disconnect law from local realities, especially in diverse or rapidly changing societies.
    • Empiricism and Commonality: The common law’s strength lies in its empirical grounding and reflection of the people’s sovereignty. Its post hoc nature ensures laws emerge from real disputes, not state fiat, fostering a sense of communal ownership.
    • State Authoritarianism in Continental Law: The propter hoc approach indeed reflects a state-centric, theoretical framework, often instituted to consolidate power in distrustful or fragmented societies. Napoleon’s codes, for example, aimed to unify France post-revolution, prioritizing state control over local variation.
    • Judicial Trust: The trustworthiness of English judges versus the perceived unreliability of continental judges is a critical historical driver. England’s stable legal culture allowed judicial discretion, while continental reforms sought to curb judicial power through codification.
    The common law’s post hoc empiricism, rooted in the sovereignty of the people and trusted judges, contrasts sharply with the propter hoc rationalism of continental law, which prioritizes state sovereignty and codified uniformity due to historical judicial distrust.
    The “commonality” of common law reflects a participatory, adaptive system, while continental law’s theoretical bent ensures predictability at the cost of flexibility.

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 17:46:28 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1922710114244624566

  • Liberal Democracy is non existent -We Have Classical Liberal Democracies or Soci

    Liberal Democracy is non existent -We Have Classical Liberal Democracies or Social Democracies. 😉

    Interesting. You know, I find this whole ‘Liberal Democracy’ term deceptive. Let’s help everyone with a bit of clarity. What precisely does ‘liberal democracy mean’ in operational terms?
    Liberal democracy, in operational terms, is a system of government that combines democratic processes with liberal principles to ensure both popular rule and individual protections. It functions through:
    • Free and Fair Elections: Regular, competitive elections where citizens vote for representatives or policies, with universal suffrage and minimal barriers. Outcomes are determined by majority or plurality rule, with protections against fraud or manipulation.
    • Rule of Law: Laws apply equally to all, enforced by an independent judiciary. No one, including government officials, is above the law. Legal frameworks protect rights and prevent arbitrary state action.
    • Protection of Individual Rights: Constitutional guarantees for freedoms like speech, press, assembly, religion, and property. These rights are enforceable, often through courts, and limit government overreach.
    • Separation of Powers: Distinct branches (executive, legislative, judicial) with checks and balances to prevent any one branch from dominating. This ensures accountability and deliberation.
    • Pluralism and Open Society: Diverse political parties, civil society groups, and media operate freely, fostering debate and preventing monopolies on power or information.
    • Limited Government: The state’s authority is constrained by law and rights, focusing on public goods (security, infrastructure) while respecting personal autonomy.
    In practice, liberal democracy requires institutions—like electoral commissions, courts, and free press—to function independently. It demands active citizen participation and mechanisms to correct imbalances, like judicial review or impeachment. Variations exist (e.g., parliamentary vs. presidential systems), but the core is balancing majority rule with minority rights and individual liberties. No perfect example exists; systems like the U.S., Germany, or Canada approximate it with flaws.
    I think that’s classical liberalism you’re describing. When people use the term liberal democracy I think they mean social democracy with classical liberal institutions: big government as insurer of last resort, but preservation of some of the independence of the economy left to the private sector.
    You’re right to point out the distinction, as “liberal democracy” in modern usage often gets conflated with social democracy or systems blending classical liberal institutions with expansive government roles. Let’s clarify in operational terms, addressing your specific framing:
    Classical Liberalism vs. Modern “Liberal Democracy”:
    • Classical Liberalism, as reflected in my prior answer, emphasizes limited government, individual liberties (speech, property, etc.), rule of law, and free markets, with institutions designed to maximize personal freedom and restrain state power. Think Locke or Mill.
    • Modern “Liberal Democracy”, as you’re describing, often implies a hybrid: classical liberal institutions (elections, independent judiciary, rights protections) combined with social democratic elements—a larger state acting as an insurer of last resort, providing safety nets (healthcare, welfare, education) while preserving private sector autonomy to varying degrees.
    Operational Definition of “Liberal Democracy” (Modern Sense)
    In this context, liberal democracy operates through:
    1. Democratic Institutions with Classical Roots:
    • Free, fair, and regular elections to select representatives, ensuring popular sovereignty.
    • Independent judiciary to uphold constitutional rights (e.g., free speech, privacy) and check government power.
    • Separation of powers to prevent authoritarianism, with legislative and executive branches accountable to voters and courts.
    2. Big Government as Insurer of Last Resort:
    • Extensive welfare state programs, like universal healthcare (e.g., NHS in the UK, Medicare in Canada), unemployment benefits, or public pensions, to mitigate inequality and provide security.
    • Progressive taxation to fund social programs, redistributing wealth while maintaining private property rights.
    • Regulatory frameworks to correct market failures (e.g., environmental protections, labor laws) without fully nationalizing industries.
    3. Preservation of Private Sector Independence:
    • Market-driven economy with private ownership of businesses and capital, distinct from socialism’s state control.
    • Government intervention limited to regulation, subsidies, or bailouts (e.g., 2008 financial crisis) rather than direct management of industries.
    • Encouragement of competition and innovation through policies like antitrust laws or R&D tax credits.
    4. Balancing Individual Rights and Collective Welfare:
    • Classical liberal rights (e.g., free press, assembly) remain, but interpreted to include positive rights (e.g., right to healthcare or education).
    • Civil society and pluralistic media persist, though debates arise over state influence (e.g., public broadcasting).
    5. Mechanisms for Stability and Adaptation:
    • Bureaucratic agencies (e.g., social security administrations, health ministries) manage large-scale programs efficiently.
    • Political processes allow debate over the state’s role, with parties ranging from market-friendly to social democratic competing within the system.
    • Constitutional flexibility to expand government’s role (e.g., via amendments or judicial reinterpretation) while preserving core liberties.
    Examples in Practice
    • Nordic Countries (e.g., Sweden, Denmark): Often labeled social democracies, they combine liberal democratic institutions (free elections, independent courts) with robust welfare states (universal healthcare, education) and market economies. Private sector thrives (e.g., Volvo, Novo Nordisk), but high taxes fund social safety nets.
    • Canada: Parliamentary democracy with classical liberal roots (Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but universal healthcare and social programs reflect the “insurer of last resort” role. Private sector dominates outside regulated areas like energy or telecom.
    • U.S. (to a lesser extent): Classical liberal core (Bill of Rights, checks and balances), but programs like Social Security, Medicare, or Obamacare nod to social democratic principles. Private sector independence is stronger than in Europe, with less redistribution.
    Key Tensions
    This hybrid model isn’t seamless:
    • Scope of Government: Debates over how “big” the state should be (e.g., U.S. fights over healthcare mandates) strain the balance between liberty and welfare.
    • Economic Freedom vs. Equality: High taxes and regulation can clash with classical liberal emphasis on free markets, as seen in critiques from libertarian groups.
    • Rights Conflicts: Expanding positive rights (e.g., healthcare access) can infringe on negative rights (e.g., property via taxation), sparking legal and political battles.
    Why the Confusion?
    The term “liberal democracy” gets muddled because it’s stretched to cover both classical liberalism’s minimal state and social democracy’s interventionist one. In popular discourse, especially in the U.S., “liberal” often just means left-leaning policies, further blurring lines. Your framing nails the modern usage: a system that keeps classical liberal guardrails (elections, rights, markets) but leans on government to cushion capitalism’s edges.
    If you want to zoom in on a specific country, policy, or tension (e.g., how healthcare fits this model), or if you’d like me to analyze a source or X post to ground this further, just say so.
    No. I just wanted to clarify this usage where we use classical liberalism on one hand and social democracy on the other, and liberal democracy is some half-truth we use to include both without insulting either.
    Exactly, you’ve hit the nail on the head. “Liberal democracy” in modern usage is often a catch-all term, a convenient half-truth that papers over the tension between classical liberalism’s focus on individual liberty and limited government and social democracy’s push for a bigger state to ensure equity and welfare. It’s a rhetorical bridge, letting people nod to the institutions of classical liberalism (free elections, rights, independent courts, market economies) while embracing social democratic policies (welfare, healthcare, redistribution) without fully committing to either’s purer form. This vagueness avoids alienating those who lean toward libertarian instincts or those who want robust safety nets, but it muddies the waters by implying a seamless blend when, in practice, the two can clash—say, when high taxes for social programs butt up against property rights or personal autonomy.
    Operationally, it’s a system that tries to have it both ways: (A False Equivalency) classical liberal structures to keep power in check and markets humming, plus social democratic interventions to soften capitalism’s rough edges. The term’s flexibility is its strength and its flaw—it’s inclusive but imprecise, letting everyone project their preferred balance onto it. If you want to dig deeper into how this plays out in a specific context or debate, just point me there.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 17:27:41 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1922705388937543691

  • ( @CloudByter : Done)

    (
    @CloudByter
    : Done)

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 17:02:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922699103382786253

  • The OP’s author is posting a bit of a polemic about “The problem of manufacturin

    The OP’s author is posting a bit of a polemic about “The problem of manufacturing consent”. Or under tyranny, the problem of manufacturing obedience. Unfortunately like many he is missing the point: politics is necessary for the formation of the spectrum of obedience to consent. And he’s presuming it isn’t possible to constrain politicians to truthful reciprocal and moral limits when addressing the polity (market) when in public, to the public, in matters public.
    This is a common conservative failing: if the conservative does not understand what to do, claim the problem is unsolvable. Or, worse, which is almost universal among conservatives, and is responsible for conservative political factions: “whatever I understand (a hammer) is what I will propose as the solution (a nail)”. This is why (a) conservatives cannot ally as easily as consumptives (progressives) and (b) why conservative initiatives almost always fail and (c) why previous solutions came out of libertarians and classical liberals and NOT conservatives.
    One must sell. Politics is the art of sales of consent or obedience necessary for organizing populations in the production of commons. And the only value of societies and polities is this concentration of human attention, effort, and resources to produce commons which provide discounts on everything to all despite whatever price is required.
    Politics is merely a market at large scale trying to sell the public a portfolio of possible costs and returns.
    The fact that the public vastly varies in capacity to comprehend requires pragmatisms. And worse, means that the message must appeal to the median of the distribution of the ability of the polity. Ergo the greek and roman aristocracy’s legendary political speeches, those of the founding fathers (the only equivalent), followed by postwar mass media and mass democracy and the total loss of aristocratic responsibility by their replacement with middle and proletarian class politicians, and the utter failure of credentialism in the bureaucracy.
    The solution of course is to constrain political speech to the truthful (testifiable) reciprocal (ethical and moral) fully accounting for costs and externalities, and prohibiting pseudoscientific claims about humanity – this would effectively end our problems and also end the cultural divide as the left is dependent upon lying and pseudoscience as much as the right is dependent upon moralizing.
    So, we have a market for the suppression of lying called the courts, and we merely need to facilitate the suppression of this lying and fraud and pseudoscience such that political speech is prohibited from it’s industrialization of lying over the past few centuries.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 17:02:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922699000979112386

  • “America is going against fundamental structure of EU”– America is merely deman

    –“America is going against fundamental structure of EU”–

    America is merely demanding you pay your way.

    Additionally, the present administration is trying to reverse the suicide of western civilization because of a secular theology of human equality of potential for conformity to european truth, reason, merit, and the high trust that makes our civilization possible and which others cannot even approach.

    The administration is seeking to prevent the continued use of Pax Americana as a vehicle for subsidizing the ‘woke’ movement thus ending the Marxist sequence’s attempt to destroy the west by false promises using sophistry, pseudoscience, and hostile immigration, just as abrahamism sought to do so and did by supernaturalism followed by islamic raiding and destruction of mediterranean trade.

    It took the germans and scandinavians between the vikings and the Hansa to restore western civ using the north sea, the baltics, and the return of greco roman reason. Even now the mediterranean struggles under the burden of their historical immigration, invasion, dilution, and conquest.

    So grow up europe. Daddy america is taking you off his dole.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @TomReevesMBA @BehizyTweets

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 16:47:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922695192857149443

  • “America is going against fundamental structure of EU”– America is merely deman

    –“America is going against fundamental structure of EU”–
    America is merely demanding you pay your way.
    Additionally, the present administration is trying to reverse the suicide of western civilization because of a secular theology of human equality of potential for conformity to european truth, reason, merit, and the high trust that makes our civilization possible and which others cannot even approach.
    The administration is seeking to prevent the continued use of Pax Americana as a vehicle for subsidizing the ‘woke’ movement thus ending the Marxist sequence’s attempt to destroy the west by false promises using sophistry, pseudoscience, and hostile immigration, just as abrahamism sought to do so and did by supernaturalism followed by islamic raiding and destruction of mediterranean trade.
    It took the germans and scandinavians between the vikings and the Hansa to restore western civ using the north sea, the baltics, and the return of greco roman reason. Even now the mediterranean struggles under the burden of their historical immigration, invasion, dilution, and conquest.
    So grow up europe. Daddy america is taking you off his dole.
    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 16:47:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922695192991367631