Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Mike Renzulli Makes The The Libertarian Case For Gingrich

    He frames the argument as pragmatic:

    In Eastern and Western philosophy there are two forces usually at work against one another which (it is assumed) helps bring balance to the world. In Asian philosophy it is the conflict between Yin and Yang. In Christianity the conflict is between the ideas of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo while in secular philosophy the conflict is between the outlook of Aristotle and Plato. In her book The Future and it’s Enemies, Virginia Postrel outlines the conflict between the dynamists and the statists. Dynamists embace a world of choice and competition which includes economic prosperity, technological progress and cultural innovation. Statists, on the other hand, envision a society that upholds the status quo, while embracing the values of a simpler past and authoritarian rule. …

    The fact remains that Western civilization is embroiled in a struggle for it’s very survival against enemies (Islam and the left) openly hostile to secularism and capitalism along with the freedoms open societies embrace. Israel, for example, is surrounded by theocratic dictatorships, and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and their leftists allies work diligently to undermine her in the court of public opinion. Their delegitimization campaign is only part of an effort that will result in a second Holocaust of the country’s Jewish population while obliterating the only country in the Middle East that is a prosperous, secular island of sanity which makes Islamist countries look bad. With Israel gone it will give Islamists will have less of a hurdle to convince their followers to join them in their quest to destroy Western infidels since by doing will have a far off faceless enemy to demonize.

    via Libertarian Republican: The Libertarian case for Gingrich.

    And because of these factors, he recommends Gingrich. Sure I would love to see Ron Paul in office. But having disbanded much of his campaign yesterday, I don’t see it as possible. Even if he were elected, the president’s power to enact policy is severely limited by the bureaucracy, by process, by the courts, by lobbyists, and by the other two houses of government. What I do believe, is that libertarian ideals are not achievable without the western tradition. And that tradition is under attack by the Left and by Islam. And that our chances of defending ourselves are decreasing by the day. I don’t know if Gingrich is electable. But I would vote for Gingrich just to have him debate Obama and destroy him every time. I usually try to stay away from promoting candidates, and I stick with policy and strategy under the assumption that the marginal difference between them is limited. But I am very afraid of another Obama presidency. And I’m afraid for my civilization. And I’m not afraid of maintaining libertarian ideals if we retain our civilization.

  • Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews

    In a rare break from party infighting, Monday’s Republican primary debate saw the candidates unite in their derision of “ObamaContent,” the president’s newly unveiled theory of linguistic meaning.  The theory, which relies upon the practice of a speaker’s linguistic community to fix the semantic content of many words, was attacked as “socialized meaning” by the debate participants.

    via Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews.

    This is just the right making use of the left’s strategy (from Chomsky etc.). Just as they have adopted every other strategy after some frustrating internal hand wringing about their feelings about the ethics of it. And so we continue the cycle of degenerative discourse. The underlying issue remains the same. We either use the caretaker strategy, which is a synonym for subsidizing the birth rates of the lower classes, or we use the aristocratic strategy which is a synonym for constraining the birth rates of the lower classes. The ‘framing’ in political discourse consists of using every possible distraction to avoid the underlying issue: that norms are dependent upon the behavioral ability of the majority and therefore the right’s concept of freedom requires individual accountability and the suppression of the birth rates of the lower classes in order to achieve improvements in the body politic. The left’s concept of freedom requires redistribution, tolerance for impulsivity over discipline, and an authoritarian government to perform administration of it. It is possible to create a compromise between these two worlds, but not while the ‘framing’ is conducted by either the right or the left as a means of avoiding the underlying problem.

  • Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews

    In a rare break from party infighting, Monday’s Republican primary debate saw the candidates unite in their derision of “ObamaContent,” the president’s newly unveiled theory of linguistic meaning.  The theory, which relies upon the practice of a speaker’s linguistic community to fix the semantic content of many words, was attacked as “socialized meaning” by the debate participants.

    via Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews.

    This is just the right making use of the left’s strategy (from Chomsky etc.). Just as they have adopted every other strategy after some frustrating internal hand wringing about their feelings about the ethics of it. And so we continue the cycle of degenerative discourse. The underlying issue remains the same. We either use the caretaker strategy, which is a synonym for subsidizing the birth rates of the lower classes, or we use the aristocratic strategy which is a synonym for constraining the birth rates of the lower classes. The ‘framing’ in political discourse consists of using every possible distraction to avoid the underlying issue: that norms are dependent upon the behavioral ability of the majority and therefore the right’s concept of freedom requires individual accountability and the suppression of the birth rates of the lower classes in order to achieve improvements in the body politic. The left’s concept of freedom requires redistribution, tolerance for impulsivity over discipline, and an authoritarian government to perform administration of it. It is possible to create a compromise between these two worlds, but not while the ‘framing’ is conducted by either the right or the left as a means of avoiding the underlying problem.

  • HUMANITIES AND NORMS “The norms promoted by prestigious humanities departments a

    HUMANITIES AND NORMS

    “The norms promoted by prestigious humanities departments are unpalatable when not couched in euphemism, and shielded by status-affirming organizational structures.” – Anon.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-08 08:28:00 UTC

  • Why Can’t Progressives Learn? They Don’t Learn From “Fables”. And They Think Numbers Convey Objective Meaning.

    via This is Really Why the Economy Is Looking Up(Snarky) « Modeled Behavior.

    I remember some folks telling me that the Lehman bankruptcy would be no biggie. [Whaaaat? “That’s how capitalism works!”], they said.

    Seems they are right. You declare bankruptcy and badabing-badaboom a little over three years later everything is cleared up. Easy peasy.

    From CNBC

    One-time financial powerhouse Lehman Brothers emerged from bankruptcy on Tuesday and is now a liquidating company whose main business in the coming years will be paying back its creditors and investors.

    Lehman, whose September 2008 collapse is often regarded as the height of the financial crisis, will start distributing what it expects to be a total of about $65 billion to creditors on April 17, it said in a statement.

    That first group of payments to creditors, many of whom lost money in its collapse 3-1/2 years ago, will be at least $10 billion, Lehman has said previously.

    The move is a legal milestone, but does not indicate the immediate end of Lehman Brothers.

    We always said that after the storm had passed the seas would be calm, and here you go.

    [callout]A CONCEPTUAL GEM: …the knowledge necessary to estimate the risk in any investment is not reducible to numbers that are semantically portable between individuals and therefore not convertible to commodities.[/callout]

    But this *IS* how capitalism works. That organization will be gutted and torn apart and investors who supported their behavior will be punished. That we have created an institutional framework for the distribution of liquidity that cannot tolerate human failure is a comment about our foolhardiness in governance. The solution to banking is the Swiss method: if you invest in it you own it, since the knowledge necessary to estimate the risk in any investment is not reducible to numbers that are semantically portable between individuals and therefore not convertible to commodities. That strategy would lead to lower interests rates and near zero consumer interest rates. Of course, this would throw havoc into your innovations on the ISMP curve, but it would require we spend and provide liquidity differently than we recommend now. It’s the answer you know. Not MMT. Numbers are a knowledge problem. And yes, the purpose of the system is to teach us fables. You’re just a prisoner of your method, and the inherent assumption that smart people can solve complex problems. And that’s a convenient illusion. (This last bit is a reflection of one of his earlier posts that openly states that economic failure is not informative nor do we learn from it. Really. That’s his position. Really. I know. It’s crazy.)

  • Why Can’t Progressives Learn? They Don’t Learn From “Fables”. And They Think Numbers Convey Objective Meaning.

    via This is Really Why the Economy Is Looking Up(Snarky) « Modeled Behavior.

    I remember some folks telling me that the Lehman bankruptcy would be no biggie. [Whaaaat? “That’s how capitalism works!”], they said.

    Seems they are right. You declare bankruptcy and badabing-badaboom a little over three years later everything is cleared up. Easy peasy.

    From CNBC

    One-time financial powerhouse Lehman Brothers emerged from bankruptcy on Tuesday and is now a liquidating company whose main business in the coming years will be paying back its creditors and investors.

    Lehman, whose September 2008 collapse is often regarded as the height of the financial crisis, will start distributing what it expects to be a total of about $65 billion to creditors on April 17, it said in a statement.

    That first group of payments to creditors, many of whom lost money in its collapse 3-1/2 years ago, will be at least $10 billion, Lehman has said previously.

    The move is a legal milestone, but does not indicate the immediate end of Lehman Brothers.

    We always said that after the storm had passed the seas would be calm, and here you go.

    [callout]A CONCEPTUAL GEM: …the knowledge necessary to estimate the risk in any investment is not reducible to numbers that are semantically portable between individuals and therefore not convertible to commodities.[/callout]

    But this *IS* how capitalism works. That organization will be gutted and torn apart and investors who supported their behavior will be punished. That we have created an institutional framework for the distribution of liquidity that cannot tolerate human failure is a comment about our foolhardiness in governance. The solution to banking is the Swiss method: if you invest in it you own it, since the knowledge necessary to estimate the risk in any investment is not reducible to numbers that are semantically portable between individuals and therefore not convertible to commodities. That strategy would lead to lower interests rates and near zero consumer interest rates. Of course, this would throw havoc into your innovations on the ISMP curve, but it would require we spend and provide liquidity differently than we recommend now. It’s the answer you know. Not MMT. Numbers are a knowledge problem. And yes, the purpose of the system is to teach us fables. You’re just a prisoner of your method, and the inherent assumption that smart people can solve complex problems. And that’s a convenient illusion. (This last bit is a reflection of one of his earlier posts that openly states that economic failure is not informative nor do we learn from it. Really. That’s his position. Really. I know. It’s crazy.)

  • The National Review Reflects My Criticism Of The American Conservative’s Pacifism

    As a followup to my criticism of The American Conservative’s position on Iran, The National Review’s David French http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292767/legal-case-striking-iran-david-french states:

    There has, in fact, been an “armed attack” against the United States. Iran has been waging a low-intensity war against America and Israel — both directly and by proxy — for more than two decades. Iran’s Quds Force has planned and directed attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on Israelis in Israel and abroad. Iran has directly supplied our enemies with deadly weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is responsible for hundreds of American military deaths — including the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In other words, Iran attacked us long ago, and our forbearance to this point is neither required by international law nor does it bind us to continued forbearance. In fact, when a declared and hostile enemy escalates its military capabilities dramatically, that presents a direct challenge to American security and the security of our allies. The Left is attempting to delegitimize the classical legal framework for the laws of war. In their view, military action is to be viewed as a set of discrete responses to discrete acts — more like law enforcement than warfare. In other words, Iran’s long history of terrorist acts don’t constitute casus belli (a justification for war), they merely represent just cause for, say, an attempt to capture the specific terrorists responsible. Yet international law has never required this level of national restraint, and such restraint is not required under the U.N. Charter.

    So, while my libertarian friends may argue with me, I ask them to understand that my understanding of freedom is not based upon the presumption of non-violence. It is based on the presumption that property rights are created and maintained through the application of organized violence. And that markets were made by intention, and freedom a systemic desire of the manorial warrior system. My work is to propagate aristocratic liberty, not proletarian liberty. They need not be incompatible. The state is the enemy, not violence.

  • The National Review Reflects My Criticism Of The American Conservative’s Pacifism

    As a followup to my criticism of The American Conservative’s position on Iran, The National Review’s David French http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292767/legal-case-striking-iran-david-french states:

    There has, in fact, been an “armed attack” against the United States. Iran has been waging a low-intensity war against America and Israel — both directly and by proxy — for more than two decades. Iran’s Quds Force has planned and directed attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on Israelis in Israel and abroad. Iran has directly supplied our enemies with deadly weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is responsible for hundreds of American military deaths — including the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In other words, Iran attacked us long ago, and our forbearance to this point is neither required by international law nor does it bind us to continued forbearance. In fact, when a declared and hostile enemy escalates its military capabilities dramatically, that presents a direct challenge to American security and the security of our allies. The Left is attempting to delegitimize the classical legal framework for the laws of war. In their view, military action is to be viewed as a set of discrete responses to discrete acts — more like law enforcement than warfare. In other words, Iran’s long history of terrorist acts don’t constitute casus belli (a justification for war), they merely represent just cause for, say, an attempt to capture the specific terrorists responsible. Yet international law has never required this level of national restraint, and such restraint is not required under the U.N. Charter.

    So, while my libertarian friends may argue with me, I ask them to understand that my understanding of freedom is not based upon the presumption of non-violence. It is based on the presumption that property rights are created and maintained through the application of organized violence. And that markets were made by intention, and freedom a systemic desire of the manorial warrior system. My work is to propagate aristocratic liberty, not proletarian liberty. They need not be incompatible. The state is the enemy, not violence.

  • sentimental and pragmatic criticism of libertarians. Although I tend to apprecia

    http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/machete-libertarianism-media-misinformationGood sentimental and pragmatic criticism of libertarians. Although I tend to appreciate the diversity of libertarian rhetoric and see the practical value in having an ideologically intolerant wing of the movement.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-07 02:20:00 UTC

  • The American Conservative: A Phony Case On Iran?

    via The American Conservative » Netanyahu Calls the Shots.

    We are seeing something awful unfolding before our very eyes – an essentially phony case for going to war being driven by a foreign country and its domestic lobby with the political class too terrified to say no and a complicit media beating the drum.

    Philip

    You’ve well argued the standard criticism. However, the practical reality is that the risk to Israel is simply too high that after an election that Obama may win, the next four year window is too tempting for Iran, and too threatening to israel. It’s a practical decision for them. There is nothing irrational about their actions.

    That the intelligence agencies argue that no decision has been made is an argument that I have trouble comprehending as rational. That they have conducted a multi-decade program of enablement is evidence enough. That the elimination of israel is a stated objective, and the laurels that will christen Islam’s leading state is enough of an objective for any political leadership.

    Iran has long desired to become the core state of post-ottoman islam, and has the population, military and economy to do it. A syrian, iraqi, irania, afghani, pakistani islamic block cum-civilization with two nuclear armed states given their internal fragility is strategically irrational for the USA to tolerate without total energy independence, and some evidence of a developing middle class that will engage in and have an interest in, the international system of specialization and trade.

    Moral arguments are nonsense in the face of strategic threats.