Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • The Law of The Cycles of Political Orders

    The Law of The Cycles of Political Orders https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/the-law-of-the-cycles-of-political-orders/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 21:34:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266483070775054336

  • The Law of The Cycles of Political Orders

    Eric Danelaw shared a link. Mar 2, 2020, 12:14 PM Class: The Little Word the Elites Want You to Forget, from truthdig.comTHE LAW OF THE CYCLES OF POLITICAL ORDERS (thanks for the invite to comment) Organizations evolve to exploit an opportunity that can only be exploited by organizations. The organizational myth, history, tradition, rules, methods of description, persuasion, and argument expand until all available opportunity, rents, extractions, and predations under it are exhausted and all incentives to persist the organization are exhausted by enough of the population that they are incentivized to seek other opportunities. At that point in the shift of incentives, the opportunity that evolves is radical extra-political reorganization of capital, elites, and institutions, to eliminate the accumulated, rents, extractions, and predations so that incentive to persist organization of the polity, society, community, is restored. This reorganization can consist of three possibilities, including i) retention of strategy but redistribution of capital and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of law), ii) rotation of strategy, elites, and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of legislation), or iii) replacement of strategy, elites, institutions altogether (best if under tyranny). For example Picketty is right in some sense, but it turns out that the aristocracies were actually better than we thought because they had Hoppeian incentives to avoid the tragedy of the commons, and to persist the polity and society while continuously reorganizing the institutions and elites. This is why we ( or at least I) have recommended (in the new constitutional amendments) capital reallocation, institutional reformation, and a shift back to intergenerational elites, on a scale not seen since the roman reforms. We don’t do things too badly. But our 20th century experiments in variations on the ancient tripartite order under rule of law largely didn’t work. There is a reason we evolved so quickly compared to other civilizations despite the dark ages. We already invented perfect government. We just didn’t adapt it correctly in response to the industrial revolution. Because we didn’t understand why we’d been successful. Now we do. Cheers.

  • The Law of The Cycles of Political Orders

    Eric Danelaw shared a link. Mar 2, 2020, 12:14 PM Class: The Little Word the Elites Want You to Forget, from truthdig.comTHE LAW OF THE CYCLES OF POLITICAL ORDERS (thanks for the invite to comment) Organizations evolve to exploit an opportunity that can only be exploited by organizations. The organizational myth, history, tradition, rules, methods of description, persuasion, and argument expand until all available opportunity, rents, extractions, and predations under it are exhausted and all incentives to persist the organization are exhausted by enough of the population that they are incentivized to seek other opportunities. At that point in the shift of incentives, the opportunity that evolves is radical extra-political reorganization of capital, elites, and institutions, to eliminate the accumulated, rents, extractions, and predations so that incentive to persist organization of the polity, society, community, is restored. This reorganization can consist of three possibilities, including i) retention of strategy but redistribution of capital and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of law), ii) rotation of strategy, elites, and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of legislation), or iii) replacement of strategy, elites, institutions altogether (best if under tyranny). For example Picketty is right in some sense, but it turns out that the aristocracies were actually better than we thought because they had Hoppeian incentives to avoid the tragedy of the commons, and to persist the polity and society while continuously reorganizing the institutions and elites. This is why we ( or at least I) have recommended (in the new constitutional amendments) capital reallocation, institutional reformation, and a shift back to intergenerational elites, on a scale not seen since the roman reforms. We don’t do things too badly. But our 20th century experiments in variations on the ancient tripartite order under rule of law largely didn’t work. There is a reason we evolved so quickly compared to other civilizations despite the dark ages. We already invented perfect government. We just didn’t adapt it correctly in response to the industrial revolution. Because we didn’t understand why we’d been successful. Now we do. Cheers.

  • Yang Is a Moron and Here Is the Better Answer

    Yang Is a Moron and Here Is the Better Answer https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/yang-is-a-moron-and-here-is-the-better-answer/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 21:03:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266475379885252611

  • Yang Is a Moron and Here Is the Better Answer

    Mar 4, 2020, 12:07 PM YANG IS A MORON AND HERE IS THE BETTER ANSWER by Curt Doolittle (from early 2018, reposted by Stephen Thomas)

    —“You haven’t articulated your solution in a sound byte 90% of your fans can understand let alone 90% of the general population”—

    There is no comparison. Nationalize mc [Master Card]; Issue one to every citizen over 18; Guarantee minimum $1000 per month to start Then: Distribute liquidity (regulate interest rates) directly to the people rather than thru the financial sector; Distribute 20% of tax revenues to the same means; Eliminate consumer interest, by direct loan from treasury. (requires direct deposit, thereby improving tax collection on cheats) Open medicaid to all. (put private and public in competition) Reduce Social Security to compensate Close the IRS for regular income. Close HUD, ED, Agriculture, Energy. Close All Foreign Bases other than ports. Eliminate corporate taxation on dividends. Nationalize Google, Facebook Twitter and restore freedom of speech. Eliminate hazard pricing and regulate pricing by cell, internet, and telephone, companies. This would gut the government, gut the financial sector; gut immigration, redistribute TRILLIONS a year, and mean the average homeowner would require one working parent, pay off mortgages in 15 years, crash the price of houses and rents, and force businesses to serve customers not banks. It would be the largest redistribution to the ‘working’ class since the roman land reforms. There is no possible better solution. If we had done this when I first recommended it in 2009, all those TRILLIONS would be in the hands of Americans not BANKERS. Yang is making the problem WORSE. It will ALL go to financial, landlord, credit cards. all of it will inflate away. (ST: I really see no reason to not consider this. I could see some push back from right wingers on the Nationalizing, etc. But really what other choice do we have that is actionable? First we need a National Political Divorce before any real change can begin.)

  • Yang Is a Moron and Here Is the Better Answer

    Mar 4, 2020, 12:07 PM YANG IS A MORON AND HERE IS THE BETTER ANSWER by Curt Doolittle (from early 2018, reposted by Stephen Thomas)

    —“You haven’t articulated your solution in a sound byte 90% of your fans can understand let alone 90% of the general population”—

    There is no comparison. Nationalize mc [Master Card]; Issue one to every citizen over 18; Guarantee minimum $1000 per month to start Then: Distribute liquidity (regulate interest rates) directly to the people rather than thru the financial sector; Distribute 20% of tax revenues to the same means; Eliminate consumer interest, by direct loan from treasury. (requires direct deposit, thereby improving tax collection on cheats) Open medicaid to all. (put private and public in competition) Reduce Social Security to compensate Close the IRS for regular income. Close HUD, ED, Agriculture, Energy. Close All Foreign Bases other than ports. Eliminate corporate taxation on dividends. Nationalize Google, Facebook Twitter and restore freedom of speech. Eliminate hazard pricing and regulate pricing by cell, internet, and telephone, companies. This would gut the government, gut the financial sector; gut immigration, redistribute TRILLIONS a year, and mean the average homeowner would require one working parent, pay off mortgages in 15 years, crash the price of houses and rents, and force businesses to serve customers not banks. It would be the largest redistribution to the ‘working’ class since the roman land reforms. There is no possible better solution. If we had done this when I first recommended it in 2009, all those TRILLIONS would be in the hands of Americans not BANKERS. Yang is making the problem WORSE. It will ALL go to financial, landlord, credit cards. all of it will inflate away. (ST: I really see no reason to not consider this. I could see some push back from right wingers on the Nationalizing, etc. But really what other choice do we have that is actionable? First we need a National Political Divorce before any real change can begin.)

  • Communism vs Islam: Totalitarian Monopolies

    Communism vs Islam: Totalitarian Monopolies https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/communism-vs-islam-totalitarian-monopolies/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 20:35:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266468103468322825

  • Communism vs Islam: Totalitarian Monopolies

    Mar 5, 2020, 9:40 PM by Frank Roman (2103) Communism is governance usurping the House of Religion; Islam is religion usurping the Halls of Governance. The superiority of the State, the Laws of the State, and the Party Leaders being the final authority in Communism, Islam replaces the State with Allah, the State Laws with the Koran and the Hadith, and the Party Leaders with the Imams. In Communism one is expected to fully surrender themselves to the dictates of the State while Islam demands on surrendering themselves to Allah and the defined laws attributed to Allah by Muhammad. Communism grants to the Party Leaders the power to define the desires and rules of the State while Islam gives the power to issue religious edicts known a Fatwas to the Imams. In addition, the Imams also have the power to choose which verses of the Koran, as many are contradictory, the faithful must follow and also interpret the Hadiths and define the actions attributed to Muhammad which are to be imitated by true followers of Islam. Communism fully expected that their form of governance was superior and would inevitably spread throughout the world, even if it needed a little help by conquest when any resisted the march of Communism. Communists defined peace as the lack of opposition thus peace could only be attained once everyone had surrendered and fallen under the control of the World-Wide Communist State. Islam believes it is the final and ultimate religion and fully defines what one must obey to lead a perfect life. Islamic leaders and many of their followers believe that not only is Islam the only true path, but that Islam must be spread, even by the sword, until every single person has surrendered to Allah and follows the edicts of the Imams. Islam divides the world into two states, the World of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the World of War (Dar al-Harb). In Islam peace is defined as the point at which the entire population of the world follows Islam and fully surrenders to Allah and Islam. Communism often used propaganda and would intentionally misrepresent production in order to guarantee that every quota set was met or exceeded. Misrepresenting and outright falsehoods would be used by Communist countries, especially in negotiations with non-Communist nations and would break treaties whenever it served their purposes. In Islam, all these same attributes are referred to as Taqiyya. In simple English one would define Taqiyya as lying. In a political and more general sense Taqiyya would be considered as propaganda, misrepresentation, or misleading all in an effort to further the aims of Islam, especially in order to gain influence or territories. Further, should one reach a treaty of peace with an Islamic Country, they would refer to the negotiation not to be an actual peace treaty but rather a Hudna. A Hudna is, in truth, a truce negotiated not to exceed ten years and may be broken at any point where the Muslim side feels it then has gained military advantage and will defeat their foe. A Hudna is the only allowance in Islam to be negotiated between Islamic entities and any non-Islamic entities. The only real peace in Islam is the complete and total defeat and surrender of the foes of Islam, thus no such thing as a peace treaty can be negotiated with an Islamic Country. In Communist States the Party Leaders are considered infallible and their rule is absolute. Party Leaders have the power to arbitrarily change the rules and invent charges in order to arrest and remove any persons who are seen as obstructing the State and imprison them in a work camp for life or execute them should they pose a real threat. In Islam the Imams are considered to speak for Allah as his representatives on Earth and as such are infallible. The Imams have the power to arbitrarily change the rules as they see fit and accuse and convict any person who has become troublesome of working against Allah and thus be incarcerated indefinitely or simply executed. The actual difference between Communism and Islam is one of emphasis. Communism is a form of governance that makes the State the highest authority and thus makes worship of the state as a substitute for religion. Islam is a religion that has total rules for all aspects of life including the establishment of a theocracy placing the Imams, Islamic religious leaders, as the rulers, courts, and authority responsible for governance as demanded by their religion. To put it in a nutshell, Communism is governance usurping the House of Religion; Islam is religion usurping the Halls of Governance. Edit

  • Communism vs Islam: Totalitarian Monopolies

    Mar 5, 2020, 9:40 PM by Frank Roman (2103) Communism is governance usurping the House of Religion; Islam is religion usurping the Halls of Governance. The superiority of the State, the Laws of the State, and the Party Leaders being the final authority in Communism, Islam replaces the State with Allah, the State Laws with the Koran and the Hadith, and the Party Leaders with the Imams. In Communism one is expected to fully surrender themselves to the dictates of the State while Islam demands on surrendering themselves to Allah and the defined laws attributed to Allah by Muhammad. Communism grants to the Party Leaders the power to define the desires and rules of the State while Islam gives the power to issue religious edicts known a Fatwas to the Imams. In addition, the Imams also have the power to choose which verses of the Koran, as many are contradictory, the faithful must follow and also interpret the Hadiths and define the actions attributed to Muhammad which are to be imitated by true followers of Islam. Communism fully expected that their form of governance was superior and would inevitably spread throughout the world, even if it needed a little help by conquest when any resisted the march of Communism. Communists defined peace as the lack of opposition thus peace could only be attained once everyone had surrendered and fallen under the control of the World-Wide Communist State. Islam believes it is the final and ultimate religion and fully defines what one must obey to lead a perfect life. Islamic leaders and many of their followers believe that not only is Islam the only true path, but that Islam must be spread, even by the sword, until every single person has surrendered to Allah and follows the edicts of the Imams. Islam divides the world into two states, the World of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the World of War (Dar al-Harb). In Islam peace is defined as the point at which the entire population of the world follows Islam and fully surrenders to Allah and Islam. Communism often used propaganda and would intentionally misrepresent production in order to guarantee that every quota set was met or exceeded. Misrepresenting and outright falsehoods would be used by Communist countries, especially in negotiations with non-Communist nations and would break treaties whenever it served their purposes. In Islam, all these same attributes are referred to as Taqiyya. In simple English one would define Taqiyya as lying. In a political and more general sense Taqiyya would be considered as propaganda, misrepresentation, or misleading all in an effort to further the aims of Islam, especially in order to gain influence or territories. Further, should one reach a treaty of peace with an Islamic Country, they would refer to the negotiation not to be an actual peace treaty but rather a Hudna. A Hudna is, in truth, a truce negotiated not to exceed ten years and may be broken at any point where the Muslim side feels it then has gained military advantage and will defeat their foe. A Hudna is the only allowance in Islam to be negotiated between Islamic entities and any non-Islamic entities. The only real peace in Islam is the complete and total defeat and surrender of the foes of Islam, thus no such thing as a peace treaty can be negotiated with an Islamic Country. In Communist States the Party Leaders are considered infallible and their rule is absolute. Party Leaders have the power to arbitrarily change the rules and invent charges in order to arrest and remove any persons who are seen as obstructing the State and imprison them in a work camp for life or execute them should they pose a real threat. In Islam the Imams are considered to speak for Allah as his representatives on Earth and as such are infallible. The Imams have the power to arbitrarily change the rules as they see fit and accuse and convict any person who has become troublesome of working against Allah and thus be incarcerated indefinitely or simply executed. The actual difference between Communism and Islam is one of emphasis. Communism is a form of governance that makes the State the highest authority and thus makes worship of the state as a substitute for religion. Islam is a religion that has total rules for all aspects of life including the establishment of a theocracy placing the Imams, Islamic religious leaders, as the rulers, courts, and authority responsible for governance as demanded by their religion. To put it in a nutshell, Communism is governance usurping the House of Religion; Islam is religion usurping the Halls of Governance. Edit

  • The West Is a Better but More Complex Game

    The West Is a Better but More Complex Game https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/the-west-is-a-better-but-more-complex-game/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 20:34:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266467988431155202