Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • “Privilege is something any group will create for its members if they are able.

    —“Privilege is something any group will create for its members if they are able. I think we would do better to ask what’s wrong with groups that are unable, rather than tolerating lectures on account of we trust each other more than we trust them; when they evidently don’t even trust each other (because they would prefer to interact, or do business, or live among, us.)”— Eli Harman

    If you, as an individual, find yourself benefitting from the stereotypes developed by your people, is it not ‘true’ and is it not ‘moral’? The more interesting question is why do others not benefit from the stereotypes developed by their people?

    Trust, truth telling, and signals of trust and truth telling are very expensive investments a people must make. Why is it that some are more or less willing and able to make those investments and produce that stereotype?

    Why should people pay high costs to test a stereotype that was paid for at such high cost? And why have you and yours failed to produce an equally valuable stereotype?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:50:00 UTC

  • By Eli Harman My argument against women’s suffrage depends on only 3 points. 1)

    By Eli Harman

    My argument against women’s suffrage depends on only 3 points.

    1) Voting either directs violence, or is a substitute for it.

    2) The preponderance of actual violence is supplied by men. And the preponderance of potential violence is *not supplied* by men.

    3) Men and women vote differently, on average.

    All three of these points are, I think, incontrovertible.

    There is certainly much more which could be said on the matter. But this is all that actually needs to be said, to show that women’s suffrage is unstable, and necessarily ends in violence.

    For democracy can never reconcile conflicting interests of priorities. It can only privilege some, at the expense of others. And the more women vote to advance their interests, or impose their priorities, at the expense of men’s, the more tension will build. And it can only build until it breaks, because it is men who are asked to supply the actual violence which carries the outcomes of elections into effect, or to refrain from potential violence to prevent the outcomes of elections from being carried into effect.

    But we don’t have to do either.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:49:00 UTC

  • THE INFORMATION CONTENT OF VIOLENCE: It’s an article of faith among many liberta

    THE INFORMATION CONTENT OF VIOLENCE:

    It’s an article of faith among many libertarians that violence, and particularly aggressive violence, is necessarily negative sum.

    Prices contain information and markets broker them (in a subjective utility maximising way.) Violence only short circuits that, disrupts markets, destroy price signals, and makes everyone worse off.

    But this is not correct.

    In the first place, market transactions aren’t necessarily positive sum. If they are fraudulent or create negative externalities for those not party, they can be negative sum.

    And in the second place, violence is itself a signal, and transmits information. A threat expresses a subjective evaluation just as an offer does in the marketplace. “Hey, don’t do that or we’re going to fight.”

    And the initiation of hostilities demonstrates the authenticity of that information just as a payment does in the marketplace. One undertakes real cost, and real risk, in resorting to violence.

    (In contrast, whining, and playing the victim DO NOT demonstrate the authenticity of grievances in the way that resorting to violence does, and so are liable and likely to prove negative sum, if indulged, just as theft is liable and likely to prove negative sum, in the marketplace, because it does not make a sufficient demonstration and exchange of value.)

    Markets and prices on the one hand, and violence and threats on the other, are both necessary components to a stable, functional, and efficient society and economy. To suppress either wholly in favor of the other, would be to forego the benefits they offer, and to pervert incentives towards destructive outcomes.

    No society which does either will be able to compete, long term, against one which makes a more sensible tradeoff between them, making best use of information supplied by both exchange and conflict.

    Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:49:00 UTC

  • STATES AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM Asking forgiveness for analytic exposition in a

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/04/think-deep-state.html#comment-159623059DEEP STATES AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM

    Asking forgiveness for analytic exposition in advance…..

    THE HIERARCHY OF MODELS:

    1) Michels-ian View (Evolutionary): Deep state – a deterministic and necessary consequence of all human orders, because of the value and need for synthesis of information and provision of decidability necessary to concentrate forces of coercion (persuasion) – necessities that cannot be rectified.

    2) Economists View (Systematizing): Deep state – a conspiracy of common interests – interests that must be rectified by the correct incentives.

    3) Common Folk’s view (Intentional-izing): Deep state – a deliberate conspiracy of common interests – indicating immoral people with immoral interests that must be punished or replaced.

    4) Ancient Folk’s View (anthropomorphism): The gods intend it so…. We are the Victims of the vicissitudes of the gods, and nothing can be done except to fight or submit to them.

    THEORIES

    1) The Chinese Proposition: the state is the most profitable and important industry and should be run as an industry, by the best people, selected from the best universities, and professionally trained with increasing responsibility from the local to the regional to the national level.

    2) Fukuyama’s Theory: (German Model) That the professionalization of a bureaucracy prior to democracy, under continental law will create a deep state that uses prior restraint, and serves the public interest out of tradition and self interest.

    3) The Anglo Saxon Theory (Classical Liberalism): That patronage leadership of the bureaucracies should provide a means of correcting and cleansing the bureaucracies. But as Fukuyama has shown, this leads to the opposite effect.

    4) The American Theory (minimalism): the only means of preventing endemic corruption, and providing maximum quality of goods services and information is maximum privatization of all services despite the resistance by the bureaucracy (monopoly).

    5) The Science: States that produce monopoly services as investor of last resort (or monopoly investor in the commons) can produce industries, and retreat into the german, anglo saxon, or american theory depending upon the degree of trust in the judiciary to resolve disputes between the citizenry and the service organizations. In other words, the problem is the degree of trust and trustworthiness present in the culture – which in and of itself is created by those courts.

    GENERAL LAWS:

    1) Iron Law of Oligarchy : oligarchies whether formal, patronage, kin, ‘specialized knowledge’, or ‘social networks” will evolve because decisions that concentrate resources (forces of coercion) cannot be created otherwise, and the organization cannot survive competition.

    2) “Cthulu Swims Left”: any organization without a formal logic (law) to bind it, will exploit all opportunities for discretion to expand to the point of maximum rent seeking – until met by shock which it lacks the free resources to use in re-creating incentives necessary to reorganize under the new conditions.

    3) Law of Maximizing of Rents: All organizations whether public or private will seek to maximize rents while providing the minimum returns to customers, creditors, and investors that customers, creditors, and investors will tolerate.

    THE SCIENCE

    Either we implement a strictly constructed, exceptionless, constitution of natural law (reciprocity) requiring markets in every aspect of life (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons (government), production of polities) with universal standing, universal application (rule of law), an insurer of last resort (Singapore Model), or we will continue (as we have) to deliver a private economy for association and reproduction, a mixed economy for the production of goods, services, and information, and a majoritarian monopoly economy, for the provision of commons whether goods, services, and information, and an absolute monopoly for insurer of last resort.

    You can evolve a population through rule of law, if you can evolve a court through rule of law, but you cannot evolve a court through rule of law, if your system of law is discretionary rather than one of rule of law. In other words, it is not possible to produce a non-discretionary rule of law, and therefore a government of low corruption, unless you produce first a law that is not open to interpretation and ‘fudging’.

    All societies require a system of government equal to their degree of imposition of rule of law. The problem is demographics, the percentage of people in a legally bound economy (the size of the middle class). As such we should expect to see small homogenous societies with strong rule of law and heavy redistribution on one end, and large heterogeneous societies with heavy corruption on the other.

    And that is what we see.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:27:00 UTC

  • FULL ACCOUNTING OF POLITICAL ORDERS (read it and weep) ***Democracy and diversit

    FULL ACCOUNTING OF POLITICAL ORDERS

    (read it and weep)

    ***Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies.

    In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history.

    It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without.

    So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 09:24:00 UTC

  • “CURT: DO YOU BELIEVE IN/SUPPORT RACIALISM?— (choice quotes here) (I view this

    —“CURT: DO YOU BELIEVE IN/SUPPORT RACIALISM?—

    (choice quotes here) (I view this, and all racial questions, as stupid but here is my answer.)

    I don’t know what that means. I advocate truth is more competitively advantageous than falsehood. In the case of race, people everywhere at all times demonstrate kin selection (except at the margins). In polities, under monarchy, this was not a problem, since one group possessed political power and the state could not be used as a proxy for warfare.

    Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies. In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history.

    It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without. So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order.

    Now as far as differences between the Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families. And As to differences between the Classes, and between the Generations, and as to differences between the Genders, all of these differences exist, and they exist because we demonstrate both attempts to cooperate and attempts to complete or engage in conflict. at every level from gender, to generation, to class, to tribe, to subrace, to race.

    And while at small interpersonal scale we can reconcile these differnces in the absence of political orders, when we act as groups in family, clan, tribe, nation, subrace, and race, in norms, laws, institutions, traditions, and myths, we ally with our kin – our group. Those who do not (Antifa) are those who are outcast by their own group, and seek other groups.

    So what we see is two axis of organization and resistance: the classes vs the races, and corporatism vs tribalism. And we see the middle classes and working and laboring classes seeking homogeneity, the underclasses seeking whatever is to their advantage at the time, and the upper classes siezing power by whichever faction is able to exert the most pressure in the political model at hand.

    The disenfranchised seek the opposite of whatever order is in play.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 09:22:00 UTC

  • I thought Spencer overplayed his hand last fall, but he’s upped his game, and he

    I thought Spencer overplayed his hand last fall, but he’s upped his game, and he’s exceptional.

    I’m not into racism but I’m an advocate for nationalism, monarchy, and natural law for everyone.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 21:10:00 UTC

  • BTW: Because we had to lie to implement democracy in sufficient numbers to wrest

    BTW: Because we had to lie to implement democracy in sufficient numbers to wrest control from the monarchies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 17:13:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854382304759861250

    Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @JayMan471 @primalpoly

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853950076439474178

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Its_Lynnocent

    @curtdoolittle @JayMan471 @gmiller If it was so easy to “deconflate” oh wise truth bearer then explain why do we still live in a world divided and ruled by ideology?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853950076439474178

  • “Women are hypergamous… Government is the biggest resource and thus the handso

    —“Women are hypergamous… Government is the biggest resource and thus the handsomest.”—Anne Tripp

    (genius)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 14:20:00 UTC

  • You are a prisoner of your frames. If you don’t start any political question wit

    You are a prisoner of your frames. If you don’t start any political question with violence and predation and construct from the bottom up, you are engaging in one of many forms of wishful thinking and deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 09:03:00 UTC