Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • GREENFIELD SELF GRATIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE AS PUBLIC SERVICE Developers want

    GREENFIELD SELF GRATIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE AS PUBLIC SERVICE

    Developers want greenfields.

    Architects want greenfields.

    Politicians want greenfields

    Bureaucrats want greenfields.

    Everyone wants a greenfield.

    What we want from them is Maintenance.

    Public Servants are maintenance workers.

    Civic Society Groups are welcome to produce change.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-24 05:35:00 UTC

  • URBAN PLANNING It’s not complicated. Build walls Build transportation. Build sac

    URBAN PLANNING

    It’s not complicated.

    Build walls

    Build transportation.

    Build sacred parks and monuments.

    That’s the end of it.

    Find something else to congratulate yourself for.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-24 05:16:00 UTC

  • Lots of posturing. Lots of hand-wringing. No declaration of war. No deporting. N

    Lots of posturing. Lots of hand-wringing. No declaration of war. No deporting. No cutting subsidies. No Action. NOTHING BUT EMPTY WORDS.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 19:51:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/712366123161878528

  • Lots of posturing. Lots of hand-wringing. No declaration of war. No deporting. N

    Lots of posturing. Lots of hand-wringing. No declaration of war. No deporting. No cutting subsidies. No Action. NOTHING BUT EMPTY WORDS.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 15:51:00 UTC

  • Federalize all increases in University Endowments back to 1963. 😉 Student loans

    Federalize all increases in University Endowments back to 1963.

    😉

    Student loans from the treasury directly, but paid out of payroll deductions.

    😉

    All teachers in the school system must have completed a career of no less than twenty five years in a for-profit field, and all tenure revoked.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 08:49:00 UTC

  • Politicians Follow the Incentives We Give Them Using Information They Possess

    [P]eople follow incentives given the information at their disposal.
     
    The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.
     
    In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.
     
    Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.
     
    When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.
     
    The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).
     
    The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.
     
    People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)
     
    We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.
     
    Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.
     
    These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.
     
    So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.
     
    Welcome to the start of civil war.
     
    But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.
     
    It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.
     
    I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.

  • Politicians Follow the Incentives We Give Them Using Information They Possess

    [P]eople follow incentives given the information at their disposal.
     
    The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.
     
    In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.
     
    Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.
     
    When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.
     
    The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).
     
    The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.
     
    People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)
     
    We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.
     
    Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.
     
    These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.
     
    So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.
     
    Welcome to the start of civil war.
     
    But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.
     
    It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.
     
    I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.

  • If defense of the commons for men, and the bearing of children for women, and th

    If defense of the commons for men, and the bearing of children for women, and the formation of marriage of both, is required for participation in the selection of the commons.

    The myth then is that marriage is for the purpose of friendship and entertainment alone.

    Marriage is an industry for the profitable production of generations that can survive the test of sustenance without parasitism upon others.

    We must return to our ancient task of domesticating man, in our quest to transform the beast into man, and from man to gods.

    The evil that they have wrought must not go unpunished.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 06:14:00 UTC

  • We punish men for direct theft, but we don’t punish women for indirect theft. We

    We punish men for direct theft, but we don’t punish women for indirect theft.

    We force prosperous men to pay for children, but we don’t tax prosperous women for not having children.

    Increase tax rates on women progressively as they pass 22 without children and watch what happens by rational choice.

    Eliminate community property, alimony and child support and watch what happens by rational choice.

    Restore the gender compromise tot he family once again by removing it from government.

    Marriage is a commons: the business of producing offspring, sustenance, and elder care.

    The state can no more provide retirement income than can the major corporations. All those fantasies were built on a presumption that permanent relative growth would persist at intergenerational rates.

    Liars, and fools all.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 04:07:00 UTC

  • You don’t win a war, you resolve a conflict, or you defeat an enemy. There is a

    You don’t win a war, you resolve a conflict, or you defeat an enemy.

    There is a vast difference between those two statements.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 03:50:00 UTC