Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • ANOTHER THOUGHT ON REPUBLICS A republic or an oligarchy by any other name, even

    ANOTHER THOUGHT ON REPUBLICS

    A republic or an oligarchy by any other name, even one ruled by law, is a notoriously indecisive form of organization. I do not see a better division of labor than the one we discovered by accident. A republic is an excellent means of producing commons. A monarchy an excellent means of conducting war. And a democracy an excellent means of fooling the people into suicide.

    The Optimum that I know of:

    1) Monarch, Military, and Militia for the defense of people, territory, routes, and trade.

    2) Independent Judiciary for the resolution of conflicts, Rule of law, Property en Toto.

    3) An independent treasury for the provision of credit (issuance and repurchase of shares)

    4) Houses for the Production of Commons with members drawn by lot.

    5) Families for the production of generations under voluntary selection of mates.

    6) Men and Women forming Militia and emergency services.

    7) Private provision of public goods.

    We had it about right. If we had given women and the proletarians houses and maintained land and property requirements we would have created a market for commons, instead of the fallacy of majority rule (mob rule).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-29 11:07:00 UTC

  • THE THIRD WAY (the end of history) IS THE TRUTHFUL SOCIETY I am not sure how Fuk

    THE THIRD WAY (the end of history) IS THE TRUTHFUL SOCIETY

    I am not sure how Fukuyama missed it, other than it seems like all throughout his career he seeks to justify his theory of monopoly bureaucracy, and his admiration of Sinic civilization.

    He investigates the problems of bureaucracy under democracy – the failure to develop an independent professional bureaucracy first, and then democracy, such that patronage jobs are not given out.

    But he does not demonstrate that the public intellectual class and private companies would not create problems of the Deep State’s self maximization of self interest, the parasitism of bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy’s attempt to eliminate all competition, and it’s enforced stagnation.

    To create a high trust society one requires (a) a near universal militia (b) private property rights, independent judiciary (‘priesthood’) and rule of law proper (c) a natural nobility with long term interest in the territory, (d) insurers of last resort operated by professionals.

    One does not require a monopoly bureaucracy. It is an admission of the failure of a people to develop and maintain rule of law.

    One requires rule of law, law sufficiently articulated that it is inescapable (decidable), and universal standing such that the people can make use of it to control anyone acting in a public capacity in addition to private capacity.

    If the basis of law is articulated as the total prohibition on free riding in all its forms, including: violence, theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy, invasion and conquest; and if we defend the informational commons from pollution (“Abusus”), by requiring proof of existence and morality in any claim of common good; and if we construct a market for the construction of commons between the classes; then the end of history is not as Fukuyama claims – the professional bureaucracy.

    Instead, the professional bureaucracy is yet another example of the failure of a people to develop an answer to the problem of politics, ethics, economics and the social sciences.

    Chinese failed first to solve the problem of politics. They created the monopoly state first, and never discovered the rule of law. And in doing so, they failed first.

    The end of history – at least the end of history that we can see today – is the truthful society. And democratic polities of all stripes are yet another failure to construct rule of law applicable to every living soul.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-28 02:40:00 UTC

  • EASTERN EUROPE HAD ANARCHY: AND THE PEOPLE SUFFERED FOR IT. Yeah. My interest in

    EASTERN EUROPE HAD ANARCHY: AND THE PEOPLE SUFFERED FOR IT.

    Yeah. My interest in anarchism evaporated after a few months living in Ukraine. Because Eastern Europe is where the cosmopolitan authors got their ideas. Anarchism is an ode to lost predation in the serfs of Eastern Europe just like James Bond is an ode to lost empire: they’re both fictions.

    Voluntary everything is equivalent to Lawlessness. It is another great deception like Marxism and neoconservatism.

    Liberty, meaning the ability to do as you with without imposing costs upon others, is a product of the rule of law. And the only principle means of decidability for law that can possibly produce a condition of liberty is the prohibition on the imposition of costs, which we express as property rights, and the scope of those rights evolves in parallel to the evolution of the means of imposing costs that is the product of the expansion of technologies, methods of cooperation, and the division of labor.

    And me seek parasitism because it is much easier and more rewarding than production.

    So a few moral men prohibit these parasitisms so that they and all can prosper.

    They impose rule of law in an immoral population.

    These men constitute the western aristocracy.

    Rule of law. Nomocracy. The prohibition on the imposition of costs that result in free riding on the productivity of others.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-27 06:17:00 UTC

  • How Does The Republican Party Justify Its Desire To Legislate Morality, If The Core Of The Republican Belief Is In A Government That Should, When Possible, Not Interfere In The Lives Of Its Citizens?

    Common false argument.

    The conservative position is indo-european, and is easily visible in Greece: It is possible to resolve conflicts rationally. But we pay the penalty for our hubris if we assume we are wiser than we have evidence to prove.

    The point is not that we should not change, but that we are not wise enough to legislate change. 

    Turns out they’re right most of the  time.

    Conservatives do understand that the society is falling apart because of the decline of the absolute nuclear family. It may be NICER for some people to be single unwed parents, but those people emerge with different moral intuitions and different political preferences.

    It turns out that monogamous absolute nuclear marriage is perhaps the most important invention of western civilization.  And we’ve accidentally destroyed it as a social institution.

    In that sense, they aren’t ‘wrong’.   There is no free lunch. We aren’t that smart.

    If you can slowly demonstrate that something works without harm, then that’s fine. Conservatives will adopt it. If you engage in hubris, then you’re fighting the core principle of conservatism:

    We aren’t all that bright, and there are tremendous external consequences when we’re wrong.

    Like the liberal’s destruction of the black family, and the current expansion of that destruction of the nuclear family into the hispanic and lower class white communities.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Republican-Party-justify-its-desire-to-legislate-morality-if-the-core-of-the-Republican-belief-is-in-a-government-that-should-when-possible-not-interfere-in-the-lives-of-its-citizens

  • How Does The Republican Party Justify Its Desire To Legislate Morality, If The Core Of The Republican Belief Is In A Government That Should, When Possible, Not Interfere In The Lives Of Its Citizens?

    Common false argument.

    The conservative position is indo-european, and is easily visible in Greece: It is possible to resolve conflicts rationally. But we pay the penalty for our hubris if we assume we are wiser than we have evidence to prove.

    The point is not that we should not change, but that we are not wise enough to legislate change. 

    Turns out they’re right most of the  time.

    Conservatives do understand that the society is falling apart because of the decline of the absolute nuclear family. It may be NICER for some people to be single unwed parents, but those people emerge with different moral intuitions and different political preferences.

    It turns out that monogamous absolute nuclear marriage is perhaps the most important invention of western civilization.  And we’ve accidentally destroyed it as a social institution.

    In that sense, they aren’t ‘wrong’.   There is no free lunch. We aren’t that smart.

    If you can slowly demonstrate that something works without harm, then that’s fine. Conservatives will adopt it. If you engage in hubris, then you’re fighting the core principle of conservatism:

    We aren’t all that bright, and there are tremendous external consequences when we’re wrong.

    Like the liberal’s destruction of the black family, and the current expansion of that destruction of the nuclear family into the hispanic and lower class white communities.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Republican-Party-justify-its-desire-to-legislate-morality-if-the-core-of-the-Republican-belief-is-in-a-government-that-should-when-possible-not-interfere-in-the-lives-of-its-citizens

  • On NSA Interest in You or Me or Anyone.

    [W]hy They Don’t Care About You.
    1) Search engines are more effective than friends lists.
    2) And you don’t write in Arabic.
    3) And you aren’t writing across borders.
    4) They have better things to do.

    I’ve been both a justice department employee, and on the C list in the past, and that hasn’t stopped the government from asking me for help.

    RUSSIANS: The Russians work by buying influence with public intellectuals (people who write stuff). They play to egos. Russian ‘spies’ have the easiest job of all: find ‘useful idiots’. They are great at it.

    CHINESE: The Chinese work by stealing info via blood relations in the states. They play to genetics, nationalism, racism, and the Chinese ‘chip on their shoulder’. They are very good at it.

    MUSLIMS: The Muslims work by inciting violence with outcasts. They play to the contradiction between islam’s utopian promise and it’s evident contradiction in reality as the religion of the lower (lowest) classes. They are becoming reasonably good at it.

    JEWS: The Jews work by using money to buy influence and by using their control of the media. They play of tribal common interest. They are very good at it.

    AMERICANS: Americans work by gathering signal intelligence. They play off the distribution of american military, technical, financial, and commercial prowess to less developed countries, and discontent by the middle and upper middle classes in those countries.
    Real ‘spies’ are very small in number. The simple ones are attache’s to embassies. The better are employees of foreign companies, or foreigners hired as employees of companies. Then there are just plain specialists who can be inserted into nearly any position as needed, and they develop

    RELATIONSHIPS.
    We all know how each group works. So we investigate each group by the means that group uses to organize.

    So unless you start threatening the president, or specifically inciting violence you’re just another annoying malcontent. And there are a lot of you. And you’re little more than evidence of the superiority of our legal system’s ability to tolerate intellectual dissent, while at the same time prohibiting physical violence.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • On NSA Interest in You or Me or Anyone.

    [W]hy They Don’t Care About You.
    1) Search engines are more effective than friends lists.
    2) And you don’t write in Arabic.
    3) And you aren’t writing across borders.
    4) They have better things to do.

    I’ve been both a justice department employee, and on the C list in the past, and that hasn’t stopped the government from asking me for help.

    RUSSIANS: The Russians work by buying influence with public intellectuals (people who write stuff). They play to egos. Russian ‘spies’ have the easiest job of all: find ‘useful idiots’. They are great at it.

    CHINESE: The Chinese work by stealing info via blood relations in the states. They play to genetics, nationalism, racism, and the Chinese ‘chip on their shoulder’. They are very good at it.

    MUSLIMS: The Muslims work by inciting violence with outcasts. They play to the contradiction between islam’s utopian promise and it’s evident contradiction in reality as the religion of the lower (lowest) classes. They are becoming reasonably good at it.

    JEWS: The Jews work by using money to buy influence and by using their control of the media. They play of tribal common interest. They are very good at it.

    AMERICANS: Americans work by gathering signal intelligence. They play off the distribution of american military, technical, financial, and commercial prowess to less developed countries, and discontent by the middle and upper middle classes in those countries.
    Real ‘spies’ are very small in number. The simple ones are attache’s to embassies. The better are employees of foreign companies, or foreigners hired as employees of companies. Then there are just plain specialists who can be inserted into nearly any position as needed, and they develop

    RELATIONSHIPS.
    We all know how each group works. So we investigate each group by the means that group uses to organize.

    So unless you start threatening the president, or specifically inciting violence you’re just another annoying malcontent. And there are a lot of you. And you’re little more than evidence of the superiority of our legal system’s ability to tolerate intellectual dissent, while at the same time prohibiting physical violence.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Politicians Are and Unnecessary Evil

    [W]e no longer need politicians and representatives, and no longer need democratic assent to pass something, and to divide a budget equally, and to vote with money where it is required. In fact, all politicians do is to create hazards. So given that distance no longer impacts ability to cooperate and communicate in real time; and given that concentration of politicians in one place merely creates a perfect environment for lobbying and corruption; and given that running for office produces nothing but negative externalities exacerbating corruption; it seems much wiser to let anyone post proposals (contracts), to reject any proposal of involuntary transfer(propertarianism), to hold debates in public over them with the best public intellectuals contributing to the discourse; to require truthful speech in such deliberation (testimonialism), and to select a jury by lot from each house to spend those budgets, and enter into those contracts. Politicians are an unnecessary evil in a world of instantaneous communication.

  • Politicians Are and Unnecessary Evil

    [W]e no longer need politicians and representatives, and no longer need democratic assent to pass something, and to divide a budget equally, and to vote with money where it is required. In fact, all politicians do is to create hazards. So given that distance no longer impacts ability to cooperate and communicate in real time; and given that concentration of politicians in one place merely creates a perfect environment for lobbying and corruption; and given that running for office produces nothing but negative externalities exacerbating corruption; it seems much wiser to let anyone post proposals (contracts), to reject any proposal of involuntary transfer(propertarianism), to hold debates in public over them with the best public intellectuals contributing to the discourse; to require truthful speech in such deliberation (testimonialism), and to select a jury by lot from each house to spend those budgets, and enter into those contracts. Politicians are an unnecessary evil in a world of instantaneous communication.

  • Untitled

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/23/putins-closest-ally-and-his-biggest-liabilityhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/23/putins-closest-ally-and-his-biggest-liability

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-25 13:38:00 UTC