Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • MURRAY GETS ON BOARD – CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

    http://www.aei.org/multimedia/charles-murray-and-jonah-goldberg-on-civil-disobedience/CHARLES MURRAY GETS ON BOARD – CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-13 07:49:00 UTC

  • IS LIBERTARIANISM SUCH A TARGET? (because its immoral) (re: tyler cowen) —It i

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/05/why-is-libertarianism-such-a-target.htmlWHY IS LIBERTARIANISM SUCH A TARGET?

    (because its immoral) (re: tyler cowen)

    —It is possible to be a common sense centrist and an intellectual. The highbrow reasons for why moderate common sense positions are correct are particularly interesting to anybody with a strong desire to understand how the world really works.— Steve Sailer

    I’ll echo Steve Sailer’s position a little more precisely. But, unfortunately, that requires a mildly impolitic presentation:

    (a) while libertarianism (an economic preference) informs the nation’s christian conservatism (a normative preference), libertarianism is not informed by the conservatism. That’s the reason that libertarianism fails to expand its influence in the electorate: libertarianism outside of the classical liberal model is objectively immoral. That’s right: objectively immoral. And I’ll answer why, below.

    (b) All three influential enlightenment movements sought to express group evolutionary strategies as universal strategies (i) the anglo empirical (Smith, Hume and eventually Darwin) – to create an aristocracy of everybody, (ii) the german obscurant rationalist ( Kant thru Heidegger) – to preserve hierarchy, and (iii) the jewish pseudoscientific: (Freud, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard) – to preserve authoritarianism and separatism. Unfortunately, all three of these movements have failed at developing a universal ethics with which to inform our politics.

    (c) Politics is a moral not empirical means of decision making (Jonathan Haidt). Voting for representatives is a form of abstract aggregation. In such cases of comparing abstractions, People can do nothing else but vote their ancestral (and possibly genetic) morality. (Emmanuel Todd, David Hackett Fischer). They vote their evolutionary strategy. Monopoly decision making (majority rule) exacerbates conflict between peoples of disparate interests. And classical liberal libertarians (anglo american, empirical libertarians) have failed to produce an institutional solution that allows cooperation on means (a market) for the production of commons despite our various heterogeneous and necessary ends.

    (d) Conservatives are unconsciously aware (and unable to articulate) (a) norms are the most expensive commons we create, and those high trust norms must be protected at all costs – they are our competitive advantage in this world, and the reason for our rapid ascent in both pre-history, ancient, and modern eras; (b) that policy must reflect the inter-temporal interests of families, while law must be constructed for individuals, because the family is the means of transmission of those norms for each class, and because disputes must be objectively decidable regardless of class.

    For some reason it doesn’t occur to libertarians that the competitive advantage of western civilization lies in our unique ability to construct civil commons relatively free of privatization, and that we can do so because of our high trust society, and that our high trust society is possible because of all the people on this earth we generally tell the truth. And that truth telling is the most expensive commons one can produce.

    People cannot vote for change that is not institutionally articulated. Asking people to ‘believe’ is for prophets and priests, not scientists. Justification is for rationalists. Scientists must construct operational definitions for us to test the truth of their propositions (that is the entire point of the Austrian method.) So until classical libertarians reform the current model, and provide an institutional solution that satisfies: the exclusion of the bottom from the benefits of production of the normative, institutional and physical commons (the left); the ability to dynamically restructure the patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, free of rents and frictions (libertarians); and the preservation of the high trust norms and the family that make the construction of our commons possible, by prohibiting their consumption and requiring universal production (the right); libertarianism will remain an immoral, selfish, utopian specialization, that advocates an obscurant form of free riding on both left and right’s the construction of the voluntary order of cooperation that we call capitalism.

    Because profiting from the contributions of others (the cost of respecting property in both normative, institutional, physical commons, and in private hands, is free riding. And free riding is immoral. Because all objective moral rules are a prohibitions on free riding. And because cooperation is irrational in the presence of free riding. Thats why evolution gave us moral intuitions – despite our different self serving emphases on one part of the moral spectrum or another.

    No corner of the political triangle is correct. Each simply senses some part of the reproductive division of labor: progressive=consumption, libertarian=production and conservative=saving: just as the market forms an information system, human moral differences constitute a division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor; and voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, exchange free of negative externality is the only test of the aggregate validity of our perceptions.

    We (libertarians) aren’t right. But we’re the smart ones. And productivity is our specialization. So we must find an institutional solution for everyone – (consumptive, productive, and retentive) not one for just us as specialists. It’s not that others aren’t informed. It’s that we haven’t succeeded.

    ( That’s enough radicalism for one post. )

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-12 05:56:00 UTC

  • END OF FREE SPEECH. THE SACREDNESS OF LYING. —Second, the constant social pres

    http://www.newmarksdoor.com/mainblog/2015/05/free-speech-in-peril.htmlTHE END OF FREE SPEECH. THE SACREDNESS OF LYING.

    —Second, the constant social pressure of having to monitor everything you say, lest some unguarded politically incorrect utterance loses you friends, dates, status, or even employment makes for (pardon the fifties’ expression) boring conformists, apparatchiks afraid to think for themselves—quite the opposite of the sturdily independent, resourceful, thoughtful, plainspoken, and creative character that used to be the American ideal. Take the case of Smith College president Kathleen McCartney, who joined her students’ “shared fury,” she said, as “we raise our voices in protest” against the grand jury decisions in Ferguson and Staten Island. Trouble is, she raised her voice in the wrong slogan, declaring that “All lives matter,” when the approved chant was “Black lives matter.” How could she be so disgracefully discriminatory in her nondiscrimination? her scandalized undergraduates exploded. A modern college president may be the very definition of an apparatchik, but there is something humiliating to human nature in the cringingly self-abasing apology that McCartney fairly sobbed out, without even having to be carted off in a dunce cap to a reeducation camp, as if she were her own Maoist cultural-revolutionary commissar. What would it take to make characters like this pull the lever at Treblinka?—

    FROM

    http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_2_free-speech.html

    VIA:

    http://www.newmarksdoor.com/mainblog/2015/05/free-speech-in-peril.html

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-11 10:23:00 UTC

  • Traditionalists Will Fail. But We Can Still Succeed

    [C]onservatism, has failed because the enlightenment fallacy of an aristocracy of everyone could never come into being. Darwin put an end to it. We tried to turn our ancient aristocratic ethics into social science, but the european civil war exterminated Germany, where all our conservative aristocratic thought originated. Then the left created a pseudoscience to replace religion (Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, Heidegger). And the neo-Puritains created pseudo-morality(victimism, feminism, progressivism, propaganda, relativism, and individualism). Since then, we have failed to convert our institutions, traditions, myths and rituals, into a rational and scientific set of arguments. Every single libertarian and conservative movement has failed. The only progress we have made is in producing our own propaganda systems (think tanks, radio-stations, network news, and web sites). And from these we still maintain power. I am working very hard to complete the neo-reactionary movement, and to convert our ancient traditions into a rational and scientific set of arguments. And I will tell you, with absolute certainty, that the reason for our western success – our rate of evolution compared to each competing civilization – is due to our discovery of testimonial truth, our near total requirement for truth telling, the jury, independent judiciary, common law, rule of law, and the heroic literature. And that the only value the church added, and still continues to add, is in breaking family and tribal bonds by prohibiting inbreeding (cousin marriage), and extending private property rights to women, and in threatening the aristocracy with revolution if they resist natural law (rule of law, property rights), and the invention of the university. And that aside from those four functions, the church has been a negative force for us. Because it is the destructive christian universalist sentiments that have been used by the neo-puritans (the christian left), and the socialists (the jewish left), via academy, school, state, and media, to sway us to suicidal self destruction using propaganda. (The west’s original religion is Stoicism – an action oriented equivalent of an inaction-oriented buddhism. and it is very close to what is practiced in secular Germany today.) The answer is not to restore myth and mysticism. They have conquered us with comforting lies to our less able. It is not up to us to learn to lie, or to restore lying by analogy as well. That is counter to the reason the west excelled compared to all other civilizations: truth telling. Our only chance for our western civilization to survive is to restore its original premise: heroism, truth telling, the jury, the common (organic) law, independent judiciary, universal standing, property rights, and to institute the physical, normative, and informational commons as property all are required to, and able to defend. Our origins are in Athens and Sparta, London and Koenigsberg, not Jerusalem and babylon. One need not ‘believe’ in law. One need only let law and truth telling do its work. One need not lie using mysticism. Truth, property and law are enough. One does not need foreign myths. Homer, Alexander, Aristotle, Aurelius, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Hayek, and the thousands of other heroes in the western cannon are enough. Because, Truth is enough. If we only will use violence to demand it. Aristocracy uses organized violence to prohibit tyranny, not deceit and consensus. There is no more truthful action than violence. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Traditionalists Will Fail. But We Can Still Succeed

    [C]onservatism, has failed because the enlightenment fallacy of an aristocracy of everyone could never come into being. Darwin put an end to it. We tried to turn our ancient aristocratic ethics into social science, but the european civil war exterminated Germany, where all our conservative aristocratic thought originated. Then the left created a pseudoscience to replace religion (Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, Heidegger). And the neo-Puritains created pseudo-morality(victimism, feminism, progressivism, propaganda, relativism, and individualism). Since then, we have failed to convert our institutions, traditions, myths and rituals, into a rational and scientific set of arguments. Every single libertarian and conservative movement has failed. The only progress we have made is in producing our own propaganda systems (think tanks, radio-stations, network news, and web sites). And from these we still maintain power. I am working very hard to complete the neo-reactionary movement, and to convert our ancient traditions into a rational and scientific set of arguments. And I will tell you, with absolute certainty, that the reason for our western success – our rate of evolution compared to each competing civilization – is due to our discovery of testimonial truth, our near total requirement for truth telling, the jury, independent judiciary, common law, rule of law, and the heroic literature. And that the only value the church added, and still continues to add, is in breaking family and tribal bonds by prohibiting inbreeding (cousin marriage), and extending private property rights to women, and in threatening the aristocracy with revolution if they resist natural law (rule of law, property rights), and the invention of the university. And that aside from those four functions, the church has been a negative force for us. Because it is the destructive christian universalist sentiments that have been used by the neo-puritans (the christian left), and the socialists (the jewish left), via academy, school, state, and media, to sway us to suicidal self destruction using propaganda. (The west’s original religion is Stoicism – an action oriented equivalent of an inaction-oriented buddhism. and it is very close to what is practiced in secular Germany today.) The answer is not to restore myth and mysticism. They have conquered us with comforting lies to our less able. It is not up to us to learn to lie, or to restore lying by analogy as well. That is counter to the reason the west excelled compared to all other civilizations: truth telling. Our only chance for our western civilization to survive is to restore its original premise: heroism, truth telling, the jury, the common (organic) law, independent judiciary, universal standing, property rights, and to institute the physical, normative, and informational commons as property all are required to, and able to defend. Our origins are in Athens and Sparta, London and Koenigsberg, not Jerusalem and babylon. One need not ‘believe’ in law. One need only let law and truth telling do its work. One need not lie using mysticism. Truth, property and law are enough. One does not need foreign myths. Homer, Alexander, Aristotle, Aurelius, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Hayek, and the thousands of other heroes in the western cannon are enough. Because, Truth is enough. If we only will use violence to demand it. Aristocracy uses organized violence to prohibit tyranny, not deceit and consensus. There is no more truthful action than violence. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • IF LIBERALS WANT TO COMMIT SUICIDE WE SHOULD HELP THEM. IT’s that simple. But we

    IF LIBERALS WANT TO COMMIT SUICIDE WE SHOULD HELP THEM.

    IT’s that simple. But we do not have to let them destroy us as well.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 13:54:00 UTC

  • IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM: ITS DETERMINISTIC SILLY. Agree with the questionable quali

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2593377CHINESE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM: ITS DETERMINISTIC SILLY.

    Agree with the questionable quality of the survey’s numbers – but not with its deterministic results. The results are obvious. China has a problem similar to ours: the Han know that they must preserve order in their favor against hostile border peoples. The west has forgotten that Germany provided this function for us, and we bathed in safety because of it. And took it for granted. And we were wrong.

    As to “Which Comes First”:

    1) Higher Income reduces opportunity costs and risk (liberalism). Lower income increases opportunity cost and risk(conservatism).

    2) Economic velocity is produced by the centralization of rents, which lowers local (productive) transaction costs at the expense of high total cost (taxation).

    3) Once rents are centralized, we seek to obtain or privatize (redistribute) those rents (economic liberalism) through enfranchisement.

    4) In a perfect world we seek to eliminate those rents (anglo classical liberalism).

    5) But the diversity of ability leads to class warfare since meritocracy is valuable only to a minority, and rents, and parasitism are beneficial to the majority..

    6) In a perfect world we pay the less able, parasitic, and rent seeking minority directly for the maintenance of the meritocratic commons, and thereby circumvent the parasitism of the bureaucratic, and political classes. And perhaps more importantly, prevent the misallocation of capital.

    7) To accomplish this perfect world requires we develop institutions that allow us to produce commons, and pay people for producing those commons: meritocracy included.

    X-Axis: Equalitarian/Socialist-Compromise/Social Democracy – Meritocratic/Classical Liberal Monarchy.

    Y-Axis: Totalitarian- Democratic – Anarchic

    Z-Axis: Wealth (elimination of transaction costs by the suppression of free riding)

    Suppression of parasitism comes first. Centralize it to eliminate it locally. Then outlaw it, and eliminate it from the central bureaucracy. Economic velocity is determined by the suppression of free riding in all its forms at all levels in the polity.

    (Read Emmanuel Todd’s Invention of Europe. Ricardo Duchsene’s Uniqueness of the West, Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty, Hoppe’s Democracy the God that Failed, and follow my humble efforts.)

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 07:15:00 UTC

  • TRADITIONALISTS. YOU WILL FAIL. BUT WE CAN STILL SUCCEED. Conservatism, has fail

    https://www.traditionalright.com/a-critical-evaluation-of-the-new-right/NO TRADITIONALISTS. YOU WILL FAIL. BUT WE CAN STILL SUCCEED.

    Conservatism, has failed because the enlightenment fallacy of an aristocracy of everyone could never come into being. Darwin put an end to it. We tried to turn our ancient aristocratic ethics into social science, but the european civil war exterminated Germany, where all our conservative aristocratic thought originated. Then the left created a pseudoscience to replace religion (Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, Heidegger). And the neo-Puritains created pseudo-morality(victimism, feminism, progressivism, propaganda, relativism, and individualism).

    Since then, we have failed to convert our institutions, traditions, myths and rituals, into a rational and scientific set of arguments. Every single libertarian and conservative movement has failed. The only progress we have made is in producing our own propaganda systems (think tanks, radio-stations, network news, and web sites). And from these we still maintain power.

    I am working very hard to complete the neo-reactionary movement, and to convert our ancient traditions into a rational and scientific set of arguments.

    And I will tell you, with absolute certainty, that the reason for our western success – our rate of evolution compared to each competing civilization – is due to our discovery of testimonial truth, our near total requirement for truth telling, the jury, independent judiciary, common law, rule of law, and the heroic literature. And that the only value the church added, and still continues to add, is in breaking family and tribal bonds by prohibiting inbreeding (cousin marriage), and extending private property rights to women, and in threatening the aristocracy with revolution if they resist natural law (rule of law, property rights), and the invention of the university.

    And that aside from those four functions, the church has been a negative force for us. Because it is the destructive christian universalist sentiments that have been used by the neo-puritans (the christian left), and the socialists (the jewish left), via academy, school, state, and media, to sway us to suicidal self destruction using propaganda. (The west’s original religion is Stoicism – an action oriented equivalent of an inaction-oriented buddhism. and it is very close to what is practiced in secular Germany today.)

    The answer is not to restore myth and mysticism. They have conquered us with comforting lies to our less able. It is not up to us to learn to lie, or to restore lying by analogy as well. That is counter to the reason the west excelled compared to all other civilizations: truth telling.

    Our only chance for our western civilization to survive is to restore its original premise: heroism, truth telling, the jury, the common (organic) law, independent judiciary, universal standing, property rights, and to institute the physical, normative, and informational commons as property all are required to, and able to defend. Our origins are in Athens and Sparta, London and Koenigsberg, not Jerusalem and babylon.

    One need not ‘believe’ in law. One need only let law and truth telling do its work. One need not lie using mysticism. Truth, property and law are enough. One does not need foreign myths. Homer, Alexander, Aristotle, Aurelius, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Hayek, and the thousands of other heroes in the western cannon are enough.

    Because, Truth is enough.

    If we only will use violence to demand it.

    Aristocracy uses organized violence to prohibit tyranny, not deceit and consensus.

    There is no more truthful action than violence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 05:51:00 UTC

  • NATE SILVER TELLS US SOMETHING WE KNOW: POLLS MANUFACTURE OPINION AND THEIR REPO

    NATE SILVER TELLS US SOMETHING WE KNOW: POLLS MANUFACTURE OPINION AND THEIR REPORTING IS HIGHLY BIASED.

    —“[We fail to comprehend what Nate is telling us:] the same tools and models that allowed him to do good forecasting can be used for forensic purposes. And forensically, they’re telling him there was systematic bias by the polling firms.”—

    What he is really saying is that polling firms are GETTING BETTER at manufacturing opinion and INSERTING MORE BIAS in their results.

    What he is going to tell us next, is who biases their polls.

    —“The fault, Silver claimed, was with the polling: “It’s becoming increasingly clear that pre-election polls underestimated how well Conservatives would do and overestimated Labour’s result,” the statistician guru wrote in the wee hours of the morning. (He also overestimated the Liberal Democrats’ result by roughly 20 seats).

    But the problem went beyond the UK. “The World May Have A Polling Problem,” Silver asserted. “In fact, it’s become harder to find an election in which the polls did all that well.” Silver went on to cite four examples where the polls had failed to provide an accurate forecast of the election outcome: the Scottish independence referendum, the 2014 U.S. midterms, the Israeli legislative elections, and even the 2012 U.S. presidential election, where “Obama beat the final polling averages by about 3 points nationwide.”

    “[T]here are lots of reasons to worry about the state of the polling industry,” Silver concluded, citing a range of factors. “There may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-09 04:35:00 UTC

  • Why Were All The Polls In The 2015 Uk General Election So Different From The Results?

    THE CORRECT ANSWER
    Nate Silver is probably the world’s leading analyst of polls.  His opinion, stated yesterday, is that

    –“The World May Have A Polling Problem,” Silver asserted. “In fact, it’s become harder to find an election in which the polls did all that well.” Silver went on to cite four examples where the polls had failed to provide an accurate forecast of the election outcome: the Scottish independence referendum, the 2014 U.S. midterms, the Israeli legislative elections, and even the 2012 U.S. presidential election, where “Obama beat the final polling averages by about 3 points nationwide.”
    “[T]here are lots of reasons to worry about the state of the polling industry,” Silver concluded, citing a range of factors. “There may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry.”—



    What he is saying is that there is conscious, and increasing bias in the polls, and that he will be able to use forensic statistics to determine who is biasing polls by how much.

    The purpose of polling whenever results are reported is to manufacture opinion.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-were-all-the-polls-in-the-2015-UK-general-election-so-different-from-the-results