Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • REDISTRIBUTION OF DISCRIMINATION, NOT ELIMINATION OF IT —“As the culture of no

    REDISTRIBUTION OF DISCRIMINATION, NOT ELIMINATION OF IT

    —“As the culture of non-discrimination against protected groups expands, the discrimination against unprotected groups increases. In societies that do not prohibit any type of discrimination, pecking order is not rigid and discrimination is dispersed. As new rules and social stigmas against certain types of discrimination appear, society shifts its natural disdain for the members of its lower side of any kind of spectrum to the unprotected. As new groups are added to the taboo list, the possibilities for dispersing discrimination narrow. As a result, all societal hate becomes directed against the very few. We have yet to see the evidence that the politics of anti-discrimination reduces the overall amount of discrimination (as opposed to particular manifestation of discrimination).”— Paul B

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-13 21:19:00 UTC

  • Saudi Arabia has the worst possible leadership other than anyone else in Saudia

    Saudi Arabia has the worst possible leadership other than anyone else in Saudia Arabia. The same for Asia. The people are not like us. They are not trying to parent the world into consumer capitalism, and state as insurer of last resort. They are pursuing their own cultural biases: they are an hierarchical, paternalistic, and authoritarian people, who do not seek compromise, but power to impose ideas.

    Robert Kaplan.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-12 07:37:00 UTC

  • RUNNING WITH CIVILIZATION’S SCISSORS Western Politicians are like excited childr

    RUNNING WITH CIVILIZATION’S SCISSORS

    Western Politicians are like excited children running with scissors: they may have the best of intentions, but are still taking risks with dangerous weapons. Worse, they tend not to be very bright; and they don’t always have the best of intentions; and they don’t hurt themselves with the scissors they carry – they destroy western civilization’s rule of law, property rights, liberty, truth telling, the family, and the suppression of reproduction.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-11 01:19:00 UTC

  • MORAL ARGUMENT AND RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION It was entirely possible, and often recom

    MORAL ARGUMENT AND RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION

    It was entirely possible, and often recommended, that Russia purchase Crimea and Donbas from Ukraine, by means of discounted oil price for 99 years. This would have been mutually beneficial, since the Donbas was the source of most ukrainian corruption, gangsters, and russophilia. And was the responsible for the political divisiveness that prevented reform.

    The Russians systematically conquered eastern Ukraine over the past two centuries, and created a false mythology to justify the muscovite conquest of european lands. Ukrainians had frequent debates about splitting the country. And this was the correct, non-aggressive means of solving the problem for all sides. But solving the problem was not the Russian intentino. The Russian intention is to preserve their power by preventing the spread of capitalism into Russia by the same form of uprisings that have restored Poland and Ukraine to european civilization after Muscovite (mongolian) conquest.

    I have only one moral principle I must follow: liberty for all who will exchange it with me. But in exchange for liberty I require not only insurance of physical property, but truth telling: the total prohibition of parasitism. Because without the total prohibition of parasitism, it is irrational for me to forgo the utility of violence to obtain what I desire.

    This demand for the total suppression of parasitism what separates european aristocratic liberty, from parasitic libertine pretenses of liberty.

    Speak the truth, by warrantying your speech, or admit that you do not warranty your speech to be truthful, and as such engage in parasitism:

    1 – Internally consistent (logical)

    2 – Externally correspondent. (empirical)

    3 – Operationally Defined (praxeological)

    4 – Free of parasitism, consisting only of voluntary transfers. (moral)

    5 – Parsimonious (falsified)

    We must end parasitic deceits in the pursuit of liberty. Rothbardian ethics are another pseudoscientific, elaborate, cosmopolitan deceit, just as Freudian Psychologizing, and Marxist History.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 06:29:00 UTC

  • TRUTH IN DISCOURSE ON RUSSIAS AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE It is one thing to say:

    TRUTH IN DISCOURSE ON RUSSIAS AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE

    It is one thing to say:

    1) THE CONTRACTUAL:

    –“–“We are obligated to assist those who desire liberty in the construction of liberty, because the exchange of such insurance is the only possible means by which liberty can be constructed. We believe that we cannot win this fight. But our contract with one another for the preservation and expansion of liberty is an inviolable one without self contradiction, and as such, I saddle up, and go to war in the hope the I err in my estimate of the enemy.”–

    2) THE TRUTHFUL AND PRAGMATIC:

    –“We are obligated to assist those who desire liberty in the construction of liberty, because the exchange of such insurance is the only possible means by which liberty can be constructed. However we believe that we cannot win this fight.”–

    3) AN IRRELEVANT JUSTIFICTATION FOR FREE RIDING

    “the USA does not need another war to fight, and it only expands the state and bureaucracy”.

    OR

    “I want americans to withdraw from around the world”

    VERSUS

    4) AN IMMORAL JUSTIFICATION OF FREE RIDING

    –“Russians were justified in the combination of deceit and aggression.”—

    VERSUS

    5) AN OUTRIGHT DECEIT AND CONSPIRATORIAL ACTION

    –“Russians did not commit an act of deceit or aggression”–

    Immoral-tarians choose the fourth and fifth options. Classical liberal pragmatists the third, and aristocracy the first two.

    There is only one liberty possible: aristocracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 06:09:00 UTC

  • “A perfect order that actually existing people will not support is less perfect

    “A perfect order that actually existing people will not support is less perfect than a less perfect order they will support.”— Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 03:15:00 UTC

  • THE NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP IN CLASSICAL LIBERALISM I think the debate in classic

    THE NEXT EVOLUTIONARY STEP IN CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

    I think the debate in classical liberalism is unfortunately (as Hayek tried to inform us) too much on the structure of government (the market for the production of commons), and too little on the rule of law (the evolution of means of suppression of parasitism) and distracted by the artificial (false) demarcation in property rights, and totally absent of the debate on the problem of suppressing immorality (the total suppression of involuntary transfer, and the forcible removal of all alternatives to market participation).

    Humans are want to reduce debates to single issues. Unfortunately, most issues are determined by equilibria not states. In the case of politics, the rule of law as the means of suppressing immorality and forcing people into productive activity is one topic. And the construction of commons that cannot be produced by the incentives of the market is something else.

    As far as I know the solution to the rule of law is known. Two problems remain: (a) the problem with the production of commons – primarily because of the problem of free riding among tax payers; and because of the problem of bureaucratic incentives among administrators. And (b) because of the problem of the declining presence of means of participating in the market (employment) – a problem which we anticipate increasing.

    The problem (b) is solvable by shareholdership and dividends, and loss of shareholdership in the event that one violates the shareholder agreement.

    The problem (a) is solvable by eliminating monopoly decision making under majority rule, and instead, providing the individual commitment of funds. In other words, independent of whether we rely on (i)elected representatives, (ii)representatives chosen by lot (juries), or (iii)direct participation, if the total revenues were divided by the number of participants in i,ii,or iii, then we voted our dollars, we could pursue policies (commons) that interested us, and not pursue commons that did not. And competition would provide answers that reason cannot. There is no need for majority rule.

    However, that is a prescription for the production of material commons, not of normative commons. And it is necessary to redistribute (de-centralize) the production of normative commons (rules of public behavior). Again, competition will drive adoption. And there is no value in normative tyranny.

    This model allows us to federate insurance (universal insurance), cooperate in the production of material and economic commons, and to choose to compete in the production of normative commons.

    As such the classical liberal method expanded such that the government remains a market for the production of cooperation on commons and mutual insurance, rather than a means of the projection of monopoly.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 03:08:00 UTC

  • PEOPLE ASK ME WHY I THINK THE POLITICAL WORLD IS FRAGILE

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/scattered-power-outages-reported-across-dc-area/2015/04/07/8f4e8b84-dd49-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.htmlAND PEOPLE ASK ME WHY I THINK THE POLITICAL WORLD IS FRAGILE.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-07 15:05:00 UTC

  • MUST BREAK UP AMERICA INTO SMALLER COUNTRIES. That’s the only answer. Your appea

    http://larrysummers.com/2015/04/05/time-us-leadership-woke-up-to-new-economic-era/WE MUST BREAK UP AMERICA INTO SMALLER COUNTRIES.

    That’s the only answer. Your appeals are well intentioned but irrelevant.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-06 13:48:00 UTC

  • The Decline in the USA’s Military Power Is Not A Problem for Americans – Only For Bureaucrats

    THE DECLINE IN USA’S MILITARY POWER IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR AMERICANS – ONLY FOR BUREAUCRATS
    (from elsewhere)
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/31/396604082/dozens-of-countries-join-china-backed-bank-opposed-by-washington

    [T]he USA pays for its military through the sale of petro-dollars and debt that it inflates away. It was this technique started under Nixon that allowed the USA to economically bankrupt the soviets via military competition. (Something easy enough to repeat with the Putinista Russians.)

    The sale of oil in euros was the first blow that limited future american military expansion. This allowed europeans to cease indirect payment for defense to the USA. The rise of China and demand for american debt sustained american military expansion. The attempt of Iran to create a bourse and take over this tax on world oil production by demanding middle eastern oil in the currency of their choice, is an effort to transfer this power. With nuclear weapons it becomes a possibility for them.

    China has set out to replace america as the global power in the current century. But to do so requires weakening the USA’s state department, and to weaken american financial interests. It is more important to weaken the relationship between capital and democracy. So for china, the use of such a bank, will extend its power, and more importantly, eliminate the correlation between demand for credit, demand for commerce, and the corresponding demand for democracy and human rights. In other words, china wants to spread authoritarian capitalism, by improving the standing of authoritarian capitalism.

    So in the long term, americans will have to retrench, because democracy is a failed experiment, social democracy a failed experiment, and authoritarianism with limited capitalism (aristocratic capitalism), superior to proletarian capitalism (social democracy).

    Americans would very much prefer to withdraw from world affairs. Especially that we are now marginally oil independent. Unfortunately, the left has succeeded in overwhelming americans through immigration, and thereby achieving through population-conquest what could not be achieved through ideas.

    But to state that this change in power is a ‘problem for americans’ is simply not true. It’s a problem for bureaucrats. But americans will merely experience a decline in standard of living to european levels of consumption. They will dramatically decrease their public spending on the military. Europe will dramatically increase its military spending on the military. And the world will equilibrate to less variation in purchasing power between nations. And the nations with the greatest purchasing power will be those that possess the best legal systems, with the greatest experimentation, and the least rents. In that race, americans may still win.