Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • When Republicans are in power, “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” When

    —When Republicans are in power, “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” When Democrats are in power, dissent is the racist fuming of “angry white men.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-31 13:33:00 UTC

  • I have the same dream as Gorbachev too, you know: uniting the circumpolar people

    I have the same dream as Gorbachev too, you know: uniting the circumpolar peoples. That’s why I am so angry with Putin. It’s not just that he destroyed the postwar consensus. It’s not just that he wants to re-impose Russian barbarism on eastern europeans. It’s that he had the New Right in the palm of his hand, and with ten more years of economic integration with Europe, and an american military out of Europe, he could have united our peoples once again, across the entire north. And all he had to do was remain patient.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-31 04:28:00 UTC

  • “When President Theodor Roosevelt toured Europe and visited Vienna, he asked Emp

    —“When President Theodor Roosevelt toured Europe and visited Vienna, he asked Emperor Franz Ferdinand what the point of a monarchy was in this day in age. Emperor Franz answered, ‘My job is to protect my peoples from their governments.’”—

    (via Aaron Kahland)

    Dear god, save us from democracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-29 10:50:00 UTC

  • sorta. WHY DOES CURT POST THIS STUFF? Because I want to show how (a) democracy i

    http://www.returnofkings.com/34330/women-should-not-be-allowed-to-voteWell, sorta.

    WHY DOES CURT POST THIS STUFF?

    Because I want to show how (a) democracy is a catastrophe, and (b) that we need a government of exchanges not of majority rule.

    Democracy (majority rule) did not represent men, it represented the absolute nuclear family. The family is paternal revolution made possible by property and property rights, but it suppressed women’s natural desire to push responsibility for her offspring on the tribe. In other words, suppression of female behavior was necessary for the development of civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 10:58:00 UTC

  • THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE (worth repeating) –“Territory is obtained, held, informa

    THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE

    (worth repeating)

    –“Territory is obtained, held, informal institutions constructed, formal institutions implemented, and monuments built, by the use of violence by those desirous of obtaining advantage for themselves and their people. …. Peace, is not an intrinsic good. The intrinsic good is the perpetuation of your family, tribe, and people in competition with other families tribes and peoples……Everything else – voluntary cooperation, and economic competition in particular – is just a more useful way of getting there for those who are un-impulsive, productive, innovative, and trusting.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 06:04:00 UTC

  • Value of Conservatives vs Libertines

    [W]HY ARE CONSERVATIVES MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIBERTINES?
    Because given moral justification to correct violations of purity and sanctity a sufficient number of conservatives will use violence to restore order. Only conservatives act for social good alone. Libertines and progressives act only in their self interest. Why? Because libertinism is purely a status seeking effort, and progressivism is both status seeking and dysgenic.

    WHY ARE LIBERTARIANS POLITICALLY IRRELEVANT?
    Because political systems are constructed by violence. And conservatives are willing to create an order that suppresses consumption in order to construct commons, and progressives are willing to use violence to destruct an order so that they can increase consumption. But libertarians are both small in number and unwilling to use violence.
    Violence raises the costs of non-cooperative action, so that cooperation is preferable to non-cooperative action.
    Libertines always look for discounts (freebies). There aren’t any. Order is expensive.
    For these reasons libertarians will only exist in absurdly wealthy periods of history, made possible by conservatives. Otherwise they will exist only as another rejection-cult, criticizing the fact that they are required to pay costs for norms that do not improve their status – but constrain it.

    WHY DO LIBERTARIANS ALWAYS LOSE?
    Libertinism. Meaning incorrect attribution of legal, economic, political and military value to costs of high-cost, high-trust norms. Conservatives do not make this mistake – if anything they over-value norms. Libertines discount norms. Progressives never even consider them or find prohibition on their consumption antithetical.

  • Value of Conservatives vs Libertines

    [W]HY ARE CONSERVATIVES MORE IMPORTANT THAN LIBERTINES?
    Because given moral justification to correct violations of purity and sanctity a sufficient number of conservatives will use violence to restore order. Only conservatives act for social good alone. Libertines and progressives act only in their self interest. Why? Because libertinism is purely a status seeking effort, and progressivism is both status seeking and dysgenic.

    WHY ARE LIBERTARIANS POLITICALLY IRRELEVANT?
    Because political systems are constructed by violence. And conservatives are willing to create an order that suppresses consumption in order to construct commons, and progressives are willing to use violence to destruct an order so that they can increase consumption. But libertarians are both small in number and unwilling to use violence.
    Violence raises the costs of non-cooperative action, so that cooperation is preferable to non-cooperative action.
    Libertines always look for discounts (freebies). There aren’t any. Order is expensive.
    For these reasons libertarians will only exist in absurdly wealthy periods of history, made possible by conservatives. Otherwise they will exist only as another rejection-cult, criticizing the fact that they are required to pay costs for norms that do not improve their status – but constrain it.

    WHY DO LIBERTARIANS ALWAYS LOSE?
    Libertinism. Meaning incorrect attribution of legal, economic, political and military value to costs of high-cost, high-trust norms. Conservatives do not make this mistake – if anything they over-value norms. Libertines discount norms. Progressives never even consider them or find prohibition on their consumption antithetical.

  • Moral Corporatism: Political Bias as Shareholder Agreements

    [M]oral Corporatism:

    LIBERTARIAN
    A libertarian ethic in negative sense, is that one seeks to eliminate all external constraints upon his resources so that he may seize opportunities for productive gain. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will cause no cost, but in return will liquidate his holdings if opportunities can be seized.

    CONSERVATIVE
    A conservative ethics in the negative sense, is that one seeks so accumulate defensive resources by forgoing consumption until later. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will only invest in long term storage of resources (including genetic resources), and deny himself and others access to consumption.

    PROGRESSIVE
    A progressive ethic, in the negative sense, is that one seeks to accumulate all human bodies, by consuming everything possible – now. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which all dividends are immediately consumed.

    CURRENT STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY
    We currently construct all three of these via shareholder agreements today, and would do more of them, more widely if the government were not structured to force spending by these organizations so that they can be taxed at maximum yields and thereby forcing risk into investors management and employees. So government today takes money and increases risk from producers to decrease risk and increase consumption of non-producers. If this did not yield dysgenic results, lower trust, and economic degeneracy, then it would be rational (the scandinavian small state model, plus prohibition on immigration).

  • Moral Corporatism: Political Bias as Shareholder Agreements

    [M]oral Corporatism:

    LIBERTARIAN
    A libertarian ethic in negative sense, is that one seeks to eliminate all external constraints upon his resources so that he may seize opportunities for productive gain. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will cause no cost, but in return will liquidate his holdings if opportunities can be seized.

    CONSERVATIVE
    A conservative ethics in the negative sense, is that one seeks so accumulate defensive resources by forgoing consumption until later. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will only invest in long term storage of resources (including genetic resources), and deny himself and others access to consumption.

    PROGRESSIVE
    A progressive ethic, in the negative sense, is that one seeks to accumulate all human bodies, by consuming everything possible – now. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which all dividends are immediately consumed.

    CURRENT STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY
    We currently construct all three of these via shareholder agreements today, and would do more of them, more widely if the government were not structured to force spending by these organizations so that they can be taxed at maximum yields and thereby forcing risk into investors management and employees. So government today takes money and increases risk from producers to decrease risk and increase consumption of non-producers. If this did not yield dysgenic results, lower trust, and economic degeneracy, then it would be rational (the scandinavian small state model, plus prohibition on immigration).

  • Individualism is a Privilege Earned

    [I] have a problem with causing suffering as punishment or for personal gratification. I have no problem with torture for the purpose of gathering information – particularly non-destructive torture. I certainly have no problem with killing, and I think we don’t do nearly enough of it. It’s cheap, effective, and provides exceptional incentives.

    Moreover, In individual societies we must limit punishment to the individual. In traditional societies, to the family, to primitive societies to the tribe, to corporeally organized to the state, and to religiously organized societies to all members.
    If you act as your own agent, for your own personal gain, then you have merely committed a crime. If you act on behalf of others you have committed a conspiracy.

    For these reasons we must hold groups accountable for the actions of their members, because actors acting on their behalf are their agents, and only those members possess the knowledge and incentives to contain the actions of their members.
    Individualism is a privilege earned by members of a society for suppression of the actions its members.
    Punish the group for the actions of the individuals and they will contain their group members – that’s what we do.