Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • How Has Civil Society Led To Political Developments?

    This question posits a possible misrepresentation.  No society where government supplies services is categorized as ‘civil’. A ‘civil’ society is one in where we demonstrate civic participation whether in the pre-war or greek sense: where citizens volunteer to participate in the management of the commons and the provision of services.  We live in an managerial society postwar, where the state manages professionals (bureaucrats and their agents) for the provision of services. (See Burnham). 

    The abuse of this term originates in the conflation of treating one another ‘with civility’ (without violence or coercion), with ‘civic society’, in which individuals participate in the voluntary organization and production of commons. 

    We do not live in a civic society, we live in a civil society. 

    Meaning matters.  Ideas produce consequences.

    https://www.quora.com/How-has-civil-society-led-to-political-developments

  • THE SELLING OF LIES. For westerners, True and False, and Good and Bad, were syno

    THE SELLING OF LIES.

    For westerners, True and False, and Good and Bad, were synonyms. The socialists convinced us, through repetition and bribery, that good and bad no longer corresponded to True and False.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-10 04:26:00 UTC

  • “Darwin will surely punish us for using violence injudiciously. But he is punish

    —“Darwin will surely punish us for using violence injudiciously. But he is punishing us right now for failing to use it judiciously.”— Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-07 15:39:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT AND LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT ONLY WRONG BUT ***STUPID AND DA

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/the-new-normal-109616.html#ixzz39bR1AUm1WHY CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT AND LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT ONLY WRONG BUT ***STUPID AND DANGEROUS***

    In an article on July 25, the Nobel Laureate economist Michael Spence put it this way:

    —“[A]t this moment in history, the main threats to prosperity … are the huge uncontained negative spillover effects of regional tensions, conflict, and competing claims to spheres of influence. The most powerful impediment to growth and recovery is not this or that economic imbalance; it is a loss of confidence in the systems that made rising global interdependence possible.”—-

    FIRST ENGLAND, THEN USA, CREATED GLOBAL STABILITY THAT MAKES CREDIT POSSIBLE.

    And by abandoning that role, we have sent the world into the international equivalent of lawlessness. Americans cannot ‘save’ by decreasing the military. That is the argument I have been now making for the better part of a decade.

    Libertarian’s and progressives aren’t only wrong, they aren’t only ignorant, they aren’t only stupid – they’re catastrophically dangerous.

    The world order is artificial. The mistake is in not separating aristocratic military services from national boundaries. IN stead, we have the US government functioning as BOTH global guarantor of property rights, AND oppressor of domestic peoples.

    Worse, instead of splitting off the empire into a corporeal police body, under the law of property rights, we construct a socialist organization (the UN) whose entire purpose is to DISMANTLE property rights and FIGHT AGAINST the imposition of the aristocratic order of property rights that has forced the entire world to modernize – leaving behind its ignorance mysticism and poverty.

    Might is not a bad. Violence is a good. It is a product. It’s a valuable product. The question is only whether the violence is used to construct property rights or used violate property rights.

    The moral use of violence is in the construction and maintenance of property rights.

    COMMUNISTS WERE THE WORLDS GREATEST MASS MURDERERS. PROGRESSIVES AND LIBERTARIANS WILL BE SHORTLY SHOWN TO BE THE NEXT PEOPLE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOST MURDER AND SUFFERING.

    Property rights are unnatural. They are an unnatural institution. They are our most difficult and expensive commons. And to construct that commons we must construct testimonial truth. And to do that we require violence to insure it.

    The Cosmopolitan revolution that created the 20th century has been the worst ideological movement since the creation of abrahamic monotheism.

    MURDER BY WORDS

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 05:41:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY: THE VOLUNTARY PHILOSOPHY A lot of philosophy consists mainly of beg

    ARISTOCRACY: THE VOLUNTARY PHILOSOPHY

    A lot of philosophy consists mainly of begging for privilege, or mainly of appeals for consensus on some implied utility. Aristocratic Egalitarianism consists of a voluntary contract for a preference, exclusive of those who disagree with your preference. Aristocracy constructs the virtual family by extending the high trust of in-group members, to all with whom you wold voluntarily exchange insurance for the defense of property rights, and the denial of power to any and all, of power over any and all.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 05:01:00 UTC

  • Can A Common Man With Average Intelligence Make A Significant Change In Society?

    An important and interesting question,  So I will do my best. Although you might not like the answer.

    1) Well, a common man certainly can make a positive impact on society merely by accumulating and making use of the Virtues. 

    2) Common many have made positive impact accidentally on the world by virtuous action at the right moment in time.  But that is not to say that they possessed a brilliant idea or persuasive character. It means only that as virtuous people they seized an opportunity when it came before them, even if they did not construct that opportunity themselves.

    3) The historical record suggests that most people who make a significant POSITIVE impact on society are not average. In fact, the record is almost absent of common individuals.  The people who do make a significant impact tend to be above average, largely from the middle or upper middle classes – in other words, not common. 

    4) The interesting question is whether the common man, correctly estimates that his reasons, opinions or imaginations, would produce what is a POSITIVE impact upon society.  If you imagine what a child sounds like to an adult; what a student sounds like to a professor; what a common citizen sounds like to a statesman or scholar – the result is always the same: that we are always unconscious of our incompetence. If we were aware of our incompetence we might lack the will to do anything at all. So we evolved confidence in the face of ignorance out of necessity. 

    So the question is really whether the common man has any significant value to add to society other than his assumption that he does.  On the other hand, there are many people who are not average who none the less are not omniscient, always looking for ideas to use in changing the world.

    And so, it is possible that an ordinary fellow might stumble across a good idea. But even if he did, is it possible for his idea to compete with the many many ideas, of all the individuals who are above average, and who are ALSO struggling to change the world?

    The market for ideas is no different from the market for products and services. If you cannot sell your idea, that is because no one is buying it. If no one buys it then that is evidence that it isn’t wanted. If it isn’t wanted, then by definition, it isn’t ‘good’.

    The greeks had it right you know: wisdom is found in increasing the knowledge of your own ignorance.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-a-common-man-with-average-intelligence-make-a-significant-change-in-society

  • Can A Common Man With Average Intelligence Make A Significant Change In Society?

    An important and interesting question,  So I will do my best. Although you might not like the answer.

    1) Well, a common man certainly can make a positive impact on society merely by accumulating and making use of the Virtues. 

    2) Common many have made positive impact accidentally on the world by virtuous action at the right moment in time.  But that is not to say that they possessed a brilliant idea or persuasive character. It means only that as virtuous people they seized an opportunity when it came before them, even if they did not construct that opportunity themselves.

    3) The historical record suggests that most people who make a significant POSITIVE impact on society are not average. In fact, the record is almost absent of common individuals.  The people who do make a significant impact tend to be above average, largely from the middle or upper middle classes – in other words, not common. 

    4) The interesting question is whether the common man, correctly estimates that his reasons, opinions or imaginations, would produce what is a POSITIVE impact upon society.  If you imagine what a child sounds like to an adult; what a student sounds like to a professor; what a common citizen sounds like to a statesman or scholar – the result is always the same: that we are always unconscious of our incompetence. If we were aware of our incompetence we might lack the will to do anything at all. So we evolved confidence in the face of ignorance out of necessity. 

    So the question is really whether the common man has any significant value to add to society other than his assumption that he does.  On the other hand, there are many people who are not average who none the less are not omniscient, always looking for ideas to use in changing the world.

    And so, it is possible that an ordinary fellow might stumble across a good idea. But even if he did, is it possible for his idea to compete with the many many ideas, of all the individuals who are above average, and who are ALSO struggling to change the world?

    The market for ideas is no different from the market for products and services. If you cannot sell your idea, that is because no one is buying it. If no one buys it then that is evidence that it isn’t wanted. If it isn’t wanted, then by definition, it isn’t ‘good’.

    The greeks had it right you know: wisdom is found in increasing the knowledge of your own ignorance.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-a-common-man-with-average-intelligence-make-a-significant-change-in-society

  • THE SOCIALIST DESTRUCTION OF TRUTH The first casualty was Rhetoric. The second D

    THE SOCIALIST DESTRUCTION OF TRUTH

    The first casualty was Rhetoric.

    The second Darwin.

    The third History.

    The fourth Science.

    That was how they attacked truth.

    The ten planks were not all they did.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-05 03:49:00 UTC

  • (I figured it out you know. Aristocratic Egalitarians : The Only People Who Coul

    (I figured it out you know. Aristocratic Egalitarians : The Only People Who Could Create Voluntary Commons.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-05 02:06:00 UTC

  • Our Job, Is Now Our Duty: Intellectual Arms Dealing

    Our Job, Is Now Our Duty: Intellectual Arms Dealing

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-05 01:56:00 UTC