Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY

    THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF THE WILLING

    The intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone.

    The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions.

    But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive.

    It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintain their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange.

    Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk.

    We are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth.

    Aristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 12:40:00 UTC

  • THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY

    THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF THE WILLING

    The intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone.

    The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions.

    But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive.

    It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintian their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange.

    Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk.

    We are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth.

    Aristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 05:55:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM (important piece) Propertarianis

    PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM

    (important piece)

    Propertarianism is an ethical model for use in self government. Under Propertarianism I do not advocate a form of self government, other than an independent judiciary under the common law and under a constitution enumerating propertarian ethics – as such I advocate only rights that must be observed by ANY form of self government – anywhere – if people are to possess liberty.

    Most political philosophy advocates forms of government in the hope of creating certain rights or opportunities, rather than addressing the fundamental problem of whether or not those rights necessary for flourishing exist. Flourishing requires that we suppress free riding in all its forms. Some groups may suppress more, and some less, but those that suppress more will always and everywhere flourish (over the long term) more so than those that suppress less, because free riding is perhaps the most expensive and burdensome transaction cost that can be imposed upon a society by its own institutional failures.

    Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism – I make use of Propertarian Ethics. Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism, we obtain our property rights from others in exchange for the promise of defending their property rights with violence. We must accept exchange with any person who wishes property rights, and therefore defend the rights of all others who desire freedom.

    Rothbardian Libertarianism is an unethical, immoral and parasitic philosophy.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism under Propertarian Ethics, is the most moral philosophy that I believe man has yet developed. If one wants liberty and property rights, he may have them in exchange for his commitment to use violence to defend them always and everywhere.

    This was the origin of Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Northern Europeans. Unfortunately our ancestors practiced it by habit and tradition, not by written articulation and so it did not survive the attack on by the enlightenment and the democratic revolutions. The reasons are simple: First, written rules tend to freeze evolutionary development unless limited to fundamental first causes. Secondly, we lacked the knowledge of economics to translate that tradition from moral and traditional terms into rational terms.

    If you fill fight for my rights. I will fight for yours. That is the contract for aristocracy.

    That is the contract we must bring back, if we are to have our liberty once again.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 05:14:00 UTC

  • BRIBERY OMG we just got rousted for a $400 bribe by Ukrainian border staff. So w

    BRIBERY

    OMG we just got rousted for a $400 bribe by Ukrainian border staff.

    So we leave the land of government morons where we pay an idiot tax (uk) to arrive in the land of government criminals where we pay a corruption tax (ua).

    I hate the state.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-22 11:40:00 UTC

  • ARBITRARY RULES AND REGULATIONS AS ASSERTIONS OF POWER I had forgotten the Briti

    ARBITRARY RULES AND REGULATIONS AS ASSERTIONS OF POWER

    I had forgotten the British fascination and obsession with meaningless rules as expressions of proletarian power. Idiots take pride in enforcement of rules.

    At least in the states, we still know that rules are guidelines to prevent undesirable consequences.

    It is your moral and civic duty to undermine frivolous rules and regulations.

    American TSA staff are demonstrably morons. British equivalents are demonstrably morons.

    The difference is that American TSA morons know that they’re engaged in frivolous activity -and try to hide it. Their British counterparts not only are oblivious to the fact that they’re engaged in frivolous activity- the idiots are actually proud of it. They positively beam about it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-22 10:46:00 UTC

  • vs UKRAINE (good read) My position is that the world needs an economically and m

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/let-the-past-collapse-on-time/RUSSIA vs UKRAINE

    (good read)

    My position is that the world needs an economically and militarily strong Russia. And since I love Russians so much I want them to prosper. Like I want nearly all people to prosper.

    The problem is, that until Russians do what the Ukrainian’s have done, and kick out the corruption with acts of violence, that Russia remains a net exporter of poverty and corruption, and has nothing to offer the world whatsoever except increases in poverty and corruption.

    A Russia that aggressively suppresses corruption would be a positive influence in the east. An expansionist Russia, as a net exporter of poverty and corruption is yet another evil empire that must be contained, and conquered if necessary.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-19 18:38:00 UTC

  • A COINCIDENCE OF INTERESTS If people all identify and seize an opportunity becau

    A COINCIDENCE OF INTERESTS

    If people all identify and seize an opportunity because of a coincidence of interests that is not a conspiracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-18 07:46:00 UTC

  • “Aristocratic Egalitarianism” it is. Libertarianism is a dead end, and a discred

    “Aristocratic Egalitarianism” it is. Libertarianism is a dead end, and a discredited brand. Time to move on. Long live aristocracy. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-17 18:02:00 UTC

  • Politics isn’t Collectivist unless you choose it to be. Um. It’s not ‘Collectivi

    Politics isn’t Collectivist unless you choose it to be.

    Um. It’s not ‘Collectivist’ to pursue a solution to political institutions. It’s collectivist to redistribute. The difference between the philosophical-religious, and the political-institutional, is that diasporic unlanded groups do not require formal institutions, and groups that control land do.

    Libertarians can be very frustrating.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-16 17:45:00 UTC

  • IMPENETRABLE INTUITIONS Conservatives are not anti statists – they are happy to

    IMPENETRABLE INTUITIONS

    Conservatives are not anti statists – they are happy to use the state to enforce the family as the central organization of society. Neo reactionaries are, I think, monarchists and private statists. Libertarians are anarchists.

    So my argument for the expansion of the common law to address all forms of theft (involuntary transfer) is a violation of scripture for libertarians. It may be overly intellectual for reactionaries. And it is both overly intellectual, morally counter intuitive, and unnecessary to conservatives. 😉

    I’m sitting with a friend. A highly informed libertarian. “I cant understand what you’re saying.”

    Its not morally intuitive. And that statement tells you everything you need to know about the problem of expressing a universal logic if moral philosophy in rational and ratio-scientific terms.

    Sigh.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-16 15:21:00 UTC