Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • OK, so how do I redraw the Asplundt/Nolan chart for families, or is my original

    OK, so how do I redraw the Asplundt/Nolan chart for families, or is my original diagram accurate enough?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-07 08:31:00 UTC

  • HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO BUY A WHOLE COUNTRY? “Dec. 6, 10 p.m. Ukrainian Preside

    HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO BUY A WHOLE COUNTRY?

    “Dec. 6, 10 p.m. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, meeting today in Sochi with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, signed an agreement stating that Ukraine will join the Kremlin-led Customs Union, according to Edward Lucas, senior editor at The Economist, citing his own sources.

    The Kyiv Post could not independently confirm the news. Kremlin official contacted by Kyiv Post also did not confirm the news and said only to look for statements on the Kremlin’s official website. As of 10:45 a.m. on Dec. 7, the only statement posted to the site confirmed a visit by Yanukovych to Sochi.

    “Wow! Hearing Yanukovich in Sochi today signed strategic agrt w Russia includes $5BN+ up front, gas price $200 + agrt to join customs union,” Lucas wrote on Twitter.

    The details of the agreement, which reportedly include billions up front for the country, as well as a huge price cut on gas, are being hammered out in Moscow, Lucas wrote.”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-07 07:35:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN OR ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN? If calling one’s self a libertarian mea

    LIBERTARIAN OR ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN?

    If calling one’s self a libertarian means that one hopes to enfranchise others in the love of liberty then that is a fools game. The only difference between aristocratic egalitarianism and libertarianism, is that AE uses force to obtain liberty and suppresses the evolution of the state. while we libertarians appeal to reason like a beggar for alms.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-07 05:22:00 UTC

  • THE STATE: DESTROYER OF WORLDS We’ve been focusing on race because it’s visible,

    THE STATE: DESTROYER OF WORLDS

    We’ve been focusing on race because it’s visible, when the causal problem is reproductive structure.

    How black families look today is how most of us will look in the future under heterogeneous polities with redistribution.

    It turns out that the state, is in fact, the destroyer of worlds.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-07 05:11:00 UTC

  • NEGOTIATING TACTICS AND MORALITY In politics, in serious negotiations, when you

    NEGOTIATING TACTICS AND MORALITY

    In politics, in serious negotiations, when you ask your opposition party to return to its constituency with demands that they are unwilling to suffer, your function is to provide your opposition with the material means of extracting the demand from their constituency.

    Those material means, or the threat, must be believable, and sufficient, and the timing must be such that there is no alternative in the time frame. This tactic has been effective throughout history. It is best if your opposition party is unsure whether or not the threat is serious, because this frustrates their ability to project the future, but they must believe the threat is, at least, possible. You must empower your opponents to operate on your behalf.

    Depending upon your perspective in the matter, it is doing your opposition a favor. Although, they rarely appreciate it at the time. In retrospect getting such an ask generally improves the ability of all participants from that point forward to work together because it rebalances the playing field so that the participants in the negotiation are weighted as highly as the constituency – if only because the circumstances are no longer predictable. It is far better for your opposition to worry about that which they do not expect, than that which they expect, and which makes them overconfident.

    If, regardless of party, we do the right thing for everyone, then the moral constraint remains in place. If we do not do the right thing for everyone, then the moral constraint is off in negotiations. So it is always important to hold the moral high ground, rather than retreat into proceduralism specifically designed to abrogate moral constraints. Because it is moral constraint that binds all negotiations regardless of procedure and law. In the end, all moral codes consist of property rights, albeit different allocations of them.

    THE PURPOSE OF RULES AND PROCEDURES IS GENERALLY TO LIE OR STEAL. There is but one rule, and that is property. Property is the moral high ground. Always.

    I’m autistic. I write political and ethical theory. This kind of thing is just tedium.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 14:31:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY = ANARCHO CAPITALISM + THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Libertarian institutions,

    LIBERTY = ANARCHO CAPITALISM + THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT

    Libertarian institutions, reduction of all rights to property rights, propertarian grammar and terminology, and human nature scientifically demonstrated rather than theoretically conjectured, and the necessity of formal and informal institutions.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 11:15:00 UTC

  • EUROMAIDAN THIS WEEKEND 1,000,000 PEOPLE? When it was crazy here last weekend, a

    EUROMAIDAN THIS WEEKEND 1,000,000 PEOPLE?

    When it was crazy here last weekend, about 300K people were up there on Maidan. but if they can get 1M people here, that will be…. something to see.

    So I know what I’m doing Sunday! Whooot!

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 11:05:00 UTC

  • THE POLITICS OF EUGENICS, DYSGENICS, AND DUNNING-KREUGER (reposted on advice) “I

    THE POLITICS OF EUGENICS, DYSGENICS, AND DUNNING-KREUGER

    (reposted on advice)

    “I think people who desire liberty, and the nuclear family, will be like Christians in Lebanon. Wealthy until the proletarians kill them out of envy. The social result of the Dunning Krueger effect: “We are oppressed” rather than “They do it better than we do.”

    Fear the simple people. En Masse they are the zombie horde. And you don’t think zombie movies are subconsciously appealing at the moment for no reason, do you?

    Aristocracy is self defense.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 10:13:00 UTC

  • If the ‘Un-Insured’ nuclear family is the majority of society, or at least, grea

    If the ‘Un-Insured’ nuclear family is the majority of society, or at least, greater than the Pareto minimum of 20%, and the polity is homogenous, it’s likely that signaling will take care of containing the dysgenic families. But in a diverse polity I dont see how the signal economy can function, either as an advocate of the nuclear family, or a constraint on free riding.

    The ‘insurance company” traditional family encourages redistribution and at least limited free riding.

    The “corporate insurance company” (The STATE) forcibly redistributes between moral and reproductive structures, but what this means in practice is the conquest of aristocratic uninsured non-free riders, by communal insured, or state corporate insured, free riders and rent seekers.

    America’s miracle, I think, was a combination of two factors: (a) giving away a conquered continent to immigrants, and (b) indoctrination into the combination of nuclear family and property rights. And the extraction of those people from the high-insurance, high free-riding, traditional family of Europe.

    But it couldn’t survive.

    As the germans and anglos, who were the majority until the 20th century, were outbred by less eugenic (catholic) families, the black family was destroyed through progressive good-intentions, and finally dysgenic traditional family (hispanics) and inbred family (muslims), and our legal traditions did not survive jewish intellectual attacks on our institutions.

    If they had be UNDERSTOOD as economic institutions, and social institutions, and WRITTEN DOWN, it’s possible, but but they weren’t. So there has been a scramble for the past century and a half or more, to contain the non-ANF families from expressing their reproductive strategy in politics.

    Aristocracy wants eugenic development and the rest want dysgenic reproduction. The concentration of calories (eugenic aristocracy) the distribution of calories (dysgenic communalism). This is what we should expect from people – who are not equal.

    1) Physical abilities

    2) Structure Of Production

    3) Reproductive Strategy

    4) Family Structure

    5) Moral Code (Property Rights Allocations)

    6) Property Rights (abandonment of free riding)

    7) Homogeneity (pervasive abandonment of free riding)

    8) Trust (lack of necessity to protect against free riding)

    9) Political preferences

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 08:10:00 UTC

  • WHAT IF LIBERTY IS TRANSITIONAL? (uncomfortable idea) (interesting analysis) Wha

    WHAT IF LIBERTY IS TRANSITIONAL?

    (uncomfortable idea) (interesting analysis)

    What if, bias toward the market, is a transitional phase, where the opportunities from participation in the market are greater than the opportunities from rent seeking and free riding?

    What if, say, Todd is right, and that the stagnancy, ignorance, poverty, and low trust of the middle east, is the natural line of maturity in human civilizations? What if the greeks were in fact, the originators of inbred paternalism as a means of protecting against diversity created by democracy?

    Again, then (and I keep running into this problem), liberty is an unnatural state that must be forcibly held against the common will by force of arms, by a minority unwilling to let society return to its natural state of maximizing free riding and rent seeking?

    Liberty is unnatural. It is unique to the west. It is a contractual benefit exchanged between those willing and able to fight to create it against the general tide of free riding pervasive in all societies.

    Just as spears and other weapons, allowed a group of men to organize to control or kill dangerous alpha males within the band or tribe, the combination of advanced weapons and domesticated animals allowed the concentration of wealth and violence, so that free riding could be suppressed.

    In this sense, the struggle for civilization, is the effort of liberty seeking males to suppress free riders and rent seekers by forcibly creating the institution of private property, so that the majority of males will seek to imitate that wealth, and as such, the minority is constantly refreshed with new members who are likewise incentivized to use violence to maintain private property.

    This was the second falsehood of the enlightenment: men do not desire liberty. They desire consumption.

    Since the number that can, and desire to compete, is limited in any population, then so will be the number of liberty seekers. It is not rational that without belief in success, that individuals should desire to compete only to fail, in a population where they are anonymous.

    Then, liberty and private property, must be forcibly held, by those who desire it. And it is non rational, and immoral, to force those who do not desire liberty, and who cannot or are unwilling to compete to do so. This means that the multi-house form of government was the only known solution to political cooperation. The aristocracy can choose liberty and private property, and the rent seekers and free riders can choose to communalize their efforts, and effectively charge the aristocracy for access to the market of consumers that consists of communal rent seekers and free riders.

    I can’t see an argument around that, which doesn’t violate the both the lower standard of NAP, and the higher moral standard of Propertarianism.

    And moral claims about the virtue of liberty are nonsensical. They are an attempt to obtain a discount without paying the high cost of suppressing free riding and rent seeking – an probably fraud as well.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-03 05:53:00 UTC