Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • MONOPOLY AND BUREAUCRACY Again, there are NECESSARY functions of government. ( s

    http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/AGAIN: MONOPOLY AND BUREAUCRACY

    Again, there are NECESSARY functions of government.

    ( see http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/#propertarian item (g) )

    While the definition of property rights must, in the end, be homogenous across groups as individual property rights, there is no reason why we need a monopoly means of organizing people under those property rights. There is absolutely no material reason why we cannot have polycentric governments that vary from absolute surrender to minarchy.

    Government, in the sense, that we need both a definition of property rights, and a means of common investment, as well as common insurance – and all organizations require leaders, even if they are purely judges, selected randomly by lot. (preferably so)

    If you’re wandering around saying government is evil rather than bureaucracy and monopoly are evil you’re just polluting the intellectual pool.

    The problem is monopoly, bureaucracy, and the sanction of various partial monopolies and rents by those in the state, to persist their control over the state.

    SECRET

    The chinese philosophers could not, because of the asian family structure and existing hierarchy solve the problem of politics, like the Greeks solved the system of politics PRECISELY because they were not hierarchically solidified. Confucius and Lao Tzu failed. They directed the entire civilization to operate as an extended family. (Unfortunately, Fukuyama is wrong. As usual. But at least he’s informative.)

    We libertarians are making a similar mistake. ROTHBARD FAILED, and so did his ethics. Hoppe succeeded (by admittedly strange means) and solve the problem of politics at scale for us. But Rothbard failed, either by intent, or by cultural influence, or by lack of understanding. But he failed. And he continues to cause us to fail at securing our liberty.

    While I would agree that violence was necessary to transform barbarians into city and farm dwellers, I would also argue that such a monopoly was necessary to conduct that transformation.

    But now we need a DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION. The barbarians are converted. The problem is not how to convert barbarians. THe problem is how to prevent FEMALES from returning us to barbarism via the ballot box.

    Socialism was murderous. But the threat to human prosperity is the assumption that women have the right to reproduce at the expense of others, or that all reproduction is of necessity ‘good’.

    Government is not the enemy. Monopoly is. Socialism is not a problem any longer. But feminism and the totalitarian humanism that is an expression of feminine communism are.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-29 07:27:00 UTC

  • THE WAR AGAINST WHITE MARRIED PEOPLE “93% of blacks, 70% of Latinos, 60% of thos

    THE WAR AGAINST WHITE MARRIED PEOPLE

    “93% of blacks, 70% of Latinos, 60% of those under 30, and 62% of single people, voted for Obama. And white married couples over 30 years of age voted for Romney. Not much else matters.”

    –Dick Morris

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-28 14:48:00 UTC

  • WATCHING THE PRESIDENT : TRENCHANT NAIVE IDEALISM Watching Bush II was kind of i

    WATCHING THE PRESIDENT : TRENCHANT NAIVE IDEALISM

    Watching Bush II was kind of interesting. He sort of looked at his job and it unfolded as he expected, and he knew what the price would be, and his position was that history is the only judge of presidential actions. Now, I disagreed with him on a bunch of them. And his presidency was the last hope of restoring the republic. Demographics have made it impossible now. We have to break up the empire to preserve western civilization in any form at all.

    Watching this guy is something quite different. Most of us knew he was symbolic. That he’s an empty suit elected by the media as a cure for white sins. And honestly, given the change in behavior of black males, I wish we could have elected a black man earlier, and done it with a conservative.

    But this guy has a different bias. He actually believes all the nonsense he was exposed as a child, all the hate he was told, and is taking revenge on america as best as he can with his time in office. He undoubtably thinks he us undoing injustices.

    He makes gaffe after gaffe, idiotic policy move after policy move, and they all fail. And he doesn’t understand why. He doesn’t understand why his is unappreciated. He doesn’t understand why they fail.

    But you can see it in his face that he expects people to love and appreciate him. He doesn’t understand why we don’t agree with him. He doesn’t UNDERSTAND.

    “HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND”

    It’s either that or he’s the most evil person to get into politics since Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin. Because you couldn’t screw up the world more than this if you tried. I didn’t think we could have a president worse than Carter, or more inept at execution than Bush.

    But I was wrong.

    You know, Clinton was a freaking genius at politics and if he hadn’t been so freaking stupid with feminizing the military, radical conservatives, and his attraction to large breasts, he’d be unassailable. I mean I loved and hated him at the same time.

    People underestimate Reagan. He was brilliant. Charismatic, profoundly moral. He read Hayek and applied it. He understood it. He changed the world. He was a perfect high priest of american culture. He was the last high priest of it.

    Obama is just another politically approved, symbolic fool put into a administrative job in control of the empire – an empire past its peak, purpose, and utility.

    And you can see it on his face as he runs away to play golf to get away from the work load.

    KINGS AND QUEENS AND GUILLOTINES

    A monarch’s job is to be the high priest of civic culture. THe most envied societies are monarchies. Monarchs must have veto power, and little else. They are the representation of the people’s moral code. And their morality is guaranteed by guillotine. YOu cannot kill a bureaucracy but you can kill a king.

    We need to break up the empire. We are now for to twelve different cultures and we need to break into four to twelve different countries.

    The only value of the federal government is in the efficiency and power of a combined military force, and the function of an insurer of last resort. It has no value in law. No value in trade. No value in culture. No value in morality. And may in fact produce just the opposite.

    Let us see how the northeast and the left coast function with a hostile and conservative farmland between them.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-28 13:04:00 UTC

  • I just really like this meme. Our job as libertarians is not to be the majority

    I just really like this meme. Our job as libertarians is not to be the majority – we cant be. It’s to be intellectual arms dealers to anyone who opposes the totalitarian state. That is a really good meme. It’s a really good meme.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-25 06:40:00 UTC

  • “EXPLAIN PROGRESSIVE VS CONSERVATIVE” Progressive and conservative express posit

    “EXPLAIN PROGRESSIVE VS CONSERVATIVE”

    Progressive and conservative express positions relative to the status quo. However, out of repeated use, this term refers to the difference between State control of society (left = totalitarianism), and ‘normative’ control of society (right = libertarianism).

    NOLAN/ASPLUND POLITICAL CHART

    However, the ‘NOLAN CHART’ is a more accurate and sophisticated view of politics as two dimensions. Left totalitarianism of the state via law, right totalitarianism of ‘norms’, and libertarian totalitarianism of commerce is probably the most accurate way of thinking about political biases.

    [see asplund chart]

    The problem is. This chart helps you organize political biases, but it doesn’t tell you WHY WE HAVE THEM. So we need to look at something else. Because it turns out that we don’t, except for the statistically insignificant, ever change our political biases.

    RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ORIGINS

    In my own work, I’ve tried to show how totalitarian, normative, and libertarian biases tend to originate from different religious and cultural backgrounds in europe.

    [See Doolittle Chart]

    FAMILY STRUCTURES

    And Emmanuel Todd’s work shows that these religious structures roughly correspond to our FAMILY structures. With conservatives in the nuclear family, catholics in the traditional family, jews in the extended family, and muslims in the tribal family. We are now able to trace the progressive left’s origins as an alliance between Northeast Puritan Women, The Feminist Movement, and the Jewish Communist Movement.

    [See Todd’s Diagrams]

    So Emmanuel Todd’s map of immigration and family structures, looks much like my map of religious structures (which you can find on the web now in a few places. It seems to be spreading a bit.)

    AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS

    So if you look at these maps of america:

    [ SEE MAPS OF AMERICA]

    It’s pretty clear, given everyone’s origins, where their political biases come from: their moral codes reflect their cultural origins, the relationship between their family structures, moral codes, and economic demands.

    PRACTICAL IMPACT

    If you understand this set of charts, you’ll quickly grasp, that all our political talk is purely entertainment and spent energy. Our political biases, like our moral intuitions, are not voluntarily chosen except at the margins.

    The people who decide elections in america consist of two groups:

    (a) Uninvolved, Uncommitted, and Unaware voters who represent from 7-14% of the populace (depending on who you ask), and who can be swayed by popular opinion and emotion rather than political conviction or reason, and (b) single mothers and young women who now represent a NEW FAMILY STRUCTURE, and who are highly biased toward the state (the left). It is these two groups who determine the outcome of elections, since everyone else is pretty committed and reasonably evenly distributed. (See Pew research.)

    This is why conservatives use every trick in the book to retain the nuclear family and progressives eery trick in the book to undermine the nuclear family because the nuclear family, and it’s civic independence is the primary threat to state power. Religion has always been an effective means of resisting the western state. And conservatives use this because it means they get to establish their own moral grounds insulated from argument. Just as progressives try the same by different means.

    SOURCE OF POLITICAL BIASES

    (1) Genetics

    (2) Gender

    (3) Childhood family structure

    (4) Culture

    (5) Environment

    (6) Willful Informed Adult Choice

    GENDER BIASES

    When we created representative democracy the head of household was a male with discretion over family use of property, and was the equivalent of a small or medium sized business owner today. These men had homogenous moral and cultural codes. They had relatively homogenous interests that differed only by scale. The opposing reproductive and therefore moral intuition for men and women was homogenized by the nuclear family structure. But the addition of women to the workplace and the voting pool eliminated that compromise. And as each generation passes, women increasingly are either single, or single mothers, and vote the female reproductive bias, which is to bear children and care for them but place responsibility for their support and upkeep on the tribe as much as possible. Other factors matter, but by and large it is women and their preference to press the costs of childrearing on the ‘tribe’ that has determined the gradual leftward motion in america, and left the conservative nuclear family with its emphasis on self reliance in the minority. There are more issues here but I’m attempting to emphasize that our political biases are not the conscious choices that we think they are. We are incredibly predictable.

    [See Masculine Feminine Biases Diagram]

    RECOMMENDED READING

    1) “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” by Andrew Heywood.

    Political Ideologies: An Introduction: Andrew Heywood: 9780230367258: Amazon.com: Books

    2) “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt

    The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Jonathan Haidt: 9780307377906: Amazon.com: Books

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-21 11:08:00 UTC

  • What Are The Key Differences Between Mainstream Libertarian Thought And The Positions Taken By Koch-sponsored Organizations?

    The Koch’s are irrelevant.  They are just the easiest source of money. But it doesn’t take much money to run a think tank, so there are a lot of them.

    The libertarian spectrum is roughly aligned with the conservative,  Right Libertarian, Left Libertarian, and Anarchist spectrum, and most of us are associated with one or more of the Think Tanks that address the conservative – libertarian spectrum. 


    They are (key players only):



    CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN
    1. The Heritage Foundation : conservative libertarians (focus on norms and the family)

    MIDDLE (Classical Liberal Libertarian)
    1. Cato: Well connected, Republican Libertarians (focus on practical action to minimize government).
    2. The Future of Freedom Foundation   “Individual liberty, free markets, private property and limited government.” The FFF takes its libertarianism very seriously, so much so that even liberals may find themselves nodding while reading.
    3. The Heartland Institute  Moderate libertarianism, go to “PolicyBot”.

    RADICAL (Anarcho Capitalist Libertarian)
    1. Mises Institute : Anarchic Libertarians (focus on eliminating the state )
    2. Property and Freedom Society: (Focus on small private governments similar to monarchies.)

    OTHERS
    • American Enterprise Institute ( focus on entrepreneurship and economics)
    • Independent Institute    Aims to eliminate government influence and 5) interference in all aspects of life.
    • Cascade Policy Institute     Libertarian and oriented toward Oregon, there are broader issues under “Policy Areas”.
    • Institute for Policy Innovation   With the usual emphasis on “lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a smaller, less-intrusive government” pertaining to social security and healthcare, the IPI also addresses intellectual property and technological issues.
    • Lexington Institute    Libertarian views on defense, education, regulation, homeland security, immigration, Cuba and postal reform.


    FULL LISTS
    There are a lot of them and less than half are listed in wikipedia.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-between-mainstream-libertarian-thought-and-the-positions-taken-by-Koch-sponsored-organizations

  • Is There A Better Word For Progressive Beliefs Than “progressivism”?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE

    (If you think I have then please promote this piece)

    PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE AND THE STATUS QUO
    Progressive and conservative express positions relative to the status quo.
    However, out of repeated use, this term refers to the difference between State control of society (left = totalitarianism), and ‘normative’ control of society (right = libertarianism).


    NOLAN/ASPLUND POLITICAL CHART
    However, the ‘NOLAN CHART’ is a more accurate and sophisticated view of politics as two dimensions.   Left totalitarianism of the state via law, right totalitarianism of ‘norms’, and libertarian totalitarianism of commerce is probably the most accurate way of thinking about political biases.


     





    The problem is. This chart helps you organize political biases, but it doesn’t tell you WHY WE HAVE THEM.   So we need to look at something else. Because it turns out that we don’t, except for the statistically insignificant, ever change our political biases.


    RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ORIGINS
    In my own work, I’ve tried to  show how totalitarian, normative, and libertarian biases tend to originate from different religious and cultural backgrounds in europe.









    FAMILY STRUCTURES
    And Emmanuel Todd’s work shows that these religious structures roughly correspond to our FAMILY structures.  With conservatives in the nuclear family, catholics in the traditional family, jews in the extended family, and muslims in the tribal family.  We are now able to trace the progressive left’s origins as an alliance between Northeast Puritan Women,  The Feminist Movement, and the Jewish Communist Movement.









    So Emmanuel Todd’s map of immigration and family structures, looks much like my map of religious structures (which you can find on the web now in a few places. It seems to be spreading a bit.)

    AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS
    So if you look at these maps of america:







    It’s pretty clear, given everyone’s origins, where their political biases come from: their moral codes reflect their cultural origins,  the relationship between their family structures, moral codes, and economic demands.


    PRACTICAL IMPACT
    If you understand this set of charts, you’ll quickly grasp, that all our political talk is purely entertainment and spent energy. Our political biases, like our moral intuitions, are not voluntarily chosen except at the margins.

    The people who decide elections in america consist of two groups:
    (a) Uninvolved, Uncommitted, and Unaware voters who represent from 7-14% of the populace (depending on who you ask), and who can be swayed by popular opinion and emotion rather than political conviction or reason, and (b) single mothers and young women who now represent a NEW FAMILY STRUCTURE, and who are highly biased toward the state (the left). It is these two groups who determine the outcome of elections, since everyone else is  pretty committed and reasonably evenly distributed. (See Pew research.)

    This is why conservatives use every trick in the book to retain the nuclear family and progressives eery trick in the book to undermine the nuclear family because the nuclear family, and it’s civic independence is the primary threat to state power. Religion has always been an effective means of resisting the western state. And conservatives use this because it means they get to establish their own moral grounds insulated from argument.  Just as progressives try the same by different means.

    SOURCE OF POLITICAL BIASES
    (1) Genetics
    (2) Gender
    (3) Childhood family structure
    (4) Culture
    (5) Environment
    (6) Willful Informed Adult Choice

    GENDER BIASES
    When we created representative democracy the head of household was a male with discretion over family use of property, and was the equivalent of a small or medium sized business owner today. These men had homogenous moral and cultural codes. They had relatively homogenous interests that differed only by scale.  The opposing reproductive and therefore moral intuition for men and women was homogenized by the nuclear family structure.  But the addition of women to the workplace and the voting pool eliminated that compromise. And as each generation passes, women increasingly are either single, or single mothers, and vote the female reproductive bias, which is to bear children and care for them but place responsibility for their support and upkeep on the tribe as much as possible. Other factors matter, but by and large it is women and their preference to press the costs of childrearing on the ‘tribe’ that has determined the gradual leftward motion in america, and left the conservative nuclear family with its emphasis on self reliance in the minority. There are more issues here but I’m attempting to emphasize that our political biases are not the conscious choices that we think they are.  We are incredibly predictable.



    RECOMMENDED READING
    1) “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” by Andrew Heywood.
    Political Ideologies: An Introduction: Andrew Heywood: 9780230367258: Amazon.com: Books

    2) “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt
    The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Jonathan Haidt: 9780307377906: Amazon.com: Books

    https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-better-word-for-progressive-beliefs-than-progressivism

  • What Are The Key Differences Between Mainstream Libertarian Thought And The Positions Taken By Koch-sponsored Organizations?

    The Koch’s are irrelevant.  They are just the easiest source of money. But it doesn’t take much money to run a think tank, so there are a lot of them.

    The libertarian spectrum is roughly aligned with the conservative,  Right Libertarian, Left Libertarian, and Anarchist spectrum, and most of us are associated with one or more of the Think Tanks that address the conservative – libertarian spectrum. 


    They are (key players only):



    CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN
    1. The Heritage Foundation : conservative libertarians (focus on norms and the family)

    MIDDLE (Classical Liberal Libertarian)
    1. Cato: Well connected, Republican Libertarians (focus on practical action to minimize government).
    2. The Future of Freedom Foundation   “Individual liberty, free markets, private property and limited government.” The FFF takes its libertarianism very seriously, so much so that even liberals may find themselves nodding while reading.
    3. The Heartland Institute  Moderate libertarianism, go to “PolicyBot”.

    RADICAL (Anarcho Capitalist Libertarian)
    1. Mises Institute : Anarchic Libertarians (focus on eliminating the state )
    2. Property and Freedom Society: (Focus on small private governments similar to monarchies.)

    OTHERS
    • American Enterprise Institute ( focus on entrepreneurship and economics)
    • Independent Institute    Aims to eliminate government influence and 5) interference in all aspects of life.
    • Cascade Policy Institute     Libertarian and oriented toward Oregon, there are broader issues under “Policy Areas”.
    • Institute for Policy Innovation   With the usual emphasis on “lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a smaller, less-intrusive government” pertaining to social security and healthcare, the IPI also addresses intellectual property and technological issues.
    • Lexington Institute    Libertarian views on defense, education, regulation, homeland security, immigration, Cuba and postal reform.


    FULL LISTS
    There are a lot of them and less than half are listed in wikipedia.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-between-mainstream-libertarian-thought-and-the-positions-taken-by-Koch-sponsored-organizations

  • Is There A Better Word For Progressive Beliefs Than “progressivism”?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE

    (If you think I have then please promote this piece)

    PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE AND THE STATUS QUO
    Progressive and conservative express positions relative to the status quo.
    However, out of repeated use, this term refers to the difference between State control of society (left = totalitarianism), and ‘normative’ control of society (right = libertarianism).


    NOLAN/ASPLUND POLITICAL CHART
    However, the ‘NOLAN CHART’ is a more accurate and sophisticated view of politics as two dimensions.   Left totalitarianism of the state via law, right totalitarianism of ‘norms’, and libertarian totalitarianism of commerce is probably the most accurate way of thinking about political biases.


     





    The problem is. This chart helps you organize political biases, but it doesn’t tell you WHY WE HAVE THEM.   So we need to look at something else. Because it turns out that we don’t, except for the statistically insignificant, ever change our political biases.


    RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ORIGINS
    In my own work, I’ve tried to  show how totalitarian, normative, and libertarian biases tend to originate from different religious and cultural backgrounds in europe.









    FAMILY STRUCTURES
    And Emmanuel Todd’s work shows that these religious structures roughly correspond to our FAMILY structures.  With conservatives in the nuclear family, catholics in the traditional family, jews in the extended family, and muslims in the tribal family.  We are now able to trace the progressive left’s origins as an alliance between Northeast Puritan Women,  The Feminist Movement, and the Jewish Communist Movement.









    So Emmanuel Todd’s map of immigration and family structures, looks much like my map of religious structures (which you can find on the web now in a few places. It seems to be spreading a bit.)

    AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS
    So if you look at these maps of america:







    It’s pretty clear, given everyone’s origins, where their political biases come from: their moral codes reflect their cultural origins,  the relationship between their family structures, moral codes, and economic demands.


    PRACTICAL IMPACT
    If you understand this set of charts, you’ll quickly grasp, that all our political talk is purely entertainment and spent energy. Our political biases, like our moral intuitions, are not voluntarily chosen except at the margins.

    The people who decide elections in america consist of two groups:
    (a) Uninvolved, Uncommitted, and Unaware voters who represent from 7-14% of the populace (depending on who you ask), and who can be swayed by popular opinion and emotion rather than political conviction or reason, and (b) single mothers and young women who now represent a NEW FAMILY STRUCTURE, and who are highly biased toward the state (the left). It is these two groups who determine the outcome of elections, since everyone else is  pretty committed and reasonably evenly distributed. (See Pew research.)

    This is why conservatives use every trick in the book to retain the nuclear family and progressives eery trick in the book to undermine the nuclear family because the nuclear family, and it’s civic independence is the primary threat to state power. Religion has always been an effective means of resisting the western state. And conservatives use this because it means they get to establish their own moral grounds insulated from argument.  Just as progressives try the same by different means.

    SOURCE OF POLITICAL BIASES
    (1) Genetics
    (2) Gender
    (3) Childhood family structure
    (4) Culture
    (5) Environment
    (6) Willful Informed Adult Choice

    GENDER BIASES
    When we created representative democracy the head of household was a male with discretion over family use of property, and was the equivalent of a small or medium sized business owner today. These men had homogenous moral and cultural codes. They had relatively homogenous interests that differed only by scale.  The opposing reproductive and therefore moral intuition for men and women was homogenized by the nuclear family structure.  But the addition of women to the workplace and the voting pool eliminated that compromise. And as each generation passes, women increasingly are either single, or single mothers, and vote the female reproductive bias, which is to bear children and care for them but place responsibility for their support and upkeep on the tribe as much as possible. Other factors matter, but by and large it is women and their preference to press the costs of childrearing on the ‘tribe’ that has determined the gradual leftward motion in america, and left the conservative nuclear family with its emphasis on self reliance in the minority. There are more issues here but I’m attempting to emphasize that our political biases are not the conscious choices that we think they are.  We are incredibly predictable.



    RECOMMENDED READING
    1) “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” by Andrew Heywood.
    Political Ideologies: An Introduction: Andrew Heywood: 9780230367258: Amazon.com: Books

    2) “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt
    The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Jonathan Haidt: 9780307377906: Amazon.com: Books

    https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-better-word-for-progressive-beliefs-than-progressivism

  • GEORGE ORWELL DISTILLING JAMES BURNHAM We didn’t get socialism. We didn’t get ca

    GEORGE ORWELL DISTILLING JAMES BURNHAM

    We didn’t get socialism. We didn’t get capitalism. We didn’t get a social democracy. We got an expropriative bureaucracy.

    –“Capitalism is disappearing, but Socialism is not replacing it. What is now arising is a new kind of planned, centralised society which will be neither capitalist nor, in any accepted sense of the word, democratic. The rulers of this new society will be the people who effectively control the means of production: that is, business executives, technicians, bureaucrats and soldiers, lumped together by Burnham, under the name of ‘managers’. These people will eliminate the old capitalist class, crush the working class, and so organise society that all power and economic privilege remain in their own hands. Private property rights will be abolished, but common ownership will not be established. The new ‘managerial’ societies will not consist of a patchwork of small, independent states, but of great super-states grouped round the main industrial centres in Europe, Asia, and America. These super-states will fight among themselves for possession of the remaining uncaptured portions of the earth, but will probably be unable to conquer one another completely. Internally, each society will be hierarchical, with an aristocracy of talent at the top and a mass of semi-slaves at the bottom.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-20 13:10:00 UTC