Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • REGARDING US STRATEGIC POLICY TOWARD CHINA “Japan has to cast off its cross of s

    REGARDING US STRATEGIC POLICY TOWARD CHINA

    “Japan has to cast off its cross of shame over having been defeated in the 1940’s and renew its national spirit.” – Eric Margolis

    (Well, that’s what I want Germany to do too. And thats why I want the USA out of Europe – to ensure that they do so.)

    “At stake is whether US will try to police a “Pax Americana” – a recipe for disaster – or partner with other nations” – Gorbachev

    (We will lose any war if we try to MAINTAIN the Pax Americana. And the resulting blood bath and power vacuum is terrifying. America must be able to project power long distances by non-naval means. our navy is a set of nice fat, slow moving ducks. American power in the world was obtained by inheriting the British Empire’s naval bases. American power is NAVAL, because we are far away from everything else. It is not possible use nuclear weapons. And if anyone does it’s both genocide and suicide. So the only thing the USA has going for it is Air Power and allies. And a Pax Americana does not give you allies when it’s under threat.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-29 07:44:00 UTC

  • The purpose of democratic representative government is to provide legitimacy for

    The purpose of democratic representative government is to provide legitimacy for the form of corruption preferred by the majority.

    The irony is that there isnt, and never has been, any need for majority rule. Think about how absurd it is. The choice of going to war is possibly the exception. But that majority rule should or need determine either law or the use of tax money is logically ridiculous.

    There is no more reason to force us to all agree on where to place street lamps this year than there is for us to agree on which brand tuna fish to eat.

    Its ridiculous.

    The greeks put in place extended enfranchisement so that their ruler could stack the government. The british so that the middle class could take control of government. The americans so that the lower class and women could at least try to control government.

    But democratic representative government using majority rule is just a means of legitimizing one form of corruption or another.

    The absurdity is that with modern communication technology there isn’t any reason for representative government at all.

    So we have pervasive corruption without any reason.

    No reason whatsoever.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 11:47:00 UTC

  • POLITICAL POWER OF ORGANIZED MINORITIES Chechens In Russia Cartels in Mexico Tur

    http://darussophile.com/2013/07/27/chechens/THE POLITICAL POWER OF ORGANIZED MINORITIES

    Chechens In Russia

    Cartels in Mexico

    Turks in Germany

    Pakistanis in Britain

    The Mafia in Ukraine

    African-Americans in America

    One “DC Sniper” in Washington.

    While all of these groups can create lawless areas within each country, and the government cannot act on it, because it demonstrates the powerlessness of the government in the face of organized violence, some groups are superior at organized violence than others. So policing only works against people who want to be policed. Think about that when you go to a court room and see a long line of people being punished for no other reason than administrative compliance because they live powerlessly on the financial margin. Or when you see a mom pulled over in a mini van for going three miles over the speed limit, while another area of town is battened down like a war zone because the police cannot afford to, and are not willing to, protect it.

    If you can make the police officers and or judges afraid of you, then you can take over any country. A little at a time.

    The question is only whether you can organize effectively or not. And CLANS are very effective means of organization (Chechens). But you can also organize by religion, or commercial interest. The difference is the incentives: a clan has an incentive that is immutable, religions are weaker, and commercial interests are weakest. Yet It’s easier to form commercial organizations and harder to form clans.

    The question is only whether you choose to support the state or not. If you choose to undermine it. THen a small organization of any kind will rapidly make an area ungovernable.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 04:01:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND MULTI-CULTURAL IMMIGRATION (This is an outline of the proper

    PROPERTARIANISM AND MULTI-CULTURAL IMMIGRATION

    (This is an outline of the propertarian case against multiculturalism. )

    People are different from livestock, goods, services, technologies and recipes – unless they’re slaves that is. I can keep, slaughter or abandon livestock, choose to consume or ignore goods and services, use or ignore technologies and recipes. And immigrants consume opportunity, commons, norms, traditions and laws by competing with them. any norm that increases high trust is an increase in shareholder assets. Any that doesn’t is a loss of shareholder assets.

    Im a libertarian. But any group with the same family structure, norms, values and myths, indistinguishable from kin is a corporation for the purpose of shared production and reproduction in a race against the red queen: the dark forces of time, ignorance and malthusian limits.

    And the introduction of competitors is just theft of shareholder assets. Any economic benefit produced independent of the impact on high trust norms is noise, not signal, and simply a means of using positivism to obscure theft and involuntary transfer from one group to another against their wishes.

    We compete in the market for goods and services despite in-group (in-kin) competition for resources as universally morally objectionable.

    Immigration without adoption of language, norms, family structure, myths, traditions, values, laws, is not non-neutral. It is a high cost. High trust norms that facilitate risk taking in the production of goods an services are the highest cost infrastructure that any group can possess.

    Immigration without conformity, and voting prior to conformity, is in fact, theft. It is violent conquest by the use of the violence of the state against the shareholders in the corporation of high trust norms.

    This isn’t allegory. This is just logical necessity, supported with difficult to measure but empirically demonstrable fact.

    Immigration into a high trust society without mandatory and managed normative enforcement is simply systemic theft and the destruction of cultural (human) capital. Immigration of people into a high trust society of people who share those values is just an increase in kin, and only a net negative if it affects the wages of existing shareholders.(Citizens).

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-27 14:51:00 UTC

  • DILIGENTLY TRYING TO PREVENT THEMSELVES FROM BEING TAKEN OVER

    DILIGENTLY TRYING TO PREVENT THEMSELVES FROM BEING TAKEN OVER

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-27 08:27:00 UTC

  • WORD OF THE DAY Kakistocracy: a system of government where the rulers are the le

    WORD OF THE DAY

    Kakistocracy: a system of government where the rulers are the least competent, least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

    (From Sean Gabb)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-26 08:50:00 UTC

  • How Do People Who Are Against Taxes Suggest Paying For Government Programs Many Believe Are Necessary?

    PEOPLE AREN’T AGAINST TAXES THEY’RE AGAINST WHAT THEY CONSIDER IMMORAL USES OF THEM.

    1. People do not object to Taxes. They object to what they’re used for. All of them object to some aspect or another.  Why? ….
    2. Because some people’s moral uses of taxes are immoral to others, and vice versa.
    3. The definition of necessary varies considerably for this reason.
    4. The way that things are done, via public or private sector, through saving or through intergenerational redistribution, have serious side effects.  Conservatives do not object to public health care for example. They object to the government running it instead of just giving people credit cards.
    5. Libertarians (the intellectual side of the conservative movement) believe that the problem isn’t government; it’s the behavior of people in a bureaucracy that has a monopoly – instead of using competing private firms to keep quality up and prices down.
    6. The USA redistributes money through government services which are inexpensive, poorly managed, and give terrible results, rather than just giving people the money directly. Most conservatives would prefer that we did not use programs but just gave people money, as long as they were ‘good citizens’.

    MAJORITY RULE IS THE PROBLEM

    This state of affairs is a natural consequence of majority rule where it is not possible to allocate your taxes only to those spending initiatives that you agree with.  Why isn’t it that we can all vote for money to be spent how we want to instead of whoever wins spending everybody’s money the way that they want to?

    WHAT TAXES ARE NECESSARY?

    Very few. 

    • a) The military, and depending upon which theorist you ask, the police. And we have some empirical evidence in both directions on the judiciary.  That’s all that’s technically necessary.
    • b) There are complex reasons why investments in certain commons require government and that is so that we can outlaw free riding and competition (privatizing public good) and therefore decrease the cost of commons, as well as the willingness of people to invest in them.  The problem is that this outlawing competition increases rent seeking and corruption.  so it is a two edged sword.
    • c) Taxes create a demand for fiat money and fiat money allows governments to control rates of inflation, to borrow cheaply, and to act as an insurer of last resort.  All of these things increase the economic capacity of the economy.

    This is the maximum set of necessary functions of government that I am able to justify taxation for. 

    REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT NECESSARY ITS A LUXURY
    Redistribution is a luxury that wealthy communities can afford for limited periods of time when they have a structural economic advantage over other nations.

    But redistribution that becomes a dependency is an increase in risk since no structural advantage persists for long – generally only a generation or two. Redistribution is not a necessary function of government, it is a luxury function of government.

    WHY IN THIS ERA OF TECHNOLOGY DO WE NEED REPRESENTATIVES AND MAJORITY RULE TO DETERMINE THE USE OF OUR TAX  MONEY?

    Why don’t you just vote your taxes (and some portion of the taxes that others generate if you don’t generate any)?  What’s the point of Washington?

    (Very little of our budget is discretionary.)

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-people-who-are-against-taxes-suggest-paying-for-government-programs-many-believe-are-necessary

  • Steering Libertarian Criticism Away From Socialism to Postmodernism, and The Completion Of The Anarchic Research Program

    [I] am trying to steer some of libertarian criticism away from socialism onto Postmodernism. And that’s partly why I spend so much time on the “Dark Enlightenment” and their attempt to dethrone universalism. The question is, if we dethrone universalism and admit our differences, then moral ends and therefore moral statements will be likewise different. And as such we would need institutions that did not depend upon moral or ideological homogeneity, but that still assisted us in cooperating on means, even if we possess different ends. All current political models were developed under ‘national’ homogeneity. Or like Chinese, forcible homogeneity in order to simply allow their political system to function. yet, we evolved the market to assist us in cooperating on means, even if we have complex or opposing ends. Given that the market functions by forcing all undesirable involuntary transfers (violence, theft, fraud, and free riding) be converted into desirable involuntary transfers via competition. And given that the investment in and development of commons cannot possibly be constructed via competition in the market because competition is an undesirable involuntary transfer in the context of a commons, then government is necessary in order to assist us in producing commons. However, how do we create government that cooperates as does the market, without involuntary transfer via competition? The European princedom model was in fact, little more than corporatist city states – because city states were in fact, private corporations. Thats where they came from. But acknowledging this fact casts doubt on the legitimacy of liberty. So we avoid it. I think I have solved this problem. If I HAVE done it, then for all intents and purposes, the Anarchic Research Program started by Rothbard will be complete: 1) Rothbards rule of the homogenous by homogenous morals (anarchic religion) 2) Hoppe’s rule of the homogenous by competing institutions (anarchic nation state) 3) My rule by of the heterogeneous by heterogeneous institutions (anarchic federation) There is no other combination that we yet know of that cannot be satisfied by these three solutions.

  • Why Would A Civilian Living Peacefully Need A Semi-automatic Gun?

    Because if he is living peacefully, he lives peacefully because he and those like him have guns.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-would-a-civilian-living-peacefully-need-a-semi-automatic-gun

  • Why Would A Civilian Living Peacefully Need A Semi-automatic Gun?

    Because if he is living peacefully, he lives peacefully because he and those like him have guns.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-would-a-civilian-living-peacefully-need-a-semi-automatic-gun