Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • What Causes People To Become More Conservative Over Time?

    Interesting Answers.  Most of them unsupported or substantially wrong.

    Conservative is a reaction to the status quo.  The status quo in america is classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is the founding mythology of our country. This mythology contains the classical liberal, european aristocratic egalitarian view of man that we associate with the Protestant Ethic. The protestant ethical sensibilities are what ‘conservatives’ are ‘conservative’ about.

    The reason people become more conservative as they get older is that they have accumulated greater knowledge about the behavior of individuals in the real world.  Young people have experience with the ethic of the family and give undue weight to the consensus bias.   The market is the mature view of man, wherein we have dissimilar interests and goals and we can pursue those goals independently by cooperating on means within the market.  The family is the childlike view of mankind. It is naturally communal and communistic. It is so because a family has similar interests, similar means, and similar abilities.

    Single women and single mothers vote more heavily left than any other demographic group.  This changes if they stay married, at which point they skew conservative. If it were not for women voters, and specifically single women voters, we would never have had a liberal president, and it’s unlikely we would ever have had a liberal government.  FOr this reason, women are responsible for the left shift in america.   And the increase in single women and single mothers is the result of the feminist attack on the nuclear family as an economic institution.  Single women revert to their instinctual reproductive strategy: to bear children but to place responsibility for supporting them on the tribe.  The family is the smallest tribe possible. When the family is not present, women still pursue their reproductive strategy, and vote to place responsibility on the state (the tribe) for services.

    As we get older we understand the scarcity of good and services, and we understand the nature of human beings as more selfish and less communal.  The market system and the family compensate for these selfish properties of human being and create community by controlling the selfish behavior of human beings.

    That is why people become more conservative as they get older.

    https://www.quora.com/What-causes-people-to-become-more-conservative-over-time

  • BALACE OF POWERS, EMPIRE, AND HEGEMONY America is a domestic empire prosecuting

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/anarchy-and-hegemonyANARCHY, BALACE OF POWERS, EMPIRE, AND HEGEMONY

    America is a domestic empire prosecuting coastal tyranny, cultural war, and genocide against the agrarian interior, and America is an international hegemony in power largely because it is cheap and easy to have America in power. And america IS in power, because everyone else (largely) WANTS it to be. (Certain oil producing minorities which America prohibits from forming a cartel are the exception.)

    As I’ve stated before (and generated a lot of comments) Americans finance the military through the export of debt which is then inflated away. For this service, americans have a higher standard of living and gain preferential status in world trade negotiations, not the least of which is because the USA determines the terms by which world trade is conducted.

    I would argue, that it would be just fine with me if we separated out Washington DC as a separate ‘nation’, and let it fulfill the hegemonic duties that it does, while returning power to the regions or states so that we may persist our local cultures and preferences without the imposition of coastal tyranny.

    You can undermine a bureaucracy, or you can promote it. I’m of the opinion that promoting washington is easier than shutting it down. And the world will happily shut it down for us over time. Meanwhile each region of the country is free to trade and behave as it sees fit without the dictatorship of the coasts.

    Think about that a bit.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-25 07:18:00 UTC

  • LEFT COULD NOT WIN THE PEOPLE – SO IT IMPORTED THEM AND DESTROYED THE CONSTITUTI

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.htmlTHE LEFT COULD NOT WIN THE PEOPLE – SO IT IMPORTED THEM AND DESTROYED THE CONSTITUTION, AND OUR CIVILIZATION

    Most of this has happened during my lifetime. The left could not win the hearts and minds of the people. It had to change the meaning of words. Make bads into goods, and goods into bads. It had to immigrate millions. It had to undermined the rule of law, destroy the constitution, and destroy the rights of states.

    All in pursuit of creating a democratic socialist utopia.

    It won’t take until 2050. I wrote in 2002, that it would only take until 2020, or 2025 at the longest. The only choice that the ‘middle civilization’ has against the immigrant coasts and the rust belt, is to secede. And since that won’t happen. The left will have won. And the continent will be lost, by the time those entering school graduate.

    THE LEFT HAS WON.

    A) Immigration of the third world.

    B) Feminism, and the anti-family left.

    THE LEFT HAS WON.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-23 10:49:00 UTC

  • THE STATE VS GOD I’m not really sure how a bureaucracy run by human beings under

    THE STATE VS GOD

    I’m not really sure how a bureaucracy run by human beings under the auspices of the common good, is any different under the state theocracy or the religious theocracy.

    They’re both bureaucratic monopolies, and bureaucratic monopolies are made of human beings with human incentives. The bigger a bureaucracy gets the fewer of its members are elites and the more of them are average people who are insulated from the competition of the market and increasingly act like they are insulated from the competition of the market.

    And if history is any measure, a weak federal church is a lot less warlike and oppressive than a strong federal legislature.

    I mean, the data is the data.

    The state is worse than the church.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-22 00:34:00 UTC

  • FUTURE OF EUROPE IS GERMANY AND RUSSIA – OR IRRELEVANCE. The catholic countries

    http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/03/germany-has-created-an-accidental-empire/THE FUTURE OF EUROPE IS GERMANY AND RUSSIA – OR IRRELEVANCE.

    The catholic countries are dead weights.

    As a political economist, I will have to say, in technical terms, this article is utter nonsense.

    Strategically the best scenario, long term, for Europe, is a strong Germany allied with a strong Russia. Catholic Europe is a basket case and will remain so, because the family is the economic unit and the moral boundary, and corruption is pervasive for this reason. Germanic countries treat the individual as the economic unit, and the entire society as the moral boundary, with the family responsible for manufacturing good citizens. This is why these cultures are so much less corrupt that the catholic cultures.

    An ongoing ‘euro’ project that allows political rather than economic dependency of the southern states will leave a weak Germany, and an expansionist russia.

    Why the past, whose economics are completely irrelevant today, should be what europeans fear, rather than a future wehre the USA is no longer economically able to police world trade and therefore grant Europe client state privileges. The only solution for Europe is integration of european labor with Russian resources and russian militarism.

    I’m happy to argue this with any economist in the world., But the fact of the matter is, that any economist in the world able to argue it, will probably agree with me.

    The catholic countries are irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant. The problem is natural resources, economic interdependence with Russia, and the slow conversion of the catholic and byzantine states to credible commercial economies, dependent upon the alliance of the two countries capable of producing competitive goods and services.

    http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/03/germany-has-created-an-accidental-empire

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-21 13:56:00 UTC

  • Did Machiavelli Write The Prince As A Satire?

    The Prince is the first example of the scientific study of politics.  While science starts with Aristotle, practical political science starts with Machiavelli.  To the point where, were it not for the illiterate we would probably call political scientists ‘Machiavellians’ – and some historians and philosophers have done so (Burnham for example.)

    Machiavelli wrote when trade was moving from the Mediterranean to the north atlantic. And Italy, which had been the center of trade for at least 1500 years was flung into internecine warfare in the struggles for power. The upheavals this caused were catastrophic and remain with Italy to this day.
     
    Machiavelli gave practical advice to leaders about how to govern by rational rather than ideological grounds. Our concept of morality today originated with the enlightenment. In Machiavelli’s time, morality was more closely connected with the church and the Prince is Machiavelli’s attempt to suggest to political leaders that practical morality in the interest of citizens is superior to ideological morality which may lead to worse consequences for citizens.  In this sense, Machiavelli starts the west’s long rise toward the enlightenment.

    As an administrator in the city service, he had been in charge of the city defenses, and had knowledge of the local government and war. But his work was also based on other works, most importantly Livy, and we usually recommend that people interested in the Machiavelli read the Discourses On Livy as well as The Prince in order to understand Machiavelli’s attempt to compare the past with the present and draw conclusions about what actions we must take.

    https://www.quora.com/Did-Machiavelli-write-The-Prince-as-a-satire

  • POWER OF WOMEN ELECTIONS ARE DETERMINED BY SINGLE WOMEN AND SINGLE MOTHERS POLIC

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/explaining-the-gender-gap-on-gun-control-20130412THE POWER OF WOMEN

    ELECTIONS ARE DETERMINED BY SINGLE WOMEN AND SINGLE MOTHERS

    POLICY IS DETERMINED BY WOMEN.

    Men are more evenly distributed on political issues.

    Women are more concentrated on political issues.

    Women vote more often and more consistently.

    Women are less likely to vote in favor of the family, but in favor of single women.

    Women are more likely to vote to involuntarily transfer wealth from married men to single women.

    There are no PEOPLE as a homogenous uniform polity. Increasingly it is WOMEN AGAINST MEN and the FAMILY in all walks of life.

    Just how it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-13 14:41:00 UTC

  • What Will Come After Democracy?

    Some of us have been working on this problem for a very long time. Ever since we realized that democracy (universal enfranchisement without demonstrated merit) was simply the slow road to totalitarianism.

    The arguments vary from increasing totalitarianism (most likely) to American dissolution (most beneficial) to direct monetary democracy( you vote your money to what you want without a corruptible middleman that we call a politician) to a market system where the government is merely constitutional and insurance companies are who we rely upon.  There are many different permutations.  However, most of us believe that the only possible venue will be totalitarianism and civil war, since it is impossible to get people to agree on a new system unless under threat of chaos.

    https://www.quora.com/What-will-come-after-democracy

  • Aren’t Social Conservatives Always On The Wrong Side Of History? Social Conservatives Were Against The Ending Of Slavery. Social Conservatives Were Against Women Gaining The Right To Vote. Social Conservatives Were Against The Civil Rights Movement.

    Conservative means ‘in relation to the status quo, resist non-organic changes by force of law’.  In the USA it means conservative toward european aristocratic egalitarianism, and the nuclear family as an economic unit.

    Conservatives were against slavery (Democrats were for it), and against communism (Democrats were for it, and adopted the platform).

    I”m not sure you can really argue this out either way.  It is becoming clear that the postmodernist movement is both false and dangerous, but the democratic party, and liberals practice it as their social religion the way that conservatives practice the cult of the revolution.

    I can’t really address an issue of this scope here, but conservatives are decisively not always on the wrong side.  The conservative strategy simply requires that you achieve something through merit not by force.  So whatever you wish to accomplish (gay marriage) will be successful once you’ve demonstrated that you’ve ade your case and convinced the majority.  This is how they work.

    https://www.quora.com/Arent-social-conservatives-always-on-the-wrong-side-of-history-Social-conservatives-were-against-the-ending-of-slavery-Social-conservatives-were-against-women-gaining-the-right-to-vote-Social-conservatives-were-against-the-Civil-Rights-Movement

  • How Many Of You Are Libertarian?

    You will be surprised by this, but, roughly speaking, a quarter of the population expresses surveyed preferences that are libertarian, a quarter conservative, a quarter liberal, and a quarter anti-libertarian.

    Power could be maintained in the USA with fiscally conservative, and slowly enacted socially liberal policies (which is what happens anyway, after a lot of distraction and infighting.)

    That this roughly reflects the gender distribution in the population, and a fairly even distribution between the genders, would actually make common sense. (It does). 

    What has altered the political landscape, and continues to, is the number of single women and single mothers in the voting pool has increased substantially since 1960.  At present, it’s arguable, that all other things being equal, single women and mothers decide elections. 

    That is one of the reasons that candidates now must be somewhat attractive. Because for single women, and single mothers, the attractiveness of a candidate is a meaningful reason for their vote. If a candidate is both attractive, and well spoken, and supports redistribution and equalitarianism – redistribution outside of the nuclear family, the vote is all but ensured.

    For most poeple who understand these demographic issues, it’s saddening, because american politics, and the politics of all democracies, are just form of  entertainment that is a vast waste of time and energy that is determined by a small number of axis of influence: the homogeneity (good) vs diversity (bad) in a population. The structure of the family unit from individual, to family, to extended family, clan and tribe.  The size of the population (big is bad, small is good.)   In other words, you will get a ‘Denmark’ if you have a small homogenous country of nuclear families, because in the nuclear family both genders have equal reproductive interests.

    I suspect that this is one of the most profound things you can learn – certainly on Quora.

    https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-you-are-libertarian