Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • Why Does The Tech Community Seem To Be So Liberal?

    I have no idea why you think the tech community as a whole is liberal.  All the data that I’ve ever seen shows that libertarianism is the only overrepresented political representation in the technology community.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-tech-community-seem-to-be-so-liberal

  • Political Theory: Is The West’s Problem With Middle Eastern ‘democracy’ That It Tends To Be Religious?

    I HAVE TO DISAGREE with the other answers.

    The USA’s strategic policy equates democracy with consumer capitalism,  human rights, and economic and military stability. They are a set, for which ‘democracy” is a simply a shorthand. Which is unfortunate, since that brevity obscures the complexity of the strategy.

    The USA spent the majority of the past century trying to prevent the alternative to consumer capitalism, world communism, from developing the military and economic power necessary to interfere with world oil production, and world trade – as well as preventing the further death and suffering that are the result of managed economies.

    Therefore the simplistic statement “democracy is good”, means “Democracy that is good is democracy that advances consumer capitalism, will create states that are good world citizens and will not disrupt the world system of trade, and world production of oil.”

    The problem that the USA has with islamic states, is that, having spent the past century trying to prevent the rise of anti-capitalist states, it appears that the muslim world is going to coalesce into three or so factions all of whom are militant and at least one of whom’s ambitions  (Iran) is to control the price of oil as a means of concentrating the capital necessary to build a military strong enough to defeat the other two factions, thereby restoring the islamic empire. 

    So the USA is very cautious, and one should not confuse “democracy” which is simply the means of transitioning power, with the broader concept of democratic, consumer capitalism of small independent states all of whom are good world citizens.  Those are different things.

    Party politics is a nonsense-sport to entertain the population. The USA generally follows strategic policy, because the consequences are so serious, which is why all politicians, once in office, tend to follow it.  If the world system of trade is dramatically threatened, the average american can lose a third to a half of his standard of living in far shorter order than we did in the great depression. And at the current level of social discord, the government may not be able to prevent civil conflict.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Theory-Is-the-Wests-problem-with-Middle-Eastern-democracy-that-it-tends-to-be-religious

  • Why Does The Tech Community Seem To Be So Liberal?

    I have no idea why you think the tech community as a whole is liberal.  All the data that I’ve ever seen shows that libertarianism is the only overrepresented political representation in the technology community.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-tech-community-seem-to-be-so-liberal

  • Political Theory: Is The West’s Problem With Middle Eastern ‘democracy’ That It Tends To Be Religious?

    I HAVE TO DISAGREE with the other answers.

    The USA’s strategic policy equates democracy with consumer capitalism,  human rights, and economic and military stability. They are a set, for which ‘democracy” is a simply a shorthand. Which is unfortunate, since that brevity obscures the complexity of the strategy.

    The USA spent the majority of the past century trying to prevent the alternative to consumer capitalism, world communism, from developing the military and economic power necessary to interfere with world oil production, and world trade – as well as preventing the further death and suffering that are the result of managed economies.

    Therefore the simplistic statement “democracy is good”, means “Democracy that is good is democracy that advances consumer capitalism, will create states that are good world citizens and will not disrupt the world system of trade, and world production of oil.”

    The problem that the USA has with islamic states, is that, having spent the past century trying to prevent the rise of anti-capitalist states, it appears that the muslim world is going to coalesce into three or so factions all of whom are militant and at least one of whom’s ambitions  (Iran) is to control the price of oil as a means of concentrating the capital necessary to build a military strong enough to defeat the other two factions, thereby restoring the islamic empire. 

    So the USA is very cautious, and one should not confuse “democracy” which is simply the means of transitioning power, with the broader concept of democratic, consumer capitalism of small independent states all of whom are good world citizens.  Those are different things.

    Party politics is a nonsense-sport to entertain the population. The USA generally follows strategic policy, because the consequences are so serious, which is why all politicians, once in office, tend to follow it.  If the world system of trade is dramatically threatened, the average american can lose a third to a half of his standard of living in far shorter order than we did in the great depression. And at the current level of social discord, the government may not be able to prevent civil conflict.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Theory-Is-the-Wests-problem-with-Middle-Eastern-democracy-that-it-tends-to-be-religious

  • SCHOOLS GETTING DOWN THERE IN APPROVAL WITH THAT OF CONGRESS

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155258/confidence-public-schools-new-low.aspxUS SCHOOLS GETTING DOWN THERE IN APPROVAL WITH THAT OF CONGRESS

    Source date (UTC): 2012-06-25 21:56:00 UTC

  • ONLY INSTITUTION AMERICANS INCREASINGLY TRUST IS THE MILITARY

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/losing-faith-in-american-institutions/THE ONLY INSTITUTION AMERICANS INCREASINGLY TRUST IS THE MILITARY

    Source date (UTC): 2012-06-25 21:38:00 UTC

  • Are There Any Arguments Against Immigration That Are Compatible With Libertarian Thought?

    1) Hoppe has put forth an argument (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han…)  But hoppe would also argue that if a bunch of neighbors made a contract that no one without red hair could move into a neighborhood/village/city that was all privately owned, even by the use of shares, that since that contract was vountarily entered into by members that they would all have to respect it.  (This is called the “right of exclusion”.)

    2) When libertarians talk about any given issue, they do so within the libertarian context: the inviolability of private property. The inviolability of private property requires that no involuntary transfers occur. This tenet of in turn requires the absence of redistributive programs that allow immigrants to transfer weath by moving into a geography and obtaining redistribution (theft).  Theft which therefore is used to fund the growth of the bureaucratic (parasitic) governmnet. This argument is that OPEN immigration is incompatible with the welfare state.
     
    The alternative solutions are that a) people pay their way in, or b) they borrow and pay back their way in c) or that they are ‘sponsored’ by someone who is financially responsible for their productivity or loss (as was common in history). Further that they conform to norms that are expressions of property rights. Any one of these solutions makes immigration possible without violating property rights. Open immigration under redistribution doesn’t. I think this argument is pretty hard to refute.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-arguments-against-immigration-that-are-compatible-with-libertarian-thought

  • Are There Any Arguments Against Immigration That Are Compatible With Libertarian Thought?

    1) Hoppe has put forth an argument (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han…)  But hoppe would also argue that if a bunch of neighbors made a contract that no one without red hair could move into a neighborhood/village/city that was all privately owned, even by the use of shares, that since that contract was vountarily entered into by members that they would all have to respect it.  (This is called the “right of exclusion”.)

    2) When libertarians talk about any given issue, they do so within the libertarian context: the inviolability of private property. The inviolability of private property requires that no involuntary transfers occur. This tenet of in turn requires the absence of redistributive programs that allow immigrants to transfer weath by moving into a geography and obtaining redistribution (theft).  Theft which therefore is used to fund the growth of the bureaucratic (parasitic) governmnet. This argument is that OPEN immigration is incompatible with the welfare state.
     
    The alternative solutions are that a) people pay their way in, or b) they borrow and pay back their way in c) or that they are ‘sponsored’ by someone who is financially responsible for their productivity or loss (as was common in history). Further that they conform to norms that are expressions of property rights. Any one of these solutions makes immigration possible without violating property rights. Open immigration under redistribution doesn’t. I think this argument is pretty hard to refute.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-arguments-against-immigration-that-are-compatible-with-libertarian-thought

  • CAPLAN FAILS TO JUSTIFY OPEN IMMIGRATION (*HIGHLY UN-PC PAINFUL TRUTH WARNING*)

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/06/six_theses_on_e.htmlBRYAN CAPLAN FAILS TO JUSTIFY OPEN IMMIGRATION

    (*HIGHLY UN-PC PAINFUL TRUTH WARNING*)

    1) Do a group of people have the right to exclusion? To deny trade, habitation, and spatial access, to others based upon some property of the others’ group?

    Moral norms, traditions, and even differences in language and ability impose a cost on groups. Morals are largely expressions of property rights, and differences in morals are expressions of conflicting property rights. Norms are a form of shareholder property in themselves. So differences in norms impose costs on both sides and in many cases constitute attempts at fraud and theft.

    For example, I regularly write about the difference between Bazaar Ethics and Warrior Ethics, and how externalities and implied warranty are a product of high trust warrior ethics and not a property of low trust Bazaar Ethics. And a high trust society is very rare, and very complicated to build. It’s also very productive and innovative. But it requires that sellers exhibit symmetrical transparency, be constrained from imposing external costs and required to provide limited warranty.

    While I’m a pretty big fan of Brian’s I just see this post on immigration as yet another attempt to express jewish cultural bias as a truth or moral principle when it’s just a byproduct of the fact that jews are a diasporic people with a small population and the memes, morals and narratives of a diasporic people that are unable to hold land, when land holding is necessary for the establishment of norms and formal institutions, and land holding is necessary in order to enforce the right of exclusion, in order to reduce the costs of cooperation.

    So no, immigration poses high costs on host countries and peoples where there is a high trust moral code including a requirement for symmetric honesty, warranty, and a prohibition on external involuntary transfers, a nuclear family, with a homogenous language.

    I realize that this is a painful truth. But it is a truth none the less.

    2) Secondly, norms are not governed as brian suggests by extreme examples. This is just faulty logic in the extreme. In fact, using extreme conditions as examples of norms is the source of most false criticism of moral statements using moral dilemmas – which turns morality into a victorian parlor game.

    I agree with Brian on a lot of things. But on this topic both his argument and it’s justification are nonsense. People have the right of excluding in both personal and political spheres. They must have it. They demonstrate it. And it’s the only way to force people to adopt high-trust norms.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-06-18 08:09:00 UTC

  • COWEN GETS ON BOARD: THE PUBLIC HAS LOST FAITH IN GOVERNMENT i’ve been harping o

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/business/broken-trust-takes-time-to-mend-economic-view.htmlTYLER COWEN GETS ON BOARD: THE PUBLIC HAS LOST FAITH IN GOVERNMENT

    i’ve been harping on this for the past few years, particularly on Krugman’s, Mark Thoma’s and Karl Smith’s blogs (the left). I don’t think it’s going to change any time soon. It’s good to see a prominent economist getting on board.

    MY argument has been that the Keynesians are right in that increasing demand will work to stimulate the economy, but that people will not tolerate government spending because of the perceived cost of the expansion of invasive, and often privileged, government.

    As such, rather than offer spending solutions (as does Krugman) the answer is to suggest programs in monetary policy, fiscal policy, industrial policy and education policy, so that all sides get what they want without the expansion of the state. Only this method will work. The conservatives (in my view, rightly) will block anything else, and they have the voter support to block spending programs.

    As far back as 2006, I suggested that the power grid was the most important structural investment that we could make that would both generate a large number of jobs and provide a reasonable return on the investment. I suggested paying down mortgages directly as the most important vehicle for creating stimulus. I agreed with Karl Smith that we should give an extended tax holiday and borrow at such low rates to pay for it. And among other things, I suggested various forms of industrial policy, particularly technology bonuses for achieving strategic investment objectives. I recommended either privatizing education using a voucher system or eliminating the DofEd and giving principles hire and fire authority and the ability to experiment. These factors would create enough stimulus to move the economy. But more importantly, these kinds of spending do not expand the state, or favor urban voters at the expense of suburban and rural voters.

    At the very least the conversation would be productive, commercially and socially engaging.

    But the keynesians actually block it by harping on the spending tactic exclusively.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-06-17 21:39:00 UTC