Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • Political Movements: How Globally Influential Are Nazi And Fascist Factions?

    ( Pretty bad answers so far. I’ll try to help. )

    I can speak to the US, UK, Germany and Greece, all of whom have  active movements at present — with England’s two groups currently the most activist and noticeable.  Although in Greece, the degree of stress and the Greek problem of Turkish immigration into Europe (akin to Mexican in the states) is the fuel for an rapidly expanding movement.

    The fascist (Nazi) movements consist largely of working class males.  In these countries, the movements generally expand during times of economic duress.  This is because of a variety of factors but largely that these males are displaced by competition from immigrants.  (There is some suspicion but not good data, that it is driven by difficulties in finding mates as well, since mates are a status symbol.) Their concern in this regard is not without merit, really.  In their view, they tow the social line, adhere to rules and norms, and are not rewarded for it, and instead are displaced both economically and socially. So they see society as ‘unfair’ to them.

    These movements are not large. In the single digits of suport. (Although in the UK they have managed to capture of few seats recently.  But because these movements are vocal and somewhat frightening, they get a lot of press. Consequently, the governments tend to be highly concerned about them. In no small part because they are subgroups of a supposedly social majority that is not satisfied with the state of affairs, thus invalidating the existing government, and posing a threat to the dominant political ideology.  It’s probably useful to keep in mind that a) chaos and loss of faith in a government can occur more easily in a country than we assume  b) a revolution only requires that five to ten percent of a population be united and willing to deploy violence in some organized fashion. So it is not irrational to take these groups seriously if they have any chance of getting above five percent support of the population.

    But in real terms they are not so much politically influential as they are a measure of dissatisfaction that is so great that it is driving some percentage of the population to advocate violent change to the status quo.  Their very presence is a meaningful yardstick.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Movements-How-globally-influential-are-Nazi-and-fascist-factions

  • Political Movements: How Globally Influential Are Nazi And Fascist Factions?

    ( Pretty bad answers so far. I’ll try to help. )

    I can speak to the US, UK, Germany and Greece, all of whom have  active movements at present — with England’s two groups currently the most activist and noticeable.  Although in Greece, the degree of stress and the Greek problem of Turkish immigration into Europe (akin to Mexican in the states) is the fuel for an rapidly expanding movement.

    The fascist (Nazi) movements consist largely of working class males.  In these countries, the movements generally expand during times of economic duress.  This is because of a variety of factors but largely that these males are displaced by competition from immigrants.  (There is some suspicion but not good data, that it is driven by difficulties in finding mates as well, since mates are a status symbol.) Their concern in this regard is not without merit, really.  In their view, they tow the social line, adhere to rules and norms, and are not rewarded for it, and instead are displaced both economically and socially. So they see society as ‘unfair’ to them.

    These movements are not large. In the single digits of suport. (Although in the UK they have managed to capture of few seats recently.  But because these movements are vocal and somewhat frightening, they get a lot of press. Consequently, the governments tend to be highly concerned about them. In no small part because they are subgroups of a supposedly social majority that is not satisfied with the state of affairs, thus invalidating the existing government, and posing a threat to the dominant political ideology.  It’s probably useful to keep in mind that a) chaos and loss of faith in a government can occur more easily in a country than we assume  b) a revolution only requires that five to ten percent of a population be united and willing to deploy violence in some organized fashion. So it is not irrational to take these groups seriously if they have any chance of getting above five percent support of the population.

    But in real terms they are not so much politically influential as they are a measure of dissatisfaction that is so great that it is driving some percentage of the population to advocate violent change to the status quo.  Their very presence is a meaningful yardstick.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Movements-How-globally-influential-are-Nazi-and-fascist-factions

  • What Is The Difference Between Neoliberalism And Libertarianism?

    An interesting question.

    Neo-liberalism (Neo-classical liberalism) relies upon our classical liberal institutions to create and maintain a minimal state.  “Libertarianism” because of the efforts of the Rothbardians to appropriate the term, has become synonymous with anarcho capitalism.  So, if we are using the word libertarian, we must separate the Libertarian party, from the libertarian sentiment, from the anarcho capitalist philosophy.  They are three different things.  The term “neo-liberalism” is in part an attempt by those people with libertarian sentiments and support for classical liberal institutions to differentiate themselves from ideological anarchists. The term ‘liberal’ has also been appropriated by socialists and democratic socialists.  Classical liberal has an antique meaning. So neo-liberalism is an attempt to create a definition of contemporary economic and political knowledge (all five or six economic strategies) while maintaining a minimal state.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-neoliberalism-and-libertarianism

  • What Is The Difference Between Neoliberalism And Libertarianism?

    An interesting question.

    Neo-liberalism (Neo-classical liberalism) relies upon our classical liberal institutions to create and maintain a minimal state.  “Libertarianism” because of the efforts of the Rothbardians to appropriate the term, has become synonymous with anarcho capitalism.  So, if we are using the word libertarian, we must separate the Libertarian party, from the libertarian sentiment, from the anarcho capitalist philosophy.  They are three different things.  The term “neo-liberalism” is in part an attempt by those people with libertarian sentiments and support for classical liberal institutions to differentiate themselves from ideological anarchists. The term ‘liberal’ has also been appropriated by socialists and democratic socialists.  Classical liberal has an antique meaning. So neo-liberalism is an attempt to create a definition of contemporary economic and political knowledge (all five or six economic strategies) while maintaining a minimal state.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-neoliberalism-and-libertarianism

  • Where Did The Idea That Libertarianism Includes Social Liberties Come From?

    There are two libertarian traditions; The christian aristocratic classical liberal (epitomized by Hayek) and the jewish merchant anarchic (epitomized by Rothbard)  Christians were a land holding majority and so needed formal institutions.  Jews were a diasporic religiously governed minority  and favor anarchism.  With the heavy jewish immigration into the USA, jewish authors advocated their means of avoiding the oppression of the state just like christian classical liberals advocated their means of avoiding oppression by the state.  These two traditions became allies.  Then Rothbard and Friedman became the primary intellectual advocates for libertarian policies.  There has not been an evolution in christian classical liberalism.  This is partly because institutional programs are nearly impossible to put into place, and ideological programs that require only ‘belief’ or ‘support’ are much easier to put into place. It is also a failure in part, because classical liberalism is an institutional model that can resolve conflicts in priority among people with similar interests, but it cannot provide (majority rule cannot) a means of resolving conflicts among people with dissimilar interests. (As they warned us in Federalist Papers 10.)  The recent dominance of Rothbardianism on the internet, can be largely attributed to Lew Rockwell’s insight that it was possible to adopt the ideological tactics of the communist movement, and the organizing tactics of Alinsky to promote libertarianism as an ideology through education and community building. His impact through the mises institute cannot be overstated.  So, in essence, we have not created the next evolutionary step in classical liberalism in order to solve  the problem of running an empire in a modern economy where the institution of marriage has become unbound and where women and men have different reproductive strategies and therefore different political sentiments.   THe libertarians (Hans Hoppe in particular) have devised some solutions for small states. But no one has yet determined a solution for large scale states that desire to federate.  As such, because of this failure, the debate for freedom takes place largely in the context of anarchism.  Because the jewish anarchists have supplied the only ideological program that can compete with social parliamentary democracy (ie: it’s communism by other means.)

    You could look at the problem this way: jews have always been a minority and christian classical liberals are becoming a minority — and beginning to act like one.  Only majorities look to provide institutional solutions.  Small groups stick with informal institutions: religions and norms.  Because they lack the power to create formal institutions.

    That’s a lot to cover in one note.  But it’s the answer you’re looking for.

    https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-idea-that-libertarianism-includes-social-liberties-come-from

  • Where Did The Idea That Libertarianism Includes Social Liberties Come From?

    There are two libertarian traditions; The christian aristocratic classical liberal (epitomized by Hayek) and the jewish merchant anarchic (epitomized by Rothbard)  Christians were a land holding majority and so needed formal institutions.  Jews were a diasporic religiously governed minority  and favor anarchism.  With the heavy jewish immigration into the USA, jewish authors advocated their means of avoiding the oppression of the state just like christian classical liberals advocated their means of avoiding oppression by the state.  These two traditions became allies.  Then Rothbard and Friedman became the primary intellectual advocates for libertarian policies.  There has not been an evolution in christian classical liberalism.  This is partly because institutional programs are nearly impossible to put into place, and ideological programs that require only ‘belief’ or ‘support’ are much easier to put into place. It is also a failure in part, because classical liberalism is an institutional model that can resolve conflicts in priority among people with similar interests, but it cannot provide (majority rule cannot) a means of resolving conflicts among people with dissimilar interests. (As they warned us in Federalist Papers 10.)  The recent dominance of Rothbardianism on the internet, can be largely attributed to Lew Rockwell’s insight that it was possible to adopt the ideological tactics of the communist movement, and the organizing tactics of Alinsky to promote libertarianism as an ideology through education and community building. His impact through the mises institute cannot be overstated.  So, in essence, we have not created the next evolutionary step in classical liberalism in order to solve  the problem of running an empire in a modern economy where the institution of marriage has become unbound and where women and men have different reproductive strategies and therefore different political sentiments.   THe libertarians (Hans Hoppe in particular) have devised some solutions for small states. But no one has yet determined a solution for large scale states that desire to federate.  As such, because of this failure, the debate for freedom takes place largely in the context of anarchism.  Because the jewish anarchists have supplied the only ideological program that can compete with social parliamentary democracy (ie: it’s communism by other means.)

    You could look at the problem this way: jews have always been a minority and christian classical liberals are becoming a minority — and beginning to act like one.  Only majorities look to provide institutional solutions.  Small groups stick with informal institutions: religions and norms.  Because they lack the power to create formal institutions.

    That’s a lot to cover in one note.  But it’s the answer you’re looking for.

    https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-idea-that-libertarianism-includes-social-liberties-come-from

  • Why Do People Who Never Read James Madison Or Edmund Burke, But Listen To Hannity Or Limbaugh Think Of Themselves As Conservative?

    Conservatism is a sentiment. It has biological, environmental, pedagogical and rational components that reinforce it. Classical liberalism is a political philosophy.  Conservatives in the USA are conservative TOWARD classical liberalism. Christian Aristocratic Manorialism is a social model.  Conservatives are conservative TOWARD Christian Aristocratic Manorialism.  One does not need to read anything.  In fact, having to ‘read’ something is a decidedly negative property of any social model. It must be capable of propagation by experience, and in particular, the experience of a child.

    All rational models seek to advocate in favor of the sentiment.  Not the other way around.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-who-never-read-James-Madison-or-Edmund-Burke-but-listen-to-Hannity-or-Limbaugh-think-of-themselves-as-conservative

  • Why Do People Who Never Read James Madison Or Edmund Burke, But Listen To Hannity Or Limbaugh Think Of Themselves As Conservative?

    Conservatism is a sentiment. It has biological, environmental, pedagogical and rational components that reinforce it. Classical liberalism is a political philosophy.  Conservatives in the USA are conservative TOWARD classical liberalism. Christian Aristocratic Manorialism is a social model.  Conservatives are conservative TOWARD Christian Aristocratic Manorialism.  One does not need to read anything.  In fact, having to ‘read’ something is a decidedly negative property of any social model. It must be capable of propagation by experience, and in particular, the experience of a child.

    All rational models seek to advocate in favor of the sentiment.  Not the other way around.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-who-never-read-James-Madison-or-Edmund-Burke-but-listen-to-Hannity-or-Limbaugh-think-of-themselves-as-conservative

  • A Note To Jonathan Haidt: An Explanation Of Elite Conservative Strategy Since Reagan

    Jonathan Haidt first attacks republicans then rescinds it. I try to put conservative strategy in context. And in that context it’s quite simple. It’s an extension of the tactic used against world communism: “Resist until they go bankrupt.” If you understand this strategy everything the conservatives and Republicans do makes complete sense. Everything. Jonathan, Very interesting post, and equally interesting comments. One commenter above writes that you (Jonathan) should perhaps seek to understand conservative elite theory. (People like me.) The conservative intellectuals succeeded in defeating world communism and socialism through a variety of military, political, economic, and intellectual tactics. But conservatives failed to come up with a strategy for defeating democratic redistributive socialism and the secular progressive attack on the meritocratic hierarchical conservative society. Due to this failure, the libertarians, who are explicitly economic in their strategy, took over leadership of the anti-collectivism, and whenever possible, the conservatives adopted the libertarian economic and political program. But about the time of Reagan, conservative thought leaders looked at the demographic data and determined that the program of expanding statism would win out over time. So, the conservatives abandoned their belief that they could gain a majority and keep control of the state, or even defend themselves against it. And instead, they increased militarism, worked to increase home ownership, and tried to rekindle entrepreneurship rather than government as the central narrative behind western success. They then allied with the capitalist class to attempt to bankrupt the state before european style nanny state could develop. This was consistent with the approach to communism: “Just resist them and wear them out. They will eventually fail because their concept of an economy is unsustainable.” The conservative battle against the state is simply the conservative tactic against world communism replayed. It is perhaps useful to note that the conservative argument against central planning, urban planning, welfare disincentives, laxity on crime and punishment, the social and economic impact of the dissolution of the institution of marriage, as well as the problem of the ponzi financing strategy of social programs (rather than the Singapore model of forced and subsidized savings) were all correct. The conservative vision of hubristic man and economic incentives is more accurate a world view than the liberal egalitarian ideal. And while it is not that we cannot use the ideas of both sides. It is that progressive desires must be accomplished through conservative means: retaining the relationship between cause, effect and incentives. The USA, as a set of political institutions, faces the multicultural problem that faces all empires. It currently must cope with the combination of a)”The Demands Of Empire” that give the state greater scope than just the nation + b)”Nine Nations Of North America” which represent geographic differences in culture + c)”Racial Self-Preference in Association, and Differences In Ability” + d)”Gender Biases” + e) The class exaggerating effect of the extraordinary economic advantage of having an IQ greater than 105 in the information economy. All of these biases exist within a set of political institutions designed to resolve conflicts in priority between property owning males with homogenous norms. It is not possible to resolve conflicts over ends using decision making by majority rule. In the market we cooperate on means and are ignorant of one another’s ends. In majority rule government, there are winners and losers because we argue over ends. Majority rule must (as Federalist papers 10 stated) lead to extra-political resolution of conflict between groups with such mutually exclusive goals. Liberals slant toward the female reproductive strategy (the largest number of human births with the most equal experience) and the conservatives slant toward the male reproductive strategy (the most competitive tribe with the best people in charge of it.) This level of conflict over instinctual preference will not be resolved by the liberal desire to use our instituions of majority rule to suppress the instincts of the other side any more than conservatives would succeed in encouraging liberals to adopt conservative norms. For this reason, something has to give. Either demographics have to play out (it’s possible), or the federal government has to devolve (unlikely without catastrophic military or economic causes) or we will have to develop new institutions that allow us to federate while pursuing opposing social ends (Just as unlikely). But it’s also just as likely that we will lose our high trust society as groups seek extra-political means of status seeking (like Mediterranean’s and Eastern Europeans, and Russians.) And if we lose that we will also lose our risk taking – which is why we’re a wealthy economy. Risk taking creates innovation. But the USA is too big and too diverse ann empire to persist as we have known it. Classical liberalism is a means of governance for a small state or a small federation. Not an empire. And the USA is an empire. The Classical mutli-house model did not work for the british empire, and it will not work for the american empire. So while I believe you have finally supplied the social sciences with the language by which to understand political conflcits I do not believe that the conflict is resolvable. People under Russian and Chinese socialism developed ‘black markets’ for everything. People under majority rule who have opposing interests will develop extra-political ‘black markets’ for power. They will circumvent the political institutions to achieve their desired ends. The state will attempt to preserve itself by increasing control, which will only expand the black markets. The liberals circumvented the constitution, and the conservatives circumvent the state apparatus. There is no solution here without changes to our institutions. In government, big is bad and small is good. The city state and a mobile population allow the greatest diversity and freedom. So the problem we have is finding an institutional solution to that equilibrium: allowing federation of some things but not federation of norms.

  • ELITE CONSERVATIVE STRATEGY TO JONATHAN HAIDT It’s about bankrupting the state t

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/06/15/a-note-to-jonathan-haidt-an-explanation-of-elite-conservative-strategy-since-reagan/EXPLAINING ELITE CONSERVATIVE STRATEGY TO JONATHAN HAIDT

    It’s about bankrupting the state the way we bankrupted world communism. In that light, everything conservatives and Republicans do is completely logical.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-06-15 10:51:00 UTC