What kind of government? Rule of Law, or Rule by Discretion? It’s an easy question. Natural Law Capitalism (markets in everything, limited by externality) must emerge under rule of law since no other option is available. The only externality is black markets (crime) to profit by imposition of costs by externalities. All other forms of circumventing rule of law by rule of discretion will simply breed special interests, monopolies, rents, and corruption – as well as black markets One of the great intellectual scams of the 19th and 20th centuries is to sell the replacement of rule of law, with arbitrary rule – by selling capitalism (unlimited free trade capitalism that tolerates externalities), versus socialism (discretionary rule socialism that manufactures externalities in volume). There is no alternative to a mixed economy. The alternative is between rule of law mixed economy (dividends to shareholder-citizens), and arbitrary rule mixed economy (dividends to the political class and their enablers).
Form: Mini Essay
-
WHITE NATIONALISM IS RIDICULOUS. NATIONALISM ISN’T When say that you are a White
WHITE NATIONALISM IS RIDICULOUS. NATIONALISM ISN’T
When say that you are a White Nationalist your not solving the problem: building a worldwide movement, exiting leftists (defectors) from the gene pool, and saving another 5000 years of costly eugenics. We know we’ve spent 3500 years or more on eugenic evolution by cultural design, and it’s possible much more than that by accident. There is no need for a monopoly and to dominate. It’s not helpful. So voluntary separation is all that is necessary. And race is an insufficient criteria.
The only thing that matters is voluntary association and disassociation. The markets for polities will solve everything for us just as all markets solve all other issues for us.
Why? We can afford to produce commons that suit the genetic interests of different groups. So rather than fight an impossible fight, lets just serve one another’s interests.
Serve EVERYONE’s political interests.
Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.
====== UPDATE ======
Funny that some people understand propaganda and some don’t. I have this suspicion that what makes our people fragile, is that we have been performing truth to power for so many thousands of years that it’s in our genes, and that is why we are both susceptible to propaganda and bad at making it.
WN is Bad Prop. Nationalism and commons preferred by each group is GOOD prop. Good prop makes allies. Bad prop creates resistance.
The simple and direct route is the one that is predictable. Great generals maneuver: they let the opponent take the direct route and take the indirect route to defeat them.
The psychological drive for directness is male aggression. This is why some people fight physically, others legally, others politically, and others informationally.
WN is bad Prop. Universal Nationalism to foster group flourishing is Good Prop.
Help everyone to help ourselves.
The bigger ambition provides the shortest distance and duration.
===== UPDATE ====
NATIONALISM
– ethnocentrism is the optimum group political strategy.
– markets the optimum economic strategy.
– eugenics the optimum group competitive strategy.
– neoteny the optimum genetic strategy.
===== UPDATE ====
THE DEAD END RIGHT: WN
W.N. is a dead end. Nationalism is not.
National Socialism is a dead end. Redistribution is not.
Religion is Dead End. Institutional models are not.
Takeover is a dead end. Separatism is not.
Demonstrations are a dead end. Direct action is not.
Solving your problem is a dead end. Solving everyone’s is not.
Ideology is a dead end. Economics Incentives Are Not.
THE SOLUTIONS MOVEMENTS NEED
All revolutions occur because of a convergence between:
(a) the state’s inability to modify it’s behavior to serve the diverging interests of the public.
(b) a common knowledge of an alternative condition (order) that would be preferable,
(c) a surplus of males that are agitated by this condition,
(d) an economic or political event that provides opportunity for collective action that can ‘spiral’ (increase in momentum).
REALITIES OF MOVEMENTS
The early adopters seek the fringe. The population seeks an Overton Window. As movements age, they upgrade members from the fringe to the Overton Window: Fringe personalities perform research for talented personalities that perform research for mainstream personalities.
We have better followers this year than last.
We had better followers last year than the year before.
We had better followers the year before last, than the year before … and so on.
I don’t want to associate with the fringe that hinders capture of the Overton Window. They are a dead end. All that matters is the people who will fight, resist, advocate, or not get in the way. And those people will be captured by economic and cultural incentives – not ideology.
REVOLUTION
A moral License.
A set of Demands.
A plan of Transition.
A means of raising the cost of the status quo.
Thanks.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 18:58:00 UTC
-
IS LEFTISM A DISEASE? WE ARE SPECIATING (dividing into species) —“Curt do you
IS LEFTISM A DISEASE? WE ARE SPECIATING
(dividing into species)
—“Curt do you think that leftism is simply a mental illness or is there an actual reason why people adopt such an unreasonable belief system?”—
I think it’s a pre-cognitive genetic (evolutionary) strategy that some people have evolved just as conservatism is a genetic (evolutionary) strategy that others have evolved.
And I think the difference is caused by the female reproductive strategy that favors women and the lower classes, and male reproductive strategy that favors males and the middle/upper classes.
And this is confirmed pretty simply by the reproductive attractiveness of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to be more reproductively desirable, and have greater agency. These are genetic markers.
My view is that we WERE speciating regionally by race when we discovered metalworking.
My view is that we are wealthy enough to speciate by need for commons – and that’s what we are in the process of doing.
And that the mistake is to think that our interests are better served by the production of COMPROMISE commons versus SPECIALIZED COMMONS that suit our reproductive strategies.
All peoples are better served by the production of SPECIALIZED COMMONS. And we can (finally) afford to produce them.
And that is what we see across the world.
WE NEED TO SPECIATE.
WOLVES(conservatives) Packs, and SHEEP(liberals) Herd.
Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 18:13:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. RULE OF LAW Among modern legal theorists, we
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
RULE OF LAW
Among modern legal theorists, we will find that at least three common definitions of the rule of law.
1 – Rule of Law: a “Substantive” (Skeptical) or “thick” definition that must preserve certain rights;
2 – Rule by Law: a “Formalist”: (Optimistic) or “thin” definition, that must not preserve any such rights, and;
3 – Rule of Man: a “Functional” (Fictional) or “ultra-thin” definition that requires neither formal process nor substantial rights be respected, and allows government officials great leeway.
The ancient concept of rule OF law can be distinguished from rule BY law, in that, under the rule OF law, the law serves as a check against the abuse of power.
Under rule BY law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that oppresses the population a using legislation as justification for arbitrary commands – a means of violating rights.
Under Rule of Man, there are no checks on power to violate rights.
Rule of Law (By Rights)
1- Substantive (Skeptical) conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically must protect some or all individual rights.
Rule By Law (Rule by Legislation)
2 – Formalist (Optimistic) definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the “justness” of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. The formalist interpretation holds that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law.
In addition, some theorists hold that democracy(majority) can circumvent both procedure and rights, or construct new rights (rather than privileges).
Why Formalism? Formalism allows laws the pretense of claiming rule of law when rights are not protected by including countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights in the scope of the definition of “rule of law”.
The “formal” interpretation is more widespread than the “substantive” interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law.
Rule of Man (By Arbitrary Discretion)
3 – The functional (Fictional) interpretation of the term “rule of law”, consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of “rule of law”, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of “rule of law”.
Closing (Summary)
In other words, there is only one form of rule of law under which no one can override natural rights (life, liberty, property, reciprocity, truth, and duty). Rule by legislation allows either the state, or the body politic to override those rules. And rule by man allows arbitrary discretion on the part of officials (members of the monopoly bureaucracy).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 14:29:43 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF SOCIALISM VS CAPITALIS
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF SOCIALISM VS CAPITALISM
What kind of government? Rule of Law, or Rule by Discretion? It’s an easy question.
Natural Law Capitalism (markets in everything, limited by externality) must emerge under rule of law since no other option is available. The only externality is black markets (crime) to profit by imposition of costs by externalities. All other forms of circumventing rule of law by rule of discretion will simply breed special interests, monopolies, rents, and corruption – as well as black markets
One of the great intellectual scams of the 19th and 20th centuries is to sell the replacement of rule of law, with arbitrary rule – by selling capitalism (unlimited free trade capitalism that tolerates externalities), versus socialism (discretionary rule socialism that manufactures externalities in volume).
There is no alternative to a mixed economy. The alternative is between rule of law mixed economy (dividends to shareholder-citizens), and arbitrary rule mixed economy (dividends to the political class and their enablers).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 12:16:15 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. LIBERTARIANISM VS SOVEREIGNTARIANISM (pastora
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
LIBERTARIANISM VS SOVEREIGNTARIANISM
(pastoralism/diasporia/parasitism vs territorialism/production)
The difference between my anglo sovereigntarianism and ashkenazi libertarianism(libertinism) is that the militia and the judiciary rule under the natural law of reciprocity, property in toto, universal standing, and universal application – with a monarchy as a judge of last resort (headman). And that one constructs the market for the construction of commons (government) in whatever way is necessary for competitive persistence(survival, and flourishing) of the polity (militia). This means monarchy, republic, direct democracy, as conditions (war, growth, windfalls) warrant. This organization both adapts to all circumstances and suppresses all parasitism of all forms – providing competitive survivability; whereas ashkenazi libertarianism (libertinism) does not suppress parasitism. It licenses it. And ensures the competitive death or conquest of the polity. There is a reason the ashkenazi civilization is diasporic and dependent: inability to produce high trust territorial commons due to the high costs of opportunities, costs, duty and sacrifice required.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 12:04:30 UTC
-
THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF SOCIALISM VS CAPITALISM What kind of government? Rule of
THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF SOCIALISM VS CAPITALISM
What kind of government? Rule of Law, or Rule by Discretion? It’s an easy question.
Natural Law Capitalism (markets in everything, limited by externality) must emerge under rule of law since no other option is available. The only externality is black markets (crime) to profit by imposition of costs by externalities. All other forms of circumventing rule of law by rule of discretion will simply breed special interests, monopolies, rents, and corruption – as well as black markets
One of the great intellectual scams of the 19th and 20th centuries is to sell the replacement of rule of law, with arbitrary rule – by selling capitalism (unlimited free trade capitalism that tolerates externalities), versus socialism (discretionary rule socialism that manufactures externalities in volume).
There is no alternative to a mixed economy. The alternative is between rule of law mixed economy (dividends to shareholder-citizens), and arbitrary rule mixed economy (dividends to the political class and their enablers).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 08:16:00 UTC
-
LIBERTARIANISM VS SOVEREIGNTARIANISM (pastoralism/diasporia/parasitism vs territ
LIBERTARIANISM VS SOVEREIGNTARIANISM
(pastoralism/diasporia/parasitism vs territorialism/production)
The difference between my anglo sovereigntarianism and ashkenazi libertarianism(libertinism) is that the militia and the judiciary rule under the natural law of reciprocity, property in toto, universal standing, and universal application – with a monarchy as a judge of last resort (headman). And that one constructs the market for the construction of commons (government) in whatever way is necessary for competitive persistence(survival, and flourishing) of the polity (militia). This means monarchy, republic, direct democracy, as conditions (war, growth, windfalls) warrant. This organization both adapts to all circumstances and suppresses all parasitism of all forms – providing competitive survivability; whereas ashkenazi libertarianism (libertinism) does not suppress parasitism. It licenses it. And ensures the competitive death or conquest of the polity. There is a reason the ashkenazi civilization is diasporic and dependent: inability to produce high trust territorial commons due to the high costs of opportunities, costs, duty and sacrifice required.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 08:04:00 UTC
-
South Africa – Separatism
People have conquered one another since time immemorial. Intertemporal restitution is rather ridiculous concept. When white people conquered in the pre-historic world they killed most everyone they met. when white people conquered in the modern world they attempted to ‘civilize’ the people they met, for fun and profit – mostly profit. Cause domesticated humans are extremely profitable. Although at least in the americas, because of disease they killed almost everyone. I am not making excuses for my (white) people. I seek happiness for us all. and I want all people to prosper. However, when there are great differences between us this always creates conflict. In other words (a) it’s not clear that separation is not better, (b) it’s not clear that south africa will be better without separation, (c) it’s not clear that south africa will be better without the white settlers.(d) and murdering each other is not a good answer to anything – it’s not the colonial era. We know all people can develop market civilizations if they have time to develop a middle class. My personal view is that the Boers should relocate to America, Australia (best), or Russia (who wants them). And moreover that Africans in Europe and America Return. (and middle easterners return) And that we pay people even if we must use debt to do the returns. I don’t want your people harmed or mine. But I don’t believe given the very big differences, that it is easy to do anything other than separate. And I am not sure it is a good thing to stay together.
-
South Africa – Separatism
People have conquered one another since time immemorial. Intertemporal restitution is rather ridiculous concept. When white people conquered in the pre-historic world they killed most everyone they met. when white people conquered in the modern world they attempted to ‘civilize’ the people they met, for fun and profit – mostly profit. Cause domesticated humans are extremely profitable. Although at least in the americas, because of disease they killed almost everyone. I am not making excuses for my (white) people. I seek happiness for us all. and I want all people to prosper. However, when there are great differences between us this always creates conflict. In other words (a) it’s not clear that separation is not better, (b) it’s not clear that south africa will be better without separation, (c) it’s not clear that south africa will be better without the white settlers.(d) and murdering each other is not a good answer to anything – it’s not the colonial era. We know all people can develop market civilizations if they have time to develop a middle class. My personal view is that the Boers should relocate to America, Australia (best), or Russia (who wants them). And moreover that Africans in Europe and America Return. (and middle easterners return) And that we pay people even if we must use debt to do the returns. I don’t want your people harmed or mine. But I don’t believe given the very big differences, that it is easy to do anything other than separate. And I am not sure it is a good thing to stay together.