Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Results Of The 2016 General Election, Is Proof The United States Isn’t​ A Democracy, But A Plutocratic Oligarchy. Why Doesn’t​ It End Its Hypocritical Crusade For Democracy, And Focus On Improving International Relations With China And Russia?

    The united states is not ONE democracy, but a COLLECTION OF STATES all of whom agree to operate democratically and resolve conflicts in commerce and war via the federal government, similarly to how the Church formed a weak government over the various states of Europe.

    The states, regions, and ‘nine’ super-regions, are genetically(yes), demographically, culturally, and legally different.

    They are also of vastly different sizes, just as the states of europe(germanic), and eastern europe(slavic) are different sizes.

    And while each state gains proportional representation in the house, equal representation in the senate, it is the majority of the STATES that determine the presidency – not one’s vote.

    This was designed so that big (immigrant) states could not virtually enslave the smaller and more homogenous states.

    When you vote, you vote for your state, not for the country, because you are just as much an enemy as a friend of people in other parts of the country. And this is how it was set.

    If there is any question whatsoever of as SINGLE democracy, then we do not live in separate states each satisfying the want and needs of the groups that inhabit them, then we are a tyrannical empire that oppresses those states.

    The underlying problem is why we joined vastly different civilizations in 1789 did not separate after the war of 1812 when the north wanted to secede, did not separate in 1865, when the south wanted to secede, and do not separate today when it appears that at least five, but ast many as ten different nations, consisting of subsets of our states, want to seceded.

    The only problem heretofore has been external military pressure. Without the european aggression of the pre-war period, or the opportunity to ‘steal’ the western 3/4 of the continent after the Louisiana Purchase, or defend ourselves from postwar communism, (and it looks like communism’s follow-on: islamism is coming to an end) then there is no reason to remain united whatsoever, when the consequence is constant internecine warfare slowly turning into open civil war.

    Our government is an empire that has outlived its usefulness as holding the world system of finance and trade together after the collapse of european colonialism.

    It’s time to return to the norm of western civilization: small states that cater to the wants and needs of their people – not to the will of the majority who, by all measures, will always be those least able, least productive, least knowledgeable, and demonstrably least moral.

    https://www.quora.com/The-results-of-the-2016-general-election-is-proof-the-United-States-isnt-a-democracy-but-a-plutocratic-oligarchy-Why-doesnt-it-end-its-hypocritical-crusade-for-democracy-and-focus-on-improving-international

  • The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in

    The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in inventory and consumption? Poverty is the natural condition of man. Property and mutual insurance of it, lift us out of poverty. THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT ‘POOR’ “poor’ evolved from pre-Latin *pau-paros “producing little; getting little,” a compound from the roots of paucus “little” (from PIE root *pau- (1) “few, little”) and parare “to produce, bring forth” (from PIE root *pere-(1) “to produce, procure”). In other words, the original meaning of poor in proto indo european (well before the invention of money or money substitutes) was ‘one who produces very little.” And this remains the cause of poverty. One who produces very little and therefore consumes very little. The evolution of money requires the production of surpluses that cannot be consumed and can (must) be traded across production groups in order to obtain that which is not self produced. Barter-price (cattle, chicken, lambs, etc) can function for certain transactions, if those items can serve as a store value (they do). But money must be portable, have a high weight/volume to value (time savings), be unitary measure and divisible, and universally (within the trade network) liquid (in demand).

  • The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in

    The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in inventory and consumption? Poverty is the natural condition of man. Property and mutual insurance of it, lift us out of poverty.

    THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT ‘POOR’

    “poor’ evolved from pre-Latin *pau-paros “producing little; getting little,” a compound from the roots of paucus “little” (from PIE root *pau- (1) “few, little”) and parare “to produce, bring forth” (from PIE root *pere-(1) “to produce, procure”).

    In other words, the original meaning of poor in proto indo european (well before the invention of money or money substitutes) was ‘one who produces very little.”

    And this remains the cause of poverty. One who produces very little and therefore consumes very little.

    The evolution of money requires the production of surpluses that cannot be consumed and can (must) be traded across production groups in order to obtain that which is not self produced.

    Barter-price (cattle, chicken, lambs, etc) can function for certain transactions, if those items can serve as a store value (they do).

    But money must be portable, have a high weight/volume to value (time savings), be unitary measure and divisible, and universally (within the trade network) liquid (in demand).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 11:35:00 UTC

  • The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in

    The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in inventory and consumption? Poverty is the natural condition of man. Property and mutual insurance of it, lift us out of poverty. THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT ‘POOR’ “poor’ evolved from pre-Latin *pau-paros “producing little; getting little,” a compound from the roots of paucus “little” (from PIE root *pau- (1) “few, little”) and parare “to produce, bring forth” (from PIE root *pere-(1) “to produce, procure”). In other words, the original meaning of poor in proto indo european (well before the invention of money or money substitutes) was ‘one who produces very little.” And this remains the cause of poverty. One who produces very little and therefore consumes very little. The evolution of money requires the production of surpluses that cannot be consumed and can (must) be traded across production groups in order to obtain that which is not self produced. Barter-price (cattle, chicken, lambs, etc) can function for certain transactions, if those items can serve as a store value (they do). But money must be portable, have a high weight/volume to value (time savings), be unitary measure and divisible, and universally (within the trade network) liquid (in demand).

  • POLITICS IS QUITE SIMPLE REALLY – TRUTH IS SIMPLE, LIES ARE COMPLICATED. Politic

    POLITICS IS QUITE SIMPLE REALLY – TRUTH IS SIMPLE, LIES ARE COMPLICATED.

    Politics is just a proxy for war. Markets are superior to political orders because they calculate maximum mutual by reciprocity.

    The problem as in all things, is producing limits. Capitalism and socialism are both unlimited by reciprocity.

    Only rule of law of reciprocity produces markets that discover the balance between private and commons.

    We fuss and fume over capitalism vs socialism, or authoritarianism vs anarchism, but the only underlying difference is rule of law and reciprocity vs rule by discretion and reciprocity.

    *For, the only purpose of discretion is, and can be, to violate reciprocity*.

    And the problem heretofore has been the means of limiting markets by the measurement of capital in toto that changes.

    Why? Because humans evolved in a world that easily equilibrated their consumptions within the band or tribe – because they could only externalize costs onto the natural world.

    But at current scale, when we cooperate via host of proxies, we can and do largely externalize against others whether kin, polity, nation, competitors, or man. And man retaliates differently and more immediately from nature against those impositions.

    So politics is quite simple under meritocracy, and politics is quite complicated under irreciprocity. Under rule of law of reciprocity, markets that result from that rule of law (both private and common) are quite transparent, simple and explicable.

    Under the irreciprocity of politics and rule by discretion, the results of that discretion (and deception) is not transparent, complicated, and largely inexplicable.

    The principle problem in achieving reciprocity and transparency is the percentage of your population that can survive competition in the market. If a group cannot survive competition in the market because it has too many members that cannot compete in the market, then political discretion, corruption, and irreciprocity evolve out of the necessity of survival.

    Ergo the only possible means of producing reciprocity is to prevent the expansion and produce the contraction of those individuals that cannot compete in the market given present technology, resources, and competitors. And in doing so prevent the emergence of a body of elites that employ discretionary rule.

    This brief passage explains almost all of politics. The british system and the current scandinavian was possible because of such aggressive culling of the underclasses, and the economic dependence upon the militia for both offense and defense.

    The british model preserved tripartism (clergy, nobility, businessmen-farmers ), and thereby produced a government that funcitoned as a market between the ‘able’ classes (aristocracy, nobility, managers of production, and the church (women and underclasses).)

    The enlightenment seizure and creating of a monopoly rather than preservation of the market between the classes was made possible by the disproportionate returns on the empirical revolution’s increases in productivity.

    Yet that marginal increase in productivity which allowed for great concentration of wealth has increasingly dissipated due to the anglo-american and less-so european distribution and enforcement of consumer capitalism (markets).

    Yet most societies have returned to monopoly government rather than market, because of asymmetries in populations and the utility of concentrating capital in the state as a means of projecting military power by which market advantages are gained.

    This is all there is to politics. There is very little other to be understood. Everything else is just negotiating position using some sort of fiction.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 10:42:00 UTC

  • Politics Is Quite Simple Really – Truth Is Simple, Lies Are Complicated.

    Politics is just a proxy for war. Markets are superior to political orders because they calculate maximum mutual by reciprocity. The problem as in all things, is producing limits. Capitalism and socialism are both unlimited by reciprocity. Only rule of law of reciprocity produces markets that discover the balance between private and commons. We fuss and fume over capitalism vs socialism, or authoritarianism vs anarchism, but the only underlying difference is rule of law and reciprocity vs rule by discretion and reciprocity. *For, the only purpose of discretion is, and can be, to violate reciprocity*. And the problem heretofore has been the means of limiting markets by the measurement of capital in toto that changes. Why? Because humans evolved in a world that easily equilibrated their consumptions within the band or tribe – because they could only externalize costs onto the natural world. But at current scale, when we cooperate via host of proxies, we can and do largely externalize against others whether kin, polity, nation, competitors, or man. And man retaliates differently and more immediately from nature against those impositions. So politics is quite simple under meritocracy, and politics is quite complicated under irreciprocity. Under rule of law of reciprocity, markets that result from that rule of law (both private and common) are quite transparent, simple and explicable. Under the irreciprocity of politics and rule by discretion, the results of that discretion (and deception) is not transparent, complicated, and largely inexplicable. The principle problem in achieving reciprocity and transparency is the percentage of your population that can survive competition in the market. If a group cannot survive competition in the market because it has too many members that cannot compete in the market, then political discretion, corruption, and irreciprocity evolve out of the necessity of survival. Ergo the only possible means of producing reciprocity is to prevent the expansion and produce the contraction of those individuals that cannot compete in the market given present technology, resources, and competitors. And in doing so prevent the emergence of a body of elites that employ discretionary rule. This brief passage explains almost all of politics. The british system and the current scandinavian was possible because of such aggressive culling of the underclasses, and the economic dependence upon the militia for both offense and defense. The british model preserved tripartism (clergy, nobility, businessmen-farmers ), and thereby produced a government that funcitoned as a market between the ‘able’ classes (aristocracy, nobility, managers of production, and the church (women and underclasses).) The enlightenment seizure and creating of a monopoly rather than preservation of the market between the classes was made possible by the disproportionate returns on the empirical revolution’s increases in productivity. Yet that marginal increase in productivity which allowed for great concentration of wealth has increasingly dissipated due to the anglo-american and less-so european distribution and enforcement of consumer capitalism (markets). Yet most societies have returned to monopoly government rather than market, because of asymmetries in populations and the utility of concentrating capital in the state as a means of projecting military power by which market advantages are gained. This is all there is to politics. There is very little other to be understood. Everything else is just negotiating position using some sort of fiction.

  • Politics Is Quite Simple Really – Truth Is Simple, Lies Are Complicated.

    Politics is just a proxy for war. Markets are superior to political orders because they calculate maximum mutual by reciprocity. The problem as in all things, is producing limits. Capitalism and socialism are both unlimited by reciprocity. Only rule of law of reciprocity produces markets that discover the balance between private and commons. We fuss and fume over capitalism vs socialism, or authoritarianism vs anarchism, but the only underlying difference is rule of law and reciprocity vs rule by discretion and reciprocity. *For, the only purpose of discretion is, and can be, to violate reciprocity*. And the problem heretofore has been the means of limiting markets by the measurement of capital in toto that changes. Why? Because humans evolved in a world that easily equilibrated their consumptions within the band or tribe – because they could only externalize costs onto the natural world. But at current scale, when we cooperate via host of proxies, we can and do largely externalize against others whether kin, polity, nation, competitors, or man. And man retaliates differently and more immediately from nature against those impositions. So politics is quite simple under meritocracy, and politics is quite complicated under irreciprocity. Under rule of law of reciprocity, markets that result from that rule of law (both private and common) are quite transparent, simple and explicable. Under the irreciprocity of politics and rule by discretion, the results of that discretion (and deception) is not transparent, complicated, and largely inexplicable. The principle problem in achieving reciprocity and transparency is the percentage of your population that can survive competition in the market. If a group cannot survive competition in the market because it has too many members that cannot compete in the market, then political discretion, corruption, and irreciprocity evolve out of the necessity of survival. Ergo the only possible means of producing reciprocity is to prevent the expansion and produce the contraction of those individuals that cannot compete in the market given present technology, resources, and competitors. And in doing so prevent the emergence of a body of elites that employ discretionary rule. This brief passage explains almost all of politics. The british system and the current scandinavian was possible because of such aggressive culling of the underclasses, and the economic dependence upon the militia for both offense and defense. The british model preserved tripartism (clergy, nobility, businessmen-farmers ), and thereby produced a government that funcitoned as a market between the ‘able’ classes (aristocracy, nobility, managers of production, and the church (women and underclasses).) The enlightenment seizure and creating of a monopoly rather than preservation of the market between the classes was made possible by the disproportionate returns on the empirical revolution’s increases in productivity. Yet that marginal increase in productivity which allowed for great concentration of wealth has increasingly dissipated due to the anglo-american and less-so european distribution and enforcement of consumer capitalism (markets). Yet most societies have returned to monopoly government rather than market, because of asymmetries in populations and the utility of concentrating capital in the state as a means of projecting military power by which market advantages are gained. This is all there is to politics. There is very little other to be understood. Everything else is just negotiating position using some sort of fiction.

  • Women And Debate In Social Media

    (from elsewhere) These groups simply improve one’s ability to debate, articulate one’s ideas, and identify the hollows in your undrestanding. Men in particular debate (or argue) as a means of developing a framework without exposing themselves to the vulnerability of suggestion. It is part of and parcel of being male – most of us find no … interest … in learning without the stimulation of some sort of competition – hence the decline in male school performance by the introduction of females who have the opposite incentives. So for women in particular, a male dominated means of learning is … often unpleasant. And for strong females, the rather shallow method of female communication with its overemphasis on conformity and non confrontation is too stultifying. Libertarians are better company for the aspirational women as they bridge the gap between male and female sentiments for the simple reason that they care very little about hierarchy.

  • Women And Debate In Social Media

    (from elsewhere) These groups simply improve one’s ability to debate, articulate one’s ideas, and identify the hollows in your undrestanding. Men in particular debate (or argue) as a means of developing a framework without exposing themselves to the vulnerability of suggestion. It is part of and parcel of being male – most of us find no … interest … in learning without the stimulation of some sort of competition – hence the decline in male school performance by the introduction of females who have the opposite incentives. So for women in particular, a male dominated means of learning is … often unpleasant. And for strong females, the rather shallow method of female communication with its overemphasis on conformity and non confrontation is too stultifying. Libertarians are better company for the aspirational women as they bridge the gap between male and female sentiments for the simple reason that they care very little about hierarchy.

  • WOMEN AND DEBATE IN SOCIAL MEDIA (from elsewhere) These groups simply improve on

    WOMEN AND DEBATE IN SOCIAL MEDIA

    (from elsewhere)

    These groups simply improve one’s ability to debate, articulate one’s ideas, and identify the hollows in your undrestanding.

    Men in particular debate (or argue) as a means of developing a framework without exposing themselves to the vulnerability of suggestion.

    It is part of and parcel of being male – most of us find no … interest … in learning without the stimulation of some sort of competition – hence the decline in male school performance by the introduction of females who have the opposite incentives.

    So for women in particular, a male dominated means of learning is … often unpleasant.

    And for strong females, the rather shallow method of female communication with its overemphasis on conformity and non confrontation is too stultifying.

    Libertarians are better company for the aspirational women as they bridge the gap between male and female sentiments for the simple reason that they care very little about hierarchy.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 15:20:00 UTC