Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Moral Accounting vs General Moral Rules

    MORAL ACCOUNTING IN FACT VS MORAL GENERAL RULES OF APPROXIMATION AND GUESSWORK Curt Doolittle It’s hard to believe but truth is enough. There is certainly room for a new fundamentalism. Natural Law fundamentalism. A violent expansionist fundamentalism more aggressive than islam. John Dow —“I dont see imperialist war as economically viable or morally just. The argument that we should protect what we have I agree with, and I think we can find mutual respect with other nations if we respect their autonomy…..”— Curt Doolittle Expansion has been, throughout history, the only means of limiting the imposition of costs permanently. In other words, it is the only means of cheaply solving a cost that will only increase. John Dow —“Our governments and corporations have economic and political hegemony. Why use the military when you can use trade agreements and the CIA? Surely that is more cost effective? The rest of the world needs access to our consumers, technology and capital. We are in a very strong bargaining position.”— Curt Doolittle Why are you afraid of TRUTH? Violence is TRUE. Wars of conquest are PROFITABLE. Complete defeat ends a threat rather than constantly paying to keep it at bay Forcibly converting a group from a low trust to higher trust polity is moral. So it is more moral, cheaper, more permanent, and more honest to conquer, subject to rule of law, to defend yourself through conquest whenever you can. Chinese history in a nutshell. (The world does not need access to our consumers, it needs access to our technology and rule of law) John Dow —“Your argument is logical and rather compelling. I agree the world needs access to our technology and our system has benefitted many nations we (anglo-saxons) have defeated considerably.. Japan, Korea (partially), India and the Phillipines are the best examples of the top of my head. I’m not sure if all out wars of conquest is exclusively required however. We have nukes and clandestine prowess, surely we can infiltrate other nations and bend them to our will without requiring all out war (the US has done this all over the world since WW2, unfortunately they have cared only about corporate profit and have abandoned the white man’s burden) Also, how do you suppose we conquer India, Pakistan or China (or potentially Iran and North Korea) on account of their nuclear capabilities? Surely it is impossible?”— Curt Doolittle Now, just a form of self-testing, what can you reduce the general criticism —“logical but not compelling”—? Because AFAIK, what that reduces to is “true but not preferable”. Where ‘preferable’ refers to ‘personal’. By which you mean ‘to you’. So it’s true but you don’t like it. Secondly, black or what fallacy. just because you Can conquer a hostile islam, does not mean we need to conquer a divergent but not hostile china. You are engaging in the (religious) form of argument we call ‘general rules’ by applying them (illogically) to specific instances. Rather than applying logical and scientific analysis to provide decidability in specific cases. That’s analogous to interpersonal racism and political universalism: confusing the properties of a class with those of an individual, or those of an individual with those of the class. In other words, you’re speaking illogically in an attempt to justify a prior not discover the truth. So, rather than rely upon a general rule, lets just measure the COSTS, and PRICE THE RISK, of acting and not acting. The question isn’t one of general rules, but of pricing of cost and risk. Which is what I”m advocating. MORAL ACCOUNTING IN FACT VS MORAL GENERAL RULES OF APPROXIMATION AND GUESSWORK

  • WHAT’S YOUR POSITION ON UBI (WELFARE)? (I HAVE ONE. 🙂 ) (from elsewhere) 1) The

    WHAT’S YOUR POSITION ON UBI (WELFARE)? (I HAVE ONE. 🙂 )

    (from elsewhere)

    1) The province (Prince Edward Island) will conduct and EXPERIMENT in a rebranded expansion of WELFARE: a subsidy for the poor. It is not a UBI – Universal Basic Income. UBI proposal is that every citizen obtains it, and that taxes offset it as income increases. In other words, it places a tax increase on the wealthier people in order to expand subsidies. However, the math remains the same – total tax revenue is 10k per person. 1/3 discretionary (everything the govt does), 1/3 obligatory (medicare, medicaid, social security), and 1/3 military. of which the vast majority goes to salaries and pensions.

    2) North did the work against MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) of which UBI is a derivation. His judgement was that any such activity would result in hyperinflation. (But it’s non-trivial to explain why. Although I’ll try to do it justice below.)

    3) In theory, money is neutral. Meaning that inflationary money (printing money), will eventually work its way through the economy resulting in inflation. But this definition doesn’t inform us as to the extend of what happens. Yes, prices that CAN adjust do. But prices that CAN’T adjust DON’T. For example, salaries, contracts, leases, mortgages and loans. And so a lot of prices throughout the economy don’t stabilize predictably enough to take risks via salaries, contracts, leases, mortgages and loans. And when prices are not predictable, risk is priced in (prices increase), and contracts are shorter (higher volatility), and defaults are greater (higher costs), and litigations are more extensive, and consumption falls at the same time. So just as the fed tries to target a rate of inflation (as bad as that might be) it can at least offer credit money and fiat money without causing hyperinflation by the inability to organize intertemporal production because of the destruction of the pricing system.

    4) It’s simply empirically false that states cannot create runaway inflation by attempts to redistribute through fiat money dilution (inflationary redistribution). Many countries routinely fail because of it. Because the problem it creates is destruction of the pricing system, and destruction of risk taking and trust.

    To some degree printing money works only so long as the public cannot ‘sense’ the printing of money on time horizons that affect the production and consumption cycles. And in general the 3% number seems to be the target.

    5) Now, printing money for consumption(redistribution of existing purchasing power) and printing money for investment (intertemporal loans against future production) operate successfully as long as the future production is forthcoming from the stimulation of consumption and production. This is why we tend to use the combination of monetary policy(redistribution of purchasing power) and fiscal policy (debt spending). Because while printing money does us some good it is a weak lever, and is prone to privatization of the commons (financialization) that we all despise. Fiscal policy is a better lever but it is more prone to political corruption. And to some degree we have played the financial sector and the political sector off on one another as a sort of balance of power.

    But what we haven’t tried is distributing liquidity directly to consumers instead of as a multiplier through the financial system. So if we sell 1b $$ to the financial system at 2%, then they sell at a 10% reserve that’s roughly 10b in credit capacity (at a minimum because much of that money will be again resold to consumers as consumer credit at another multiplier). And then if we say that the interest will roughly double the initial price of the good, resulting in 20B of revenues, we sort of have to ask the question “why does the financial sector do any good for consumers whose credit risk is a statistical certainty?”. In other words, why don’t we just distribute 10-20B of liquidity right to consumers?

    My position is that we cannot PROMISE people any fixed redistribution, but what we CAN do is take the trillions that we distribute into the financial system and instead distribute it to consumers (citizens).

    6) During the 2008-2009 crisis, only two of us (me -who is meaningless – and one economist who unfortunately died before he could rally support – advocated for direct redistribution from the treasury by paying down mortgages proportionate to the value of the home (and leaving a credit balance for those who had been good at paying off their homes, plus 50k for those who purchased a home in the next calendar year). This would have cost less than the 4T we had spent in that time period. And it would have prevented the radical repricing of everything worldwide that caused the crash. And who would have paid for it? The financial sector would have lost as yet unearned income. Which is certainly moral from any perspective.

    7) The problem with these systems is that they create a profound hazard. My view would be that we need to reform immigration dramatically, and NOT offer this to people who have come here illegally unless they return to their home nations for 7-10 years – and this includes all anchor babies and immigrants since the (illegal and immoral) 1965 immigration act (socialist import act).

    8) The benefit of the redistribution to citizens of any necessary liquidity is that it will collapse the influence of the financial sector, and instead of using the financial sector as a competitor to the state, it will create all the POSITIVE incentives in the populace to (a) resist immigration, (b) resist government spending (c) resist increasing the government. So this will exchange the power of the financial sector as a competitor to the state for the power of the people as a competitor to the state.

    9) Also, my opinion, is that if we collapse enough of the state we can mandate that high income earners redirect income to the commons instead of consumption thereby weakening the local state.

    So I think that the general idea that we can redistribute liquidity and taxes to the population in order to stimulate consumption in stead of funding the financial sector. I think there will be consequences to the financial sector – all of which are good for mankind and for us.

    But as far as I know, UBI is just rebranded welfare. MMT is logically impossible and we do not know whether it is empirically impossible but the risk is so profound I don’t see anyone taking it (honestly).

    I do see my alternative CALCULABLE solution as not only possible but desirable.

    The downside of any of these strategies is that (a) we create a moral hazard by creating a dependence upon an income we cannot be sure is possible to sustain (the liberal AND libertarian fallacy of growth). And (b) politicians will try to buy off the population even more so than they do now, so that this must not be touchable by the politicians and only done by the fed. (c) that we do not know the consequences of doing such things because we never can konw them. And that reversing it is hard. (e) the money must be distributed irregularly (quarterly or yearly) so that people don’t live from check to check in the case that there IS a shock. (f) that this money must be unattachable by debtors and the state. In other words, it is not money that anyone can take from you for any reason. It is for your survival not your comfort.

    That’s my position on the matter.

    Curt Doolittle.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-08 16:35:00 UTC

  • MORAL ACCOUNTING IN FACT VS MORAL GENERAL RULES OF APPROXIMATION AND GUESSWORK C

    MORAL ACCOUNTING IN FACT VS MORAL GENERAL RULES OF APPROXIMATION AND GUESSWORK

    Curt Doolittle

    It’s hard to believe but truth is enough.

    There is certainly room for a new fundamentalism.

    Natural Law fundamentalism.

    A violent expansionist fundamentalism more aggressive than islam.

    Joel Davis

    —“I dont see imperialist war as economically viable or morally just.

    The argument that we should protect what we have I agree with, and I think we can find mutual respect with other nations if we respect their autonomy…..”—

    Curt Doolittle

    Expansion has been, throughout history, the only means of limiting the imposition of costs permanently.

    In other words, it is the only means of cheaply solving a cost that will only increase.

    Joel Davis

    —“Our governments and corporations have economic and political hegemony. Why use the military when you can use trade agreements and the CIA? Surely that is more cost effective?

    The rest of the world needs access to our consumers, technology and capital. We are in a very strong bargaining position.”—

    Curt Doolittle

    Why are you afraid of TRUTH?

    Violence is TRUE.

    Wars of conquest are PROFITABLE.

    Complete defeat ends a threat rather than constantly paying to keep it at bay

    Forcibly converting a group from a low trust to higher trust polity is moral.

    So it is more moral, cheaper, more permanent, and more honest to conquer, subject to rule of law, to defend yourself through conquest whenever you can.

    Chinese history in a nutshell.

    (The world does not need access to our consumers, it needs access to our technology and rule of law)

    Joel Davis

    —“Your argument is logical and rather compelling.

    I agree the world needs access to our technology and our system has benefitted many nations we (anglo-saxons) have defeated considerably.. Japan, Korea (partially), India and the Phillipines are the best examples of the top of my head.

    I’m not sure if all out wars of conquest is exclusively required however. We have nukes and clandestine prowess, surely we can infiltrate other nations and bend them to our will without requiring all out war (the US has done this all over the world since WW2, unfortunately they have cared only about corporate profit and have abandoned the white man’s burden)

    Also, how do you suppose we conquer India, Pakistan or China (or potentially Iran and North Korea) on account of their nuclear capabilities?

    Surely it is impossible?”—

    Curt Doolittle

    Now, just a form of self-testing, what can you reduce the general criticism —“logical but not compelling”—?

    Because AFAIK, what that reduces to is “true but not preferable”. Where ‘preferable’ refers to ‘personal’. By which you mean ‘to you’. So it’s true but you don’t like it.

    Secondly, black or what fallacy. just because you Can conquer a hostile islam, does not mean we need to conquer a divergent but not hostile china.

    You are engaging in the (religious) form of argument we call ‘general rules’ by applying them (illogically) to specific instances. Rather than applying logical and scientific analysis to provide decidability in specific cases.

    That’s analogous to interpersonal racism and political universalism: confusing the properties of a class with those of an individual, or those of an individual with those of the class.

    In other words, you’re speaking illogically in an attempt to justify a prior not discover the truth.

    So, rather than rely upon a general rule, lets just measure the COSTS, and PRICE THE RISK, of acting and not acting.

    The question isn’t one of general rules, but of pricing of cost and risk.

    Which is what I”m advocating.

    MORAL ACCOUNTING IN FACT VS MORAL GENERAL RULES OF APPROXIMATION AND GUESSWORK

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-07 12:00:00 UTC

  • FUNDAMENTALIST NATURAL LAW (important piece) If many promote fundamentalist isla

    FUNDAMENTALIST NATURAL LAW

    (important piece)

    If many promote fundamentalist islam, fundamentalist marxism, fundamentalist judaism, fundamentalist christianity, fundamentalist political correctness, surely there is room for fundamentalist NATURAL LAW?

    I suppose it wouldn’t occur to people that we could treat Physical Law, Natural Law, and Testimonial Law (truth) as the word of the gods? And that we need no ‘prophet’. We’ve been slowly discovering the word of god as written in the universe, the record of man’s behavior, and the means of speaking god’s language of truth, for thousands of years. (so what has everyone else been doing?)

    I suppose it wouldn’t occur to people that if expansionary fundamentalist islam, like expansionary fundamentalist marxism before it, like expansionary fundamentalist christianity, like expansionary fundamentalist equalitarian social democracy, can be imposed by idea, propaganda, rebellion, terrorism, and seizure of the academy, of the media, and of the state, then another minority could rely on Truth instead of mysticism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and outright lying to evolve from idea, propaganda, rebellion, terrorism, and seizure of the academy, of the media, and of the state. It’s been done before by violence. It can just as easily if not more easily be done again.

    I suppose it wouldn’t occur to people that if zealots, soldiers, lawyers, judges, propagandists, politicians, and imperial bureaucracies can impose rule over societies using other forms of fundamentalism, why we can’t also use the same range of personnel to impose Fundamentalist Natural Law.

    I suppose it wouldn’t occur to people that just as each prior era was unimaginable and unpredictable to all but a few.

    Revolutions require tinder to burn.

    And the centuries of lies have left deadfall everywhere.

    We need only light the match.

    It starts with one act, by one man.

    then two acts by two men.

    Then twenty acts by one hundred men.

    Then a hundred acts by ten thousand men

    Then on transformation by one million men.

    The future belongs to those who take it.

    There is no place in history for the weak.

    There is no substitute for action.

    And there is no equal to violence.

    There is but one word of god: Truth.

    There is but one rule of god: Natural Law.

    All those who disobey the rule of god,

    Deny man transcendence into gods.

    Every lie blocks the way to godhood.

    Every liar piles blocks in our way.

    Every institution of lies creates a fortress in our way.

    Purge the lies

    Purge the liars

    Purge the fortresses of lies.

    —————————

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-05 10:09:00 UTC

  • ITS HARDER FOR WOMEN TO FIND MEN TO TRUST I think we can look at the problem of

    ITS HARDER FOR WOMEN TO FIND MEN TO TRUST

    I think we can look at the problem of developing high trust social orders with high economic velocity, as an even worse problem for women.

    I mean, women have a smaller number of closer friends who are less divergent in sentiments. Men have a larger number of less close friends who vary more greatly.

    Men speak in ‘facts’ and women speak in experiences. We convey different information. Women speak in synthesis and men speak in compartments. Women’s information is related, and men’s information is isolated.

    Women cannot trust many men easily. (Hence the value of gay men to all women). And they tend to empathically understand only that category of men they are familiar with. And they tend to respond genetically to attraction rather than rationally. JUst as they respond genetically to their offspring rather than to the merits of their offspring.

    Women’s minds are interrupt driven with lots of sensation. Men’s minds are relatively quiet and goal driven with few sensations.

    Women think about dozens or hundreds of different things, and men think of just a few related to their goals – and almost nothing else.

    Men lie to women all the time to increase their chances of getting access to sex with the women or her network of associates.

    If men are weak they cannot build trust with women. if women are weak they cannot be honest with men. The only men a woman can usually trust are those that have no reproductive interest in her: her father and her brothers.

    Men have a much easier time, since if we can trust our mothers, and physically retaliate against our sisters, we simply need women to help us understand other people’s interests.

    And frankly women aren’t that hard. If they are interested in you and not trying just to use you as an ATM just love them, listen to them, and help them when they ask.

    Women will love you back, and more so if you give them lots of small signals that you are ‘thinking of them and their concerns’.

    I have no problem returning to a world where women are our slaves. I have no problem with my sons ruling that world. I have a problem with my daughters returning to that world, and living in it.

    Men need to be taught to love women and limit the damage they can do but not attempt to ‘correct’ how they think. They need to think as they do or they cannot raise families of impulsive unpredictable children.

    Women must be taught that men do not think as they do, should not thing as they do, and if they did, they will be useless to them. (I usually say ‘you need girlfriends for that, not me. I am a man.’).

    If mothers fail to raise a man capable of being a good husband it is their fault. If a father fails to raise a woman capable of being a good wife, it is his fault. These are the only gender-relations we can trust.

    We spend all this time training social nonsense, and pseudoscience, and none of it on how to be a husband, a wife, a brother, a sister, a father, and a mother, and even less on being a homemaker, a craftsman, a businessman, and a financier.

    We educated our generations to be nothing more than tax slaves. Seriously. If you critically examine our schooling that’s its purpose.

    Tax slavery.

    What we need is just the opposite.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 14:30:00 UTC

  • THE MALE FEMALE COMPROMISE (nash vs pareto) (important concept) Women are suppos

    THE MALE FEMALE COMPROMISE

    (nash vs pareto) (important concept)

    Women are supposed to be drawn to socialism. Men are supposed to be drawn to Aristocracy. These are words for the female reproductive strategy and the male reproductive strategy at scale.

    Its when we compromise through markets for marriage, markets for goods and services, markets for commons, and markets for rule, that we achieve the best possible even if it’s not the ideal for each given man or woman.

    Conversely, pursuit of ideals can only occur if we end the compromise between men’s and women’s reproductive strategies.

    Which is what we have been doing for the past century.

    In economic parlance this is the difference between a NATURAL NASH equilibrium that we evolved under, and the UNNATURAL PARETO equilibrium that the socialist state attempts to create through forcible redistribution – violating the contract for compromise between the genders: male and female and the classes: the estates of the realm.

    Paring off into mates (and admittedly cheating now and then) is the optimum evolutionary and social strategy. It creates incentives for the worse performers, and disincentives for greed for the best performers.

    There is a reason we evolved serial monogamy before we developed property and a division of labor, and we evolved monogamy after we developed property and a division of labor.

    That reason is that markets (pairing-off) provide us with the BEST OVERALL solution to our differences in value and ability, even though it doesn’t provide the best solution for either the best or the worst. (and yes, there are bad people that shouldn’t breed).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 09:10:00 UTC

  • NOT EVERYONE IS READY TO MOVE FORWARD Ideological malinvestment is extremely dif

    NOT EVERYONE IS READY TO MOVE FORWARD

    Ideological malinvestment is extremely difficult to overcome – it requires rebuilding your conceptual portfolio.

    It’s harder if your malinvestment is in a sentimental, or rational, ideology rather than scientific evidence.

    And it is harder if your self worth and social status are dependent upon preservation of the malinvestment.

    This is why science progresses with the death of the previous generation – status preservation of malinvestment.

    I don’t care what names people call me.Darwin, Newton,Galileo, Aristotle, and Socrates had worse. But True=True.

    Sovereignty exists or not, Liberty is obtained by permission, freedom out of utility, subsidy out of signaling.

    Sovereignty is only possible under the reciprocal insurance of property in toto by the promise of violence.

    And the only institutions that are possible under sovereignty are markets – markets in everything.

    And the only way of producing markets in everything is w/ natural,judge-discovered,common law of non-imposition.

    …non-imposition against property in toto: to total elimination of the incentive to retaliate.

    Tucker is a good person and I have affection for him. Not everyone is ready. They must lose hope in error first.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 20:51:00 UTC

  • NO, THE USA HAD NO STRATEGIC INTEREST IN UKRAINE, BUT THE OLIGARCHS CERTAINLY DI

    NO, THE USA HAD NO STRATEGIC INTEREST IN UKRAINE, BUT THE OLIGARCHS CERTAINLY DID.

    —“Ukraine is corrupt but that is not the fault of Russia. Its Western puppet government is no better than Yanukovich’s. If anything, it is worse.”—-

    Yeah?

    Do you mean that the soviet system was not perpetuated by russian funding of ‘favorable tyrants’? Even after Putin said “We paid for them, we thought we had bought them.” But was totally off guard when the revolution happened? And so Putin panicked?

    Do you mean, that when the oligarchs realized that Yanukovich was going to hand over the country to Russia, after Yanukovich ditched the EU deal, that they paid for the revolution, and put one of their own in power? After Russia has paid Yanukovich to bribe his way to re-election (I was offered 200uah to vote for him and I couldn’t even vote), and paid him to unfund and dismantle the military so that it would be easy for them to seize the country?

    The oligarch’s clock is ticking and membership in the EU will force them out, but unlike Putin who will just kill them or take everything, the europeans will buy them off. The problem is that Russia is stalemating the EU by preserving the conflict.

    So since I’m probably one of the more knowledgeable westerners in Ukraine maybe you should follow incentives rather than RT propaganda.

    The USA did spend money to help pay for the costs of the revolution, but they were reluctant up until the last minute. I know. ‘Cause I was there.

    So go be a russian troll or useful western idiot with someone stupid and ignorant enough to buy your regurgitated propaganda.

    THE OLIGARCHS WERE AFRAID OF YANUKOVICH AND REPLACED HIM.

    I dunno what is so freaking conspiratorial about the damned obviousness of it. teh govenrment owns 80% of the land in ukraine, and they sell it to foreigners for agrarian production. The oligarchs own nearly everything else, and have privatized as much of the commons as is possible. Why this wouldn’t happen regardless of american intervention is something only an idiot can’t understand. Follow the money. Follow the incentives.

    The USA offered to do the one thing that would fix ukrainian corruption, and that was to pay the salaries of the judiciary, and thereby separate and create an independent judiciary that was monitored by westerners.

    That would have fixed ukraine. But the president, the government and the oligarchs resisted it.

    The soviet system remains until the people of ukraine kill enough politicians that they will kill enough olicarchs that they can use european money.

    But here is what will happen: the euro is going to collapse in the next few years. Not long. This will create a profound depression in europe and force an alliance between Russia and Germany.

    Ukraine has only two years of safety yet. And I doubt I am the only person on the planet to figure that out.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 18:21:00 UTC

  • Is The Problem Really Democracy? Here Is Your Answer.

    The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of: 1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities. And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads. 3) MONOPOLY COMMONS. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce. But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’. So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly. Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Is The Problem Really Democracy? Here Is Your Answer.

    The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of: 1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities. And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads. 3) MONOPOLY COMMONS. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce. But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’. So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly. Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine