Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • MONOPOLY AND BUREAUCRACY Again, there are NECESSARY functions of government. ( s

    http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/AGAIN: MONOPOLY AND BUREAUCRACY

    Again, there are NECESSARY functions of government.

    ( see http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/#propertarian item (g) )

    While the definition of property rights must, in the end, be homogenous across groups as individual property rights, there is no reason why we need a monopoly means of organizing people under those property rights. There is absolutely no material reason why we cannot have polycentric governments that vary from absolute surrender to minarchy.

    Government, in the sense, that we need both a definition of property rights, and a means of common investment, as well as common insurance – and all organizations require leaders, even if they are purely judges, selected randomly by lot. (preferably so)

    If you’re wandering around saying government is evil rather than bureaucracy and monopoly are evil you’re just polluting the intellectual pool.

    The problem is monopoly, bureaucracy, and the sanction of various partial monopolies and rents by those in the state, to persist their control over the state.

    SECRET

    The chinese philosophers could not, because of the asian family structure and existing hierarchy solve the problem of politics, like the Greeks solved the system of politics PRECISELY because they were not hierarchically solidified. Confucius and Lao Tzu failed. They directed the entire civilization to operate as an extended family. (Unfortunately, Fukuyama is wrong. As usual. But at least he’s informative.)

    We libertarians are making a similar mistake. ROTHBARD FAILED, and so did his ethics. Hoppe succeeded (by admittedly strange means) and solve the problem of politics at scale for us. But Rothbard failed, either by intent, or by cultural influence, or by lack of understanding. But he failed. And he continues to cause us to fail at securing our liberty.

    While I would agree that violence was necessary to transform barbarians into city and farm dwellers, I would also argue that such a monopoly was necessary to conduct that transformation.

    But now we need a DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION. The barbarians are converted. The problem is not how to convert barbarians. THe problem is how to prevent FEMALES from returning us to barbarism via the ballot box.

    Socialism was murderous. But the threat to human prosperity is the assumption that women have the right to reproduce at the expense of others, or that all reproduction is of necessity ‘good’.

    Government is not the enemy. Monopoly is. Socialism is not a problem any longer. But feminism and the totalitarian humanism that is an expression of feminine communism are.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-29 07:27:00 UTC

  • INTERESTING : DAVE RAMSAY ETC : CREDIT AND THE STATE (personal finance) Never he

    INTERESTING : DAVE RAMSAY ETC : CREDIT AND THE STATE

    (personal finance)

    Never heard of this guy until recently. But his message is pretty good for average families who get trapped on the credit treadmill.

    ON CREDIT

    Myself, I don’t use credit cards. If I don’t have cash I don’t buy it. Cars included. I’ll never have another mortgage either, if I can help it. I pay and save first, then the rest of my income is mine to spend as foolishly as I want. I hit my reserves for new investments. Otherwise I live on my income.

    Now, my reasons are different: my aspiness is a challenge. Paying bills quarterly works for me. Paying them monthly is just not something I’ll remember to do. And I only take on bills that can be paid by debit card, over the phone or via email. I don’t like the stress of fighting my subconscious so I don’t get on the TREADMILL of credit. EVER. (Well, I did impulsively buy my Jaguar XJR on credit, but it was a steal. But for the exotics, and all others, I paid cash.)

    Most of my income volatility in life is driven by business investments which usually require extraordinary income sacrifice (at least for me they have.)

    And I’ve carried from 4M to 20M in commercial credit for most of my adult life. (Which I find humorous for some reason.)

    ON WOMEN:

    There are a lot of women who get their happiness from nesting. And they make a wonderful nest. But the problem is that you can’t lower their standard of living if you want to take a business risk. So my advice is to make sure that you know what partner you’re buying into. Those women are usually a pleasure to live with. But they are hard to build financial wealth with.

    ON THE STATE:

    Taxes and Credit are the fuel of the state. The libertarian in me seeks to starve the state wherever possible.

    SO I’M ALL FOR THE DAVE RAMSEY and VOLITIONAL movements. 🙂 Mostly as a rebellion against the state. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-29 06:44:00 UTC

  • WATCHING THE PRESIDENT : TRENCHANT NAIVE IDEALISM Watching Bush II was kind of i

    WATCHING THE PRESIDENT : TRENCHANT NAIVE IDEALISM

    Watching Bush II was kind of interesting. He sort of looked at his job and it unfolded as he expected, and he knew what the price would be, and his position was that history is the only judge of presidential actions. Now, I disagreed with him on a bunch of them. And his presidency was the last hope of restoring the republic. Demographics have made it impossible now. We have to break up the empire to preserve western civilization in any form at all.

    Watching this guy is something quite different. Most of us knew he was symbolic. That he’s an empty suit elected by the media as a cure for white sins. And honestly, given the change in behavior of black males, I wish we could have elected a black man earlier, and done it with a conservative.

    But this guy has a different bias. He actually believes all the nonsense he was exposed as a child, all the hate he was told, and is taking revenge on america as best as he can with his time in office. He undoubtably thinks he us undoing injustices.

    He makes gaffe after gaffe, idiotic policy move after policy move, and they all fail. And he doesn’t understand why. He doesn’t understand why his is unappreciated. He doesn’t understand why they fail.

    But you can see it in his face that he expects people to love and appreciate him. He doesn’t understand why we don’t agree with him. He doesn’t UNDERSTAND.

    “HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND”

    It’s either that or he’s the most evil person to get into politics since Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin. Because you couldn’t screw up the world more than this if you tried. I didn’t think we could have a president worse than Carter, or more inept at execution than Bush.

    But I was wrong.

    You know, Clinton was a freaking genius at politics and if he hadn’t been so freaking stupid with feminizing the military, radical conservatives, and his attraction to large breasts, he’d be unassailable. I mean I loved and hated him at the same time.

    People underestimate Reagan. He was brilliant. Charismatic, profoundly moral. He read Hayek and applied it. He understood it. He changed the world. He was a perfect high priest of american culture. He was the last high priest of it.

    Obama is just another politically approved, symbolic fool put into a administrative job in control of the empire – an empire past its peak, purpose, and utility.

    And you can see it on his face as he runs away to play golf to get away from the work load.

    KINGS AND QUEENS AND GUILLOTINES

    A monarch’s job is to be the high priest of civic culture. THe most envied societies are monarchies. Monarchs must have veto power, and little else. They are the representation of the people’s moral code. And their morality is guaranteed by guillotine. YOu cannot kill a bureaucracy but you can kill a king.

    We need to break up the empire. We are now for to twelve different cultures and we need to break into four to twelve different countries.

    The only value of the federal government is in the efficiency and power of a combined military force, and the function of an insurer of last resort. It has no value in law. No value in trade. No value in culture. No value in morality. And may in fact produce just the opposite.

    Let us see how the northeast and the left coast function with a hostile and conservative farmland between them.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-28 13:04:00 UTC

  • THE IMPACT OF WOMEN SEDUCED BY MALE SOCIALISTS I think it would be interesting f

    THE IMPACT OF WOMEN SEDUCED BY MALE SOCIALISTS

    I think it would be interesting for more educated American women to do a walk through and meet the men in the high security prison system.

    ‘Cause you know. It’s absolutely terrifying. That is what men are capable of. A lot of us, myself included, are capable of being like that.

    If you need a more gentle version, play women versus men flag football a few times. And that tells you something too. And if you don’t like that, then look at IQ score distributions at age 22 or more.

    Then go out on the street where there are a bunch of white boys around and just guess what would happen if you ask them for help. or watch a few videos online that show what happens.

    We live for it. Every day. It’s not even conscious. You know how men seem aware of you? You aren’t really special except as more or less fun to look at. We are aware of where every man and woman is around us at almost all times. Most of us know the threat potential of each at a glance.

    If we wanted to do anything bad to women, like men in most other civilizations do on a regular basis, it isn’t like it would be terribly challenging.

    Instead, you’re surrounded by guys with heroic ambitions to protect you at all times.

    And most of you, at least in my generation, talk s___t about them.

    And the only civilization where men are CHIVALROUS enough to treat women as relative equals, is the very civilization you seek daily to undermine.

    It isn’t a competition. Its cooperation. We can take constant joy in the wonder of each other’s gender, or we can kill our civilization fighting about it.

    Reducing the west to the same communalism that the rest of the world employs, isn’t going to hurt men any. I mean, we’re pretty happy with beer, meat, fire and guns.

    It’s women who, if this vanity of socialistic communalism persists, will be reduced once again to second class status. Because really, it’s a much superior reproductive system, that is more sustainable, and less fragile.

    And every current bit of evidence proves it.

    The aristocratic west could not survive the introduction of women into the voting pool. Without the requirement for property, there is no way to contain the communal impulses of women, and their willingness to be led by men seizing every opportunity to lead them into suicide for personal gain.

    Women single women in particular, have been like moths to the anti-western flame, for a century; and without them voting rapidly for leftist representatives, willingly undermining the constitution, none of the destruction of the west would have occurred. And all the distraction that political infighting has caused, the destruction of intergenerational cooperation, the destruction of the reproductive truce between the sexes we call the ‘family’, has just been a vast failure to direct investment to innovation.

    Instead, we’re financing politics and 30% single motherhood living in perpetual poverty. And men are dropping out of marriage, the workforce, the voting pool, and the civil society entirely in droves.

    Small things in large numbers have vast consequences.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-23 13:00:00 UTC

  • COMPANY / GREAT PRODUCT : SITECORE I have talked quite a bit about the amount of

    http://www.sitecore.net/GREAT COMPANY / GREAT PRODUCT : SITECORE

    I have talked quite a bit about the amount of money I invested in nCompass both before and after Microsoft Purchased it, turned it into Microsoft CMS, which I saw as, along with Microsoft CMS, the platform system that microsoft needed to compete in the application market in the middle tier. But, the envy of the office team, and their fascination with Sharepoint forced a bullet to be put into Microsoft CMS, and then foolishly killed it.

    A very smart couple of very pragmatic guys picked up on the market opportunity and right now, they have what nCompass/Microsoft CMS should have been, and what Sharepoint never can be: the best .NET platform available.

    Microsoft ceded the app platform business to Oracle and IBM and open source leaving a career problem staring into the face of .NET developers, as potential candidates for COBOL level extinction.

    I’m not really a supporter of using Microsoft technology any longer for web development, until ASP, JS, PHP, and Python become are added to the core of Visual Studio, and Microsoft puts out a dedicated web server (if ever). Given the (terrible) quality of most IDE’s, and the problem debugging code on these platforms by comparison it doesn’t make sense.

    Maybe, someday, when there has been enough of a shakeup, someone in redmond will understand that this company is worth to Microsoft easily 10x revenues, if not higher.

    ‘Cause if someone (we know who) adds a windows emulator to their OS and sells cheap high quality desktops, and IBM, Oracle and Open source continue to squeeze Microsoft in the middle, the empire of RENT SEEKING on the NETWORK EFFECT of Windows that is the Redmond campus, will find itself without the ability to play IBM and retreat into ‘the money’. Left behind by gaming platforms. Left behind by phones. Left behind by tablets.

    Microsoft is a vast rent-seeker on the pc platform. And eventually the market punishes companies that hubris.

    SITECORE is one of the obvious ways back into credibility. Sitecore, CMS, Dynamics, .NET, and script friendly changes to the OS.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-22 10:33:00 UTC

  • THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMPUTER SCIENTISTS TO THE REFORMATION IN LIBERTARIAN AND C

    THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMPUTER SCIENTISTS TO THE REFORMATION IN LIBERTARIAN AND CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL THOUGHT.

    When I went to Mises for the Austrian Scholars Conference the first time, I was struck dumb; first, by the incredible genius of the economic calculation argument, second by hoppe’s solution to the problem of institutions… But then equally by the failure to see that that BOTH Hayek and Mises were very close but wrong; the failure to grasp the importance of Popper’s contribution; the failure to grasp that no, the calculation issue was not ‘complete’.

    I realized something was wrong with Rothbard fairly quickly. It took me a few years to understand what Mises had done wrong with Praxeology, and only recently how to solve it completely. Hoppe was right about just about everything, but still had both Rothbard’s and Mises’ errors. But even so, he’d managed to get it all right anyway. Which, to me, is an even greater statement of his brilliance. Although, I’m still frustrated by his fascination with Argumentation.

    But it is this emphasis on experience and morality and preference instead of calculation that is everyone’s distraction. ( A topic that needs some reflection and exposition. And so I’ll return to it.)

    COMPUTER SCIENTISTS AND REFORMATION

    So strange. You know, there is this strange anti-computer-science bias in academia. But since the majority of intellectual revolution has come out of Mencius’ application of Austrian thought to conservatism, and my application of Austrian thought to libertarianism, while political science is fascinated by democracy, philosophy still squandering in the artifice of metaphysical pseudo-rationality, and mainstream economics is fascinated by growth and efficiency, and the left (literature) with obscurantism, pseudo-science, equality, diversity, and central control.

    And since, computer science is the only discipline that intersects between theoretical constructs and human interaction directly, I kind of think that, empirically speaking, computer science has more right than math, and certainly more right than economics. And political science and social science don’t even register signal above noise.

    Economics is a process of deduction from aggregation. Computer science is atomistic by its nature. It’s not deduction. It’s calculation. And therein lies an amazing difference in perception. We do not HAVE the economic data to tell us about human behavior at the level of atomicity we do with computers that interact with people on a daily basis. This teaches you about the hubris we must avoid when interacting with human beings.

    Math is platonic. Economics is idealistic. Computer science understands ‘ignorance, bias, incentives, and the limits of calculation’. Which is probably why we solved the political problem and the other groups didn’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-22 09:33:00 UTC

  • WHAT HAPPENS WITHOUT CHIVALROUS MEN? Women don’t seem to grasp that if you destr

    WHAT HAPPENS WITHOUT CHIVALROUS MEN?

    Women don’t seem to grasp that if you destroy all the incentives for chivalry, men will not act chivalrous. They will act like the men in the rest of the world. We do not do things because we ‘think they are right’ we do things because of incentives. Humans MUST operate by incentives. It’s impossible not to.

    Japan’s current herbivorous population crash is the example of low-testosterone gene pools, Greece, eastern Europe, for medium testosterone gene pools, and Islamic and African societies for high testosterone gene pools.

    Redistribution depends on men working, wanting to work, and finding virtue in work. If 30% of males drop out of the work force and 30% of women delay reproduction, then, essentially, that’s three generations till extinction.

    We must cooperate between genders. We must cooperate between generations. And we must perpetuate generations.

    We can’t be entirely selfish. It’s suicide.

    The west could not survive, and it appears no country can survive, the entry of women into both the work force AND democratic politics.

    In that sense, democracy as proposed by the enlightenment may have been on of the devil’s most recent jokes.

    We thought Marxism was. And it was. But Democracy is just a slow road to communism. It’s the restoration of the female reproductive strategy. Except that all human progress started with the transfer of reproductive control back to the male, when we created private property.

    Feminism is regression. The only ‘right’ we can have and yet maintain intergenerational cooperation and inter gender cooperation is property rights.

    Everything else is suicide.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-22 05:13:00 UTC

  • “EXPLAIN PROGRESSIVE VS CONSERVATIVE” Progressive and conservative express posit

    “EXPLAIN PROGRESSIVE VS CONSERVATIVE”

    Progressive and conservative express positions relative to the status quo. However, out of repeated use, this term refers to the difference between State control of society (left = totalitarianism), and ‘normative’ control of society (right = libertarianism).

    NOLAN/ASPLUND POLITICAL CHART

    However, the ‘NOLAN CHART’ is a more accurate and sophisticated view of politics as two dimensions. Left totalitarianism of the state via law, right totalitarianism of ‘norms’, and libertarian totalitarianism of commerce is probably the most accurate way of thinking about political biases.

    [see asplund chart]

    The problem is. This chart helps you organize political biases, but it doesn’t tell you WHY WE HAVE THEM. So we need to look at something else. Because it turns out that we don’t, except for the statistically insignificant, ever change our political biases.

    RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ORIGINS

    In my own work, I’ve tried to show how totalitarian, normative, and libertarian biases tend to originate from different religious and cultural backgrounds in europe.

    [See Doolittle Chart]

    FAMILY STRUCTURES

    And Emmanuel Todd’s work shows that these religious structures roughly correspond to our FAMILY structures. With conservatives in the nuclear family, catholics in the traditional family, jews in the extended family, and muslims in the tribal family. We are now able to trace the progressive left’s origins as an alliance between Northeast Puritan Women, The Feminist Movement, and the Jewish Communist Movement.

    [See Todd’s Diagrams]

    So Emmanuel Todd’s map of immigration and family structures, looks much like my map of religious structures (which you can find on the web now in a few places. It seems to be spreading a bit.)

    AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS

    So if you look at these maps of america:

    [ SEE MAPS OF AMERICA]

    It’s pretty clear, given everyone’s origins, where their political biases come from: their moral codes reflect their cultural origins, the relationship between their family structures, moral codes, and economic demands.

    PRACTICAL IMPACT

    If you understand this set of charts, you’ll quickly grasp, that all our political talk is purely entertainment and spent energy. Our political biases, like our moral intuitions, are not voluntarily chosen except at the margins.

    The people who decide elections in america consist of two groups:

    (a) Uninvolved, Uncommitted, and Unaware voters who represent from 7-14% of the populace (depending on who you ask), and who can be swayed by popular opinion and emotion rather than political conviction or reason, and (b) single mothers and young women who now represent a NEW FAMILY STRUCTURE, and who are highly biased toward the state (the left). It is these two groups who determine the outcome of elections, since everyone else is pretty committed and reasonably evenly distributed. (See Pew research.)

    This is why conservatives use every trick in the book to retain the nuclear family and progressives eery trick in the book to undermine the nuclear family because the nuclear family, and it’s civic independence is the primary threat to state power. Religion has always been an effective means of resisting the western state. And conservatives use this because it means they get to establish their own moral grounds insulated from argument. Just as progressives try the same by different means.

    SOURCE OF POLITICAL BIASES

    (1) Genetics

    (2) Gender

    (3) Childhood family structure

    (4) Culture

    (5) Environment

    (6) Willful Informed Adult Choice

    GENDER BIASES

    When we created representative democracy the head of household was a male with discretion over family use of property, and was the equivalent of a small or medium sized business owner today. These men had homogenous moral and cultural codes. They had relatively homogenous interests that differed only by scale. The opposing reproductive and therefore moral intuition for men and women was homogenized by the nuclear family structure. But the addition of women to the workplace and the voting pool eliminated that compromise. And as each generation passes, women increasingly are either single, or single mothers, and vote the female reproductive bias, which is to bear children and care for them but place responsibility for their support and upkeep on the tribe as much as possible. Other factors matter, but by and large it is women and their preference to press the costs of childrearing on the ‘tribe’ that has determined the gradual leftward motion in america, and left the conservative nuclear family with its emphasis on self reliance in the minority. There are more issues here but I’m attempting to emphasize that our political biases are not the conscious choices that we think they are. We are incredibly predictable.

    [See Masculine Feminine Biases Diagram]

    RECOMMENDED READING

    1) “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” by Andrew Heywood.

    Political Ideologies: An Introduction: Andrew Heywood: 9780230367258: Amazon.com: Books

    2) “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt

    The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Jonathan Haidt: 9780307377906: Amazon.com: Books

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-21 11:08:00 UTC

  • Capitalism: How Much Is Wasted In Finding Market-based Solutions?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE:

    RE: “That represents a huge expenditure of human and physical resources that is not typically looked at when evaluating the efficiency of the winner.”

    Actually, it is obvious, common sense, and assumed in economics and politics, but we come to the opposite conclusion.  (a) we are constantly researching and developing new products and services, and variations of them through constant refinements of products, services, and prices called ‘entrepreneurial research and development”. It is not a process of PRODUCTION. The market is a process of RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

    Furthermore, as the world consists of millions of resources, all of which have multiple demands on them, we must constantly look for what we refer to as ‘substitutions’ in the form of different resources, different suppliers, different technology, to adapt to constant changes in the demand for and availability of resources from the most simplistic primary resources to the most complex combination of sophisticated production techniques. 

    So. NONE OF IT IS WASTE.   The market is not a machine following a production program. It is a vast network of individuals working in networks some of us call ‘patterns of sustainable specialization and trade”, dynamically changing our efforts in response to other similar networks, in real time on a momentary basis in some cases (oil prices) and on a long term basis in others (commercial construction) and on a very, very long term basis for others (pharmaceutical research.)

    A COMMON ERROR
    It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics to apply very simplistic concepts of production to an economy. It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics and to fail to understand prices as an information system by which we coordinate ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY to serve each other’s needs, in a vast division of knowledge and labor, that is incomprehensible to any individual or group of individuals.  It is very common for people who lack knowledge of economics to confuse the difficulty in producing goods and services, as one of applying labor, when labor is, in fact, the cheapest most ready commodity available, and worth very little. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to ORGANIZE VOLUNTARY participation in production that is not a constant process of producing what is know, but a perpetually dynamic process of organizing the process of research and development, which produces an infinite variety of goods, wherein the competition between multiple producers forces all production to the lowest price, so that an increasing number of people can afford to consume goods. 

    Each of us produces very little. None of us, individually, matters to production. However, by voluntarily coordinating our efforts through self interest, by using the information system we call prices to guide us, we can cooperate by in a vast division of incomprehensible knowledge and labor.

    For this reason, people who ORGANIZE production are compensated highly for it, but those who CONSUME that production.  Largely, those of us who consume or labor, gain the benefit of our efforts, each of which is very small, in the form of affordable consumer goods and services.  Not necessarily as compensation. Because it is our labor that is of little value, and the organization of labor for the purpose of production as highly valuable. Because risk taking, forecasting, and guessing the future against competitors, so that we make the best use of the world’s resources at any given time, is what determines success or failure of the coordination of many people’s interwoven efforts as successful. And that success is told to us by the information system in the form of ‘profit’.  Profit which is quite hard to obtain it turns out.  That is because, except at the extremes, organizations, whether private or public consume the maximum amount of profit that investors will tolerate. 

    I HOPE THIS ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

    It cannot be waste if it is experiment.  The problem with your question is that you assume we know what we do not and cannot know. It may help to remember that the socialists thought like you do and 100 million people are dead because of it. And the entire world has abandoned socialism (central planning of production) for this reason.  Prices and Incentives are inseparable. without prices we literally cannot think, or plan, or coordinate out efforts. Without incentives we cannot voluntarily get people to continue to conduct research and development.  Without research and development we cannot sustain production at low prices, with increasing advancement in technology, goods and services. Without advancement we would eventually become incrementally poorer as all differences between us were equilibrated, and the incentive to cooperate voluntarily declined. 

    EASY ENTRY LEVEL READINGS
    “I Pencil” (Essay)
    “The Use Of Knowledge In Society” (Essay / Hayek)
    “Parable Of The Bees” (Essay)
    “Economics In One Lesson” (Book / Haslitt)

    That’s about it. You get that. You get economics.  We call it The Economic Way of Thinking. 

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute.
    Kiev

    https://www.quora.com/Capitalism-How-much-is-wasted-in-finding-market-based-solutions

  • Is There A Better Word For Progressive Beliefs Than “progressivism”?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE

    (If you think I have then please promote this piece)

    PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE AND THE STATUS QUO
    Progressive and conservative express positions relative to the status quo.
    However, out of repeated use, this term refers to the difference between State control of society (left = totalitarianism), and ‘normative’ control of society (right = libertarianism).


    NOLAN/ASPLUND POLITICAL CHART
    However, the ‘NOLAN CHART’ is a more accurate and sophisticated view of politics as two dimensions.   Left totalitarianism of the state via law, right totalitarianism of ‘norms’, and libertarian totalitarianism of commerce is probably the most accurate way of thinking about political biases.


     





    The problem is. This chart helps you organize political biases, but it doesn’t tell you WHY WE HAVE THEM.   So we need to look at something else. Because it turns out that we don’t, except for the statistically insignificant, ever change our political biases.


    RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ORIGINS
    In my own work, I’ve tried to  show how totalitarian, normative, and libertarian biases tend to originate from different religious and cultural backgrounds in europe.









    FAMILY STRUCTURES
    And Emmanuel Todd’s work shows that these religious structures roughly correspond to our FAMILY structures.  With conservatives in the nuclear family, catholics in the traditional family, jews in the extended family, and muslims in the tribal family.  We are now able to trace the progressive left’s origins as an alliance between Northeast Puritan Women,  The Feminist Movement, and the Jewish Communist Movement.









    So Emmanuel Todd’s map of immigration and family structures, looks much like my map of religious structures (which you can find on the web now in a few places. It seems to be spreading a bit.)

    AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS
    So if you look at these maps of america:







    It’s pretty clear, given everyone’s origins, where their political biases come from: their moral codes reflect their cultural origins,  the relationship between their family structures, moral codes, and economic demands.


    PRACTICAL IMPACT
    If you understand this set of charts, you’ll quickly grasp, that all our political talk is purely entertainment and spent energy. Our political biases, like our moral intuitions, are not voluntarily chosen except at the margins.

    The people who decide elections in america consist of two groups:
    (a) Uninvolved, Uncommitted, and Unaware voters who represent from 7-14% of the populace (depending on who you ask), and who can be swayed by popular opinion and emotion rather than political conviction or reason, and (b) single mothers and young women who now represent a NEW FAMILY STRUCTURE, and who are highly biased toward the state (the left). It is these two groups who determine the outcome of elections, since everyone else is  pretty committed and reasonably evenly distributed. (See Pew research.)

    This is why conservatives use every trick in the book to retain the nuclear family and progressives eery trick in the book to undermine the nuclear family because the nuclear family, and it’s civic independence is the primary threat to state power. Religion has always been an effective means of resisting the western state. And conservatives use this because it means they get to establish their own moral grounds insulated from argument.  Just as progressives try the same by different means.

    SOURCE OF POLITICAL BIASES
    (1) Genetics
    (2) Gender
    (3) Childhood family structure
    (4) Culture
    (5) Environment
    (6) Willful Informed Adult Choice

    GENDER BIASES
    When we created representative democracy the head of household was a male with discretion over family use of property, and was the equivalent of a small or medium sized business owner today. These men had homogenous moral and cultural codes. They had relatively homogenous interests that differed only by scale.  The opposing reproductive and therefore moral intuition for men and women was homogenized by the nuclear family structure.  But the addition of women to the workplace and the voting pool eliminated that compromise. And as each generation passes, women increasingly are either single, or single mothers, and vote the female reproductive bias, which is to bear children and care for them but place responsibility for their support and upkeep on the tribe as much as possible. Other factors matter, but by and large it is women and their preference to press the costs of childrearing on the ‘tribe’ that has determined the gradual leftward motion in america, and left the conservative nuclear family with its emphasis on self reliance in the minority. There are more issues here but I’m attempting to emphasize that our political biases are not the conscious choices that we think they are.  We are incredibly predictable.



    RECOMMENDED READING
    1) “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” by Andrew Heywood.
    Political Ideologies: An Introduction: Andrew Heywood: 9780230367258: Amazon.com: Books

    2) “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt
    The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Jonathan Haidt: 9780307377906: Amazon.com: Books

    https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-better-word-for-progressive-beliefs-than-progressivism