Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • LIBERTARIANS MAY BE RIGHT ABOUT INSTITUTIONS. BUT CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT ABOUT

    LIBERTARIANS MAY BE RIGHT ABOUT INSTITUTIONS. BUT CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT ABOUT HUMAN CAPITAL

    “Superficial statesmen and politicians — always too plentifully represented in every Reform, Radical or Revolutionary Party — constantly make the mistake of assuming that if a well-tried and old-established institution begins to reveal serious flaws, the fault must inevitably lie with the institution itself and not with the men trying to run it.” – Anthony Ludovici

    (HT to Traditionalist)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-20 09:56:00 UTC

  • I HAVENT LIVED IN SEATTLE FOR A YEAR. BUT ALL THE RESTAURANT VALETS STILL REMEMB

    I HAVENT LIVED IN SEATTLE FOR A YEAR. BUT ALL THE RESTAURANT VALETS STILL REMEMBER.

    What should I learn from this?

    ’cause I’m not sure.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-19 16:44:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM : WESTERN PHILOSOPHY : INCOMPATIBILITY What is wrong

    ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM : WESTERN PHILOSOPHY : INCOMPATIBILITY

    What is wrong with conservatives who adhere to the Aristocratic Egalitarian ethic? It’s premise is that you earn your rights, you are not born with them.

    You can’t enfranchise everyone by birth, as if they were possessed of original sin.

    You can’t enfranchise everyone into aristocracy if aristocratic values are learned.

    You can’t enfranchise everyone into into an aristocratic model of society if they have no desire, and not biological incentive to be aristocratic.

    The aristocratic egalitarian model is a strategy for a superior minority to defend itself from the communalism of an inferior minority. It is the only successful model for controlling alphas, while creating alphas.

    Universalism of the church and of progressive whites, is incompatible with aristocratic egalitarianism.

    And liberty is *only* compatible with aristocratic egalitarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-19 13:34:00 UTC

  • ISN”T IT JUST OBVIOUS THAT DENYING ARMED GUARDS IN OUR SCHOOLS Is both a cheaper

    ISN”T IT JUST OBVIOUS THAT DENYING ARMED GUARDS IN OUR SCHOOLS

    Is both a cheaper and more effective solution to violence than any other?

    And that the movement against it is entirely emotional, not rational.

    And that this irrationality is driven by a desire to maintain the feminine illusion of power in the school system by denying the existence of male power?

    Isn’t this just another absurd side effect of feminism?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-19 13:29:00 UTC

  • INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN SOCIAL ORDER WE CALL

    INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN SOCIAL ORDER WE CALL WESTERN CIVILIZATION (rough sketch)

    PROBLEM

    Faced with numerical inferiority, but capable of producing sufficient calories, how does a group successfully compete? (Whether for advancement in consumption or preservation of consumption)

    ANSWER

    Excellence, Meritocracy. Coordination, Adaptation, Speed, Technology, Concentration Of Resources. .

    STRATEGY

    I. Create a competitive organization capable of continuous improvement and which will remain competitive over the long term.

    II. Provide a means of enfranchisement by demonstrated ability to cooperate with, and to compete on behalf of, the organization.

    III. Prevent the concentration of the power to alter the egalitarian order for personal gain.

    IV. Prevent the concentration of the power to define property rights and allocate property as a means of altering the egalitarian strategy.

    Note: Human biological predisposition to constrain alphas. And this predisposition varies between genders, racial groups and classes.

    Build and encourage alphas. Constrain alphas through enfranchisement and egalitarian prohibition of power.

    TACTICS

    1) Provide a means for discouraging conflict and encouraging cooperation by providing a means for the resolution of conflict.

    Note: Independent judges under the common law.

    2) Define property and a portfolio of property rights and obligations as a means of facilitating cooperation and preventing conflict.

    Note: A constitution, oral or written, that enumerates rights, obligations and processes. And which applies equally to all enfranchised.

    3) Provide a means of imposing a monopoly on the definition of those property rights, thereby creating a market.

    Note: a competition between systems of property rights must result in the theft of either personal property, common physical property, common formal institutional property, or that form of common informal property called norms.

    4) Provide a means of concentrating capital for the production of commons for the purpose of improving the competitiveness of the market.

    Note: Governance is the concentration of capital in support of expanding the market, not lawmaking.

    5) Provide a means for preventing the privatization of the commons either directly or indirectly.

    Note: Prevent cheating, indirect involuntary transfer. Use Contractualism instead of legalism. Use contracts not laws.

    6) Provide for a means of distributing dividends to shareholders as a means of preventing involuntary transfer of shareholder value.

    Note: prevent cheating and encourage both membership and conformity by limiting dividends to the enfranchised only.

    Note: Property rights are earned by respecting them.

    =========

    Needs a lot of work. Good first sketch.

    One very interesting insight.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-18 19:20:00 UTC

  • THE ILLUSION OF PRODUCTION One psychological trick of moral deception that left

    THE ILLUSION OF PRODUCTION

    One psychological trick of moral deception that left leaning economists rely upon is the implication that the term “production” is merely a process of execution.

    This process of execution is contrasted with the process of “research and development”, with the implication that there is no risk to production and high risk in research and development.

    Furthermore, that the economy consist entirely of processes of production, and that research and development is largely unnecessary and a luxury of those few who find their entertainment in it.

    As such, a process of production is a form of exploitation of labor, and the process of research and development is an unnecessary device for the purpose of signaling status.

    But this is all an illusion. An error at best, and a deception at worst.

    All production in a competitive market at all times under all circumstances is an act of “research and development” at high risk.

    Two private sector factors reduce that risk: superior knowledge of consumer wants, and superior knowledge of how to service them, more cheaply than someone else.

    Two factors further reduce that risk: grant of privilege by the state that conveys a limited monopoly. And access to credit markets at lower rates.

    The human bias in favor of the illusion of competence pervades the left and is its source of confidence. This bias is further reinforced by the false consensus bias, which confirms their illusion of competence.

    Their participation in a discipline in which they hold the unique academic privilege of not being held accountable for their errors further reinforces both the false consensus and illusion if competence biases.

    All economic action is risk taking.

    The state grants privileges in the form of limited monopoly powers to certain industries in order to increase employment and taxes. It creates expansive credit to empower both industry and consumer to take risks.

    If production were execution rather than risk taking, then credit and privilege would not be necessary.

    But production is an illusion. The market consists entirely of research and development.

    And the absurdly high turnover in organizations is but one proof of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-18 15:27:00 UTC

  • THE FOURTH POLITICAL THEORY BY ALEXANDER DUGIN : Not much there. You know, some

    THE FOURTH POLITICAL THEORY BY ALEXANDER DUGIN : Not much there.

    You know, some day practitioners of the next evolutionary step in philosophy will look at we Post Analytic philosophers the way that we look at Analytic and Continental philosophers today: as well- meaning, and advocating good ideas, but doing so inarticulately because of some content or assumption pervasive in our arguments.

    Dugin’s book tries to express aspirational ideas but he does so with quaint continental language. The problematic content of this language is at least the following:

    1) lack of knowledge of formal institutions and how to use them to establish norms using incentives rather than advocacy. Habits and imitation rather than conscious and rational adoption of any behavior.

    2) Lack of knowledge about economics and the economic impact of certain norms on the economy, and therefore the feedback loop into any ideology and it’s desired norms by the economic outcome produced by norms.

    3) the circularity of any argument that relies upon emotional reactions that are based upon learned values. Versus the dependent arguments that rely upon demonstrated instincts independent of learned systems of values.

    4) the structure of political ideology as religious yet open to voluntary adoption via linguistic argument rather than involuntary institutional incentives.

    The “ten planks” were far more effective than all Marxist rhetoric ever was. And any hope of altering actions must place a cost on an adherent. Certainly consumer capitalism is difficult to choose not to adopt. It’s incentives are constant enough to override our social instincts.

    So while I agree with Daugin and Benoist, that we need a fourth political theory, I suspect it will have to result from scientific arguments, recommended institutions and policy for those institutions to execute. It will certainly require a narrative. But it will not be a narrative constructed of continental and therefore circular, and religious language.

    I’m sure our friends David Gordon or Rod Long could levy superior and more precise criticism. But I can’t. I don’t find it rewarding or useful to master the counter arguments to phlogiston theory.

    This isn’t to say that there arent good ideas in the book. There are. And after the first chapter or two it improves. And for continental writing it’s well written.

    It just not actionableoir desirable.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-18 15:24:00 UTC

  • SAN FRANCISCO HAS RENTED ITS FOG TO SEATTLE FOR THE DAY. Seriously. Zero Visibil

    SAN FRANCISCO HAS RENTED ITS FOG TO SEATTLE FOR THE DAY.

    Seriously. Zero Visibility.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-18 03:43:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN TERMINOLOGY: STATE AND GOVERNMENT ARE NOT SYNONYMS THE PROBLEM IS NO

    LIBERTARIAN TERMINOLOGY: STATE AND GOVERNMENT ARE NOT SYNONYMS

    THE PROBLEM IS NOT GOVERNMENT: THE PROBLEM IS THE STATE.

    One of the problems we face in the libertarian movement is the confusion between the terms “state” and “government”. A government can consist of a constitution enumerating property rights, a private judiciary, and a volunteer militia. This government need not assist in the concentration of capital into infrastructure. It needs only to define a monopoly of property rights, and to provide the means by which to evolve that definition via the evolution of the common law along with the means of evading property rights that evolve along with the market .

    When we use the term “state”, we refer to a bureaucracy that holds a monopoly on the use of violence and which holds a means by which to arbitrarily redefine property rights, and to confiscate and make use of property.

    Our alternatives to the state rely on a formally articulated property rights and obligations, private judiciaries, competing insurance companies that provide all of the services we attribute to the monopoly that is the state, and private institutions (like stock markets) that concentrate capital for the purpose of creating infrastructure.

    Libertarianism does not suggest solutions for creating a social order – the ability to cooperate at scale – that are without “government”. Even the anarchic program relies upon articulated private property rights – a government of norms, meaning informal but not formal institutions.

    Instead, Libertarians argue against the “state” because it is a fictitious representation of a collective will that is better able to provide for wants than is the market. When in fact, the state is a vehicle by which a class of individuals profits by stealing from some constituencies to give to others.

    We argue that the products of modernity exist because of the market, and that this prosperity exists in spite of statist governments who plunder us, not because of such statist governments.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-16 20:15:00 UTC

  • HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS It’s not something with empirical support, just an obs

    HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS

    It’s not something with empirical support, just an observation that’s proven consistent over a lifetime: most unhappiness is the result of wishing someone else would act in a way that you wish they would, our by you acting differently from how someone else wishes you would.

    Very few of us manage to realize the obvious fact that the world is absolutely overflowing with human beings. And you’re better off looking around for those people who you don’t want to act differently, and who don’t want you to act differently than you ever will be trying to change others or, sometimes, changing yourself.

    It’s a demonstration of intelligence to make the choice to seek out others. It’s a demonstration of wisdom to know whether or not to change yourself. But only a fool tries to change others to suit one’s preferences. And thats mostly why the world is full of unhappy fools.

    Unfortunately, family and familiar relations are cheap entertainment and security, many and people prefer to buy consistently unpleasant familial and familiar entertainment at low cost rather than invest in new relations us care far less about changing our familial relations, and far more about tolerating them. This isn’t so much just foolishness, but laziness or the poverty of the malcontented mind.

    But the ability to joyfully tolerate unhappy family members who you wish would act differently, or who wish you would act differently, is a product of the number and quality of relationships who wish neither. So emotional wealth which we call happiness is the result of finding and cultivating those relationships.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-16 16:23:00 UTC