Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 9

    One of the first insights that struck me when I came across your work was your insight about the 3 different instinctive group strategies, where individuals tend to fall into one of the 3, what you call the tripartite division of cognitive labor – in other words, there are 3 types of people politically, 3 groups with different political instincts, and each of these 3 groups has a different time horizon that they place priority on. (Female-Left-short time horizon-consume, Young Male – Libertarian – medium time horizon – produce, Mature Male – long time horizon – conserve civilizational assets.) Can you talk to us about that?

    Well there are three means of coercion. (Female-left-Gossip, Young Male – libertarian – Incentives, Mature Male – conservative – Force) We have elites that specialize in one or more of them We have institutions led by elites that specialize in one or more of them We demonstrate by voting that we ourselves favor one of those strategies, means of coercion, and elites over the other – although except for liberals, we tend to be Neapolitan ice cream – meaning a little of all three, just prioritizing them differently. If you look at moral biases you see that we favor pretty much expected clustering in a priority stack of those differences. If you look at personality traits, say using the big five or six or seven model if you include intelligence – then you find that despite having this number of traits, (a) each trait can be subdivided and when we do that we see gender differences in each of those traits. (b) that sets of traits cluster around three personality types, and that those types are the same clustering as moral biases, and three coercive strategies. And it’s quite obvious that those three strategies are the reproductive strategies of females (socialism), ascendent males(libertarianism), and established males(conservatism). And so you have clustering of short term female consumption, medium term ascendant male returns, and long term conservative male preservation, and we literally perceive and value events according to these genetic biases that evolved out of necessity. And so instead of pushing the very false narrative of equality I push compatibilism where we are, just like other species with specialized body types, dividing the time frame of cognition as well as the reproductive and productive labors. And how do you solve differences in perception, value, labor and advocacy? Through trade. In other words, voluntary exchange is the way we calculate just like a computer, just like evolution does, the cumulative knowledge of our people into a set of demands that produce a nash equilibrium under which nothing is optimum for anyone but optimum for everyone. While at the same time we produce a pareto distribution or a power distribution of utility to one another, meaning that people at tthe top are tremendously influential and at the bottom not, but that everyone benefits. So while we all have divergent optimum via-positiva demands, we have the same via-negativa demands: reciprocity within the limits of proportionality – and proportionality is important because it is the limit beyond which reciprocity is still insufficient to reaming cooperating in the same polity. And it is this condition that has put us in our current state: we are sufficiently irreciprocal and disproportional and as such we are no longer suitable for coexistence in the same polity. It is in there interests of the top and the bottom to have their own polity which is the standard of all of history, while it is in the interests of whites, who CAN produce a middle class high trust high commons polity to separate and produce what we desire. Now I want to clarify that I’m not a christian or libertarian pacifist. And neither are my brothers on the right. And that while we offer peaceful coexistence throughs separation, any resistance to that peaceful coexistence through separation means that we have moral license to return to our historical business of domesticating the animal man for fun and profit, and that if we wish to do so nothing can stop us. So I’m offering a solution that is possible, but it doesn’t mean it’s preferable. One to three percent of us will easily drag western civilization into a condition where the unfit cannot survive, our enemies seize world power, and we rebuild as we want from the ashes after the bloodiest civil war in human history. So I’m saying ‘this constitution and this change – or else’ I’m not begging. I’m offering a peaceful settlement of a war that is already in process, a war created on purpose by the left, and one engineered to repeat the jewish christian and muslim destruction of the ancient world.

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 9

    One of the first insights that struck me when I came across your work was your insight about the 3 different instinctive group strategies, where individuals tend to fall into one of the 3, what you call the tripartite division of cognitive labor – in other words, there are 3 types of people politically, 3 groups with different political instincts, and each of these 3 groups has a different time horizon that they place priority on. (Female-Left-short time horizon-consume, Young Male – Libertarian – medium time horizon – produce, Mature Male – long time horizon – conserve civilizational assets.) Can you talk to us about that?

    Well there are three means of coercion. (Female-left-Gossip, Young Male – libertarian – Incentives, Mature Male – conservative – Force) We have elites that specialize in one or more of them We have institutions led by elites that specialize in one or more of them We demonstrate by voting that we ourselves favor one of those strategies, means of coercion, and elites over the other – although except for liberals, we tend to be Neapolitan ice cream – meaning a little of all three, just prioritizing them differently. If you look at moral biases you see that we favor pretty much expected clustering in a priority stack of those differences. If you look at personality traits, say using the big five or six or seven model if you include intelligence – then you find that despite having this number of traits, (a) each trait can be subdivided and when we do that we see gender differences in each of those traits. (b) that sets of traits cluster around three personality types, and that those types are the same clustering as moral biases, and three coercive strategies. And it’s quite obvious that those three strategies are the reproductive strategies of females (socialism), ascendent males(libertarianism), and established males(conservatism). And so you have clustering of short term female consumption, medium term ascendant male returns, and long term conservative male preservation, and we literally perceive and value events according to these genetic biases that evolved out of necessity. And so instead of pushing the very false narrative of equality I push compatibilism where we are, just like other species with specialized body types, dividing the time frame of cognition as well as the reproductive and productive labors. And how do you solve differences in perception, value, labor and advocacy? Through trade. In other words, voluntary exchange is the way we calculate just like a computer, just like evolution does, the cumulative knowledge of our people into a set of demands that produce a nash equilibrium under which nothing is optimum for anyone but optimum for everyone. While at the same time we produce a pareto distribution or a power distribution of utility to one another, meaning that people at tthe top are tremendously influential and at the bottom not, but that everyone benefits. So while we all have divergent optimum via-positiva demands, we have the same via-negativa demands: reciprocity within the limits of proportionality – and proportionality is important because it is the limit beyond which reciprocity is still insufficient to reaming cooperating in the same polity. And it is this condition that has put us in our current state: we are sufficiently irreciprocal and disproportional and as such we are no longer suitable for coexistence in the same polity. It is in there interests of the top and the bottom to have their own polity which is the standard of all of history, while it is in the interests of whites, who CAN produce a middle class high trust high commons polity to separate and produce what we desire. Now I want to clarify that I’m not a christian or libertarian pacifist. And neither are my brothers on the right. And that while we offer peaceful coexistence throughs separation, any resistance to that peaceful coexistence through separation means that we have moral license to return to our historical business of domesticating the animal man for fun and profit, and that if we wish to do so nothing can stop us. So I’m offering a solution that is possible, but it doesn’t mean it’s preferable. One to three percent of us will easily drag western civilization into a condition where the unfit cannot survive, our enemies seize world power, and we rebuild as we want from the ashes after the bloodiest civil war in human history. So I’m saying ‘this constitution and this change – or else’ I’m not begging. I’m offering a peaceful settlement of a war that is already in process, a war created on purpose by the left, and one engineered to repeat the jewish christian and muslim destruction of the ancient world.

  • Notes on John Mark Interview – Part 8

    Now that we have a much better picture in our head of what a better system could look like, tell us about the constitution you’re writing – how does it build on the original constitution, what does it add or clarify, make more thorough – tell us about it.

    Let’s do a little course correction here. I’m overemphasizing government so far. The law creates the market for via negativa suppressions of parasitism and in doing so forces us into productive voluntary cooperation. Government is just a system of organization and rules that divide the labor of commons production within that market for the suppression of parasitism and production of cooperation. The people have been fooled by the attempt to justify democracy that it’s the government that produces goods. It’s not. And the evidence of governments around the world is that the method of government is immaterial, but the independence, and dependence of the courts to rule according to reciprocity determines whether any kind of government prevails. This is another example of the conceptual change in the 20th and 21st century from justification and via positiva to the importance of falsification and via negativa. So the government really doesn’t matter one tenth as much as the law. The optimum government is a benevolent monarchy – that’s without question. The problem is whether the military, the sheriffs, and the militia will uphold the law and the findings of the court according to law that makes prosperity and non-corruption possible. Participatory government in other than via negativa form as was the original british parliamentary model, the germanic model, and the western indo european model, is simply disastrous. It’s only use in history has been to seize power as the aristocracy makes possible rule by the middle class. But rather than thinking in terms of monopoly power, we should think in terms of adding middle class commons production to aristocratic rule production. And then adding church insurance and governance of the family once that group is sufficiently organized under the law. The problem we face in the west is that our church is incompatible with our rule even though it is compatible with our ethics. The reason I have to write a constitution is to reform the law to defend our people against future repeats of current crimes against them both in government and out. So I am not writing a new constitution, but a set of amendments to the constitution that replace existing articles and amendments on a one by one basis. The constitution is an attempt at natural law in the western indo european, aristotelian, germanic, and the british, and american tradition. I’m just hardening it, and suggesting how we might restore its original intent as a collection of european states seeking mutual military insurance, monetary exchange, and dispute resolution,while pursuing our individual and divergent interests. The policy recommendations could be implemented in our current constitution. But they would not be durable. And they would only solve some of the problems. The fundamental problem is the law does not serve as a market for the suppression of parasitism – trespass in all its forms – but as an instrument of arbitrary rule. Our government is not such a bad thing – it’s the vulnerability of our government to judicial activism instead of following the constitutional process. The industrialization of lying by innumeracy, sophism, pseudoscience, and denial using mass media, education system, and our vulnerability, particularly in finance and education, and the systematic destruction of family, incentives, knowledge, reason, tradition of truth, commons, and empiricism, that’s the problem. In other words it’s not the government so much as the second conquest of our civilization by lying and the destruction of our middle and working classes by design. So I don’t want to convince anyone that government is that important. Government just produces a via-positiva market for commons. I want people to understand it’s the market for via-negativa suppression of parasitism that’s our problem and what makes good government possible. And That we need to modernize that system of via-negativa suppression of reciprocity, falsehood, and deceit that is our central weakness. It’s the law that produces a via negativa market against parasitism and predation that is the underlying problem, and our government has been slowly usurped for the purpose of empire building and ideological conquest at the expense of our people. By weakening its ability to spread falsehood and ir-reciprocity and restoring the market for prosecution of offenders that we call the courts. And I think that this is the great failure of the 20th century thinkers, and the success of the jewish and cosmopolitan, french illiberal, and anglo liberal new england movements that succeeded in creating a new era of ignorance and deceit. And our conservatives failed because they lacked a means of articulating their ideas. Well, we don’t lack it any longer, and science has demonstrated particularly in response to the left, that conservative vision of man is correct: we are animals like any other and we domesticated ourselves partly, and animals partly and the job is undone, because many of us are still insufficiently domesticated. So just as we discovered the scientific method is falsificationary only, that the logics are falsificationary only, that the law is falsificationary only, and that we can only know what is false and irreciprocal. And we must rely on markets to determine the good. Anything that is not false or irreciprocal is good. We can never know the non-trivial true. We can only know we speak truthfully and reciprocally by eliminating every opportunity for falsehood and ir-reciprocity. If we wish some condition that requires cooperation even if there are irreciprocal and disproportionate elements, but reciprocal and proportional aggregate outcomes, wecan produce contracts to do that. So any system of government is possible as long as it’s truthful, accountable, and variation is subject to the market for suppression of falsehood and ir-reciprocity that we call the court and the law. Changes to the constitution preserve the government as a going concern and do less disruption international strategy and economy. If our debt position was worse (it’s not) then there would be value in replacing the government instead of altering the constitution. So the changes to the constitution that I”m writing includes preambles that declare properties of man and mankind, the law of reciprocity, and the construction of the law, and how to construct the law in algorithmic terms in operational language and some other criteria I won’t go into here, but formalizes what is currently called ‘principles’ in law school and theories of jurisprudence. This is an increase in precision in the law that eliminates sophisms and pseudoscience and deceit from the law. These two sections Man, and The Law, are the principal innovations that I’m bringing to the constitution, and all constitutional sections, articles and amendments, all legislation, regulation, and executive order, and findings of the court, must be stated in and justified by, adherence to these forms and criteria. Legislation and regulation must pass assent by the constitutional court, but only after it has passed assent by the houses of government. This does not mean threat the government nor the court cannot err. It just means that we do not have to wait for the market to establish the reciprocity or falsehood of legislation, regulation, and order, before a finding of law is rendered. It means that the court can veto an act of legislation, regulation, or order before it enters the market, but that the court cannot be involved in the negotiation itself. And that the court might still find that the THEORY (all such issues are theoretical until tested in the market), proposed in the legislation, regulation, or order does not in fact produce the ends, or produces irreciprocal and false ends once implemented. All signatories to such acts are also liable for the outcomes, and bound to revisit them if they are found wanting by the court. In other words, any acts you pass haunt or herald you for life. You are never free of responsibility for your political Acts. This gets technical so I don’t want to bury the audience in administrivia.

    • The Demographic issue is solved by the organization of the polities and the devolution of the government to a larger number of new states.
    • I escalate this to repatriation of all who came here illegally.
    • I escalate this to revocation of all citizenship and rights back to the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965.
    • I escalate this to forcible repatriation of everyone back to hart stellar act, or taxation of 30%
    • I escalate this to forcible repatriation of all non-whites and non-slave immigrants. And taxation of additional 50%.

    I also include but have not published restitution for the crimes of the hart cellar act that grant restitution to people here before that act. This is probably the most interesting topic but I want to save it for later in the revolutionary cycle. This would effectively restore ethnocentric rule despite polyethnic polity, and turn the USA back into a european colony. So the point here is to present a mutually beneficial solution that degrades to more favorable to the right as resistance is met.

  • Notes on John Mark Interview – Part 8

    Now that we have a much better picture in our head of what a better system could look like, tell us about the constitution you’re writing – how does it build on the original constitution, what does it add or clarify, make more thorough – tell us about it.

    Let’s do a little course correction here. I’m overemphasizing government so far. The law creates the market for via negativa suppressions of parasitism and in doing so forces us into productive voluntary cooperation. Government is just a system of organization and rules that divide the labor of commons production within that market for the suppression of parasitism and production of cooperation. The people have been fooled by the attempt to justify democracy that it’s the government that produces goods. It’s not. And the evidence of governments around the world is that the method of government is immaterial, but the independence, and dependence of the courts to rule according to reciprocity determines whether any kind of government prevails. This is another example of the conceptual change in the 20th and 21st century from justification and via positiva to the importance of falsification and via negativa. So the government really doesn’t matter one tenth as much as the law. The optimum government is a benevolent monarchy – that’s without question. The problem is whether the military, the sheriffs, and the militia will uphold the law and the findings of the court according to law that makes prosperity and non-corruption possible. Participatory government in other than via negativa form as was the original british parliamentary model, the germanic model, and the western indo european model, is simply disastrous. It’s only use in history has been to seize power as the aristocracy makes possible rule by the middle class. But rather than thinking in terms of monopoly power, we should think in terms of adding middle class commons production to aristocratic rule production. And then adding church insurance and governance of the family once that group is sufficiently organized under the law. The problem we face in the west is that our church is incompatible with our rule even though it is compatible with our ethics. The reason I have to write a constitution is to reform the law to defend our people against future repeats of current crimes against them both in government and out. So I am not writing a new constitution, but a set of amendments to the constitution that replace existing articles and amendments on a one by one basis. The constitution is an attempt at natural law in the western indo european, aristotelian, germanic, and the british, and american tradition. I’m just hardening it, and suggesting how we might restore its original intent as a collection of european states seeking mutual military insurance, monetary exchange, and dispute resolution,while pursuing our individual and divergent interests. The policy recommendations could be implemented in our current constitution. But they would not be durable. And they would only solve some of the problems. The fundamental problem is the law does not serve as a market for the suppression of parasitism – trespass in all its forms – but as an instrument of arbitrary rule. Our government is not such a bad thing – it’s the vulnerability of our government to judicial activism instead of following the constitutional process. The industrialization of lying by innumeracy, sophism, pseudoscience, and denial using mass media, education system, and our vulnerability, particularly in finance and education, and the systematic destruction of family, incentives, knowledge, reason, tradition of truth, commons, and empiricism, that’s the problem. In other words it’s not the government so much as the second conquest of our civilization by lying and the destruction of our middle and working classes by design. So I don’t want to convince anyone that government is that important. Government just produces a via-positiva market for commons. I want people to understand it’s the market for via-negativa suppression of parasitism that’s our problem and what makes good government possible. And That we need to modernize that system of via-negativa suppression of reciprocity, falsehood, and deceit that is our central weakness. It’s the law that produces a via negativa market against parasitism and predation that is the underlying problem, and our government has been slowly usurped for the purpose of empire building and ideological conquest at the expense of our people. By weakening its ability to spread falsehood and ir-reciprocity and restoring the market for prosecution of offenders that we call the courts. And I think that this is the great failure of the 20th century thinkers, and the success of the jewish and cosmopolitan, french illiberal, and anglo liberal new england movements that succeeded in creating a new era of ignorance and deceit. And our conservatives failed because they lacked a means of articulating their ideas. Well, we don’t lack it any longer, and science has demonstrated particularly in response to the left, that conservative vision of man is correct: we are animals like any other and we domesticated ourselves partly, and animals partly and the job is undone, because many of us are still insufficiently domesticated. So just as we discovered the scientific method is falsificationary only, that the logics are falsificationary only, that the law is falsificationary only, and that we can only know what is false and irreciprocal. And we must rely on markets to determine the good. Anything that is not false or irreciprocal is good. We can never know the non-trivial true. We can only know we speak truthfully and reciprocally by eliminating every opportunity for falsehood and ir-reciprocity. If we wish some condition that requires cooperation even if there are irreciprocal and disproportionate elements, but reciprocal and proportional aggregate outcomes, wecan produce contracts to do that. So any system of government is possible as long as it’s truthful, accountable, and variation is subject to the market for suppression of falsehood and ir-reciprocity that we call the court and the law. Changes to the constitution preserve the government as a going concern and do less disruption international strategy and economy. If our debt position was worse (it’s not) then there would be value in replacing the government instead of altering the constitution. So the changes to the constitution that I”m writing includes preambles that declare properties of man and mankind, the law of reciprocity, and the construction of the law, and how to construct the law in algorithmic terms in operational language and some other criteria I won’t go into here, but formalizes what is currently called ‘principles’ in law school and theories of jurisprudence. This is an increase in precision in the law that eliminates sophisms and pseudoscience and deceit from the law. These two sections Man, and The Law, are the principal innovations that I’m bringing to the constitution, and all constitutional sections, articles and amendments, all legislation, regulation, and executive order, and findings of the court, must be stated in and justified by, adherence to these forms and criteria. Legislation and regulation must pass assent by the constitutional court, but only after it has passed assent by the houses of government. This does not mean threat the government nor the court cannot err. It just means that we do not have to wait for the market to establish the reciprocity or falsehood of legislation, regulation, and order, before a finding of law is rendered. It means that the court can veto an act of legislation, regulation, or order before it enters the market, but that the court cannot be involved in the negotiation itself. And that the court might still find that the THEORY (all such issues are theoretical until tested in the market), proposed in the legislation, regulation, or order does not in fact produce the ends, or produces irreciprocal and false ends once implemented. All signatories to such acts are also liable for the outcomes, and bound to revisit them if they are found wanting by the court. In other words, any acts you pass haunt or herald you for life. You are never free of responsibility for your political Acts. This gets technical so I don’t want to bury the audience in administrivia.

    • The Demographic issue is solved by the organization of the polities and the devolution of the government to a larger number of new states.
    • I escalate this to repatriation of all who came here illegally.
    • I escalate this to revocation of all citizenship and rights back to the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965.
    • I escalate this to forcible repatriation of everyone back to hart stellar act, or taxation of 30%
    • I escalate this to forcible repatriation of all non-whites and non-slave immigrants. And taxation of additional 50%.

    I also include but have not published restitution for the crimes of the hart cellar act that grant restitution to people here before that act. This is probably the most interesting topic but I want to save it for later in the revolutionary cycle. This would effectively restore ethnocentric rule despite polyethnic polity, and turn the USA back into a european colony. So the point here is to present a mutually beneficial solution that degrades to more favorable to the right as resistance is met.

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 7

    So is it accurate to say that full-franchise democracy is a disaster, we need to limit who gets to vote, and at the same time people can have representation, but those representatives need to be negotiating with each other within the bounds of reciprocity, not violating reciprocity? Anything you would change or add to that statement?

    The only thing I would add is that it’s not clear at all that our experiment in expanding the franchise has been valuable at all. It’s pretty clear from the historical record that monarchies did a better job of governance at far lower costs, and thats partly by denying people access to political power used to circumvent the market, and instead, forcing them to obtain status in the commercial and aesthetic market. The fact that the middle class had to struggle to modify government as economics returns changed from land to industry and from aristocracy to burgher was simple a rational failure of the people of the time to understand the macro level of the transformation. All that was necessary was adding another house to the government. And this is the general trend we should have followed. More ‘houses’ rather than parties. Access to political power in the via-negativa provides defense against a state with policies coherent or not. Access to political power via positiva eliminates the suppression of the use of government for non-market functions, and creates a war of all against all. The mistake in history is that inclusive government should consist of via positiva rather than via-negativa (veto) or juridical (Assent or Veto) rather than the construction of policy. The problem is via positiva franchise must and dose create opportunity for corruption and deceit which is what we have seen throughout the democratic era. The ability for nations to compete by the use of the state to produce commons of internationally competitive value. Direct production of commons by the people by economic vote does put tremendous pressure on institutions that provide public services, just as privatization of public services provides incentive. What we have seen however is that privatization of public services – namely prisons and transportation, do not work as anticipated, since the state is as bad a customer of services as it is a vendor of services. However, we can change the market such that the people economically vote for institutions that are not institutions within the domain of insurer of last resort, but preferential or those that provide customer services. Intellectual work prior to the majority democratic era is not pseudoscientific of sophist, while intellectual work after the majority democratic era is far superior, because the market for deceits in politics doesn’t exist. Worse we have lost the ability to use the market for suppression of parasitism against out politicians, judges, and enforcement personnel. While at the same time making a policeman’s job almost impossible. The more obvious solutions depend on the caliber of the population and The classes. It’s not even clear we need a single market economy. There is no reason we don’t have a socialistic economy for the working and laboring classes, a market economy for the middle and upper classes, a venture economy funded by the state for the research classes, and a gratitude economy funded by say a monarchy for the artistic classes. We hae element of these already but they are all half truths. The problem is one of conducting trades, and doing so by a full accounting of costs and returns. If people knew the returns on investment in military technology for example, they would have no problem funding it. They don’t tho. Most states retain the wealth of their innovations. We give it away to entrepreneurs. There is no reason we do that. We can just retain some small interest in the profits of entrepreneurial ventures, as returns on our research and development gambles – it’s all gambling. So the general rule of political orders is that the franchise increases in either: – via positiva choice of commons by equalitarian vote, where majoritarian rules of some percentage pass (monopoly model) – via-positiva egalitarian vote of economic contribution, where any funded proposal will pass (market model) – via-negativa veto or assent of any given proposal by the state. And via positiva dissolution of the state (meaning the board of directors, or in the case of the state the cabinet). I have also suggested that we could return to antiquity and create a juridical via negativa government, and a commons producing via positiva government, and a via positiva social insurance government and let the market the commons and the insurance compete for people’s resources. This would come closest to restoring the judiciary and the market, the state and the military, and the church and the masses. Anything at all to restore the markets and eliminate the monopolies. But all of these permutations are contingent upon the suppression of falsehood and ir-reciprocity in public speech. And of course the only limiting factor we have is christians – which is our only material problem as an ethnicity. The christians will not tolerate constraint on public speech to the public (even though they are so constrained today) even in exchange for a monopoly on religion, and return to political control of family, education and welfare. Which was my hope. But the christians apparently want to fail along with the catholic church by not separating the spiritual from the material in public speech. For the united states I’ve proposed one in which in limited form restores the british empire, which is the optimum choice for western civilization, devolves the federal government to functions of insurer of last resort – eliminating it from social policy, re-organizes the states by converting all cities over 300k people to city states, leaving the choice of state formation to the counties, since counties already have governments,,and the voluntary choice of the districts on a district by district level, to join existing counties or form new ones. This process guts both the federal via-positiva bureaucracy, and the state via-positiva bureaucracy. The result of which is converting the USA to old europe, and probably successfully ending the attempt of europe to convert into a strong central government like the USA. My hope is that between the monarchies of europe and the size of the us-british military, and the british, american, canadian, australian, and new zealand collective bargaining on military and trade matters, that we would reverse the great crime of the 20th century which was the fall of the british empire for failing to grasp that the ascent of germany into continental dominance was a defense against the east, and south. This would give english speaking europe greater power than even the chinese, maintain american interest in bearing the cost of blue water navies, and leave western europe exposed as a weak peninsula, forcing either the horrid french or the virtuous germans to reinvest in security. I do not see much value in via positiva politics under this model, (nor did the british monarchy). But there is value in via-negativa politics, requiring approval. A monarchy can easily pull talent from around the world to work for it. This would perform military and trade at the highest level, insurance betlow that, preserve local custom (‘liberty’), and give precedent to local custom over regional and national except where in conflict with truth and reciprocity. In other words, as long as it’s true and reciprocal anyone can do it, and that just means all local policy is constructed as a contract of exchanges rather than issued commands. Assuming that taxes are paid to local, state (National), and federal(imperial) levels, then we have restored the marketplace of political systems in which we compete for people we want to live with and work with. This would restore our ancestral strategy of the church as a weak judiciary over a large set of small homogenous nation states, but this time with a military capable of power projection across the empire and insurer of last resort services to vast numbers of people. Meanwhile individual states producing those commons most suitable to their populations and their cultures and their traditions producing identities we all crave, in small enough populations that none of us is too far distant from power (power distance and status are related). There is no model superior to the swiss so to speak. Every other alternative is some variation of this strategy with less ambitious objectives.

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 7

    So is it accurate to say that full-franchise democracy is a disaster, we need to limit who gets to vote, and at the same time people can have representation, but those representatives need to be negotiating with each other within the bounds of reciprocity, not violating reciprocity? Anything you would change or add to that statement?

    The only thing I would add is that it’s not clear at all that our experiment in expanding the franchise has been valuable at all. It’s pretty clear from the historical record that monarchies did a better job of governance at far lower costs, and thats partly by denying people access to political power used to circumvent the market, and instead, forcing them to obtain status in the commercial and aesthetic market. The fact that the middle class had to struggle to modify government as economics returns changed from land to industry and from aristocracy to burgher was simple a rational failure of the people of the time to understand the macro level of the transformation. All that was necessary was adding another house to the government. And this is the general trend we should have followed. More ‘houses’ rather than parties. Access to political power in the via-negativa provides defense against a state with policies coherent or not. Access to political power via positiva eliminates the suppression of the use of government for non-market functions, and creates a war of all against all. The mistake in history is that inclusive government should consist of via positiva rather than via-negativa (veto) or juridical (Assent or Veto) rather than the construction of policy. The problem is via positiva franchise must and dose create opportunity for corruption and deceit which is what we have seen throughout the democratic era. The ability for nations to compete by the use of the state to produce commons of internationally competitive value. Direct production of commons by the people by economic vote does put tremendous pressure on institutions that provide public services, just as privatization of public services provides incentive. What we have seen however is that privatization of public services – namely prisons and transportation, do not work as anticipated, since the state is as bad a customer of services as it is a vendor of services. However, we can change the market such that the people economically vote for institutions that are not institutions within the domain of insurer of last resort, but preferential or those that provide customer services. Intellectual work prior to the majority democratic era is not pseudoscientific of sophist, while intellectual work after the majority democratic era is far superior, because the market for deceits in politics doesn’t exist. Worse we have lost the ability to use the market for suppression of parasitism against out politicians, judges, and enforcement personnel. While at the same time making a policeman’s job almost impossible. The more obvious solutions depend on the caliber of the population and The classes. It’s not even clear we need a single market economy. There is no reason we don’t have a socialistic economy for the working and laboring classes, a market economy for the middle and upper classes, a venture economy funded by the state for the research classes, and a gratitude economy funded by say a monarchy for the artistic classes. We hae element of these already but they are all half truths. The problem is one of conducting trades, and doing so by a full accounting of costs and returns. If people knew the returns on investment in military technology for example, they would have no problem funding it. They don’t tho. Most states retain the wealth of their innovations. We give it away to entrepreneurs. There is no reason we do that. We can just retain some small interest in the profits of entrepreneurial ventures, as returns on our research and development gambles – it’s all gambling. So the general rule of political orders is that the franchise increases in either: – via positiva choice of commons by equalitarian vote, where majoritarian rules of some percentage pass (monopoly model) – via-positiva egalitarian vote of economic contribution, where any funded proposal will pass (market model) – via-negativa veto or assent of any given proposal by the state. And via positiva dissolution of the state (meaning the board of directors, or in the case of the state the cabinet). I have also suggested that we could return to antiquity and create a juridical via negativa government, and a commons producing via positiva government, and a via positiva social insurance government and let the market the commons and the insurance compete for people’s resources. This would come closest to restoring the judiciary and the market, the state and the military, and the church and the masses. Anything at all to restore the markets and eliminate the monopolies. But all of these permutations are contingent upon the suppression of falsehood and ir-reciprocity in public speech. And of course the only limiting factor we have is christians – which is our only material problem as an ethnicity. The christians will not tolerate constraint on public speech to the public (even though they are so constrained today) even in exchange for a monopoly on religion, and return to political control of family, education and welfare. Which was my hope. But the christians apparently want to fail along with the catholic church by not separating the spiritual from the material in public speech. For the united states I’ve proposed one in which in limited form restores the british empire, which is the optimum choice for western civilization, devolves the federal government to functions of insurer of last resort – eliminating it from social policy, re-organizes the states by converting all cities over 300k people to city states, leaving the choice of state formation to the counties, since counties already have governments,,and the voluntary choice of the districts on a district by district level, to join existing counties or form new ones. This process guts both the federal via-positiva bureaucracy, and the state via-positiva bureaucracy. The result of which is converting the USA to old europe, and probably successfully ending the attempt of europe to convert into a strong central government like the USA. My hope is that between the monarchies of europe and the size of the us-british military, and the british, american, canadian, australian, and new zealand collective bargaining on military and trade matters, that we would reverse the great crime of the 20th century which was the fall of the british empire for failing to grasp that the ascent of germany into continental dominance was a defense against the east, and south. This would give english speaking europe greater power than even the chinese, maintain american interest in bearing the cost of blue water navies, and leave western europe exposed as a weak peninsula, forcing either the horrid french or the virtuous germans to reinvest in security. I do not see much value in via positiva politics under this model, (nor did the british monarchy). But there is value in via-negativa politics, requiring approval. A monarchy can easily pull talent from around the world to work for it. This would perform military and trade at the highest level, insurance betlow that, preserve local custom (‘liberty’), and give precedent to local custom over regional and national except where in conflict with truth and reciprocity. In other words, as long as it’s true and reciprocal anyone can do it, and that just means all local policy is constructed as a contract of exchanges rather than issued commands. Assuming that taxes are paid to local, state (National), and federal(imperial) levels, then we have restored the marketplace of political systems in which we compete for people we want to live with and work with. This would restore our ancestral strategy of the church as a weak judiciary over a large set of small homogenous nation states, but this time with a military capable of power projection across the empire and insurer of last resort services to vast numbers of people. Meanwhile individual states producing those commons most suitable to their populations and their cultures and their traditions producing identities we all crave, in small enough populations that none of us is too far distant from power (power distance and status are related). There is no model superior to the swiss so to speak. Every other alternative is some variation of this strategy with less ambitious objectives.

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 6

    Now, gov’t can also have another function which is to have a system where different groups of people can negotiate on commons. (I may take a minute to explain the difference between via-negativa & via-positiva, & briefly define “commons”.) The key is to enable representatives of the people to negotiate on commons without violating reciprocity. The problem is our representatives are currently able to make laws that violate reciprocity (“lawmakers” – they shouldn’t be lawmakers, there is only one law, natural law of reciprocity), instead they should be negotiating on commons, without violating reciprocity. Can you give us an idea how this could look, paint a picture for us? Were there times in our history when we did this better than we do now that would give us a reference point?

    Something we’re missing here, is the difference between a perfect institutional model for a given population distribution at a given level of development, and a perfect institutional model for those who have been successful in the production of a middle class polity, where members of the polity own and act as they own the commons as well as the private. So there is an optimum government for europeans, but many other people lag because they cannot at least yet, produce a middle class polity in which every other person is a potential customer in one of the series of markets for cooperation. It’s this incentive not the belief in the good that creates a high trust polity. And it’s rule of law and it’s suppression of parasitism that drives people into those markets instead of markets for parasitism. And by and large it’s a military tradition that makes that law possible. Because military epistemology is empirical and does not tolerate falsehood. Humans do poorly at mixing epistemologies. This is somewhat of a benefit since military epistemology is a prophylactic against sophistry. The structure is the same but the distribution of the franchise (participation) can only expand as does membership in the market. Furthermore as the market expands, new people enter the market but some others exit it. For example, why do state employees have a vote? That said there is a conflict between desire for consumption that as it’s increasing produces status feedback, and increases in consumption and change that leave people behind or feeling left behind. So progress only works as long as consumption is increasing. And it’s not any longer because frankly there is very little left we desire to consume at this level of development. We’ve sort of saturated physical, emotional, and intellectual demand. All that’s left is signaling and security. We had perfect government…(describe british prewar system)

    • Methods of Decision Making
      1. Rule of Law Monarchy with cabinet, and assent and dissent of the public.
      2. Rule of Law Republic with Representatives
      3. Rule of Law with Jury selected from the people
      4. Rule of Law Auction
      5. Rule of Law Market
    • Whether decision is Assent, Dissent, or Contract
      1. If Assent or Contract
        1. Equal Vote vs
        2. Equal Economic Bid, vs
        3. Proportional Economic Bid.
      2. And:
        1. Monopoly (and sufficient to fund and reciprocal) or
        2. Proportionality (sufficient to fund and not irreciprocal.)
    • Houses organized by necessary differences in interests
      1. Gender
      2. Race
      3. Religion
      4. Economic Class
      5. Urban vs Suburban vs Rural (oppy cost differences)
      6. Territory

    This creates markets for producing trades between groups with different interests. In a perfect world we would have a government that was dynamic and adapted to periods of war and scarcity (authority), ordinary markets, and windfalls. A monarchy as a judge of last resort, meaning any decision can be vetoed. And some percentage of revenues under discretionary control of the monarchy so that arts and letters and character are open to exclusive funding. A federal government limited to function of insurer of last resort, meaning a purely via-negativa government managing military, law, treasury, and social security. Local governments competing to produce attractive commons Cities and territories governed separately because of their vast difference in costs and value of commons. Cities are gene sinks they’re terrible but people desire them.

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 6

    Now, gov’t can also have another function which is to have a system where different groups of people can negotiate on commons. (I may take a minute to explain the difference between via-negativa & via-positiva, & briefly define “commons”.) The key is to enable representatives of the people to negotiate on commons without violating reciprocity. The problem is our representatives are currently able to make laws that violate reciprocity (“lawmakers” – they shouldn’t be lawmakers, there is only one law, natural law of reciprocity), instead they should be negotiating on commons, without violating reciprocity. Can you give us an idea how this could look, paint a picture for us? Were there times in our history when we did this better than we do now that would give us a reference point?

    Something we’re missing here, is the difference between a perfect institutional model for a given population distribution at a given level of development, and a perfect institutional model for those who have been successful in the production of a middle class polity, where members of the polity own and act as they own the commons as well as the private. So there is an optimum government for europeans, but many other people lag because they cannot at least yet, produce a middle class polity in which every other person is a potential customer in one of the series of markets for cooperation. It’s this incentive not the belief in the good that creates a high trust polity. And it’s rule of law and it’s suppression of parasitism that drives people into those markets instead of markets for parasitism. And by and large it’s a military tradition that makes that law possible. Because military epistemology is empirical and does not tolerate falsehood. Humans do poorly at mixing epistemologies. This is somewhat of a benefit since military epistemology is a prophylactic against sophistry. The structure is the same but the distribution of the franchise (participation) can only expand as does membership in the market. Furthermore as the market expands, new people enter the market but some others exit it. For example, why do state employees have a vote? That said there is a conflict between desire for consumption that as it’s increasing produces status feedback, and increases in consumption and change that leave people behind or feeling left behind. So progress only works as long as consumption is increasing. And it’s not any longer because frankly there is very little left we desire to consume at this level of development. We’ve sort of saturated physical, emotional, and intellectual demand. All that’s left is signaling and security. We had perfect government…(describe british prewar system)

    • Methods of Decision Making
      1. Rule of Law Monarchy with cabinet, and assent and dissent of the public.
      2. Rule of Law Republic with Representatives
      3. Rule of Law with Jury selected from the people
      4. Rule of Law Auction
      5. Rule of Law Market
    • Whether decision is Assent, Dissent, or Contract
      1. If Assent or Contract
        1. Equal Vote vs
        2. Equal Economic Bid, vs
        3. Proportional Economic Bid.
      2. And:
        1. Monopoly (and sufficient to fund and reciprocal) or
        2. Proportionality (sufficient to fund and not irreciprocal.)
    • Houses organized by necessary differences in interests
      1. Gender
      2. Race
      3. Religion
      4. Economic Class
      5. Urban vs Suburban vs Rural (oppy cost differences)
      6. Territory

    This creates markets for producing trades between groups with different interests. In a perfect world we would have a government that was dynamic and adapted to periods of war and scarcity (authority), ordinary markets, and windfalls. A monarchy as a judge of last resort, meaning any decision can be vetoed. And some percentage of revenues under discretionary control of the monarchy so that arts and letters and character are open to exclusive funding. A federal government limited to function of insurer of last resort, meaning a purely via-negativa government managing military, law, treasury, and social security. Local governments competing to produce attractive commons Cities and territories governed separately because of their vast difference in costs and value of commons. Cities are gene sinks they’re terrible but people desire them.

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 5

    it’s more accurate to say better govt vs worse govt. (I came from a libertarian mindset where I said “smaller gov’t is always better”, but you helped me see that’s not always true.) E.g. a 3rd-world country doesn’t pay its judges much & thus they are very susceptible to bribes; paying judges well is expensive – technically it’s “bigger govt” – but it’s an investment that pays off. Another example – military; doesn’t have to be wasteful but needs to be strong, good investment.)

    I think you’re correct in that there is good government under rule of law, and bad government under discretionary rule, and that whether a government provides the commons the demographic demands is why we need different polities for different demands – and let the markets between states compensate for our differences. So good government is a measure of procedural and institutional excellence. What commons are produced by that government is a matter of markets to decide. IMO history is rather obvious. Dysgenics vs eugenics isn’t a complicated thing it’s just a very impolitic one in universal democracy. The principle reason for our false dichotomy is that we can’t openly have the truthful conversation that our debate is between consumption and dysgenia or conservation, rule of law, and eugenics. He who defeats the red queen wins. You can defeat the red queen under the western model, under the chinese model, or under the jewish model. You can survive and lose to her in the muslim, indian, catholic model.

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 5

    it’s more accurate to say better govt vs worse govt. (I came from a libertarian mindset where I said “smaller gov’t is always better”, but you helped me see that’s not always true.) E.g. a 3rd-world country doesn’t pay its judges much & thus they are very susceptible to bribes; paying judges well is expensive – technically it’s “bigger govt” – but it’s an investment that pays off. Another example – military; doesn’t have to be wasteful but needs to be strong, good investment.)

    I think you’re correct in that there is good government under rule of law, and bad government under discretionary rule, and that whether a government provides the commons the demographic demands is why we need different polities for different demands – and let the markets between states compensate for our differences. So good government is a measure of procedural and institutional excellence. What commons are produced by that government is a matter of markets to decide. IMO history is rather obvious. Dysgenics vs eugenics isn’t a complicated thing it’s just a very impolitic one in universal democracy. The principle reason for our false dichotomy is that we can’t openly have the truthful conversation that our debate is between consumption and dysgenia or conservation, rule of law, and eugenics. He who defeats the red queen wins. You can defeat the red queen under the western model, under the chinese model, or under the jewish model. You can survive and lose to her in the muslim, indian, catholic model.