Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Citizens vs Shareholders

    —“Service guarantees citizenship. – This is why I served in the US military even though I wasn’t compelled to.”—David M.

    [S]o, for use by our Corporations we have created various forms of stock: including Controlling, Various Preferred, Common, Non-Voting, and Options. These different shares roughly reflect the different value that we bring to companies. Controlling is for management and founders, preferred for professional investors (board members), common for uninformed lenders (‘pseudo-investors’ via the stock market), and non-voting (options in the event of a sale) and options (bonuses) for employees.

    When we use the term ‘citizenship’ today it carries with it the current assumption that citizenship is at best equal to a common, non-voting, or option form of stock. When democratic indo europeans use that term, they mean it as a member that the corporation of the aristocracy or church has agreed to insure. In the pre-democratic era, Citizen refers to the heads of households, families or businesses, that have demonstrated investment in the corporation. In the greek era, that was less than 10% of the population (what we would consider the oligarchy (<1%) the nobility (1%), and the upper middle class (<10%)

    I don’t really agree with Mencius’ approach, but if you told me instead, that we voted for ‘motions’, (internal contracts between shareholders), that any voting shareholder could put forward a motion, that such motions were perishable (had to collect votes in a specific period of time), that all voting was conducted publicly, entirely transparently, and recorded in the public block chain; that each share granted an individual one vote, and that all individuals were prohibited from possession of more than one share, and that a majority or supermajority of **each** class of shares had approve any vote, then I think that is a successful means of running some sort of juridical democracy under nomocratic rule (rule of law).

    This approach, direct voting. does not eliminate public intellectuals, and their propensity to overload, lie, obscure, frame and load,  but it does eliminate politicians (agents) who are subject to opaque influences. If the normative and intellectual commons is as I have stated, property that the corporation agrees to defend, and all shareholders possess standing in court in suits concerning the commons, and that we require truthful speech in all matters of the commons, because we require warranty of products, services, and public speech, then public intellectuals can be independently regulated.

    Rather than classify individuals ‘as’ something or other, we can issue (and possibly limit) shares (block chain / public-ledger accounts). Shares can be earned (purchased) through demonstrated actions, but not purchased by any material exchange, not transferred, and not awarded, granted, given, for any other reason). If one has earned a higher status share, he must trade in any existing share to redeem the new one.

    Repeat felons for example, are effectively wards of the corporation, as are children, not shareholders. I suspect that the class of wards would be fairly large, the class of non voting shares – non-contributing people – fairly large, voting -contributing- fairly large, preferred services shares (care-taking), preferred production(professional, business, and industry), and preferred aristocracy (military, militia, law) fairly large. The most interesting problem is the judiciary, because the law has managed to create a secular ‘priesthood’ (cult) over time due to the very high investment costs in rituals, and to self- manage that cult. Which I find fascinating. And as long as one can preserve that cult via military service, indoctrination, truth-telling, and propertarian calculation, then I think it only requires a small number of people, all of whom have extraordinary interests in it, to preserve liberty.

    I will cover this idea in greater depth as we go along.

  • Haidt on the Rationalist Delusion

    http://youtu.be/kI1wQswRVaU

    T    hat’s an indictment. My indictment is far harsher.  

  • Haidt on the Rationalist Delusion

    http://youtu.be/kI1wQswRVaU

    T    hat’s an indictment. My indictment is far harsher.  

  • How Do Different Countries And Governments Incorporate Meritocracy Into Their Political Systems?

    Assumes, that the mere accumulation of power itself is not meritocratic. Yet it is.  Assumes that the skill in accumulating power is not the primary skill required for the obtainment of power.  Power requires talent.  The question is, given that humans can accumulate power by different means, what is it that we wish to achieve with the power once  an individual possesses it, despite how he came into it.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-different-countries-and-governments-incorporate-meritocracy-into-their-political-systems

  • How Do Different Countries And Governments Incorporate Meritocracy Into Their Political Systems?

    Assumes, that the mere accumulation of power itself is not meritocratic. Yet it is.  Assumes that the skill in accumulating power is not the primary skill required for the obtainment of power.  Power requires talent.  The question is, given that humans can accumulate power by different means, what is it that we wish to achieve with the power once  an individual possesses it, despite how he came into it.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-different-countries-and-governments-incorporate-meritocracy-into-their-political-systems

  • Was Karl Popper Right To Blame Plato’s Concept Of The Philosopher King For The Rise Of Totalitarianism In The Twentieth Century?

    No.  Popper’s argument (like many of his disingenuous political arguments) was an attempt at deflection from Popper’s factions.   His contribution to science not withstanding.

    The reason for the rise of totalitarianism in the west was the moral legitimacy given to statism by the Marxists, Socialists, Keynesians and Postmodernists, and later the neo-Conservatives.

    However, the Marxists, and all Marxist derivatives I just listed — like Popper, exemplified by Popper’s own systemic use of platonic truth (analytic, unknowable truth) and platonic existence (three words theory) — were Cosmopolitan (Jewish) theorists.  Not Greek or Christian (Anglo, German, or French) theorists.  

    The Cosmopolitans, whether Marxist/Socialist/Postmodern/Feminist, or Libertine (Misesian/Rothbardian) or Neo-Conservative (Straussian), all sought — through false, elaborate philosophical justifications, all reliant upon loading, framing and overloading (elaborate suggestion),  and the argumentative technique of Critique, that was developed over the centuries for the purpose of scriptural interpretation — to create a world safe for Cosmopolitans by advocating for authoritarian universalism. 

    This technique was accomplished by uniting Kant’s rejection of anglo meritocratic empiricism in favor of rational (hierarchical) authoritarianism, then combining it with traditional Jewish religio-moral authoritarian arguments.

    Jewish thought is structured as a totalitarian system of indoctrination, under the threat of ostracization, using the concept of an angry god,  to create a religious, moral, and rhetorical school, identical in purpose to Plato’s proposition for legal, rational, and historical school reliant upon law for punishment. 

    But unlike western traditional aristocracy (or Plato’s version of it), the Jewish school of thought advocates dual ethics (moral inequality) whereas Plato and western aristocratic ethics advocate equality under the law, but merely argue for meritocracy because of differences in virtuous character and ability. 

    The evidence is clear, and we can trace the origins of authors in each of the cosmopolitan political movements, covering the all three axis of the political spectrum, through development, until they are later adopted by a minority of christian and western public intellectuals, and used by the academy to replace the church, using the cosmopolitan deceptions, to advocate for the state, rather than fulfill the church’s role as an opponent to the state.

    But in both the origin of the ideas, in the distribution of the ideas, and the disingenuous advocacy of the ideas using the new media available in the 20th century. the totalitarianism of the twentieth century was caused by Jewish Cosmopolitan authors, in not only the socialist (left) but also the conservative (neo conservative) and libertarian (libertine) political spectrum. 

    Conversely the rise of the desire for statism among western conservatives is a defensive reaction to the expansion of the of the state by the cosmopolitans. 

    Westerners rely upon testimonial truth, juries, science, reason, law, universalism, merit, and the blanace of powers as a prevention against the rise of authority.  These properties are the inverse of jewish cosmopolitan thought.

    During the enlightenment, when the franchise (democracy) was extended to all, each sub-group in europe attempted to justify its cultural strategy, cultural ethics, and cultural philosophy, as the dominant one for universal use. 

    The marxist/neocon fallacy won because it was possible to use the media, democracy, redistribution, advocacy for immorality, to overturn the balance of powers, overturn meritocracy, and justify the state as a vehicle for implementing immorality that has resulted in the destruction of the west, and the western family, and the western ethic.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Was-Karl-Popper-right-to-blame-Platos-concept-of-the-philosopher-king-for-the-rise-of-totalitarianism-in-the-twentieth-century

  • Why Do Nepalese Maoists Want Ethnicity-based Federalism In Nepal’s New Constitution? Will Ethnicity-based Politics Do Any Good To Nepal In The Long Run?

    ETHNO-NATIONALISM
    Ethnically homogenous polities, and particularly SMALL ethnically homogenous polities demonstrate higher tolerance for high taxation and high redistribution because of our biological preference for kin selection.

    People often advocate the scandinavian model, but these are very small countries where all individuals are near-relations, where cousin-marriage is prohibited, and where the absolute nuclear family is practiced along with individual property rights meaning children are responsible for themselves and their economic survival, and do not stay home with parents.  They are also well educated, genetically lower in impulsivity, enjoy hard work, and speak in germanic languages in which duty and hierarchy are metaphysical givens.  As such these countries have very high cultural resistance to corruption.

    Given the great transformation that Nepalese must go through this coming century, a more homogenous culture means less competition for political power that is useful for seeking and distributing rents, and less opportunity and incentive for organized political corruption. 

    However, given traditional nepalese family structures, and nepalese poverty levels, it is unlikely (much like india) that corruption will be eliminated from government and it may even be expanded. 

    Conversely, it is less likely that the degree of corruption that the nepalese will engage in will cause political infighting or a resistance to taxation and redistribution (if only into investment in the commons: infrastructure), if the polity is homogenous. 

    THE DECLINING ADVANTAGE OF SCALE

    Scale is no longer as valuable to an economy as is a reliable currency. 

    It appears that the universalists program advocated by the enlightenment is unsuccessful and that nationalism (tribalism at scale), will return to its historical status as the dominant political ideology.

    This is in part because the value of scale in obtaining credit necessary to finance war has been nearly eliminated by the (strange) influence of nuclear weapons.  If a country can afford nuclear weapons it does not need to engage in large scale defense projects, because its boundaries are secure.  Conversely (as Mr Putin has demonstrated) a country without nuclear weapons cannot claim sovereignty.

    So just as credit, conscription, and ‘total war’ defined the past five hundred years, it appears that nuclear weapons, and small scale nationalism which better serves the interests of citizens, will replace empires and military-credit-industrialism.

    Hence, oddly enough, nuclear weapons end up having produced intuitive political orders.

    Strange but true.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Nepalese-Maoists-want-ethnicity-based-federalism-in-Nepals-new-constitution-Will-ethnicity-based-politics-do-any-good-to-Nepal-in-the-long-run

  • What Is The Appropriate Role And Amount Of Government Regulation Of Businesses?

    (The word ‘appropriate’ is a form of linguistic dishonesty that attempts to create a moral statement where none exists.) 

    Instead, the question is whether a MONOPOLY (in this case, the government), that is insulated from prosecution under the law (bureaucrats), and insulated from market pressures (competition), is superior to a POLYPOLY, in which all members are subject to prosecution under the law (citizens) and subject to market pressures (competition).

    The general theory is that monopolies are necessary to START regulation (government), but that once instituted that competing institutions subject to rule of law are superior to democratic and political influences (politicians, corruption, oligarchies), because each individual everywhere in society, if he holds legal standing under universal standing, is capable of policing the regulators. 

    The problem we have in government is that we cannot police the regulators ,and the implication that voting  is a proxy for lawsuits is empirically false.

    As such, removal of corporate protections and extension of liability to all employees of all organizations, and the granting of universal standing, and the requirement that anyone we would consider needing regulation be insured, allows us to construct competing insurance companies that replace corrupt monopoly bureaucracies in government as means of regulation.

    SO it is not the degree of regulation that is the question, but whether regulation should be performed by monopolies or polypolies.  And the answer is that most regulations must be legally imposed by the monopoly we call government, by requiring private insurance, and that the entire population is both responsible for and capable of policing those companies AND their insurers. 

    It should be fairly obvious that POLOPOLY under NOMOCRACY is a superior means of regulation because it eliminates the possibility of corruption endemic to monopolies.  And equally obvious that the market will seek the level of regulation necessary for insurers and producers to defend themselves from activist citizens intent on controlling them by limiting them moral actions.

    It is less obvious that it is government sanction of corruption and government delivery of regulation that is the cause of illicit business activity, precisely because during the early industrial revolution, governments who were envious of collecting new tax revenues granted protections to private businesses and removed the public’s common law ability to regulate such businesses.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-appropriate-role-and-amount-of-government-regulation-of-businesses

  • Why Do Nepalese Maoists Want Ethnicity-based Federalism In Nepal’s New Constitution? Will Ethnicity-based Politics Do Any Good To Nepal In The Long Run?

    ETHNO-NATIONALISM
    Ethnically homogenous polities, and particularly SMALL ethnically homogenous polities demonstrate higher tolerance for high taxation and high redistribution because of our biological preference for kin selection.

    People often advocate the scandinavian model, but these are very small countries where all individuals are near-relations, where cousin-marriage is prohibited, and where the absolute nuclear family is practiced along with individual property rights meaning children are responsible for themselves and their economic survival, and do not stay home with parents.  They are also well educated, genetically lower in impulsivity, enjoy hard work, and speak in germanic languages in which duty and hierarchy are metaphysical givens.  As such these countries have very high cultural resistance to corruption.

    Given the great transformation that Nepalese must go through this coming century, a more homogenous culture means less competition for political power that is useful for seeking and distributing rents, and less opportunity and incentive for organized political corruption. 

    However, given traditional nepalese family structures, and nepalese poverty levels, it is unlikely (much like india) that corruption will be eliminated from government and it may even be expanded. 

    Conversely, it is less likely that the degree of corruption that the nepalese will engage in will cause political infighting or a resistance to taxation and redistribution (if only into investment in the commons: infrastructure), if the polity is homogenous. 

    THE DECLINING ADVANTAGE OF SCALE

    Scale is no longer as valuable to an economy as is a reliable currency. 

    It appears that the universalists program advocated by the enlightenment is unsuccessful and that nationalism (tribalism at scale), will return to its historical status as the dominant political ideology.

    This is in part because the value of scale in obtaining credit necessary to finance war has been nearly eliminated by the (strange) influence of nuclear weapons.  If a country can afford nuclear weapons it does not need to engage in large scale defense projects, because its boundaries are secure.  Conversely (as Mr Putin has demonstrated) a country without nuclear weapons cannot claim sovereignty.

    So just as credit, conscription, and ‘total war’ defined the past five hundred years, it appears that nuclear weapons, and small scale nationalism which better serves the interests of citizens, will replace empires and military-credit-industrialism.

    Hence, oddly enough, nuclear weapons end up having produced intuitive political orders.

    Strange but true.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Nepalese-Maoists-want-ethnicity-based-federalism-in-Nepals-new-constitution-Will-ethnicity-based-politics-do-any-good-to-Nepal-in-the-long-run

  • What Are The Assumptions Of The Law Of Diminishing Marginal Utility?

    I can’t figure out if this is an honest question or some moron’s bot-work.

    The only assumption in marginal utility is that it is a general rule of arbitrary precision like all general rules must be constructed of arbitrary precision by logical necessity.  

    So as far as I know, no assumptions external to the construction of ALL general theories are present in marginal utility.  It is just that the distribution of particulars under social sciences are wider that n the distribution of particulars in the physical sciences: man learns. Hydrogen does as hydrogen is, and that’s the end of it.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-assumptions-of-the-law-of-diminishing-marginal-utility