Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • What Are The Principle Ideas Of The American Political Theorist James Burnham And What Is Their Importance?

    1) That the family structure of all worldwide organizations, from business and industry to politics and government would be replaced by professional managers with empirical expertise in individual disciplines. (Law, Accounting, Finance, Economics, Marketing (Propaganda), etc.)
    “The Managerial Society”

    2) That Democracies must always result in Oligarchies, without exception, out of necessity.

    3) That the entire marxist, socialist, postmodern, (and feminist) program was both dishonest and contrary to science and reason.  And that all that will occur no matter what we do, is that we will replace one set of oligarchs with another set of oligarchs and because these oligarchs will function as elites, there will no material difference.

    4) IMPLIED: that the managerial class will destroy family, culture, and nation.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-principle-ideas-of-the-American-political-theorist-James-Burnham-and-what-is-their-importance

  • Can Professors At Universities Teach And Have Opinions That Are Very Much Contrary To The Scientific Community At Large?

    THE BEST ANSWER YOU WILL FIND

    All university departments hold biases, and the careers of the members of the department depend upon upholding those biases, because of the incentives to publish, and the authoritarian hierarchy of the university and departments that was inherited from the church – which invented the university.  There is very little practical difference between the practice of ideology and the practice of academic research in this regard. In practice, ideas die with their originators and sponsors, not when they are disproved. The investment is too high. The incentive to over-invest in a paradigm to retain one’s position is too high.  This is why students must choose departments based upon what the department members publish.

    Sowell’s recommended “fix” is to financially and organizationally separate research departments (that do not serve the interests of students whatsoever) from teaching departments (whose only concern is the students) but the administration (serving neither the students or the researchers) is currently consuming all the vast investment americans are making in educations (that have questionable return, and in some cases negative return.)  Realistically if undergrad students paid teaching professors, not researchers, for their education, and we regulated administration and capital acquisition to 20% of fees, education would be absurdly inexpensive, and students would leave with little debt.  We could then ask grad students and phd students and the government to bear the costs of research, rather than the undergrads. And we would shrink the administration back to it’s necessary and sufficient size.  (Financially, academia now has absorbed all the costs originally saved by eliminating the church.  For all intents and purposes, we have merely replaced academia and church with academia. In fact, I am pretty confident that academia is far more expensive than the post-enlightenment church was in every form of capital consumption.)

    But the university system is not designed for students and their careers, it is designed to provide economic rents to researchers and administrators, by selling faulty products to students,  that in any other industry would be open to class action lawsuits for fraudulent representation, and possible only because of inflationary pressure on by the government, in the same way that the government created inflationary pressure on the housing industry leading to the 2008 crash.

    See Sowell’s work and Caplan’s work.  Caplan is always someone you must be skeptical of nearly everything he says, so his his empirical work is what you can appreciate, but you must ignore all his conclusions. (Sort of like reading Marx.)

    https://www.quora.com/Can-professors-at-universities-teach-and-have-opinions-that-are-very-much-contrary-to-the-scientific-community-at-large

  • Does Civil Society Include Business?

    Um. Yes. It doesn’t include GOVERNMENT

    https://www.quora.com/Does-civil-society-include-business

  • What Are The Principle Ideas Of The American Political Theorist James Burnham And What Is Their Importance?

    1) That the family structure of all worldwide organizations, from business and industry to politics and government would be replaced by professional managers with empirical expertise in individual disciplines. (Law, Accounting, Finance, Economics, Marketing (Propaganda), etc.)
    “The Managerial Society”

    2) That Democracies must always result in Oligarchies, without exception, out of necessity.

    3) That the entire marxist, socialist, postmodern, (and feminist) program was both dishonest and contrary to science and reason.  And that all that will occur no matter what we do, is that we will replace one set of oligarchs with another set of oligarchs and because these oligarchs will function as elites, there will no material difference.

    4) IMPLIED: that the managerial class will destroy family, culture, and nation.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-principle-ideas-of-the-American-political-theorist-James-Burnham-and-what-is-their-importance

  • How Can I Know How People View Me As A Person?

    Stop having ignorant, liberal-ed twits write bot-like questions that do nothing more than persist postmodern pseudoscience?

    Learn something empirical. Ok?

    https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-know-how-people-view-me-as-a-person

  • Does Civil Society Include Business?

    Um. Yes. It doesn’t include GOVERNMENT

    https://www.quora.com/Does-civil-society-include-business

  • How Can I Know How People View Me As A Person?

    Stop having ignorant, liberal-ed twits write bot-like questions that do nothing more than persist postmodern pseudoscience?

    Learn something empirical. Ok?

    https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-know-how-people-view-me-as-a-person

  • Simpletons


    [P]eople who live in tents, ride animals, and shepherd other animals, talk about beliefs. People with fixed capital, who live in castles talk about laws. There is a reason for that.

    When you ask people to value something that’s an informal institution we call belief.

    When you tell people that property is a rule that you cannot violate, that’s a formal institution we call law.

    The first is religion. The second is government.

    Is your brand of liberty for goatherds living in tents (religion) that requires belief, or for engineers, builders and craftsmen, (government) that requires laws?

    People who live in tents have very simple property. They need very simple laws.

    Liberty in modernity isn’t for simpletons.

    Try not to think like one.

  • Simpletons


    [P]eople who live in tents, ride animals, and shepherd other animals, talk about beliefs. People with fixed capital, who live in castles talk about laws. There is a reason for that.

    When you ask people to value something that’s an informal institution we call belief.

    When you tell people that property is a rule that you cannot violate, that’s a formal institution we call law.

    The first is religion. The second is government.

    Is your brand of liberty for goatherds living in tents (religion) that requires belief, or for engineers, builders and craftsmen, (government) that requires laws?

    People who live in tents have very simple property. They need very simple laws.

    Liberty in modernity isn’t for simpletons.

    Try not to think like one.

  • I Know This Line Of Inquiry Is Frustrating for Friends

    [I] want to also chime in that I am thankful for the  friends who support, follow, resist, challenge me on my journey every day. I have made and lost both. And I know that my current line of inquiry is really exasperating for some – if not offensive. (It would have been offensive to me at some point in my learning curve.) But I am pretty confident I will solve the rest of the problem of preventing deception in politics within the next six months to a year. I can sense it. I just cannot say it quite yet. But even then, I am quite sure, that my articulation of ancient indo-European truth, testimony, operationalism and instrumentalist, will make it possible to construct a line of thinking that if enough of us practice will make deception nearly impossible by verbalist means. And if that is true, then we can construct the common law such that we that treat truth as the same commons of forgone opportunity as as property, and prohibit the involuntary transfer of property of all types not just by fraud or omission, or by indirection, but by obscurantism, loading, framing and overloading. This may seem terribly alien, and of course, one could run with this idea as others have recently, but they are merely confused about when property is transferred. We are certainly able to conduct whatever private exchanges we want. But to attempt to use the commons as a vehicle for theft is something we can prevent. And we can now look at both the third to fifth century and the mid nineteenth through twenty-first century as eras by which an aristocratic commons was used for the purpose of theft and corruption on brutal scales. And we must understand the meaning of that statement. An aristocratically constructed TRUST commons, as well as its formal institutions of academia, and its commercial institutions in the media, was used to distribute deceptions by obscurantist analogy. Lies that are only possible under aristocratic, testimonial, truth.