Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Property, Praxeology And Violence

    Polish_nobility_in_1697

    [U]nfortunately, while humans demonstrate a preference for the consumption that is made possible by the combination of private property, the division of knowledge and labor, and the experimental innovation the market drives us to, humans also demonstrate an equal preference for violence, theft, fraud, omission, interference, free riding, privatization of the commons, socialization of losses, rent seeking, corruption, organizing for the purposes of extortion, and organizing for plunder and conquest via war. All of these forms of theft from the most direct to the most subtle, in the absence of the threat of violence, are easier means of competition than is the risky and personal act of speculative production we must engage in, if we choose to compete in the market for goods and services. Only a minority of us demonstrate a preference for the market, and by consequence, demonstrate a preference for private property: which is to eschew, at high cost to ourselves, the tempting portfolio of thefts – and instead work to consume exclusively via voluntary, informed, exchange that is the product of guesswork, planning, foresight and risk. For these reasons – these praxeologically obvious reasons – any portfolio of property rights, from the most collective, to the most individual, to the most totalitarian, and within that portfolio, the scope property ranging from simple personal possessions to complex anonymous contractual commitments; has been and must be imposed on a body of people by the threat of violence. [T]he concept and practice of liberty was created by egalitarian aristocrats who granted property rights to those who equally respected property rights of their peers, and who fought to preserve them at great personal cost. Moral arguments as to the utility of private property are specious. They are an attempt to obtain the right of private property at a discount – despite the fact that the majority do not favor those rights for either themselves or others. That the enlightenment’s emergent middle class philosophers tried to justify taking power from the aristocracy by fabricating moral and utilitarian arguments was a necessary political ruse at the time. But we if we desire to preserve our vestiges of freedom we should not confuse that ruse with the factual reality that all systems of property rights are imposed by the threat of violence. It is praxeologically illogical to suggest that those who would compete better in the absence of private property, should suffer lower state in order to yield to the desires of those others who may be more successful under private property. This makes no sense. As such, the only defense is the offensive application of organized violence for the purpose of implementing one system of property rights and obligations over another. [A]ristocracy is a functional synonym for private property – and private property a right gained in exchange for reciprocity both in the respect of private property and the obligation to use one’s wealth of violence to ensure the perpetuation of the portfolio of property rights that we call ‘private property’ at the expense and exclusion of all other possible portfolios of property rights.

  • Statism And Corporatism vs Partnerships And The Common Law

    tumblr_m3etwvQp8L1qkgdk9o1_500

    [C]an you imagine commercial trade and the market without the abstract entity we call the corporation? Sure you can. The corporation is just a partnership that the government has granted limited liability to in order to increase tax revenues from ventures that are both expensive and high risk. THink of it as off-book investment in research and development. If you can imagine commerce without corporations, then you can imagine government without the state. The state is just a corporation – a collection of people who are insulated from liability for their actions. The common law, and the rule of law under the common law, with private property, and a government that is a contract, wherein the governors have no right to issue law, only to facilitate contracts between groups, which are then enforceable by the courts. Under such a common law system, (the anarchic system), people in corporations and in government are not protected from you suing them for violating our contracts -the most important contract being our constitution. [A]narchy as we describe it, isn’t the absence of organization, of commons, or of law. It’s the absence of the state and the state bureaucracy that through the violence of law, forces us to do what we do not wish to, and its members profit from doing so. We can have all the government we want. but we do not need the state, the bureaucracy, legislation, and majority rule to accomplish it. Our government needs only to facilitate contracts and to forbid all parties, whether parties to the contract or not, from free riding, rent seeking, privatization, socialization, corruption, theft, and violence involving those contracts.

  • Reading: On Law As A Problem Of Calculation, Coordination, And Dispute Resolution, In The Face Of Necessary Ignorance And Diversity Of Interest

    common law const

    [T]he common law depends upon experience (scientific evidence), not logic or reason (untested theory), and is relatively impervious to authoritarian influence. In any reading list on Law, I don’t necessarily want to communicate the history of law, so much as emphasize the pervasive problems of the social cognitive biases: a) False Consensus bias, b) the Illusion of Asymmetric Insight, c) Projection Bias, d) Trait Ascription Bias, e) the Illusion of Transparency, that are largely the product of the introduction of women into the voting pool, and their alliance with, and support of, marginal male groups who can obtain power by the use of the near universalism of these female cognitive biases, because these cognitive biases suit the reproductive strategies of females in our prehistoric, pre-agrarian phase of development. 1) Bastiat’s The Law 2) Epstein’s Simple Rules For A Complex World 3) Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty (as well as Hayek and Popper on knowledge) 4) Oliver Wendell Holmes’ The Common Law 4) Milsen’s A Natural History of The Common Law CLUES TO ADAPTING TO THE 21ST CENTURY 1) Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind (Believe it or not), my interpretation of Johnson’s Three Methods Of Coercion (see my site), and Perhaps Arnold’ Kling’s pamphlet “The Tree Languages Of Politics”. In particular I love kling’s metaphors both in the Three Languages, and in his “Recalculation” description of recessions. These are both accurate categorical descriptions but they are not sufficiently causally descriptions. Haidt solves the problem of the three languages. I think in my works I’ve sufficiently combined these different perspectives and using Haidt and property rights, I’ve unified these systems into causal relations. (Which new, and is why people have trouble understanding what I’m trying to get across at present.) 2/2) I want to add here Rothbard’s Ethics of Private Property. But since his moral code is incomplete (and therefore false), and his definition of property incomplete, because he was creating an ethic of rebellion not one of civilization, I’ll just have to wait until I finish my own work on propertarianism which corrects those errors. Without this understanding of the relationship between group size (individualism), reproductive strategy, morality, and property it is impossible to adapt the common law to the complex heterogeneous society, because it relies, at least in the arguments of Melvin Eisenberg and perhaps Holmes, relies on assumptions about society, and norms that cannot survive moral scrutiny in our heterogeneous social order. 3) Epstein’s How the Progressives Rewrote the Constitution. The canonical history of how the feminist, progressive, liberal, socialist, and communist movement was able to effectively destroy the rule of law under the constitution. 4) Barnett’s Restoring The Lost Constitution (I don’t believe that this is possible or advisable, and instead that we must create an institutional framework that supports a diversity of genetic strategies. But his analysis of what the constitution actually said, is exceptional, and therefore it is a prescription for how to articulate the rules of future institutions.) CAVEAT [I] don’t really want to spend a lot of my time with the law. I always feel that I’m slumming and need a shower afterward. But as an institution that we both require for calculative purposes, and an institution that must adapt to contemporary diversity and heterogeneity by expanding the concepts of morality and property. To do so, it’s necessary to articulate the impact on the system of common law, which shall remain the means of contract-making and dispute resolution under any more diverse propertarian model. FALURE OF CALCULATIVE INSTITUTIONS TO FACILITATE DIVERSITY OF INTERESTS, AND THEREFORE INCENTIVES AND CALCULATION Civilizations fail because their institutions can no longer calculate cooperation and the user of resources. (ie: Jarred Diamond is wrong. and I’m not so sure about Fukuyama’s and Acemoglu’s analyses have identified this problem correctly as one of property rights.) MORE DETAIL For more detail see Kinsella’s excellent list at mises.org which also addresses the historical development of the common law. In particular Tulluck’s criticism of the method of dispute resolution. A criticism I think is solved by Hoppe’s privatization and insurance model. Hopefully this was helpful to others. Cheers

  • How Uneducated Are Americans? How Many People Skipped “intellectual Refinement” (no High School, No College And Beyond)?

    A MORE INTERESTING QUESTION THAN IT FIRST APPEARS. I”LL TRY TO DO IT JUSITC.

    1) Americans have the highest confidence despite middling education by comparison to other countries. (Google it.)

    2) Americans are disproportionately wealthy so our lower classes can express their ideas, and are more confident expressing those ideas.

    3) Our education system promotes common falsehoods in support of postmodern ideology, and our religious and traditional systems promote common falsehoods in support of aristocratic ideology (traditional american values).

    4) The Pareto principle applies to all human activity: about 1% of people think of everything, about 19% understand and distribute that knowledge, and the remaining 80% form a long chain of imitation of that 20%. The distribution of IQ over 105 largely reflects the Pareto Principle.  105 is the boundary for articulated reason and repair of machines.

    5) The evidence is that people reason much better over the past century.  Its just that more people, in a wider distribution, with a lower average, participate in public discourse — and our academics have adopted a new but equally fallacious, albeit secular, religion and are propagating that religion, which both encourages confidence and spreads falsehoods.  In response, the traditionalists retrench into their ideologies and so the din of irrationality continues to increase.

    6) Despite the increase in population and the dramatic increase in education, hard degrees have remained relatively constant since 1963 – (we have not increased the number of ‘smart’ people getting degrees that require ‘smarts’ since that time. See Louis Menand and his bibliography on this topic.)  Despite he dramatic change in our economy since the introduction of information technology and the decline of labor as an economic value, our education system still teaches using the model of the 1940’s and 1950’s – due largely to the competition over ideological control of education content combined with the resistance of teacher’s unions, and the transfer of spending on budgets from teachers salaries to administrative bureaucracy.

    Advice: Until you understand the failings of science, the limits of mathematics under complexity, the lack of maturity in our understanding of the calculus of measurement, the immaturity of our understanding of economics and statistics, and the extraordinary influence of our cognitive biases – particularly false consensus bias, and the patently false content of most political philosophy, especially Postmodern political philosophy (“liberalism”), you might want to consider that allegorical, moral, and historical arguments have survived evolutionary processes and have produce positive outcomes even if articulated in arational terms. The profundity of this problem is  what those of us who occupy ourselves with the solution to political problems struggle with.  And this is Hayek’s lesson in The Road to Serfdom as well as the warning given us by Popper, Kuhn and Taleb, and historians like Mokyr. Reason is a limited tool, because of the variation in human ability.

    The west is only beginning to understand what made it unique in world history, and it turns out that it’s not what we thought – and it might not even be very comforting – it’s just true anyway.

    7) Most political differences consist of differences in time preference and mating strategy.  As we evolve into individual economic units and the nuclear family becomes a minority, our different reproductive strategies – which determine our moral preferences and biases – are increasingly expressed in our political preferences, and social rhetoric.  We have lost the common interest that multi house republican democracy under majority rule assumes we possess.   Majority rule can solve the problem of selecting priorities for people with similar interests. Multi house majority rule can solve the problem of selecting priorities and negotiating compromises and trades between the social and economic classes.  But majority rule cannot solve the problem of selecting from competing interests, or even negotiating resolutions between competing interests.

    Our political system was designed to prevent legislation without wide support.  But it has devolved for the reasons I mention above. and there is no solution to it in our current political system. We have an agrarian system of government designed in the age of sail, using accounting methods with agrarian (monthly) periodicity, that requires nuclear families with common interests, and a people with homogenous cultural values.  

    But we no longer have homogenous values, we no longer have common interests, we no longer have nuclear families, we no longer have agrarian economies, we operate in an age of instant transfer of information, and our businesses are organized, conducted, and then decline, not over generations but over less than a decades.

    in context – people appear ‘dumber’ for these reasons. 🙂

    https://www.quora.com/How-uneducated-are-Americans-How-many-people-skipped-intellectual-refinement-no-high-school-no-college-and-beyond

  • How Does The Role Of A Startup Cto Change Over Time?

    Depends upon the technical dependency of the business. You start with designing the product or offering, and building a team. You end up selling to customers, administering talent, constraining budgets,  allocating in investments, and briefing (educating) the management team.   If you educate the rest of the management team well enough then your job should simplify dramatically over time. If  you fail to do that, your job becomes worse over time, and your political power declines.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-role-of-a-startup-CTO-change-over-time

  • How Dedicated Should An Entrepreneur Be To Their Start-up, How Much Is Too Much?

    Sacrifice time, sleep, security, health, wealth, relationships – everything.
    The only limit is your ability to do something or not. These sacrifices must be balanced against the rewards.  So, there is only whether a) you CAN endure sacrifices and b) whether the sacrifices you make are worth the return to YOU.

    https://www.quora.com/How-dedicated-should-an-entrepreneur-be-to-their-start-up-how-much-is-too-much

  • Which Articles Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights Are Negative Rights?

    1-2 Address who is included in these rights.

    3-20 Address negative rights. These rights prohibit everyone, including government, from violating the life, body, movement, association, speech,  and property of individuals in various ways.

    21-29 Address positive rights.These are ambitions that all governments are chartered with attempting to achieve.

    30 closes prohibiting exception.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-articles-of-the-Universal-Declaration-of-Human-Rights-are-negative-rights

  • When Did The Capitalist Regime Under Which We Currently Live *begin*?

    INTERESTING QUESTION. I”LL TRY TO DO IT JUSTICE.

    The west has been more ‘capitalist’ since its inception 4500 years ago, because it’s been more individualistic, and it’s property rights have been more widely distributed and therefore power has been distributed and balanced for most of our history.   It’s also true that enfranchisement in those property rights has expanded and contracted along with prosperity. YOu had more under rome, and less under feudalism.  More under english common law, and less under european napoleonic law.  More in the 19th century and less today.

    ‘Capitalistic’ means that property rights are distributed.  ‘Socialistic’ means that property rights are concentrated in the state.  The concentration of large amounts of credit under a network of contracts is illogical and unnecessary under concentrated socialistic  systems that we associate with totalitarian governments.

    You could argue that the invention of Venetian accounting, followed by English and Dutch mercantilism is the origin of our modern political model, and that it was formalized into language by Smith, Hume, and the American Constitution.

    Most people, I think, would argue that Napoleon created the nation state and the concept of ‘total war’ and that the system of credit that developed in response to the Napoleonic wars was the origin of our capitalist state.

    Others would argue that the 20th century development of fiat money, fiat credit, the practice of regulating unemployment, and the state as the insurer of last resort was probably when we developed an institutional balance between capitalism, socialism and corporatism.

    Most modern states are ‘capitalistic’ in that they use consumer capitalism and individual property rights to run their economies.  Most modern states levy taxes and and redistribute those taxes under the social democratic thesis that we must have capitalism but we can abscond with a considerable amount of the profits people make, and treat those profits as common property, even if all property is held privately.  Most modern states subsidize key industries as a means of creating an internationally competitive product that gives the country an economic advantage – this is corporatism.

    When the socialist movements succeeded in Europe and Canada, they did not succeed in the USA – probably because we were the military and political center of western civilization in the post war period. Instead, the combination of the Vietnam war, the temporary economic rise of the proletariat due to the rest of the world’s economic collapse from the war, the increase in proletarian birth rates that gave us the 60’s and 70’s, the racial movement of the 60’s,  feminism because of birth control, and various other factors led to a fracturing of american society that continues to effect us to this day.  

    It had become apparent that socialism had failed in theory (incentives and calculation) and as the 70’s progressed we learned that the great society programs ambitions were also a failure, so socialism was a failure in practice. And finally in the 90’s we saw the collapse of world communism and the universal adoption of consumer capitalism.

    1) Starting in the 50’s progressives and liberals (socialists) began trying to develop a philosophical and political framework given that socialism was failing in theory, and because the american people were not ‘buying it’.  This system of philosophy was called ‘postmodernism’.  Postmodernism is an attempt to use the technique of monotheistic religious dogma to propagate falsehoods, that must be passionately treated as moral truths (equality, equality of outcome, relativity of morals except postmodern morals, relativity of cultures except western culture which is bad, and a dozen more.)  Postmodernism and postmodernists have been successful and has effectively become the state religion in america. This is because it both sells goods and services, as well as promotes concentration of power in the state.

    2) Staring in the 70’s conservatives and libertarians developed a series of strategies to combat socialism and postmodernism.  This included what we see today in think tanks, policies, and ideologies.  All of which were designed to combat the state.

    These ideas fell into the following groups:

    1) The most rigid was that the state would bankrupt capitalism, and destroy our traditional society if capitalists didn’t bankrupt the state first.  This meant effectively hiring the corporations and financial empires by granting them privileges and protecting them from taxation.  This approach has been successful – mostly, because Keynesian economic policy requires that the government use the financial sector to insert money into the economy, and the profit available to the financial sector provides them with the incentive to fight the state.

    2) The more practical approach was to promote libertarian policy solutions to social democratic problems, which would accomplish redistribution without empowering the state and expanding its bureaucracy.   This approach has been marginally successful. Most voucher systems or privatization in both Europe and America, were the result of these libertarian ideas.

    3) The ancient approach has been used too. The purpose of organized religion is largely to oppose the state. As the state has grown, the more traditional segments of the populace have turned increasingly fundamentalist as a means of opposing the state. For ancient reasons, it is not possible in america to interfere with religion.  And religions determine the limits of political power.  So religious fervor has increased as a means of opposing the state’s attack on the nuclear family and traditional roles for men and women – and therefore the status signals available to people in nuclear families.

    4) The marxists were extremely successful in promoting ideology instead of philosophy – ideology is a collection of statements for the purpose of obtaining power by appealing to emotions instead of reason.  (This is, again, a tactic taken from the monotheistic religions.)  The conservative and libertarian think tanks began promoting conservative and libertarian ideology, as well as launching news networks and talk radio shows as well as books and magazines.  Ideology and religion are more effective than reason in a population because we are, in total, when voting, expressing our moral feelings, not our rational understanding.

    THE RESULT

    Capitalist ideology (libertarian and aristocratic conservative) , and socialist ideology (postmodernism and democratic socialism) are opposing means of running a society and so we are constantly subjected to extremist arguments form both sized.  Meanwhile we vote our morals. And our morals are almost entirely a reflection of our reproductive strategy.  Since women have more in common in their reproductive strategy than do men, as the number of single women and single mothers increases, the vote continues to move to the socialistic (feminine) social model.  However, immigration and the minioritization of the white population are causing a consolidation of parties into racial and gender distributions that are fairly predictable.

    So most of it is noise.

    ON CAPITALISM

    It is not possible to have any means of production that is not capitalistic. Money and prices contain information and convey incentives that cannot be done in this level of complexity by other means.  However, it is also true that it is possible to expropriate the profits from individuals and redistribute them while preserving the capitalist system of information and incentives.

    Given that a population is small and heterogeneous enough, it appears that a combination of socialistic redistribution and capitalistic production is politically possible. However, heterogeneous societies resist redistribution and increase competition and friction in the state.

    For this reason we will likely continue to have friction here in America until the demographic system plays out with white minority status, and likely some serious conflict at that point.

    YOUR ANSWER

    The capitalistic system evolved over thousands of years and is one of the primary reasons why the west, despite being small, poor, and on the fringe, developed rapidly both in its ancient and modern periods.

    Today we are in less of a capitalistic system but capitalistic rhetoric is very high because of the minoritization of whites, and the opposition to the state. 

    Furthermore, regardless of rhetoric you will always live under a capitalistic system because it’s not possible to coordinate a complex division of knowledge and labor without capitalism.


    I hope this helps provide some clarity amidst the nonsense we are subject to every day.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev

    https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-capitalist-regime-under-which-we-currently-live-*begin*

  • Which Articles Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights Are Negative Rights?

    1-2 Address who is included in these rights.

    3-20 Address negative rights. These rights prohibit everyone, including government, from violating the life, body, movement, association, speech,  and property of individuals in various ways.

    21-29 Address positive rights.These are ambitions that all governments are chartered with attempting to achieve.

    30 closes prohibiting exception.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-articles-of-the-Universal-Declaration-of-Human-Rights-are-negative-rights

  • When Did The Capitalist Regime Under Which We Currently Live *begin*?

    INTERESTING QUESTION. I”LL TRY TO DO IT JUSTICE.

    The west has been more ‘capitalist’ since its inception 4500 years ago, because it’s been more individualistic, and it’s property rights have been more widely distributed and therefore power has been distributed and balanced for most of our history.   It’s also true that enfranchisement in those property rights has expanded and contracted along with prosperity. YOu had more under rome, and less under feudalism.  More under english common law, and less under european napoleonic law.  More in the 19th century and less today.

    ‘Capitalistic’ means that property rights are distributed.  ‘Socialistic’ means that property rights are concentrated in the state.  The concentration of large amounts of credit under a network of contracts is illogical and unnecessary under concentrated socialistic  systems that we associate with totalitarian governments.

    You could argue that the invention of Venetian accounting, followed by English and Dutch mercantilism is the origin of our modern political model, and that it was formalized into language by Smith, Hume, and the American Constitution.

    Most people, I think, would argue that Napoleon created the nation state and the concept of ‘total war’ and that the system of credit that developed in response to the Napoleonic wars was the origin of our capitalist state.

    Others would argue that the 20th century development of fiat money, fiat credit, the practice of regulating unemployment, and the state as the insurer of last resort was probably when we developed an institutional balance between capitalism, socialism and corporatism.

    Most modern states are ‘capitalistic’ in that they use consumer capitalism and individual property rights to run their economies.  Most modern states levy taxes and and redistribute those taxes under the social democratic thesis that we must have capitalism but we can abscond with a considerable amount of the profits people make, and treat those profits as common property, even if all property is held privately.  Most modern states subsidize key industries as a means of creating an internationally competitive product that gives the country an economic advantage – this is corporatism.

    When the socialist movements succeeded in Europe and Canada, they did not succeed in the USA – probably because we were the military and political center of western civilization in the post war period. Instead, the combination of the Vietnam war, the temporary economic rise of the proletariat due to the rest of the world’s economic collapse from the war, the increase in proletarian birth rates that gave us the 60’s and 70’s, the racial movement of the 60’s,  feminism because of birth control, and various other factors led to a fracturing of american society that continues to effect us to this day.  

    It had become apparent that socialism had failed in theory (incentives and calculation) and as the 70’s progressed we learned that the great society programs ambitions were also a failure, so socialism was a failure in practice. And finally in the 90’s we saw the collapse of world communism and the universal adoption of consumer capitalism.

    1) Starting in the 50’s progressives and liberals (socialists) began trying to develop a philosophical and political framework given that socialism was failing in theory, and because the american people were not ‘buying it’.  This system of philosophy was called ‘postmodernism’.  Postmodernism is an attempt to use the technique of monotheistic religious dogma to propagate falsehoods, that must be passionately treated as moral truths (equality, equality of outcome, relativity of morals except postmodern morals, relativity of cultures except western culture which is bad, and a dozen more.)  Postmodernism and postmodernists have been successful and has effectively become the state religion in america. This is because it both sells goods and services, as well as promotes concentration of power in the state.

    2) Staring in the 70’s conservatives and libertarians developed a series of strategies to combat socialism and postmodernism.  This included what we see today in think tanks, policies, and ideologies.  All of which were designed to combat the state.

    These ideas fell into the following groups:

    1) The most rigid was that the state would bankrupt capitalism, and destroy our traditional society if capitalists didn’t bankrupt the state first.  This meant effectively hiring the corporations and financial empires by granting them privileges and protecting them from taxation.  This approach has been successful – mostly, because Keynesian economic policy requires that the government use the financial sector to insert money into the economy, and the profit available to the financial sector provides them with the incentive to fight the state.

    2) The more practical approach was to promote libertarian policy solutions to social democratic problems, which would accomplish redistribution without empowering the state and expanding its bureaucracy.   This approach has been marginally successful. Most voucher systems or privatization in both Europe and America, were the result of these libertarian ideas.

    3) The ancient approach has been used too. The purpose of organized religion is largely to oppose the state. As the state has grown, the more traditional segments of the populace have turned increasingly fundamentalist as a means of opposing the state. For ancient reasons, it is not possible in america to interfere with religion.  And religions determine the limits of political power.  So religious fervor has increased as a means of opposing the state’s attack on the nuclear family and traditional roles for men and women – and therefore the status signals available to people in nuclear families.

    4) The marxists were extremely successful in promoting ideology instead of philosophy – ideology is a collection of statements for the purpose of obtaining power by appealing to emotions instead of reason.  (This is, again, a tactic taken from the monotheistic religions.)  The conservative and libertarian think tanks began promoting conservative and libertarian ideology, as well as launching news networks and talk radio shows as well as books and magazines.  Ideology and religion are more effective than reason in a population because we are, in total, when voting, expressing our moral feelings, not our rational understanding.

    THE RESULT

    Capitalist ideology (libertarian and aristocratic conservative) , and socialist ideology (postmodernism and democratic socialism) are opposing means of running a society and so we are constantly subjected to extremist arguments form both sized.  Meanwhile we vote our morals. And our morals are almost entirely a reflection of our reproductive strategy.  Since women have more in common in their reproductive strategy than do men, as the number of single women and single mothers increases, the vote continues to move to the socialistic (feminine) social model.  However, immigration and the minioritization of the white population are causing a consolidation of parties into racial and gender distributions that are fairly predictable.

    So most of it is noise.

    ON CAPITALISM

    It is not possible to have any means of production that is not capitalistic. Money and prices contain information and convey incentives that cannot be done in this level of complexity by other means.  However, it is also true that it is possible to expropriate the profits from individuals and redistribute them while preserving the capitalist system of information and incentives.

    Given that a population is small and heterogeneous enough, it appears that a combination of socialistic redistribution and capitalistic production is politically possible. However, heterogeneous societies resist redistribution and increase competition and friction in the state.

    For this reason we will likely continue to have friction here in America until the demographic system plays out with white minority status, and likely some serious conflict at that point.

    YOUR ANSWER

    The capitalistic system evolved over thousands of years and is one of the primary reasons why the west, despite being small, poor, and on the fringe, developed rapidly both in its ancient and modern periods.

    Today we are in less of a capitalistic system but capitalistic rhetoric is very high because of the minoritization of whites, and the opposition to the state. 

    Furthermore, regardless of rhetoric you will always live under a capitalistic system because it’s not possible to coordinate a complex division of knowledge and labor without capitalism.


    I hope this helps provide some clarity amidst the nonsense we are subject to every day.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev

    https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-capitalist-regime-under-which-we-currently-live-*begin*