Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • What Is The Justification For Political Authority Enforced By Force?

    I’m going to try to clarify the “Monopoly Of Violence” argument in Propertarian terms:

    All human existence can be reduced to property rights.
    • 0. All human beings object to involuntary transfer of what they worked to obtain, by theft, fraud, or violence, and whether that transfer be direct or indirect.
    • 1. All societies have collections of property rights.
    • 2. These rights exist along a spectrum that consists of individual, shareholder, and collective property rights.
    • 3. Those property rights can be constructive, neutral or destructive. They can be just or unjust. They can be dominated by egalitarianism, expropriation, or meritocracy or a combination thereof.
    • 4. Those rights are met with corresponding obligations we call norms: forgone opportunities, manners, ethics, morals. They are, in large part, prohibitions on involuntary transfers of property.
    • 5. And these obligations are costs. They are the cost of the institution of property. People feel that they ‘own’ their institutions because they ‘pay’ for them.
    • 6. Since any foreign group’s portfolio, upon interaction with the home group’s portfolio, will by definition and necessity cause involuntary transfers from any home group, and the inverse, then groups use violence to both to institute their property rights and obligations and to prevent involuntary transfers both inside and outside of the group.

    Groups have different property rights. Even among libertarians, we disagree upon warranty, symmetry, external costs and the right of exclusion. All groups, regardless of their portfolio, pay for property rights with forgone opportunities for violence, theft, and fraud. And the promise of violence remains whenever violence, theft, and fraud are committed.

    Therefore, people are ‘justified’ in protecting their property. Their property rights themselves are a form of property. They are justified in forming a group that mandates those property rights. They are justified in combating a government that abridges or abrogates those rights.

    You can run on with this reasoning and answer almost all political questions. However, to answer yours, directly, we need to understand that one does not ‘justify’ power. One exercises it to achieve one’s preferences, and either has the power to achieve them or not. Justification is an attempt to achieve one’s preferences at a lower cost, or to lower the cost of maintaining those preferences. But that is all.

    So your question implies a universalism that is not present in political action.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-justification-for-political-authority-enforced-by-force

  • What Should Be The Rank-ordered Budget Priorities Of The U.s. Federal Government?

    (I agree with Stephan Kinsella’s answer to What should be the rank-ordered budget priorities of the U.S. Federal Government?. But I’m going to try to answer the question so that it’s possible to provide some insight.)

    Let’s look at this scientifically.

    I. The federal government, as constructed, has no vehicle for prioritization, or considering prioritization. So the federal government cannot prioritize expenses. Parliamentary government is constructed as a tactical organization with limits on it’s power, not a strategic one that must prioritize its actions. In theory an executive branch should establish such priorities, and does, but it does so in order to establish a legacy for the executive, rather than to cautiously administer the ‘trust fund’ that is the country. Instead, parliamentary organizations are vehicles for interest groups to request special claims which can then be forcibly extracted from others by means of complex involuntary transfers.

    II. We can observe what governments do when they are forced to prioritize, and when we make that observation, we find that all governments do the following:
    • a) prevent insurrection
    • b) protect their jobs
    • c) maintain the capacity for extracting income from citizens.
    • d) maintain the capacity for accumulating debt.
    They then threaten or improve those things voters care about (police, emergency, fire, school and libraries) or things voters need (roads, power, and sewer) which are operational, in while capturing as much revenue as they can for ideological programs, favored special interests, and additional personal income capture.

    III. Given what parliamentary governments actually do as tactical organizations, it’s not rational to discuss what priorities they should follow. We did not construct government in order to achieve priorities. Instead, we should discuss, what a government that followed priorities would look like, and how it would run, and how those decisions would be made.

    IV. If such a government could be constructed, and if it could survive attempts to circumvent it, then I suspect that the following would be the priority scheme that would be ‘best’ if we assume ‘best’ is something other than arbitrary. In the ase below, ‘best’ means, delivering the prosperity necessary for people to have choices, with the minimum cheating, corruption and rent seeking.
    1. Define a set of property rights (all human rights can be articulated as property rights.)
    2. Establish a geography within which those rights apply.
    3. Establish a judiciary for the resolution of differences according to the property rights.
    4. Establish registries for property (titles to anything and everything).
    5. Establish military, police, and other emergency service services to secure those rights.
    6. Establish and maintain commercial infrastructure.
    7. Establish an educational infrastructure.
    8. Given sufficient income produced from establishing commercial and educational infrastructure, allocate gains to the preferences of the people. (monuments, parks, social programs, etc.)

    In periods of duress, work backward from the end of the list to the top, cutting services such that the public is informed as to the importance of those priorities.

    https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-the-rank-ordered-budget-priorities-of-the-U-S-Federal-Government

  • 2000 Years Of Economic History In A Chart? What Would That Chart Tell Us?

    I don’t know what we’re supposed to learn from this chart from The Atlantic, but as others have already stated with passion, it’s pretty bad information design. And even without that criticism, almost every conclusion that one would draw from it certainly appears to be simply meaningless or false – at least without some sort of prevarication.

    It reminds me of the biggest statistical sin in current economics: using ‘families’ rather than individuals. If someone uses that measure, then everything that follows is false. Families have changed too much. More so than the economy itself. The economy is noise by comparison. Likewise, for such gross categorization as this chart seeks to make use of, economic activity is meaningless without the sizes of the geography and the population. Boundaries are meaningless unless what happens within them is substantially different per person per square mile/km. Perhaps even, limited to per person per acre of arable land. Otherwise all the chart tells you is that big arbitrary geographic areas produce more income than small arbitrary geographic areas. Which tells us precisely nothing that isn’t absurdly obvious. WHAT SHOULD A CHART OF ECONOMIC HISTORY SHOW US? What any such chart would allow us to draw the conclusion that:

      Economic history is not complicated. People need:

        They need institutional technologies which do not so much require the state as require the state not abuse:

          And, they need those institutions that *are* complicated: social aspects we too often ignore, and which appear to require intervention on the part of the state:

            A chart that is useful, will be the chart that illustrates that the only value of a state is in creating these institutions (a) thru (h).

          • 2000 Years Of Economic History In A Chart? What Would That Chart Tell Us?

            I don’t know what we’re supposed to learn from this chart from The Atlantic, but as others have already stated with passion, it’s pretty bad information design. And even without that criticism, almost every conclusion that one would draw from it certainly appears to be simply meaningless or false – at least without some sort of prevarication.

            It reminds me of the biggest statistical sin in current economics: using ‘families’ rather than individuals. If someone uses that measure, then everything that follows is false. Families have changed too much. More so than the economy itself. The economy is noise by comparison. Likewise, for such gross categorization as this chart seeks to make use of, economic activity is meaningless without the sizes of the geography and the population. Boundaries are meaningless unless what happens within them is substantially different per person per square mile/km. Perhaps even, limited to per person per acre of arable land. Otherwise all the chart tells you is that big arbitrary geographic areas produce more income than small arbitrary geographic areas. Which tells us precisely nothing that isn’t absurdly obvious. WHAT SHOULD A CHART OF ECONOMIC HISTORY SHOW US? What any such chart would allow us to draw the conclusion that:

              Economic history is not complicated. People need:

                They need institutional technologies which do not so much require the state as require the state not abuse:

                  And, they need those institutions that *are* complicated: social aspects we too often ignore, and which appear to require intervention on the part of the state:

                    A chart that is useful, will be the chart that illustrates that the only value of a state is in creating these institutions (a) thru (h).

                  • Political Theory: Is The West’s Problem With Middle Eastern ‘democracy’ That It Tends To Be Religious?

                    I HAVE TO DISAGREE with the other answers.

                    The USA’s strategic policy equates democracy with consumer capitalism,  human rights, and economic and military stability. They are a set, for which ‘democracy” is a simply a shorthand. Which is unfortunate, since that brevity obscures the complexity of the strategy.

                    The USA spent the majority of the past century trying to prevent the alternative to consumer capitalism, world communism, from developing the military and economic power necessary to interfere with world oil production, and world trade – as well as preventing the further death and suffering that are the result of managed economies.

                    Therefore the simplistic statement “democracy is good”, means “Democracy that is good is democracy that advances consumer capitalism, will create states that are good world citizens and will not disrupt the world system of trade, and world production of oil.”

                    The problem that the USA has with islamic states, is that, having spent the past century trying to prevent the rise of anti-capitalist states, it appears that the muslim world is going to coalesce into three or so factions all of whom are militant and at least one of whom’s ambitions  (Iran) is to control the price of oil as a means of concentrating the capital necessary to build a military strong enough to defeat the other two factions, thereby restoring the islamic empire. 

                    So the USA is very cautious, and one should not confuse “democracy” which is simply the means of transitioning power, with the broader concept of democratic, consumer capitalism of small independent states all of whom are good world citizens.  Those are different things.

                    Party politics is a nonsense-sport to entertain the population. The USA generally follows strategic policy, because the consequences are so serious, which is why all politicians, once in office, tend to follow it.  If the world system of trade is dramatically threatened, the average american can lose a third to a half of his standard of living in far shorter order than we did in the great depression. And at the current level of social discord, the government may not be able to prevent civil conflict.

                    https://www.quora.com/Political-Theory-Is-the-Wests-problem-with-Middle-Eastern-democracy-that-it-tends-to-be-religious

                  • Why Does The Tech Community Seem To Be So Liberal?

                    I have no idea why you think the tech community as a whole is liberal.  All the data that I’ve ever seen shows that libertarianism is the only overrepresented political representation in the technology community.

                    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-tech-community-seem-to-be-so-liberal

                  • Political Theory: Is The West’s Problem With Middle Eastern ‘democracy’ That It Tends To Be Religious?

                    I HAVE TO DISAGREE with the other answers.

                    The USA’s strategic policy equates democracy with consumer capitalism,  human rights, and economic and military stability. They are a set, for which ‘democracy” is a simply a shorthand. Which is unfortunate, since that brevity obscures the complexity of the strategy.

                    The USA spent the majority of the past century trying to prevent the alternative to consumer capitalism, world communism, from developing the military and economic power necessary to interfere with world oil production, and world trade – as well as preventing the further death and suffering that are the result of managed economies.

                    Therefore the simplistic statement “democracy is good”, means “Democracy that is good is democracy that advances consumer capitalism, will create states that are good world citizens and will not disrupt the world system of trade, and world production of oil.”

                    The problem that the USA has with islamic states, is that, having spent the past century trying to prevent the rise of anti-capitalist states, it appears that the muslim world is going to coalesce into three or so factions all of whom are militant and at least one of whom’s ambitions  (Iran) is to control the price of oil as a means of concentrating the capital necessary to build a military strong enough to defeat the other two factions, thereby restoring the islamic empire. 

                    So the USA is very cautious, and one should not confuse “democracy” which is simply the means of transitioning power, with the broader concept of democratic, consumer capitalism of small independent states all of whom are good world citizens.  Those are different things.

                    Party politics is a nonsense-sport to entertain the population. The USA generally follows strategic policy, because the consequences are so serious, which is why all politicians, once in office, tend to follow it.  If the world system of trade is dramatically threatened, the average american can lose a third to a half of his standard of living in far shorter order than we did in the great depression. And at the current level of social discord, the government may not be able to prevent civil conflict.

                    https://www.quora.com/Political-Theory-Is-the-Wests-problem-with-Middle-Eastern-democracy-that-it-tends-to-be-religious

                  • Why Does The Tech Community Seem To Be So Liberal?

                    I have no idea why you think the tech community as a whole is liberal.  All the data that I’ve ever seen shows that libertarianism is the only overrepresented political representation in the technology community.

                    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-tech-community-seem-to-be-so-liberal

                  • Geopolitical Conflicts: From An Ethical Standpoint, How Long Back Should One Look To Decide Who Is The Rightful Owner Of Land?

                    This only appears to be a complicated question. It really isn’t.  If a judgement will be made, how will one make such a thing?

                    1) Property Rights. Property rights of any kind are derived from the portfolio of those rights within any given jurisdiction (country/state). Property rights exist in order to prevent disputes, and to permit cooperation.  Military conquest is not a subject of property rights. The very purpose of military conquest is to abrogate and redefine property rights.  There is no other reason to conduct military conquest.  In that sense, both the israeli and amerindian conquests are settled matters, because they were settled by conquest.  So to some degree to make a legalistic argument over property rights on a military matter is simply irrational. 

                    2) Arbitrary Time Frames.  We have all been conquered people.  None of us can return to our homelands and our traditions. Even Northern europeans cannot go home any longer. The problem is infinitely recursive. These matters are not possible to solve by other than military means. That is why we solve them so.  It is an arbitrary and illogical statement to prefer one time and state of affairs to another time and state of affairs, because each state of affairs is predicated on the prior state of affairs and those conflicts. SO why, should we not take over Istanbul and rename it Byzantium, because the muslims conquered and stole if from Christians?  Where does this end?  Must we try to return Rome to the Etruscans?  Or are you just arbitrarily biased in favor of amerindians at the expense of everyone else?

                    3) Practical Matters: it is not practical to displace a people, and they would simply go to war to stop it.  So it is an absurd parlor game of a question.  Israel is doing two things: building walls, and building settlements in order to expand it’s defensible boundaries. There is nothing new about what they’re doing.  The germans put them in concentration camps and killed them. There is a difference. The displaced peoples have a choice, the executed people’s do not.

                    The English conquered (mostly) the amerindians in north america and the spanish and Portuguese in south america.  But, for example, if we quote George Washington, it’s because  (roughly quoting) they will be conquered by someone who we will have to defend ourselves against if we do not conquer them ourselves.(end roughly quoting). It is not that the English (Americans) were any different from anyone else.  Should the Kurds get their own territory? Should we go to war with china to give Tibetans their land back?  Should the russians drive out the chinese that have invaded eastern russia like the mexicans that have invaded the southern united states?  Land and the property rights imposed on that land are in constant flux everywhere in the world.


                    SUMMARY
                    So, these are not moral questions.  They are not philosophical questions. They are not legal questions. They are practical questions because in the end, the action necessary to alter the existing property definitions could only be resolved by military conquest.  THat’s what military conquests do: reassign property rights.

                    Property assignments in any state are dependent upon a set of definitions established within that state using a monopoly on violence by that organization we call ‘government’.  Those assignments may be capricious (Asia), they may be nearly non-existant (muslim world and south america), they may be collective and corrupt (Romania) they may be collective and uncorrupt (sweden) they may be individual and utilitarian (the USA).   But they are meaningful ONLY within those jurisdictions during the life of the entity that enabled them. 

                    This is a complex topic so if some other libertarian wants to challenge me, please understand that I’m erring on the side of brevity no on the side of incomprehension.  Liquid Personal property may be immutable. But land and fixed structures are not. That is not a moral statement. It is an historical one.

                    https://www.quora.com/Geopolitical-Conflicts-From-an-ethical-standpoint-how-long-back-should-one-look-to-decide-who-is-the-rightful-owner-of-land

                  • How Do The Best Graphic And Web Design Firms Handle Sales?

                    SALES: It varies by the size of the company.   Small companies generally are hired because they are local and cheap for small projects. Small projects get more attention and quality from small local companies. Big companies hate small stuff and are expensive. Selling to local companies is really just a matter of knocking on doors and showing work until they give you some of it.

                    Large agencies are generally hired for their breadth of services, ability to scale, and strategic understanding.  Large agencies are able to attract and pay for a lot of talent in sales and delivery.

                    Most opportunities are found through relationships between people who know each other.  But customers are always seeking new agencies and ideas. So customers will sometimes seek out an agency that wins awards or does promotional work for interesting clients.

                    But most new companies do not have relationships and must generally produce gratis work for non-profits to promote its abilities. Much of the best award winning creative work is done gratis.  Usually, established companies are too conservative to fund projects that are useful for the agency to use in a sales pitch.

                    Rarely do companies get off the ground without one or two accounts to support the startup.

                    If I understand your question above, ‘Design Services’ is what you’re selling. 
                    The problem is that for marketers, design services are like buying paper towels, toilet paper, and dish soap: they’re commodities. Design isn’t scarce. The difference between all but the top talent is marginal. So to get clients, you need to sell something other than the work itself.  Generally, you’re willingness to do it cheaply, or with greater customer service. Or perhaps because you understand their business or customers.  Largely; it’s “ease, dependability and price”.

                    Most agencies MARKET rather than sell themselves.  Most service companies SELL themselves rather than MARKET themselves.  The question is, whether you have the money and talent to market yourself, or whether you are still just a service company and need to sell commodity services directly until you have relationships and business understanding. 

                    PROCESS: 1)if you’re small just knock on doors and learn about possible client’s businesses.  Eat whatever ‘bugs’ you have to in order to get in the door.
                    2) Develop a pitch team of Creative, Editorial, Technical, Marketing and account management.  Most of the time, in my experience, there are only two strong people out of that set in any given company. 
                    3) if you get big enough, then hire a salesperson.  Usually the founders of small firms perform sales.   Sales people are very risky. Almost all business I have purchased in my life have gotten in trouble when the founders try to stop selling and hire salespeople.

                    RFP’s: have a very bad name largely because customers will steal ideas, and because most of the time you’re just ‘column fodder’.  Pitches are EXPENSIVE.    A big agency for example only might put in five pitches a year. But they would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on each pitch. A midsized agency might spend over 50K for each pitch and do more of them, and a small agency less than that. It’s expensive.  A commodity agency might never pitch just sell services based upon proposals.  So, if you’re in the pitch business, it’s best to pick the RFP’s you’re capable of winning and then to absolutely kill it with good ideas, and price on the pitch. 

                    My main bit of criticism, as someone who almost never loses a pitch, is that it’s not worth pitching something that you havent given your all.  So only pitch when you’re willing to give it your all, and where what you’re pitching is really valuable to the customer.  Everything else is a waste of time and money.  Count on at least one-quarter of your business leaving each year, so that if you want a greater than 20% growth rate – which is what attracts customers and talent – then you need to sell enough pitches to generate 40-50% of your revenue a year. If you figure out the average size of your accounts as they exist today, then the size of the pitches you feel you can win, then the rate of your wins, it’s just some simple math.   (Most agencies are puny, at under 5M in billings.) 

                    (I’m trying to keep this simple enough for a Quora posting, so if something isn’t clear then ask.)

                    SOFTWARE: Adobe suite. Macs. You need to be able to speak PC well enough to work with and deliver customers assets though.

                    REFERENCES: There are notoriously few books on this business that are worth reading.  Ogilvy on Advertising is about all you really need to know.  There is one on copywriting the name and author escapes me.  Maister’s book on being a “Trusted Advisor” is as timeless as Ogilvy’s.   Other than Seth Godin’s attempt to shock the old guard into thinking about the identity of consumers today little has been written that’s really valuable. (There book about the marketing history of Mazda is good too.) Generally, high minded and fashionable books on marketing and advertising are just nonsense.  Find work. Take care of clients. Accumulate talent.  Try to survive. It’s a craft. Not a science.  It’s not that complicated.

                    LAST BIT OF ADVICE: Creativity is not magic. It is the process of filling your mind with related information then playing while the subconscious does its thing.  It’s repeatable. It’s procedural. And you can get good at it as an individual or team.  The best defense against doing bad work is to simply collect as much work as possible and keep examples of both good and ‘failures’.  I can’t tell you how many ideas I’ve shot down by using an example of a known failure.

                    OVERALL: It is a murderously overpopulated business in transition from a highly profitable past to a less profitable future, where you are little more than a commodity and where you live hand-to mouth in exchange for the freedom to work in a field that accepts “playing” as doing work.

                    https://www.quora.com/How-do-the-best-graphic-and-web-design-firms-handle-sales