Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • UNDEAD LIBERTARIANISM Putting a stake in the vampire of libertarian mysticism on

    UNDEAD LIBERTARIANISM

    Putting a stake in the vampire of libertarian mysticism one paragraph at a time.

    WHY? Because liberty is the product of aristocracy. Everyone else is along for the ride.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-26 12:29:00 UTC

  • OF ENDEMIC CORRUPTION IN KIEV: “PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR” I lived in a very nice sma

    http://24tv.ua/home/showSingleNews.do?turchynov_dismisses_presidential_advisors&objectId=413772&lang=enEXAMPLE OF ENDEMIC CORRUPTION IN KIEV: “PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR”

    I lived in a very nice small hotel in downtown for a long time. And in the morning I’d go down for breakfast and sit on the veranda overlooking the street.

    One of the frequent characters was a fellow who always seemed to meet foreigners and talk to them about doing business in Ukraine.

    Eventually we moved mutual recognition, then to morning smiles, and I finally introduced myself. We spoke briefly. .He gave me his card. He was an “Advisor to the President”. Which seemed strange to me because he looked far more like a carpet salesman than anyone with deep knowledge of any kind of civil affairs.

    Over time I gathered enough information by ‘accidental’ listening, to understand that he was a gatekeeper for foreign businesses in Ukraine. If you want to start a business, obtain credit, film a movie, or gain access to television and media, you could pay ‘fees’ for the his ‘service’.

    His service involved collecting bribes on behalf of the president in exchange for ‘assistance’ in accomplishing your goals.

    I haven’t seen him lately. I don’t remember his name. But I’m pretty sure that the list of ‘advisors’ is a lot longer than the official one.

    Today, the parliament dismissed an whole list of ‘advisors’.

    Story below.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 14:40:00 UTC

  • ALL SOCIETIES REQUIRE A DOMINANT MINORITY Who is ours?

    ALL SOCIETIES REQUIRE A DOMINANT MINORITY

    Who is ours?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 06:12:00 UTC

  • LETTER TO THE BBC – TODAY – IN RESPONSE TO “REQUEST FOR COMMENTS FROM KIEV” (int

    LETTER TO THE BBC – TODAY – IN RESPONSE TO “REQUEST FOR COMMENTS FROM KIEV”

    (interesting insight) (class and diversity)

    –“I live in downtown Kiev. I have for a year and a half. And it might be interesting to relate how I have been affected, at least intellectually, by the protests.

    I think we could help both western journalists and the populace they serve (as well as various State departments) if they would understand one of the vast differences between Ukrainian (and Russian for that matter) cultures and our own.

    Somewhat like the Nordic countries, but very UNLIKE the germanic and anglo countries, Ukrainians do not really consider themselves as participants in a class war. While status signals are about all we seem to seek to collect in the west, here in Ukraine, status signals are something you collect personally, but not on behalf of a class.

    The near destruction of class warfare was perhaps the only benefit of the soviet system. It worked. Whereas, in the west, we are still trying, to create the ‘Aristocracy of Everybody’ that was the unstated promise of the enlightenment in its Anglo, Anglo-American, German and French versions.

    The Ukrainian society is, despite its fracture along geographic lines, language lines, religious lines, and political lines, NOT fractured along class lines.

    And without this constant class and status warfare by everyone, people don’t demonize each other. They aren’t frustrated with each other. And even as a low-trust society, they don’t necessarily mistrust each other. Instead, they think and act as an extended family.

    As such there just isn’t all that pent up anger and frustration that we have in anglo countries – since it’s IMPOSSIBLE to create an aristocracy of everybody – many people become frustrated at the conflict between the promise of upper middle class life, and the reality that western countries form normal distributions. That just doesn’t happen here.

    Ukraine is tribally heterogeneous, but not necessarily culturally heterogeneous. Certainly less different than Quebecois and Anglo Anglos in Canada. Even in Canada the conflict is more over the class differences between the French who were predominantly from the continental lower classes, and the english who were not. In america the conflict is increasingly between married protestants with two incomes that can maintain middle class status, and everyone else.

    The Ukrainian people reserve their anger and frustration for the corrupt government and do not display it toward one another. In fact, they are extremely civil and loving (despite absurd levels of alcohol consumption and zero prohibition on fist-to-cuffs). They have a nobility and pride that we have lost in our constant great game of class warfare.

    The uncomfortable truth we westerners (particularly in the Anglosphere) must learn to deal with is that homogenous small societies demonstrate tolerance for greater redistribution and intolerance for class warfare. And that diverse, large societies resist redistribution and encourage class and culture warfare. In small homogenous polities, the government is a vehicle for cooperation. In large heterogeneous polities the government is a vehicle for class and cultural competition.

    I am not sure we should be so proud of ourselves in the Anglo world. Ukrainians formed a militia in 90 days out of hand-made armor, surplus military gear, motorcycle and hockey gear, baseball bats, pipes, and a few weapons that they stole from the police and military.

    That little militia did more for their freedom than democracy ever had.

    I think that’s what I learned from watching Ukrainians revolt.”–

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-23 08:32:00 UTC

  • DEMOCRACIES ARE VOTE FARMS AND PARASITES ARE THE CHEAPEST PRODUCT TO RAISE

    DEMOCRACIES ARE VOTE FARMS AND PARASITES ARE THE CHEAPEST PRODUCT TO RAISE.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-23 07:15:00 UTC

  • Labor Is Meaningless – Consumers Are Not

      Obvious but interesting, is that marxist labor theory of value, and even their supposed social value of ‘labor’ are both in fact valueless and non-logical. But the presence of a ‘consumer’ is not. It’s not that business value labor. It’s that business and capitalists need CUSTOMERS in order to organize production. The challenge in expanding any economy, and in the satisfaction of consumer wants, is not production – it is voluntarily organization production for the satisfaction of demonstrated consumer wants. Money supplies us with information that represents the accumulated savings of time, created by the division of knowledge and labor. I know this is pretty obvious (and incomplete as an argument) but I still am amazed at how the marxist zombie simply continues to walk the face of the earth.

  • Labor Is Meaningless – Consumers Are Not

      Obvious but interesting, is that marxist labor theory of value, and even their supposed social value of ‘labor’ are both in fact valueless and non-logical. But the presence of a ‘consumer’ is not. It’s not that business value labor. It’s that business and capitalists need CUSTOMERS in order to organize production. The challenge in expanding any economy, and in the satisfaction of consumer wants, is not production – it is voluntarily organization production for the satisfaction of demonstrated consumer wants. Money supplies us with information that represents the accumulated savings of time, created by the division of knowledge and labor. I know this is pretty obvious (and incomplete as an argument) but I still am amazed at how the marxist zombie simply continues to walk the face of the earth.

  • The Assumptions of 'Liberalism' (And Libertarianism)

    “Libertarianism is applied autism.” – Steve Sailer For some reason this phrase affected me pretty deeply. UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT A GIVEN? Libertarianism, as I practice it, and as I believe Mises and Hayek practiced their ‘liberalism’ (universal enfranchisement), is the scientific pursuit of political theory using the system of measurement we call economics, and the objective of material prosperity. Which was of course, the great achievement of the innovations of capitalism, empiricism (of which capitalism is a member) and the harnessing fossil fuels. Or rather, These philosophers were engaged in an attempt to define scientific political theory under the ASSUMPTION of universal enfranchisement. I still practice my philosophical inquiry under that same assumption of universal enfranchisement – the prohibition on the deprivation of the choice of “cooperation or boycott” from others. But once you assume some justification for not depriving others of choice, (a) we run into the problem of diverse interests and desires so that we now need a means of choosing between preferences, and the DEMONSTRATED preference of everyone is greater prosperity, for the simple reason that prosperity increases everyone’s choices and greatly reduces the cost of ANY choice. PRIMACY OF PROSPERITY – ECONOMICS AND COOPERATION So, the second assumption of “liberalism” is the priority of economic good. That is, that cooperation facilitates production of prosperity. MERITOCRACY OR NOT? The third assumption of “liberalism” is natural rotation (Meritocracy). But like prices and contracts, humans do not willingly rotate downward if there is any impact upon their status. In fact, people place higher value on their status than almost any other asset that they have. LIBERTY OR CONSUMPTION? The fourth assumption of ‘liberalism’ is that humans desire liberty, rather than that they desire choice and consumption. When in fact, only libertarians and conservatives demonstrate a preference for liberty, and almost all other humans on the planet do not. They demonstrate ONLY a preference for consumption. OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO LIBERTARIANISM EXIST 0) Libertarianism (full enfranchisement, with meritocratic rotation) 1) Select enfranchisement (Pre-enlightenment European, and early American with selective rotation) 2) Totalitarian humanism (Chinese Corporatism and European Corporatist models ceremonial enfranchisement ) 3) Totalitarianism (pre-communist Chinese and most empire and state models) Libertarians are unique. Conservatives are unique. Most of the world does not want to engage in trial and error. They can’t. It’s too hard for them. Then again, why does universal enfranchisement imply monopoly? Why can’t we construct many small states some of which practice communal property and others that practice private property and everything in between? Because the statists could not profit from us? Because that is how humans MUST function precisely because we are not equal in ability whatsoever. A large organization has only so many people at the top. In many small organizations there are only so may people at the top, but there are many more organizations for people to reach the top of. Just as companies and economies have spread out into multiple flexible organizations, so must governments. That is the obvious conclusion: size allows you to conduct war and that is all. As such, if someone attempts to construct a scale empire, they have no other reason than warfare to do so. Our goal then should be to destroy large states so that war is nearly impossible to conduct.

  • The Assumptions of ‘Liberalism’ (And Libertarianism)

    “Libertarianism is applied autism.” – Steve Sailer For some reason this phrase affected me pretty deeply. UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT A GIVEN? Libertarianism, as I practice it, and as I believe Mises and Hayek practiced their ‘liberalism’ (universal enfranchisement), is the scientific pursuit of political theory using the system of measurement we call economics, and the objective of material prosperity. Which was of course, the great achievement of the innovations of capitalism, empiricism (of which capitalism is a member) and the harnessing fossil fuels. Or rather, These philosophers were engaged in an attempt to define scientific political theory under the ASSUMPTION of universal enfranchisement. I still practice my philosophical inquiry under that same assumption of universal enfranchisement – the prohibition on the deprivation of the choice of “cooperation or boycott” from others. But once you assume some justification for not depriving others of choice, (a) we run into the problem of diverse interests and desires so that we now need a means of choosing between preferences, and the DEMONSTRATED preference of everyone is greater prosperity, for the simple reason that prosperity increases everyone’s choices and greatly reduces the cost of ANY choice. PRIMACY OF PROSPERITY – ECONOMICS AND COOPERATION So, the second assumption of “liberalism” is the priority of economic good. That is, that cooperation facilitates production of prosperity. MERITOCRACY OR NOT? The third assumption of “liberalism” is natural rotation (Meritocracy). But like prices and contracts, humans do not willingly rotate downward if there is any impact upon their status. In fact, people place higher value on their status than almost any other asset that they have. LIBERTY OR CONSUMPTION? The fourth assumption of ‘liberalism’ is that humans desire liberty, rather than that they desire choice and consumption. When in fact, only libertarians and conservatives demonstrate a preference for liberty, and almost all other humans on the planet do not. They demonstrate ONLY a preference for consumption. OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO LIBERTARIANISM EXIST 0) Libertarianism (full enfranchisement, with meritocratic rotation) 1) Select enfranchisement (Pre-enlightenment European, and early American with selective rotation) 2) Totalitarian humanism (Chinese Corporatism and European Corporatist models ceremonial enfranchisement ) 3) Totalitarianism (pre-communist Chinese and most empire and state models) Libertarians are unique. Conservatives are unique. Most of the world does not want to engage in trial and error. They can’t. It’s too hard for them. Then again, why does universal enfranchisement imply monopoly? Why can’t we construct many small states some of which practice communal property and others that practice private property and everything in between? Because the statists could not profit from us? Because that is how humans MUST function precisely because we are not equal in ability whatsoever. A large organization has only so many people at the top. In many small organizations there are only so may people at the top, but there are many more organizations for people to reach the top of. Just as companies and economies have spread out into multiple flexible organizations, so must governments. That is the obvious conclusion: size allows you to conduct war and that is all. As such, if someone attempts to construct a scale empire, they have no other reason than warfare to do so. Our goal then should be to destroy large states so that war is nearly impossible to conduct.

  • The Assumptions of 'Liberalism' (And Libertarianism)

    “Libertarianism is applied autism.” – Steve Sailer For some reason this phrase affected me pretty deeply. UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT A GIVEN? Libertarianism, as I practice it, and as I believe Mises and Hayek practiced their ‘liberalism’ (universal enfranchisement), is the scientific pursuit of political theory using the system of measurement we call economics, and the objective of material prosperity. Which was of course, the great achievement of the innovations of capitalism, empiricism (of which capitalism is a member) and the harnessing fossil fuels. Or rather, These philosophers were engaged in an attempt to define scientific political theory under the ASSUMPTION of universal enfranchisement. I still practice my philosophical inquiry under that same assumption of universal enfranchisement – the prohibition on the deprivation of the choice of “cooperation or boycott” from others. But once you assume some justification for not depriving others of choice, (a) we run into the problem of diverse interests and desires so that we now need a means of choosing between preferences, and the DEMONSTRATED preference of everyone is greater prosperity, for the simple reason that prosperity increases everyone’s choices and greatly reduces the cost of ANY choice. PRIMACY OF PROSPERITY – ECONOMICS AND COOPERATION So, the second assumption of “liberalism” is the priority of economic good. That is, that cooperation facilitates production of prosperity. MERITOCRACY OR NOT? The third assumption of “liberalism” is natural rotation (Meritocracy). But like prices and contracts, humans do not willingly rotate downward if there is any impact upon their status. In fact, people place higher value on their status than almost any other asset that they have. LIBERTY OR CONSUMPTION? The fourth assumption of ‘liberalism’ is that humans desire liberty, rather than that they desire choice and consumption. When in fact, only libertarians and conservatives demonstrate a preference for liberty, and almost all other humans on the planet do not. They demonstrate ONLY a preference for consumption. OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO LIBERTARIANISM EXIST 0) Libertarianism (full enfranchisement, with meritocratic rotation) 1) Select enfranchisement (Pre-enlightenment European, and early American with selective rotation) 2) Totalitarian humanism (Chinese Corporatism and European Corporatist models ceremonial enfranchisement ) 3) Totalitarianism (pre-communist Chinese and most empire and state models) Libertarians are unique. Conservatives are unique. Most of the world does not want to engage in trial and error. They can’t. It’s too hard for them. Then again, why does universal enfranchisement imply monopoly? Why can’t we construct many small states some of which practice communal property and others that practice private property and everything in between? Because the statists could not profit from us? Because that is how humans MUST function precisely because we are not equal in ability whatsoever. A large organization has only so many people at the top. In many small organizations there are only so may people at the top, but there are many more organizations for people to reach the top of. Just as companies and economies have spread out into multiple flexible organizations, so must governments. That is the obvious conclusion: size allows you to conduct war and that is all. As such, if someone attempts to construct a scale empire, they have no other reason than warfare to do so. Our goal then should be to destroy large states so that war is nearly impossible to conduct.