Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Stiglitz Joins In On Keynesian Spending In Order To Expand The Oppressive State

    The Keynesian debate promoted by such writers as Krugman, Delong, Thoma, Smith, and Stiglitz is misleading. Human beings are well aware that spending can increase demand, and that demand will improve the economy. The problem is, that we’re also aware of the externalities that are caused by that spending: the increase in government interference in our lives, the expansion of government’s size, the corruption created by the use of the funds, the use of the funds to support one’s opposition, the destruction of our savings, and the near prohibition on the institution of saving. These negative consequences all support the secondary Keynesian objectives: the strong and increasingly egalitarian state. So Keynesians promote spending as much because of it’s externalities as for its impact on the economy. Just as we oppose those externalities because we desire freedom from an oppressive state, even if we must pay a high cost for doing so. The germans resent supporting the greeks, italians and spanish just as much as americans resent supporting their liberal leaning underclasses. And while it may be true that the scale of our economy allows us to print money, that is not to say that each of us could not be more free, more prosperous, more secure and more competitive, as smaller collections of states rather than a continental federation of states oppressed by the coasts. The Keynesian arguments are convincing on first blush. But they are only convincing because in their simplicity they ignore the true costs of government spending – the externalities that come from empowering the state: it is not debt alone that we face. It’s the destruction of meritocracy and the submission to the state. The germans and the americans are right to oppose it.

  • Political Rhetoric: What Subjects Should Not Be Politicized?

    Politics is the process of creating and using institutions to issue orders, codified as laws, to commit organized violence to coerce others to alter their behavior, and to separate them from their property.  There is no subject that is free from political criticism. Because there are no limits to human desires to alter the behavior of others, or to take property from them.

    If we wish instead, to be free people, we must define the term freedom in both the negative forms in which we forbid actions and thefts and the positive forms, in which we mandate actions and thefts. Once possessed of that definition we can construct a constitution consisting of rules that we are forbidden to circumvent. 

    In doing so we outlaw political action within a particular system.

    Unfortunately, our system of laws and institutions were not strong enough to resist the attacks on them by the left. And our constitution has been rendered meaningless.  Hence why our people begin to abandon it.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Rhetoric-What-subjects-should-not-be-politicized

  • Political Rhetoric: What Subjects Should Not Be Politicized?

    Politics is the process of creating and using institutions to issue orders, codified as laws, to commit organized violence to coerce others to alter their behavior, and to separate them from their property.  There is no subject that is free from political criticism. Because there are no limits to human desires to alter the behavior of others, or to take property from them.

    If we wish instead, to be free people, we must define the term freedom in both the negative forms in which we forbid actions and thefts and the positive forms, in which we mandate actions and thefts. Once possessed of that definition we can construct a constitution consisting of rules that we are forbidden to circumvent. 

    In doing so we outlaw political action within a particular system.

    Unfortunately, our system of laws and institutions were not strong enough to resist the attacks on them by the left. And our constitution has been rendered meaningless.  Hence why our people begin to abandon it.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Rhetoric-What-subjects-should-not-be-politicized

  • Why Is Socialism Such A Bogeyman?

    You would need to understand the term “Socialism”
    1) Original meaning: central control of the means of production.
    2) Current meaning: redistributive democracy -central ownership of the profits from individual actions.

    The first It has a bad name because:
    In the name of socialism nearly a hundred million people died (disruption of incentives). Because it’s economically impossible (economic calculation debate).  And because it held people in poverty.

    The second is just a slow means of achieving the first.

    Small homogenous Germanic countries who’s strategic needs are subsidized by the united states or whose economies are subsidized by natural resources appear to be egalitarian. (It’s called ‘getting to denmark’ in political economy.) This is because they have a rigid normative structure and the different groups are not large enough to create a bloc.  The usa is a large heterogeneous economy with many factions in direct opposition, and unenforced norms, racial and cultural conflicts, facing both internal and external strategic threats that subsidizes much of the world, and where access to government allows access to power over other groups. The USA also has dramatic redistribution through inefficient benefit programs rather than directly via money.   People are not charitable to others who they feel they are in competition with.

    (And before you get too impressed with those countries go live there for a year. It is extremely expensive and you will be able to consume only a fraction of  what you do in the states.)

    It is entirely possible to have a great deal of redistribution if norms are consistent and there is no access to poliitcal power.  But that means ‘small is good’.  And ‘small is good’ is what you should learn from the nordic countries.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-socialism-such-a-bogeyman

  • Why Do Libertarians Treat Social Order And Civil Society As Free Goods?

    They don’t. While it costs nothing to abstain from theft, fraud and violence, it costs something to administer defense and disputes.  The libertarian argument is that these things can be produced by private organizations. They have produced a great deal of work that demonstrates how and why that private production of defense is both possible and preferable.

    The European monarchies were private governments, and there were political parties and labor unions and a great deal of diversity, with many cities having different neighborhoods for each ethnic group.  The monarchies were less warlike, taxed people much less, provided public services and had active civil societies.   Not that we should return to monarchies but the point is that these things can, and have worked.

    The problem with government is a bureaucracy. If you were to privatize everything, you would come close the the libertarian idea.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-libertarians-treat-social-order-and-civil-society-as-free-goods

  • Should Political Advertisements Be Banned From Television?

    It would violate the principle of free speech.
    It would increase corruption at the cost of decreasing an annoyance.
    It would very likely decrease voter participation

    https://www.quora.com/Should-political-advertisements-be-banned-from-television

  • Why Is Socialism Such A Bogeyman?

    You would need to understand the term “Socialism”
    1) Original meaning: central control of the means of production.
    2) Current meaning: redistributive democracy -central ownership of the profits from individual actions.

    The first It has a bad name because:
    In the name of socialism nearly a hundred million people died (disruption of incentives). Because it’s economically impossible (economic calculation debate).  And because it held people in poverty.

    The second is just a slow means of achieving the first.

    Small homogenous Germanic countries who’s strategic needs are subsidized by the united states or whose economies are subsidized by natural resources appear to be egalitarian. (It’s called ‘getting to denmark’ in political economy.) This is because they have a rigid normative structure and the different groups are not large enough to create a bloc.  The usa is a large heterogeneous economy with many factions in direct opposition, and unenforced norms, racial and cultural conflicts, facing both internal and external strategic threats that subsidizes much of the world, and where access to government allows access to power over other groups. The USA also has dramatic redistribution through inefficient benefit programs rather than directly via money.   People are not charitable to others who they feel they are in competition with.

    (And before you get too impressed with those countries go live there for a year. It is extremely expensive and you will be able to consume only a fraction of  what you do in the states.)

    It is entirely possible to have a great deal of redistribution if norms are consistent and there is no access to poliitcal power.  But that means ‘small is good’.  And ‘small is good’ is what you should learn from the nordic countries.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-socialism-such-a-bogeyman

  • Why Do Libertarians Treat Social Order And Civil Society As Free Goods?

    They don’t. While it costs nothing to abstain from theft, fraud and violence, it costs something to administer defense and disputes.  The libertarian argument is that these things can be produced by private organizations. They have produced a great deal of work that demonstrates how and why that private production of defense is both possible and preferable.

    The European monarchies were private governments, and there were political parties and labor unions and a great deal of diversity, with many cities having different neighborhoods for each ethnic group.  The monarchies were less warlike, taxed people much less, provided public services and had active civil societies.   Not that we should return to monarchies but the point is that these things can, and have worked.

    The problem with government is a bureaucracy. If you were to privatize everything, you would come close the the libertarian idea.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-libertarians-treat-social-order-and-civil-society-as-free-goods

  • Should Political Advertisements Be Banned From Television?

    It would violate the principle of free speech.
    It would increase corruption at the cost of decreasing an annoyance.
    It would very likely decrease voter participation

    https://www.quora.com/Should-political-advertisements-be-banned-from-television

  • LAWSUITS AS ENTERTAINMENT I’m writing a pleading. I actually like writing them.

    LAWSUITS AS ENTERTAINMENT

    I’m writing a pleading. I actually like writing them. It’s like philosophy except that the law is even more criminal in itself than the things we adjudicate with it.

    What is so painfully obvious to the libertarian, is the need to compensate for the pervasive ignorance of the state, its total abandonment of property rights, and the emphasis on protecting the presumption of competence of the court rather than the property rights of the individuals at hand.

    Compared to philosophy it’s like slumming for beers in the cheap bars in college.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-05-17 18:22:00 UTC