Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • GAAP(RULE OF LAW) VS IFRS(NAPOLEONIC LAW) (h/t Johannes Meixner )(From elsewhere

    GAAP(RULE OF LAW) VS IFRS(NAPOLEONIC LAW)

    (h/t Johannes Meixner )(From elsewhere)

    This is the material difference in the origins and persistence of the different accounting systems. All anglo-american policy is traditionally implemented under rule of law that approaches formal logic as much as possible.

    The general rule of american GAAP is pretty simple “represent the truth”. This varies from the Napoleonic countries where there is less suspicion of government involvement and less tolerance for discretion.

    Some of this is terribly important given that in many countries that use Napoleonic law and it’s descendants, the bureaucracy tends to be staffed professionally. Whereas in the states the bureaucracy is staffed by ‘those unfit for real productive work’.

    Hence the general believe that there must be no room for discretion in american law and accounting, and arguments must be decidable by a judge using logical means.

    Just to provide context, this is also the difference between the economic schools of thought:

    1) The conservative ‘Austrian’ branch seeks rules of natural law such that institutions can be improved in order to reduce frictions in the economy.

    2) the classical liberal ‘american’ (or freshwater) branch seeks extensions of rule of law that allow intervention in the economy only under predefined rules as to eliminate political discretion and allow private sector planning without ‘losses’ incurred by government exercise of discretion.

    3) the ‘Saltwater’ or ‘American Jewish’ branch seeks to understand the limits of discretionary action in order to give the government the freedom to interfere in the economy with maximum discretion.

    The Debate over GAAP and IFRS is one of RULES vs JUSTIFICATIONS. the USA differs for this reason. Although you would very likely be hard pressed to find many people able to explain this deep difference between the american (equalitarian) experiment and the continental (authoritarian) experiment.

    As such it is a non trivial difference that reflects the difference in cultures. The principle of ‘going concern’ is a mathematical relationship determined between the creditor and the company officers. It is not a matter for ‘interference’ by the state.

    Hence higher risk organizations in america, and the bigger stock market in america, and the more developed tech and research sector in america, and the bond market in london, and the heavy industrial superiority of germany, and the military superiority of russia.

    Risk increases as we move westward.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 14:14:00 UTC

  • THE CONTRACTUAL SOCIETY: SOCIAL CONTRACT, OATH, JURY, JUDGE —“At the heart of

    THE CONTRACTUAL SOCIETY: SOCIAL CONTRACT, OATH, JURY, JUDGE

    —“At the heart of the tenth-century law was the oath, taken by all freemen from the age of 12, to abstain from and denounce any major crime.

    This common oath enshrined the sense of social community and responsibility that underpinned the law. In this light, theft was seen as an act of disloyalty. If you had broken your oath and committed a serious crime your entire kin could be punished.

    King Athelstan, is reported saying to his councillors that he was concerned about the number of young people being executed under the death penalty, ‘as he sees everywhere is the case’.

    The death penalty could be enforced on anyone 12 years old or over, but the king raised the age of criminal responsibility to 16 because, as he said simply, ‘it is too cruel’.

    That, was around 930. But as late as the early 19th century there are cases of ten, nine and even eight year olds being executed for sheep stealing.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-04 02:59:00 UTC

  • The Melting Pot That Isn’t

    (worth repeating) — “The only thing that melts in our non-existent melting pot, is rule of law. Everything else is just an expression of the ongoing battle between our genes that we call gender, class, race, and religious competition.“—

  • The Melting Pot That Isn’t

    (worth repeating) — “The only thing that melts in our non-existent melting pot, is rule of law. Everything else is just an expression of the ongoing battle between our genes that we call gender, class, race, and religious competition.“—

  • Government(Particular) vs Rule (Universal)

    [T]here is a very great difference between government and rule.

    • Rule:
    • Government:

    I am not sure all peoples can easily generate judges capable of rule by rule of law. Although wth sufficient training it appears largely possible. I do not think other peoples should participate in the selection of a commons for a people, only in the prevention of privatization of commons, or the socialization of losses into commons. In this sense, colonialism is very different from adjudication. And my feeling is that most nations would benefit from hiring judges. And most would benefit from not being colonized. Rule of law works over time. Law is a science. The production of commons is an extension of the family. It can only grow with the people themselves.

  • Government(Particular) vs Rule (Universal)

    [T]here is a very great difference between government and rule.

    • Rule:
    • Government:

    I am not sure all peoples can easily generate judges capable of rule by rule of law. Although wth sufficient training it appears largely possible. I do not think other peoples should participate in the selection of a commons for a people, only in the prevention of privatization of commons, or the socialization of losses into commons. In this sense, colonialism is very different from adjudication. And my feeling is that most nations would benefit from hiring judges. And most would benefit from not being colonized. Rule of law works over time. Law is a science. The production of commons is an extension of the family. It can only grow with the people themselves.

  • Defense vs Rule vs Government

    [I] have no problem defending or ruling other peoples. These are both moral and costly. I have a problem with governing other people. And profiting from it. Why? Because defense and rule of law are universal truths. Governing: producing commons, are preferences and strategies. I consider that none of even the most enlightened people’s business. And worse, beyond their capacity.

  • The Second Great Criticism of Democracy

    (important)(very important) [Y]ou see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success. There are only three means of organizing man: force, gossip and exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion. By constructing three houses: 1) aristocracy/military/law of property; 2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance; 3) burgher/commerce/law of contract; …and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons. So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation. If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family. Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent. In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent. Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent. So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity. Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras. We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses. More as I continue my work. But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsibile for our success.

  • The Second Great Criticism of Democracy

    (important)(very important) [Y]ou see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success. There are only three means of organizing man: force, gossip and exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion. By constructing three houses: 1) aristocracy/military/law of property; 2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance; 3) burgher/commerce/law of contract; …and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons. So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation. If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family. Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent. In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent. Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent. So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity. Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras. We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses. More as I continue my work. But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsibile for our success.

  • THE SECOND GREAT CRITICISM OF DEMOCRACY (important)(very important) You see, the

    THE SECOND GREAT CRITICISM OF DEMOCRACY

    (important)(very important)

    You see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success.

    There are only three means of organizing man: 1) force, 2) gossip and 3) exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion.

    By constructing three houses that reflect these three means of organizing man:

    1) aristocracy/military/law of property;

    2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance;

    3) burgher/commerce/law of contract;

    …and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons.

    So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation.

    If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family.

    Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent.

    In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent.

    Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent.

    So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity.

    Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras.

    We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses.

    More as I continue my work.

    But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsible for our success.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-01 04:03:00 UTC