Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • The Choices

    a) Rule (conflict resolution), b) Government(commons production), c) Market(Consumption production) 1 – Rule of Law vs Discretionary Rule 2 – Production of commons by a spectrum of discretion: individual, oligarchical, syndicalist, democratic. 3 – Distribution of control of property between rulers and citizens. 4 – Distribution of proceeds of the market between rulers and citizens. Capitalism (consumption), Socialism (commons production), Authoritarian(institutional production) 5 – Balance of Proceeds between consumption and commons and institutions.

  • THE CHOICES a) Rule (conflict resolution), b) Government(commons production), c)

    THE CHOICES

    a) Rule (conflict resolution),

    b) Government(commons production),

    c) Market(Consumption production)

    1 – Rule of Law vs Discretionary Rule

    2 – Production of commons by a spectrum of discretion: individual, oligarchical, syndicalist, democratic.

    3 – Distribution of control of property between rulers and citizens.

    4 – Distribution of proceeds of the market between rulers and citizens. Capitalism (consumption), Socialism (commons production), Authoritarian(institutional production)

    5 – Balance of Proceeds between consumption and commons and institutions.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-12 21:47:00 UTC

  • There ISN’T A Definition Of Fascism (Really)

    THERE ISN”T A DEFINITION OF FASCISM (REALLY) Fascism doesn’t actually have a definition. Look it up. What it’s reducible to is the application of total war (national organization for military and political conflict) to economics (national organization for economic and political conflict). The Nazis even took it all the way to aesthetics. (Which was one of their principal innovations.) If we look at what the fascists did and their incentives it’s just an attempt to resist the twin cosmopolitan strategies of communism and capitalism. In rough colloquial terms it means little more than suppression of the market for opposition. Or rather, intolerance for opposition.

  • THERE ISN’T A DEFINITION OF FASCISM (REALLY) Fascism doesn’t actually have a def

    THERE ISN’T A DEFINITION OF FASCISM (REALLY)

    Fascism doesn’t actually have a definition. Look it up. What it’s reducible to is the application of total war (national organization for military and political conflict) to economics (national organization for economic and political conflict). The Nazis even took it all the way to aesthetics. (Which was one of their principal innovations.)

    If we look at what the fascists did and their incentives it’s just an attempt to resist the twin cosmopolitan strategies of communism and capitalism.

    In rough colloquial terms it means little more than suppression of the market for opposition. Or rather, intolerance for opposition.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-12 21:39:00 UTC

  • There ISN’T A Definition Of Fascism (Really)

    THERE ISN”T A DEFINITION OF FASCISM (REALLY) Fascism doesn’t actually have a definition. Look it up. What it’s reducible to is the application of total war (national organization for military and political conflict) to economics (national organization for economic and political conflict). The Nazis even took it all the way to aesthetics. (Which was one of their principal innovations.) If we look at what the fascists did and their incentives it’s just an attempt to resist the twin cosmopolitan strategies of communism and capitalism. In rough colloquial terms it means little more than suppression of the market for opposition. Or rather, intolerance for opposition.

  • You Can’t Get Around Reciprocity. Politics Is Solved.

    I mean, you can’t get around reciprocity as the measure of morality. You can’t get around property in toto as the test and limit of reciprocity. You can’t get around natural law of reciprocity as the means of dispute resolution. You can’t get around markets under natural law of reciprocity. You can’t get around the fact that goods services and information can be used to conduct thefts directly, indirectly, and by externality. You can’t get around the fact that you can only warranty what you can perform restitution for, and therefore what you can warranty limits the goods, services, and information that you can bring to market. You can’t get around the fact that even proposing an alternative to a market order is something you cannot warranty, and something that is de facto an attempted theft. You can’t get around the fact that no matter what order you want to produce can be produced through exchange. What you can’t get around and none of us can get around, is that the least able have behavior to trade – what they may not do, and the most able have talents to trade – what they may do. You can’t get around these things. Ever. As far as I know political science is solved. It will just require us to suppress parasitism in this world by political means the same way we have suppressed parasitism by violence, theft, fraud in goods and services. And the principle means of doing so is suppression of advocacy of parasitism by information. And to do that requires only that we publish the requirements for reciprocity in all speech. And it turns out, that is possible, and not all that difficult.

  • YOU CAN’T GET AROUND RECIPROCITY. POLITICS IS SOLVED. I mean, you can’t get arou

    YOU CAN’T GET AROUND RECIPROCITY. POLITICS IS SOLVED.

    I mean, you can’t get around reciprocity as the measure of morality. You can’t get around property in toto as the test and limit of reciprocity. You can’t get around natural law of reciprocity as the means of dispute resolution. You can’t get around markets under natural law of reciprocity. You can’t get around the fact that goods services and information can be used to conduct thefts directly, indirectly, and by externality. You can’t get around the fact that you can only warranty what you can perform restitution for, and therefore what you can warranty limits the goods, services, and information that you can bring to market. You can’t get around the fact that even proposing an alternative to a market order is something you cannot warranty, and something that is de facto an attempted theft. You can’t get around the fact that no matter what order you want to produce can be produced through exchange. What you can’t get around and none of us can get around, is that the least able have behavior to trade – what they may not do, and the most able have talents to trade – what they may do. You can’t get around these things. Ever. As far as I know political science is solved. It will just require us to suppress parasitism in this world by political means the same way we have suppressed parasitism by violence, theft, fraud in goods and services. And the principle means of doing so is suppression of advocacy of parasitism by information. And to do that requires only that we publish the requirements for reciprocity in all speech. And it turns out, that is possible, and not all that difficult.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-12 21:34:00 UTC

  • You Can’t Get Around Reciprocity. Politics Is Solved.

    I mean, you can’t get around reciprocity as the measure of morality. You can’t get around property in toto as the test and limit of reciprocity. You can’t get around natural law of reciprocity as the means of dispute resolution. You can’t get around markets under natural law of reciprocity. You can’t get around the fact that goods services and information can be used to conduct thefts directly, indirectly, and by externality. You can’t get around the fact that you can only warranty what you can perform restitution for, and therefore what you can warranty limits the goods, services, and information that you can bring to market. You can’t get around the fact that even proposing an alternative to a market order is something you cannot warranty, and something that is de facto an attempted theft. You can’t get around the fact that no matter what order you want to produce can be produced through exchange. What you can’t get around and none of us can get around, is that the least able have behavior to trade – what they may not do, and the most able have talents to trade – what they may do. You can’t get around these things. Ever. As far as I know political science is solved. It will just require us to suppress parasitism in this world by political means the same way we have suppressed parasitism by violence, theft, fraud in goods and services. And the principle means of doing so is suppression of advocacy of parasitism by information. And to do that requires only that we publish the requirements for reciprocity in all speech. And it turns out, that is possible, and not all that difficult.

  • Daniel Gurpide: of late you’ve put forth a criticism of nationalism. And I’ve su

    Daniel Gurpide: of late you’ve put forth a criticism of nationalism. And I’ve suggested that I might be wrong, in that I am thinking of monarchies, which are a lower level organization than a state. (family > monarchy > state

    > empire). Can you help me understand what you’re getting at please?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-12 10:56:00 UTC

  • Daniel Gurpide: of late you’ve put forth a criticism of nationalism. And I’ve su

    Daniel Gurpide: of late you’ve put forth a criticism of nationalism. And I’ve suggested that I might be wrong, in that I am thinking of monarchies, which are a lower level organization than a state. (family > monarchy > state > empire). Can you help me understand what you’re getting at please?