Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Alt-Right Overplaying Its Hand, and The Horror of the Left.

    THE ALT RIGHT WILL (IS) OVERPLAY ITS HAND Tipping a scale is not anchoring the pan. You cannot win a vote by margin and hold a field. They have shock, anger, loss of confidence. You want what you believe is favorable stability. But you need to create favorable chaos. The point is not to win by submission. It is to accelerate the conflict. to increase the conflict so that the only solution, is devolution or secession. In other words, make the opposition unwilling allies. Push them to adopt your position: fracture. THE HORROR OF THE LEFT is the realization that their status economy is being destroyed. Their cheap multicultural, anti-white status signals are no longer buying them unearned moral status. They cry louder and longer and become more hysterical, but it buys them nothing. We’re crashing the Left’s status economy. As it fails, there will be a natural shift to new status signals. We need to create that new market, that is the job: create a positive vision and then award status to those who exemplify it. We need to praise our heroes long and loud.

  • Peter Boettke On The Reveal: Partisan Cheerleaders Not Social Critics

    —“Observation — journalists and other intellectuals freaking out over the outcome of the election reveal that they were never really “students” of society, or even “social critics”, but were instead partisan cheerleaders. Also, it appears that many are completely incapable of asking themselves whether it might be possible that the consensus of the progressive elite in public policy is perhaps neither as accurately descriptive of how the world works or as normatively appealing as they sincerely believe. Rather than critical self-reflection we see outrage, blame, and emotional expression of pain.There are many reasons to be concerned, but the responsible response from intellectuals is to think through rationally, to ask what I was wrong about, try to force yourself to pass an ideological Turning Test, and to recognize that if there are institutional problems the answer requires institutional solutions.Liberal democratic traditions do not work based on the “good” and the “wise” being in power, but were designed so that “bad men can do least harm”. Let’s hope those liberal democratic institutions are still in operation after so many years of sustained critique by progressive intellectuals.Democratic governance (liberalism) is a different beast from bureaucratic governance (progressivism). Bureaucratic governance requires trained experts immune from democratic checks and balances, democratic governance requires responsible citizens and institutions that empower as well as constrain.”– Peter Boettke (NOTE: I would say they are all engaged in customer seeking – a long form of rent seeking. The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding: (1)kin/law, (2)cult/religion, or (3)state/corporatism; Depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others? And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power. I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state. If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means. – CD )

  • Peter Boettke On The Reveal: Partisan Cheerleaders Not Social Critics

    —“Observation — journalists and other intellectuals freaking out over the outcome of the election reveal that they were never really “students” of society, or even “social critics”, but were instead partisan cheerleaders. Also, it appears that many are completely incapable of asking themselves whether it might be possible that the consensus of the progressive elite in public policy is perhaps neither as accurately descriptive of how the world works or as normatively appealing as they sincerely believe. Rather than critical self-reflection we see outrage, blame, and emotional expression of pain.There are many reasons to be concerned, but the responsible response from intellectuals is to think through rationally, to ask what I was wrong about, try to force yourself to pass an ideological Turning Test, and to recognize that if there are institutional problems the answer requires institutional solutions.Liberal democratic traditions do not work based on the “good” and the “wise” being in power, but were designed so that “bad men can do least harm”. Let’s hope those liberal democratic institutions are still in operation after so many years of sustained critique by progressive intellectuals.Democratic governance (liberalism) is a different beast from bureaucratic governance (progressivism). Bureaucratic governance requires trained experts immune from democratic checks and balances, democratic governance requires responsible citizens and institutions that empower as well as constrain.”– Peter Boettke (NOTE: I would say they are all engaged in customer seeking – a long form of rent seeking. The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding: (1)kin/law, (2)cult/religion, or (3)state/corporatism; Depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others? And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power. I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state. If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means. – CD )

  • Agreed. But the point I was trying to make is that we care for the purposes of u

    Agreed. But the point I was trying to make is that we care for the purposes of unity, and govt cares for purpose of division.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 15:23:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802895679588663296

    Reply addressees: @JaysTruthEx

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802893257789292546

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802893257789292546

  • To a general we are all uniform. To an entrepreneur we’re all gold. To a financi

    To a general we are all uniform. To an entrepreneur we’re all gold. To a financier we’re all interest rates. To the government we’re races. https://twitter.com/Pamela_Moore13/status/802644868220600322

  • The Purpose Of The Electoral College – And The End of the Empire

    THE PURPOSE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE – AND THE FUTURE IS THE END OF THE EMPIRE. The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent immigrant and import/export cities that live in relative luxury at low cost of commons and opportunity, from imposing costs upon those lacking those luxuries in material, normative, and institutional means. There are six large immigrant cities in America and these six cities benefit largely from the sale of the conquered continent to immigrants – and nothing more. If not for the electoral college, those six cities would dictate to the continent, despite the fact that the majority of the continent does not possess those luxuries. The only moral solution is to end the international and continental empire so that each group can preserve its preferred norms and institutions. So that each of us possesses our right to self-determination. conversely, if you deny others their right to self-determination, then you are in fact, conducting war against others. The only solution is secession and devolution. And that is what will happen. As strange as it might seem today. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Purpose Of The Electoral College – And The End of the Empire

    THE PURPOSE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE – AND THE FUTURE IS THE END OF THE EMPIRE. The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent immigrant and import/export cities that live in relative luxury at low cost of commons and opportunity, from imposing costs upon those lacking those luxuries in material, normative, and institutional means. There are six large immigrant cities in America and these six cities benefit largely from the sale of the conquered continent to immigrants – and nothing more. If not for the electoral college, those six cities would dictate to the continent, despite the fact that the majority of the continent does not possess those luxuries. The only moral solution is to end the international and continental empire so that each group can preserve its preferred norms and institutions. So that each of us possesses our right to self-determination. conversely, if you deny others their right to self-determination, then you are in fact, conducting war against others. The only solution is secession and devolution. And that is what will happen. As strange as it might seem today. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Future Is A Choice: Choose to Rule

    THE FUTURE IS JUST A CHOICE. RETURN TO OUR MAJOR INDUSTRY: RULE. We could take a very different perspective: “They are our minorities. They are our Africans, our Jews, our Caribbeans, our Mestizos. We have paid a high price for them. Under the right circumstances they make excellent wage labor. All we must do is return to our ancient industry of Ruling the Lesser Peoples. It is an industry we excel at and have profited from for thousands of years – much to the benefit of not only the ruled but all mankind. To rule for profit is just a choice. But to make that choice we must admit that our ancestors the aristocracy were right and we were wrong.” You see, the future is just a choice. Rule and profit. Or be rule parasitically.

  • The Future Is A Choice: Choose to Rule

    THE FUTURE IS JUST A CHOICE. RETURN TO OUR MAJOR INDUSTRY: RULE. We could take a very different perspective: “They are our minorities. They are our Africans, our Jews, our Caribbeans, our Mestizos. We have paid a high price for them. Under the right circumstances they make excellent wage labor. All we must do is return to our ancient industry of Ruling the Lesser Peoples. It is an industry we excel at and have profited from for thousands of years – much to the benefit of not only the ruled but all mankind. To rule for profit is just a choice. But to make that choice we must admit that our ancestors the aristocracy were right and we were wrong.” You see, the future is just a choice. Rule and profit. Or be rule parasitically.

  • Start Negotiation From ‘We Prefer War’.

    START THE NEGOTIATION FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PREFERRING WARFARE Always make sure the opposition understands the choices that you prefer are those that are very undesirable to them. Never enter a negotiation with a presumption of achieving a rational compromise. Instead set the terms of your negotiation at the limits of your preference. Our current preference is to end democracy, and rule you for profit. If you are governed by natural law but have no access to political power (violence) then this is acceptable. But you have demonstrated a desire to circumvent natural law and use violence, of the state to enslave and diminish us. Therefore we will reciprocate and happily profit from you, but deprive you of the violence you are too infantile and parasitic to master.