Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • A Subjective To Objective Translation Worth Repeating

    —Humans are adapted to want traditional forms of governance. They want law. They want to be ruled by legitimate, worthy, and trusted authority. They want a leader who commands the force of the nation to represent them to the outside world.”— Adolphus Völkermord Yes … and we want them because we want low opportunity costs (a dense population), low transaction costs (trust), low-cost information(homogeneity language, and interests), low-cost negotiation (stable norms: manners, ethics, morals), high returns on our work effort (a market and competitive commons), insurance against defection and defectors(law), and insurance against our failure (insurer of last resort), and insurance against the loss of all of the above (military defense).

    What I have learned to say is that we want a low cost of ‘calculating’ probability of success in our endeavors, and high returns on our efforts expended: *The greatest return, in the shortest time, for the least effort, with the greatest degree of certainty, at the lowest risk* In other words, we are like every other creature, object, molecule, and particle in the known universe.

  • A Subjective To Objective Translation Worth Repeating

    —Humans are adapted to want traditional forms of governance. They want law. They want to be ruled by legitimate, worthy, and trusted authority. They want a leader who commands the force of the nation to represent them to the outside world.”— Adolphus Völkermord Yes … and we want them because we want low opportunity costs (a dense population), low transaction costs (trust), low-cost information(homogeneity language, and interests), low-cost negotiation (stable norms: manners, ethics, morals), high returns on our work effort (a market and competitive commons), insurance against defection and defectors(law), and insurance against our failure (insurer of last resort), and insurance against the loss of all of the above (military defense).

    What I have learned to say is that we want a low cost of ‘calculating’ probability of success in our endeavors, and high returns on our efforts expended: *The greatest return, in the shortest time, for the least effort, with the greatest degree of certainty, at the lowest risk* In other words, we are like every other creature, object, molecule, and particle in the known universe.

  • Anglo Civilization: Wishful Thinking

    (wishful thinking) Maybe the brits will get smart, make use of the royalty asset, and make a play to re-lead the anglosphere, of UK, CA, USA, AUS, NZ, GIB…. You know? Reform the UN? Take some leadership away from the USA? USA 320M, UK 65M, CA 40M, AUS 23M, NZ 4.5M

    That’s 450M people.  That’s the magic number for a world power. I know. I know….

  • HE WAS WRONG: WAR IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF POLITICS Clausewitz was pretty much wro

    HE WAS WRONG: WAR IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF POLITICS

    Clausewitz was pretty much wrong about everything. War is not an extension of politics. Politics is a means by which we limit war. It is not politics that is the basis of human interaction, but the ever present rational choice between war, conflict, boycott, cooperation, insurance, and kin-sacrifice. Political organizations exist to defend the interests of the group from competitors, and if possible convert the group to the most successful competitor, and therefore the competitor with the greatest discounts on negotiations with other groups. Politics is the extension of cooperation, and when politics fails, we return to the prior state – whatever is in our rational self-interest. But, as we are strong when organized against competitors, and weak when disorganized in the face of competitors, when political solutions fail, we merely choose politically organized conflict of large numbers rather than otherwise organized conflict of smaller numbers – thus allowing us to concentrate our full resources on the conflict in question.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-07 13:39:00 UTC

  • ***I am not concerned with should, I am concerned with shall. Not in persuasion

    ***I am not concerned with should, I am concerned with shall. Not in persuasion but compliance. Not in tolerance but in deportation. Not in compromise but in defeat. And should deportation fail, eradication by hanging, impaling, crosses and pyres.***

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-07 13:06:00 UTC

  • Market Production of Commons?

    –“I’m confused about the market production of commons”–
    I use the term market government, and market production of commons do describe the fact that commons may be produced by at least three means: 1 – private production of commons via the usual market process 2 – use of the house of ‘parliament’ to negotiate the voluntary production of a common (which may not be imposed upon) 3 – use of the houses of parliament to negotiate a trade between classes for the exchange of monetary and non-monetary goods, services, and behavior, to product commons that may or may not be physically constructed, and may instead be normatively or behaviorally constructed. The problem of circumventing market demand for legislation is answered by providing options 2 and 3 in lieu of monopoly rule.

  • Market Production of Commons?

    –“I’m confused about the market production of commons”–
    I use the term market government, and market production of commons do describe the fact that commons may be produced by at least three means: 1 – private production of commons via the usual market process 2 – use of the house of ‘parliament’ to negotiate the voluntary production of a common (which may not be imposed upon) 3 – use of the houses of parliament to negotiate a trade between classes for the exchange of monetary and non-monetary goods, services, and behavior, to product commons that may or may not be physically constructed, and may instead be normatively or behaviorally constructed. The problem of circumventing market demand for legislation is answered by providing options 2 and 3 in lieu of monopoly rule.

  • NYC is such a sh-t hole. I mean sure if you live near Central Park I suppose it’

    NYC is such a sh-t hole. I mean sure if you live near Central Park I suppose it’s ok

    We do Everything wrong. We just do most of it honestly.

    We forgot to rule.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-05 11:06:00 UTC

  • What Do You Consider Yourself?

    DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A CLASSICAL LIBERAL? Maybe. In the sense that we can use the increase in proceeds from the agrarian, industrial, petrochemical, technological, information, and biological revolutions to construct commons by exchanges between houses, then yes. In the sense that we should extend the franchise to those who have not demonstrated ability to decide in favor of the commons, then no. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A LIBERTARIAN? Probably.Although I have come to understand that  we use various terms for “Liberty”: Sovereignty for the martial class, Liberty for the middle class, Freedom for the labor class, and “Positive Freedom” (charity) for the underclasses. And that all of us mean something quite different by it.  As such “Liberty” is a middle class ambition, and I do not consider myself first a member of the middle class, but of the lower (martial) aristocracy. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ALT-RIGHT?No. I consider myself New Right. Alt right is a resistance movement not a revolutionary one. Complaints not solutions. I do solutions. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A WHITE NATIONALIST?No. I take the position that familism, tribalism, nationalism, under natural law will produce the best outcomes for each family, tribe, nation, and race. And as such all can transcend the animal we call man.

    DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A NATIONAL SOCIALIST? No. Although I do feel that despite its terrible economics that it was one of the greatest and most beautiful ambitions ever created by man – until they adopted propaganda, pseudoscience, and outright lying. WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF? I consider myself  Sovereign: An advocate for Aristocracy. Or what we might call a “Conservative Libertarian”. Even if that label tells us almost nothing useful.

  • What Do You Consider Yourself?

    DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A CLASSICAL LIBERAL? Maybe. In the sense that we can use the increase in proceeds from the agrarian, industrial, petrochemical, technological, information, and biological revolutions to construct commons by exchanges between houses, then yes. In the sense that we should extend the franchise to those who have not demonstrated ability to decide in favor of the commons, then no. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A LIBERTARIAN? Probably.Although I have come to understand that  we use various terms for “Liberty”: Sovereignty for the martial class, Liberty for the middle class, Freedom for the labor class, and “Positive Freedom” (charity) for the underclasses. And that all of us mean something quite different by it.  As such “Liberty” is a middle class ambition, and I do not consider myself first a member of the middle class, but of the lower (martial) aristocracy. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ALT-RIGHT?No. I consider myself New Right. Alt right is a resistance movement not a revolutionary one. Complaints not solutions. I do solutions. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A WHITE NATIONALIST?No. I take the position that familism, tribalism, nationalism, under natural law will produce the best outcomes for each family, tribe, nation, and race. And as such all can transcend the animal we call man.

    DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A NATIONAL SOCIALIST? No. Although I do feel that despite its terrible economics that it was one of the greatest and most beautiful ambitions ever created by man – until they adopted propaganda, pseudoscience, and outright lying. WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF? I consider myself  Sovereign: An advocate for Aristocracy. Or what we might call a “Conservative Libertarian”. Even if that label tells us almost nothing useful.