Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • There Is No Reason To Tolerate Burgher (Bourgeoise) Interference in Political Orders

    Let’s compare Soros’ activism, with PPPP’s activism against Gawker. The courts can be, if we repair the constitution, a method by which the wealthy can police what the politicians choose not to. This is a good. We have juridical defense in these cases. But why can we not sue Soros for corruption by circumventing the courts, where we have juridical defense? The moment we let the state determine law rahter than terms of contract we surrender to state corruption, and the corruptibility of the state. So far, in the west, we have, at least until the past few generations, been able to preserve the rule of law as sacred natural order beyond which no man may transgress. This is our defense. Not politicians. They are corrupt to the last – because they must be.

  • Thoughts On  The Emerging New Right

    Aug 24, 2016 2:06pmCENTRAL ARGUMENTS 1) We can no longer hold any belief that we can integrate the postwar generations into the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ including the absolute nuclear family, individual accountability, the civic society, and rule of law. Where we were not defeated ideologically, despite the monopoly conversion of the academy, media, and state bureaucracy, we were defeated by importing millions of the underclasses that the founder sought to leave behind in Europe. 2) When the Jewish cosmopolitan left invented pseudosciences in the mid 1800-1900’s: Boazian anthropology, Marxist social science and economics, Freudian psychology, Cantorian mathematical platonism, and Frankfurtian cultural anti-Europeanism, Randian-Rothbardian libertarianism, and Straussian neo-conservatism, and combined these pseudosciences with media, propaganda, and academy – our ‘liberal’ middle-class takeover of government was divided into the feminine-caretaking-underclass-progressive, and the masculine-empirical martial-class conservative. Abandoning rule of law on the left for discretionary rule and individualism, and holding to the natural law, rule of law, and the institution of the family on the right. The left abandoning that the purpose of policy was the development of strong families, and the embrace that the purpose of policy was the development of individuals regardless of they or their family merits. Our aristocratic European empirical philosophers and scientists could not create a rational but unempirical counter argument to counter the pseudoscientific propaganda so appealing to underclasses first liberated by the industrial revolution. These underclasses could not imagine that they had not so much been kept down, but domesticated over millennia in the hope that they might one day join civil society. Nor could the intellectuals, whose aristocratic political methodology was never written down in conflated form, merging both religion and law as had other civilizations. But by the 1980’s with the failure of the great society programs world wide. The visible failure of communism, we saw emergence of a new generation of conservative think tanks, and the ambition of creating an inclusive monopolistic society. By the end of the 1990’s the combination of computers, imaging, and genetic research, and now culminating in the second decade of this century, we have found that the cosmopolitan pseudoscientific program and its puritan post-christian political correctness wing, have been completely repudiated by the scientific research, and at this point we see desperate media attempts to hold to these falsehoods out of some ‘moral’ justification (meaning revenue defense). This supplied the Right (aristocratics) with the empirical evidence that they were correct, and that the left has done nothing but lie for the purpose of destroying good families, rule of law, meritocracy, and the civic society. So we see a new generation of thinkers in every social class, from very sophisticated institutional solutions to our political problems, to educational, to critical, to simply rebellious, all emboldened and determined to either correct, reform, restore, demand restitution for, and if possible punish those who have done their families, civilization, and traditions so much harm. 3) The New Right, consists, like all previous generations of cultural movements, of classes (compare with jewish neo-con, libertine-libertarian, and socialist), And each class uses the techniques of rebellion that are appropriate to their capacity for argument: Philosophy and Institutions, Education and information, criticism and analysis, rebellion and ridicule, information and physical warfare.. That these classes reflect, loosely, the capabilities of individuals at every ten points of IQ, from 140 on down, doesn’t surprise anyone on the right – because that is how society is structured genetically, reproductively, culturally, economically, and politically. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ATTEMPTS TO FRAME THE RIGHT? It means we have a large movement underway that is currently abandoning the ‘hopeful right’ of the postwar and certainly post-Vietnam period, and adopting the ‘hopeless’ position that we cannot compromise with people who are effectively our enemies, and whose policies while well intentioned, have destroyed black families, and is in the process of destroying white – turning north America into south American favelas one urban district at a time, from the northeast coast to the west. We are the emerging new right. We make political decisions on empirical evidence, not on pseudoscience pseudorationalism, propaganda, and deceit. We fight with institutional solutions, we fight with education and information, we fight with criticism, we fight with ridicule, and if necessary we fight with force. The old right will die thankfully with America’s WORST GENERATION (the boomers). And we repair this government, this culture, and this civilization…. … or we will break it all to pieces. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

    NOTE: I organize these classes by argumentative technique and audience it appeals to. That says nothing about the people who lead them, and produce the argments.  That’s because it’s usually the middle class that constructs these arguments. THE CLASSES ——————– ARISTOCRATIC (JUDICIAL) RIGHT (institutions – law,philosophy) Curt Doolittle (and friends), Propertarianism, (left equivalent Rawls, although I suppose I could critique each of them. That would be an interesting exercise.) UPPER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (education – information – analysis) (the slowly converting anglo libertarians) Stefan Molyneux Tom Woods (left equivalent is the top 20 mainstream left-writers) MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (resistance – criticism – analysis) (Here we begin the Alt-right)(NRx) Ramsey Paul LOWER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (rebellion – ridicule) (Right) Christopher Cantwell (Left Equivalent social justice warriors) WORKING CLASS NEW RIGHT (information warfare – aggression) (traditional hard right) (Alt-Right-foot soldiers) The inequalitarians The racists The Fashy Militants (left equivalent = anarchists)

  • Thoughts On  The Emerging New Right

    Aug 24, 2016 2:06pmCENTRAL ARGUMENTS 1) We can no longer hold any belief that we can integrate the postwar generations into the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ including the absolute nuclear family, individual accountability, the civic society, and rule of law. Where we were not defeated ideologically, despite the monopoly conversion of the academy, media, and state bureaucracy, we were defeated by importing millions of the underclasses that the founder sought to leave behind in Europe. 2) When the Jewish cosmopolitan left invented pseudosciences in the mid 1800-1900’s: Boazian anthropology, Marxist social science and economics, Freudian psychology, Cantorian mathematical platonism, and Frankfurtian cultural anti-Europeanism, Randian-Rothbardian libertarianism, and Straussian neo-conservatism, and combined these pseudosciences with media, propaganda, and academy – our ‘liberal’ middle-class takeover of government was divided into the feminine-caretaking-underclass-progressive, and the masculine-empirical martial-class conservative. Abandoning rule of law on the left for discretionary rule and individualism, and holding to the natural law, rule of law, and the institution of the family on the right. The left abandoning that the purpose of policy was the development of strong families, and the embrace that the purpose of policy was the development of individuals regardless of they or their family merits. Our aristocratic European empirical philosophers and scientists could not create a rational but unempirical counter argument to counter the pseudoscientific propaganda so appealing to underclasses first liberated by the industrial revolution. These underclasses could not imagine that they had not so much been kept down, but domesticated over millennia in the hope that they might one day join civil society. Nor could the intellectuals, whose aristocratic political methodology was never written down in conflated form, merging both religion and law as had other civilizations. But by the 1980’s with the failure of the great society programs world wide. The visible failure of communism, we saw emergence of a new generation of conservative think tanks, and the ambition of creating an inclusive monopolistic society. By the end of the 1990’s the combination of computers, imaging, and genetic research, and now culminating in the second decade of this century, we have found that the cosmopolitan pseudoscientific program and its puritan post-christian political correctness wing, have been completely repudiated by the scientific research, and at this point we see desperate media attempts to hold to these falsehoods out of some ‘moral’ justification (meaning revenue defense). This supplied the Right (aristocratics) with the empirical evidence that they were correct, and that the left has done nothing but lie for the purpose of destroying good families, rule of law, meritocracy, and the civic society. So we see a new generation of thinkers in every social class, from very sophisticated institutional solutions to our political problems, to educational, to critical, to simply rebellious, all emboldened and determined to either correct, reform, restore, demand restitution for, and if possible punish those who have done their families, civilization, and traditions so much harm. 3) The New Right, consists, like all previous generations of cultural movements, of classes (compare with jewish neo-con, libertine-libertarian, and socialist), And each class uses the techniques of rebellion that are appropriate to their capacity for argument: Philosophy and Institutions, Education and information, criticism and analysis, rebellion and ridicule, information and physical warfare.. That these classes reflect, loosely, the capabilities of individuals at every ten points of IQ, from 140 on down, doesn’t surprise anyone on the right – because that is how society is structured genetically, reproductively, culturally, economically, and politically. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ATTEMPTS TO FRAME THE RIGHT? It means we have a large movement underway that is currently abandoning the ‘hopeful right’ of the postwar and certainly post-Vietnam period, and adopting the ‘hopeless’ position that we cannot compromise with people who are effectively our enemies, and whose policies while well intentioned, have destroyed black families, and is in the process of destroying white – turning north America into south American favelas one urban district at a time, from the northeast coast to the west. We are the emerging new right. We make political decisions on empirical evidence, not on pseudoscience pseudorationalism, propaganda, and deceit. We fight with institutional solutions, we fight with education and information, we fight with criticism, we fight with ridicule, and if necessary we fight with force. The old right will die thankfully with America’s WORST GENERATION (the boomers). And we repair this government, this culture, and this civilization…. … or we will break it all to pieces. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

    NOTE: I organize these classes by argumentative technique and audience it appeals to. That says nothing about the people who lead them, and produce the argments.  That’s because it’s usually the middle class that constructs these arguments. THE CLASSES ——————– ARISTOCRATIC (JUDICIAL) RIGHT (institutions – law,philosophy) Curt Doolittle (and friends), Propertarianism, (left equivalent Rawls, although I suppose I could critique each of them. That would be an interesting exercise.) UPPER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (education – information – analysis) (the slowly converting anglo libertarians) Stefan Molyneux Tom Woods (left equivalent is the top 20 mainstream left-writers) MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (resistance – criticism – analysis) (Here we begin the Alt-right)(NRx) Ramsey Paul LOWER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (rebellion – ridicule) (Right) Christopher Cantwell (Left Equivalent social justice warriors) WORKING CLASS NEW RIGHT (information warfare – aggression) (traditional hard right) (Alt-Right-foot soldiers) The inequalitarians The racists The Fashy Militants (left equivalent = anarchists)

  • Classical Liberal Conservative Libertarian

    I AM A CONTRACTUALIST: A CLASSICAL LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN. If you want to classify me, I am a contractualist. This means a classical liberal, libertarian. I am conservative because I’m an empiricist. And I am a Nationalist because I’m from a germanic, martial class by intuition, and because as an empiricist I understand the superior ability to govern contractually under homogeneity. So I know how my work on truthfulness sounds to contemporary people, just as I am aware how Darwin, Hume, Machiavelli, and Socrates were considered immoral people, and how western contractualism in its current degraded form, sounds immoral to less advanced peoples. If I **DIDN”T** make you feel a moral twinge, then I wouldn’t be advancing human understanding by reordering values. The difference is that I’m trying to improve human conditions for prosperity not dominate others, harm others, or even exclude others. The problem is that exclusion of differences in strategies is necessary for the development of the prosperity and peace that contractualism provides for us. Curt Doolittle

  • Classical Liberal Conservative Libertarian

    I AM A CONTRACTUALIST: A CLASSICAL LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE LIBERTARIAN. If you want to classify me, I am a contractualist. This means a classical liberal, libertarian. I am conservative because I’m an empiricist. And I am a Nationalist because I’m from a germanic, martial class by intuition, and because as an empiricist I understand the superior ability to govern contractually under homogeneity. So I know how my work on truthfulness sounds to contemporary people, just as I am aware how Darwin, Hume, Machiavelli, and Socrates were considered immoral people, and how western contractualism in its current degraded form, sounds immoral to less advanced peoples. If I **DIDN”T** make you feel a moral twinge, then I wouldn’t be advancing human understanding by reordering values. The difference is that I’m trying to improve human conditions for prosperity not dominate others, harm others, or even exclude others. The problem is that exclusion of differences in strategies is necessary for the development of the prosperity and peace that contractualism provides for us. Curt Doolittle

  • The Old Right -vs- The New Right

    THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient“, and the New Right is “It’s Hopeless, We Must Act“. The hopeful right was a resistance movement hopeful that the leftists would ‘learn’. The right is a hopeless movement that is resigned to the inability others to adopt the contractual order we call ‘conservatism’, but is just the traditional western aristocratic order of cooperation between classes with different abilities. MORAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC The Old Right of American conservatism evolved from the religio-moral language set (think of Kirk), and the Jeffersonian set (constitutionalists). But the conservatives never achieved success in articulating conservatism in rational or scientific language. We’ve endured a hundred and fifty years of pseudoscience (Freud/psychology, marx/economics-sociology, Boaz/anthropology, Frankfurt school/culture) combined with propaganda made possible with new media on a scale never seen before, combined with post war economic windfall and the conversion of upper proletarians and lower middle class into property owners with disposable income. Between government seeking votes, the academy seeking to sell nonsense-diplomas, and the media selling commercials, and the consumer product companies selling household goods to newly liquid families, the environment for falsehood was fertile ground. The New Right is armed with science and evidence that Darwin and Spencer (despite Spencer’s Lamarckian error his statements remain true). The old right didn’t have this evidence and our generation does. But we face a problem: the reason for the west’s dramatic success is largely that we were the most eugenic order and used upward redistribution of calories for upward redistribution of reproduction, and we use some combination of winters, manorialism, taxation, late marriage, aggressive hanging, and for-profit warfare to eradicate the lower classes for thousands of years. We call it meritocracy, the charitable call it ‘civilizing‘, the honest call it ‘domesticating‘, and the pejorative term is ‘human husbandry‘: culling the unproductive humans from the herd, and leaving only the productive humans behind to reproduce. The underclasses of course think they were oppressed. They can’t imagine that they’re uncivilized, and that by breeding they’re decivilizing. And we aren’t honest about it, because it interferes with our narrative that we were justified in using democracy (we weren’t) to seize power from the landed nobility. THE NEW RIGHT MOVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO CLASS STRUCTURES The New Right consists of multiple frames of argument that correspond to class structures. Just like neocons, libertine libertarians, and socialists on the left, the New Right consists of multiple frames of arguments that correspond to class membership: CLASSES: NEW RIGHT (Philosophy/NaturalLaw) (Unrepentant Martial/Aristocratic Class) – Propertarianism (That’s me) – Ricardo Duchesne ( the uniqueness of Western Civilization) THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT (Science) (Scholarly Class) – HBD-Chick (familism, groupishness, genetics) – Jayman – Genetics, Race, class – Sailer – IQ, race, class, education culture – Nassim Taleb – Finance, Economics, and Decidability. – Kevin McDonald – group competitive strategies THE INFORMATIVE RIGHT (Information) (upper middle class) – Stephan Molyneux (slow conversion on his part but he’s getting there) – Tom Woods (even slower conversion but he’s getting there) – Charles Murray ( I can’t tell with charles where he is on hopeless/hopeful) – Thomas Sowell (was a first mover really) REACTION (criticism) (middle class) – Moldbug – Ramzpaul ALT-RIGHT (ridicule) (working class) (these folk know exactly what they’re doing by the way. They have adopted leftist ridicule and are actively manufacturing desensitization as a means of combating the flasehoods and pseudoscience of political correctness) – Various alt-right podcasts and web sites – Meme-Makers and Trolls THE ALT-RIGHT “OVEN MIT” CROWD (Upper Lower working) – 88’ers, anti-everyone’s, white nationalists, etc.

  • The Old Right -vs- The New Right

    THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient“, and the New Right is “It’s Hopeless, We Must Act“. The hopeful right was a resistance movement hopeful that the leftists would ‘learn’. The right is a hopeless movement that is resigned to the inability others to adopt the contractual order we call ‘conservatism’, but is just the traditional western aristocratic order of cooperation between classes with different abilities. MORAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC The Old Right of American conservatism evolved from the religio-moral language set (think of Kirk), and the Jeffersonian set (constitutionalists). But the conservatives never achieved success in articulating conservatism in rational or scientific language. We’ve endured a hundred and fifty years of pseudoscience (Freud/psychology, marx/economics-sociology, Boaz/anthropology, Frankfurt school/culture) combined with propaganda made possible with new media on a scale never seen before, combined with post war economic windfall and the conversion of upper proletarians and lower middle class into property owners with disposable income. Between government seeking votes, the academy seeking to sell nonsense-diplomas, and the media selling commercials, and the consumer product companies selling household goods to newly liquid families, the environment for falsehood was fertile ground. The New Right is armed with science and evidence that Darwin and Spencer (despite Spencer’s Lamarckian error his statements remain true). The old right didn’t have this evidence and our generation does. But we face a problem: the reason for the west’s dramatic success is largely that we were the most eugenic order and used upward redistribution of calories for upward redistribution of reproduction, and we use some combination of winters, manorialism, taxation, late marriage, aggressive hanging, and for-profit warfare to eradicate the lower classes for thousands of years. We call it meritocracy, the charitable call it ‘civilizing‘, the honest call it ‘domesticating‘, and the pejorative term is ‘human husbandry‘: culling the unproductive humans from the herd, and leaving only the productive humans behind to reproduce. The underclasses of course think they were oppressed. They can’t imagine that they’re uncivilized, and that by breeding they’re decivilizing. And we aren’t honest about it, because it interferes with our narrative that we were justified in using democracy (we weren’t) to seize power from the landed nobility. THE NEW RIGHT MOVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO CLASS STRUCTURES The New Right consists of multiple frames of argument that correspond to class structures. Just like neocons, libertine libertarians, and socialists on the left, the New Right consists of multiple frames of arguments that correspond to class membership: CLASSES: NEW RIGHT (Philosophy/NaturalLaw) (Unrepentant Martial/Aristocratic Class) – Propertarianism (That’s me) – Ricardo Duchesne ( the uniqueness of Western Civilization) THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT (Science) (Scholarly Class) – HBD-Chick (familism, groupishness, genetics) – Jayman – Genetics, Race, class – Sailer – IQ, race, class, education culture – Nassim Taleb – Finance, Economics, and Decidability. – Kevin McDonald – group competitive strategies THE INFORMATIVE RIGHT (Information) (upper middle class) – Stephan Molyneux (slow conversion on his part but he’s getting there) – Tom Woods (even slower conversion but he’s getting there) – Charles Murray ( I can’t tell with charles where he is on hopeless/hopeful) – Thomas Sowell (was a first mover really) REACTION (criticism) (middle class) – Moldbug – Ramzpaul ALT-RIGHT (ridicule) (working class) (these folk know exactly what they’re doing by the way. They have adopted leftist ridicule and are actively manufacturing desensitization as a means of combating the flasehoods and pseudoscience of political correctness) – Various alt-right podcasts and web sites – Meme-Makers and Trolls THE ALT-RIGHT “OVEN MIT” CROWD (Upper Lower working) – 88’ers, anti-everyone’s, white nationalists, etc.

  • We Can Create a Perfect Government For Opposing Propaganda and Deceit

    —“Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system. So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it. When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable.”— Curt Doolittle —“There is no such thing as a “perfect” government – and many Classical Liberals (such a the Old Whig Edmund Burke) supported the old British Constitution as the best thing available.”— Paul Marks

    In the context a “perfect storm” and “perfect opposition” convey the meaning I intend them to: ‘sufficient coincidence of causes”. Aside…. I am not sure that’s an argument. It certainly isn’t a criticism of anything I said in the post above. Are you one of those people that confuses meaning as existential and open to deduction rather than normative and not? We can test normative meaning as we test any hypothesis, and by comparing it to like terms reduce normative meaning to what can only refer to necessary meaning. We can use allegory to inform, as long as we do not use allegory for consequent deductions. Now, next, let’s do a little analysis here. First, it really doesn’t matter what anyone in the past thought. The question is whether a government can in fact calculate and decide, producing optimum ends – and whether we choose deliberately eugenic, market eugenic, market dysgenic, or deliberately dysgenic criteria of ultimate decidability. (Because all competitions in the choice of political commons are reducible to eugenic or dysgenic strategies. (just as all questions of ethics are reducible to violence or not; just as all questions of personal choice are reducible to suicide or not.) Just as prices and incentives cannot be produced in combination by any other means, nash equilibrium cannot be produced by other means than voluntary exchanges. (Yet both Keynes and Rawls rely upon individual discretion under the assumption of Pareto optimums). Now this is a simple problem of the possibility of possessing such knowledge. We cannot produce prices and incentives by aggregate means and we cannot produce commons and satisfaction by aggregate means. So it is possible to produce an optimum government and a perfect opposition to the perfect storm. As long as we choose the market eugenic or the deliberately eugenic means of decidability. And as long as we create markets for production(goods and services), reproduction (family), commons (government), dispute resolution (law), market for policies (many small polities). So hopefully this helped clarify the argument a bit for you (at the expense of my time.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • We Can Create a Perfect Government For Opposing Propaganda and Deceit

    —“Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system. So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it. When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable.”— Curt Doolittle —“There is no such thing as a “perfect” government – and many Classical Liberals (such a the Old Whig Edmund Burke) supported the old British Constitution as the best thing available.”— Paul Marks

    In the context a “perfect storm” and “perfect opposition” convey the meaning I intend them to: ‘sufficient coincidence of causes”. Aside…. I am not sure that’s an argument. It certainly isn’t a criticism of anything I said in the post above. Are you one of those people that confuses meaning as existential and open to deduction rather than normative and not? We can test normative meaning as we test any hypothesis, and by comparing it to like terms reduce normative meaning to what can only refer to necessary meaning. We can use allegory to inform, as long as we do not use allegory for consequent deductions. Now, next, let’s do a little analysis here. First, it really doesn’t matter what anyone in the past thought. The question is whether a government can in fact calculate and decide, producing optimum ends – and whether we choose deliberately eugenic, market eugenic, market dysgenic, or deliberately dysgenic criteria of ultimate decidability. (Because all competitions in the choice of political commons are reducible to eugenic or dysgenic strategies. (just as all questions of ethics are reducible to violence or not; just as all questions of personal choice are reducible to suicide or not.) Just as prices and incentives cannot be produced in combination by any other means, nash equilibrium cannot be produced by other means than voluntary exchanges. (Yet both Keynes and Rawls rely upon individual discretion under the assumption of Pareto optimums). Now this is a simple problem of the possibility of possessing such knowledge. We cannot produce prices and incentives by aggregate means and we cannot produce commons and satisfaction by aggregate means. So it is possible to produce an optimum government and a perfect opposition to the perfect storm. As long as we choose the market eugenic or the deliberately eugenic means of decidability. And as long as we create markets for production(goods and services), reproduction (family), commons (government), dispute resolution (law), market for policies (many small polities). So hopefully this helped clarify the argument a bit for you (at the expense of my time.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • We Use The Rule We Can Afford

    —“most governments have been oligarchies – ruled by a minority, chosen either by birth, as in aristocracies, or by a religious organization, as in theocracies, or by wealth, as in democracies”— Will Durant

    CheapReligion: Theocracy. Socialism -> Poverty ExpensiveLaw: Aristocracy, Corporatism -> Market Capitalism – Wealth. Very ExpensiveCommerce: Democracy -> Totalitarian socialism -> Poverty The iron rule of oligarchy prevails.  Why?  Because a market for leadership will produce those leaders best able to control that market.