Theme: Governance

  • Yes, one can attempt to order the human world by constructing power to suit one’

    Yes, one can attempt to order the human world by constructing power to suit one’s imagination.

    Or you can deny the ordering of the world by power, so that only nature limits our construction of the world, not we.

    In my opinion, from the simple proposition that faster calculation will defeat slower calculation, and certainly defeat stagnation or regression, to deny power solves the problem of power.

    The rule of natural, common, judge discovered law of non-imposition of costs, denies that power.

    I don’t know what should be I only know what should not be. The market then can use the ‘can’ to calculate the ‘should’ that we cannot know.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-08 09:01:00 UTC

  • ANSWER TO ARAB VIOLENCE – IN ALL IT’S UNPLEASANT TRUTH HOW DO YOU REDUCE CONFLIC

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Td-7bl9jp8THE ANSWER TO ARAB VIOLENCE – IN ALL IT’S UNPLEASANT TRUTH

    HOW DO YOU REDUCE CONFLICT IN THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD?

    1) City States (markets for cooperation)

    2) Forced Reformation

    3) Segregation

    PROBLEMS

    1) Evolutionary Bias (Genetic) favoring clannishness (yes)

    2) Reproductive practices that exacerbate clannishness and lower intelligence. (cousin marriage)

    3) A religion (Islam) that exacerbates the genetic bias, lower intelligence, by persisting ignorance, persisting tolerance for emotionalism and ignorance. Resulting in the inability to produce an intellectual class.

    4) The dependence for masculine status on destructive rather than constructive status signals. Resulting in the inability to form high trust organizations required for the production of complex institutions, norms, services, and products.

    5) Resulting inability to form a middle class, managerial class, executive class.

    6) Flight of the professional class.

    THE RESULT?

    Persistent intellectual primitivism, organizational primitivism, technological primitivism, and biological primitivism.

    THE CAUSAL PROBLEM IS NOT *JUST* BORDERS

    The problem that faces the Muslim world (as well as the south American, and the sub-Saharan African) is that unlike civilizations above 40 degrees north latitude, it has been nearly impossible for warm climates to limit the reproduction and conduct aggressive domestication of the underclasses.

    The Islamic world is ruled by methods necessary for ruling peoples with sub-90 median intelligence, exaggerated aggression and impulsivity, and the consequential illiteracy, ignorance, unavailability of positive male status-signals, familism and tribalism. The Muslims could never form a professional bureaucracy, never form any kind of complex production, and never produce complex thought outside of the Persian consolidation of the empire’s literature, and never form complex multi-part tools or their manufacture.

    AEI REMAINS A HAVEN FOR IDEOLOGICAL PURITANISM

    We have had enough pseudoscience between Hobbes and Adorno. There is no philosophical substitute for the underlying cause of western history, and it’s excellence: the systematic use of the market for dispute resolution: Truth, Testimony, Jury, Natural Common Judge-Discovered Law; the combination of family manorialism, local Manorialism, regional-manorialism (Monarchy), and civilizational manorialism: the domestication of mankind by the systematic suppression of the underclasses through the use of markets for (a) Market for consumption and production, (b) market for reproduction, (c) market for enfranchisement (military service), (d) market for the production of commons (class-based houses of government), (e) and the market for rule (monarchy).

    THE WEST SUCCEEDED FASTER THAN THE REST, NOT FIRST

    1) because market institutions calculate optimums faster than discretionary institutions.

    2) because markets and aggressive use of rule of law (hanging) cull the lower classes sufficiently to eliminate the great damage of the underclasses.

    Why is that so important?Because under the voluntary organization of production (markets), (a) the people that organize social order, commons order, production order, and family order, must possess sufficient capital to cause the voluntary organization of production (b) the productivity that is created by the voluntary organization of production must supply them with that sufficient capital, and (c) the underclasses are more damaging to trust (velocity), organization, productivity, invention, than the most talented are beneficial to trust, organization, productivity, and invention. In other words, the underclasses create greater drag than the middle, upper middle, and upper classes can organize for productive ends.

    WE ARE THE NEW RIGHT

    The difference between the old libertarian and old conservative puritans? That we no longer hold out either (a) the belief that all men were oppressed and desire liberty in creating a utopian aristocracy of everyone – but instead that most men were forcibly domesticated by limiting reproduction and aggressive hanging of 1 in 100 people per year, and those that need further domestication resent it. (b) That majoritarian democracy was predicated on the assumption that men were oppressed and yearning to be free, rather than parasitic and yearning for rents. And that because we no longer hold hope for (a) and (b) that we seek return to the eugenic market order that allowed western man to drag humanity out of ignorance, poverty, mysticism, and disease in both the ancient greco-roman, and the modern anglo-german.

    “Markets in everything” It is the New Right that seeks markets in everything. It’s the old right that destroyed them through utopian optimism in the fight against the recidivism of the dysgenic left.

    Time To Speak The Truth at AEI

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-07 01:55:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle I tend to view western aristocratic egalitarianism as demanding r

    Curt Doolittle

    I tend to view western aristocratic egalitarianism as demanding respect for property in exchange for the franchise of Liberty.

    David Mondrus

    “aristocratic egalitarianism” vs “pathological altruism”. The demand of respect for property in exchange for liberty is the difference.

    Curt Doolittle

    Let me think about that because it is insightful. Hmmm. Is that the origin? Yes?

    Damn. Yes.

    David Mondrus

    The altruism demands nothing in return. It supplicates to the needy saying in essence “love us, we’ll give you whatever you want”. The ultimate female strategy.

    Curt Doolittle

    Yes. And now you’ve synthesized the female by free-riding upon the male. Nice.

    David Mondrus

    But that is in essence female. Free riding males is their survival strategy. After all, rape is better than death, esp if it’s couched in socially acceptable terms like “stealing the bride” (the “-stans” now), or dowry (selling the bride) India.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 10:52:00 UTC

  • ( why can’t we get the alt-right midde class version to start working twitter, q

    ( why can’t we get the alt-right midde class version to start working twitter, quora, and wikipedia, reporting ‘disrespectful’ articles and posts, in such large numbers that they can’t ignore it.

    We have the ridicule warriors, and Russia has the propaganda warriors, but we don’t have the equivalent of the be kind people in our political spectrum)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 06:29:00 UTC

  • ONE RULES AND PROFITS FROM RULE OUT OF SELF DEFENSE. One theorizes and profit fr

    ONE RULES AND PROFITS FROM RULE OUT OF SELF DEFENSE.

    One theorizes and profit from theorizing out of self-defense.

    One organizes and profits from organizing out of self defense.

    One designs and calculates and profits from designing and calculating out of self-defense.

    One manages and profits from managing out of self-defense.

    One labors and profits from labor out of self-defense.

    We progress by our defense against the dark forces of nature, time, ignorance, and man’s design for predictability, stagnation, and parasitism by women and predation by men.

    We must rule. We must rule for defense alone. But by our rule we transcend man.

    By the rule of all others, man rarely transcends at all, and others seek to destroy us.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 01:43:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY (SOVEREIGNTY): MARKETS IN EVERYTHING Survival (competition) Reproduction

    LIBERTY (SOVEREIGNTY): MARKETS IN EVERYTHING

    Survival (competition)

    Reproduction (Marriage)

    Production (economy)

    Commons (market govt)

    Displute Resolution (natural law)

    Group Evolutonary Strategy (Polities)

    Hayek was right of course. He could have taken it even farther. But he was right.

    The answer to keynes(demand/spending) and hayek(disinformation/misallocation) is solved by credit cards from the treasury – assuming liquidity isn’t predictable. It needs to remain a lottery of uncertainty. The problem they were struggling with was distribution. The finacial system is a corrupt distributor, and the state spending is even worse.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 05:32:00 UTC

  • “More measured linguistic analysis reveals that Trump supporters often explicitl

    —“More measured linguistic analysis reveals that Trump supporters often explicitly reject the literal meanings of his speech, attending instead to what he indexes or connotes. Trump uses hyperbole, humor, hedging, and repair to take stands — both for or against certain general political programs (immigration, trade deals), but more importantly against certain kinds of scornful elite discourse that belittle those supporters. “—


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-04 13:25:00 UTC

  • MARKETS IN EVERYTHING? THE WESTERN MODEL OF SOVEREIGNTY A market for reproductio

    MARKETS IN EVERYTHING? THE WESTERN MODEL OF SOVEREIGNTY

    A market for reproduction (family).

    A market for production (goods and services),

    a market for commons (government),

    a market for dispute resolution (common law),

    and a market for polities (voluntary association and disassociation).

    If you advocate for majority democracy by assent instead of market for commons under juridical defense, then you are just a fool and a thief like any other.

    It surprises me that you will hear economists justly criticize the misapplication of the economics of the family and small business to the international business, and government. Yet in the next breath advocate majoritarian democracy and the use of aggregates to conduct involuntary exchanges, rather than to construct a market for the voluntary exchange of commons uder juridical dissent in the next.

    Economists regularly justify their preconseptoins and utilitarian biases by applying the decision making of the tribe to that of the nation and empire.

    If there were voluntary construction of market commons rather than thefts by aggregation, think of (a) what economists would research instead of what they research today, and (b) what we would know about economics as a consequence rather than what we know today, and (c) how empowered each of us would be vs today, and (d) how we could solve problems of coflict between groups that we cannot solve today.

    Monopoly Majoritarian Representative Commons Production (Democratic government) is the origin of political conflict – the the solution to it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-04 04:19:00 UTC

  • In my work I analyse argument types. This seems to show that the new right movem

    In my work I analyse argument types. This seems to show that the new right movements all are engaged in exiting the old right.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 14:44:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772082949160402948

    Reply addressees: @InRetentis

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772077258873958400


    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/772077258873958400

  • It did in 1992. Or at least when the bush admin rejected Russia’s request for fa

    It did in 1992. Or at least when the bush admin rejected Russia’s request for fast track into NATO. (Catastrophe)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 14:43:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772082613569847296

    Reply addressees: @barbarikon @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772078923572281344


    IN REPLY TO:

    @barbarikon

    @curtdoolittle @JonHaidt I think there’s a real danger of the world falling back into authoritarianism, both Right and Left.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772078923572281344