Theme: Governance

  • impossible, since democracy is only capable of selecting priorities among people

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-President-lead-a-country-fairly-and-democratically-with-so-many-people-having-mixed-agendas-ideas-and-opinions/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=08163832It’s impossible, since democracy is only capable of selecting priorities among people with homogenous interests, and impossible to select between conflicting choices among people with heterogeneous interests.

    Markets let us cooperate on means despite different ends – no monopolies.

    Democracy is a monopoly in which we cannot cooperate on means because of different ends.

    Democracy has been a catastrophe.

    The original anglo model was not democratic but consisted of different HOUSES for each CLASS, including the CHURCH, so that Monarchy, regional managers, personal property owners, and common people(church) could negotiate EXCHANGES between the classes.

    The English system created a market under which most can be satisfied. Democracy destroyed it by creating a monopoly under which no one can be satisfied.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 16:18:00 UTC

  • An Anarcho Capitalist Society In The Long Run… Nope. Impossible/

    —“How would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”—

    [L]et’s take a look:

    (a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.

    (b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.

    (c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.

    (d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).

    (e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.

    The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.

    There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.

    Curt

  • An Anarcho Capitalist Society In The Long Run… Nope. Impossible/

    —“How would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”—

    [L]et’s take a look:

    (a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.

    (b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.

    (c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.

    (d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).

    (e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.

    The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.

    There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.

    Curt

  • The Rule of Degeneracy…

    [T]he *Rule of Degeneracy (Escapism): – “Anything that is not explicitly conservative will devolve into something progressive” – “Anything not explicitly rational, will devolve into something magical”

    – “Anything that is not explicitly true, will devolve into something false.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicitly masculine and constructive, will devolve into the feminine and destructive.” – “Any system of thought that does not compel action through change will devolve in an excuse to avoid change through justifying inaction.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicitly eugenic, expansionary, heroic, and hierarchical, will eventually devolve into one that is dysgenic, sedentary, submissive, and equalitarian.” (Women and the weak destroy the world if we allow them.)
  • The Rule of Degeneracy…

    [T]he *Rule of Degeneracy (Escapism): – “Anything that is not explicitly conservative will devolve into something progressive” – “Anything not explicitly rational, will devolve into something magical”

    – “Anything that is not explicitly true, will devolve into something false.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicitly masculine and constructive, will devolve into the feminine and destructive.” – “Any system of thought that does not compel action through change will devolve in an excuse to avoid change through justifying inaction.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicitly eugenic, expansionary, heroic, and hierarchical, will eventually devolve into one that is dysgenic, sedentary, submissive, and equalitarian.” (Women and the weak destroy the world if we allow them.)
  • Idea: Contractualism (Liberty, Civic Society, Under Rule Of Law)

    (important) [W]hy do we associate Contractualism with Anarchism, where there is extraordinary demand for the state, instead of associating Contractualism with Nationalism where there is almost no demand for the state?

    Anarchism evolved in the middle east, in eastern european borderlands(owned but unregulated territories), and in western european ghettos(walled subcultures). Contractualism evolved with near kin relations in the North Sea. (Frisia, England, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and then germany and east) You can only have contractualism under nationalism. Othewise you must have statism.
  • Idea: Contractualism (Liberty, Civic Society, Under Rule Of Law)

    (important) [W]hy do we associate Contractualism with Anarchism, where there is extraordinary demand for the state, instead of associating Contractualism with Nationalism where there is almost no demand for the state?

    Anarchism evolved in the middle east, in eastern european borderlands(owned but unregulated territories), and in western european ghettos(walled subcultures). Contractualism evolved with near kin relations in the North Sea. (Frisia, England, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and then germany and east) You can only have contractualism under nationalism. Othewise you must have statism.
  • ARE NO SERIOUS FASCIST PHILOSOPHERS FOR THE SAME REASON THERE ARE NO PHILOSOPHER

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-serious-contemporary-Fascist-philosophers/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=74827bffTHERE ARE NO SERIOUS FASCIST PHILOSOPHERS FOR THE SAME REASON THERE ARE NO PHILOSOPHERS OF HOPLITE WARFARE

    (a fun one)

    **Fascism** is a ‘**military’ strategy** for Marshaling all economic, political, and cultural resources for the purpose of opposing **Bolshevism, Communism, Socialism**, and totalitarianism by the conduct of **military, economic and cultural warfare**.

    Just as Napoleonic **Total War** is a strategy for marshaling all national resources for the conduct of military warfare prior to the industrial revolution, when economic warfare was relatively ineffective.

    Just as today we use **economic warfare **almost exclusively to contain Russian expansion into southern Europe, eastern Europe and the Baltic, and as we did use to constrain Iran into constraining its expansion into Iraq, Syria and Israel.

    Ergo:

    1. MILITARY: Nationalization of resources for military war: Napoleon **Total War** (State Credit under Nation States), Physical warfare was appropriate for the era.

    2. ECONOMIC: Nationalization of resource for military, economic and cultural war: **Fascism**, or **Economic Warfare, **by the construction of an autarkic (self dependent) economy. The combination of physical, economic and cultural warfare was appropriate for the era.

    3. FINANCIAL: Nationalization of federal trade policy to cause economic collapse: I don’t have a word for it but operationally it would be called “**Financial Warfare**”., by depriving competitors of access to the world markets and financial system. (which destroys economic velocity, political authority, and social stability). Financial warfare is appropriate for the era.

    4. CULTURAL : the Frankfurt school of Marxism was perhaps the most effective form of warfare developed in the twentieth century. The objective is to destroy a civilization from within by sewing discord and internal conflict. It has taken many decades but combined with vast underclass immigration it has been almost successful in destroying the American Rule of Law experiment.

    PHILOSOPHERS?

    In this sense, it is no longer necessary for us to develop philosophers for the purpose of Military Total War (state credit), Economic Total War (Fiat Money), or Financial Total War (International Financial System)

    It is however, necessary (and I am one of them) to develop philosophers to counter the combination of false history, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda, using academy, state, media complex, to conduct cultural warfare.

    So no. There are no Fascist philosophers per se, for the same reason there are no philosophers of Napoleonic (or hoplite) warfare.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 13:44:00 UTC

  • LIBERALISM (PROGRESSIVISM) IDEALISTIC? It’s Utopian, dysgenic, devolutionary, an

    https://www.quora.com/Is-liberalism-idealistic-as-opposed-to-being-realistic/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=58c7d61fIS LIBERALISM (PROGRESSIVISM) IDEALISTIC?

    It’s Utopian, dysgenic, devolutionary, and entirely false, which is why it sells.

    You don’t think religions sell because they’re realistic or true? Neither do political ideologies.

    Here is some humbling and painful truth:

    1) Those civilizations that were most successful in preventing from access to food, delaying reproduction, preventing access to reproduction, enslaving, starving, killing, sending to war, or abandoning to the elements, the largest number of their lower classes, consistently produce the highest standards of living.

    Why? It’s pretty simple math: productive people are only so productive. The very best only a bit more productive, and they are small in number. The person at the bottom is six times more damaging than the person at the top is beneficial. SIX TIMES. (Or at least, like Pareto’s rule, that it’s the inverse of, it’s a very good rule of thumb.)

    2) Western Civilization, from the corded ware (Kurgan) people onward, (the european branch of the Aryan Invasions) out of Ukraine and what is now southern Russia, adopted these eugenic practices and redistributed resources upward increasing the rates of the middle class reproduction. Beginnig with the church’s ban on intermarriage, and the adoption of Bipartite Manorialism in Frisia, and the aggressive hanging of 1/2 to 1% of the population per year, until by the late middle ages – almost everyone living in Europe was a descendent of the genetic if not economic and social middle class.

    3) american puritans recruited people of ‘character’ and the original at least puritan colonies were intended to be a eugenic experiment. This only ended with the marxist, socialist, bolshevik, and soviet cooption of the university and media as an overwhelming counter-enlightenment to that provided by Darwin and Spencer. The pseudosciences of Boaz, Marx, Freud, and even Cantor were propagated to restore the underclass to some level of political control now that they had the economic means available that were provided by the industrial revolution, and the somewhat foolish enfranchisement of non-property owners and women. Meritocracy after all, is a eugenic strategy.

    4) Western civilization, beginning with the separation of western empirical, common, judge discovered law (law), from celebrations, festivals, and education (religion), has always been empirical. Our greek reason and british empiricism that we call ‘science’ today evolved from this legal tradition. To attack this empiricism, particularly after Darwin and Maxwell’s revelations, and Nietzche’s attempt to resurrect greek religion just as bacon, lock, smith, and hume had resurrected greek reason – the left invented multiple layers of progressive falsehoods:

    The myth of oppression of the equal underclasses rather than the necessity of domestication of the inferior underclasses.

    The Utopian vision of a world run by the underclasses (marxism). Despite the evidence that the world universally sorts by iq and genetic class except for rotations in and out of the middle class due to mating and economic lottery effects.

    The great lies of social science: Marxian history, Boazian Anthropology, Freudian Psychology.

    WHEN THESE FAILED to produce a revolution the left turned to “Scientific Socialism”.

    The great lies of economic pseudoscience: managed economies, central planning, world socialism.

    The Great Lies of Political science: That democracy was a good, rather than a luxury. That democracy was possible for the resolution of disputes in heterogeneous polities rather than the prioritization of wants in homogenous polities. That majoritarian monopoly was desirable, or produced beneficial ends. That

    The Great Lies of Law: that rule of law was not determined by the natural properties of mankind that we could enumerate to allow each other to cooperate, but that these laws were arbitrary, discretionary commands that could be followed like the rules of a corporation.

    WHEN THESE FAILED the left turned to the Culture of Critique (attack on culture).

    The Frankfurt school’s false criticisms of art, of western civilization, of white men, of western history.

    WHEN THESE FAILED the left turned to it’s only remaining option:

    1) to immigrate underclasses in order to obtain power through invasion and displacement.

    2) to switch from criticism to political correctness and the enfranchisement not o productive labor and families but of every fringe group possible

    3) to switch from rational argument to simply repeating messages and lies. (alinsky etc).

    THE RESULT is what we live with today:

    1) the destruction of the family that was the condition of enfranchisement into the american eugenic order.

    2) the destruction of the rule of law so that the constitution is no longer a document of the science of cooperation but a justification for war against western civilization.

    3) the destruction of the Whig History of the continuous evolution of western civilization.

    4) the devolution of the parties into married whites, and unmarried white women and the underclasses.

    5) The big sort, where people are nationally relocating to be near people like them.

    6) We are on the brink of civil war (and frankly I’m working to start it)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 12:52:00 UTC

  • IDEA: CONTRACTUALISM (LIBERTY, CIVIC SOCIETY, UNDER RULE OF LAW) (important) Why

    IDEA: CONTRACTUALISM (LIBERTY, CIVIC SOCIETY, UNDER RULE OF LAW)

    (important)

    Why do we associate Contractualism with Anarchism, where there is extraordinary demand for the state, instead of associating Contractualism with Nationalism where there is almost no demand for the state?

    Anarchism evolved in the middle east, in eastern european borderlands(owned but unregulated territories), and in western european ghettos(walled subcultures).

    Contractualism evolved with near kin relations in the North Sea. (Frisia, England, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and then germany and east)

    You can only have contractualism under nationalism. Othewise you must have statism.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 09:15:00 UTC