[M]arkets in everything: A Market for Goods and Services(“Capitalism”), A Market for Commons (“Government”), A Market for Dispute Resolution (“Rule” – and independent judiciary under the one law of property). The care-taking of the unable and the requirement of self support for reproduction. Imposing costs upon others is antithetical to civilization – eradication of it is the purpose of civilization. While insurance against the vicissitudes of nature is necessary for risk, the guarantee of dependence is mere theft by intention not accident. Communism Fails (authority). Democratic Socialism Fails(democracy). Libertinism Fails(individualism). The only solution is MARKET GOVERNMENT. And market governance requires rule of law.
Theme: Governance
-
Libertarians Cannot Gain The Presidency
LIBERTARIAN POLICY IS TACTICAL AND NECESSARY BUT LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENCY ARE CAPABLE ONLY OF THREATENING THE DOMINANT OR OPPOSITION PARTY, NOT WINNING. [L]ibertarian party is dead. Current emerging strategy is that the democratic party is too dependent upon marginal groups and women and that the middle class and working class can be brought into the republican party. There is no room for a libertarian (entrepreneurial party) until we eliminate the FPTP problem in the constitution. Pending a civil war there will be no addition or subtraction of parties, only a DOMINANT PARTY and an OPPOSITION PARTY. The primary value of third parties is to threaten dominant and opposition parties if they fail to accommodate groups that early candidates successfully enfranchise. Ron Paul failed and he failed for good reasons: foreign policy, and open borders. Rand Paul fares no better. At present democratic party = third worlders and single women, republican party=whites. In other words democrat=non-nuclear family, and republican=nuclear family. —REPLY WAS A GIF OF JENNIFER LAWRENCE SAYING “WHATEVER”— I thought we left gossiping, rallying, and shaming to the postmoderns. smile emoticon Non arguments are for leftists and teenage girls. If you want comment on your policy that’s something I support. The question isn’t whether your libertarian policy, or anyone else’s is superior to social democratic policy. Its whether it is possible for a third party under FPTP to do other than disempower either the dominant or opposition party. The only possibility is to rase enough interest in one or two key policy improvements that cannot be appropriated and to force their appropriation by one of the major parties, or to force them to lose an election because of it. Taxes aren’t even on radar. Immigration is. But then, I’m not paid to be your advisor. And, obviously whomever your paying isn’t really up to the job. Or you would get airplay.
—“The dominant party does not want to get more than 51% of the vote. If they get a higher percentage, they are leaving rents on the table or they are failing to push their agenda(s) as fast or as hard as they could. The opposition wants to stay in the game and get as much of the remainder (49%) as possible in the hopes that the dominant party will overplayed their hand and leave an election up for grabs, which they sometimes do. But in order to maximize their chances, they have to hew as close as possible to the positions of the dominant party. If there is any ideological gap between them, voters who fall into the gap will be split between the two dominant parties, tending to go to the closer one. In order to capture the maximum number, they must hew close. A third party can make the opposition more effective and strident by forcing it to trade off on both margins, rather than just on one, so long as opposition + third together can maintain a blocking proportion of the Senate, (40%.)”—Eli Harman
Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Libertarians Cannot Gain The Presidency
LIBERTARIAN POLICY IS TACTICAL AND NECESSARY BUT LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENCY ARE CAPABLE ONLY OF THREATENING THE DOMINANT OR OPPOSITION PARTY, NOT WINNING. [L]ibertarian party is dead. Current emerging strategy is that the democratic party is too dependent upon marginal groups and women and that the middle class and working class can be brought into the republican party. There is no room for a libertarian (entrepreneurial party) until we eliminate the FPTP problem in the constitution. Pending a civil war there will be no addition or subtraction of parties, only a DOMINANT PARTY and an OPPOSITION PARTY. The primary value of third parties is to threaten dominant and opposition parties if they fail to accommodate groups that early candidates successfully enfranchise. Ron Paul failed and he failed for good reasons: foreign policy, and open borders. Rand Paul fares no better. At present democratic party = third worlders and single women, republican party=whites. In other words democrat=non-nuclear family, and republican=nuclear family. —REPLY WAS A GIF OF JENNIFER LAWRENCE SAYING “WHATEVER”— I thought we left gossiping, rallying, and shaming to the postmoderns. smile emoticon Non arguments are for leftists and teenage girls. If you want comment on your policy that’s something I support. The question isn’t whether your libertarian policy, or anyone else’s is superior to social democratic policy. Its whether it is possible for a third party under FPTP to do other than disempower either the dominant or opposition party. The only possibility is to rase enough interest in one or two key policy improvements that cannot be appropriated and to force their appropriation by one of the major parties, or to force them to lose an election because of it. Taxes aren’t even on radar. Immigration is. But then, I’m not paid to be your advisor. And, obviously whomever your paying isn’t really up to the job. Or you would get airplay.
—“The dominant party does not want to get more than 51% of the vote. If they get a higher percentage, they are leaving rents on the table or they are failing to push their agenda(s) as fast or as hard as they could. The opposition wants to stay in the game and get as much of the remainder (49%) as possible in the hopes that the dominant party will overplayed their hand and leave an election up for grabs, which they sometimes do. But in order to maximize their chances, they have to hew as close as possible to the positions of the dominant party. If there is any ideological gap between them, voters who fall into the gap will be split between the two dominant parties, tending to go to the closer one. In order to capture the maximum number, they must hew close. A third party can make the opposition more effective and strident by forcing it to trade off on both margins, rather than just on one, so long as opposition + third together can maintain a blocking proportion of the Senate, (40%.)”—Eli Harman
Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Explained: The Libertine Fallacy Of Crusoe’s Island Thought Model
“[T]he Fallacy of Crusoe’s Island, Surrounded by the sea. But what does the sea that surrounds and defends Crusoe’s island represent? It represents the walls of the ancient master’s house defended by master and warriors. It represents the ghetto’s walls defended by the European nobles and knights. It represents the eastern European territories defended by the Tsars, the Polish-Lithuanian Armies, and the Austro Hungarians. It represents Israel defended by American Navy, Arms, Missiles, and money. The thought model for the evolution of cooperation is the endless grassland of the Pontic steppe, evenly distributed with competitors, who must construct the mutual insurance of property and commons through the organized force of arms – denying that territory, capital and property to others. The Crusoe’s island thought model is not only a fallacy, but also a deception that seeks to justify the non-payment for the defense of territory, institutions, norms, capital, and property from competitors. Jewish Enlightenment Cosmopolitanism in socialist, Libertine libertarianism, and neo-conservatives forms, is an even worse failure than Anglo enlightenment liberalism’s social democracy and political correctness. Because like all of Jewish history, underinvestment in institutions of defense and commons by a migratory pastoral people means they engage in the privatization of costs that should have gone to defense of territory, institutions, norms, capital and property – and the export of cost of defense onto host warriors, who eventually tire of carrying free-riders. There is no free ride. The history of civilization is reducible to the incremental suppression of free riding, parasitism, and predation, by the incremental evolution of institutions, laws, traditions, and norms, which suppress it.” —Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy, The Propertarian Institute
-
Explained: The Libertine Fallacy Of Crusoe’s Island Thought Model
“[T]he Fallacy of Crusoe’s Island, Surrounded by the sea. But what does the sea that surrounds and defends Crusoe’s island represent? It represents the walls of the ancient master’s house defended by master and warriors. It represents the ghetto’s walls defended by the European nobles and knights. It represents the eastern European territories defended by the Tsars, the Polish-Lithuanian Armies, and the Austro Hungarians. It represents Israel defended by American Navy, Arms, Missiles, and money. The thought model for the evolution of cooperation is the endless grassland of the Pontic steppe, evenly distributed with competitors, who must construct the mutual insurance of property and commons through the organized force of arms – denying that territory, capital and property to others. The Crusoe’s island thought model is not only a fallacy, but also a deception that seeks to justify the non-payment for the defense of territory, institutions, norms, capital, and property from competitors. Jewish Enlightenment Cosmopolitanism in socialist, Libertine libertarianism, and neo-conservatives forms, is an even worse failure than Anglo enlightenment liberalism’s social democracy and political correctness. Because like all of Jewish history, underinvestment in institutions of defense and commons by a migratory pastoral people means they engage in the privatization of costs that should have gone to defense of territory, institutions, norms, capital and property – and the export of cost of defense onto host warriors, who eventually tire of carrying free-riders. There is no free ride. The history of civilization is reducible to the incremental suppression of free riding, parasitism, and predation, by the incremental evolution of institutions, laws, traditions, and norms, which suppress it.” —Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy, The Propertarian Institute
-
The Nobel Prize is an Instrument of Propaganda Supporting Democratic Socialism
[W]ell, the Nobel Prize is awarded for POLITICAL ACTIVISM, not for content. Is her work worthy of a Nobel? Not likely. Is Solzhenitzyn? Maybe. The only Nobel prizes that are not rewarded on the basis of political progressivism are the hard (physical) sciences. The nobel prize is a vehicle for promoting european social democracy. So in this sense, the Nobel prize given to this woman is equivalent to the Russian sponsorship of the Frankfurt School, The Ron Paul Institute, Global Research in Canada, and Russian funding of Muslim terrorists in Europe and America. I have gained enough (limited) understanding of Russian economics and infrastructure to grasp why Putin does what he does. The only problem I have with what he does is (a) expanding Russian influence into eastern Europe, and (b) that they lie about what they’re doing. The reason is that both American experiment has failed, and the Russian experiment has failed. And we both need to contain the barbarians and get our own houses in order, and punish troublemakers rather than try to expand our influence.
-
The Nobel Prize is an Instrument of Propaganda Supporting Democratic Socialism
[W]ell, the Nobel Prize is awarded for POLITICAL ACTIVISM, not for content. Is her work worthy of a Nobel? Not likely. Is Solzhenitzyn? Maybe. The only Nobel prizes that are not rewarded on the basis of political progressivism are the hard (physical) sciences. The nobel prize is a vehicle for promoting european social democracy. So in this sense, the Nobel prize given to this woman is equivalent to the Russian sponsorship of the Frankfurt School, The Ron Paul Institute, Global Research in Canada, and Russian funding of Muslim terrorists in Europe and America. I have gained enough (limited) understanding of Russian economics and infrastructure to grasp why Putin does what he does. The only problem I have with what he does is (a) expanding Russian influence into eastern Europe, and (b) that they lie about what they’re doing. The reason is that both American experiment has failed, and the Russian experiment has failed. And we both need to contain the barbarians and get our own houses in order, and punish troublemakers rather than try to expand our influence.
-
THE NOBEL PRIZE IS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROPAGANDA SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF DEMOC
THE NOBEL PRIZE IS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROPAGANDA SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM
Well, the Nobel Prize is awarded for POLITICAL ACTIVISM, not for content. Is her work worthy of a Nobel? Not likely. Is Solzhenitzyn? Maybe. The only Nobel prizes that are not rewarded on the basis of political progressivism are the hard (physical) sciences. The nobel prize is a vehicle for promoting european social democracy.
So in this sense, the Nobel prize given to this woman is equivalent to the Russian sponsorship of the Frankfurt School, The Ron Paul Institute, Global Research in Canada, and Russian funding of Muslim terrorists in Europe and America.
I have gained enough (limited) understanding of Russian economics and infrastructure to grasp why Putin does what he does. The only problem I have with what he does is (a) expanding Russian influence into eastern Europe, and (b) that they lie about what they’re doing.
The reason is that both American experiment has failed, and the Russian experiment has failed. And we both need to contain the barbarians and get our own houses in order, and punish troublemakers rather than try to expand our influence.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-10 04:26:00 UTC
-
ONLY THINGS THAT MELT IN THIS POT, ARE RULE OF LAW, HIGH TRUST, THE COMMONS, AND
http://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nations-Matters/dp/0804785961THE ONLY THINGS THAT MELT IN THIS POT, ARE RULE OF LAW, HIGH TRUST, THE COMMONS, AND THE VOLUNTARISM OF THE CIVIC SOCIETY
—-“For along with strange people, strange doctrines must come in; and novel doctrines bring novel decisions, from which there must arise many feelings and resolutions which destroy the harmony of the existing political order. Therefore he thought it more necessary to keep bad manners and customs from invading and filling the city than it was to keep out infectious diseases.”—Plutarch
ALSO READ
Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nations IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own
http://www.amazon.com/Hive-Mind-Your-Nation%C2%92s-Matters/dp/0804785961
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-10 03:59:00 UTC
-
Q&A: “CURT, HAVE YOU MELLOWED ON PUTIN?” —“I wanted to ask. Your position on P
Q&A: “CURT, HAVE YOU MELLOWED ON PUTIN?”
—“I wanted to ask. Your position on Putin seems to have mellowed some.”—
Its because I’ve switched from criticizing to pitching a solution “He’s right, and if you’re right, just speak the truth. Truth will unite us all”.
I’m following my own advice that criticism is not a solution but an admission one doesn’t have one.
I have one so I”m going to stay on message.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-10 01:18:00 UTC