Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • As far as I know, it looks like: classical liberalism ->Libertarianism ->Ancap –

    As far as I know, it looks like: classical liberalism ->Libertarianism ->Ancap ->NRx ->Propertarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-09 09:32:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641544641758777344

    Reply addressees: @wolfe_fan @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641484405056253953

    IN REPLY TO:

    @sacrorum_rex

    @mdavilamartinez I’ve thought of something I call “post-libertarianism”, something that can incorporate guys from Hoppe to Aristotle

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641484405056253953

  • ON THE ISLAND PEOPLE OF BRITAN (saying it like a propertarian) —“The story sta

    ON THE ISLAND PEOPLE OF BRITAN

    (saying it like a propertarian)

    —“The story starts with geography. Britain is a relatively small island situated off a large but historically divided continent. It is narrow, with navigable rivers, and it is blessed with natural resources and fertile land.

    This combination of factors has various implications for the country’s development. Its island status and narrow dimensions mean that the coast is always nearby, making a large proportion of the population maritime; add an ample supply of wood, and conditions are ripe for the construction of a strong navy.

    The fertile soil allows for a stable population, while resources such as coal, metals and sheep (for wool), along with navigable rivers, facilitate strong international trade. From the United Kingdom’s perspective, the divisions in the Continent both reduced its threats — limiting Continental powers’ ability to build a navy strong enough to invade — and increased its opportunities, as British traders found ways to insert themselves between countries that were often at war.

    Thus, once the island’s basic needs of safety and nourishment were satisfied, Britain’s geography enabled it to become a maritime trading power.”—

    George Friedman, Stratfor

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-08 08:26:00 UTC

  • I WOULD LIKE A POLITICAL ORDER OF EXCHANGES I would like to construct a politica

    I WOULD LIKE A POLITICAL ORDER OF EXCHANGES

    I would like to construct a political order in which we attempted to persuade one another to conduct voluntary exchanges in the construction of commons, rather than a political oder in which we attempt to persuade one another that an abstract bit of moralizing is somehow ‘true’.

    But then that would lead to empirical and scientific government without the need for so many public intellectuals and politicians and that would increase unemployment. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-06 07:57:00 UTC

  • CONVERSATION ON IMMIGRATION (just for record purposes) SAUL: But it’s advantageo

    CONVERSATION ON IMMIGRATION

    (just for record purposes)

    SAUL: But it’s advantageous for a state to have a process that is fast and efficient

    CURT: I think it is an advantage to have the most difficult process possible, with the only expediency education in a technical subject, and experience in the field.

    SAUL:If you have a system under which you can move around goods freely and cheaply while at the same time create great difficulties for moving around labor advanced countries will end up with what they are today: cheap goods and expensive labor. $5k dental visits. Great cars needing a minor repair junk yards. Outsourcing. Curt Doolittle living in Ukraine. And other undesirable consequences.

    CURT: Move capital and institutions to labor and thereby construct norms and institutions, do not move labor to capital and institutions and pay a cost in norms and institutions.

    SAUL: And this is where I think you got it wrong. Moving capital to labor does not create institutions, while moving labor to capital can assimilate labor according to the rules of the culture.

    CURT: That is only true if and only if one does not understand the content of those norms. All that is necessary to transform any country are 10,000 lawyers and an equal number of police. Why are we not exporing both instead of importing underclass dependent labor?

    SAUL: Don’t get me wrong, I wish more countries were like America. But it simply doesn’t work that way.

    CURT: (I kind of doubt that I am wrong since the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side. wink emoticon ) I don’t wish more countries were like america, Canada and Australia: land-privilege is not a particular bit of intelligence. It’s just luck

    (or conquest).

    SAUL: If you propose unachievable conditions for your argument to work it means it doesn’t work.

    CURT: It is not as important to achieve that end as it is to revise existing law such that costs are not born.

    SAUL: Yes 10000 lawyers and police and it would work. But you don’t have 10000 lawyers and police. And America has MILLIONS of immigrants EVERY YEAR. Most will assimilate seamlessly within our lifetime.

    CURT: Truth is truth in the sense that moral statements are objective. America has an overabundance of both and americans are natural judges and police. We have 1 lawyer for every 300 people and making lawyers since 1980 has become an industry. We can manufacture order-making on a grand scale. Because we DO IT ALREADY.

    SAUL: In the private sector. not so much in government

    CURT The probem is not sending 10000 lawyers to Ukraine. It’s Ukraine prohibiting 10000 lawyers and jusges. The single most advantagous thing a low trust country can invest in is american jurists and police.you want to radically change the world that’s how. And there is absolutely no reason why such things cannot be done. if others can send us MILLIONS of peasants, we can send the world THOUSANDS of jurists. You don’t build an airport or a judiciary by placing a help wanted ad, you hire a group of specialists to sytematically do it.

    SAUL: Low trust countries are poor. They don’t invest much, especially in American lawyers. America has a built-in magnet that brings peasants. Ukraine has no magnets to bring American lawyers. Lawyers are human beings, and highly paid ones. You can’t just push them around like cart wagons wherever you want.

    CURT: If ukraine set up a program to do that most developed nations would support it, and we could easily get 10k people here. Easily. We send millions of troops, americans overwhelmingly evangelize care around the world, and a law degree in america is no longer a key to an upper middle class lifestyle.

    SAUL: Besides, we tried it before. It’s called colonization. Not just lawyers but exporting all levels of government. Didn’t really work except that the colonized were a bit less fucked up than they are today.

    CURT: So yes, you can push whomever you want, because 10K legal people is about 1.5-6 billion. a year for 10 years to transform a nation from low trust to high trust. that is a trivial amount of money. Imagine the return on that investment in the establishment of consumer credit alone. They are already replacing all the police. They will soon replace the bureaucracy. Hell, for that amount of money I bet they could get credit since the people could even be paid by external entities. Colonization by common law WORKED EVERYWHERE. Even india.

    SAUL: “If Ukraine set up a program” do you realize that Ukraine will never set up such a program?

    CURT: So now we are to the crux of the matter.

    CURT: OK. Well now we are down to your subjective optionon, not a statement of whether such a program if instituted would be both a cheap (good) investment and would work to transform the country.

    We can import any technology we want.

    SAUL: of course it would work. in principle. provided that conditions that are next to impossible to meet are met

    CURT: OK. Well, then how do we raise the cost of NOT doing it?

    I mean, how could Ukraine refuse if with that came nearly unlimited banking and credit?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-05 08:49:00 UTC

  • I Am Trying To Repair The Enlightenment

    [C]OMPARISONS:
    1) Ashkenazi Separatist Pseudoscientific (belief) Libertinism
    vs European Universalist Empirical (Legal) Libertarianism.

    2) Ashkenazi Neo Conservatism (Make the world safe for separatists)
    vs Anglo Burkeian Conservatism ( Parent the world into prosperity).

    3) Ashkenazi (Pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Communism
    vs Anglo-German (pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Secular Humanism.

    METHODS:
    1) Anglo American (critical) Empirical (Law).
    2) German (justificationary) Rationalism (Philosophy).
    3) French (subjectivist) Moralism (literature).
    3) Ashkenazi (overloading) pseudo-moralism, pseudo-scientism, pseudo-rationalism (Pseudoscience)

    All cultures tried to universalize their sectarian ideologies as rational and scientific platforms. Yet these different group evolutionary strategies all failed the test of universalism. The anglos were right in method (science) and wrong in vision of man (aristocracy of everyone). The germans were wrong in method (kantian rationalism) and right in vision of man (paternal hierarchy).

    The Ashkenazis were at best hermeneutic, and at worst deceitful (separatism without paying costs of commons) and pragmatic by creating a new ‘religion’ – a new means of suggestion by loading,framing and overloading; thereby taking advantage of western high trust and pathological altruism.

    Through this rather broader lens, we see that all the enlightenments failed. (I don’t address the french because no one takes them seriously). We see that the last century was plagued by lies, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and justification, and as Hayek warned us, was a century of mysticism (which was the best word he could come up with at the time.)

    That is why I am aggressively anti-ancap: because I see it as another great lie that has been propagandized upon my people, and has misdirected their energies and aspirations away from the only possible source of liberty: the prohibition on parasitism, the common law, universal standing, every man a sheriff, and universal militia. There is no state and no ruler if we rule by law.

    So where the person looking at leaves sees minor errors in the ancap-libertines, and where the person looking at trees sees a set of competing ideologies, I look at the forest and see group evolutionary strategies covering a spectrum from anglo empirical and legal ‘truth’, to german justification (kant and the german idealists), to french pretense of reason(Rousseau), to ashkenazi systemic deception: Freud, Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt-School, Rothbard. The second great deception (authoritarian pseudoscience) duplicating what was done to rome by abraham, jesus, peter and paul: the first great deception: authoritarian monotheism.

    That explains why I am hostile to well intentioned fools.

    Because they’re part of the problem: useful idiots of the libertine rather than communist and neo-conservative types.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • I AM TRYING TO REPAIR THE ENLIGHTENMENT COMPARISONS: 1) Ashkenazi Separatist Pse

    I AM TRYING TO REPAIR THE ENLIGHTENMENT

    COMPARISONS:

    1) Ashkenazi Separatist Pseudoscientific (belief) Libertinism

    vs European Universalists Empirical (Legal) Libertarianism.

    2) Ashkenazi Neo Conservatism (Make the world safe for separatists)

    vs Anglo Burkeian Conservatism ( Parent the world into prosperity).

    3) Ashkenazi (Pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Communism

    vs Anglo-German (pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Secular Humanism.

    METHODS:

    1) Anglo American (critical) Empirical (Law).

    2) German (justificationary) Rationalism (Philosophy).

    3) French (subjectivist) Moralism (literature).

    3) Ashkenazi (overloading) pseudo-moralism, pseudo-scientism, pseudo-rationalism (Pseudoscience)

    All cultures tried to universalize their sectarian ideologies as rational and scientific platforms. Yet these different group evolutionary strategies all failed the test of universalism. The anglos were right in method (science) and wrong in vision of man (aristocracy of everyone). The germans were wrong in method (kantian rationalism) and right in vision of man (paternal hierarchy).

    The Ashkenazis were at best hermeneutic, and at worst deceitful (separatism without paying costs of commons) and pragmatic by creating a new ‘religion’ – a new means of suggestion by loading,framing and overloading; thereby taking advantage of western high trust and pathological altruism.

    Through this rather broader lens, we see that all the enlightenments failed. (I don’t address the french because no one takes them seriously). We see that the last century was plagued by lies, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and justification, and as Hayek warned us, was a century of mysticism (which was the best word he could come up with at the time.)

    That is why I am aggressively anti-ancap: because I see it as another great lie that has been propagandized upon my people, and has misdirected their energies and aspirations away from the only possible source of liberty: the prohibition on parasitism, the common law, universal standing, every man a sheriff, and universal militia. There is no state and no ruler if we rule by law.

    So where the person looking at leaves sees minor errors in the ancap-libertines, and where the person looking at trees sees a set of competing ideologies, I look at the forest and see group evolutionary strategies covering a spectrum from anglo empirical and legal ‘truth’, to german justification (kant and the german idealists), to french pretense of reason(Rousseau), to ashkenazi systemic deception: Freud, Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt-School, Rothbard. The second great deception (authoritarian pseudoscience) duplicating what was done to rome by abraham, jesus, peter and paul: the first great deception: authoritarian monotheism.

    That explains why I am hostile to well intentioned fools.

    Because they’re part of the problem: useful idiots of the libertine rather than communist and neo-conservative types.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-03 08:04:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN IMPLOSION (frontpage mag) Few Republican subgroups were harder hit b

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2015/08/23_ridiculously_offensive_donald_trump_quotes_4060_5187.jpg?itok=fZE6RSDMTHE LIBERTARIAN IMPLOSION

    (frontpage mag)

    Few Republican subgroups were harder hit by the rise of Trump than libertarians. Not that long ago, the libertarian message had appeared to be equivalent to conservatism. But while small government and deregulation were appealing, the libertarian foreign policy agenda was a disaster. Their romance with the Russian agents of Wikileaks and Edward Snowden didn’t help matters any. Libertarians got Republicans to cheer for Rand Paul’s drone filibuster, but ranting about drones and the NSA stopped being a viable foreign policy when ISIS began releasing beheading videos.

    But the real problems were domestic.

    A genuine deregulation focus might have redeemed Congress, but instead it led to inside baseball battles, like the one over the Export-Import Bank which were quite significant to the donor class, but weren’t of much interest to the Republican base.

    The capper came when the Koch Bros and Norquist allied with Obama and the left to back a pro-crime agenda. Just as Americans became worried by rising crime, libertarians began campaigning on behalf of drug dealers.

    And they’re still at it.

    Non-ideological candidates like Trump and Carson stepped into an intellectual vacuum created when libertarians imploded and took chunk of the conservative movement with them.

    The split predated Trump. Few conservatives were enthusiastic about amnesty. Trump picked up an issue that had already become a wedge when Cruz and Walker embraced it, setting them against establishment types like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, but also hard core libertarians like Rand Paul, and Koch cronies like Paul Ryan and Rick Perry.

    Trump just expanded the split into a larger protectionist position that has libertarians impotently fuming. He picked up chunks of Perot’s message and picked up a Republican base that felt abandoned.

    The conservative collapse also killed the ideological purity test. But then the purity test had already stopped making sense. Libertarians are currently advocating for drug dealers and illegal alien amnesty. Some are pushing straightforward transnationalism and not on Reason, but in more mainstream conservative outlets. They define this as a “Liberty” agenda, but its appeal is extremely limited at best.

    And if ideological purity means drug dealers, illegal aliens and more jobs going to China, plenty of conservatives have decided they don’t want any part of it.

    Libertarians had their hour, but their embrace of dubious causes made them irrelevant. The movement needs to think hard about how to reengage conservatives again. But there’s no sign of that. Instead it’s pursuing its alliance with the left in support of freeing drug dealers… a program that has no possible positive outcome either for America or for them.

    If the libertarian movement is to reemerge, it needs to take a cue from Trump by thinking about what Americans want rather than about the tenets of their ideology. Because if Trump is successful, they are going to end up buried in the rubble.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-03 05:02:00 UTC

  • Revolution: The Plan

    [W]estern Man is moral man, and moral men need: 1 – A Moral Justification for the application of Violence to institute change. (They are being lied to, and stolen from, and conquered systematically, and I explain how, why, and how to stop it.) (Ideologies require promise of actionable results within the current lifetime.)

    2 – A Solution to Demand: a set of institutional changes (concentration of effort) (an expansion of the classical liberal legal order to suppress lying, wishful thinking, bias and error in matters of the political commons; and a reconstruction of the houses of government as a market for the voluntary construction of commons.) 3 – A means of transition from one order to another. (An ordered means of rapid transformation within the status quo.) 4 – A set of tactics for raising the cost of the status quo: insurrection via: nullification (gradual disempowerment and transition to new government), secession(construction of a new government retaining the previous competitor), revolution (replacement of the people in government and modification of institutions eliminating the previous competitor) and civil war (destruction of the government and replacement with an entirely new one, eliminating the previous competitors). 5 – A set of leaders (speakers) to rally action. (I need 100 people. That’s all. I need only twelve who are very good.) Propertarianism and Testimonialism will be a more complete framework than has been produced before, even if we take into account all of Locke,Hume,Smith and Jefferson as a set. And if I fail, then the work sits in books and records until someone decides to use it or create something better. But I will have my good service. One leads a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Revolution: The Plan

    [W]estern Man is moral man, and moral men need: 1 – A Moral Justification for the application of Violence to institute change. (They are being lied to, and stolen from, and conquered systematically, and I explain how, why, and how to stop it.) (Ideologies require promise of actionable results within the current lifetime.)

    2 – A Solution to Demand: a set of institutional changes (concentration of effort) (an expansion of the classical liberal legal order to suppress lying, wishful thinking, bias and error in matters of the political commons; and a reconstruction of the houses of government as a market for the voluntary construction of commons.) 3 – A means of transition from one order to another. (An ordered means of rapid transformation within the status quo.) 4 – A set of tactics for raising the cost of the status quo: insurrection via: nullification (gradual disempowerment and transition to new government), secession(construction of a new government retaining the previous competitor), revolution (replacement of the people in government and modification of institutions eliminating the previous competitor) and civil war (destruction of the government and replacement with an entirely new one, eliminating the previous competitors). 5 – A set of leaders (speakers) to rally action. (I need 100 people. That’s all. I need only twelve who are very good.) Propertarianism and Testimonialism will be a more complete framework than has been produced before, even if we take into account all of Locke,Hume,Smith and Jefferson as a set. And if I fail, then the work sits in books and records until someone decides to use it or create something better. But I will have my good service. One leads a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Reviewing the Last Six Years of Progress on Propertarianism

    [M]y first draft in 2006, in retrospect, is almost embarrassing. My second draft in 2010, was fairly complete, but when I got to the section where I requried truth telling in government, I’d focused on ‘calculability’ and ‘traceabilty’ as means of preventing abuses of funds, and abuses of the law. My third draft in 2013 still had me stuck with the same problem. I had no idea at the time, that six years of work later, I would have taken that early intuition and turned it into Operationalism as a test not only of truthfulness but of existential possibility. It was another year before I made it through truth. And another year to develop the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowedge, labor and advocacy resulting in the market for commons..

    And while I was pretty sure in 2009 that the solution to government was a market, and I knew strict construction was required, I did not know the philosophical basis for it. I knew that moral intuitions were reducible to property rights, and that variations in moral intuitions reflected the property rights necessary for each reproductive bias. But from today’s vantage point I’ve come very far in the ability to articulate these ideas as necessary, and I am certainly better at communicating them, the fact of the matter is that most of what I have done is improve explanation of why such things are true and necessary. But the original understanding that the solution to the deceit of the 20th century, as the second attempt at mysticism of the west, was truth telling, and that we had to create a market for commons to accommodate the emerging heterogeneous interests of any polity with any sufficiently complex division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. I did’nt expect to end up advocating eugenic reproduction. I did not expect the racial differences to be (largely) rates of suppression of the underclasses. I did not expect to come out so strongly in favor of the family. I did not expect to demand a revolution. I viewed my work as libertarian and institutionally progressive yet it is the right that finds my work most interesting (because it proves that their intuitions are correct.) So I will finish The Politics this year, and possibly aesthetics. That means I will write up draft constitutions for various forms of propertarian political orders (honest and truthful regardless of whether collective or libertarian). A few people have asked me to address what I will call personal philosophy, even if I view my work as political and that inspiration is not my job – that’s positivist. My job is preventing deceit and error. So maybe I will do that or not. I will also deal with the DARK SUBJECTS: revolution, and war. But I do not want to do that until last. So that I think will be next year. Hopefully in time for the election.