Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • LIBERTY IS IMPOSED BY FORCE BY ARISTOCRACY —“A philosophy intended to increase

    LIBERTY IS IMPOSED BY FORCE BY ARISTOCRACY

    —“A philosophy intended to increase “freedom” finds grounds for its truest expression only in societies dominated by well entrenched aristocracies [because] the appreciation of the network of exchanges contributing to the formation of “the commons” (the regulation of which is essential to the maintenance of free markets for goods and services) is only within the purview of the cognitive elite.

    Bankers, industrialists, merchants, artists, laborers and the underclass, can and will abuse collective goods for their own personal aggrandisement or from their own ignorance and indolence.

    [This means that] libertarian society can only be imposed by [Aristocratic] Totalitarianism. [Meaning that] a philosophy dominated by concepts of market principles can only function systematically if the exchange of violence and rhetoric can also be subsumed within its paradigm.

    As an aside, an effective aristocracy (or fascist state) must coordinate with a priest class in order to convert the analytical and synthetic thinking of the elites to analogical thinking for mass consumption, that is how you bridge the is-ought gap.”— Eric Orwoll

    (CD: edited for clarity)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-27 20:56:00 UTC

  • Elegant New Weapon in the Anti-Krugman Wars

    —“The real difference between Chicago and MIT macro is Chicago’s commitment to rules over discretion. Milton Friedman’s endorsement of a constant 3% increase in the money supply was meant to minimize the chance of hyperinflation and to make running the Fed a boring job such that investors had clear expectations of how Policy would be set. When “leaders” have discretion with respect to how they set policy, they have more fun on the jobbut “uncertainty” increases and this reduces investment.”—Matthew Kahn

    [I]n other words, the Chicago program seeks to define rules that will eliminate discretion. The MIT program seeks to identify opportunities for discretion. Rule of law = Lack of Discretion.

    I wasn’t able to come up with that myself. And it’s wonderful.

    MORE

    ANTI-KRUGMAN — THIS IS SO GOOD THAT I HAVE TO POST MORE OF IT.

     —-“At M.I.T., however, Keynes never went away. To be sure, stagflation showed that there were limits to what policy can do. But students continued to learn about the imperfections of markets and the role that monetary and fiscal policy can play in boosting a depressed economy. And the M.I.T. students of the 1970s enlarged on those insights in their later work. Mr. Blanchard, for example, showed how small deviations from perfect rationality can have large economic consequences; Mr. Obstfeld showed that currency markets can sometimes experience self-fulfilling panic.”—-Paul Krugman 

    “Point #1 Note the eagerness to introduce ideas from behavioral economics into economic policy making. A dangerous precedent arises here. If the “people are foolish“, then this creates an ugly elitist possibility that only the wise technocrats (the MIT graduates) can protect us. I don‘t like this worldview on a number of levels. Moral hazard lurks when sophisticated investors and economic decision makers are aware that the technocrats will step in and “save the world“ when ugly economic events take place (such as a plunging stock market, or rising unemployment). 

    “Point #2: The real difference between Chicago and MIT macro is Chicago‘s commitment to rules over discretion. Milton Friedman‘s endorsement of a constant 3% increase in the money supply was meant to minimize the chance of hyperinflation and to make running the Fed a boring job such that investors had clear expectations of how Policy would be set. When “leaders“ have discretion with respect to how they set policy, they have more fun on the job but “uncertainty“ increases and this reduces investment. 

    “Point #3; Dr. Krugman also refuses to acknowledge the power of Ed Prescott‘s work on time consistency and policy. Clear rules of the game create dynamically stable rules and this fosters investment. In Dr. Krugman‘s short run focus on the business cycle, he ignores the long run growth implications caused by the activist policies that he supports. 

    “Point #4; In the absence of randomized trials, the MIT trained technocrats (the 5 people listed above) do not actually know what policies are effective in mitigating business cycles. If they know that they do not know how the macro economy really works, then does this affect Dr. Krugman‘s optimism that MIT has won the policy debates. His piece isn‘t that modest (or honest) about the modeling uncertainty that now exists in modern macro economics. He makes the past debates sound settled. If he attended MIT‘s current 1st year PHD macro sequence, he would see a variety of different models being worked on and taught and I bet that the policy conclusions are very sensitive to the modeling choices.” —- Matthew Kahn (Environmental and Urban Economics )

  • Elegant New Weapon in the Anti-Krugman Wars

    —“The real difference between Chicago and MIT macro is Chicago’s commitment to rules over discretion. Milton Friedman’s endorsement of a constant 3% increase in the money supply was meant to minimize the chance of hyperinflation and to make running the Fed a boring job such that investors had clear expectations of how Policy would be set. When “leaders” have discretion with respect to how they set policy, they have more fun on the jobbut “uncertainty” increases and this reduces investment.”—Matthew Kahn

    [I]n other words, the Chicago program seeks to define rules that will eliminate discretion. The MIT program seeks to identify opportunities for discretion. Rule of law = Lack of Discretion.

    I wasn’t able to come up with that myself. And it’s wonderful.

    MORE

    ANTI-KRUGMAN — THIS IS SO GOOD THAT I HAVE TO POST MORE OF IT.

     —-“At M.I.T., however, Keynes never went away. To be sure, stagflation showed that there were limits to what policy can do. But students continued to learn about the imperfections of markets and the role that monetary and fiscal policy can play in boosting a depressed economy. And the M.I.T. students of the 1970s enlarged on those insights in their later work. Mr. Blanchard, for example, showed how small deviations from perfect rationality can have large economic consequences; Mr. Obstfeld showed that currency markets can sometimes experience self-fulfilling panic.”—-Paul Krugman 

    “Point #1 Note the eagerness to introduce ideas from behavioral economics into economic policy making. A dangerous precedent arises here. If the “people are foolish“, then this creates an ugly elitist possibility that only the wise technocrats (the MIT graduates) can protect us. I don‘t like this worldview on a number of levels. Moral hazard lurks when sophisticated investors and economic decision makers are aware that the technocrats will step in and “save the world“ when ugly economic events take place (such as a plunging stock market, or rising unemployment). 

    “Point #2: The real difference between Chicago and MIT macro is Chicago‘s commitment to rules over discretion. Milton Friedman‘s endorsement of a constant 3% increase in the money supply was meant to minimize the chance of hyperinflation and to make running the Fed a boring job such that investors had clear expectations of how Policy would be set. When “leaders“ have discretion with respect to how they set policy, they have more fun on the job but “uncertainty“ increases and this reduces investment. 

    “Point #3; Dr. Krugman also refuses to acknowledge the power of Ed Prescott‘s work on time consistency and policy. Clear rules of the game create dynamically stable rules and this fosters investment. In Dr. Krugman‘s short run focus on the business cycle, he ignores the long run growth implications caused by the activist policies that he supports. 

    “Point #4; In the absence of randomized trials, the MIT trained technocrats (the 5 people listed above) do not actually know what policies are effective in mitigating business cycles. If they know that they do not know how the macro economy really works, then does this affect Dr. Krugman‘s optimism that MIT has won the policy debates. His piece isn‘t that modest (or honest) about the modeling uncertainty that now exists in modern macro economics. He makes the past debates sound settled. If he attended MIT‘s current 1st year PHD macro sequence, he would see a variety of different models being worked on and taught and I bet that the policy conclusions are very sensitive to the modeling choices.” —- Matthew Kahn (Environmental and Urban Economics )

  • Thoughts on RamzPaul’s Guide to the Dark Enlightenment

    [R]AMZPAUL’S POINTS (See Video: https://gloria.tv/media/7TcJehsj2GJ_ 1) The term Counter-Enlightenment was taken already. But the Dark Enlightenment is a counter-enlightenment movement. The Dark Enlightenment. (I disagree with conflating the dark ages and the middle ages. Western civic society is largely the result of the late middle ages, not dark ages.) 2) The Cathedral includes the Academy, The Media, The State, The Deep State. 3) The Religion of the Cathedral is Cultural Marxism : Having failed scientifically (Scientific Socialism), Having failed organizationally (Syndicalism), Having failed through Postmodernism (lying) AND having started with demand for access to opportunity, expanded their demands to equality of opportunity, and having expanded their demands to equality of outcome, and failing because of the empirical difference in ability between individuals, the only solution was to import vast numbers of underclass people from the third world, encourage single motherhood, destroy the family, and create dependence upon the state sufficient that the state could take control of all functions in life. 3) Red Pill : Accepting the truth of the evidence of man’s behavior and abandoning the enlightenment fallacies. 4) Inequality and Diversity: People are empirically unequal, and Diversity empirically decreases trust and increases demand for tyranny. (The reason we are unequal is largely the difference in rates of reproduction of our classes. While homo-sapiens of the various races are similar, we vary in the success at suppressing our underclass reproduction. Those who succeed have advanced societies, and those who failed have impoverished societies. The cold solved this problem for us. The underclasses are a problem. Everywhere and always.) 5) Democracy: Democracy is the worst possible system because it is dependent upon lies not reality or scientific reality, and surrenders control to the lower classes and elites who pander to them. CURT DOOLITTLE’S EXPLANATIONS The purpose of the enlightenment: 0) To end the Aristocratic Rule of the Landed Monarchies, and the Landed Church. 1) To justify the middle class takeover of government (means of producing commons) from the landed aristocracy. 2) To justify the diminution of religion and religious mysticism in favor of science and reason, assisting in the middle class takeover of the government. The Fallacy of the Enlightenment 1) That it was possible to create an aristocracy of everyone. It’s not possible because meritocracy is not in the interest of the underclasses. Parasitism is. The Institutional Error 1) Instead of creating a new house for the middle class, and then a new house for proletarians, which would have made it possible for classes to conduct exchanges, we created a single house with majority rule and as a consequence, found that the lower classes, and women in particular had no interest in the aristocracy everyone, and instead, voted to incrementally destroy the aristocratic civilization we call ‘the west’. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Thoughts on RamzPaul’s Guide to the Dark Enlightenment

    [R]AMZPAUL’S POINTS (See Video: https://gloria.tv/media/7TcJehsj2GJ_ 1) The term Counter-Enlightenment was taken already. But the Dark Enlightenment is a counter-enlightenment movement. The Dark Enlightenment. (I disagree with conflating the dark ages and the middle ages. Western civic society is largely the result of the late middle ages, not dark ages.) 2) The Cathedral includes the Academy, The Media, The State, The Deep State. 3) The Religion of the Cathedral is Cultural Marxism : Having failed scientifically (Scientific Socialism), Having failed organizationally (Syndicalism), Having failed through Postmodernism (lying) AND having started with demand for access to opportunity, expanded their demands to equality of opportunity, and having expanded their demands to equality of outcome, and failing because of the empirical difference in ability between individuals, the only solution was to import vast numbers of underclass people from the third world, encourage single motherhood, destroy the family, and create dependence upon the state sufficient that the state could take control of all functions in life. 3) Red Pill : Accepting the truth of the evidence of man’s behavior and abandoning the enlightenment fallacies. 4) Inequality and Diversity: People are empirically unequal, and Diversity empirically decreases trust and increases demand for tyranny. (The reason we are unequal is largely the difference in rates of reproduction of our classes. While homo-sapiens of the various races are similar, we vary in the success at suppressing our underclass reproduction. Those who succeed have advanced societies, and those who failed have impoverished societies. The cold solved this problem for us. The underclasses are a problem. Everywhere and always.) 5) Democracy: Democracy is the worst possible system because it is dependent upon lies not reality or scientific reality, and surrenders control to the lower classes and elites who pander to them. CURT DOOLITTLE’S EXPLANATIONS The purpose of the enlightenment: 0) To end the Aristocratic Rule of the Landed Monarchies, and the Landed Church. 1) To justify the middle class takeover of government (means of producing commons) from the landed aristocracy. 2) To justify the diminution of religion and religious mysticism in favor of science and reason, assisting in the middle class takeover of the government. The Fallacy of the Enlightenment 1) That it was possible to create an aristocracy of everyone. It’s not possible because meritocracy is not in the interest of the underclasses. Parasitism is. The Institutional Error 1) Instead of creating a new house for the middle class, and then a new house for proletarians, which would have made it possible for classes to conduct exchanges, we created a single house with majority rule and as a consequence, found that the lower classes, and women in particular had no interest in the aristocracy everyone, and instead, voted to incrementally destroy the aristocratic civilization we call ‘the west’. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Purpose of Aristocracy: Parenting Man

    ARISTOCRACY (PATRIARCHY) IS A CRITICAL RESPONSIBILTY: WE SET LIMITS. WE DON’T ENGAGE IN ADVOCACY. WE PRODUCE THE FIRST COMMONS: THE REQUIREMENT FOR PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION. [O]ur function is to incrementally but consistently evolve our people (and prevent their devolution) by preventing parasitism, and forcing productive cooperation. We force the development of markets for good and services by prohibiting parasitism. We force the production of markets for commons by prohibiting parasitism.

    There is a great difference between RULE (conflict resolution) and GOVERNANCE (production of commons). Our function is to RULE (judiciary, rule of law, property rights, property en-toto.) The entrepreneurial aristocracy’s function is to organize PRODUCTION using the voluntary organization of production. Our gossip class’s function is to ADVOCATE for the allocation of resources to particular ends. But in all cases we must prevent parasitism. It is epistemologically impossible for an aristocratic minority to police all of these functions for parasitism without tyranny. It is on the other hand, trivially easy for individuals to police these functions for parasitism without tyranny. The means by which we engage individuals in the process of policing is to grant them universal standing in the prosecution of parasitism, expressed as the right to property-en-toto, and to include them in the restitution under conspiracy if they fail to prosecute parasitism. Our function is to create order by prohibiting parasitism- to create the first commons: cooperation (property-en-toto). Not to advocate. Others’ functions are to produce goods and services for the commons, and advocate for and produce commons.

  • The Purpose of Aristocracy: Parenting Man

    ARISTOCRACY (PATRIARCHY) IS A CRITICAL RESPONSIBILTY: WE SET LIMITS. WE DON’T ENGAGE IN ADVOCACY. WE PRODUCE THE FIRST COMMONS: THE REQUIREMENT FOR PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION. [O]ur function is to incrementally but consistently evolve our people (and prevent their devolution) by preventing parasitism, and forcing productive cooperation. We force the development of markets for good and services by prohibiting parasitism. We force the production of markets for commons by prohibiting parasitism.

    There is a great difference between RULE (conflict resolution) and GOVERNANCE (production of commons). Our function is to RULE (judiciary, rule of law, property rights, property en-toto.) The entrepreneurial aristocracy’s function is to organize PRODUCTION using the voluntary organization of production. Our gossip class’s function is to ADVOCATE for the allocation of resources to particular ends. But in all cases we must prevent parasitism. It is epistemologically impossible for an aristocratic minority to police all of these functions for parasitism without tyranny. It is on the other hand, trivially easy for individuals to police these functions for parasitism without tyranny. The means by which we engage individuals in the process of policing is to grant them universal standing in the prosecution of parasitism, expressed as the right to property-en-toto, and to include them in the restitution under conspiracy if they fail to prosecute parasitism. Our function is to create order by prohibiting parasitism- to create the first commons: cooperation (property-en-toto). Not to advocate. Others’ functions are to produce goods and services for the commons, and advocate for and produce commons.

  • You’re Demonstrably Incapable of Self-Rule if Your People are Running to the West

    YOU’RE DEMONSTRABLY INCAPABLE OF SELF RULE IF YOUR PEOPLE ARE RUNNING TO THE WEST. [E]ither fix your problem at home, hire us to fix it for you (it’s quite easy if you’re honest to fix a society). And if you do neither, out of defense, we must start a new program of colonization and modernization out of our own self-defense. It’s not our burden. It’s our defense.

    You have no right to externalize your failures. And we have no right to externalize our failures (democracy and equality)

  • You’re Demonstrably Incapable of Self-Rule if Your People are Running to the West

    YOU’RE DEMONSTRABLY INCAPABLE OF SELF RULE IF YOUR PEOPLE ARE RUNNING TO THE WEST. [E]ither fix your problem at home, hire us to fix it for you (it’s quite easy if you’re honest to fix a society). And if you do neither, out of defense, we must start a new program of colonization and modernization out of our own self-defense. It’s not our burden. It’s our defense.

    You have no right to externalize your failures. And we have no right to externalize our failures (democracy and equality)

  • The Media as Drug Dealer

    [I]t doesn’t make financial sense to operate a newspaper. The FT generates 35M of profit per year on over 500M in revenues. That’s what, 7%? The reason to own a newspaper is influence: gossip. Now the financial times is, like the Journal, a financial rather than political newspaper. So by definition it’s an empirical and heroic medium rather than one of complaining, for the purpose of rallying shaming, and power accumulation.

    I went through five daily issues of Canada’s main newspaper a few years ago, circling correspondent articles (what I consider truthful) and you could find about three small articles a day. The rest were entertainment, created by appealing to the anglosphere’s erroneous sense of moral superiority. In other words, the newspaper business sells advertising to marketers, and then consumers buy signaling: a form of conspicuous consumption, that carries signals. And quite the opposite of what we expected: people are not able to insulate themselves from the most influential drug after sex: signals of moral fitness. If we look at the evolutionary reasons why this all works, it’s obvious: moral fitness makes us generous, and moral violation makes us punish. But we should look at the non-financial media as what they are: drug dealers. They’re causing suicide through addiction.