Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • THE MOST PROFOUND 1000 WORDS ON POLITICS AT THE MOMENT (worth repeating) All, Th

    THE MOST PROFOUND 1000 WORDS ON POLITICS AT THE MOMENT

    (worth repeating)

    All,

    Thank you for asking me to respond. I didn’t respond on LessWrong’s site because (honestly) I thought it was a rather pointless argument. But I’ll convert it from signaling (the author’s criticism and somewhat humorous demonstration of signaling), from moral to scientific language and I think it will be clearer:

    1) All radicals do not fit into the center of the distribution – the statement is tautological, not insightful.

    2) We all signal, and signaling is necessary for evolutionary reproductive selection.

    3) The presumption of not fitting into some locus of the median of the distribution is a democratic one – that we are equal rather than (as I argue) we constitute a division of cognitive labor: perception, evaluation, knowledge and advocacy. (humans divide cognition more so than other creatures because we specialize in cognition.)

    4) Our theories do tend to justify our social positions (signaling) but then, we would not have information necessary to theorize about any other set of interests, now would we?

    5) The origin of theories is irrelevant (justification is false), and therefore the question of a theory produced by any subset of a polity can be judged by only criticism – its irrelevant who comes up with a theory.

    The vast difference between pseudoscience and science in ethics, law, politics, and economics is captured those few words.

    Now, to state the positive version: the solution to the fallacy of the enlightenment hypothesis of equality of ability, interest, and value is captured in these additional points:

    6) economic velocity (wealth) is determined by the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). This eliminates transaction costs.

    7) central power originates to centralize parasitism and increase material costs, by suppressing local parasitism and transaction costs. Once centralized they can be incrementally eliminated. If and only if an institutional means of following rules can be used to replace personal judgement.

    8) The only means of producing institutional rules to replace personal judgement (provision of ‘decidability’) is in the independent, common, evolutionary law resting upon a prohibition on parasitism/free-riding/imposed costs (negatives), codified as property rights (positives): productive, warrantied, fully informed, voluntary transfer(exchange), free of negative externalities.

    9) Language evolved to justify (morality), negotiate (deceive), and rally and shame (gossip), and only tangentially and late to describe (truth). Truth as we understand it is an invention and an unnatural one – which is why it is unique to the west, and why it has taken philosophers so long to understand it. However, westerners evolved a military epistemology because they relied upon self-financing warriors voluntarily participating, as well as the jury and truth telling. (The marginal difference in intellectual ability apparently not common – they were all smart enough. and such testimony was in itself ‘training’.)

    10) We cannot expect or demand truth from people unless they know how to produce it. ie: Education in what I would consider the religion of the west: “the true, the moral and the beautiful”. So I consider this education ‘sacred’ not just utilitarian.

    11) We cannot demand truth and law from people unless it is not against their interests: ie: the only universal political system is Nationalism, because groups can act truthfully internally, truthfully externally, and can use trade negotiations to neutralized competitive differences. And with nationalism, individuals cannot escape paying the cost of transforming their own societies, and themselves, and laying the burden of doing so upon other societies.

    12) Commons are a profound competitive advantage. Territorial, institutional, normative, genetic, physical, and economic (industrial) commons are a profound advantage to any group. The west is the most successful producer of commons so it is even more important to the west. So we must provide a means of producing those commons. The difference between market for private goods and services (where competition in production is a good incentive) and corporate (public) goods, where we must prevent privatization of gains an socialization of losses, requires that we provide monopoly protection of those goods from consumption. But does not require that we provide monopoly contribution to them. Commons require only that the people willing to pay for them, do so. Otherwise there is no demonstrated preference for that commons. Insurance is a commons and I will leave that for another time. Return on investment (dividends) are the product of commons. I will leave that for another time as well. The central point is that we can produce a market for common goods using government just as we do in the market private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. and that there is no reason whatsoever, knowing how to construct the common law, that government should be capable of producing law. it cannot. Law is. It cannot be created. Only identified.

    (This is also probably the most profound 1000 words on politics that you will be able to find at this moment in time)

    #propertarianism

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-18 05:45:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosop

    (worth repeating)

    “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)… …the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.” ~ J.R.R. Tolkien

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-17 06:20:00 UTC

  • SOWELL GOT ON BOARD IN 2007: MILITARY COUP

    http://www.propertarianism.com/?s=thomas+sowellTHOMAS SOWELL GOT ON BOARD IN 2007: MILITARY COUP

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-13 07:55:00 UTC

  • MURRAY GETS ON BOARD – CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

    http://www.aei.org/multimedia/charles-murray-and-jonah-goldberg-on-civil-disobedience/CHARLES MURRAY GETS ON BOARD – CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-13 07:49:00 UTC

  • AND EXCELLENT ANALYSIS OF RUSSIA

    http://www.aei.org/publication/political-values-in-putins-russia-a-qa-with-mikhail-dmitriev/RARE AND EXCELLENT ANALYSIS OF RUSSIA

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-12 13:49:00 UTC

  • IS LIBERTARIANISM SUCH A TARGET? (because its immoral) (re: tyler cowen) —It i

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/05/why-is-libertarianism-such-a-target.htmlWHY IS LIBERTARIANISM SUCH A TARGET?

    (because its immoral) (re: tyler cowen)

    —It is possible to be a common sense centrist and an intellectual. The highbrow reasons for why moderate common sense positions are correct are particularly interesting to anybody with a strong desire to understand how the world really works.— Steve Sailer

    I’ll echo Steve Sailer’s position a little more precisely. But, unfortunately, that requires a mildly impolitic presentation:

    (a) while libertarianism (an economic preference) informs the nation’s christian conservatism (a normative preference), libertarianism is not informed by the conservatism. That’s the reason that libertarianism fails to expand its influence in the electorate: libertarianism outside of the classical liberal model is objectively immoral. That’s right: objectively immoral. And I’ll answer why, below.

    (b) All three influential enlightenment movements sought to express group evolutionary strategies as universal strategies (i) the anglo empirical (Smith, Hume and eventually Darwin) – to create an aristocracy of everybody, (ii) the german obscurant rationalist ( Kant thru Heidegger) – to preserve hierarchy, and (iii) the jewish pseudoscientific: (Freud, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard) – to preserve authoritarianism and separatism. Unfortunately, all three of these movements have failed at developing a universal ethics with which to inform our politics.

    (c) Politics is a moral not empirical means of decision making (Jonathan Haidt). Voting for representatives is a form of abstract aggregation. In such cases of comparing abstractions, People can do nothing else but vote their ancestral (and possibly genetic) morality. (Emmanuel Todd, David Hackett Fischer). They vote their evolutionary strategy. Monopoly decision making (majority rule) exacerbates conflict between peoples of disparate interests. And classical liberal libertarians (anglo american, empirical libertarians) have failed to produce an institutional solution that allows cooperation on means (a market) for the production of commons despite our various heterogeneous and necessary ends.

    (d) Conservatives are unconsciously aware (and unable to articulate) (a) norms are the most expensive commons we create, and those high trust norms must be protected at all costs – they are our competitive advantage in this world, and the reason for our rapid ascent in both pre-history, ancient, and modern eras; (b) that policy must reflect the inter-temporal interests of families, while law must be constructed for individuals, because the family is the means of transmission of those norms for each class, and because disputes must be objectively decidable regardless of class.

    For some reason it doesn’t occur to libertarians that the competitive advantage of western civilization lies in our unique ability to construct civil commons relatively free of privatization, and that we can do so because of our high trust society, and that our high trust society is possible because of all the people on this earth we generally tell the truth. And that truth telling is the most expensive commons one can produce.

    People cannot vote for change that is not institutionally articulated. Asking people to ‘believe’ is for prophets and priests, not scientists. Justification is for rationalists. Scientists must construct operational definitions for us to test the truth of their propositions (that is the entire point of the Austrian method.) So until classical libertarians reform the current model, and provide an institutional solution that satisfies: the exclusion of the bottom from the benefits of production of the normative, institutional and physical commons (the left); the ability to dynamically restructure the patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, free of rents and frictions (libertarians); and the preservation of the high trust norms and the family that make the construction of our commons possible, by prohibiting their consumption and requiring universal production (the right); libertarianism will remain an immoral, selfish, utopian specialization, that advocates an obscurant form of free riding on both left and right’s the construction of the voluntary order of cooperation that we call capitalism.

    Because profiting from the contributions of others (the cost of respecting property in both normative, institutional, physical commons, and in private hands, is free riding. And free riding is immoral. Because all objective moral rules are a prohibitions on free riding. And because cooperation is irrational in the presence of free riding. Thats why evolution gave us moral intuitions – despite our different self serving emphases on one part of the moral spectrum or another.

    No corner of the political triangle is correct. Each simply senses some part of the reproductive division of labor: progressive=consumption, libertarian=production and conservative=saving: just as the market forms an information system, human moral differences constitute a division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor; and voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, exchange free of negative externality is the only test of the aggregate validity of our perceptions.

    We (libertarians) aren’t right. But we’re the smart ones. And productivity is our specialization. So we must find an institutional solution for everyone – (consumptive, productive, and retentive) not one for just us as specialists. It’s not that others aren’t informed. It’s that we haven’t succeeded.

    ( That’s enough radicalism for one post. )

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-12 05:56:00 UTC

  • END OF FREE SPEECH. THE SACREDNESS OF LYING. —Second, the constant social pres

    http://www.newmarksdoor.com/mainblog/2015/05/free-speech-in-peril.htmlTHE END OF FREE SPEECH. THE SACREDNESS OF LYING.

    —Second, the constant social pressure of having to monitor everything you say, lest some unguarded politically incorrect utterance loses you friends, dates, status, or even employment makes for (pardon the fifties’ expression) boring conformists, apparatchiks afraid to think for themselves—quite the opposite of the sturdily independent, resourceful, thoughtful, plainspoken, and creative character that used to be the American ideal. Take the case of Smith College president Kathleen McCartney, who joined her students’ “shared fury,” she said, as “we raise our voices in protest” against the grand jury decisions in Ferguson and Staten Island. Trouble is, she raised her voice in the wrong slogan, declaring that “All lives matter,” when the approved chant was “Black lives matter.” How could she be so disgracefully discriminatory in her nondiscrimination? her scandalized undergraduates exploded. A modern college president may be the very definition of an apparatchik, but there is something humiliating to human nature in the cringingly self-abasing apology that McCartney fairly sobbed out, without even having to be carted off in a dunce cap to a reeducation camp, as if she were her own Maoist cultural-revolutionary commissar. What would it take to make characters like this pull the lever at Treblinka?—

    FROM

    http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_2_free-speech.html

    VIA:

    http://www.newmarksdoor.com/mainblog/2015/05/free-speech-in-peril.html

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-11 10:23:00 UTC

  • Traditionalists Will Fail. But We Can Still Succeed

    [C]onservatism, has failed because the enlightenment fallacy of an aristocracy of everyone could never come into being. Darwin put an end to it. We tried to turn our ancient aristocratic ethics into social science, but the european civil war exterminated Germany, where all our conservative aristocratic thought originated. Then the left created a pseudoscience to replace religion (Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, Heidegger). And the neo-Puritains created pseudo-morality(victimism, feminism, progressivism, propaganda, relativism, and individualism). Since then, we have failed to convert our institutions, traditions, myths and rituals, into a rational and scientific set of arguments. Every single libertarian and conservative movement has failed. The only progress we have made is in producing our own propaganda systems (think tanks, radio-stations, network news, and web sites). And from these we still maintain power. I am working very hard to complete the neo-reactionary movement, and to convert our ancient traditions into a rational and scientific set of arguments. And I will tell you, with absolute certainty, that the reason for our western success – our rate of evolution compared to each competing civilization – is due to our discovery of testimonial truth, our near total requirement for truth telling, the jury, independent judiciary, common law, rule of law, and the heroic literature. And that the only value the church added, and still continues to add, is in breaking family and tribal bonds by prohibiting inbreeding (cousin marriage), and extending private property rights to women, and in threatening the aristocracy with revolution if they resist natural law (rule of law, property rights), and the invention of the university. And that aside from those four functions, the church has been a negative force for us. Because it is the destructive christian universalist sentiments that have been used by the neo-puritans (the christian left), and the socialists (the jewish left), via academy, school, state, and media, to sway us to suicidal self destruction using propaganda. (The west’s original religion is Stoicism – an action oriented equivalent of an inaction-oriented buddhism. and it is very close to what is practiced in secular Germany today.) The answer is not to restore myth and mysticism. They have conquered us with comforting lies to our less able. It is not up to us to learn to lie, or to restore lying by analogy as well. That is counter to the reason the west excelled compared to all other civilizations: truth telling. Our only chance for our western civilization to survive is to restore its original premise: heroism, truth telling, the jury, the common (organic) law, independent judiciary, universal standing, property rights, and to institute the physical, normative, and informational commons as property all are required to, and able to defend. Our origins are in Athens and Sparta, London and Koenigsberg, not Jerusalem and babylon. One need not ‘believe’ in law. One need only let law and truth telling do its work. One need not lie using mysticism. Truth, property and law are enough. One does not need foreign myths. Homer, Alexander, Aristotle, Aurelius, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Hayek, and the thousands of other heroes in the western cannon are enough. Because, Truth is enough. If we only will use violence to demand it. Aristocracy uses organized violence to prohibit tyranny, not deceit and consensus. There is no more truthful action than violence. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Traditionalists Will Fail. But We Can Still Succeed

    [C]onservatism, has failed because the enlightenment fallacy of an aristocracy of everyone could never come into being. Darwin put an end to it. We tried to turn our ancient aristocratic ethics into social science, but the european civil war exterminated Germany, where all our conservative aristocratic thought originated. Then the left created a pseudoscience to replace religion (Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, Heidegger). And the neo-Puritains created pseudo-morality(victimism, feminism, progressivism, propaganda, relativism, and individualism). Since then, we have failed to convert our institutions, traditions, myths and rituals, into a rational and scientific set of arguments. Every single libertarian and conservative movement has failed. The only progress we have made is in producing our own propaganda systems (think tanks, radio-stations, network news, and web sites). And from these we still maintain power. I am working very hard to complete the neo-reactionary movement, and to convert our ancient traditions into a rational and scientific set of arguments. And I will tell you, with absolute certainty, that the reason for our western success – our rate of evolution compared to each competing civilization – is due to our discovery of testimonial truth, our near total requirement for truth telling, the jury, independent judiciary, common law, rule of law, and the heroic literature. And that the only value the church added, and still continues to add, is in breaking family and tribal bonds by prohibiting inbreeding (cousin marriage), and extending private property rights to women, and in threatening the aristocracy with revolution if they resist natural law (rule of law, property rights), and the invention of the university. And that aside from those four functions, the church has been a negative force for us. Because it is the destructive christian universalist sentiments that have been used by the neo-puritans (the christian left), and the socialists (the jewish left), via academy, school, state, and media, to sway us to suicidal self destruction using propaganda. (The west’s original religion is Stoicism – an action oriented equivalent of an inaction-oriented buddhism. and it is very close to what is practiced in secular Germany today.) The answer is not to restore myth and mysticism. They have conquered us with comforting lies to our less able. It is not up to us to learn to lie, or to restore lying by analogy as well. That is counter to the reason the west excelled compared to all other civilizations: truth telling. Our only chance for our western civilization to survive is to restore its original premise: heroism, truth telling, the jury, the common (organic) law, independent judiciary, universal standing, property rights, and to institute the physical, normative, and informational commons as property all are required to, and able to defend. Our origins are in Athens and Sparta, London and Koenigsberg, not Jerusalem and babylon. One need not ‘believe’ in law. One need only let law and truth telling do its work. One need not lie using mysticism. Truth, property and law are enough. One does not need foreign myths. Homer, Alexander, Aristotle, Aurelius, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Hayek, and the thousands of other heroes in the western cannon are enough. Because, Truth is enough. If we only will use violence to demand it. Aristocracy uses organized violence to prohibit tyranny, not deceit and consensus. There is no more truthful action than violence. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM: ITS DETERMINISTIC SILLY. Agree with the questionable quali

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2593377CHINESE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM: ITS DETERMINISTIC SILLY.

    Agree with the questionable quality of the survey’s numbers – but not with its deterministic results. The results are obvious. China has a problem similar to ours: the Han know that they must preserve order in their favor against hostile border peoples. The west has forgotten that Germany provided this function for us, and we bathed in safety because of it. And took it for granted. And we were wrong.

    As to “Which Comes First”:

    1) Higher Income reduces opportunity costs and risk (liberalism). Lower income increases opportunity cost and risk(conservatism).

    2) Economic velocity is produced by the centralization of rents, which lowers local (productive) transaction costs at the expense of high total cost (taxation).

    3) Once rents are centralized, we seek to obtain or privatize (redistribute) those rents (economic liberalism) through enfranchisement.

    4) In a perfect world we seek to eliminate those rents (anglo classical liberalism).

    5) But the diversity of ability leads to class warfare since meritocracy is valuable only to a minority, and rents, and parasitism are beneficial to the majority..

    6) In a perfect world we pay the less able, parasitic, and rent seeking minority directly for the maintenance of the meritocratic commons, and thereby circumvent the parasitism of the bureaucratic, and political classes. And perhaps more importantly, prevent the misallocation of capital.

    7) To accomplish this perfect world requires we develop institutions that allow us to produce commons, and pay people for producing those commons: meritocracy included.

    X-Axis: Equalitarian/Socialist-Compromise/Social Democracy – Meritocratic/Classical Liberal Monarchy.

    Y-Axis: Totalitarian- Democratic – Anarchic

    Z-Axis: Wealth (elimination of transaction costs by the suppression of free riding)

    Suppression of parasitism comes first. Centralize it to eliminate it locally. Then outlaw it, and eliminate it from the central bureaucracy. Economic velocity is determined by the suppression of free riding in all its forms at all levels in the polity.

    (Read Emmanuel Todd’s Invention of Europe. Ricardo Duchsene’s Uniqueness of the West, Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty, Hoppe’s Democracy the God that Failed, and follow my humble efforts.)

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 07:15:00 UTC