Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • TO RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA, IT WAS A SUPRISE

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.htmlCONTRARY TO RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA, IT WAS A SUPRISE

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-09 04:27:00 UTC

  • I CRITICIZE ANGLOS, GERMANS AND JEWS EQUALLY. The fact that the jews were more e

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2qHQudLwJQBTW: I CRITICIZE ANGLOS, GERMANS AND JEWS EQUALLY.

    The fact that the jews were more effective in propaganda and politics than the germans, and the germans more effective in philosophy than the anglos, and the anglos more effective than both at law, commerce and war because of their territory and navy, says nothing, does not leave any group innocent.

    We all advance our group’s evolutionary strategies. It is a child’s whining to criticize others for exercising their evolutionary strategy. Instead, we must look at what we did wrong – why their strategy defeated us.

    Everyone got the enlightenment wrong somehow. The anglos used the right argument an false assumptions of man. The puritans and neo-puritans are more damaging than the jews have been. The germans the wrong argument and the right assumptions of man. But the neo-puritans and jews have run with their ideas. The jews the wrong argument, and the wrong assumptions of man. But their work is confined to pseudosicence that has been rapidly reversed since 1990 by scientists.

    My job is to state all three positions correctly, and to construct institutions that will defend the west – truth tellers – from pseudoscience, falsehoods and lies.

    And to construct institutions that require truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-07 16:56:00 UTC

  • THE EVOLUTION OF PUTIN’S USE OF PROPAGANDA

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/putin-russia-tv-113960.html#.VKsa5VOUdy9ON THE EVOLUTION OF PUTIN’S USE OF PROPAGANDA

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-05 18:30:00 UTC

  • 2014 As Evidence Of Insurrection Under Complex Modern States

    [F]or those who have asked me about how difficult it is to create a revolution, it should be obvious from the evidence of 2014, just how easy it is to bring the state and the economy to its knees by the simple act of individual aggression against state enforcers.

    But one must have something for insurrectionists to demand. A solution that the public will prefer to further degeneration into chaos.

    Demands must be actionable.

  • 2014 As Evidence Of Insurrection Under Complex Modern States

    [F]or those who have asked me about how difficult it is to create a revolution, it should be obvious from the evidence of 2014, just how easy it is to bring the state and the economy to its knees by the simple act of individual aggression against state enforcers.

    But one must have something for insurrectionists to demand. A solution that the public will prefer to further degeneration into chaos.

    Demands must be actionable.

  • Fukuyama Continues His Justification of The Monopoly State

    (Note: I kind of wonder what will happen when people figure out that the difference between Fukuyama/Asian monopoly statism and western polycentrism, is TRUTH TELLING.  Chinese lie and deceive as a matter of course, whereas in the heroic model, we pay the high cost of truth telling as demonstrated contribution to the commons. – Curt Doolittle)

    [F]rancis Fukuyama got hooked on the idea of meritocratic bureaucracy from his study of Chinese history, and in his two most recent books, works to explain the construction of the modern state, by justifying select bureaucracies. His attempt at justifying his priors is approaching the most exasperating work I have read by someone who appears to be honest and merely flawed.

    I value his work, because his comparative analysis, like that of Aristotle, Machiavelli, Pareto, Weber, and more recently Olson, is at least marginally scientific.

    However, when discussing Europe, he identifies then glosses over the most important attributes of european civilization: we developed contract rather than authority. And our ‘priesthood’ (lawyers) and contract (voluntary association) are sufficient for the production of all commons other than defense. He does not address the church-state-commerce balance of powers. Nor the incentives of a bureaucracy.

    Where most of us want to re-nationalize liberalism, and return to the contractual association of man, using law and militia as a means of policing the state, he wants to turn us all into Chinese peasants.

    He doesn’t describe why bureaucracies fail, and seems unaware of the criticism of bureaucracies. He assumes professional bureaucrats will have good interests and be accountable, rather than that such creatures only exist at the margins, and the benefit that they add is less than the damage that they cause AFTER rule of law has been implemented.

    He also ignores Putnam’s illustration of the ills of diversity – and it appears that he does so intentionally.

    So, I have work to do:

    1) demonstrate how the contractual state is superior in every possible way
    2) elaborate on the transaction cost theory of government.
    3) expand the ills of corporatism to that of anti-tribalism

    I cannot work as fast as these other people. I look at some of these guys who put a book out every year or two, and I just work so much more slowly.


  • Fukuyama Continues His Justification of The Monopoly State

    (Note: I kind of wonder what will happen when people figure out that the difference between Fukuyama/Asian monopoly statism and western polycentrism, is TRUTH TELLING.  Chinese lie and deceive as a matter of course, whereas in the heroic model, we pay the high cost of truth telling as demonstrated contribution to the commons. – Curt Doolittle)

    [F]rancis Fukuyama got hooked on the idea of meritocratic bureaucracy from his study of Chinese history, and in his two most recent books, works to explain the construction of the modern state, by justifying select bureaucracies. His attempt at justifying his priors is approaching the most exasperating work I have read by someone who appears to be honest and merely flawed.

    I value his work, because his comparative analysis, like that of Aristotle, Machiavelli, Pareto, Weber, and more recently Olson, is at least marginally scientific.

    However, when discussing Europe, he identifies then glosses over the most important attributes of european civilization: we developed contract rather than authority. And our ‘priesthood’ (lawyers) and contract (voluntary association) are sufficient for the production of all commons other than defense. He does not address the church-state-commerce balance of powers. Nor the incentives of a bureaucracy.

    Where most of us want to re-nationalize liberalism, and return to the contractual association of man, using law and militia as a means of policing the state, he wants to turn us all into Chinese peasants.

    He doesn’t describe why bureaucracies fail, and seems unaware of the criticism of bureaucracies. He assumes professional bureaucrats will have good interests and be accountable, rather than that such creatures only exist at the margins, and the benefit that they add is less than the damage that they cause AFTER rule of law has been implemented.

    He also ignores Putnam’s illustration of the ills of diversity – and it appears that he does so intentionally.

    So, I have work to do:

    1) demonstrate how the contractual state is superior in every possible way
    2) elaborate on the transaction cost theory of government.
    3) expand the ills of corporatism to that of anti-tribalism

    I cannot work as fast as these other people. I look at some of these guys who put a book out every year or two, and I just work so much more slowly.


  • FRANCIS FUKUYAMA: CHIEF PRIEST OF STATE BUREAUCRACY Francis got hooked on the id

    FRANCIS FUKUYAMA: CHIEF PRIEST OF STATE BUREAUCRACY

    Francis got hooked on the idea of meritocratic bureaucracy from his study of Chinese history, and in his two most recent books, works to explain the construction of the modern state, by justifying select buraucracies. His attempt at justifying his priors is approaching the most exasperating work I have read by someone who appears to be honest and merely flawed.

    I value his work, because his comparative analysis, like that of aristotle, Machiavelli, Pareto, Weber, and more recently Olson, is at least marginally scientific.

    However, when discussing europe, he identifies then glosses over the most important attributes of european civilization: we developed contract rather than authority. And our ‘priesthood’ (lawyers) and contract (voluntary association) are sufficient for the production of all commons other than defense. He does not address the church-state-commerce balance of powers. Nor the incentives of a bureaucracy.

    Where most of us want to re-nationalize liberalism, and return to the contractual association of man, using law and militia as a means of policing the state, he wants to turn us all into chinese peasants.

    He doesn’t describe why bureaucracies fail, and seems unaware of the criticism of bureaucracies. He assumes professional bureaucrats will have good interests and be accountable, rather than that such creatures only exist at the margins, and the benefit that they add is less than the damage that they cause AFTER rule of law has been implemented.

    He also ignores Putnam’s illustration of the ills of diversity – and it appears that he does so intentionally.

    So, I have work to do:

    1) demonstrate how the contractual state is superior in every possible way

    2) elaborate on the transaction cost theory of government.

    3) expand the ills of corporatism to that of anti-tribalism

    I cannot work as fast as these other people. I look at some of these guys who put a book out every year or two, and I just work so much more slowly.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-03 04:11:00 UTC

  • So are we down to Murphy and Friedman on the left libertarian side, and the Heri

    So are we down to Murphy and Friedman on the left libertarian side, and the Heritage people on the right libertarian side? (And me out here in the cold on the radical side?)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-02 05:25:00 UTC

  • INSURRECTION For those who have asked me about how difficult it is to create a r

    INSURRECTION

    For those who have asked me about how difficult it is to create a revolution, it should be obvious from the evidence of 2014, just how easy it is to bring the state and the economy to its knees by the simple act of individual aggression against state enforcers.

    But one must have something for insurrectionists to demand. A solution that the public will prefer to further degeneration into chaos.

    Demands must be actionable.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-01 07:34:00 UTC