Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • YET ANOTHER CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCE OF ‘TOLERANCE’ “…the UK is facing its gra

    YET ANOTHER CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCE OF ‘TOLERANCE’

    “…the UK is facing its gravest terror threat, including from “several thousand” Islamist extremists who are living here and want to attack the country, Mr Parker said.”

    COMMENT

    If they had written policy and law to specifically address islamists, none of us would care.

    But with their politically correct foolishness they have let loose the bureaucratic interests of the state on citizens: the extended family.

    And by doing so done more to delegitimize the state than libertarians could have wished for.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 02:36:00 UTC

  • AND LIBERTARIANS HAVE BEEN AFTER THIS FOR DECADES I was there. We hired the fina

    http://on.ft.com/GIPUyrCONSERVATIVES AND LIBERTARIANS HAVE BEEN AFTER THIS FOR DECADES

    I was there. We hired the financial class to fight the state. We just didn’t count on this much immigration.

    So the bullet is in the gun. But we WANT to pull the trigger. Because america and americans will be fine.

    But government will be forever discredited.

    And that is a priceless achievement.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 17:22:00 UTC

  • Sometimes you threaten to divide the child in half. It doesn’t mean that you act

    Sometimes you threaten to divide the child in half.

    It doesn’t mean that you actually plan to do it. It means that the belief that you might do it, clears people’s heads a bit.

    Great management technique really. When deliberation fails. Go to the great minds of history.

    🙂

    (No. I’m not telling)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 16:00:00 UTC

  • (quick thought) (serious) (important) DARK ENLIGHTENMENT AND CONSERVATISM VS LIB

    (quick thought) (serious) (important)

    DARK ENLIGHTENMENT AND CONSERVATISM VS LIBERTARIANISM AND INCENTIVES

    More on this later, but I see the problem that we are going to have with the conservatives and their fancy with biology.

    If we remember that the conservative aristocratic method of thinking is very much one of reproduction and family. It’s tribal. It’s cognizant of BREEDING. A word that has been dropped, but was very common in aristocratic egalitarian history. Breeding was an important consideration both in the family and on the farm. Darwin just explained why. But BREEDING has always been part of our history.

    The conservatives have latched onto epigenetic transmission. And I think it’s a rat hole. Even if it’s true, it tells us only that we can evolve FASTER. But it doesn’t tell us much about what changes and how much. Worse, it’s very hard to logically construct a reason why any such change is more significant than the formal and informal institutions that we can construct. Certainly literacy and law are faster means of adaptation than epigenetic transmission every would be.

    So this is why our ideas are even more important. INCENTIVES. Our analysis of property rights and our praxeological analysis of incentives, tells us what institutions we can and cannot build because of incentives rather than relying on norms or intuitions.

    But conservatives reject outright, as either specious or ‘evil’ any presumption that rational arguments such as incentives, are superior to intuitive arguments. (That’s crazy, I agree. But thats how they think.) And they are partly right because the vast majority of people rely on moral intuitions. its ONLY libertarians who rely on MORAL REASONING. If that sinks in. It will partly explain our failure to spread our arguments in the population.

    So what I am not quite settled on – even given that Propertarianism makes all political, ethical and moral arguments commensurable, is how to construct an argument that conservatives will adopt, even if it suits their purposes, because rational arguments are NOT intuitive arguments and only intuitive arguments are ‘appreciated’ by conservatives.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 07:50:00 UTC

  • (COURT OF SILLY IDEAS) PROBLEMS WITH ANY NEW CIVIC ‘CHURCH’ One of the primary r

    (COURT OF SILLY IDEAS) PROBLEMS WITH ANY NEW CIVIC ‘CHURCH’

    One of the primary reasons we live in little isolated boxes is so that we can create our own illusion of status. We hate it when that status is challenged. But it is a status of our own construction. We are sold this fantasy by Government, Universities, Advertisers, and in some cases, lenders.

    We could ‘buy’ that status cheaply because the ‘Blue Period’ of american postwar prosperity made it possible to transfer people from farm and apartment, to industry and home. But there is no reason that this can continue. Those conditions no longer exist. We are just spending our heritage, and impoverishing the future thanks to baby boomers. (I am Jones, not Boomer, generation.)

    One of the things going to ‘church’ or whatever public ceremony you choose, does, is contextualize your status. And for some people that’s good. For some it’s unnecessary. And for others it’s downright unpleasant because its contradictory.

    If some civic gathering (feast ritual) on a regular basis is status producing, personally advantageous, or economically advantageous, then I assume people would go. But the problem is creating that environment in modernity. Right now it’s the false promise of academia. Academia just sorts. It doesn’t teach us anything.

    THE CIVIC SOCIETY

    What I think all of us want is the true commitment of community. And that institution CANNOT be the state. The state can only apply violence. That is all it can do. WIthout the extended family, we require the civic society and the state has stolen it from us.

    NEEDS

    1) Rituals (christening, maturity, education, wedding, death)

    2) Festivals (holidays)

    3) Education (technical, civil-ethical, historical, literary)

    4) Banking

    5) Personal Financial Management

    6) Insurance

    7) Elder advice and counsel.

    Most of this would be fairly easy to accomplish with the professionalization of teaching, banking and insurance.

    MORE LATER.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 08:39:00 UTC

  • THE 150 YEAR BATTLE Hmmm… We won the battle over capitalism – property rights.

    THE 150 YEAR BATTLE

    Hmmm…

    We won the battle over capitalism – property rights.

    We’re in the middle of winning the battle over economics – a) the necessity of preserving the quality of the information system, b) the limit of credit and interest, and c) the restoration of the contract between the generations.

    We are very close to overturning a century of progressive anti-reason and anti-science.

    We have at least undermined the fantasy of universal democracy as a ‘good’.

    But we are just beginning to work on institutions and norms. And, of all of these. That will be the most difficult I think. I do not know if we can put destruction of the family by the feminists back in the bottle.

    (Which as a nerd, is what makes it an interesting problem. 🙂 )

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 03:44:00 UTC

  • 1950 THE LEFT’S OBJECTIVES WERE ACHIEVED. SO THEY RESORTED TO LYING. “My own fav

    http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-did-british-left-reject.htmlBY 1950 THE LEFT’S OBJECTIVES WERE ACHIEVED. SO THEY RESORTED TO LYING.

    “My own favoured explanation is that the Left realized that its traditional appeal – focused on the abolition of serious material poverty (starvation, homelessness, exposure to life-threatening cold etc.) and equal opportunity according to merit rather than birth.

    “By the 1950s it was apparent that these had already happened – so the Left needed a new agenda, and started systematically lying about reality.

    “This was the ‘turn’ from Old Left to New Left – old Left being about prosperity and opportunity – New Left (which became Political Correctness) about favourable outcomes for designated victim groups, and about ‘oppression’ of these groups conceptualized as psychological suffering rather than life-threatening deprivation. “

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 10:51:00 UTC

  • WE CAN’T GET TO DENMARK REASON #1,475,908 If you want redistribution just break

    http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/why-swedenizing-the-us-will-never-work/WHY WE CAN’T GET TO DENMARK REASON #1,475,908

    If you want redistribution just break the USA up in to sixty 5M person countries. Over two generations they will all move to be with ‘they and theirs’, and competition will control what legislation cannot.

    Democracy is for extended families and the nordics are all blood relatives.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 10:46:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVES ARE BETTER PERSUADERS THAN LIBERTARIANS “Neutrality, Tolerance, an

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006N75LFI/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkWHY CONSERVATIVES ARE BETTER PERSUADERS THAN LIBERTARIANS

    “Neutrality, Tolerance, and Equality are not neutral whatsoever–They’re a conspiracy.”

    Morality is universally comprehensible, intuitive, and emotionally activating. Libertarian economics, politics and reasoning is the best there is. But it doesn’t persuade. Now, the reason it doesn’t persuade I blame on Rothbard. But it’s really an artifact of our moral and religious heritage. We didn’t know how to articulate it until recently, in rational terms.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006N75LFI?SubscriptionId=AKIAJBFRWAXYFVDX3VKQ&tag=cmpthgh-20&linkCode=sp1&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B006N75LFI

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 08:16:00 UTC

  • DO YOU REALLY WANT A GOVERNMENT THAT CLOSES PARKS TO PUNISH YOU? Do you really w

    DO YOU REALLY WANT A GOVERNMENT THAT CLOSES PARKS TO PUNISH YOU?

    Do you really want police departments to have military vehicles, military arms, and swat teams?

    Do you really like being farmed like farm animals?

    If you do. THen you’re welcome to it.

    But those of us who don’t. Well. We’re going to have to eventually do something about it.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-05 10:33:00 UTC