Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • “The third social order arose over the last 300 years: open access orders sustai

    “The third social order arose over the last 300 years: open access orders sustain social order through political and economic competition rather than rent-creation.”

    (Thanks Skye)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-13 02:49:00 UTC

  • Capitalism is necessary. That does not mean it is sufficient. And sufficient doe

    Capitalism is necessary. That does not mean it is sufficient. And sufficient does not mean preferable. And preferences are not universal.

    My political argument is that human beings are generous to kin. And that states must be small enough to function as kin even if kinship is merely cultural.

    Redistribution without dicatorship requires multiple competing societies. Because in-group diversity of normative preference is a bad thing for any group. Because it causes people to restrict their domain of kinship trust.

    I am against a redistributive society wherin we are forced into conflict oner norms rather than voluntarily join a society with the norms we prefer.

    And a society i agree with i will sacrifice for. And kinship is the society we evolved to sacrifice for.

    The only value of large states is cultural, economic and military conquest of those who differ both in and out if its boundaries.

    Its Not complicated.

    Small is good.

    Family is good.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-07 11:34:00 UTC

  • AS MORAL SPECIALIZATION

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/08/libertarianism_3.htmlLIBERTARIANISM AS MORAL SPECIALIZATION.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-06 13:21:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY IS LIKE SEX. IT’S ALWAYS GOOD. SOME SEX IS BETTER THAN OTHER SEX, BUT IF

    LIBERTY IS LIKE SEX. IT’S ALWAYS GOOD. SOME SEX IS BETTER THAN OTHER SEX, BUT IF ITS SEX IT’S GOOD. SAME GOES FOR LIBERTY.

    (cross posted)

    Hoppe’s argument is only accessible to X% of people. And that X% is very small. Molyneux’s argument is accessible to far more. Rand’s even more because its in novel form. Not everyone can climb all the way to ratio-scientific argument. And not everyone needs to. I’d argue that Molyneux tried and can’t. his book is … well, terrible. I can also argue as others have that there are plenty of holes in Hoppe’s criticism of others, if not holes in the brilliant solution he gave us. So anyone who advances liberty is good enough for me. If someone wants to argue that some statement is true or false then that’s a question for us to answer. And I’ll take all comers. And I’m pretty sure that there aren’t’ any I can’t defeat. But that’s different from saying that any argument in favor of liberty that also advances liberty (it isn’t so flawed that it produces negative results) is ‘good’.

    There are arguments against liberty. Arguments for liberty that cause people to reject liberty. Arguments for liberty that are weak or flawed that cause people to desire liberty. Arguments that are strong that cause people to desire liberty.

    And the natural differences in our intelligence and means of understanding require a diversity of arguments in favor of libertarianism, whether they are sentimental, analogical, moral, historical, empirical, and ratio-scientific. WIth the first item in that list requiring nothing but passion, and the last requiring mastery of multiple domains.

    Liberty is like sex. It’s always good. Some sex is better than other sex. But if its sex it’s good. Same goes for liberty.

    Voluntary exchange applying to sex as well. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 07:16:00 UTC

  • YOU VLADIMIR Even if was for purely domestic political reasons, It’s still a goo

    http://bloom.bg/15z0hMPTHANK YOU VLADIMIR

    Even if was for purely domestic political reasons, It’s still a good thing.

    Put the USA back in its box. So that the american government can give higher priority to citizens than the empire.

    And perhaps, break into parts, rather than continue the tyranny.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-02 04:05:00 UTC

  • Call me an absolutist, but if you are a soldier you’re altogether different from

    Call me an absolutist, but if you are a soldier you’re altogether different from a contractor.

    We have ancient traditions for objecting to policy. You resign in protest. You bear the burden. And then you do or say whatever you want.

    But if you stay in your post you are a spy, an agent, and by consequence a threat to all others you serve with, by virtue of nothing more than spreading distrust.

    There is nothing unique about Manning. There have been thousands of him. What is rare is that he was not an officer and a gentleman, nor a man of honor to the men with him in service.

    I am sorry he was too stupid to do the right thing the right way. But it is hard to understand how one can be in the service and not understand its moral code.

    I’m as glad as everyone else to see the usa embarrassed. And anyone who reads my chatter knows that i want to reduce the scope of the military and state.

    But i cant support one immorality over another. Especially when what he exposed was trivially embarrassing and little more.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-30 13:21:00 UTC

  • principles are no substitute for strategy and policy except to obscure the fact

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pete-king-rand-paul/2013/07/28/id/517416Ideological principles are no substitute for strategy and policy except to obscure the fact that you have no strategy or policy.

    Demographics are set. Libertarians have a strategy, conservatives have a strategy. But the republican party does not.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-29 11:17:00 UTC

  • REGARDING US STRATEGIC POLICY TOWARD CHINA “Japan has to cast off its cross of s

    REGARDING US STRATEGIC POLICY TOWARD CHINA

    “Japan has to cast off its cross of shame over having been defeated in the 1940’s and renew its national spirit.” – Eric Margolis

    (Well, that’s what I want Germany to do too. And thats why I want the USA out of Europe – to ensure that they do so.)

    “At stake is whether US will try to police a “Pax Americana” – a recipe for disaster – or partner with other nations” – Gorbachev

    (We will lose any war if we try to MAINTAIN the Pax Americana. And the resulting blood bath and power vacuum is terrifying. America must be able to project power long distances by non-naval means. our navy is a set of nice fat, slow moving ducks. American power in the world was obtained by inheriting the British Empire’s naval bases. American power is NAVAL, because we are far away from everything else. It is not possible use nuclear weapons. And if anyone does it’s both genocide and suicide. So the only thing the USA has going for it is Air Power and allies. And a Pax Americana does not give you allies when it’s under threat.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-29 07:44:00 UTC

  • The purpose of democratic representative government is to provide legitimacy for

    The purpose of democratic representative government is to provide legitimacy for the form of corruption preferred by the majority.

    The irony is that there isnt, and never has been, any need for majority rule. Think about how absurd it is. The choice of going to war is possibly the exception. But that majority rule should or need determine either law or the use of tax money is logically ridiculous.

    There is no more reason to force us to all agree on where to place street lamps this year than there is for us to agree on which brand tuna fish to eat.

    Its ridiculous.

    The greeks put in place extended enfranchisement so that their ruler could stack the government. The british so that the middle class could take control of government. The americans so that the lower class and women could at least try to control government.

    But democratic representative government using majority rule is just a means of legitimizing one form of corruption or another.

    The absurdity is that with modern communication technology there isn’t any reason for representative government at all.

    So we have pervasive corruption without any reason.

    No reason whatsoever.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 11:47:00 UTC

  • POLITICAL POWER OF ORGANIZED MINORITIES Chechens In Russia Cartels in Mexico Tur

    http://darussophile.com/2013/07/27/chechens/THE POLITICAL POWER OF ORGANIZED MINORITIES

    Chechens In Russia

    Cartels in Mexico

    Turks in Germany

    Pakistanis in Britain

    The Mafia in Ukraine

    African-Americans in America

    One “DC Sniper” in Washington.

    While all of these groups can create lawless areas within each country, and the government cannot act on it, because it demonstrates the powerlessness of the government in the face of organized violence, some groups are superior at organized violence than others. So policing only works against people who want to be policed. Think about that when you go to a court room and see a long line of people being punished for no other reason than administrative compliance because they live powerlessly on the financial margin. Or when you see a mom pulled over in a mini van for going three miles over the speed limit, while another area of town is battened down like a war zone because the police cannot afford to, and are not willing to, protect it.

    If you can make the police officers and or judges afraid of you, then you can take over any country. A little at a time.

    The question is only whether you can organize effectively or not. And CLANS are very effective means of organization (Chechens). But you can also organize by religion, or commercial interest. The difference is the incentives: a clan has an incentive that is immutable, religions are weaker, and commercial interests are weakest. Yet It’s easier to form commercial organizations and harder to form clans.

    The question is only whether you choose to support the state or not. If you choose to undermine it. THen a small organization of any kind will rapidly make an area ungovernable.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 04:01:00 UTC