Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND MULTI-CULTURAL IMMIGRATION (This is an outline of the proper

    PROPERTARIANISM AND MULTI-CULTURAL IMMIGRATION

    (This is an outline of the propertarian case against multiculturalism. )

    People are different from livestock, goods, services, technologies and recipes – unless they’re slaves that is. I can keep, slaughter or abandon livestock, choose to consume or ignore goods and services, use or ignore technologies and recipes. And immigrants consume opportunity, commons, norms, traditions and laws by competing with them. any norm that increases high trust is an increase in shareholder assets. Any that doesn’t is a loss of shareholder assets.

    Im a libertarian. But any group with the same family structure, norms, values and myths, indistinguishable from kin is a corporation for the purpose of shared production and reproduction in a race against the red queen: the dark forces of time, ignorance and malthusian limits.

    And the introduction of competitors is just theft of shareholder assets. Any economic benefit produced independent of the impact on high trust norms is noise, not signal, and simply a means of using positivism to obscure theft and involuntary transfer from one group to another against their wishes.

    We compete in the market for goods and services despite in-group (in-kin) competition for resources as universally morally objectionable.

    Immigration without adoption of language, norms, family structure, myths, traditions, values, laws, is not non-neutral. It is a high cost. High trust norms that facilitate risk taking in the production of goods an services are the highest cost infrastructure that any group can possess.

    Immigration without conformity, and voting prior to conformity, is in fact, theft. It is violent conquest by the use of the violence of the state against the shareholders in the corporation of high trust norms.

    This isn’t allegory. This is just logical necessity, supported with difficult to measure but empirically demonstrable fact.

    Immigration into a high trust society without mandatory and managed normative enforcement is simply systemic theft and the destruction of cultural (human) capital. Immigration of people into a high trust society of people who share those values is just an increase in kin, and only a net negative if it affects the wages of existing shareholders.(Citizens).

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-27 14:51:00 UTC

  • DILIGENTLY TRYING TO PREVENT THEMSELVES FROM BEING TAKEN OVER

    DILIGENTLY TRYING TO PREVENT THEMSELVES FROM BEING TAKEN OVER

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-27 08:27:00 UTC

  • WORD OF THE DAY Kakistocracy: a system of government where the rulers are the le

    WORD OF THE DAY

    Kakistocracy: a system of government where the rulers are the least competent, least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

    (From Sean Gabb)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-26 08:50:00 UTC

  • How Do People Who Are Against Taxes Suggest Paying For Government Programs Many Believe Are Necessary?

    PEOPLE AREN’T AGAINST TAXES THEY’RE AGAINST WHAT THEY CONSIDER IMMORAL USES OF THEM.

    1. People do not object to Taxes. They object to what they’re used for. All of them object to some aspect or another.  Why? ….
    2. Because some people’s moral uses of taxes are immoral to others, and vice versa.
    3. The definition of necessary varies considerably for this reason.
    4. The way that things are done, via public or private sector, through saving or through intergenerational redistribution, have serious side effects.  Conservatives do not object to public health care for example. They object to the government running it instead of just giving people credit cards.
    5. Libertarians (the intellectual side of the conservative movement) believe that the problem isn’t government; it’s the behavior of people in a bureaucracy that has a monopoly – instead of using competing private firms to keep quality up and prices down.
    6. The USA redistributes money through government services which are inexpensive, poorly managed, and give terrible results, rather than just giving people the money directly. Most conservatives would prefer that we did not use programs but just gave people money, as long as they were ‘good citizens’.

    MAJORITY RULE IS THE PROBLEM

    This state of affairs is a natural consequence of majority rule where it is not possible to allocate your taxes only to those spending initiatives that you agree with.  Why isn’t it that we can all vote for money to be spent how we want to instead of whoever wins spending everybody’s money the way that they want to?

    WHAT TAXES ARE NECESSARY?

    Very few. 

    • a) The military, and depending upon which theorist you ask, the police. And we have some empirical evidence in both directions on the judiciary.  That’s all that’s technically necessary.
    • b) There are complex reasons why investments in certain commons require government and that is so that we can outlaw free riding and competition (privatizing public good) and therefore decrease the cost of commons, as well as the willingness of people to invest in them.  The problem is that this outlawing competition increases rent seeking and corruption.  so it is a two edged sword.
    • c) Taxes create a demand for fiat money and fiat money allows governments to control rates of inflation, to borrow cheaply, and to act as an insurer of last resort.  All of these things increase the economic capacity of the economy.

    This is the maximum set of necessary functions of government that I am able to justify taxation for. 

    REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT NECESSARY ITS A LUXURY
    Redistribution is a luxury that wealthy communities can afford for limited periods of time when they have a structural economic advantage over other nations.

    But redistribution that becomes a dependency is an increase in risk since no structural advantage persists for long – generally only a generation or two. Redistribution is not a necessary function of government, it is a luxury function of government.

    WHY IN THIS ERA OF TECHNOLOGY DO WE NEED REPRESENTATIVES AND MAJORITY RULE TO DETERMINE THE USE OF OUR TAX  MONEY?

    Why don’t you just vote your taxes (and some portion of the taxes that others generate if you don’t generate any)?  What’s the point of Washington?

    (Very little of our budget is discretionary.)

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-people-who-are-against-taxes-suggest-paying-for-government-programs-many-believe-are-necessary

  • Who Are The Most Influential Economists Alive?

    INFLUENTIAL TO WHOM?

    • Economists influence each other.
    • Economists influence other academics.
    • Economists influence policy makers.
    • Economists influence members of the financial system
    • Economists influence business and industry leaders
    • Economists influence the interested public.

    The group of economists who influence each group varies considerably.  In fact those who influence each other are very different from those who influence policy and society. 

    Unfortunately, the economists who write for newspapers are the most influential outside of academia.  Within academia, influence is largely determined by citations, as someone else in this thread has stated.

    THE ECONOMIST MAGAZINE
    Which economists are the most influential?
    Contains opinions by economists themselves.

    https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-most-influential-economists-alive

  • Janet Yellen Selected As New Fed Chair (2013-14): Would Larry Summers Be A Good Choice For The Next Chairman Of The Federal Reserve?

    (This is an ideological question.  And a loaded question. But I will try to do it justice anyway.)

    Summers is a ‘status quo’ economist with personal relationship with both the president and prominent wall street Democrats.  He is unobjectionable to conservatives since he has said impolitic but true things at times that they agree with. The consensus is that he will not put the country at risk or in painfully controversial debate.

    So he is a capable, mainstream, status-quo economist, with personal relationships with important and powerful people that is politically acceptable to the other side.   And, as such, he will not add volatility to the markets or the political sector, and that is probably a good thing for the people making the decision.

    If you were a mainstream economist facing the possibility of the euro shock, and having a deep understanding of the possibly permanent condition of the US economy, then I would suspect that you would argue that the Fed should take independent action to stimulate the economy even further and to encourage congress to spend like crazy.   But Larry Summers won’t do that.

    If you were a partisan left wing economist like you would be torn since you’d rather have the spending. If you were a democratic leader you want to make sure you keep the white house so you probably want someone who doesn’t create trouble.

    This is probably a fairly accurate answer to the question.

    https://www.quora.com/Janet-Yellen-Selected-as-New-Fed-Chair-2013-14-Would-Larry-Summers-be-a-good-choice-for-the-next-Chairman-of-the-Federal-Reserve

  • Who Are The Most Influential Economists Alive?

    INFLUENTIAL TO WHOM?

    • Economists influence each other.
    • Economists influence other academics.
    • Economists influence policy makers.
    • Economists influence members of the financial system
    • Economists influence business and industry leaders
    • Economists influence the interested public.

    The group of economists who influence each group varies considerably.  In fact those who influence each other are very different from those who influence policy and society. 

    Unfortunately, the economists who write for newspapers are the most influential outside of academia.  Within academia, influence is largely determined by citations, as someone else in this thread has stated.

    THE ECONOMIST MAGAZINE
    Which economists are the most influential?
    Contains opinions by economists themselves.

    https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-most-influential-economists-alive

  • WHY YESTERDAY’S ABHU GRAIB ATTACK UNDER OBAMA IS CARTER’S IRAN AND REGAN’S BERUI

    WHY YESTERDAY’S ABHU GRAIB ATTACK UNDER OBAMA IS CARTER’S IRAN AND REGAN’S BERUIT

    You cannot let desert-raiding tribal people attack a standing fortress and win. It is the system of thought and ethics that their culture’s status signal hierarchy is built upon. It’s how their empire was built – by desert raiding the exhausted Byzantines. All that will happen now, is that every single group will try to attack physical assets, after spending the past decade trying to export attacks.

    I’m not countering the libertarian argument that we should or should not do anything. I’m pointing out that if you’re stupid enough to do X, then you need to be smart enough not do to it too badly – externalities often worse than the problem we seek to cure.

    What kind of idiot left that place vulnerable to the OBVIOUS? Gets our guys killed in Bahrain. Gets our people killed, and motivates the opposition in Abhu Graib. This administration is even worse at geopolitics than the last.

    Amateurs. We should eliminate the state department and make the military as independent as the judiciary and the central bank. Soldiers like to sit in barracks and only go out of them when they know they’ll win. This sitting duck in a hazard nonsense is only possible with moronic civilians using the military as a policy tool, rather than a line of last resort.

    If I was on the other side I’d be out recruiting more men, and planning my next ten adventures. A bunch of mobile guys with AK47’s and RPG’s are pretty much Unstoppable. Or did we not learn that using the Seals ourselves way back in Vietnam?

    Sigh.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 10:54:00 UTC

  • I WANT A KING (OR QUEEN) I know that the Queen says that she is the head of the

    I WANT A KING (OR QUEEN)

    I know that the Queen says that she is the head of the English speaking peoples. And in my world, she’s the head of my extended family. But I can’t live under her protection, just her influence. And as a minarchist, I’d prefer to live under her protection, in a private government, with some defense from the predatory state.

    Someday maybe there will be the level of unrest in the UK that there is currently in the states, and Windsor will issue Passports, for which I will gladly pay taxes in exchange for.

    One can only hope. 😉

    Right now I’m farmed by the US Government, the IRS, the NSA, the FBI, and both political parties.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 08:28:00 UTC

  • HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE LIFECYLE OF EMPIRE – THE USA IS A FAILED STATE – TIME TO B

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/michael-s-rozeff/the-us-is-a-failed-state/WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE LIFECYLE OF EMPIRE – THE USA IS A FAILED STATE – TIME TO BREAK IT UP AND START OVER

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 06:58:00 UTC