Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Mike Renzulli Makes The The Libertarian Case For Gingrich

    He frames the argument as pragmatic:

    In Eastern and Western philosophy there are two forces usually at work against one another which (it is assumed) helps bring balance to the world. In Asian philosophy it is the conflict between Yin and Yang. In Christianity the conflict is between the ideas of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo while in secular philosophy the conflict is between the outlook of Aristotle and Plato. In her book The Future and it’s Enemies, Virginia Postrel outlines the conflict between the dynamists and the statists. Dynamists embace a world of choice and competition which includes economic prosperity, technological progress and cultural innovation. Statists, on the other hand, envision a society that upholds the status quo, while embracing the values of a simpler past and authoritarian rule. …

    The fact remains that Western civilization is embroiled in a struggle for it’s very survival against enemies (Islam and the left) openly hostile to secularism and capitalism along with the freedoms open societies embrace. Israel, for example, is surrounded by theocratic dictatorships, and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and their leftists allies work diligently to undermine her in the court of public opinion. Their delegitimization campaign is only part of an effort that will result in a second Holocaust of the country’s Jewish population while obliterating the only country in the Middle East that is a prosperous, secular island of sanity which makes Islamist countries look bad. With Israel gone it will give Islamists will have less of a hurdle to convince their followers to join them in their quest to destroy Western infidels since by doing will have a far off faceless enemy to demonize.

    via Libertarian Republican: The Libertarian case for Gingrich.

    And because of these factors, he recommends Gingrich. Sure I would love to see Ron Paul in office. But having disbanded much of his campaign yesterday, I don’t see it as possible. Even if he were elected, the president’s power to enact policy is severely limited by the bureaucracy, by process, by the courts, by lobbyists, and by the other two houses of government. What I do believe, is that libertarian ideals are not achievable without the western tradition. And that tradition is under attack by the Left and by Islam. And that our chances of defending ourselves are decreasing by the day. I don’t know if Gingrich is electable. But I would vote for Gingrich just to have him debate Obama and destroy him every time. I usually try to stay away from promoting candidates, and I stick with policy and strategy under the assumption that the marginal difference between them is limited. But I am very afraid of another Obama presidency. And I’m afraid for my civilization. And I’m not afraid of maintaining libertarian ideals if we retain our civilization.

  • Mike Renzulli Makes The The Libertarian Case For Gingrich

    He frames the argument as pragmatic:

    In Eastern and Western philosophy there are two forces usually at work against one another which (it is assumed) helps bring balance to the world. In Asian philosophy it is the conflict between Yin and Yang. In Christianity the conflict is between the ideas of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo while in secular philosophy the conflict is between the outlook of Aristotle and Plato. In her book The Future and it’s Enemies, Virginia Postrel outlines the conflict between the dynamists and the statists. Dynamists embace a world of choice and competition which includes economic prosperity, technological progress and cultural innovation. Statists, on the other hand, envision a society that upholds the status quo, while embracing the values of a simpler past and authoritarian rule. …

    The fact remains that Western civilization is embroiled in a struggle for it’s very survival against enemies (Islam and the left) openly hostile to secularism and capitalism along with the freedoms open societies embrace. Israel, for example, is surrounded by theocratic dictatorships, and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and their leftists allies work diligently to undermine her in the court of public opinion. Their delegitimization campaign is only part of an effort that will result in a second Holocaust of the country’s Jewish population while obliterating the only country in the Middle East that is a prosperous, secular island of sanity which makes Islamist countries look bad. With Israel gone it will give Islamists will have less of a hurdle to convince their followers to join them in their quest to destroy Western infidels since by doing will have a far off faceless enemy to demonize.

    via Libertarian Republican: The Libertarian case for Gingrich.

    And because of these factors, he recommends Gingrich. Sure I would love to see Ron Paul in office. But having disbanded much of his campaign yesterday, I don’t see it as possible. Even if he were elected, the president’s power to enact policy is severely limited by the bureaucracy, by process, by the courts, by lobbyists, and by the other two houses of government. What I do believe, is that libertarian ideals are not achievable without the western tradition. And that tradition is under attack by the Left and by Islam. And that our chances of defending ourselves are decreasing by the day. I don’t know if Gingrich is electable. But I would vote for Gingrich just to have him debate Obama and destroy him every time. I usually try to stay away from promoting candidates, and I stick with policy and strategy under the assumption that the marginal difference between them is limited. But I am very afraid of another Obama presidency. And I’m afraid for my civilization. And I’m not afraid of maintaining libertarian ideals if we retain our civilization.

  • Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews

    In a rare break from party infighting, Monday’s Republican primary debate saw the candidates unite in their derision of “ObamaContent,” the president’s newly unveiled theory of linguistic meaning.  The theory, which relies upon the practice of a speaker’s linguistic community to fix the semantic content of many words, was attacked as “socialized meaning” by the debate participants.

    via Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews.

    This is just the right making use of the left’s strategy (from Chomsky etc.). Just as they have adopted every other strategy after some frustrating internal hand wringing about their feelings about the ethics of it. And so we continue the cycle of degenerative discourse. The underlying issue remains the same. We either use the caretaker strategy, which is a synonym for subsidizing the birth rates of the lower classes, or we use the aristocratic strategy which is a synonym for constraining the birth rates of the lower classes. The ‘framing’ in political discourse consists of using every possible distraction to avoid the underlying issue: that norms are dependent upon the behavioral ability of the majority and therefore the right’s concept of freedom requires individual accountability and the suppression of the birth rates of the lower classes in order to achieve improvements in the body politic. The left’s concept of freedom requires redistribution, tolerance for impulsivity over discipline, and an authoritarian government to perform administration of it. It is possible to create a compromise between these two worlds, but not while the ‘framing’ is conducted by either the right or the left as a means of avoiding the underlying problem.

  • Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews

    In a rare break from party infighting, Monday’s Republican primary debate saw the candidates unite in their derision of “ObamaContent,” the president’s newly unveiled theory of linguistic meaning.  The theory, which relies upon the practice of a speaker’s linguistic community to fix the semantic content of many words, was attacked as “socialized meaning” by the debate participants.

    via Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews.

    This is just the right making use of the left’s strategy (from Chomsky etc.). Just as they have adopted every other strategy after some frustrating internal hand wringing about their feelings about the ethics of it. And so we continue the cycle of degenerative discourse. The underlying issue remains the same. We either use the caretaker strategy, which is a synonym for subsidizing the birth rates of the lower classes, or we use the aristocratic strategy which is a synonym for constraining the birth rates of the lower classes. The ‘framing’ in political discourse consists of using every possible distraction to avoid the underlying issue: that norms are dependent upon the behavioral ability of the majority and therefore the right’s concept of freedom requires individual accountability and the suppression of the birth rates of the lower classes in order to achieve improvements in the body politic. The left’s concept of freedom requires redistribution, tolerance for impulsivity over discipline, and an authoritarian government to perform administration of it. It is possible to create a compromise between these two worlds, but not while the ‘framing’ is conducted by either the right or the left as a means of avoiding the underlying problem.

  • The Conservative Strategy

    “The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. It is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rational that Schumpeterian public intellectuals seek to fund the state.” VERSUS 1) Bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt us, versus bankrupt the entrepreneurs so that we have all political power. 2) Society as a collection of competing groups with different interests where the government is a referee and property rights the rules, versus society as an extension of the family wherein interests are assumed to be homogenous. 3) The constrained vision of human ability where society is fragile, everything is scarce, and change should be organic because of inescapable human hubris, versus the unconstrained vision of human ability where society i stable, everything is plentiful, and change should be directed and consensual, and problems are always solvable. 4) The feminine social order where the purpose of society is to produce as many children as possible, consume as much as possible, and provide the safest most nurturing world for all, versus the masculine social order where the purpose of society is to constrain the worst, concentrate resources in the best, and produce individual excellences. These are simply facts. Sowell was correct in stating the difference between the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. He was insufficient in that the purpose of the social orders is secured by masculine and feminine biological preferences writ large. Nor was he, or anyone else, clear that the source of western innovation was the manorial system’s evolutionary ability to suppress the birth rates of the lower classes and in doing so create a more intelligent society capable of greater progress.

  • The Conservative Strategy

    “The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. It is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rational that Schumpeterian public intellectuals seek to fund the state.” VERSUS 1) Bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt us, versus bankrupt the entrepreneurs so that we have all political power. 2) Society as a collection of competing groups with different interests where the government is a referee and property rights the rules, versus society as an extension of the family wherein interests are assumed to be homogenous. 3) The constrained vision of human ability where society is fragile, everything is scarce, and change should be organic because of inescapable human hubris, versus the unconstrained vision of human ability where society i stable, everything is plentiful, and change should be directed and consensual, and problems are always solvable. 4) The feminine social order where the purpose of society is to produce as many children as possible, consume as much as possible, and provide the safest most nurturing world for all, versus the masculine social order where the purpose of society is to constrain the worst, concentrate resources in the best, and produce individual excellences. These are simply facts. Sowell was correct in stating the difference between the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. He was insufficient in that the purpose of the social orders is secured by masculine and feminine biological preferences writ large. Nor was he, or anyone else, clear that the source of western innovation was the manorial system’s evolutionary ability to suppress the birth rates of the lower classes and in doing so create a more intelligent society capable of greater progress.

  • THE CONSERVATIVE STRATEGY “The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as t

    THE CONSERVATIVE STRATEGY

    “The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. It is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rational that Schumpeterian public intellectuals seek to fund the state.”

    Bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt us, versus bankrupt the entrepreneurs so that we have all political power.

    Society as a collection of competing groups with different interests where the government is a referee and property rights the rules, versus society as an extension of the family wherein interests are assumed to be homogenous.

    The constrained vision of human ability where society is fragile, everything is scarce, and change should be organic because of inescapable human hubris, versus the unconstrained vision of human ability where society i stable, everything is plentiful, and change should be directed and consensual, and problems are always solvable.

    The feminine social order where the purpose of society is to produce as many children as possible, consume as much as possible, and provide the safest most nurturing world for all, versus the masculine social order where the purpose of society is to constrain the worst, concentrate resources in the best, and produce individual excellences.

    These are simply facts. Sowell was correct in stating the difference between the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. He was insufficient in that the purpose of the social orders is secured by masculine and feminine biological preferences writ large. Nor was he, or anyone else, clear that the source of western innovation was the manorial system’s evolutionary ability to suppress the birth rates of the lower classes and in doing so create a more intelligent society capable of greater progress.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-08 04:30:00 UTC

  • Well, Yes The Left Hates The Constitution. But Scalia Is Just Using Absurdity for Illustrative Purposes.

    via Yes, They DO Hate the Constitution! « ACGR’s “News with Attitude”. I hate to stomp on bunnies, but nonsense like this doesn’t do our movement any good:

    However, her  fellow Justice, the supposedly ultra-conservative and strict constructionist Antonin Scalia is quoted as saying “The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours…we guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protest, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

    All I can think of saying is, Holy C&@p!

    It is very frightening that these “reputable” scholars and Justices do not understand the meaning and intent of the Constitution they have sworn to honor and uphold.  The drafters and ratifiers would be appalled at how the Supreme Court has “interpreted” a document meant to secure the rights of the people, not grant rights.

    In that quote, Scalia is being sarcastic. He’s saying that the constitution is insufficient a safeguard. A polity requires the people obey their own restraints. While property rights, and a constitution that protects them, and a judiciary bound to administer disputes according to them, are the necessary institutions for the defense of freedom, the institution that protects them is comprised entirely of the moral habits of the people and the people who administer those institutions in particular. We take for granted, that our suite of norms are natural to man. But they are special, and unique in the world, specifically because they are unnatural to man. Scalia is illustrating this point using absurdity. The left hates the constitution because on the one hand it gives them control of the government by semi-democratic means, but which does so on the premise of property rights. So they have their power, but are limited in the use of it. This internal conflict is traumatic for them. Conservatives are self obligated to remember their position as the group that acknowledges ever present scarcity. Libertarians are self obligated, as the intellectual wing of politics, to avoid making fools of themselves. (Not that we all haven’t done it in our careers.)

  • Well, Yes The Left Hates The Constitution. But Scalia Is Just Using Absurdity for Illustrative Purposes.

    via Yes, They DO Hate the Constitution! « ACGR’s “News with Attitude”. I hate to stomp on bunnies, but nonsense like this doesn’t do our movement any good:

    However, her  fellow Justice, the supposedly ultra-conservative and strict constructionist Antonin Scalia is quoted as saying “The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours…we guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protest, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

    All I can think of saying is, Holy C&@p!

    It is very frightening that these “reputable” scholars and Justices do not understand the meaning and intent of the Constitution they have sworn to honor and uphold.  The drafters and ratifiers would be appalled at how the Supreme Court has “interpreted” a document meant to secure the rights of the people, not grant rights.

    In that quote, Scalia is being sarcastic. He’s saying that the constitution is insufficient a safeguard. A polity requires the people obey their own restraints. While property rights, and a constitution that protects them, and a judiciary bound to administer disputes according to them, are the necessary institutions for the defense of freedom, the institution that protects them is comprised entirely of the moral habits of the people and the people who administer those institutions in particular. We take for granted, that our suite of norms are natural to man. But they are special, and unique in the world, specifically because they are unnatural to man. Scalia is illustrating this point using absurdity. The left hates the constitution because on the one hand it gives them control of the government by semi-democratic means, but which does so on the premise of property rights. So they have their power, but are limited in the use of it. This internal conflict is traumatic for them. Conservatives are self obligated to remember their position as the group that acknowledges ever present scarcity. Libertarians are self obligated, as the intellectual wing of politics, to avoid making fools of themselves. (Not that we all haven’t done it in our careers.)

  • No, I Have No Problem With The War Against Iraq. I Have A Problem With Nation Building.

    I’ve been criticized today about my support for war. As a libertarian my tolerance for violence makes me an outlier. But I have no problem with war — at all. The war against Saddam was not a problem for me assuming that it was to create a base from which we could topple the Iranian government and its terror-exporting leadership. And that was my understanding of the intention of the Neocons. The absurd moralistic christian folly of post-war nation-building was simply ridiculous — a criminal stupidity born of ideological vanity and self-congratulatory christian sentiments. That was unforgivable. It still is.