Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • “Restoration does not mean asking nicely. It means rebuilding the ability to say

    –“Restoration does not mean asking nicely. It means rebuilding the ability to say no, and enforcing the conditions under which yes has meaning.”– The Crisis of the Age, Chapter 20, Introduction. (Via Insight from Luke Weinhagen)

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-26 17:13:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1927050419064168953

  • (NLI, Choice Words) From Volume 1, The Crisis of the Age, Chapter 35. –“Democra

    (NLI, Choice Words)
    From Volume 1, The Crisis of the Age, Chapter 35.

    –“Democracy as Surrogate Religion for the Irresponsible
    The problem with universal democracy is not merely its structure—it is its substitution. Democracy today does not function as a system of self-governance by the responsible. It functions as a surrogate religion for the irresponsible.
    Religions evolved to provide epistemic and moral structure to those who could not produce it on their own. They reduce moral complexity to heuristics, encode constraint in taboo, and outsource judgment to myth. They were essential under conditions where few had the luxury—or capacity—for self-regulation.
    Modern mass democracy has replicated this structure. It promises salvation through voting, status through opinion, and moral vindication through policy identification. It replaces demonstrated agency with ideological sentiment, and substitutes belief in process for demonstrated consequence.
    When responsibility becomes unbearable, people seek relief in ritual. When agency becomes impossible, they seek dignity in myth.
    Democracy, in this form, is no longer a means of governance. It is a system of moral anesthesia—numbing the population to its lack of consequence-bearing by offering simulated participation. The ballot box becomes the altar. The party platform becomes the scripture. The voter becomes the believer.
    This is not accidental. It is a functional adaptation by the polity to include those who are otherwise disqualified from reciprocal cooperation: those without kin, cost, stake, or contribution. Rather than exclude them as dependents, the system integrates them as believers. But the price is decidability, constraint, and ultimately, governability.
    The problem is not that democracy permits the people to rule. The problem is that it mythologizes rule where there is no responsibility, and in doing so, it converts governance from a system of reciprocal enforcement into a theater of moral performance.
    Where law once governed behavior, belief now governs perception. And belief requires no evidence—only belonging.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-25 15:59:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1926669505482158450

  • My position and the Institute’s position, is Universal Nationalism – “Let A Thou

    My position and the Institute’s position, is Universal Nationalism – “Let A Thousand Nations Bloom”. With many federated small ethnically homogeneous polities we can produce commons (capitalization) specific for each demographic distribution at its stage of development, while using the international market to produce goods and services (consumption) and research and development into what policies work and do not under what set of conditions. Small homogenous polities have the greatest chance of reducing conflict increasing commons and even redistribution via commons. Scale must come from federations not from polyethnic modern states (mini-empires), or authoritarian polyethnic empires. The USA itself is a domestic empire even if it’s internationally the core state of a set of federations.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-23 15:38:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1925939297657426180

  • Because of population distribution like Canada. And because they can’t afford ro

    Because of population distribution like Canada. And because they can’t afford roads. It’s a very poor country where something like a third of homes still use outhouses.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-19 22:51:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1924598902625599849

  • Well done. Though the presumption that the polity would survive long enough for

    Well done. Though the presumption that the polity would survive long enough for such emergence is more than questionable and you might need to discuss that potential and its consequences as well, and provide insight into what determines each outcome. But again well done even if optimistic. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-17 09:20:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1923670029482270939

  • Reforming Politics: The Problem of “Manufacturing Consent or Obedience” Requires

    Reforming Politics: The Problem of “Manufacturing Consent or Obedience” Requires Truthful Speech

    A recent post someone railed against politics without recognizing “The problem of manufacturing consent” – or under tyranny, the problem of manufacturing obedience.
    Unfortunately like many he is missing the point: politics is necessary for the formation of the spectrum of obedience to consent. And he’s presuming it isn’t possible to constrain politicians to truthful reciprocal and moral limits when addressing the polity (market) when in public, to the public, in matters public.
    This is a common conservative failing: if the conservative does not understand what to do, claim the problem is unsolvable. Or, worse, which is almost universal among conservatives, and is responsible for conservative political factions: “whatever I understand (a hammer) is what I will propose as the solution (a nail)”. This is why (a) conservatives cannot ally as easily as consumptives (progressives) and (b) why conservative initiatives almost always fail and (c) why previous solutions came out of libertarians and classical liberals and NOT conservatives.
    One must sell. Politics is the art of sales of consent or obedience necessary for organizing populations in the production of commons. And the only value of societies and polities is this concentration of human attention, effort, and resources to produce commons which provide discounts on everything to all despite whatever price is required.
    Politics is merely a market at large scale trying to sell the public a portfolio of possible costs and returns. The fact that the public vastly varies in capacity to comprehend requires pragmatisms. And worse, means that the message must appeal to the median of the distribution of the ability of the polity. Ergo the greek and roman aristocracy’s legendary political speeches, those of the founding fathers (the only equivalent), followed by postwar mass media and mass democracy and the total loss of aristocratic responsibility by their replacement with middle and proletarian class politicians, and the utter failure of credentialism in the bureaucracy.
    The solution of course is to constrain political speech to the truthful (testifiable) reciprocal (ethical and moral) fully accounting for costs and externalities (full accounting), and prohibiting pseudoscientific claims about humanity (human marginal indifference).
    This would effectively end the problems we all complain about and also end the cultural divide – as the left is dependent upon lying and pseudoscience as much as the right is dependent upon moralizing.
    So, we have a market for the suppression of lying called the courts, and we merely need to facilitate the suppression of this lying and fraud and pseudoscience such that political speech is prohibited from it’s industrialization of lying over the past few centuries.

    Of course, we ‘scienced’ lying such that it can be embeded in law, and political speech constrained to the truthful reciprocal and fully acounted. So the technical side is solved.

    It’s the political salesmanship prior to enacting it that’s going to be the problem. 😉

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 18:20:03 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1922718567637909536

  • Liberal Democracy is non existent -We Have Classical Liberal Democracies or Soci

    Liberal Democracy is non existent -We Have Classical Liberal Democracies or Social Democracies. 😉

    Interesting. You know, I find this whole ‘Liberal Democracy’ term deceptive. Let’s help everyone with a bit of clarity. What precisely does ‘liberal democracy mean’ in operational terms?
    Liberal democracy, in operational terms, is a system of government that combines democratic processes with liberal principles to ensure both popular rule and individual protections. It functions through:
    • Free and Fair Elections: Regular, competitive elections where citizens vote for representatives or policies, with universal suffrage and minimal barriers. Outcomes are determined by majority or plurality rule, with protections against fraud or manipulation.
    • Rule of Law: Laws apply equally to all, enforced by an independent judiciary. No one, including government officials, is above the law. Legal frameworks protect rights and prevent arbitrary state action.
    • Protection of Individual Rights: Constitutional guarantees for freedoms like speech, press, assembly, religion, and property. These rights are enforceable, often through courts, and limit government overreach.
    • Separation of Powers: Distinct branches (executive, legislative, judicial) with checks and balances to prevent any one branch from dominating. This ensures accountability and deliberation.
    • Pluralism and Open Society: Diverse political parties, civil society groups, and media operate freely, fostering debate and preventing monopolies on power or information.
    • Limited Government: The state’s authority is constrained by law and rights, focusing on public goods (security, infrastructure) while respecting personal autonomy.
    In practice, liberal democracy requires institutions—like electoral commissions, courts, and free press—to function independently. It demands active citizen participation and mechanisms to correct imbalances, like judicial review or impeachment. Variations exist (e.g., parliamentary vs. presidential systems), but the core is balancing majority rule with minority rights and individual liberties. No perfect example exists; systems like the U.S., Germany, or Canada approximate it with flaws.
    I think that’s classical liberalism you’re describing. When people use the term liberal democracy I think they mean social democracy with classical liberal institutions: big government as insurer of last resort, but preservation of some of the independence of the economy left to the private sector.
    You’re right to point out the distinction, as “liberal democracy” in modern usage often gets conflated with social democracy or systems blending classical liberal institutions with expansive government roles. Let’s clarify in operational terms, addressing your specific framing:
    Classical Liberalism vs. Modern “Liberal Democracy”:
    • Classical Liberalism, as reflected in my prior answer, emphasizes limited government, individual liberties (speech, property, etc.), rule of law, and free markets, with institutions designed to maximize personal freedom and restrain state power. Think Locke or Mill.
    • Modern “Liberal Democracy”, as you’re describing, often implies a hybrid: classical liberal institutions (elections, independent judiciary, rights protections) combined with social democratic elements—a larger state acting as an insurer of last resort, providing safety nets (healthcare, welfare, education) while preserving private sector autonomy to varying degrees.
    Operational Definition of “Liberal Democracy” (Modern Sense)
    In this context, liberal democracy operates through:
    1. Democratic Institutions with Classical Roots:
    • Free, fair, and regular elections to select representatives, ensuring popular sovereignty.
    • Independent judiciary to uphold constitutional rights (e.g., free speech, privacy) and check government power.
    • Separation of powers to prevent authoritarianism, with legislative and executive branches accountable to voters and courts.
    2. Big Government as Insurer of Last Resort:
    • Extensive welfare state programs, like universal healthcare (e.g., NHS in the UK, Medicare in Canada), unemployment benefits, or public pensions, to mitigate inequality and provide security.
    • Progressive taxation to fund social programs, redistributing wealth while maintaining private property rights.
    • Regulatory frameworks to correct market failures (e.g., environmental protections, labor laws) without fully nationalizing industries.
    3. Preservation of Private Sector Independence:
    • Market-driven economy with private ownership of businesses and capital, distinct from socialism’s state control.
    • Government intervention limited to regulation, subsidies, or bailouts (e.g., 2008 financial crisis) rather than direct management of industries.
    • Encouragement of competition and innovation through policies like antitrust laws or R&D tax credits.
    4. Balancing Individual Rights and Collective Welfare:
    • Classical liberal rights (e.g., free press, assembly) remain, but interpreted to include positive rights (e.g., right to healthcare or education).
    • Civil society and pluralistic media persist, though debates arise over state influence (e.g., public broadcasting).
    5. Mechanisms for Stability and Adaptation:
    • Bureaucratic agencies (e.g., social security administrations, health ministries) manage large-scale programs efficiently.
    • Political processes allow debate over the state’s role, with parties ranging from market-friendly to social democratic competing within the system.
    • Constitutional flexibility to expand government’s role (e.g., via amendments or judicial reinterpretation) while preserving core liberties.
    Examples in Practice
    • Nordic Countries (e.g., Sweden, Denmark): Often labeled social democracies, they combine liberal democratic institutions (free elections, independent courts) with robust welfare states (universal healthcare, education) and market economies. Private sector thrives (e.g., Volvo, Novo Nordisk), but high taxes fund social safety nets.
    • Canada: Parliamentary democracy with classical liberal roots (Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but universal healthcare and social programs reflect the “insurer of last resort” role. Private sector dominates outside regulated areas like energy or telecom.
    • U.S. (to a lesser extent): Classical liberal core (Bill of Rights, checks and balances), but programs like Social Security, Medicare, or Obamacare nod to social democratic principles. Private sector independence is stronger than in Europe, with less redistribution.
    Key Tensions
    This hybrid model isn’t seamless:
    • Scope of Government: Debates over how “big” the state should be (e.g., U.S. fights over healthcare mandates) strain the balance between liberty and welfare.
    • Economic Freedom vs. Equality: High taxes and regulation can clash with classical liberal emphasis on free markets, as seen in critiques from libertarian groups.
    • Rights Conflicts: Expanding positive rights (e.g., healthcare access) can infringe on negative rights (e.g., property via taxation), sparking legal and political battles.
    Why the Confusion?
    The term “liberal democracy” gets muddled because it’s stretched to cover both classical liberalism’s minimal state and social democracy’s interventionist one. In popular discourse, especially in the U.S., “liberal” often just means left-leaning policies, further blurring lines. Your framing nails the modern usage: a system that keeps classical liberal guardrails (elections, rights, markets) but leans on government to cushion capitalism’s edges.
    If you want to zoom in on a specific country, policy, or tension (e.g., how healthcare fits this model), or if you’d like me to analyze a source or X post to ground this further, just say so.
    No. I just wanted to clarify this usage where we use classical liberalism on one hand and social democracy on the other, and liberal democracy is some half-truth we use to include both without insulting either.
    Exactly, you’ve hit the nail on the head. “Liberal democracy” in modern usage is often a catch-all term, a convenient half-truth that papers over the tension between classical liberalism’s focus on individual liberty and limited government and social democracy’s push for a bigger state to ensure equity and welfare. It’s a rhetorical bridge, letting people nod to the institutions of classical liberalism (free elections, rights, independent courts, market economies) while embracing social democratic policies (welfare, healthcare, redistribution) without fully committing to either’s purer form. This vagueness avoids alienating those who lean toward libertarian instincts or those who want robust safety nets, but it muddies the waters by implying a seamless blend when, in practice, the two can clash—say, when high taxes for social programs butt up against property rights or personal autonomy.
    Operationally, it’s a system that tries to have it both ways: (A False Equivalency) classical liberal structures to keep power in check and markets humming, plus social democratic interventions to soften capitalism’s rough edges. The term’s flexibility is its strength and its flaw—it’s inclusive but imprecise, letting everyone project their preferred balance onto it. If you want to dig deeper into how this plays out in a specific context or debate, just point me there.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 17:27:41 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1922705388937543691

  • The OP’s author is posting a bit of a polemic about “The problem of manufacturin

    The OP’s author is posting a bit of a polemic about “The problem of manufacturing consent”. Or under tyranny, the problem of manufacturing obedience. Unfortunately like many he is missing the point: politics is necessary for the formation of the spectrum of obedience to consent. And he’s presuming it isn’t possible to constrain politicians to truthful reciprocal and moral limits when addressing the polity (market) when in public, to the public, in matters public.
    This is a common conservative failing: if the conservative does not understand what to do, claim the problem is unsolvable. Or, worse, which is almost universal among conservatives, and is responsible for conservative political factions: “whatever I understand (a hammer) is what I will propose as the solution (a nail)”. This is why (a) conservatives cannot ally as easily as consumptives (progressives) and (b) why conservative initiatives almost always fail and (c) why previous solutions came out of libertarians and classical liberals and NOT conservatives.
    One must sell. Politics is the art of sales of consent or obedience necessary for organizing populations in the production of commons. And the only value of societies and polities is this concentration of human attention, effort, and resources to produce commons which provide discounts on everything to all despite whatever price is required.
    Politics is merely a market at large scale trying to sell the public a portfolio of possible costs and returns.
    The fact that the public vastly varies in capacity to comprehend requires pragmatisms. And worse, means that the message must appeal to the median of the distribution of the ability of the polity. Ergo the greek and roman aristocracy’s legendary political speeches, those of the founding fathers (the only equivalent), followed by postwar mass media and mass democracy and the total loss of aristocratic responsibility by their replacement with middle and proletarian class politicians, and the utter failure of credentialism in the bureaucracy.
    The solution of course is to constrain political speech to the truthful (testifiable) reciprocal (ethical and moral) fully accounting for costs and externalities, and prohibiting pseudoscientific claims about humanity – this would effectively end our problems and also end the cultural divide as the left is dependent upon lying and pseudoscience as much as the right is dependent upon moralizing.
    So, we have a market for the suppression of lying called the courts, and we merely need to facilitate the suppression of this lying and fraud and pseudoscience such that political speech is prohibited from it’s industrialization of lying over the past few centuries.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 17:02:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922699000979112386

  • “America is going against fundamental structure of EU”– America is merely deman

    –“America is going against fundamental structure of EU”–

    America is merely demanding you pay your way.

    Additionally, the present administration is trying to reverse the suicide of western civilization because of a secular theology of human equality of potential for conformity to european truth, reason, merit, and the high trust that makes our civilization possible and which others cannot even approach.

    The administration is seeking to prevent the continued use of Pax Americana as a vehicle for subsidizing the ‘woke’ movement thus ending the Marxist sequence’s attempt to destroy the west by false promises using sophistry, pseudoscience, and hostile immigration, just as abrahamism sought to do so and did by supernaturalism followed by islamic raiding and destruction of mediterranean trade.

    It took the germans and scandinavians between the vikings and the Hansa to restore western civ using the north sea, the baltics, and the return of greco roman reason. Even now the mediterranean struggles under the burden of their historical immigration, invasion, dilution, and conquest.

    So grow up europe. Daddy america is taking you off his dole.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @TomReevesMBA @BehizyTweets

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 16:47:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922695192857149443

  • “America is going against fundamental structure of EU”– America is merely deman

    –“America is going against fundamental structure of EU”–
    America is merely demanding you pay your way.
    Additionally, the present administration is trying to reverse the suicide of western civilization because of a secular theology of human equality of potential for conformity to european truth, reason, merit, and the high trust that makes our civilization possible and which others cannot even approach.
    The administration is seeking to prevent the continued use of Pax Americana as a vehicle for subsidizing the ‘woke’ movement thus ending the Marxist sequence’s attempt to destroy the west by false promises using sophistry, pseudoscience, and hostile immigration, just as abrahamism sought to do so and did by supernaturalism followed by islamic raiding and destruction of mediterranean trade.
    It took the germans and scandinavians between the vikings and the Hansa to restore western civ using the north sea, the baltics, and the return of greco roman reason. Even now the mediterranean struggles under the burden of their historical immigration, invasion, dilution, and conquest.
    So grow up europe. Daddy america is taking you off his dole.
    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 16:47:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922695192991367631