Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • Igor Rogov Spengler writes on Prussianism with an insider knowledge and yet with

    Igor Rogov

    Spengler writes on Prussianism with an insider knowledge and yet with a degree of condescension, characteristic of a genius toward the substrate. He approaches the socialism as an overreach of Prussian cultural habit of communal welfare and communal spirit in general – something that works at a level of a village but definitely wrong and monstrous when applied to the state in general.

    Sure, the layered society approach with stricter boundaries between municipal, regional and state level – with “socialism” only at municipal level – would somewhat mitigate this problem.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 10:17:00 UTC

  • Igor Rogov Spengler writes on Prussianism with an insider knowledge and yet with

    Igor Rogov Spengler writes on Prussianism with an insider knowledge and yet with a degree of condescension, characteristic of a genius toward the substrate. He approaches the socialism as an overreach of Prussian cultural habit of communal welfare and communal spirit in general – something that works at a level of a village but definitely wrong and monstrous when applied to the state in general. Sure, the layered society approach with stricter boundaries between municipal, regional and state level – with “socialism” only at municipal level – would somewhat mitigate this problem.

  • Igor Rogov Spengler writes on Prussianism with an insider knowledge and yet with

    Igor Rogov Spengler writes on Prussianism with an insider knowledge and yet with a degree of condescension, characteristic of a genius toward the substrate. He approaches the socialism as an overreach of Prussian cultural habit of communal welfare and communal spirit in general – something that works at a level of a village but definitely wrong and monstrous when applied to the state in general. Sure, the layered society approach with stricter boundaries between municipal, regional and state level – with “socialism” only at municipal level – would somewhat mitigate this problem.

  • THE EXPERIMENT WITH MONOPOLY ECONOMIES HAS FAILED Not that I want to degrade one

    THE EXPERIMENT WITH MONOPOLY ECONOMIES HAS FAILED

    Not that I want to degrade one of my heroes (Spengler), but he is a German and Germans, including even so great a thinker as Weber, do not write about human orders with any degree of scientific constraint – they desire the recreation of the church in secular prose. You are better reading italians than germans.

    That said, in the current vernacular, in operational language, socialism refers to central control of the means of production, and central distribution of proceeds of production, with disputes settled by discretionary bureaucracy. This in opposition to capitalism, with distributed control of the means of production and distributed proceeds from production, with disputes solved under common law of torts (competition).

    An empirical analysis is that all peoples swing between central control and private control depending upon what is possible for them given their resources, demographics, degree of development, degree of normative development, and available institutions.

    As far as I know, the debate is over, and the findings of the 20th century are that small homogenous highly capitalist, but highly redistributive states produce the quality of life most demonstrably preferred by peoples. And that going forward we will produce states along some spectrum of centralized (low trust) to distributed (high trust), with mixed economies. and that it is most likely in my opinion that progress if tehre is any, will be toward layered economies with socialism at the bottom and capitalism in the middle, and aristocracy at the top. which is, as far as I know, a restoration of the historical pattern of cooperation.

    The experiment with monopoly economies has failed.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 00:25:00 UTC

  • The Experiment With Monopoly Economies Has Failed

    Not that I want to degrade one of my heroes (Spengler), but he is a German and Germans, including even so great a thinker as Weber, do not write about human orders with any degree of scientific constraint – they desire the recreation of the church in secular prose. You are better reading italians than germans. That said, in the current vernacular, in operational language, socialism refers to central control of the means of production, and central distribution of proceeds of production, with disputes settled by discretionary bureaucracy. This in opposition to capitalism, with distributed control of the means of production and distributed proceeds from production, with disputes solved under common law of torts (competition). An empirical analysis is that all peoples swing between central control and private control depending upon what is possible for them given their resources, demographics, degree of development, degree of normative development, and available institutions. As far as I know, the debate is over, and the findings of the 20th century are that small homogenous highly capitalist, but highly redistributive states produce the quality of life most demonstrably preferred by peoples. And that going forward we will produce states along some spectrum of centralized (low trust) to distributed (high trust), with mixed economies. and that it is most likely in my opinion that progress if tehre is any, will be toward layered economies with socialism at the bottom and capitalism in the middle, and aristocracy at the top. which is, as far as I know, a restoration of the historical pattern of cooperation. The experiment with monopoly economies has failed.

  • The Experiment With Monopoly Economies Has Failed

    Not that I want to degrade one of my heroes (Spengler), but he is a German and Germans, including even so great a thinker as Weber, do not write about human orders with any degree of scientific constraint – they desire the recreation of the church in secular prose. You are better reading italians than germans. That said, in the current vernacular, in operational language, socialism refers to central control of the means of production, and central distribution of proceeds of production, with disputes settled by discretionary bureaucracy. This in opposition to capitalism, with distributed control of the means of production and distributed proceeds from production, with disputes solved under common law of torts (competition). An empirical analysis is that all peoples swing between central control and private control depending upon what is possible for them given their resources, demographics, degree of development, degree of normative development, and available institutions. As far as I know, the debate is over, and the findings of the 20th century are that small homogenous highly capitalist, but highly redistributive states produce the quality of life most demonstrably preferred by peoples. And that going forward we will produce states along some spectrum of centralized (low trust) to distributed (high trust), with mixed economies. and that it is most likely in my opinion that progress if tehre is any, will be toward layered economies with socialism at the bottom and capitalism in the middle, and aristocracy at the top. which is, as far as I know, a restoration of the historical pattern of cooperation. The experiment with monopoly economies has failed.

  • HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH I

    HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH IT.

    Hitler used the term for a marketing measure, just as the communist party in china uses ‘socialism with chinese characteristics’. The soviets and the early chinese practiced socialism. NatSoc combined nationalism, an aesthetic nationalist religion, something approximating economic autarky, and a total prohibition on criticism. All governments shift between direction of the economy in war (Total War under Napoleon) and relatively free markets. Germany was attempting to fight off international communism – particularly Russia and Hitler mobilized an economy for total war under the Napoleonic model. I tend to use the term Fascism for this purpose. But technically speaking, we have no technical definition of fascism. I am still not convinced that the combination state-private industry, and otherwise private property, with strict constraints on the retention of profits within the polity, and total suppression of opposition isn’t a good thing. The difference is that I would write a constitution of natural law so that it could not be abused. In fact, in most of my work I advocate what I call market fascism for the simple reason that I do not think opposition to rule of law and nationalism should be tolerated. If the courts exist then that is sufficient means of protection of the individual. The court of public opinion, as the 20th century has demonstrated, consists almost entirely of gossip, pseudoscience, and lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-01 16:56:00 UTC

  • HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH I

    HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH IT. Hitler used the term for a marketing measure, just as the communist party in china uses ‘socialism with chinese characteristics’. The soviets and the early chinese practiced socialism. NatSoc combined nationalism, an aesthetic nationalist religion, something approximating economic autarky, and a total prohibition on criticism. All governments shift between direction of the economy in war (Total War under Napoleon) and relatively free markets. Germany was attempting to fight off international communism – particularly Russia and Hitler mobilized an economy for total war under the Napoleonic model. I tend to use the term Fascism for this purpose. But technically speaking, we have no technical definition of fascism. I am still not convinced that the combination state-private industry, and otherwise private property, with strict constraints on the retention of profits within the polity, and total suppression of opposition isn’t a good thing. The difference is that I would write a constitution of natural law so that it could not be abused. In fact, in most of my work I advocate what I call market fascism for the simple reason that I do not think opposition to rule of law and nationalism should be tolerated. If the courts exist then that is sufficient means of protection of the individual. The court of public opinion, as the 20th century has demonstrated, consists almost entirely of gossip, pseudoscience, and lies.

  • HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH I

    HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH IT. Hitler used the term for a marketing measure, just as the communist party in china uses ‘socialism with chinese characteristics’. The soviets and the early chinese practiced socialism. NatSoc combined nationalism, an aesthetic nationalist religion, something approximating economic autarky, and a total prohibition on criticism. All governments shift between direction of the economy in war (Total War under Napoleon) and relatively free markets. Germany was attempting to fight off international communism – particularly Russia and Hitler mobilized an economy for total war under the Napoleonic model. I tend to use the term Fascism for this purpose. But technically speaking, we have no technical definition of fascism. I am still not convinced that the combination state-private industry, and otherwise private property, with strict constraints on the retention of profits within the polity, and total suppression of opposition isn’t a good thing. The difference is that I would write a constitution of natural law so that it could not be abused. In fact, in most of my work I advocate what I call market fascism for the simple reason that I do not think opposition to rule of law and nationalism should be tolerated. If the courts exist then that is sufficient means of protection of the individual. The court of public opinion, as the 20th century has demonstrated, consists almost entirely of gossip, pseudoscience, and lies.

  • BLOCKCHAIN FOR DIRECT PURCHASE OF DIRECTLY TRADABLE SHARES There are important i

    BLOCKCHAIN FOR DIRECT PURCHASE OF DIRECTLY TRADABLE SHARES

    There are important if not necessary uses of the blockchain (encryption ledger) technology that I want to advocate.

    Given:

    (a) Tokens, consist of nearly infinitely divisible shares,whose clearance depends upon the existence of the network, but does not involve fees by third party ‘transporters’ (intermediaries) who provide no value under electronic money substitutes.

    (b) Such shares have no direct voting capacity, only market value. IMO this is the only method stocks should be issued in, since in practice, there is no procedural or moral reason for ownership interest without it’s voluntary transfer by management, or involuntary transfer by the court for crimes of fraud.

    (d) Because clearing requires no third parties, and while clearing requires existence of the network to clear, and while that network is not state-insured (and insurer of last resort), no third party must hold temporary title to assets during clearance – meaning that no credit is issued, nor credit rating required (nor legal standing required) in order to use such a system.

    (d) I am certain that it is objectively immoral (fraud) to transfer debt packages for the simple reasons that warranty of subjective value (price) is not transferrable.

    Therefore,

    1) the primary beneficiary of the use of blockchain shares for remittances will be the poor, credit-unworthy, ex-criminal, who will be free of costs – so long as the state ‘insures’ such a network. The check cashing business is the most beneficial network to replace, since payment in fractional shares requires no credit or escrow for clearance, and therefore no fees. This is a far bigger problem than the middle class understands.

    2) banks that originate loans, and in fact, all loan originators, may not sell or transfer responsibility for those loans, but may sell fractional shares in any loan package. This ends the problem of third party trust in certification of the ‘quality’ of loans.

    3) Public Title Registries that allow transfer and payment are far superior to the poor records kept on assets. There is no reason one does not register nearly all one’s goods. However, some defense from the state and debtors must exist, because it will lead to higher taxation, and other malincentives if openly accessible.

    4) Escrow by two part, simultaneous transfer of title and property eliminates vast holding and clearing fees for asset transfers.

    5) Bypassing the financial system to issue liquidity in order to increase the money supply by direct deposit to consumers is necessary but requires near perfect traceability.

    6) Multiple currencies can be issued by states for different purposes the way ‘food stamps’ and ‘rent stamps’ are issued today.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-01 12:29:00 UTC