Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • FRANCIS FUKUYAMA: CHIEF PRIEST OF STATE BUREAUCRACY Francis got hooked on the id

    FRANCIS FUKUYAMA: CHIEF PRIEST OF STATE BUREAUCRACY

    Francis got hooked on the idea of meritocratic bureaucracy from his study of Chinese history, and in his two most recent books, works to explain the construction of the modern state, by justifying select buraucracies. His attempt at justifying his priors is approaching the most exasperating work I have read by someone who appears to be honest and merely flawed.

    I value his work, because his comparative analysis, like that of aristotle, Machiavelli, Pareto, Weber, and more recently Olson, is at least marginally scientific.

    However, when discussing europe, he identifies then glosses over the most important attributes of european civilization: we developed contract rather than authority. And our ‘priesthood’ (lawyers) and contract (voluntary association) are sufficient for the production of all commons other than defense. He does not address the church-state-commerce balance of powers. Nor the incentives of a bureaucracy.

    Where most of us want to re-nationalize liberalism, and return to the contractual association of man, using law and militia as a means of policing the state, he wants to turn us all into chinese peasants.

    He doesn’t describe why bureaucracies fail, and seems unaware of the criticism of bureaucracies. He assumes professional bureaucrats will have good interests and be accountable, rather than that such creatures only exist at the margins, and the benefit that they add is less than the damage that they cause AFTER rule of law has been implemented.

    He also ignores Putnam’s illustration of the ills of diversity – and it appears that he does so intentionally.

    So, I have work to do:

    1) demonstrate how the contractual state is superior in every possible way

    2) elaborate on the transaction cost theory of government.

    3) expand the ills of corporatism to that of anti-tribalism

    I cannot work as fast as these other people. I look at some of these guys who put a book out every year or two, and I just work so much more slowly.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-03 04:11:00 UTC

  • We have 1.1M lawyers in america. That’s one for every 300 people. Ukraine needs

    We have 1.1M lawyers in america. That’s one for every 300 people. Ukraine needs about 8,000 judges (1/5000 people), and about 20,000 lawyers (1/2000) people.

    It’s not a complicated problem. Rule of law is all you need.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-29 08:14:00 UTC

  • OUR WEALTH OF VIOLENCE –“We invest our violence in the corporation, where the a

    OUR WEALTH OF VIOLENCE

    –“We invest our violence in the corporation, where the anticipated return is higher than it would be otherwise. If that return is negative, then we liquidate our investment and use it to create a superior state of affairs.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-26 00:00:00 UTC

  • I have always felt that the Austrian inter-temporal structure of the production

    I have always felt that the Austrian inter-temporal structure of the production cycle was a little old fashioned but of metaphor given that firms have evolved to multiple networks of more dynamic investment structures wherein each unit is more perishable, and where each is far less dependent upon a planned structure of production and instead is constantly shuffling portfolios of production among customers.

    And I’ve felt that the problem not just of cycles, nor of exhaustion of opportunities, nor of forming networks to exploit opportunity, but that at some point we approach the problem of having created enough consumption that people are decreasingly willing to trade increases consumption of signals for leisure, or even for doing *nothing*. ( I certainly have reached that point – the sole purpose of money is to associate with peers, and disassociate from undesirables. In that sense my consumption is primarily one of location. ) I mean, american males are exiting society and economy in droves – they can afford to.

    So while there always appears to exist possible increases in consumption, one eventually has to resort to the immigration of underclasses to continue generating consumption. This process too leads to booms and busts and social instability.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-25 03:24:00 UTC

  • THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE (worth repeating) –“Territory is obtained, held, informa

    THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE

    (worth repeating)

    –“Territory is obtained, held, informal institutions constructed, formal institutions implemented, and monuments built, by the use of violence by those desirous of obtaining advantage for themselves and their people. …. Peace, is not an intrinsic good. The intrinsic good is the perpetuation of your family, tribe, and people in competition with other families tribes and peoples……Everything else – voluntary cooperation, and economic competition in particular – is just a more useful way of getting there for those who are un-impulsive, productive, innovative, and trusting.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 06:04:00 UTC

  • Hayek and Hoppe Are Wrong: Peace, is not an intrinsic good.

    [H]ayek is right that a condition of liberty can only be constructed by organically evolutionary (common) law of property. Hoppe is right that institutions can replace monopoly bureaucracy.

    However, Hayek has no solution to making such a condition universally preferable; and Hoppe has no solution to the provision of the commons, nor for constructing a condition of liberty. Neither address the influence of the family or the intergenerational means of reproductive production or the entry of women’s socialistic biases into the sphere of politics – and neither addresses the problem of the conflict between the reproductive interests of the classes. Neither solves the problem of a heterogeneous post-agrarian, and possibly post familial, institutional system. Yet that is the set of conditions that we find ourselves in.

    I think I have persuasively argued that over the long term (anyone can benefit from implementing technology that was invented by others in the sort term), high velocity economies are only possible under liberty, and that liberty is only possible under high trust, and that only law under universal standing can construct high trust and liberty, and that those most interested in maintaining this structure are those in the lower middle class and upper proletariat, who are willing to fight to un-constrain their superiors, so that they can gain the privileges of the group with the best leaders. This is why the working classes are conservatively biased – they will fall in status and material possession without the advantages given them by support – the enablement – of their elites.

    So we can look at the successes of philosophers but also look at their failures. Hoppe tries to both preserve cosmopolitan separatism and reconstruct the hanseatic league. But this is not possible without the use of violence, exclusion, and the taking of territory sufficiently advantageous to produce the incentives to join such a polity, nor the economic advantage necessary to see it persist.

    Hoppe’s solution of starting a clean polity isn’t a solution at all. It’s the equivalent of communism for libertines.

    Territory is obtained, held, informal institutions constructed, formal institutions implemented, and monuments built, by the use of violence to do so by those desirous of obtaining advantage for themselves and their people.

    Peace, is not an intrinsic good. The intrinsic good is the perpetuation of your family, tribe, and people in competition with other families tribes and peoples.

    Everything else is just a better way of getting there.

    And the alternative is conquest and suicide. Both of which we are victims of.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Hayek and Hoppe Are Wrong: Peace, is not an intrinsic good.

    [H]ayek is right that a condition of liberty can only be constructed by organically evolutionary (common) law of property. Hoppe is right that institutions can replace monopoly bureaucracy.

    However, Hayek has no solution to making such a condition universally preferable; and Hoppe has no solution to the provision of the commons, nor for constructing a condition of liberty. Neither address the influence of the family or the intergenerational means of reproductive production or the entry of women’s socialistic biases into the sphere of politics – and neither addresses the problem of the conflict between the reproductive interests of the classes. Neither solves the problem of a heterogeneous post-agrarian, and possibly post familial, institutional system. Yet that is the set of conditions that we find ourselves in.

    I think I have persuasively argued that over the long term (anyone can benefit from implementing technology that was invented by others in the sort term), high velocity economies are only possible under liberty, and that liberty is only possible under high trust, and that only law under universal standing can construct high trust and liberty, and that those most interested in maintaining this structure are those in the lower middle class and upper proletariat, who are willing to fight to un-constrain their superiors, so that they can gain the privileges of the group with the best leaders. This is why the working classes are conservatively biased – they will fall in status and material possession without the advantages given them by support – the enablement – of their elites.

    So we can look at the successes of philosophers but also look at their failures. Hoppe tries to both preserve cosmopolitan separatism and reconstruct the hanseatic league. But this is not possible without the use of violence, exclusion, and the taking of territory sufficiently advantageous to produce the incentives to join such a polity, nor the economic advantage necessary to see it persist.

    Hoppe’s solution of starting a clean polity isn’t a solution at all. It’s the equivalent of communism for libertines.

    Territory is obtained, held, informal institutions constructed, formal institutions implemented, and monuments built, by the use of violence to do so by those desirous of obtaining advantage for themselves and their people.

    Peace, is not an intrinsic good. The intrinsic good is the perpetuation of your family, tribe, and people in competition with other families tribes and peoples.

    Everything else is just a better way of getting there.

    And the alternative is conquest and suicide. Both of which we are victims of.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Moral Corporatism: Political Bias as Shareholder Agreements

    [M]oral Corporatism:

    LIBERTARIAN
    A libertarian ethic in negative sense, is that one seeks to eliminate all external constraints upon his resources so that he may seize opportunities for productive gain. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will cause no cost, but in return will liquidate his holdings if opportunities can be seized.

    CONSERVATIVE
    A conservative ethics in the negative sense, is that one seeks so accumulate defensive resources by forgoing consumption until later. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will only invest in long term storage of resources (including genetic resources), and deny himself and others access to consumption.

    PROGRESSIVE
    A progressive ethic, in the negative sense, is that one seeks to accumulate all human bodies, by consuming everything possible – now. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which all dividends are immediately consumed.

    CURRENT STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY
    We currently construct all three of these via shareholder agreements today, and would do more of them, more widely if the government were not structured to force spending by these organizations so that they can be taxed at maximum yields and thereby forcing risk into investors management and employees. So government today takes money and increases risk from producers to decrease risk and increase consumption of non-producers. If this did not yield dysgenic results, lower trust, and economic degeneracy, then it would be rational (the scandinavian small state model, plus prohibition on immigration).

  • Moral Corporatism: Political Bias as Shareholder Agreements

    [M]oral Corporatism:

    LIBERTARIAN
    A libertarian ethic in negative sense, is that one seeks to eliminate all external constraints upon his resources so that he may seize opportunities for productive gain. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will cause no cost, but in return will liquidate his holdings if opportunities can be seized.

    CONSERVATIVE
    A conservative ethics in the negative sense, is that one seeks so accumulate defensive resources by forgoing consumption until later. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will only invest in long term storage of resources (including genetic resources), and deny himself and others access to consumption.

    PROGRESSIVE
    A progressive ethic, in the negative sense, is that one seeks to accumulate all human bodies, by consuming everything possible – now. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which all dividends are immediately consumed.

    CURRENT STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY
    We currently construct all three of these via shareholder agreements today, and would do more of them, more widely if the government were not structured to force spending by these organizations so that they can be taxed at maximum yields and thereby forcing risk into investors management and employees. So government today takes money and increases risk from producers to decrease risk and increase consumption of non-producers. If this did not yield dysgenic results, lower trust, and economic degeneracy, then it would be rational (the scandinavian small state model, plus prohibition on immigration).

  • Michael Phillip On Monarchic Survival

    [W]ith the exception of the (restored) Spanish and (created) Belgium monarchies–all the surviving monarchies of Europe are either Protestant (UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden) or tiny (Luxembourg, Liechenstein, Monaco), with Catholic (Italy, Portugal, France, Austria) and Orthodox (Russia, Greece) national monarchies having a much higher failure rate than Protestant ones (Germany), suggests that being able to engage in (and keep) broad social bargains is a survival trait in a monarchy. (Being overthrown by Soviet occupation or Soviet-supported post-Nazi insurrection–Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania–can be discounted.) The Protestant “naked before God” all-in-this-together outlook, including different time perspectives, being an advantage over the Catholic & Orthodox absolution-available, hierarchy-rules approach.