Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • POLICY CREEP : WIKIPEDIA VS THE STATE – NO DIFFERENCE “When asked to identify Wi

    POLICY CREEP : WIKIPEDIA VS THE STATE – NO DIFFERENCE

    “When asked to identify Wikipedia’s real problem, Moran cites the bureaucratic culture that has formed around the rules and guidelines on contributing, which have become labyrinthine over the years. The page explaining a policy called Neutral Point of View, one of “five pillars” fundamental to Wikipedia, is almost 5,000 words long. “That is the real barrier: policy creep,” he says. But whatever role that plays in Wikipedia’s travails, any effort to prune its bureaucracy is hard to imagine.”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 05:48:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/obamacare-update-this-isnt-a-good-sign-70-of-mds-in-california-are-rebelling-against-the-states-exchange/

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-07 18:14:00 UTC

  • “In trying to get votes for the Superconducting Super Collider, I was very much

    “In trying to get votes for the Superconducting Super Collider, I was very much involved in lobbying members of Congress, testifying to them, bothering them, and I never heard any of them talk about postmodernism or social constructivism; you have to be VERY learned to be THAT wrong.” — Steven Weinberg

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 13:58:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY = ANARCHO CAPITALISM + THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Libertarian institutions,

    LIBERTY = ANARCHO CAPITALISM + THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT

    Libertarian institutions, reduction of all rights to property rights, propertarian grammar and terminology, and human nature scientifically demonstrated rather than theoretically conjectured, and the necessity of formal and informal institutions.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 11:15:00 UTC

  • If the ‘Un-Insured’ nuclear family is the majority of society, or at least, grea

    If the ‘Un-Insured’ nuclear family is the majority of society, or at least, greater than the Pareto minimum of 20%, and the polity is homogenous, it’s likely that signaling will take care of containing the dysgenic families. But in a diverse polity I dont see how the signal economy can function, either as an advocate of the nuclear family, or a constraint on free riding.

    The ‘insurance company” traditional family encourages redistribution and at least limited free riding.

    The “corporate insurance company” (The STATE) forcibly redistributes between moral and reproductive structures, but what this means in practice is the conquest of aristocratic uninsured non-free riders, by communal insured, or state corporate insured, free riders and rent seekers.

    America’s miracle, I think, was a combination of two factors: (a) giving away a conquered continent to immigrants, and (b) indoctrination into the combination of nuclear family and property rights. And the extraction of those people from the high-insurance, high free-riding, traditional family of Europe.

    But it couldn’t survive.

    As the germans and anglos, who were the majority until the 20th century, were outbred by less eugenic (catholic) families, the black family was destroyed through progressive good-intentions, and finally dysgenic traditional family (hispanics) and inbred family (muslims), and our legal traditions did not survive jewish intellectual attacks on our institutions.

    If they had be UNDERSTOOD as economic institutions, and social institutions, and WRITTEN DOWN, it’s possible, but but they weren’t. So there has been a scramble for the past century and a half or more, to contain the non-ANF families from expressing their reproductive strategy in politics.

    Aristocracy wants eugenic development and the rest want dysgenic reproduction. The concentration of calories (eugenic aristocracy) the distribution of calories (dysgenic communalism). This is what we should expect from people – who are not equal.

    1) Physical abilities

    2) Structure Of Production

    3) Reproductive Strategy

    4) Family Structure

    5) Moral Code (Property Rights Allocations)

    6) Property Rights (abandonment of free riding)

    7) Homogeneity (pervasive abandonment of free riding)

    8) Trust (lack of necessity to protect against free riding)

    9) Political preferences

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 08:10:00 UTC

  • IS IT THAT SIMPLE? I THINK IT IS: USE INSTITUTIONS TO PUSH FREE RIDING INTO THE

    IS IT THAT SIMPLE? I THINK IT IS: USE INSTITUTIONS TO PUSH FREE RIDING INTO THE MARKET.

    The market suppresses free riding. The market and the ABSOLUTE NUCLEAR FAMILY, extinguish all opportunities for free riding. Everywhere. you can’t even free-ride on your family.

    The ANF was an unnatural development in human history. Private property was the outcome of it. I had always thought that the

    But marginal indifferences between individual production were low and now they are not. Our physical differences may be minor. But our abilities to use symbols, logic, instruments, and machines, are not. These technologies and tools multiply our abilities, and our differences are compounded by that multiplication.

    The ANF then will survive only as an aristocratic family structure. It is for wealthy people who can accumulate capital. For those people it is both eugenic, and highly competitive.

    That means liberty will be reduced to jewish-liberty, rather than aryan-liberty. It means the high trust society can and will end in america. The ANF is a genetically influenced relation. Its a north-sea thing. Otherwise forget it.

    (Dammit.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 06:38:00 UTC

  • BEGINS TO REGULATE BITCOINS

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9B407L20131205?irpc=932CHINA BEGINS TO REGULATE BITCOINS

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-05 07:26:00 UTC

  • THE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM CHILD WAS THE CALIPHATE. WHY? “The endogamous [inbred]

    THE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM CHILD WAS THE CALIPHATE. WHY?

    “The endogamous [inbred] family is found predominantly in the middle east and north Africa” – Auke Rijpma and Sarah Carmichael “Testing Todd: global data on family characteristics” (2003)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-03 16:25:00 UTC

  • HIDE SYSTEM AND PROPERTY RIGHTS “for a good part of the medieval period, then, f

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_(unit)THE HIDE SYSTEM AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

    “for a good part of the medieval period, then, frisian society continued to be based on clans rather than nuclear families. the frisians had been christianized, which is important in breaking down tribes and clans, but they weren’t manorialized, which seems to be another key in getting to an “atomized” society based on the individual and the nuclear family.

    The hide system meant that the lord of the manor would lease out (on a long-term lease — like lasting a life-time) farms to married couples. not to extended families. not to clans. just to a married couple (and their kids). manorialism and the hide system, therefore, also broke down the clan connections, along with the loosening of the genetic ties via all the outbreeding. so in places where people converted to christianity (and, therefore, stopped inbreeding), but DIDN’T have manorialism, extended family systems and even clans could — and did — survive for longer, since the clan system wasn’t also broken down by the hide system.” — HBD_chick

    See wiki:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_(unit)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-03 16:21:00 UTC

  • WHAT IF LIBERTY IS TRANSITIONAL? (uncomfortable idea) (interesting analysis) Wha

    WHAT IF LIBERTY IS TRANSITIONAL?

    (uncomfortable idea) (interesting analysis)

    What if, bias toward the market, is a transitional phase, where the opportunities from participation in the market are greater than the opportunities from rent seeking and free riding?

    What if, say, Todd is right, and that the stagnancy, ignorance, poverty, and low trust of the middle east, is the natural line of maturity in human civilizations? What if the greeks were in fact, the originators of inbred paternalism as a means of protecting against diversity created by democracy?

    Again, then (and I keep running into this problem), liberty is an unnatural state that must be forcibly held against the common will by force of arms, by a minority unwilling to let society return to its natural state of maximizing free riding and rent seeking?

    Liberty is unnatural. It is unique to the west. It is a contractual benefit exchanged between those willing and able to fight to create it against the general tide of free riding pervasive in all societies.

    Just as spears and other weapons, allowed a group of men to organize to control or kill dangerous alpha males within the band or tribe, the combination of advanced weapons and domesticated animals allowed the concentration of wealth and violence, so that free riding could be suppressed.

    In this sense, the struggle for civilization, is the effort of liberty seeking males to suppress free riders and rent seekers by forcibly creating the institution of private property, so that the majority of males will seek to imitate that wealth, and as such, the minority is constantly refreshed with new members who are likewise incentivized to use violence to maintain private property.

    This was the second falsehood of the enlightenment: men do not desire liberty. They desire consumption.

    Since the number that can, and desire to compete, is limited in any population, then so will be the number of liberty seekers. It is not rational that without belief in success, that individuals should desire to compete only to fail, in a population where they are anonymous.

    Then, liberty and private property, must be forcibly held, by those who desire it. And it is non rational, and immoral, to force those who do not desire liberty, and who cannot or are unwilling to compete to do so. This means that the multi-house form of government was the only known solution to political cooperation. The aristocracy can choose liberty and private property, and the rent seekers and free riders can choose to communalize their efforts, and effectively charge the aristocracy for access to the market of consumers that consists of communal rent seekers and free riders.

    I can’t see an argument around that, which doesn’t violate the both the lower standard of NAP, and the higher moral standard of Propertarianism.

    And moral claims about the virtue of liberty are nonsensical. They are an attempt to obtain a discount without paying the high cost of suppressing free riding and rent seeking – an probably fraud as well.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-03 05:53:00 UTC