Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sovereignty

  • yes, although, we need to keep in mind that just as americans sought to escape b

    yes, although, we need to keep in mind that just as americans sought to escape british debt paid for their defense, these austrians sought to escape debt in their defense. So market govt requres taking debts with you….

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-14 06:11:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051354759087697921

    Reply addressees: @SaltwaterGroyp1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051326429026181121

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051326429026181121

  • A Question About Hoppe, and Private States as Corporations

    October 12th, 2018 1:56 PM (good read for libertarians esp, but all in general.)

    —“Hey Curt, I have a question about a subject I’ve been rolling around in my mind for a while, and you said you’re always happy to answer questions, so here goes: I’m starting from Hoppe’s incentives-based analysis which showed a monarchy is preferable to a democracy when running a State. What’s been bugging me about that, is how do you prevent the fall and decline of a new monarchy, just like the way all other monarchies collapsed?”—

    [W]ell, monarchies collapsed because of 1) gunpowder crushing the value of professional warriors who were committed to preservation of the hierarchy, 2) the conversion from agrarian production to trade as the source of wealth, and therefore the rise of middle/upper-middle class power and influence, 3) the failure to adapt to that power change at the rate it was occurring, 4) the french conquest of europe forcing the unification of germany, 5) the use of democracy by the middle class to seize power from the monarchies, by extending the franchise, 6) the communist-socialist movement, attempt to overthrow middle class rule and 7) the american prevention of the restoration of the monarchies after the first and second world wars: “There never would have been a hitler if a Hohenzollern had been on the throne.” I mean. Monarchies are still extant where americans(anglos) or communists(jews) didn’t destroy them. And those are the most successful countries. America wold not be in current position if she had a constitutional monarchy instead of a bureaucratic oligarchical presidency.

    —“Since there wasn’t any model I knew of in history (and that’s perhaps a dark spot you could illuminate) which answered this issue, I had to synthesize a new model, injecting some ideas from Moldbug’s formalism. “—

    As an aside, Most men, I would give the same advice: “Read more and deduce from a position of ignorance less.”

    —“Since the base rationale of running a State as a monarchy is keeping it in trust and for profit why not literally run the monarchy as a corporation? The king can be both the owner and CEO, the aristocracy can be the board of directors, and instead of treating the people like subjects, you treat them like employees, which keeps them more vested in the well being of the organization, aligned with its purposes, and leaves more room for meritocratic advancement.”—

    I guess I’m confused but that was Hoppe’s point right? That a monarchy was a privately held corporation and the territory and capital its assets and the people could move between these territories, and monarchies competed for productive talent (the way current states compete for rent seekers). Therefore the monarchy would have intergenerational incentives to preserve and accumulate capital (mutliple-producing-commons), where ‘rentiers’ would try to (and did) consume all that capital – and are now consuming even genetic capital. The problem is the difference between via-positiva (government producing commons), and via-negativa (law producing limitations on actions). As you grow from small to large the monarch like a ceo must distribute the labor of governance until his only remaining function is ‘judge of last resort’ in matters that cannot be resolved by others: usually great questions of the day, and whether to go to war. So the monarchies (france in particular) that modernized (Prussia, most germany, everyone other than france and italy which were endemically corrupt), were able to produce professional administrators (ministers) and bureaucracies (bureaucrats), that worked in the people and monarchy’s interests – and were successful. But as scale increases this becomes increasingly harder. So many small kingdoms (market) that trade is preferable to one large empire that manages (monopoly), except in war, but napoleon and russia set off the wars of expansion, with germany (wwii) trying to reverse that conquest of central europe (german civilization). The problem is in producing those organizations that perform the functions of investor in competitive commons and industries, justice, treasury, insurer of last resort. And the argument is that privately held services do a better job than do bureaucracies because bureaucracies are not subject to market competition. However, like all start ups, it may require a investment in producing the capability before the service is capable of functioning in the market. So the optimum appears to be in creating a monopoly bureaucracy until it is competent, then privatizing that industry by selling it to investors, while retaining majority interest (in control of it). Ergo. yes private market organizations that compete for the accumulation of intergenerational capital are in the long term in the interests of the people within them, just as collectivist corporations that constitute monopolies that consume all capital and intergenerational compaital are in the long term againsts the intersets of the people in them.

    —“It also seems rather conductive to promoting a “libertarian social order”.”—

    Well that’s his point now, isn’t it? 😉

    —“There are also historical small scale examples where this was attempted in the form of company towns or campuses run by corporations, which as far as I know usually turned up pretty well.”–

    That’s libertarian nonsense. The only such organizations exist as border regions under the protection of strong states. No examples in history exist otherwise. Fringe players assume risks in order to settle border territories and hold them in the State’s name against settle ment by competitors, and in exchange pay little or no taxes because of the service they are providing the state. This same activity is not possible without state protection. this is why all libertarianism is nonsense: one holds territory because one can fight to hold it from competitors. That is reality. Economies make it possible to afford the men, resources, and tools to fight to hold that territory, and use the surpluses for consumption and capital accumulation.

    —“I’m really curious to hear your thoughts on the idea, and if there is any literature on the model”—

    Well now you have them. 😉 Your intuition was on but I think you missed hoppe’s point. Hoppe wanted to create ‘free cities’ of germany like rothbard wanted to create ‘free cities’ of ukraine. The similarity is that germany and ukraine were territories under the protection of great powers. And that is the only reason free cities were allowed: to hold (reserve) territory in the name of a power. Hoppe and rothbard both practice the same denialism: war is the most profitable industry for the winner. The military comes first before all other commons. The military makes possible rule of law. Rule of law makes possible commerce. Commerce makes possible wealth. Wealth attracts population and reproduction and trade continuously, and the military capacity and legal capacity must keep pace with the increasing demand by others to conquer and tax that territory.

    —“Keep up the excellent work, I really enjoy your posts”—

    Hugs. Let’s fight the good fight. 😉

  • A Question About Hoppe, and Private States as Corporations

    October 12th, 2018 1:56 PM (good read for libertarians esp, but all in general.)

    —“Hey Curt, I have a question about a subject I’ve been rolling around in my mind for a while, and you said you’re always happy to answer questions, so here goes: I’m starting from Hoppe’s incentives-based analysis which showed a monarchy is preferable to a democracy when running a State. What’s been bugging me about that, is how do you prevent the fall and decline of a new monarchy, just like the way all other monarchies collapsed?”—

    [W]ell, monarchies collapsed because of 1) gunpowder crushing the value of professional warriors who were committed to preservation of the hierarchy, 2) the conversion from agrarian production to trade as the source of wealth, and therefore the rise of middle/upper-middle class power and influence, 3) the failure to adapt to that power change at the rate it was occurring, 4) the french conquest of europe forcing the unification of germany, 5) the use of democracy by the middle class to seize power from the monarchies, by extending the franchise, 6) the communist-socialist movement, attempt to overthrow middle class rule and 7) the american prevention of the restoration of the monarchies after the first and second world wars: “There never would have been a hitler if a Hohenzollern had been on the throne.” I mean. Monarchies are still extant where americans(anglos) or communists(jews) didn’t destroy them. And those are the most successful countries. America wold not be in current position if she had a constitutional monarchy instead of a bureaucratic oligarchical presidency.

    —“Since there wasn’t any model I knew of in history (and that’s perhaps a dark spot you could illuminate) which answered this issue, I had to synthesize a new model, injecting some ideas from Moldbug’s formalism. “—

    As an aside, Most men, I would give the same advice: “Read more and deduce from a position of ignorance less.”

    —“Since the base rationale of running a State as a monarchy is keeping it in trust and for profit why not literally run the monarchy as a corporation? The king can be both the owner and CEO, the aristocracy can be the board of directors, and instead of treating the people like subjects, you treat them like employees, which keeps them more vested in the well being of the organization, aligned with its purposes, and leaves more room for meritocratic advancement.”—

    I guess I’m confused but that was Hoppe’s point right? That a monarchy was a privately held corporation and the territory and capital its assets and the people could move between these territories, and monarchies competed for productive talent (the way current states compete for rent seekers). Therefore the monarchy would have intergenerational incentives to preserve and accumulate capital (mutliple-producing-commons), where ‘rentiers’ would try to (and did) consume all that capital – and are now consuming even genetic capital. The problem is the difference between via-positiva (government producing commons), and via-negativa (law producing limitations on actions). As you grow from small to large the monarch like a ceo must distribute the labor of governance until his only remaining function is ‘judge of last resort’ in matters that cannot be resolved by others: usually great questions of the day, and whether to go to war. So the monarchies (france in particular) that modernized (Prussia, most germany, everyone other than france and italy which were endemically corrupt), were able to produce professional administrators (ministers) and bureaucracies (bureaucrats), that worked in the people and monarchy’s interests – and were successful. But as scale increases this becomes increasingly harder. So many small kingdoms (market) that trade is preferable to one large empire that manages (monopoly), except in war, but napoleon and russia set off the wars of expansion, with germany (wwii) trying to reverse that conquest of central europe (german civilization). The problem is in producing those organizations that perform the functions of investor in competitive commons and industries, justice, treasury, insurer of last resort. And the argument is that privately held services do a better job than do bureaucracies because bureaucracies are not subject to market competition. However, like all start ups, it may require a investment in producing the capability before the service is capable of functioning in the market. So the optimum appears to be in creating a monopoly bureaucracy until it is competent, then privatizing that industry by selling it to investors, while retaining majority interest (in control of it). Ergo. yes private market organizations that compete for the accumulation of intergenerational capital are in the long term in the interests of the people within them, just as collectivist corporations that constitute monopolies that consume all capital and intergenerational compaital are in the long term againsts the intersets of the people in them.

    —“It also seems rather conductive to promoting a “libertarian social order”.”—

    Well that’s his point now, isn’t it? 😉

    —“There are also historical small scale examples where this was attempted in the form of company towns or campuses run by corporations, which as far as I know usually turned up pretty well.”–

    That’s libertarian nonsense. The only such organizations exist as border regions under the protection of strong states. No examples in history exist otherwise. Fringe players assume risks in order to settle border territories and hold them in the State’s name against settle ment by competitors, and in exchange pay little or no taxes because of the service they are providing the state. This same activity is not possible without state protection. this is why all libertarianism is nonsense: one holds territory because one can fight to hold it from competitors. That is reality. Economies make it possible to afford the men, resources, and tools to fight to hold that territory, and use the surpluses for consumption and capital accumulation.

    —“I’m really curious to hear your thoughts on the idea, and if there is any literature on the model”—

    Well now you have them. 😉 Your intuition was on but I think you missed hoppe’s point. Hoppe wanted to create ‘free cities’ of germany like rothbard wanted to create ‘free cities’ of ukraine. The similarity is that germany and ukraine were territories under the protection of great powers. And that is the only reason free cities were allowed: to hold (reserve) territory in the name of a power. Hoppe and rothbard both practice the same denialism: war is the most profitable industry for the winner. The military comes first before all other commons. The military makes possible rule of law. Rule of law makes possible commerce. Commerce makes possible wealth. Wealth attracts population and reproduction and trade continuously, and the military capacity and legal capacity must keep pace with the increasing demand by others to conquer and tax that territory.

    —“Keep up the excellent work, I really enjoy your posts”—

    Hugs. Let’s fight the good fight. 😉

  • A QUESTION ABOUT HOPPE, AND PRIVATE STATES AS CORPORATIONS (good read for libert

    A QUESTION ABOUT HOPPE, AND PRIVATE STATES AS CORPORATIONS

    (good read for libertarians esp, but all in general.)

    —“Hey Curt, I have a question about a subject I’ve been rolling around in my mind for a while, and you said you’re always happy to answer questions, so here goes: I’m starting from Hoppe’s incentives-based analysis which showed a monarchy is preferable to a democracy when running a State. What’s been bugging me about that, is how do you prevent the fall and decline of a new monarchy, just like the way all other monarchies collapsed?”—

    Well, monarchies collapsed because of 1) gunpowder crushing the value of professional warriors who were committed to preservation of the hierarchy, 2) the conversion from agrarian production to trade as the source of wealth, and therefore the rise of middle/upper-middle class power and influence, 3) the failure to adapt to that power change at the rate it was occurring, 4) the french conquest of europe forcing the unification of germany, 5) the use of democracy by the middle class to seize power from the monarchies, by extending the franchise, 6) the communist-socialist movement, attempt to overthrow middle class rule and 7) the american prevention of the restoration of the monarchies after the first and second world wars: “There never would have been a hitler if a Hohenzollern had been on the throne.”

    I mean. Monarchies are still extant where americans(anglos) or communists(jews) didn’t destroy them. And those are the most successful countries. America wold not be in current position if she had a constitutional monarchy instead of a bureaucratic oligarchical presidency.

    —“Since there wasn’t any model I knew of in history (and that’s perhaps a dark spot you could illuminate) which answered this issue, I had to synthesize a new model, injecting some ideas from Moldbug’s formalism. “—

    As an aside, Most men, I would give the same advice: “Read more and deduce from a position of ignorance less.”

    —“Since the base rationale of running a State as a monarchy is keeping it in trust and for profit why not literally run the monarchy as a corporation? The king can be both the owner and CEO, the aristocracy can be the board of directors, and instead of treating the people like subjects, you treat them like employees, which keeps them more vested in the well being of the organization, aligned with its purposes, and leaves more room for meritocratic advancement.”—

    I guess I’m confused but that was Hoppe’s point right? That a monarchy was a privately held corporation and the territory and capital its assets and the people could move between these territories, and monarchies competed for productive talent (the way current states compete for rent seekers). Therefore the monarchy would have intergenerational incentives to preserve and accumulate capital (mutliple-producing-commons), where ‘rentiers’ would try to (and did) consume all that capital – and are now consuming even genetic capital.

    The problem is the difference between via-positiva (government producing commons), and via-negativa (law producing limitations on actions). As you grow from small to large the monarch like a ceo must distribute the labor of governance until his only remaining function is ‘judge of last resort’ in matters that cannot be resolved by others: usually great questions of the day, and whether to go to war.

    So the monarchies (france in particular) that modernized (Prussia, most germany, everyone other than france and italy which were endemically corrupt), were able to produce professional administrators (ministers) and bureaucracies (bureaucrats), that worked in the people and monarchy’s interests – and were successful. But as scale increases this becomes increasingly harder.

    So many small kingdoms (market) that trade is preferable to one large empire that manages (monopoly), except in war, but napoleon and russia set off the wars of expansion, with germany (wwii) trying to reverse that conquest of central europe (german civilization).

    The problem is in producing those organizations that perform the functions of investor in competitive commons and industries, justice, treasury, insurer of last resort. And the argument is that privately held services do a better job than do bureaucracies because bureaucracies are not subject to market competition. However, like all start ups, it may require a investment in producing the capability before the service is capable of functioning in the market. So the optimum appears to be in creating a monopoly bureaucracy until it is competent, then privatizing that industry by selling it to investors, while retaining majority interest (in control of it).

    Ergo. yes private market organizations that compete for the accumulation of intergenerational capital are in the long term in the interests of the people within them, just as collectivist corporations that constitute monopolies that consume all capital and intergenerational compaital are in the long term againsts the intersets of the people in them.

    —“It also seems rather conductive to promoting a “libertarian social order”.”—

    Well that’s his point now, isn’t it? 😉

    —“There are also historical small scale examples where this was attempted in the form of company towns or campuses run by corporations, which as far as I know usually turned up pretty well.”–

    That’s libertarian nonsense. The only such organizations exist as border regions under the protection of strong states. No examples in history exist otherwise. Fringe players assume risks in order to settle border territories and hold them in the State’s name against settle ment by competitors, and in exchange pay little or no taxes because of the service they are providing the state. This same activity is not possible without state protection. this is why all libertarianism is nonsense: one holds territory because one can fight to hold it from competitors. That is reality. Economies make it possible to afford the men, resources, and tools to fight to hold that territory, and use the surpluses for consumption and capital accumulation.

    —“I’m really curious to hear your thoughts on the idea, and if there is any literature on the model”—

    Well now you have them. 😉 Your intuition was on but I think you missed hoppe’s point. Hoppe wanted to create ‘free cities’ of germany like rothbard wanted to create ‘free cities’ of ukraine. The similarity is that germany and ukraine were territories under the protection of great powers. And that is the only reason free cities were allowed: to hold (reserve) territory in the name of a power.

    Hoppe and rothbard both practice the same denialism: war is the most profitable industry for the winner. The military comes first before all other commons. The military makes possible rule of law. Rule of law makes possible commerce. Commerce makes possible wealth. Wealth attracts population and reproduction and trade continuously, and the military capacity and legal capacity must keep pace with the increasing demand by others to conquer and tax that territory.

    —“Keep up the excellent work, I really enjoy your posts”—

    Hugs. Let’s fight the good fight. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-12 13:56:00 UTC

  • FRANCE IS THE ENEMY OF EUROPE (Really) AND THE WEST Long term, while She can fee

    FRANCE IS THE ENEMY OF EUROPE (Really) AND THE WEST

    Long term, while She can feed herself, and provide her own energy, and capture enough taxation to project local power, France has been, and will continue to be, the Enemy of European civilization – attempting at all times to drag her into feminine mediterraneanism and semiticism, while Germany must continuously expand her trade to maintain her position, and integrate with eastern europe, and russia for agrarian production (poland, ukraine), labor (poland, ukraine, russia), and resources (russia), while maintaining her relations with italy (seaports, aesthetics). Only Russia understands the threat to eurasia because only Russia faces it all along her borders. France has surrendered to it, but then France of the north may be German, but France of the south is Mediterranean, and Paris is but new Jerusalem in postmodern sophist rather than semitic supernatural prose, sold to gullible women and men of the academy who cannot produce by commercial, scientific, and military means.

    (WHY IS CURT STARTING THIS DISCUSSION: France, not Germany, is positioned to dominate europe upon the withdrawal of the USA from functioning as the word’s police force.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-12 13:26:00 UTC

  • “Democracy (majoritarian monopoly) is little more than the search for power by m

    “Democracy (majoritarian monopoly) is little more than the search for power by means external to the market.”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-11 16:27:00 UTC

  • IMMEDIATELY BAN ALL CHINESE ELECTRONICS AND REPATRIATE ALL RELATED INDUSTRIES

    IMMEDIATELY BAN ALL CHINESE ELECTRONICS AND REPATRIATE ALL RELATED INDUSTRIES

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/new-evidence-of-hacked-supermicro-hardware-found-in-u-s-telecom

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 20:01:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049751675857227783

  • LIBERALISM VS ABSOLUTISM As usual, the study of Philosophy is almost always used

    LIBERALISM VS ABSOLUTISM

    As usual, the study of Philosophy is almost always used as simply a reformation of the study of Theology. In that sense, it’s a sophism of the pre-scientific period, or a pseudoscience in the present.

    1 – Morality (rules of good (non-retaliatory), and bad (retaliatory) display word and deed)

    (a) morality can refer to objective (reciprocal) as in international conflict and law, (b) traditional (contextual) as in civilizational/national/political rules in favor of group evolutionary strategy, (c)normative (contextual) as in class, locality, and disciplinary in favor of social political and commercial cooperation, (d) conflated with legal (which is common). In all cases, from intuition, to norm, to law, all moral rules reflect the incentives and rewards necessary in the given competitive order.

    2 – Liberalism (european), Classical Liberalism(american), Conservatism(Anglo) (center-right) vs Anarchism(jewish), Libertinism(Jewish), Libertarianism(anglo/continental) (center-Left),

    (a) the purpose of tolerating liberalism is to generate increasing revenues because those revenues increase the state (authoritarian) power, just as the purpose of tolerating theology is to decrease costs and increased revenue through discounts on the cost of suppression.

    (b) the problem with authoritarian regimes is that the bureaucracy not the authority ends up ruling, maximizing rents, and consuming the profits that make externalization of power possible.

    (c) the problem

    (…) 50 more examples here I won’t waste my time on.

    CONCLUDING

    Liberalism (market society) isn’t beneficial because it is moral, or because it’s ‘legitimate’ in someone’s mind, but because it is the cheapest means of producing COMPETITIVE POWER at the lowest administrative cost, with the greatest opportunity to suppress rents, providing the rulers with the greatest opportunity to exert power.

    Democracy is rather ridiculous and certainly a failed experiment outside of producing a constantly rotating senate (oligarchy), and monarchy is clearly superior at the conduct of war and the production of durable commons. But liberalism is simply a scheme for reaping the highest returns from the population given that money, prices, and markets allow the population to be self governing, and corruption limited and inexpensive.

    The problem with absolutism is that it’s highly error prone at the expense of easy replacement by Regicide – usually by the Regent’s own family. The problem with non-kin absolutism (corporatism), is that it sorts for the most malincentivized leadership.

    The optimum government is one that, like the roman, concentrates power for war, and redistributes power for normal times, and redistributes income from windfalls.

    The search for monopoly is merely the naive and not very bright youthful mind searching for that which it can comprehend.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 09:19:00 UTC

  • 3) Markets, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Sovereignty, Meritocracy, Rule of Law. The

    3) Markets, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Sovereignty, Meritocracy, Rule of Law. These aren’t Progressive/Liberal/Left interests.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 03:47:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1049506610593361920

    Reply addressees: @NoahRevoy @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657

    IN REPLY TO:

    @NoahRevoy

    Many on the left think that @jordanbpeterson has become too divisive to continue as a university professor. At this point no outcome is acceptable therefore I publically call on Peterson to step aside so that a less divisive person can be appointed to teach his courses.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1048916888997318657

  • “US experts say that the Russians are not capable of taking a direct clash with

    —“US experts say that the Russians are not capable of taking a direct clash with an army of equal manpower sounds weird indeed.”—

    This is not a question of Russian bravery (which no one doubts) or Russian skill (which no one doubts) or Russian technology (which fell behind but is catching up), but a question of Economics. America has a vast number of combat experienced troops, and can put men and equipment in the field anywhere faster and with more operational coordination. Americans have spent a great deal of time with current combined arms and technology. And the men are well trained in large numbers to use it.

    No one questions Russians militarily. But Russia has not had enough time to recover population, skills, diverse economy, technological manufacturing capacity, and rule of law, to fight among the great powers. What Russia has is missiles. These missiles can be used precisely once. If they are used, there may be no USA, or no world, but there will be no Russia either. Americans will not do that. Particularly to “Our own people in Christendom”.

    No one thinks Russians are that stupid. 😉 Just Proud. And we like it that Russians are Strong and Proud.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-07 23:03:00 UTC