Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sovereignty

  • WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF POLITICAL POWER? –“Curt: Political power ultimately origi

    WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF POLITICAL POWER?

    –“Curt: Political power ultimately originates from Economics or exchange, right?”—

    I am not sure I understand this question.

    There are three methods of power: 1) force, 2) payment, 3) gossip.

    One can use those three methods exclusively or in combination to band together into groups or hierarchies, and the focus the group’s efforts on the application of force, payment, or gossip (rallying/shaming/including/ostracizing).

    Political power – meaning anything ranging from monopoly producer of commons to a distributed production of commons – can be constructed from any one or combination of, those methods of coercion.

    Political power originates in the ability of humans to organize and coerce.

    It just so happens that we use gossip to rally and shame and ostracize people from production and opportunity for consumption.

    But then we scale.

    It just so happens that you need to use violence to suppress parasitism sufficiently for a market to form, at that scale.

    But then we scale further.

    And then to use law to suppress cheating, fraud, and to impose performance, and restitution, and if necessary, punishment.

    But then we scale further.

    And then we use wealth created by the application of violence and law and to force market participation rather than parasitism, to pay off those who cannot be forced.

    And then, we hit the novel inflection point, and scale further:

    And so we then use force, law and gossip to suppress the suppressors, and rely entirely upon rule of law, without a group that exercises power.

    So the sooner one develops rule of law, the sooner one starts suppressing the parasitism of the monopoly.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-03 06:23:00 UTC

  • Friedman: #Putin has 2 years to hold #Russia together “Putin is more dangerous n

    http://www.businessinsider.com/george-friedman-putin-more-dangerous-than-ever-2016-1George Friedman: #Putin has 2 years to hold #Russia together

    “Putin is more dangerous now than ever.”

    Putin thinks like a Russian. (And not like a Jew or Protestant). And he plays the long game. Friedman is right about Putin’s resources. He is not right about what Russia and Putin will do -or how much they will bear – to restore their self confidence.

    He will, in asiatic fashion, slowly withdraw and claim victories, and claim that his mission has been accomplished, and that now that russia’s place in the world has been restored, it is time to redouble russian efforts at home, and focus on the economy, to transform it from dependence upon oil, and to build her people, and the future.

    He can do this because he can crush dissent, and chant this meme on the media. We forget that a competitive press is not always a good thing because like the stock market it focuses constantly on the short term.

    And it is right for him and them as far as I know.

    My position on Russia remains constant: speak the truth and that’s enough. Eastern Europe cannot be Russia’s. Russians are not capable of moral rule – even of themselves – yet. And eastern europeans do not need rule. They need a middle class. The last thing they need is more Russian influence.

    But other than this, expansion into the more primitive countries, the suppression of islam, and unity between russia and china and the west is a good thing. We still have much of the world to civilize.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 05:52:00 UTC

  • My @Quora answer to Libertarianism: could the government be considered as a powe

    My @Quora answer to Libertarianism: could the government be considered as a powerful landowner and could its power … https://www.quora.com/Libertarianism-could-the-government-be-considered-as-a-powerful-landowner-and-could-its-power-be-justified-on-these-grounds/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=c8ec7eb4

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 08:10:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690446348588572672

  • Libertarianism: Could The Government Be Considered As A Powerful Landowner And Could Its Power Be Justified On These Grounds?

    A lot of things can be ‘considered’ but they must be ‘accepted’ in order for us to agree to act upon them together, and they must survive while performing their function without failing to provide their promised ends.

    At present the ‘government’ (state) is ‘considered and accepted’ to function as a corporation, and citizens as common shareholders.

    Most libertarians feel that both the corporate state and the corporate business are mistakes, because they are managed using democratic voting, using monopoly bureaucracies,  creating legislation, and the members of the government are protected from prosecution under the common law – rather than private property (a partnership), competing private providers of services, who can only create contracts,  all of whom are accountable under the common law.

    So in short, libertarianism does not rely on economic aggregates, ‘common goods’, ‘states’, all of which are … let us say, pseudoscientific concepts.  And instead, we prefer ‘calculable and testable’ human relations that mimic the market. 

    The question has been “How do we create such post-state institutions?”  I don’t think that until I came along anyone had solved it.  (Really. If they did I couldn’t find it.)


    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Libertarianism-could-the-government-be-considered-as-a-powerful-landowner-and-could-its-power-be-justified-on-these-grounds

  • Libertarianism: Could The Government Be Considered As A Powerful Landowner And Could Its Power Be Justified On These Grounds?

    A lot of things can be ‘considered’ but they must be ‘accepted’ in order for us to agree to act upon them together, and they must survive while performing their function without failing to provide their promised ends.

    At present the ‘government’ (state) is ‘considered and accepted’ to function as a corporation, and citizens as common shareholders.

    Most libertarians feel that both the corporate state and the corporate business are mistakes, because they are managed using democratic voting, using monopoly bureaucracies,  creating legislation, and the members of the government are protected from prosecution under the common law – rather than private property (a partnership), competing private providers of services, who can only create contracts,  all of whom are accountable under the common law.

    So in short, libertarianism does not rely on economic aggregates, ‘common goods’, ‘states’, all of which are … let us say, pseudoscientific concepts.  And instead, we prefer ‘calculable and testable’ human relations that mimic the market. 

    The question has been “How do we create such post-state institutions?”  I don’t think that until I came along anyone had solved it.  (Really. If they did I couldn’t find it.)


    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Libertarianism-could-the-government-be-considered-as-a-powerful-landowner-and-could-its-power-be-justified-on-these-grounds

  • “A country is not a nation but a territory. A nation is a people not a corporati

    —“A country is not a nation but a territory. A nation is a people not a corporation. Nor is a corporation a person – but a partnership we sanction with limited liability acting ourselves as the insurer of last resort.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 09:35:00 UTC

  • Is The United States A Rogue State?

    The problem with american policy is that it’s policy is utopian. 

    1. The postwar consensus was that states needed to focus internally on capitalism and human rights, and stay within their borders, so that we don’t have another civil war. Unfortunately americans promote democracy AND consumer capitalism instead of consumer capitalism regardless of political order.
    2. Democracy is a bad idea. Its not a cause of prosperity. It is a luxury good – a conspicuous consumption for wealthy societies, and creates chaos and suffering elsewhere.
    3. American postwar policy says ‘choose the government you want”.  what we don’t say is “but if you choose badly we will send you back to the stone age”.  Unfortunately, human instinct is parasitic: people choose badly.  Why? no enlightenment, no chivalry, no high trust, no prohibition on cousin marriage, and unfortunately, a full standard deviation in lower median IQ.
    4. People are not oppressed so much as parasites that need domestication.
    5. The west is better off than the rest not because of our virtues, but because for one thousand years we hung 1/2 to 1% of the underclass every year, controlled access to farm land, delayed childbirth, prohibited cousin marriage, and starved the rest.  SO most of the west is decendent from the middle class.  The rest of the world hasn’t done this (other than china and Japan) and so they are disproporionately impuslive, aggressive, and of lower intelligence than westerners.
    6. Europe failed in its colonial efforts to national detriments.  We have colonized Europe to its detriment.  Ottoman colonies are the source of world conflict.  The germans were probably right in the first world war, and we should have stayed out of it.  We tend to be wrong a lot. Other than the war on communism – we tend to be wrong a lot.

      Is that uncomfortable? It’s true.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-United-States-a-Rogue-State

  • Does China Actually Care About North Korea?

    China cares about damaging american power, maintaining the power of the party so that they can prevent the fragmentation of the Chinese (Han) Empire, and restoring her position as ‘center of the world’, in order to gain economic, political and military advantage.


    North Korea helps and hurts this strategy.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-China-actually-care-about-North-Korea

  • Is The United States A Rogue State?

    The problem with american policy is that it’s policy is utopian. 

    1. The postwar consensus was that states needed to focus internally on capitalism and human rights, and stay within their borders, so that we don’t have another civil war. Unfortunately americans promote democracy AND consumer capitalism instead of consumer capitalism regardless of political order.
    2. Democracy is a bad idea. Its not a cause of prosperity. It is a luxury good – a conspicuous consumption for wealthy societies, and creates chaos and suffering elsewhere.
    3. American postwar policy says ‘choose the government you want”.  what we don’t say is “but if you choose badly we will send you back to the stone age”.  Unfortunately, human instinct is parasitic: people choose badly.  Why? no enlightenment, no chivalry, no high trust, no prohibition on cousin marriage, and unfortunately, a full standard deviation in lower median IQ.
    4. People are not oppressed so much as parasites that need domestication.
    5. The west is better off than the rest not because of our virtues, but because for one thousand years we hung 1/2 to 1% of the underclass every year, controlled access to farm land, delayed childbirth, prohibited cousin marriage, and starved the rest.  SO most of the west is decendent from the middle class.  The rest of the world hasn’t done this (other than china and Japan) and so they are disproporionately impuslive, aggressive, and of lower intelligence than westerners.
    6. Europe failed in its colonial efforts to national detriments.  We have colonized Europe to its detriment.  Ottoman colonies are the source of world conflict.  The germans were probably right in the first world war, and we should have stayed out of it.  We tend to be wrong a lot. Other than the war on communism – we tend to be wrong a lot.

      Is that uncomfortable? It’s true.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-United-States-a-Rogue-State

  • Does China Actually Care About North Korea?

    China cares about damaging american power, maintaining the power of the party so that they can prevent the fragmentation of the Chinese (Han) Empire, and restoring her position as ‘center of the world’, in order to gain economic, political and military advantage.


    North Korea helps and hurts this strategy.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-China-actually-care-about-North-Korea