Theme: Sovereignty

  • ON SECESSION

    http://cnsnews.com/blog/patrick-j-buchanan/stirrings-secessionBUCHANNAN ON SECESSION


    Source date (UTC): 2012-12-01 02:25:00 UTC

  • SIZE OF NATIONS I argue in favor of small countries (not states) for simple reas

    http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/size-nations#.ULl0k5CpEjE.facebookTHE SIZE OF NATIONS

    I argue in favor of small countries (not states) for simple reasons:

    1) the high trust normative economy can develop with lowest transaction costs.

    2) Government’s emphasis is on selection of priorities using scarce resources, not profiting and expanding from conflict resolution between opposing minorities.

    3) Societies are more egalitarian when norms are homogenous.

    4) It is extremely difficult for small states to conduct war because they have limited access to credit via fiat money.

    5) They are better, happier, places to live. (the USA is still living off it’s stored social capital that peaked with the baby boom. Although that’s just about depleted.)


    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-30 22:16:00 UTC

  • MOVEMENT : A TIME FOR MORE COUNTRIES Rebuild Civic Society : Break Up The USA

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/a-time-for-more-nations/SECESSION MOVEMENT : A TIME FOR MORE COUNTRIES

    Rebuild Civic Society : Break Up The USA


    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-29 01:05:00 UTC

  • READS : SMALL HOMOGENOUS STATES ARE BEST FOR ALL A large state does nothing but

    http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/size-nations#.ULb5_zTaR9Y.facebookGREAT READS : SMALL HOMOGENOUS STATES ARE BEST FOR ALL

    A large state does nothing but allow greater debt, and greater debt both warfare, bad policy, corruption, and bad norms. Now, if we could just get it across that monarchy is superior to democracy.

    Break Up The United States.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-29 01:03:00 UTC

  • Trying To Define Libertarianism In One Hundred Words. (And Failing)

    LIBERTARIANISM:1) A sentiment giving precedence to individual liberty above care-taking and order. 2) A range of political biases that express that precedence as freedom from organized coercion through the minimization or elimination of monopolistic government — and therefore a reliance on the maximization of self organizing civic virtues and norms. 3) An institutional framework that is reliant upon the sole principle of several property that has been obtained by homesteading, manufacture, and voluntary exchange. The result of which maximizes peaceful human cooperation by facilitating the emergence of a market for goods and services where prices convey information that we use to determine our actions. 4) An explicit political philosophy that reduces all rights to property rights, and seeks to replace the monopoly of the abstract state and its attendant bureaucracy with private institutions that are subject to the pressures of market competition. (138 words)

  • Catalans rally for secession. One can only hope

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-12/thousands-turn-out-for-autonomy-rally-in-barcelona/4256036SECESSION

    Catalans rally for secession.

    One can only hope….


    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-13 19:18:00 UTC

  • ATTEMPT TO USE A UN TREATY TO CIRCUMVENT THE CONSTITUTION AVOIDED I really prefe

    ATTEMPT TO USE A UN TREATY TO CIRCUMVENT THE CONSTITUTION AVOIDED

    I really prefer to stick with political theory itself, rather than get involved in individual initiatives. But this is a great day to celebrate the avoidance of a terrible abuse of our system of government.

    It’s not common knowledge that Treaties have the same legal power as the constitution. They are effectively amendments. The Obama administration has been trying to accomplish through the treaty process what it could not accomplish through the democratic electoral, or legislative process.

    This is only one of the initiatives that the administration is using to circumvent the constitutional protections we enjoy. And it’s the first one to be defeated. Hopefully it will be only the fist to be defeated.

    Congratulations to everyone who wrote letters, emails and made phone calls.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-07-27 16:54:00 UTC

  • CASE FOR MAINTAINING AMERICAN MILITARY POWER Kagan is the greatest military hist

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307961311/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkTHE CASE FOR MAINTAINING AMERICAN MILITARY POWER

    Kagan is the greatest military historian alive, and likely one of the best in all of intellectual history. In this wonderful book, he cautions us not to abandon “The World America Made”. (The world the English people made, and the American people inherited upon the suicide of European civilization.) He uses the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the collapse of the European Empires to illustrate what would happen if American withdrew from her empire.

    Now, my approach is not as moralistic as Kagan’s. It’s entirely practical. That said, it is not in our interests to conduct nation building, or to subsidize Europe. In fact, my main criticism of imperialism is that we should withdraw from Europe and maintain our bases elsewhere. All that we accomplish by subsidy of Europe is to make possible the political culture there that the progressive left looks at imitating. All the while not comprehending that such a political culture is only possible under the protection of a benevolent empire like the USA.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-07-27 11:39:00 UTC

  • FROM QUORA: “Is Democracy a viable system for everyone?” ANSWER: By Curt Doolitt

    FROM QUORA: “Is Democracy a viable system for everyone?”

    ANSWER: By Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute.

    Democracy is, at best, a means of peacefully transferring power. But, if by this question, you mean, can representative democracy (a republic) or even a direct democracy (versus an economic democracy), serve the interests of everyone, the answer is apparently “no” for the following reasons.

    a) Majority rule is a means by which a group with similar moral codes and material interests can set PRIORITIES for the use of scarce resources. Because moral codes conflict at the most basic level, It is not possible to use majority rule for groups with competing moral codes and competing material interests to resolve conflicts over GOALS. Democracy is a means of obtaining majority rule.

    b) The lower, working and lower middle classes are and will always be, the largest pool of potential voters. Therefore elites from all moral codes and interest groups w will simply compete for the votes of these groups.

    c) The protestant west was unique in that the church managed to break familial bonds by the long term prohibition of intermarriage, and by granting women property rights. Combined with germanic individualism, and the common law, this made possible the fairly low level of corruption in the west, that is endemic elsewhere. It also gave rise the the universalist ethic, which is contrary to the natural familial and tribal ethic. This is a very long topic on it’s own, but basically the west is fairly unique. China and India cannot solve the problem of corruption for example from different ends of the spectrum. India remains familial and china authoritarian.

    d) We have fairly good data now, that moral codes vary considerably, and that they are slanted toward the reproductive strategies of the two genders. Therefore those things that serve one moral code often violate another. Those things that violate some moral codes (famlilialism) are necessary for democracy to function.

    e) It appears that the philosophers were right, and that a population that can vote itself payments from others will create a fragile economy. This is a particular weakness of the western model versus say the Singaporean and Galveston models, whereby individual accountability is maintained.

    f) There are dominant cognitive biases on the left and right. the left is victim of the false consensus bias, and the right overestimates threats and risks, and the libertarians overestimate human beings. These cognitive problems are impossible to resolve by majority rule.

    I have to rush so hopefully this brief outline will illustrate the problem


    Source date (UTC): 2012-07-16 01:09:00 UTC

  • QUESTION FROM QUORA: What is being done to prevent the development of a “cold wa

    QUESTION FROM QUORA: What is being done to prevent the development of a “cold war” between China and the US in the coming years?

    Answer by Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute.

    The USA is attempting to allow China to peacefully rise by use of commercial power rather than military power. Commerce creates consumption which addicts citizens to consumerism, which then makes it difficult for governments to jeopardize without insurrection. That is the only strategy. The USA prefers the world consist of good commercial citizens.

    The fundamental problem though, is that China is a populous and very poor country that also contains conquered and rebellious territories, open to insurrection, and the wealthy coasts can be militarily devastated, and driven to starvation by blockading access to the South China Sea. The Chinese are quite aware of this vulnerability, plus they have a ‘chip’ on their shoulders from both british conquest, the failure of Marxism, and extended poverty, and the impact of those events upon the cultural mythology of Chinese superiority as the center of the world.

    Furthermore, their rise is complicated by the fact that they do not subscribe to the western moral code that currently is enforced by the United States on world trade — a code we take for granted but is antithetical to the Chinese. (We resolve conflicts quickly and rely upon honesty and they wait for opportunity using deception. This difference in ethics pervades both cultures.)

    The USA currently polices the world system of trade (largely the seas) because it took over the British naval bases at the end of the world wars. And petrodollars allow us to fund that policing. We sell dollars to other countries as debt, which they then use to buy oil, and then we inflate away the debt. This is how we ‘tax’ the developed world for our expensive military ‘services’. Services which they object to, but in particular, Europe and Japan do not object to not having to pay for directly themselves (nor could they).

    However, this system of indirect taxation which is breaking down, and the USA can no longer count on those advantages because of demographic reasons, competitive reasons due to internationalization of labor and technology, and monetary reasons due to the use of other currencies as petroleum and reserve currencies.

    General consensus among strategic thinkers is that the USA’s power will decline slowly and that Chinese rise will be moderated at some near point by simple economic pressures. The more radical thinkers suggest that most empires like the USA do not decline slowly, but very rapidly over a period of less than 50 years, and that the standard of living of the average american will be so significantly affected by the loss in purchasing power, that existing political tensions will be drastically exacerbated, sufficiently so that we will have our own problems of insurrection.

    In other words, both countries are more vulnerable to internal pressures due to China’s rise than they are to conflict with one another. The alternative school of thought suggests that when empires succumb to internal conflict, then they exaggerate external threats in order to pressure the citizens to stay united (see Iran for example). So that once the states and china experience internal pressures they will conduct a war over it. I tend to think this is unlikely because the USA’s citizens will have internalized it’s decline by that time.

    As I understand it, that is the current thinking in as short a summary as I can place it.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-07-15 15:39:00 UTC