Form: Critique

YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH PROPERTARIANISM – HONEST OR NOT?

Over the past six months to a year, I have seen any number of people try to justify their anchoring philosophy (what they favor) using propertarianism. Or rather, to make propertarianism ‘fit’ their model. ( Why? (a) yesterday on christianity, (b) recently on libertarianism, (c) previously on anarcho capitalism. (d) repeatedly on various forms of literary reference. ) Usually because you want to justify some prior, or satisfy a moral intuition.

However, it works the other way around. Although the confusion is understandable.

Your model and values are EXPLAINABLE by propertarianism, just as ALL MODELS are explainable by propertarianism. Thats the point. You can not only explain all thought, all ethics and morals, all norms and sociology, all economics and politics, and all group evolutionary strategies – but you can develop TRUTHFUL constitutions and conduct truthful law to design and operate those social orders – no matter what they are.

However, because I explain western civilization, advocate a return to natural aristocracy, multi-house production of commons, and strict natural law; and because I want to end the century of pseudoscience and deceit; and because I state it will require violence to restore western civilization using these techniques, this tends to cause people to conflate the SCIENCE of natural law, with the APPLICATION of natural law to the the restoration and reformation of Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our past.

You can write a natural law (scientific) constitution and develop any familial, normative, economic, and political order that you want to assuming it can survive your assumptions about human nature, and you have the economic wherewithal to implement your institutions.

You can then justify that order scientifically, rationally, morally, religiously, or spiritually in whatever form of narrative literature that you desire to.

You can explain, in propertarian terms what your preferred familial, normative, economic and political order claimed in the past, no matter what language it did so in. You can explain many of your favorite parables, lessons, sayings, and givens. You can use it to correct the narrative of the past if you desire to. But…. you cannot escape the fact that propertarianism will expose the errors, deceptions, excuses, and parasitism that you think is ‘good’. And it will force you, if you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever, to accept that your order is not so much ‘good’, as a portfolio of goods, practicalities, inadequacies, and bads.

Why? Because human existence requires we defeat the natural entropy of the universe through cooperation. But that regardless of the productivity of our cooperation, our reproductive strategies if untamed ( or not weaponized ) result in hitting man’s malthusian limits, and therefore we all prey upon someone or other, or some group or other’s ambitions, even if we do not prey upon their investments other than their reproductive strategy.

Ergo: you must make a choice at some point to favor dysgenia or eugenia. Because that is the final question of decidability.

The first question of philosophy is why do i not commit suicide?

The first question of ethics and politics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff?

The last question of ethics and politics is eugenia or dysgenia.

But what I suspect, is that few of us possess the intellectual honesty to (a) admit our strategies are not goods but preferences, (b) decide what we would trade with those having different strategies to obtain our preference – that they would want in exchange. (c) decide the limit of trade as eugenic or dysgenic. (d) and to decide whether if we abandon trade if we are willing and able to resort to flight (not any longer) or to fight.