Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • The Difference Between Cognitively Meaningful, and Existentially True

    –“or put another way “But one thing is the thought, another thing is the deed, and another thing is the idea of the deed. The wheel of causality doth not roll between them”.—

    [L]aurence, (Danny), Exactly. I tend to describe this problem as the Point of View in the grammar of testimony. (my emphasis being that it remain constant – meaning non-conflationary – lest we not engage in escaping the test of knowledge of causality by the speaker).

    • Experience: “But one thing is the thought,”
      Action: “another thing is the deed,”
      Observation: “and another thing is the idea of the deed.”

    Because we are human, because we can empathize with other humans (or cooperation would be impossible), we can as observer suggest both action and experience. But because we are human, and we do not yet know the first principles of the universe, we can manage only observation. And if we can construct an experiment then we can act, and record our actions – but the universe merely reacts to us. We are mere observers until we can construct a sufficiently thorough model of the universe that we can empathize with it as we do other men. It is also possible (though difficult to imagine) that we cannot do so. This difference between the empathically testable and the empathically untestable, is the reason for the necessity of praxeological explanation of social science, and operational description of physical science in order to test whether we imagine a sequence of imaginary relations, or whether we can describe a sequence of extant causal relations. We are forever in frustrated by the fact that the physical universe appears deterministic even if we cannot empathize with it, while the human universe is less deterministic despite that we’re able to empathize with it, for the simple reason that while humans are marginally indifferent at scale, and can act consistently in their interests, that humans can react to combinations of memory and information that we are as insulated from observing as we are the subatomic world that we currently cannot peer into. Hence the problem of “meaningful theories” that assist us in creative free association, and “true recipes” for action that assist us in predictable transformation. I can testify to a sequence of operations. I cannot testify to meaning. I can only be honest about it. And herein lies the difference between: 1) the judicial and the judge (decidable): the critical, and; 2) the producer and production (actionable): the productive, and; 3) the artistic and the scientist (exploratory): the creative. 4) the nurturer and the mother (consumptive): the reproductive. Which we can take further into: 1 – the conservative and judicial (substantial majority) 2 – the conservative libertarian producer (minority) 3 – the progressive libertarian investigator (smaller minority) 4 – the progressive progressive consumer (dominant majority) We all seek to justify our genetic biases, reproductive strategies, and greatest interests. We all tolerate, accept, or advocate that the externalities produced by our biases should be considered acceptable losses by others. When the limit of that tolerance for loss can only be determined by exchange: no other method can capture ‘value’ and price of knowledge, any more than any method other than exchange can capture value and price. ERGO 1) Popper does not account for costs, nor externalizations, which is rational since he was unsophisticated in these matters. 2) Popper fails to define the market as the tolerance for externalities. This is forgivable. He was a victim of his heritage and his era. 3) Popper is concerned that creativity not be imposed upon, that creativity not be used to impose upon others, since the truth of it is uncertain. And it is clear he was (like Mises) happy to just ‘make stuff up’ to fight the socialists. He is showing his cognitive bias by defending his cognitive, reproductive, and genetic bias. 4) But popper’s arguments are not true in the sense that they satisfy the seven or eight tests of warranty of due diligence against falsehood. His arguments are instead a moral warning. Not a logical, not an empirical, but a moral warning. 5) Under the demands of decidability, we tend to refine our most abstract theories, not falsify them. 6) When we refine theories we seem to falsify the verbal ‘Meaning’ used in free association (creativity), not the instrumental (operational), “truth” in the application of the recipe (method). 7) for the creative, the meaningful is profoundly important, the existential operationalization of it less so, and he resists external demands on his free association (stimuli pursuit), and immoral impositions on his pursuit of gratification. 8) Why should the producer of ideas be less accountable for externalities of his product than are the providers of goods and services? Why is fixed and organizational capital more valuable than informational capital? Why do we defend the physical commons, the normative commons, the institutional commons, the traditional commons, and even the mythological commons, but we do not defend the informational commons? 8) Non operational, non-existential terms like “positive and negative liberty” are perhaps meaningful, but they have little to no truth content. One can experience a condition of liberty. He can do so either because he errs (liberty by permission is not liberty) or he can do so because he experience an existental condition of liberty. What liberty can exist? The liberty that can exist is moral action by any monopoly organization with power to act immoraly, yet its members do not. What morality can exist? when others impose no cost upon you while at the same time you impose no cost upon them – especially the cost of free ridership. I am not interested in improving creativity. I am unconvinced that trial and error, using least cost method of investigation. can be improved upon. We seem to do fairly well with the advancement of the physical sciences. But we have been tragically incompetent at advancing the social sciences. Why? Why, as Hayek, Poincare, Brouwer, Bridgman and dozens of others – even Mises in his crude way – did the late 19th and the 20th century result in the pervasive expansion of pseudosciences – if not outright lies? What was the cost of those ‘lies?’ ==== —Boaz (anthropology), Marx (economics and sociology), Freud (psychology), and Cantor(mathematical platonism), Mises (economics and philosophy) the 20th century saw the subsequent wave of philosophical liars, Michel Foucault, the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, the developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, the linguists Roman Jakobson and Noam Chomsky, the literary critic Roland Barthes …. and the Marxist theorists Louis Althusser and Nicos Poulantzas, Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwenthal,, Franz Leopold Neumann, Henryk Grossman, Siegfried Kracauer, Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Walter Benjamin, Jürgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Axel, Honneth, Oskar Negt, Alfred Schmidt, Albrecht Wellmer …. and the postmodernists Martin Heidegger, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty, Jean Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson, Douglas Kellner… Although we must take notice that the french, german, american, and British postmodernists are making use of the german method of pseudo-moral, pseudo-rationalism: ADVICE – not the pseudoscientific: LAW. … and Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard as well. The fact that Hoppe’s work on incentives is solid has no bearing on his nonsense-arguments advancing Misesian and Rothbardian pseudoscience (which I’ve written extensively about elsewhere). ==== How do we improve science by preventing another dark age created by the pseudoscientists, pseudo-rationalists, verbalists, mystics, mathematical platonists? We require them to warranty due diligence in the production of their informational products just as we warranty goods and services against falsehood, and we hold them liable for them. If one fulfills all the warranties of due diligence, then it is hard for one to be liable. If one fulfills the warranties of due diligence then it is hard to publish falsehoods. This method has been working fairly effectively in the hard sciences, merely by requiring operational language. There is no reason we cannot extend this to the social sciences, by requiring operational language as a test of existential possibility each step of which is subjectively testable. COMPLETING POPPER So I view popper as cognitively and culturally biased, and having correctly deduced that we must remove the rock from the marble to expose the statue of truth. And that the advancement of knowledge – scientific, meaning truthful knowledge – in all fields requires not that we improve the method of free association (that’s non logical) but that we improve our tests that limit our errors. RESPONDING TO Danny My concern with the paper was that this is an inarticulate use of non-operational, non-existential and perhaps ‘meaningful’ but not ‘truthful’ attempt to defend priors, rather than a critical analysis of the method of constructing a condition of liberty, and the costs we bear to do so, and the warranty we must place upon our utterances – not to limit our creativity, but TO IMPROVE OUR CREATIVITY on the one hand, and LIMIT OUR VIOLATION OF LIBERTY by the imposition of harm by externality. Simply, it persists in the mainstream libertarian use of verbalisms and therefore persists the persistence of pseudoscientific argument in libertarian thought. Although I doubt authors of rationalist argument realize what they are doing, because they do not know how to argue truthfully, only meaningfully. EPISTEMELOGICALLY: WHAT WORKS IS WHAT IS TRUE “We only know what works”. Because actions are testable in reality. Our meanings “labels, justifications” are just that and nothing more. If we cannot describe something existentially then we do not in fact know that of which we claim by our speech. Meaning is analogous to a parable. A recipe or formula that ‘works’ is true. OBJECTIVE I am fairly certain that if we were to require warranty of due diligence of intellectual products prior to any kind of publication, that publications would plummet, falsehoods would plummet, and truth content would expand. Moreover, I am fairly certain that this would produce as great a change in human knowledge as the scientific enlightenment did in the physical sciences. CAVEAT I have a lot of respect for Danny (you) since he’s about the only person who produces anything in the liberty movement worth more than use for birdcage lining. That said, I was unable to determine which argument he was (you were danny) making since the terminology is metaphorical, and not existential, scientific, real or ‘possible’ that I know of. Postive and negative liberty cannot exist. Liberty can be brought into existence. We can have more or less of it. That’s it.

  • WHY HAVE THE JEWS HAD SUCH A HARD TIME (A) ADAPTING TO MODERNITY, and (B) GRASPI

    WHY HAVE THE JEWS HAD SUCH A HARD TIME (A) ADAPTING TO MODERNITY, and (B) GRASPING TRUTH, and (C) HOLDING TERRITORY? AND WHY HAVE WESTERNERS FAILED TO RESIST THE WORKS OF JEWISH INTELLECTUALS?

    —“The problem [facing jewish culture] is not the [ancient] past it is the consequence of the diaspora– more detail plz?”—

    A nomadic people, a low trust people, in the most competitive place on earth (the crescent), repeatedly conquered, lacking the resources to defend themselves against the landed aristocracies (mesopotamia, the nile, the aegean) develop a separatist group evolutionary strategy, a narrative religion to support it, a law to advance it, and philosophical arguments to defend it from criticism.

    These people are unable (as are all the semitic post-pastoral peoples) to construct material commons. All cultures retain the metaphysics of their military origins – in the case of middle easterners, desert and steppe peoples, this is ‘raid and retreat’. The geography encourages it. And we have no way of knowing whether this is now genetic or not – it appears to have had genetic consequences for all groups. The combination of genetic, mythical, traditional, normative, and group evolutionary strategy are sufficient but over generations we all seem to evolve in favor of our strategies.

    They then develop a false history in order to argue for the retention of property after the babylonians depart. This history is very useful at separatism through dual ethics, and assists in the formation of a body of cultural and tribal law – especially in an era where ostracization in a competitive land means near certain slavery or death.

    The consequence is that this same law is formulated for successful survival within a host population by localizing all gains, rather than control of territory which socializes gains into the commons – particularly the very high cost of defense, and the norms that require us to defend the commons. And therein lies the problem.

    They then are conquered repeatedly but finally by the Romans and Arabs, who forced them out of the territory. They are forced out of the territory for failing to contribute to the commons. This is the story of judaism. Failure to construct material commons must without exception end in parasitism upon the commons of others.

    Economics explains what emotionally loaded arguments do not. People do not ‘feel’ for arbitrary reasons. They feel for material reasons.

    The diaspora creates isolated communities of males that largely breed with local females, capturing local genes (a good thing), and then transferring to inbreeding and insularity – repeating the privatization of local commons and the non-contribution to commons – and specialization in many parasitic activities especially against the lower classes.

    Worse, the need for literacy makes the jews good bureaucratic servants of whatever malicious state will provide them with protection, and the people retaliate against the jews as agents of the state.

    This ethic persists over time. But because of the constant purging of the underclasses from the tribe, the constraint on reproduction of undesirable members, and the upward redistribution of reproduction through the ‘teachers’. Because of this the tribe cannot construct an army sufficient to hold land.

    So the jews have been even more successful than the europeans at eugenic reproduction. But despite eugenic reproduction, jews have been less successful anywhere and everywhere they go because they are unwilling or unable, or genetically, culturally, or traditionally cannot intuit, the ‘good’ of production of commons.

    Without having a territory, institutions, and fixed capital, the jewish people have not learned to intuit as ‘good’, and embody in their myths, traditions, institutional, and law, the high cost of investment in physical and defensive commons, nor the importance of militarizing the underclasses to defend that territory.

    So this is why Israel is important, and the cleft in Jewish culture between those who integrate and abandon it, those who are hosted by westerners advocate for, but do not fight for their territory, those who live there and fight for it. This factionalization is evidence of the failure of the jewish people to learn the lessons of their history. And a failure of jewish thought leaders to change the narrative from one of victimization to one of self-failure that must be corrected.

    The rise and fall of the kingdom of Israel is predictable given their mythology and tradition. The rise and fall of modern Israel is playing out now. I have very little faith in the ability of jewish intellectuals to learn the lesson of history since the self worth obtained from the mythos cannot tolerate critical reflection: “people don’t want us around for a good reason.”

    Yet there has been great value in eugenic reproduction, literacy, and the necessity of economic success and survival through specialization in non-physical capital at the expense of not possessing land or the the military capacity to hold it.

    It is common in jewish literature to misunderstand the western (or anyone’s) use of the underclasses as ‘army in waiting’. It is not uncommon in the west for the underclasses to be aware that they are an army in waiting and that this is precisely why we must invest in them and treat them with respect.

    So the past reformation of judaism was not sufficient. Prior to the arrival of eastern european jews westerners had integrated german jews to the point where the difference between Scottish Presbyterians and american jews was a function of “which club we belonged to.”

    A PEOPLE MUST SURVIVE

    It is necessary for a people to persist. Separatism (non-integration) is a rational group evolutionary strategy.

    BUT WHY SPECIALIZATION IN, EXCELLENCE IN, NON-TRUTH?

    But why did the jewish people create pseudosciences? Why is ‘truth’ and ‘science’ a harder concept to grasp? Thats a very interesting question.

    This ‘legalism’ or ‘verbal reality’ created by jewish people over Millenia is the reason for the rapid production of pseudosciences during the 1800’s and early 1900’s. And the use of propaganda and pseudo-rationalism during the 20th. Just as the poor and women were able to move and join movements in the roman era, the industrial revolution, the new continent, and the migration of people and classes, culminating in the world wars, made women and poor susceptible targets for pleasing pseudosciences spread by propaganda.

    Do I think these men knew they were ‘speaking untruths’?

    —Boaz (anthropology), Marx (economics and sociology), Freud (psychology), and Cantor(mathematical platonism), Mises (economics and philosophy) the 20th century saw the subsequent wave of philosophical liars, Michel Foucault, the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, the developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, the linguists Roman Jakobson and Noam Chomsky, the literary critic Roland Barthes

    …. and the Marxist theorists Louis Althusser and Nicos Poulantzas, Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwenthal,, Franz Leopold Neumann, Henryk Grossman, Siegfried Kracauer, Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Walter Benjamin, Jürgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Axel, Honneth, Oskar Negt, Alfred Schmidt, Albrecht Wellmer

    …. and the postmodernists Martin Heidegger, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty, Jean Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson, Douglas Kellner…

    Although we must take notice that the french, german, american, and British postmodernists are making use of the german method of pseudo-moral, pseudo-rationalism: ADVICE – not the pseudoscientific: LAW.

    … and Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard as well. The fact that Hoppe’s work on incentives is solid has no bearing on his nonsense-arguments advancing Misesian and Rothbardian pseudoscience (which I’ve written extensively about elsewhere).

    Did Marx know he would be responsible for 100M deaths? Or that his work was wishful thinking and pseudoscience? Well, he did by the time he died, which is why he stopped working on it. He had read the Austrians. He knew he was wrong. But he would stave without the support of his benefactor, so he could not recant.

    Do I think Mises and Rothbard knew they were damaging the case for liberty, as much as adorno’s crew were damaging western law and testimony, as much as the jewish pseudoscientists were damaging western truth and science, as much as jewish media was destroying a thousand years of gradual “aristocratic- ization” of european commoners into lower time preference and higher production of commons? No, It’s that they realized very late in life that they were wrong. And it was hard for them to accept.

    Do I think that the jewish communist and postmodern attack on western art was intentional? Well we have record of those conversations, so yes.

    Do I think that Adorno and crew knew that they were lying? Well, in his own words he said that they just did what was sensible to them: they made it all up.

    THEY DIDN’T KNOW “TRUTH”

    I think instead of lying, they did not know the difference between the true, the moral and beautiful (natural law), and the pursuit of power and competitive advantage by selling wishful thinking to a feminized population without experience and traditions of self control.

    ***Why did these people not know that they were speaking falsehoods? This is the interesting question. It is doubtful that they did. So why did they think in falsehoods? Why did they attack commons? Why did they ‘make it up?’. Why did they attack beauty?***

    They had spent almost two Millenia creating an internal language of gossip, and a holy book of dual ethics, for the purpose of maintaining group cohesion as diasporic wanderers without land.

    With eugenics, separatism, literacy, they created a very talented separatist minority that specialized in pragmatism, through verbal persuasion, gossip, and ridicule. They persisted as a separate group, and did not die out, for this reason.

    And to no small degree, their ability to transition from martial management of groups to monetary and then credit management of groups was precisely because of their history without concern for commons.

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH WESTERN MAN?

    We can criticize other groups for their group evolutionary strategies. But this is not logical. The question is why westerners failed to resist untruths. Why were westerners defeated by untruths? Why did we let them defeat us? What is it about western man that he did not defeat these arguments on one hand, and why did it culminate in the nazi program to cleanse Europe of the communists and their advocates instead? Why were we intellectually unable to defeat untruth, and why did we resort to violence?

    What was wrong with western man in the Ancient era? What was wrong with western man in the industrial era? What was wrong with western man in the postwar era? What is wrong with western man today that we do not close our borders and defend ourselves from fallacy and lie?

    WE FAILED TO ARTICULATE OUR GROUP STRATEGY: COMMONS

    We have no book. That’s why. It was too hard to create a bible of Truth: Testimony, Natural Law and Physical law – and we have failed to do it, and therefore failed to defend ourselves against lies, despite our preference for truth as a means of constructing commons.

    We can categorize arguments by many different axis, but the one that I rely upon is group evolutionary strategy: what is the purpose of this set of philosophies? What group evolutionary strategy is advanced by this attempt? If the choice between truth, wishful thinking, and outright lying occurs, why does a group choose one or the other?

    All groups seek to advance their group evolutionary strategies as universal goods. The question is whether they are in fact universal goods: “Natural Law”.

    What I criticize is our failure to understand that the west’s competitive advantage was the production of commons: the commons of truth telling, of jury, of common law, universal standing, natural law, of civic society, of militial defense, and of sovereignty.

    And that rothbardian LIBERTINISM is precisely libertinism and not libertarianism. It is an attempt to justify escaping payment for the commons necessary for the production of a condition of liberty by the suppression of all disincentive NOT to cooperate: the incremental suppression of murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by suggestion, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, fraud by free riding, privatization by non-productive exchange, privatization of the commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, invasion, colonization, conquest and extermination.

    In my work I all but eliminate genetics, and focus on institutions. I think others do the opposite (MacDonald). It does me no good to focus on genetics since that rquires killing lots of people. Whereas focusing on institutions will eventually produce the same ends regardless of current genetic composition.

    My goal of course is to destroy ALL the fallacies: Anglo Aristocracy of Everyone, French Peasant Equality, German Rationalism (moral pseudoscience), and Jewish Pseudocience, pseudorationalism, mysticism, and in general, the principles of dual ethics, and the morality of ‘cheating’ embodied in the statement ‘it takes two to make a deal’, when no, a deal is constrained by externalities produced.

    So if I can create that ‘book’ and the test of truth, and I can disable all possibility of error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing-overloading-suggestion, outright deceit, and propagandism, by merely providing a set of tests for the common law, such that publication in the commons requires the same warranty as production of goods and services in the commons, then the only group evolutionary strategy left to man – regardless of genetic or cultural background – is truth and natural law.

    And we need not worry about the pandora effect – the catastrophe of adding women to a democratic polity, nor the failure of groups to know when they are ‘lying’ by wishful thinking.

    GOSSIP IS NO LONGER NECESSARY – POLITICS IS A NATURAL LAW FOR THE GOOD AND A CURSE FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT.

    But perhaps more importantly, there is no moralism that needs utterance. There is no political or religious movement that needs utterance. There is only truth, productivity, and consumption and commons that results from them. All else must be theft.

    ***We do not need to know what is ‘best’ – we need only to know what others will do voluntarily, and to assist them in doing it voluntarily. And we will discover what is best. ***

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-04 08:45:00 UTC

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls) [O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors. With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement. By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories. But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability. With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability. We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation: –From:– “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.” –to:– 1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation 2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation? 3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation. 4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve). This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man. So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise. A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy. Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’. A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law. A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence: Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging. And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability. That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage. But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results. So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state. And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence. All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected. If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion. Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence. The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls) [O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors. With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement. By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories. But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability. With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability. We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation: –From:– “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.” –to:– 1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation 2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation? 3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation. 4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve). This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man. So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise. A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy. Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’. A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law. A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence: Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging. And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability. That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage. But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results. So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state. And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence. All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected. If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion. Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence. The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • La cura para la propaganda – Y la civilización occidental

    Artículo original de Curt Doolittle: http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/01/18/the-cure-for-propaganda-and-western-civilization/ Traducción al castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

    [L]a propaganda es un producto intencionalmente defectuoso, producido con el propósito de obtener poder, enviado con la intención de persuadir mediante el engaño, usando artefactos retóricos que incluyen refundición de conceptos, cargas psicológicas y emocionales, sobrecarga de información, oscurantismo, falacias lógicas que buscan engañar y trastocar argumentos para inhabilitarlos, mentir de forma descarada, y por sobre todo, la propaganda busca depender de la repetición constante como un medio para crear evidencia confirmatoria para así producir una respuesta intuitiva en vez de racional. 

    El consenso tradicional argumentativo ha sido que todos somos lo suficientemente inteligentes para eliminar de nuestras mentes la propaganda, para aprender a desconfiar de los argumentos engañosos, pero la historia ha probado que esto no es cierto. En vez de ello, nosotros buscamos confirmar nuestros propios sesgos morales. No solo porque está en nuestro interés reproductivo, porque esos sesgos reflejan nuestro interés reproductivo sino porque hemos invertido tanto en esos sesgos que nos son nuestros, que el costo que entrenar nuestra intuición- intuición en la que confiamos para disminuir la carga de razonar- es simplemente muy alta. En el mundo caleídico sin prejuicios (sesgos) las desiciones no son cuestión de elección.

    Nosotros DEBEMOS confiar en la intuición. No tenemos otra alternativa. Los varios movimientos racionalistas y seudocientíficos, desde el socialismo científico marxista, pasando por la psicología freudiana, la economía keynesiana, la antropología de Franz Boas, y las fabricaciones mensas de la Escuela de Francfort, los filósofos posmodernos, el feminismo americano, y la corrección política de hoy en día, todas se apoyaron y continúan haciendo mediante el uso del engaño, refundición de conceptos, cargas psicológicas y emocionales, sobrecargas de información, oscurantismo, mentir y acumulan el uso de la crítica: usan falacias lógicas como vehículos para criticar a quienes se les oponen, acumulan argumentos falsos, y cantan de forma repetitiva ad nauseam falsedades a través de los medios. 

    Todos estos grupos usan la repetición constante de declaraciones lógicas que consisten de varios tipos de refundición de conceptos, y demás medios así como  la crítica marxista para estimular nuestras intuiciones, y generar sesgos de confirmación, por medio de conciencia normativa, en vez de la persuasión racional por medio de la verdad. En otras palabras, es una forma  muy compleja e innovadora de engañar usando el método de la sugerencia, en vez de confirmar nuestros sesgos morales cognitivos, en vez de usar la educación y la persuasión por medio de la razón. Es una guerra intencional y sistemática contra la verdad, la razón, la ciencia y la moralidad con el propósito de establecer el control de nuestros pensamientos, acciones y recursos con el propósito ulterior de ejercer control sobre nuestros pensamientos, acciones y recursos y para justificar el cómo nos roban, consumen nuestros bienes históricos que son son comunes. 

    A este tipo de guerra le ponemos varios nombres: Contra-ilustración, movimiento posmodernista, socialismo, crítica marxista, seudociencia. Pero estos nombres dan juicios neutrales morales sobre lo que es una actividad objetivamente inmoral: engañar con el propósito de controlar, robar y ejercer servidumbre virtual. La denominación verdadera, racional, científica y acertada para este tipo de movimientos es: “engaño”. 

    EL MILAGRO DE OCCIDENTE: DECIR LA VERDAD

    [E]l ascenso de Occidente se debe a una sola cosa: descubrimos la honestidad. Nosotros somos los únicos que descubrieron la honestidad, y pagamos el altísimo costo de tenerla como un bien común- como una infraestructura normativa- en modales, ética, moralidad, ley, filosofía, y ciencia. Y la honestidad separa a la civilización occidental del resto. Todas las excelencias occidentales son consecuencia de tener a la honestidad como un resultado de decir la verdad. Las mejores aplicaciones y software son productos tecnológicos de la honestidad. Hoy día, si no a  lo largo de toda la historia, vemos a las ciencias físicamente constreñidas y separadas de objetos sociales, morales, sociales y espirituales. Pero la ciencia es sólo el arte de decir la verdad. 

    Y es menos problemático ser honesto sobre el mundo físico que sobre los asuntos humanos. Así que la ciencia trató de contenerse en esas áreas, excepto donde las almas valientes como Aristóteles, Livy, Maquiavelo, Smith y Hume, y más importante, Darwin. Los historiadores como Toynbee, Durant, Quigley, Huntington, Mallory, Keegan, e intelectuales como Duchesne y Hicks. Científicos sociales como Weber, Pareto, Michels y Duheim, y los científicos cognitivos y psicólogos experimentales: Searle, Pinter, Khanemann y Haidt. Estas almas empíricas no pudieron competir con los propagandistas que intentaron destronarlos. Desde el intento de Freud de oscurecer la obra de Nietzsche usando seudociencia. La forma en la que los posmodernos usan la psicología. La seudociencia de Boaz para oscurecer la obra de Darwin.

    El uso de la seudociencia Keynesiana para desacreditar la obra de los empíricos y los economistas morales conservadores, y la combinación de Krugman, DeLong, Stieglitz, y sus aliados que evocan y defienden una economía inmoral si el consumo se mantiene aun si el consumo puede ser mantenido obteniendo como intercambio reformas morales de burocracias inmorales, evasión de impuestos y horas de trabajo improductivas. Los racionalistas alemanes, los judíos cosmopolitas, los anglo-neo-puritanos, todos buscan crear una nueva forma de autoritarismo justificando su control de la sociedad, los indo-europeos, los griegos, romanos, germánicos, nórdicos y británicos buscaron controlar a las sociedades usando la honestidad, propiedad, ley, jurados. Los británicos casi perfeccionaron la técnica- evolucionando las leyes concernientes a bienes comunes, orgánicos, derechos de propiedad, mediante ensayo y error, y como una forma de intercambio voluntario entre las clases al utilizar las múltiples casas de gobierno.

    Pero la verdad sin autoridad asusta a la gente que no vive en islas, y que no tienen control de sus dominios. ¿Cómo podrían los alemanes mantener unidad en ausencia de una autoridad eclesiástica? ¿Cómo podrían los judíos mantener unidad en la ausencia de ética de doble moral y una contravención de su moralidad separatista? ¿Cómo podrían los anglo-neo-puritanos mantener estatus y poder, y asegurar que no serán superados en números sin la imposición de sus ideologías por medio del uso de la fuerza? Una cosa es usar propaganda para hacer que el mundo sea más seguro para los judíos apelando a la diversidad de modo tal que pueden mantener una ética separatista y con frecuencia parasitaria, una sociedad huésped dentro de otra sociedad. Otra cosa es que los puritanos norteamericanos justifiquen la conquista de sus territorios. Y otra cosa es que los alemanes traten de refundir el concepto de moralidad, veracidad y deber para que puedan mantener una sociedad paternal y estoica. 

    De todas estas, el daño ha sido mayor y más severo por el uso por parte de los americanos del castigo altruista y la justificación moral de la violencia, y incluso aún más por el uso judío de su principal habilidad: la propaganda, la seudociencia y el engaño- los alemanes meramente armaron a los judíos socialistas, neoconservadores, y libertinos, y a los anglo neo puritanos. El daño hecho por los alemanes es relativamente limitado. Ellos fueron conquistados y se ha evitado que ejerzan poder sobre Europa mediante la dominación Americana tras la segunda guerra mundial. Un período que está llegando a su fin. 

    El daño hecho por la anglo ideología esta actualmente auto-corrigiéndose por medio de la ciencia que surgió posterior a 1990 (mi generación), y el colapso de los mitos de la posguerra junto con el ascenso del capitalismo consumista mundial que elimina el ventajismo militar norteamericano. El daño hecho por los propagandistas judíos es probablemente irreversible y a menos que rompamos el continente en estados regionales más pequeños, nos enfrentamos a convertirnos en otro “Brasil”, gracias a la destrucción judía de la historia, filosofía, honestidad, ética, leyes, moralidad y ciencias al manipular de forma exitosa a los neo-puritanos y movilizar a las mujeres de forma suficiente para seguir sus estrategias reproductivas socialistas-al costo de perjudicar la familia. Hoy vemos la perfecta culminación del militarismo angloimperial y la propaganda judía, en la combinación de Putin de múltiples formas de propaganda, cada de las cuales apela a los mismos sesgos morales pero que de forma acumulativa es contradictoria en si misma (Busquen en Google “Yale University’s Timothy Snyder) 

    ¿QUE PODEMOS HACER?

    [N]osotros podemos restaurar la verdad muy fácilmente. Podemos resarcir el más grande error de la historia: el derecho a la libre expresión, versus el derecho a la expresión verdadera (decir la verdad) para requerir expresión honesta de que nosotros poseamos un medio lógico, científico , y racional de determinar lo que constituye el discurso honesto. Y nosotros no hemos tenido este sistema lógico: la lógica de la moralidad por más de 2500 años. La razón por la cual no la hemos tenido, se me escapa en este momento. Aunque estoy seguro de que yo lo descubriré en algún momento.

    **Ese pedazo de lógica solo es posible si el imperio de la moral es la prohibición total de la imposición de costos – o dicho de otra forma – el derecho a tener producción completamente informada, garantizada, transferencia voluntaria, libre de exterioridad negativa**

    La ciencia actualmente garantiza la expresión al requerir que pase las siguientes pruebas, que demuestran que no estamos añadiendo contenido imaginario o contenido alegórico a  nuestras declaraciones:

    1. Correspondencia entera (que el fenómeno sea observable)
    2. Consistencia interna ( lógica)
      2.1 Identidad: La lógica de nombrar las cosas
      2.2 Matemática: la lógica de las relaciones
      2.3 Física: la lógica de la causalidad
      2.4 Lógica: la lógica del lenguaje
    3. Operacionalmente definidas
    4. Falsificadas (parsimoniosas)

    Pero, también le podríamos añadir a la ciencia, la constricción lógica que en la esfera social, el argumento de uno es libre de transferencia involuntaria, al requerir que sea productivo, plenamente informado, garantizado, voluntario y libre de la exterioridad negativa. y para ello podemos añadir al testimonio científico el requerimiento de que el discurso sea

    5. Ético y moral (libre de transferencia involuntaria)
    2.5 Moralidad: la lógica de la cooperación

    Si añadimos esta constricción a la investigación científica, entonces no  hay ninguna diferencia entre los dominios físicos y sociales de la investigación. No hay diferencia alguna entre ciencia, filosofía, moralidad, y ley. Las disciplinas son idénticas. 
    Podemos decir que si algo no es científico entonces no es cierto. Y nunca podríamos saber si es cierto si no decimos la verdad, pero debemos garantizar que hemos hecho diligencia suficiente para que hablemos sinceramente. Eso es lo mejor que podemos hacer, y en la práctica, lo mejor que podemos hacer es la diferencia entre la civilización occidental y el resto, así que eso es ciertamente suficiente. 

    Por ende:

    1. Podemos resarcir el más grande error de la historia al requerir que el discurso sea garantizado, y garantizando a los ciudadanos la defensa de los bienes informativos en las cortes, e imponiendo restitución para el dar accidental, y triplicando las penas para engaños frente a las cortes. Esto incremento de gastos es importante ya que producir la verdad es costoso y la producción del engaño es barata. Los únicos medios de proveer incentivos es aumentar los costos del engaño para que sean mayores que el costo de decir la verdad. (Nuestro sistema legal actual ha evolucionado para producir incentivos perversos, por ejemplo: mentir).
    2. Podemos resarcir la segunda más grande mentira de la historia: la ignorancia instruída institucionalmente: privatizar nuestros sistemas escolares al 100%, para que sean de elección libre. Restituir la enseñanza de la gramática, retórica, modales, ética (moralidad), lógica, razón, método científico, el arte del atestiguamiento y testimonio, el imperio de la ley bajo los derechos de propiedad y la evolución orgánica de las leyes. Aunado a esto, no hay razón por la cual no se deba enseñar contabilidad, balanza de pagos, banca e interés, contabilidad financiera, microeconomía, a todos los estudiantes desde el sexto año de educación básica hasta el final de la educación secundaria. Es mucho más sencillo que enseñar álgebra,, geometría y cálculo y demostrablemente más importante. Este pénsum enseñará a los estudiantes la verdad, honestidad, y la cooperación voluntaria, a no perder el tiempo tratando de justificar las falacias de las mayorías y el poder político – justificar la tiranía de las mayorías.
    3. Podemos resarcir el tercer error más grande de la historia: La construcción accidental de una religión estatal accidental que defienda falsedades: El sistema universitario y el socialismo democrático secular. Esto requiere poco menos que hacer que todas las universidades operen bajo crédito a estudiantes, recolectado de las ganancias futuras de los estudiantes como apalancamiento de paga, y luego la eliminación de todas las políticas de las universidades estatales, regresando a la universidad al servicio de la industria y no de la burocracia estatal. Esto hará que los departamentos que demostrablemente causan daño y resultados negativos a los graduados caigan en bancarrota.
    4. Podemos el cuarto error más grande la historia: Permitirle al gobierno construir leyes en vez de construir contratos. Bajo el imperio de la moralidad, el estado puede facilitar la negociación de contratos con el propósito de construir bienes, pero no puede emitir mandaros para otro fin que no sea la declaración de guerra, al descubrir innovaciones en la transferencia involuntaria y al construir ley para suprimir la transferencia involuntaria, la cual luego puede ser usada como “teoría ” legal hasta que sea evaluada por las cortes más altas. Sin embargo todas las leyes son teóricas, y abiertas a la revisión, en cualquier momento, si el propósito original de suprimir las transferencias involuntarias ya no tiene basamento, y lo que permanece a la ley es meramente innecesario para los ciudadanos. Pero para que este sistema sea lógicamente integral, la ley debe establecer su intención original, diciendo cuales son los medios mediante los cuales se va a suprimir la transferencia involuntaria y luego debe ser construida desde los primeros principios para lograr esa intención. (la combinación de la aserción positiva y la prohibición negativa, bajo construcción definitiva y estricta es necesario para que se prevenga la expansión de la discreción sin la declaración específica de los medios de expresión).
    5. Podemos resarcir el quinto error más grande la historia: que mientras la ley debe ser construirá para los individuos ,los bienes deben ser construidos para las familias. El consumo sirve a la reproducción, o sirve simplemente para propósitos meramente hedonistas. Cualquier y todas las civilizaciones que premian la reproducción disgénica de las clases más bajas o el consumo disgénico de las clases más altas, consumen los sacrificios y ahorros combinados de generaciones previas, y elimina el incentivo de producir una civilización. La civilización occidental ha sido organizada para cuidar a los incompetentes, y producir descendencia de los competentes. La alternativa a esto es la tendencia actual de la reproducción disgénica y el daño al ecosistema mundial – Nuestros medios de producción.
    6. Podemos resarcir el sexto error más grande de la historia – uno que es contra-intuitivo: la sociedad civil (propiedad individual y responsabilidad de los bienes). Actualmente en los EEUU hay 1 abogado por cada 300 personas. Yo propongo que esto es la mitad del número requerido de abogados, que el estándar para aprobar el examen de licencia para ejercer el derecho sea elevado, y que decir la verdad, atestiguar y testimoniar, sea añadido a los requerimientos para aprobar la licencia, y sumado a esto:
      6.1 Que la policía sea desmilitarizada: Que Shérif sea electo y que haya pasado el examen. La policía local debe estar bajo control del Shérif, Que todos los empleados del departamento del Shérif sean voluntarios- Y que todo el que haya servido en las fuerzas armadas se le prohíba servir como empleado del departamento del Shérif. Que el Shérif dependa de sus empleados en vez de tener un staff permanente. Que la restitución deba ser instituida en todos los casos de daño, y que en el caso de las multas, se dirijan al servicio de los pobres, no el fondo general o la oficina del Shérif. Que todos los voluntarios, habiendo servido al menos tres años, puedan actuar como diputados en cualquier momento y sean capaces de usar su don de mando y la violencia, en caso de que sea necesario para organizar a todos los hombres disponibles para prevenir un crimen sobre la propiedad hasta que el Shérif o sus representantes lleguen. Esto podrá restaurar la sociedad cívica y hará que los hombres entiendan tanto la moralidad como la ley.
      6.2 La banca debe ser profesionalizada, y todos aquellos que emitan créditos en nombre de alguien más (es decir que manejen dinero ajeno) requieran pasar un examen de licencia. Y que su desempeño financiero sea objeto de auditoría pública así como el crédito de cualquier otra persona. La contabilidad y la banda son tecnologías triviales comparada con la ley y la reubicación de empleos que repoblarán el sector bancario actual con individuos superiores, que comandan salarios mayores, y quienes, en caso de perder su licencia, serán irreparablemente lastimados.
      6.3 Restituir que todos los individuos miembros de una organización hagan rendición de cuenteas y que estén expuestos a asumir responsabilidad en caso de que hayan transferencias involuntarias. El requerimiento de que todos los individuos que manejan dieron estén asegurados y que el asegurador garantice que estos individuos entiendan y puedan ser honestos, atestiguar y testimoniar cuando se les haga una auditoría. 
      Esto restaurará la moralidad al sistema bancario dentro de tres años.
      6.4 Garantiar acceso universal a los bienes para que le activista pueda llegar directamente a las cortes, en aquellos casos en los cuales sus bienes se vean perjudicados. Esto requerirá verificación de la ley, el registro de los bienes, y para cada bien se enumere mediante el principio del “usus, fructus, macipio y abusus”. Cualquier uso de los bienes debe ser asegurado, de modo tal que el asegurador y el usuario asuman el costo de defensa. Ningún individuo en cualquier organización está exento de rendir cuentas por violar la propiedad de los bienes. Esto tiene que ser implementado a lo largo de seis años, ya que los violadores actuales no pueden racionalmente adaptarse más rápido que en este período. (Alguna ley en el uso de bienes tampoco ha sido dilucidada).
    7. Reformar la economía keynesiana
      7.1 Bypasear el sistema financiero, porque la distribución de la liquidez por medio de los bancos, como si todavía estuviéramos en la época de la moneda metálica, ya no es necesaria. Que la tesorería adquiera un interés mayoritario en la peor compañía de tarjetas de crédito, MasterCard, y que una vez que esto haya ocurrido se emitan tarjetas a cada persona que tenga cuenta en el Seguro Social. Que se distribuya toda la liquidez de forma equitativa a todos los tarjetahabientes, negocios e industrias, que sus finanzas compitan por dicha liquidez, en vez de hacer que los consumidores sean esclavos del interés, cosa que es cuestionablemente ética en un primer lugar. Si este dinero se distribuye equitativamente, los más ricos podrán sus impuestos con este sistema. Y también causará incrementos en la resistencia a la inmigración de las clases más bajas. La liquidez debe ser basada en reglas, y no debe ser discrecional, de modo tal que queda exenta de la esfera política. Esto también quiere decir que la ciudadanía de facto es participativa en este crédito y sin dicho crédito no se pueden obtener esos servicios.
      7.2 Ahorros y pensiones de retiro
      7.3 Compensación para construcción, manutención y vigilancia de bienes
      7.4 (no desarrollado por el autor aún)
    8. Reforma limitada del sistema tributario: Eliminación de la tributación por parte de las corporaciones de los dividendos, mientras preservación de las ganancias capitales, y sobre las ganancias retenidas. Que se cobren impuestos en todos los dividendos mientras mantengan impuestos sobre la renta personal. Que se acelere la depreciación de todos los bienes a los precios de liquidación actual.
    9. Reforma del sistema mayoritario de gobierno: Restaurar la cooperación entre las clases.
      9.1 Defensa (militar), Ley (resolución de disputas) (cortes), Aseguradoras(como último recurso), Bienes ( gobiernos), el Cuidado (iglesia) debe funcionar como un institución independiente del estado.

    REFORMANDO LA TEORÍA DE LA BUROCRACIA DE FUKUYAMA

    Esta teoría de la “auto-organización” adaptativa es contraria lo que Fukuyama propone como una “burocracia profesional”, en el modelo Chino, como aquel del “fin de la historia”. no menos el cual es porque la burocracia siempre produce estancamiento, depredación y pobreza. En vez de ello, la solución evoca el modelo histórico occidental, en el cual el gobierno es de hecho una institución privada ( una corporación plena) análoga a un centro comercial, y que los diferentes grupos dentro de esa corporación podemos llamarlos “el sector privado”, produzcan innovaciones constantes, y que sean constantemente reemplazadas por generaciones de destrucción creativa, requiriendo innovación política constante, pero la innovación constante que requiere que el estado sólo actúe como un observador y juez, no director, gerente o administrador. 

    La razón por la cual el estado burocrático es un monopolio que no puede ser revisado por la competencia libre- sólo por el fracaso y la revolución- El estado como un judicial, la monarquía como un árbitro final, el gobierno es como productor de bienes voluntarios, todos la fuerza es una constante adaptación a la circunstancia, y la reorganización de la familia y del estado para reflejar la tecnología disponible para la organización voluntaria de la producción sobre la cual nuestra prosperidad depende. Los intereses individuales entre los monarcas preservan a largo plazo lo concerniente sobre los consumos  a corto plazo. 

    La civilización occidental innovó más rápidamente porque hay un delta mínimo entre una innovación y la prevención del parasitismo en tanto el sector público como el privado. El derecho consuetudinario orgánico reacciona tan pronto como se realiza una transferencia involuntaria. El desempeño de la civilización occidental se debe en gran parte a cómo el sector privado ha innovado más rápido que el sector gubernamental y de cómo este último puede rentabilidad dichas innovaciones. El modelo anglo fue el más exitoso al prevenir las rentas al crear los medios de construir intercambios entre las clases por instituciones basadas en clases que podemos llamar “casas de gobierno”.

    Fukuyama, a pesad e su estudio de la confianza, no pudo imaginarse la importancia de la honestidad. -Fue víctima del sesgo del consenso cultural y genético- Fukuyama yerra al igual que Confucio en asumir que el consenso no tiene fin, la gerencia carece de propósito, si no hay honestidad y soberanía que separe a la civilización occidental del resto. Y que todas nuestras instituciones únicas y nuestro dramático desempeño son atribuibles a nuestra capacidad de haber resuelto el problema político: soberanía, honestidad, derechos de propiedad y jurado. Una solución que ni Confucio ni la burocracia china, ni cualquier otra civilización han podido resolver. 

    El hecho de que los chinos hayan creado al estado primero, pero que no hayan descubierto la honestidad, y a pesar de ser más acaudalados, más aislados, y más prósperos han repetitivamente fracasado en descubrir una solución al problema político. 
    Desafortunadamente para occidente, la revolución francesa, revirtió lo alcanzado por la revolución inglesa en su implementación de gobiernos empíricos, y Fue el modelo racional- totalitario francés el que se esparció por el continente y no el modelo empírico racionalista.

    La forma de gobierno occidental (empírica) de intercambio fue disminuida por la destrucción de la cooperación americana entre las clases al disolver el senado como un cuerpo representativo de intereses, al elegirlos directamente. Y disminuyó aun más al apoderar a los que carecen de propiedades, en vez de crear una casa que represente a este grupo, con el fin de reemplazar a la iglesia como cuerpo representativo. Las clases inferiores se han constituido en madres solteras y minorías que determinan el resultado de todas las desiciones políticas, creando no intercambios voluntarios sino imposiciones justificadas por el hecho de que los políticos pueden apelar a las minorías y madres solteras para que parasito a las parejas casadas que gastan esfuerzos en crear familias autosuficientes y productivas. (Ver la encuesta de Pew Research sobre la influencia de las mujeres solteras y madres solteras sobre la política)

    Cada arrebato involuntario es una oportunidad perdida para el intercambio voluntario el cual crea una comunidad homogénea y nos separa, Los autores de este engaño han sido, en su mayoría, lamentablemente Judíos, pero su modelo ha sido adoptado por casi todos los académicos occidentales y las instituciones políticas después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, como un medio de búsqueda de estatus por parte de neo-puritanos, y apelar a la diversidad y tolerancia como una forma de preservar el separatismo judío al atacar los valores occidentales de la familia, la honestidad y la conformidad a las normas occidentales.

    Actualmente, llamaremos “La Catedral” al complejo académico-mediático-gubernamental que ha reemplazado al complejo marcial de principios del siglo XX, que a su vez, reemplazó al complejo científico académico que había evolucionado de la ilustración, y culminando con Darwin, Maxwell y Einstein. Así que hemos degenerado progresivamente desde el modernismo (ciencia) hasta el militarismo, hasta la propaganda post-moderna-seudocientífica-propagandista engañosa que es un ataque hacia los movimientos marciales y científicos.

    Así que Fukuyama tiene medio razón en su análisis de la burocracia, pero él meramente busca justificar a sus antecesores: Su  hipótesis del “fin de la historia”. Pero en vez de un intento de justificación de la socialdemocracia al imponer un totalitarismo asiático sobre occidente, la respuesta a la próxima generación – La Restauración- en vez de entender el fracaso del proyecto de la ilustración fue uno de intentar abogar la teoría de que las estrategias evolutivas locales pueden servir como normas universales. Y en vez de de tratar de mejorar sobre lo que Platón propone al crear una burocracia profesional de alguna manera libre de incentivos negativos y monopolios, a restaurar los medios institucionales de cooperación entre las clases: crear gobierno moral, ahora que sabemos lo que “moral” significa: productivo, verdadero, plenamente informado, garantizado, de transferencia voluntaria, libre de exterioridad negativa. Donde “plenamente informado” quiere decir que se adhiere a la ciencia de decir la verdad, los cinco criterios mencionados anteriormente: consistencia interna, correspondencia externa, definición operativa, falsificación exhaustiva, y libre de exterioridad negativa. 

    Si todo esto se entiende, será claro que el modelo conservador es el correcto, y refleja ciencia: criticar todos los cambios hasta que sobrevivan en vez de imponer cambios por medio de la ley. En otras palabras, el conservadurismo es el remanente del gobierno científico temprano, donde uno sabe que la ciencia no es justificativa sino crítica.

    Los británicos no hicieron mucho sino descubrir el gobierno científico, en la medida que lo descubrieron lo pusieron en práctica, Los conservadores americanos continuaron la tradición del gobierno científico: aquello que es verdadero, y útil sobrevive todo criticismo. Si es voluntariamente adoptado, entonces es verdadero. Si no es voluntariamente adoptado, entonces no es verdadero. Lo mismo aplica para la teoría económica: El keynesianismo monetarista es mentir. Es desinformación- 
    La pregunta es entonces: ¿Cómo desempeñamos el mismo fin de forma honesta?

    Con la verdad basta. Mentir se ha convertido en algo artístico, muy cómodo y muy dominante. Oscurece tanto la necesidad y el incentivo para la conducción honesta de la economía, política y ley. 

    Es posible lograr cambios democráticos sociales honestamente.
    Ese será el objeto de mi próximo trabajo sobre el gobierno post-mayoritario

    Curt Doolittle

    El Instituto Propietarista
    Kiev, Ucrania

  • La cura para la propaganda – Y la civilización occidental

    Artículo original de Curt Doolittle: http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/01/18/the-cure-for-propaganda-and-western-civilization/ Traducción al castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

    [L]a propaganda es un producto intencionalmente defectuoso, producido con el propósito de obtener poder, enviado con la intención de persuadir mediante el engaño, usando artefactos retóricos que incluyen refundición de conceptos, cargas psicológicas y emocionales, sobrecarga de información, oscurantismo, falacias lógicas que buscan engañar y trastocar argumentos para inhabilitarlos, mentir de forma descarada, y por sobre todo, la propaganda busca depender de la repetición constante como un medio para crear evidencia confirmatoria para así producir una respuesta intuitiva en vez de racional. 

    El consenso tradicional argumentativo ha sido que todos somos lo suficientemente inteligentes para eliminar de nuestras mentes la propaganda, para aprender a desconfiar de los argumentos engañosos, pero la historia ha probado que esto no es cierto. En vez de ello, nosotros buscamos confirmar nuestros propios sesgos morales. No solo porque está en nuestro interés reproductivo, porque esos sesgos reflejan nuestro interés reproductivo sino porque hemos invertido tanto en esos sesgos que nos son nuestros, que el costo que entrenar nuestra intuición- intuición en la que confiamos para disminuir la carga de razonar- es simplemente muy alta. En el mundo caleídico sin prejuicios (sesgos) las desiciones no son cuestión de elección.

    Nosotros DEBEMOS confiar en la intuición. No tenemos otra alternativa. Los varios movimientos racionalistas y seudocientíficos, desde el socialismo científico marxista, pasando por la psicología freudiana, la economía keynesiana, la antropología de Franz Boas, y las fabricaciones mensas de la Escuela de Francfort, los filósofos posmodernos, el feminismo americano, y la corrección política de hoy en día, todas se apoyaron y continúan haciendo mediante el uso del engaño, refundición de conceptos, cargas psicológicas y emocionales, sobrecargas de información, oscurantismo, mentir y acumulan el uso de la crítica: usan falacias lógicas como vehículos para criticar a quienes se les oponen, acumulan argumentos falsos, y cantan de forma repetitiva ad nauseam falsedades a través de los medios. 

    Todos estos grupos usan la repetición constante de declaraciones lógicas que consisten de varios tipos de refundición de conceptos, y demás medios así como  la crítica marxista para estimular nuestras intuiciones, y generar sesgos de confirmación, por medio de conciencia normativa, en vez de la persuasión racional por medio de la verdad. En otras palabras, es una forma  muy compleja e innovadora de engañar usando el método de la sugerencia, en vez de confirmar nuestros sesgos morales cognitivos, en vez de usar la educación y la persuasión por medio de la razón. Es una guerra intencional y sistemática contra la verdad, la razón, la ciencia y la moralidad con el propósito de establecer el control de nuestros pensamientos, acciones y recursos con el propósito ulterior de ejercer control sobre nuestros pensamientos, acciones y recursos y para justificar el cómo nos roban, consumen nuestros bienes históricos que son son comunes. 

    A este tipo de guerra le ponemos varios nombres: Contra-ilustración, movimiento posmodernista, socialismo, crítica marxista, seudociencia. Pero estos nombres dan juicios neutrales morales sobre lo que es una actividad objetivamente inmoral: engañar con el propósito de controlar, robar y ejercer servidumbre virtual. La denominación verdadera, racional, científica y acertada para este tipo de movimientos es: “engaño”. 

    EL MILAGRO DE OCCIDENTE: DECIR LA VERDAD

    [E]l ascenso de Occidente se debe a una sola cosa: descubrimos la honestidad. Nosotros somos los únicos que descubrieron la honestidad, y pagamos el altísimo costo de tenerla como un bien común- como una infraestructura normativa- en modales, ética, moralidad, ley, filosofía, y ciencia. Y la honestidad separa a la civilización occidental del resto. Todas las excelencias occidentales son consecuencia de tener a la honestidad como un resultado de decir la verdad. Las mejores aplicaciones y software son productos tecnológicos de la honestidad. Hoy día, si no a  lo largo de toda la historia, vemos a las ciencias físicamente constreñidas y separadas de objetos sociales, morales, sociales y espirituales. Pero la ciencia es sólo el arte de decir la verdad. 

    Y es menos problemático ser honesto sobre el mundo físico que sobre los asuntos humanos. Así que la ciencia trató de contenerse en esas áreas, excepto donde las almas valientes como Aristóteles, Livy, Maquiavelo, Smith y Hume, y más importante, Darwin. Los historiadores como Toynbee, Durant, Quigley, Huntington, Mallory, Keegan, e intelectuales como Duchesne y Hicks. Científicos sociales como Weber, Pareto, Michels y Duheim, y los científicos cognitivos y psicólogos experimentales: Searle, Pinter, Khanemann y Haidt. Estas almas empíricas no pudieron competir con los propagandistas que intentaron destronarlos. Desde el intento de Freud de oscurecer la obra de Nietzsche usando seudociencia. La forma en la que los posmodernos usan la psicología. La seudociencia de Boaz para oscurecer la obra de Darwin.

    El uso de la seudociencia Keynesiana para desacreditar la obra de los empíricos y los economistas morales conservadores, y la combinación de Krugman, DeLong, Stieglitz, y sus aliados que evocan y defienden una economía inmoral si el consumo se mantiene aun si el consumo puede ser mantenido obteniendo como intercambio reformas morales de burocracias inmorales, evasión de impuestos y horas de trabajo improductivas. Los racionalistas alemanes, los judíos cosmopolitas, los anglo-neo-puritanos, todos buscan crear una nueva forma de autoritarismo justificando su control de la sociedad, los indo-europeos, los griegos, romanos, germánicos, nórdicos y británicos buscaron controlar a las sociedades usando la honestidad, propiedad, ley, jurados. Los británicos casi perfeccionaron la técnica- evolucionando las leyes concernientes a bienes comunes, orgánicos, derechos de propiedad, mediante ensayo y error, y como una forma de intercambio voluntario entre las clases al utilizar las múltiples casas de gobierno.

    Pero la verdad sin autoridad asusta a la gente que no vive en islas, y que no tienen control de sus dominios. ¿Cómo podrían los alemanes mantener unidad en ausencia de una autoridad eclesiástica? ¿Cómo podrían los judíos mantener unidad en la ausencia de ética de doble moral y una contravención de su moralidad separatista? ¿Cómo podrían los anglo-neo-puritanos mantener estatus y poder, y asegurar que no serán superados en números sin la imposición de sus ideologías por medio del uso de la fuerza? Una cosa es usar propaganda para hacer que el mundo sea más seguro para los judíos apelando a la diversidad de modo tal que pueden mantener una ética separatista y con frecuencia parasitaria, una sociedad huésped dentro de otra sociedad. Otra cosa es que los puritanos norteamericanos justifiquen la conquista de sus territorios. Y otra cosa es que los alemanes traten de refundir el concepto de moralidad, veracidad y deber para que puedan mantener una sociedad paternal y estoica. 

    De todas estas, el daño ha sido mayor y más severo por el uso por parte de los americanos del castigo altruista y la justificación moral de la violencia, y incluso aún más por el uso judío de su principal habilidad: la propaganda, la seudociencia y el engaño- los alemanes meramente armaron a los judíos socialistas, neoconservadores, y libertinos, y a los anglo neo puritanos. El daño hecho por los alemanes es relativamente limitado. Ellos fueron conquistados y se ha evitado que ejerzan poder sobre Europa mediante la dominación Americana tras la segunda guerra mundial. Un período que está llegando a su fin. 

    El daño hecho por la anglo ideología esta actualmente auto-corrigiéndose por medio de la ciencia que surgió posterior a 1990 (mi generación), y el colapso de los mitos de la posguerra junto con el ascenso del capitalismo consumista mundial que elimina el ventajismo militar norteamericano. El daño hecho por los propagandistas judíos es probablemente irreversible y a menos que rompamos el continente en estados regionales más pequeños, nos enfrentamos a convertirnos en otro “Brasil”, gracias a la destrucción judía de la historia, filosofía, honestidad, ética, leyes, moralidad y ciencias al manipular de forma exitosa a los neo-puritanos y movilizar a las mujeres de forma suficiente para seguir sus estrategias reproductivas socialistas-al costo de perjudicar la familia. Hoy vemos la perfecta culminación del militarismo angloimperial y la propaganda judía, en la combinación de Putin de múltiples formas de propaganda, cada de las cuales apela a los mismos sesgos morales pero que de forma acumulativa es contradictoria en si misma (Busquen en Google “Yale University’s Timothy Snyder) 

    ¿QUE PODEMOS HACER?

    [N]osotros podemos restaurar la verdad muy fácilmente. Podemos resarcir el más grande error de la historia: el derecho a la libre expresión, versus el derecho a la expresión verdadera (decir la verdad) para requerir expresión honesta de que nosotros poseamos un medio lógico, científico , y racional de determinar lo que constituye el discurso honesto. Y nosotros no hemos tenido este sistema lógico: la lógica de la moralidad por más de 2500 años. La razón por la cual no la hemos tenido, se me escapa en este momento. Aunque estoy seguro de que yo lo descubriré en algún momento.

    **Ese pedazo de lógica solo es posible si el imperio de la moral es la prohibición total de la imposición de costos – o dicho de otra forma – el derecho a tener producción completamente informada, garantizada, transferencia voluntaria, libre de exterioridad negativa**

    La ciencia actualmente garantiza la expresión al requerir que pase las siguientes pruebas, que demuestran que no estamos añadiendo contenido imaginario o contenido alegórico a  nuestras declaraciones:

    1. Correspondencia entera (que el fenómeno sea observable)
    2. Consistencia interna ( lógica)
      2.1 Identidad: La lógica de nombrar las cosas
      2.2 Matemática: la lógica de las relaciones
      2.3 Física: la lógica de la causalidad
      2.4 Lógica: la lógica del lenguaje
    3. Operacionalmente definidas
    4. Falsificadas (parsimoniosas)

    Pero, también le podríamos añadir a la ciencia, la constricción lógica que en la esfera social, el argumento de uno es libre de transferencia involuntaria, al requerir que sea productivo, plenamente informado, garantizado, voluntario y libre de la exterioridad negativa. y para ello podemos añadir al testimonio científico el requerimiento de que el discurso sea

    5. Ético y moral (libre de transferencia involuntaria)
    2.5 Moralidad: la lógica de la cooperación

    Si añadimos esta constricción a la investigación científica, entonces no  hay ninguna diferencia entre los dominios físicos y sociales de la investigación. No hay diferencia alguna entre ciencia, filosofía, moralidad, y ley. Las disciplinas son idénticas. 
    Podemos decir que si algo no es científico entonces no es cierto. Y nunca podríamos saber si es cierto si no decimos la verdad, pero debemos garantizar que hemos hecho diligencia suficiente para que hablemos sinceramente. Eso es lo mejor que podemos hacer, y en la práctica, lo mejor que podemos hacer es la diferencia entre la civilización occidental y el resto, así que eso es ciertamente suficiente. 

    Por ende:

    1. Podemos resarcir el más grande error de la historia al requerir que el discurso sea garantizado, y garantizando a los ciudadanos la defensa de los bienes informativos en las cortes, e imponiendo restitución para el dar accidental, y triplicando las penas para engaños frente a las cortes. Esto incremento de gastos es importante ya que producir la verdad es costoso y la producción del engaño es barata. Los únicos medios de proveer incentivos es aumentar los costos del engaño para que sean mayores que el costo de decir la verdad. (Nuestro sistema legal actual ha evolucionado para producir incentivos perversos, por ejemplo: mentir).
    2. Podemos resarcir la segunda más grande mentira de la historia: la ignorancia instruída institucionalmente: privatizar nuestros sistemas escolares al 100%, para que sean de elección libre. Restituir la enseñanza de la gramática, retórica, modales, ética (moralidad), lógica, razón, método científico, el arte del atestiguamiento y testimonio, el imperio de la ley bajo los derechos de propiedad y la evolución orgánica de las leyes. Aunado a esto, no hay razón por la cual no se deba enseñar contabilidad, balanza de pagos, banca e interés, contabilidad financiera, microeconomía, a todos los estudiantes desde el sexto año de educación básica hasta el final de la educación secundaria. Es mucho más sencillo que enseñar álgebra,, geometría y cálculo y demostrablemente más importante. Este pénsum enseñará a los estudiantes la verdad, honestidad, y la cooperación voluntaria, a no perder el tiempo tratando de justificar las falacias de las mayorías y el poder político – justificar la tiranía de las mayorías.
    3. Podemos resarcir el tercer error más grande de la historia: La construcción accidental de una religión estatal accidental que defienda falsedades: El sistema universitario y el socialismo democrático secular. Esto requiere poco menos que hacer que todas las universidades operen bajo crédito a estudiantes, recolectado de las ganancias futuras de los estudiantes como apalancamiento de paga, y luego la eliminación de todas las políticas de las universidades estatales, regresando a la universidad al servicio de la industria y no de la burocracia estatal. Esto hará que los departamentos que demostrablemente causan daño y resultados negativos a los graduados caigan en bancarrota.
    4. Podemos el cuarto error más grande la historia: Permitirle al gobierno construir leyes en vez de construir contratos. Bajo el imperio de la moralidad, el estado puede facilitar la negociación de contratos con el propósito de construir bienes, pero no puede emitir mandaros para otro fin que no sea la declaración de guerra, al descubrir innovaciones en la transferencia involuntaria y al construir ley para suprimir la transferencia involuntaria, la cual luego puede ser usada como “teoría ” legal hasta que sea evaluada por las cortes más altas. Sin embargo todas las leyes son teóricas, y abiertas a la revisión, en cualquier momento, si el propósito original de suprimir las transferencias involuntarias ya no tiene basamento, y lo que permanece a la ley es meramente innecesario para los ciudadanos. Pero para que este sistema sea lógicamente integral, la ley debe establecer su intención original, diciendo cuales son los medios mediante los cuales se va a suprimir la transferencia involuntaria y luego debe ser construida desde los primeros principios para lograr esa intención. (la combinación de la aserción positiva y la prohibición negativa, bajo construcción definitiva y estricta es necesario para que se prevenga la expansión de la discreción sin la declaración específica de los medios de expresión).
    5. Podemos resarcir el quinto error más grande la historia: que mientras la ley debe ser construirá para los individuos ,los bienes deben ser construidos para las familias. El consumo sirve a la reproducción, o sirve simplemente para propósitos meramente hedonistas. Cualquier y todas las civilizaciones que premian la reproducción disgénica de las clases más bajas o el consumo disgénico de las clases más altas, consumen los sacrificios y ahorros combinados de generaciones previas, y elimina el incentivo de producir una civilización. La civilización occidental ha sido organizada para cuidar a los incompetentes, y producir descendencia de los competentes. La alternativa a esto es la tendencia actual de la reproducción disgénica y el daño al ecosistema mundial – Nuestros medios de producción.
    6. Podemos resarcir el sexto error más grande de la historia – uno que es contra-intuitivo: la sociedad civil (propiedad individual y responsabilidad de los bienes). Actualmente en los EEUU hay 1 abogado por cada 300 personas. Yo propongo que esto es la mitad del número requerido de abogados, que el estándar para aprobar el examen de licencia para ejercer el derecho sea elevado, y que decir la verdad, atestiguar y testimoniar, sea añadido a los requerimientos para aprobar la licencia, y sumado a esto:
      6.1 Que la policía sea desmilitarizada: Que Shérif sea electo y que haya pasado el examen. La policía local debe estar bajo control del Shérif, Que todos los empleados del departamento del Shérif sean voluntarios- Y que todo el que haya servido en las fuerzas armadas se le prohíba servir como empleado del departamento del Shérif. Que el Shérif dependa de sus empleados en vez de tener un staff permanente. Que la restitución deba ser instituida en todos los casos de daño, y que en el caso de las multas, se dirijan al servicio de los pobres, no el fondo general o la oficina del Shérif. Que todos los voluntarios, habiendo servido al menos tres años, puedan actuar como diputados en cualquier momento y sean capaces de usar su don de mando y la violencia, en caso de que sea necesario para organizar a todos los hombres disponibles para prevenir un crimen sobre la propiedad hasta que el Shérif o sus representantes lleguen. Esto podrá restaurar la sociedad cívica y hará que los hombres entiendan tanto la moralidad como la ley.
      6.2 La banca debe ser profesionalizada, y todos aquellos que emitan créditos en nombre de alguien más (es decir que manejen dinero ajeno) requieran pasar un examen de licencia. Y que su desempeño financiero sea objeto de auditoría pública así como el crédito de cualquier otra persona. La contabilidad y la banda son tecnologías triviales comparada con la ley y la reubicación de empleos que repoblarán el sector bancario actual con individuos superiores, que comandan salarios mayores, y quienes, en caso de perder su licencia, serán irreparablemente lastimados.
      6.3 Restituir que todos los individuos miembros de una organización hagan rendición de cuenteas y que estén expuestos a asumir responsabilidad en caso de que hayan transferencias involuntarias. El requerimiento de que todos los individuos que manejan dieron estén asegurados y que el asegurador garantice que estos individuos entiendan y puedan ser honestos, atestiguar y testimoniar cuando se les haga una auditoría. 
      Esto restaurará la moralidad al sistema bancario dentro de tres años.
      6.4 Garantiar acceso universal a los bienes para que le activista pueda llegar directamente a las cortes, en aquellos casos en los cuales sus bienes se vean perjudicados. Esto requerirá verificación de la ley, el registro de los bienes, y para cada bien se enumere mediante el principio del “usus, fructus, macipio y abusus”. Cualquier uso de los bienes debe ser asegurado, de modo tal que el asegurador y el usuario asuman el costo de defensa. Ningún individuo en cualquier organización está exento de rendir cuentas por violar la propiedad de los bienes. Esto tiene que ser implementado a lo largo de seis años, ya que los violadores actuales no pueden racionalmente adaptarse más rápido que en este período. (Alguna ley en el uso de bienes tampoco ha sido dilucidada).
    7. Reformar la economía keynesiana
      7.1 Bypasear el sistema financiero, porque la distribución de la liquidez por medio de los bancos, como si todavía estuviéramos en la época de la moneda metálica, ya no es necesaria. Que la tesorería adquiera un interés mayoritario en la peor compañía de tarjetas de crédito, MasterCard, y que una vez que esto haya ocurrido se emitan tarjetas a cada persona que tenga cuenta en el Seguro Social. Que se distribuya toda la liquidez de forma equitativa a todos los tarjetahabientes, negocios e industrias, que sus finanzas compitan por dicha liquidez, en vez de hacer que los consumidores sean esclavos del interés, cosa que es cuestionablemente ética en un primer lugar. Si este dinero se distribuye equitativamente, los más ricos podrán sus impuestos con este sistema. Y también causará incrementos en la resistencia a la inmigración de las clases más bajas. La liquidez debe ser basada en reglas, y no debe ser discrecional, de modo tal que queda exenta de la esfera política. Esto también quiere decir que la ciudadanía de facto es participativa en este crédito y sin dicho crédito no se pueden obtener esos servicios.
      7.2 Ahorros y pensiones de retiro
      7.3 Compensación para construcción, manutención y vigilancia de bienes
      7.4 (no desarrollado por el autor aún)
    8. Reforma limitada del sistema tributario: Eliminación de la tributación por parte de las corporaciones de los dividendos, mientras preservación de las ganancias capitales, y sobre las ganancias retenidas. Que se cobren impuestos en todos los dividendos mientras mantengan impuestos sobre la renta personal. Que se acelere la depreciación de todos los bienes a los precios de liquidación actual.
    9. Reforma del sistema mayoritario de gobierno: Restaurar la cooperación entre las clases.
      9.1 Defensa (militar), Ley (resolución de disputas) (cortes), Aseguradoras(como último recurso), Bienes ( gobiernos), el Cuidado (iglesia) debe funcionar como un institución independiente del estado.

    REFORMANDO LA TEORÍA DE LA BUROCRACIA DE FUKUYAMA

    Esta teoría de la “auto-organización” adaptativa es contraria lo que Fukuyama propone como una “burocracia profesional”, en el modelo Chino, como aquel del “fin de la historia”. no menos el cual es porque la burocracia siempre produce estancamiento, depredación y pobreza. En vez de ello, la solución evoca el modelo histórico occidental, en el cual el gobierno es de hecho una institución privada ( una corporación plena) análoga a un centro comercial, y que los diferentes grupos dentro de esa corporación podemos llamarlos “el sector privado”, produzcan innovaciones constantes, y que sean constantemente reemplazadas por generaciones de destrucción creativa, requiriendo innovación política constante, pero la innovación constante que requiere que el estado sólo actúe como un observador y juez, no director, gerente o administrador. 

    La razón por la cual el estado burocrático es un monopolio que no puede ser revisado por la competencia libre- sólo por el fracaso y la revolución- El estado como un judicial, la monarquía como un árbitro final, el gobierno es como productor de bienes voluntarios, todos la fuerza es una constante adaptación a la circunstancia, y la reorganización de la familia y del estado para reflejar la tecnología disponible para la organización voluntaria de la producción sobre la cual nuestra prosperidad depende. Los intereses individuales entre los monarcas preservan a largo plazo lo concerniente sobre los consumos  a corto plazo. 

    La civilización occidental innovó más rápidamente porque hay un delta mínimo entre una innovación y la prevención del parasitismo en tanto el sector público como el privado. El derecho consuetudinario orgánico reacciona tan pronto como se realiza una transferencia involuntaria. El desempeño de la civilización occidental se debe en gran parte a cómo el sector privado ha innovado más rápido que el sector gubernamental y de cómo este último puede rentabilidad dichas innovaciones. El modelo anglo fue el más exitoso al prevenir las rentas al crear los medios de construir intercambios entre las clases por instituciones basadas en clases que podemos llamar “casas de gobierno”.

    Fukuyama, a pesad e su estudio de la confianza, no pudo imaginarse la importancia de la honestidad. -Fue víctima del sesgo del consenso cultural y genético- Fukuyama yerra al igual que Confucio en asumir que el consenso no tiene fin, la gerencia carece de propósito, si no hay honestidad y soberanía que separe a la civilización occidental del resto. Y que todas nuestras instituciones únicas y nuestro dramático desempeño son atribuibles a nuestra capacidad de haber resuelto el problema político: soberanía, honestidad, derechos de propiedad y jurado. Una solución que ni Confucio ni la burocracia china, ni cualquier otra civilización han podido resolver. 

    El hecho de que los chinos hayan creado al estado primero, pero que no hayan descubierto la honestidad, y a pesar de ser más acaudalados, más aislados, y más prósperos han repetitivamente fracasado en descubrir una solución al problema político. 
    Desafortunadamente para occidente, la revolución francesa, revirtió lo alcanzado por la revolución inglesa en su implementación de gobiernos empíricos, y Fue el modelo racional- totalitario francés el que se esparció por el continente y no el modelo empírico racionalista.

    La forma de gobierno occidental (empírica) de intercambio fue disminuida por la destrucción de la cooperación americana entre las clases al disolver el senado como un cuerpo representativo de intereses, al elegirlos directamente. Y disminuyó aun más al apoderar a los que carecen de propiedades, en vez de crear una casa que represente a este grupo, con el fin de reemplazar a la iglesia como cuerpo representativo. Las clases inferiores se han constituido en madres solteras y minorías que determinan el resultado de todas las desiciones políticas, creando no intercambios voluntarios sino imposiciones justificadas por el hecho de que los políticos pueden apelar a las minorías y madres solteras para que parasito a las parejas casadas que gastan esfuerzos en crear familias autosuficientes y productivas. (Ver la encuesta de Pew Research sobre la influencia de las mujeres solteras y madres solteras sobre la política)

    Cada arrebato involuntario es una oportunidad perdida para el intercambio voluntario el cual crea una comunidad homogénea y nos separa, Los autores de este engaño han sido, en su mayoría, lamentablemente Judíos, pero su modelo ha sido adoptado por casi todos los académicos occidentales y las instituciones políticas después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, como un medio de búsqueda de estatus por parte de neo-puritanos, y apelar a la diversidad y tolerancia como una forma de preservar el separatismo judío al atacar los valores occidentales de la familia, la honestidad y la conformidad a las normas occidentales.

    Actualmente, llamaremos “La Catedral” al complejo académico-mediático-gubernamental que ha reemplazado al complejo marcial de principios del siglo XX, que a su vez, reemplazó al complejo científico académico que había evolucionado de la ilustración, y culminando con Darwin, Maxwell y Einstein. Así que hemos degenerado progresivamente desde el modernismo (ciencia) hasta el militarismo, hasta la propaganda post-moderna-seudocientífica-propagandista engañosa que es un ataque hacia los movimientos marciales y científicos.

    Así que Fukuyama tiene medio razón en su análisis de la burocracia, pero él meramente busca justificar a sus antecesores: Su  hipótesis del “fin de la historia”. Pero en vez de un intento de justificación de la socialdemocracia al imponer un totalitarismo asiático sobre occidente, la respuesta a la próxima generación – La Restauración- en vez de entender el fracaso del proyecto de la ilustración fue uno de intentar abogar la teoría de que las estrategias evolutivas locales pueden servir como normas universales. Y en vez de de tratar de mejorar sobre lo que Platón propone al crear una burocracia profesional de alguna manera libre de incentivos negativos y monopolios, a restaurar los medios institucionales de cooperación entre las clases: crear gobierno moral, ahora que sabemos lo que “moral” significa: productivo, verdadero, plenamente informado, garantizado, de transferencia voluntaria, libre de exterioridad negativa. Donde “plenamente informado” quiere decir que se adhiere a la ciencia de decir la verdad, los cinco criterios mencionados anteriormente: consistencia interna, correspondencia externa, definición operativa, falsificación exhaustiva, y libre de exterioridad negativa. 

    Si todo esto se entiende, será claro que el modelo conservador es el correcto, y refleja ciencia: criticar todos los cambios hasta que sobrevivan en vez de imponer cambios por medio de la ley. En otras palabras, el conservadurismo es el remanente del gobierno científico temprano, donde uno sabe que la ciencia no es justificativa sino crítica.

    Los británicos no hicieron mucho sino descubrir el gobierno científico, en la medida que lo descubrieron lo pusieron en práctica, Los conservadores americanos continuaron la tradición del gobierno científico: aquello que es verdadero, y útil sobrevive todo criticismo. Si es voluntariamente adoptado, entonces es verdadero. Si no es voluntariamente adoptado, entonces no es verdadero. Lo mismo aplica para la teoría económica: El keynesianismo monetarista es mentir. Es desinformación- 
    La pregunta es entonces: ¿Cómo desempeñamos el mismo fin de forma honesta?

    Con la verdad basta. Mentir se ha convertido en algo artístico, muy cómodo y muy dominante. Oscurece tanto la necesidad y el incentivo para la conducción honesta de la economía, política y ley. 

    Es posible lograr cambios democráticos sociales honestamente.
    Ese será el objeto de mi próximo trabajo sobre el gobierno post-mayoritario

    Curt Doolittle

    El Instituto Propietarista
    Kiev, Ucrania

  • The Immorality of The Classes Cuts Both Ways – Because of Economic Pseudoscience

    [T]he Author’s criticisms stand (mostly), if we restate them as “increases in productivity and decreases in prices are beneficial only so long as the externalities are not more costly than the price discounting”. I think all of us are now aware that the big box reseller movement was as disastrous as he suggests. I think that it’s become obvious that free trade can be performed just as disastrously by the same criteria. I think it’s become obvious that the perverse incentive of immigrating labor at the expense of the populace has political effects for either party, and for the Deep State’s corrupt self interest, but negative effects for the population and their offspring. I think it’s obvious now that democracy a convenient tool for useful idiots used to place labor(organizer of goods and services), manager(organizer of production), entrepreneur (organizer of production), and lender (organizer of production) into conflict for the benefit of the state bureaucracy and the large financiers. I think it is obvious that the financial sector is privatizing nearly all gains of the world commons because we use that financial sector to distribute fiat currency (divisible shares of stock in the commons used as a money substitute) instead of directly distributing liquidity to consumers (and creating a political hazard under Democracy). And I think it’s become obvious that the mistakes of the 20th century were made with good intentions by those outside of the marxist/socialist/syndicalist/frankfurt-school/postmodern schools (the quantitative economists), but that most of these errors were errors of pseudoscience and ignorance in an era of great change. Now, the cause of this monstrous behavior is not only the economics profession, and it’s convenient use of measuring what’s visible and not whats invisible to justify its own existence. But also the stock market and the fiat money system that make such inter-temporally risky (and unmeasurable) allocations of capital possible, and then privatize that speculation (as did Mitt Romney – albeit not knowing that he was immoral. BTW: I was one of the owners of those prior downtown businesses affected by Staples). Just as importantly, perhaps the most important cause in the 20th century, was the use of the Union movement to artificially increase prices, that renders businesses price-uncompetitive and drove our businesses offshore, and created a war between labor and entrepreneur rather than the ancient partnership between savers, craftsmen and entrepreneurs. Improved goods matter to us. It’s not moral to charge import duties on superior goods at superior or inferior prices. But I have no idea why it is NOT moral to charge import duties in wage differences in a world where there are no longer comparative advantages other than wages. This concept is important, because like all theories, the theory of competitive advantage has limits. Hence why in Propertarianism I require that truth propositions include limits and morality, rather than ‘assume’ that all measurable gains are without worse negative externalities. It is drastically cheaper to pull oil out of Saudi Sands and get it to the sea, than it is to pull it out of Russian Tundra and ship it across thousands of miles of pipeline, or extract it from Canadian oil sands and get it to a port. These are matters of comparative advantage whose price differences produce no externalities. The fact that canadian wages, russian wages, and saudi wages differ so greatly is not a factor of production open to comparative advantage. It is price arbitrage at the cost of human suffering. (I am sure I will get hammered for this but according to propertarianism it is an objectively moral statement). It is likewise just as distorting of the information system not to account for intertemporal shifts in credit cost by state subsidized loans and wages – although I cannot see that this is immoral, only that trade wars can be immorally constructed by doing so. It’s not more efficient if we produce negative externalities in excess of gains. It’s only efficient if people are freed up for more productive work (farm labor for factories, factory labor for white collar work), but not if people are made unemployable (I hate automated cash registers and parking lot attendants and movie theatre service and anything else of that nature frankly. Minimum wage is a bad idea but human replacement because of external costs created by the state that make employment undesirable are far worse.

    [callout]“Thou Shalt Do No Harm In The Pursuit of Self Interest” is quite different from “Thou Shalt Do The Most for Others Out Of High Mindedness”.[/callout]

    CONVERSELY THE IMMORALITY OF THE LABOR AND UNDERCLASSES [C]onversely, people demonstrate that they will prefer price over quality help, service and employment. Which is why I am so much against immigration of labor that makes such things possible. So we give rise to black markets, because while people claim to be moral and want justice they do so only when it affects others not themselves. So people demonstrate moral selection bias. If we fix the financial and legal system will that help us in fixing the immorality of individuals who seek to create black markets in oder to circumvent the higher costs of immorally discounted goods? It is not just the big boys in power that are immoral. Every asian shop-keeper without a credit card terminal is a tax evader, and a thief. And there are thousands of such cases every day everywhere. Immorality is difficult to suppress in all walks of life. And there is pretty good evidence that it’s harder to suppress it among the little people than the middle and upper middle class. And moreover, it is one thing to say that we may not profit by privatizing the commons and act immorally, and another to say that we must share our profits in creating commons (increases in productivity and decreases in prices) with others who already gained from the compound effects of increases in productivity and decreases in prices. Capitalism after all refers to ‘consumer capitalism’ which has benefitted consumers and the state far more than entrepreneurs. “Thou Shalt Do No Harm In The Pursuit of Self Interest” is quite different from “Thou Shalt Do The Most for Others Out Of High Mindedness”. The moral requirement that the preservation of cooperation requires that we limit our actions to those involving productive, fully-informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of imposition of costs upon that which was obtained by others by the same means – meaning free of negative externalities – does not require that we also redistribute the gains from taking the risk of doing so. The moral requirement that we insure others against the vicissitudes of nature despite their good efforts says nothing about those insufficiently productive in value to others that they can expand their moral hazard – doing harm to others – by reproduction of offspring and placing the burden on others. Or that taxation that transfers rates of reproduction from those productive in the service of others to those unproductive in the services of others – which imposes a cost on the producer and upon the commons. So the immorality of our current state of affairs cuts both ways. Each class preys upon the other using government as the method and obscurantism and fog of political accounting as the means of escaping both criticism and self awareness of our immorality. Each class imposes costs upon the other until we all decide that the incentives are insufficient to play the game and descend into civil war – which is certainly a possibility on the near horizon. THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE [T]hese various externalities that allow immoral abuses of capitalism are measurable. But so called ‘economic science’ does not (often) practice full accounting or morality. I practices Selective Accounting to Justify Immorality that creates opportunity for the financial class to privatize commons of all forms. It is this pseudoscience created by marx and keynes and justified by Rawls on the left, rand and rothbard in the libertarian movement, that accomplished this horror – and did so over the objections of the white conservatives who simply lacked the science and understanding other than tradition to stop it. Yet somehow capitalism is to blame despite its use in dragging humanity out of disease, poverty, ignorance and mysticism. And despite the revelry the underclasses have demonstrated by their unregulated dysgenic reproduction and overpopulation of the planet and its carrying capacity. I cannot see less developed societies refraining from ‘cheating’ by conduct of immoral trade any more than I can see them abandoning levels of corruption endemic to all cultures outside of christendom. So it is one thing for a MORAL PEOPLE (us) to INCREASE our use of morality and decrease our use of immorality within our borders and quite another thing to expect OTHERS to discontinue immoral behavior in the borders and across their borders via trade. THIS IS WHY PROPERTARIANISM IS TAKING ME SO LONG [T]his is why, in my work on Propertarianism, I demand tests of ‘full accounting’ as a scientific warranty of due diligence in any promise of truthful speech about matters of the commons. By full accounting I mean across all capital forms across all time periods affected. (note that we idd not have the economic and financial knowledge to do this prior to the era of computers in which immoral economics – marxist and keyensian economics – were constructed. I tell everyone that it’s the Economics. I need to make sure that I understand the implications of Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth in an attempt to cleans economics of pseudoscience and immorality. One of my ambitions is to correct the pseudoscience of economics by restoring objective MORALITY to economic science. But this is a huge problem and I have to work through these issues carefully and at some painful level of detail. This particular argument I think survives for eternity. And I think that we solve the problems of capitalism with it. Problems that are not problems of capitalism per say: they are problems with pseudoscientific Keynesian economics of obscurantist aggregates and the Rothchildian use of financialism as state authorized parasitism specifically created to circumvent the morality of western ethics. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Immorality of The Classes Cuts Both Ways – Because of Economic Pseudoscience

    [T]he Author’s criticisms stand (mostly), if we restate them as “increases in productivity and decreases in prices are beneficial only so long as the externalities are not more costly than the price discounting”. I think all of us are now aware that the big box reseller movement was as disastrous as he suggests. I think that it’s become obvious that free trade can be performed just as disastrously by the same criteria. I think it’s become obvious that the perverse incentive of immigrating labor at the expense of the populace has political effects for either party, and for the Deep State’s corrupt self interest, but negative effects for the population and their offspring. I think it’s obvious now that democracy a convenient tool for useful idiots used to place labor(organizer of goods and services), manager(organizer of production), entrepreneur (organizer of production), and lender (organizer of production) into conflict for the benefit of the state bureaucracy and the large financiers. I think it is obvious that the financial sector is privatizing nearly all gains of the world commons because we use that financial sector to distribute fiat currency (divisible shares of stock in the commons used as a money substitute) instead of directly distributing liquidity to consumers (and creating a political hazard under Democracy). And I think it’s become obvious that the mistakes of the 20th century were made with good intentions by those outside of the marxist/socialist/syndicalist/frankfurt-school/postmodern schools (the quantitative economists), but that most of these errors were errors of pseudoscience and ignorance in an era of great change. Now, the cause of this monstrous behavior is not only the economics profession, and it’s convenient use of measuring what’s visible and not whats invisible to justify its own existence. But also the stock market and the fiat money system that make such inter-temporally risky (and unmeasurable) allocations of capital possible, and then privatize that speculation (as did Mitt Romney – albeit not knowing that he was immoral. BTW: I was one of the owners of those prior downtown businesses affected by Staples). Just as importantly, perhaps the most important cause in the 20th century, was the use of the Union movement to artificially increase prices, that renders businesses price-uncompetitive and drove our businesses offshore, and created a war between labor and entrepreneur rather than the ancient partnership between savers, craftsmen and entrepreneurs. Improved goods matter to us. It’s not moral to charge import duties on superior goods at superior or inferior prices. But I have no idea why it is NOT moral to charge import duties in wage differences in a world where there are no longer comparative advantages other than wages. This concept is important, because like all theories, the theory of competitive advantage has limits. Hence why in Propertarianism I require that truth propositions include limits and morality, rather than ‘assume’ that all measurable gains are without worse negative externalities. It is drastically cheaper to pull oil out of Saudi Sands and get it to the sea, than it is to pull it out of Russian Tundra and ship it across thousands of miles of pipeline, or extract it from Canadian oil sands and get it to a port. These are matters of comparative advantage whose price differences produce no externalities. The fact that canadian wages, russian wages, and saudi wages differ so greatly is not a factor of production open to comparative advantage. It is price arbitrage at the cost of human suffering. (I am sure I will get hammered for this but according to propertarianism it is an objectively moral statement). It is likewise just as distorting of the information system not to account for intertemporal shifts in credit cost by state subsidized loans and wages – although I cannot see that this is immoral, only that trade wars can be immorally constructed by doing so. It’s not more efficient if we produce negative externalities in excess of gains. It’s only efficient if people are freed up for more productive work (farm labor for factories, factory labor for white collar work), but not if people are made unemployable (I hate automated cash registers and parking lot attendants and movie theatre service and anything else of that nature frankly. Minimum wage is a bad idea but human replacement because of external costs created by the state that make employment undesirable are far worse.

    [callout]“Thou Shalt Do No Harm In The Pursuit of Self Interest” is quite different from “Thou Shalt Do The Most for Others Out Of High Mindedness”.[/callout]

    CONVERSELY THE IMMORALITY OF THE LABOR AND UNDERCLASSES [C]onversely, people demonstrate that they will prefer price over quality help, service and employment. Which is why I am so much against immigration of labor that makes such things possible. So we give rise to black markets, because while people claim to be moral and want justice they do so only when it affects others not themselves. So people demonstrate moral selection bias. If we fix the financial and legal system will that help us in fixing the immorality of individuals who seek to create black markets in oder to circumvent the higher costs of immorally discounted goods? It is not just the big boys in power that are immoral. Every asian shop-keeper without a credit card terminal is a tax evader, and a thief. And there are thousands of such cases every day everywhere. Immorality is difficult to suppress in all walks of life. And there is pretty good evidence that it’s harder to suppress it among the little people than the middle and upper middle class. And moreover, it is one thing to say that we may not profit by privatizing the commons and act immorally, and another to say that we must share our profits in creating commons (increases in productivity and decreases in prices) with others who already gained from the compound effects of increases in productivity and decreases in prices. Capitalism after all refers to ‘consumer capitalism’ which has benefitted consumers and the state far more than entrepreneurs. “Thou Shalt Do No Harm In The Pursuit of Self Interest” is quite different from “Thou Shalt Do The Most for Others Out Of High Mindedness”. The moral requirement that the preservation of cooperation requires that we limit our actions to those involving productive, fully-informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of imposition of costs upon that which was obtained by others by the same means – meaning free of negative externalities – does not require that we also redistribute the gains from taking the risk of doing so. The moral requirement that we insure others against the vicissitudes of nature despite their good efforts says nothing about those insufficiently productive in value to others that they can expand their moral hazard – doing harm to others – by reproduction of offspring and placing the burden on others. Or that taxation that transfers rates of reproduction from those productive in the service of others to those unproductive in the services of others – which imposes a cost on the producer and upon the commons. So the immorality of our current state of affairs cuts both ways. Each class preys upon the other using government as the method and obscurantism and fog of political accounting as the means of escaping both criticism and self awareness of our immorality. Each class imposes costs upon the other until we all decide that the incentives are insufficient to play the game and descend into civil war – which is certainly a possibility on the near horizon. THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE [T]hese various externalities that allow immoral abuses of capitalism are measurable. But so called ‘economic science’ does not (often) practice full accounting or morality. I practices Selective Accounting to Justify Immorality that creates opportunity for the financial class to privatize commons of all forms. It is this pseudoscience created by marx and keynes and justified by Rawls on the left, rand and rothbard in the libertarian movement, that accomplished this horror – and did so over the objections of the white conservatives who simply lacked the science and understanding other than tradition to stop it. Yet somehow capitalism is to blame despite its use in dragging humanity out of disease, poverty, ignorance and mysticism. And despite the revelry the underclasses have demonstrated by their unregulated dysgenic reproduction and overpopulation of the planet and its carrying capacity. I cannot see less developed societies refraining from ‘cheating’ by conduct of immoral trade any more than I can see them abandoning levels of corruption endemic to all cultures outside of christendom. So it is one thing for a MORAL PEOPLE (us) to INCREASE our use of morality and decrease our use of immorality within our borders and quite another thing to expect OTHERS to discontinue immoral behavior in the borders and across their borders via trade. THIS IS WHY PROPERTARIANISM IS TAKING ME SO LONG [T]his is why, in my work on Propertarianism, I demand tests of ‘full accounting’ as a scientific warranty of due diligence in any promise of truthful speech about matters of the commons. By full accounting I mean across all capital forms across all time periods affected. (note that we idd not have the economic and financial knowledge to do this prior to the era of computers in which immoral economics – marxist and keyensian economics – were constructed. I tell everyone that it’s the Economics. I need to make sure that I understand the implications of Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth in an attempt to cleans economics of pseudoscience and immorality. One of my ambitions is to correct the pseudoscience of economics by restoring objective MORALITY to economic science. But this is a huge problem and I have to work through these issues carefully and at some painful level of detail. This particular argument I think survives for eternity. And I think that we solve the problems of capitalism with it. Problems that are not problems of capitalism per say: they are problems with pseudoscientific Keynesian economics of obscurantist aggregates and the Rothchildian use of financialism as state authorized parasitism specifically created to circumvent the morality of western ethics. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • An Overview of Propertarianism for Serious Newbies

    Some Introductory Help:

    • On The Use and Meaning Of “-ism’s”.
      https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/02/20/the-definition-and-use-of-isms/
    • The Meaning of Fictionalism
      https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/24/definition-fictionalism/
    • Significant Definitions 
      https://propertarianinstitute.com/category/attributes/definitions/
    • Series/Sequences
      https://propertarianinstitute.com/category/attributes/sequences/
    • The Glossary 
      https://propertarianinstitute.com/glossary/
    • The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
      https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

    THE UNIQUENESS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION: TRUTH (AGENCY, SOVEREIGNTY) 1) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/17/we-put-the-west-in-western-civilization/ 2) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT – THE CONFLICT OF CIVILIZATIONS ACROSS MILLENNIA Part I – The Beginning – Sovereignty, and The Counter Revolution against it. (Bronze Age – Black Sea)

    • The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, and as a consequence Agency, Natural Law, Thang (Jury), Testimonial (Deflationary) Truth, and Markets in Everything (Meritocracy).
    • The Counter-Revolution: The Eastern Development of Fictional Scriptural Religion in the Oral Tradition.

    Part II – The Counter Revolution Against Reason and Sovereignty. (Iron Age – Aegean-Mediterranean)

    • The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, Agency, Natural Law, Jury, Senate, Testimonial (Deflationary) Truth, Reason, and Markets in Everything.
    • The Counter Revolution: The Eastern (Jewish, Byzantine, Muslim) Development of Fictional, Scriptural, Authoritarian Religion, conflated with Law, in the Written Tradition.

    Part III – The Counter Enlightenment Against Science and Sovereignty. (Steel Age – North Sea-Atlantic) 

    • The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, Agency, Natural Law, Jury, Multi-House Government, Testimonial (Deflationary Truth), Reason, Rationalism, and Empiricism, and Markets in Everything.
    • The Counter: Revolution: The Eastern (Jewish, French, Russian) Development of Fictional, Pseudoscientific, Authoritarian Religions.

    The Anglos (Legal Empiricists / Locke-Smith-Hume-Jefferson), French (Literary Moralists / Rousseau) and The Germans (Literary Rationalists / Kant) had attempted to restate their group evolutionary strategy in modern terms. So did the Cosmopolitan Universalist Jews ( Argumentative Fictionalists (pseudo-mythology[authoritarian religion] / pseudo-law/ pseudo-rationalism / pseudoscience / outright-lying)) advocating separatism, poly-ethicalism, fictional utopianism as a universal ‘moral’ strategy. The Cosmopolitan Universalists (Jews) started producing pseudoscience as the enlightenment change rolled across Eastern Europe, (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Frankfurt) primarily as a reaction to the articulation of aristocratic thought in scientific terms (Darwin, Social Science, Spencer, Nietzsche, and the Romanticists.) ( FYI: Marxism: parasitism upon in-group private production. Libertarianism: parasitism upon in-group commons production. Neo-Conservatism: Parasitism upon other nations’  (out-group) private and commons production. ) While the Germansdefended against the enlightenment by rational restatement of hierarchy, duty, and reason in a new literary fashion invented by Kant. The French, Jewish and Russian together attacked the Anglo Enlightenment: the restoration of sovereignty and the attack on Fictionalism which all those nations depended upon. They each responded with a new fictionalism: The French out of feminine idealism and preservation of authority, Jews out of separatism, fear and preservation of authority, and Russians out of opportunity for aggression, restoration of orthodox civilization, usurpation, and preservation of authority – and our Puritans (anglo separatist equivalent of the Jews), and our women (as always) were, frankly, “suckers” for it. Just as they were in the ancient world. The Great Catastrophe  Just as Byzantium overextended herself and lost to the Turks. Just as Persia and Byzantium overextended themselves and lost to Arabs. Just as Rome overextended herself in Europe and lost to Byzantium; Just as Athens overextended herself in Sicily, and lost to Sparta; Just as the Bronze Age civilizations overextended themselves in the eastern mediterranean and lost to the barbarians. Just as all civilizations overextended themselves, Britain, in an effort to preserve the balance of powers from which she profited, constrained Germany, leaving America as her heir. Just as Athenian democratic greed prematurely ended the first industrial revolution (the Antikithera device only one step removed from Babbage’s mechanical computer), leaving pragmatic Rome to rule with Athenian and Carthaginian invention – the British, French, and American democratic (commercial) greed ended the second (this time German) scientific revolution, leaving pragmatic America to rule with German and British inventions. The European civil war to contain Germany was a catastrophe for the West in that it both truncated the completion of the Enlightenment (scientific revolution), whose second phase, and our rescue from eastern mysticism, was in progress in Germany (and from which 19th and 20th century America was the chief beneficiary – not originator.) It cast doubt upon the Western (aristocratic) order just as the thirty years war had cast doubt upon the prior (religious) order. Thereby reversing our prior gains against supernatural utopianism and the restoration of aristocratic (rule of law) rule, and replacing that supernatural utopianism with economic and political utopianism: pseudoscience. Postwar Jews immigrating to the United States used their pseudoscience (see “Pilpul”) and attacked and took over the academy and media just as they had used the pulpit in the ancient era, and the printing press in the prior era, to spread their second great lie of pseudoscience in every field of human social order. Women freed from labor under the industrial revolution used these arguments to reform slavery, seek the vote, and then using the vote, to claim men were their enemies and oppressors rather than their domesticators in a great compromise between the reproductive strategies of women (numbers) – their genes, and those of men (the tribe) – their genes. Once the slaves had been freed, the women also demanded equal representation, and within one generation after obtaining it used ‘the great lies’ of the cosmopolitans to undermine the western order further by creating a century of pseudoscience. They used this pseudoscience to pursue the destruction of the church, the destruction of the family, and the conquest of academy, state and media by women’s interests (r-selection), because women dispose of more of the earned income than do men in all these areas. Women are great consumers and it is profitable to serve them – even when they are spending down five thousand years of accumulated cultural and genetic capital. Women were sold Christianity. Women were sold Cosmopolitanism. Therefore the industrialization of lying found ready consumers. In marketing and advertising, in media and entertainment, and in democratic politics. The insatiable desire of women to consume, preen, signal, nest, care, and redistribute regardless of long term consequences, provided ready ground for the utopian ideology of endless resources provided by endless growth and the end of constraint. The Failure of Western Thinkers Western thinkers (for a variety of reasons) in the 20th century were unable to defeat this pseudoscientific utopian fiction, just as Western thinkers had been unable to defeat the previous age’s supernatural utopian fiction in the ancient world. As Poincare (mathematics) and Friedrich Hayek (economics and law) warned us, the twentieth century would be, and was, regressive in social science, economics, and politics – and it will be remembered as an age of mysticism (actually an age of fictionalism). Even though our progress in Physical Sciences, Chemistry, Engineering, and Information Technology — all products of the truncated German Scientific Revolution – combined with the continued sale of the conquered American continent, combined with the inheritance of the British Empire, combined with the new (now necessary) invention of fiat (stock) money, gave 19th and 20th century America a vast economic boom, which allowed the USA to drag recidivist civilizations (those that adopted the new Jewish Fictionalisms under world communism, socialism, social democracy, and Keynesian non-operational Economics) out of ignorance, poverty, starvation, disease and tyranny. Why? Because democracy in the ancient and modern world was nothing but a lie by which the middle class could take over the government from the aristocracy – and then over-extend growth until the polity developed economic, political, social, and genetic fragility. Our Western habit. One the Chinese did not practice. (If you must expand to grow productivity you are not in fact productive and innovative, but consumptive.) But neither the Western Aristocracy, nor its bourgeoise caste could speak the truth: that man, like plant and other animal, had been domesticated for fun and profit by the imposition of meritocracy by shrinking the reproduction of the lower classes, – and that the differences in the rate of development of civilizations is the result of the shrinking of the underclasses, making possible the progress of the civilization in every possible field of endeavor: linguistic, informational, economic, normative, social, cultural, political, and institutional. The lesson: In the absence of profit through conquest, the most eugenic civilization will always emerge as the most advanced civilization. And this uncomfortable truth is incompatible with unearned (universal) enfranchisement that justifies bourgeoise takeover of government from the aristocracy.PART IV – What Must Be Done? ( The Second Reformation Against Parasitism and Deceit. ) So armed with this knowledge, how do we reverse the century of propaganda, lies, and pseudoscience of the alliance between the Jews, women and minorities, and return the west its lost confidence, and restore the civilization’s strategy of truth+commons? We extend the warranty of due diligence against fraud that we require in products in the market, and services in the market, to cover information in the market, and we restore liability to all participants in a chain of production. We eliminate the economic subsidy for ‘entertainment’ we call copyright. We eliminate financial profiting from the sale of shares of the polity (Fiat Money, or for ordinary people, ‘dollars’ in the form of electronic money), preserving all of the appreciation and interest for the polity (treasury). And we grant universal standing (class action) to defense of the market for information. Eventually, we create separate houses of government for separate classes. And we eliminate representatives and change to direct per-resolution, democracy. This will raise the cost of the various fictionalisms (pseudo-myths/religion, pseudo-rationalisms, pseudo-science, and outright deceit) and eliminate its profitability such that we end the industrialization of lying made possible by mass media. This solution is an incremental advancement upon classical multi-house government in which each class negotiates with other classes for the production of commons, while suppressing the consistent deception (lying) that has been made possible by the industrialization of information distribution (media). By stating in rational and scientific terms the reason for the West’s rapid success in the ancient and modern periods, despite its many disadvantages. Then using this knowledge to defeat this great utopian pseudoscientific lie, even though we failed in the 20th century, and even though we failed in the ancient world against utopian supernaturalism. Our ambition is to require truthful speech in economics, politics, and law, the way we require truthful speech in contract, in the market for goods, and in the market for services. There is no reason that one cannot warranty his speech against the great utopian lies if he is to publish it (sell it, distribute it) in the market for information we call ‘the media’. The West practiced Agency, Sovereignty, Testimony in Deflationary Truth, Natural Law of Cooperation, Markets in Everything, and Aristocratic Egalitarianism (a form of eugenics at scale), and the Militia – and profited from the incremental domestication of the animal man lacking agency, in to the human that possesses it. But this strategy was never written down, only handed down I’m writing it down. Forever. Truth was enough to create the West, and truth is enough to restore the west. THE NORTH SEA PEOPLE AND HANSEATIC CIVILIZATION (MEDITERRANEAN:V3, AGEAN:V2, BLACK SEA:V1) http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ A SHORT COURSE IN SOVEREIGNTY AND AGENCY https://propertarianinstitute.com/category/attributes/sovereignty-and-agency/ THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOVEREIGNTY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/11/27/consequences-of-sovereignty/ A VERY SHORT COURSE IN DECIDABILITY http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/30/a-very-short-course-in-decidability/ A SHORT COURSE IN TESTIMONIAL TRUTH http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/28/a-short-course-on-propertarianisms-testimonial-truth/ THE DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR A WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/04/due-diligence-necessary-for-the-warranty-of-truthfulness/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/09/26/a-short-course-in-propertarian-reasoning/ THE EVOLUTION OF SUPPRESSION VIA COMMON LAW http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/10/the-evolution-of-suppression/ A SHORT COURSE IN NATURAL LAW https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/29/a-short-course-in-natural-law/ A SHORT COURSE IN ACQUISITIONISM (PSYCHOLOGY) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/23/core-acquisitionism-restating-psychology/ A SHORT COURSE IN GROUP ORGANIZATION (SOCIOLOGY) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/30/a-short-course-in-sociology-group-cooperation/ ( Still working with this one)THE TRANSACTION COST THEORY OF GOVERNMENT https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/02/04/a-short-course-in-the-transaction-cost-theory-of-government/ A SHORT COURSE IN MARKET GOVERNMENT (“Perfect Government”, “Markets in Everything”, and sarcastically: “Market Fascism”) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/30/a-short-course-in-perfect-government/ A SHORT COURSE IN THE WESTERN (ARISTOCRATIC) GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY ( … ) A SHORT COURSE IN GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY (COOPERATION/COMPETITION/WAR) ( … ) 1000 WORDS THAT CAPTURE IT ALL http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/19/the-most-profound-1000-words-you-can-read-on-political-philosophy-today/ THE CURE FOR PROPAGANDA (LYING) AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/01/18/the-cure-for-propaganda-and-western-civilization/ THE END OF HISTORY IS NOT DEMOCRACY BUT THE TRUTHFUL CIVILIZATION http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/06/the-end-of-history-the-truthful-civilization-sorry-francis/ There is much, much more online. But this is enough to keep you (or anyone else for that matter) busy for quite a while. Curt

    MORE – Outline By Chapter (needs updating for 2016 and 2017) [T]he Outline of Propertarianism in posts organized by chapter. This is only useful at this point to scan and get a sense of the structure of the argument. But you’re a smart guy and it might bear glancing. http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/propertarian-posts-by-chapter/ MORE (for 20th c. libertarians)FOR CONTRA MISES: https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/ FOR CONTRA ROTHBARD The Minimum Basis for Law (Nomocracy) http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/02/propertarianism-vs-rothbardiansm/ Fallacies http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/ A Lot More On Rothbard’s Low Trust Ghetto Ethics. http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=ghetto+ethics

  • An Overview of Propertarianism for Serious Newbies

    Some Introductory Help:

    • On The Use and Meaning Of “-ism’s”.
      https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/02/20/the-definition-and-use-of-isms/
    • The Meaning of Fictionalism
      https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/24/definition-fictionalism/
    • Significant Definitions 
      https://propertarianinstitute.com/category/attributes/definitions/
    • Series/Sequences
      https://propertarianinstitute.com/category/attributes/sequences/
    • The Glossary 
      https://propertarianinstitute.com/glossary/
    • The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
      https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

    THE UNIQUENESS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION: TRUTH (AGENCY, SOVEREIGNTY) 1) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/17/we-put-the-west-in-western-civilization/ 2) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT – THE CONFLICT OF CIVILIZATIONS ACROSS MILLENNIA Part I – The Beginning – Sovereignty, and The Counter Revolution against it. (Bronze Age – Black Sea)

    • The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, and as a consequence Agency, Natural Law, Thang (Jury), Testimonial (Deflationary) Truth, and Markets in Everything (Meritocracy).
    • The Counter-Revolution: The Eastern Development of Fictional Scriptural Religion in the Oral Tradition.

    Part II – The Counter Revolution Against Reason and Sovereignty. (Iron Age – Aegean-Mediterranean)

    • The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, Agency, Natural Law, Jury, Senate, Testimonial (Deflationary) Truth, Reason, and Markets in Everything.
    • The Counter Revolution: The Eastern (Jewish, Byzantine, Muslim) Development of Fictional, Scriptural, Authoritarian Religion, conflated with Law, in the Written Tradition.

    Part III – The Counter Enlightenment Against Science and Sovereignty. (Steel Age – North Sea-Atlantic) 

    • The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, Agency, Natural Law, Jury, Multi-House Government, Testimonial (Deflationary Truth), Reason, Rationalism, and Empiricism, and Markets in Everything.
    • The Counter: Revolution: The Eastern (Jewish, French, Russian) Development of Fictional, Pseudoscientific, Authoritarian Religions.

    The Anglos (Legal Empiricists / Locke-Smith-Hume-Jefferson), French (Literary Moralists / Rousseau) and The Germans (Literary Rationalists / Kant) had attempted to restate their group evolutionary strategy in modern terms. So did the Cosmopolitan Universalist Jews ( Argumentative Fictionalists (pseudo-mythology[authoritarian religion] / pseudo-law/ pseudo-rationalism / pseudoscience / outright-lying)) advocating separatism, poly-ethicalism, fictional utopianism as a universal ‘moral’ strategy. The Cosmopolitan Universalists (Jews) started producing pseudoscience as the enlightenment change rolled across Eastern Europe, (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Frankfurt) primarily as a reaction to the articulation of aristocratic thought in scientific terms (Darwin, Social Science, Spencer, Nietzsche, and the Romanticists.) ( FYI: Marxism: parasitism upon in-group private production. Libertarianism: parasitism upon in-group commons production. Neo-Conservatism: Parasitism upon other nations’  (out-group) private and commons production. ) While the Germansdefended against the enlightenment by rational restatement of hierarchy, duty, and reason in a new literary fashion invented by Kant. The French, Jewish and Russian together attacked the Anglo Enlightenment: the restoration of sovereignty and the attack on Fictionalism which all those nations depended upon. They each responded with a new fictionalism: The French out of feminine idealism and preservation of authority, Jews out of separatism, fear and preservation of authority, and Russians out of opportunity for aggression, restoration of orthodox civilization, usurpation, and preservation of authority – and our Puritans (anglo separatist equivalent of the Jews), and our women (as always) were, frankly, “suckers” for it. Just as they were in the ancient world. The Great Catastrophe  Just as Byzantium overextended herself and lost to the Turks. Just as Persia and Byzantium overextended themselves and lost to Arabs. Just as Rome overextended herself in Europe and lost to Byzantium; Just as Athens overextended herself in Sicily, and lost to Sparta; Just as the Bronze Age civilizations overextended themselves in the eastern mediterranean and lost to the barbarians. Just as all civilizations overextended themselves, Britain, in an effort to preserve the balance of powers from which she profited, constrained Germany, leaving America as her heir. Just as Athenian democratic greed prematurely ended the first industrial revolution (the Antikithera device only one step removed from Babbage’s mechanical computer), leaving pragmatic Rome to rule with Athenian and Carthaginian invention – the British, French, and American democratic (commercial) greed ended the second (this time German) scientific revolution, leaving pragmatic America to rule with German and British inventions. The European civil war to contain Germany was a catastrophe for the West in that it both truncated the completion of the Enlightenment (scientific revolution), whose second phase, and our rescue from eastern mysticism, was in progress in Germany (and from which 19th and 20th century America was the chief beneficiary – not originator.) It cast doubt upon the Western (aristocratic) order just as the thirty years war had cast doubt upon the prior (religious) order. Thereby reversing our prior gains against supernatural utopianism and the restoration of aristocratic (rule of law) rule, and replacing that supernatural utopianism with economic and political utopianism: pseudoscience. Postwar Jews immigrating to the United States used their pseudoscience (see “Pilpul”) and attacked and took over the academy and media just as they had used the pulpit in the ancient era, and the printing press in the prior era, to spread their second great lie of pseudoscience in every field of human social order. Women freed from labor under the industrial revolution used these arguments to reform slavery, seek the vote, and then using the vote, to claim men were their enemies and oppressors rather than their domesticators in a great compromise between the reproductive strategies of women (numbers) – their genes, and those of men (the tribe) – their genes. Once the slaves had been freed, the women also demanded equal representation, and within one generation after obtaining it used ‘the great lies’ of the cosmopolitans to undermine the western order further by creating a century of pseudoscience. They used this pseudoscience to pursue the destruction of the church, the destruction of the family, and the conquest of academy, state and media by women’s interests (r-selection), because women dispose of more of the earned income than do men in all these areas. Women are great consumers and it is profitable to serve them – even when they are spending down five thousand years of accumulated cultural and genetic capital. Women were sold Christianity. Women were sold Cosmopolitanism. Therefore the industrialization of lying found ready consumers. In marketing and advertising, in media and entertainment, and in democratic politics. The insatiable desire of women to consume, preen, signal, nest, care, and redistribute regardless of long term consequences, provided ready ground for the utopian ideology of endless resources provided by endless growth and the end of constraint. The Failure of Western Thinkers Western thinkers (for a variety of reasons) in the 20th century were unable to defeat this pseudoscientific utopian fiction, just as Western thinkers had been unable to defeat the previous age’s supernatural utopian fiction in the ancient world. As Poincare (mathematics) and Friedrich Hayek (economics and law) warned us, the twentieth century would be, and was, regressive in social science, economics, and politics – and it will be remembered as an age of mysticism (actually an age of fictionalism). Even though our progress in Physical Sciences, Chemistry, Engineering, and Information Technology — all products of the truncated German Scientific Revolution – combined with the continued sale of the conquered American continent, combined with the inheritance of the British Empire, combined with the new (now necessary) invention of fiat (stock) money, gave 19th and 20th century America a vast economic boom, which allowed the USA to drag recidivist civilizations (those that adopted the new Jewish Fictionalisms under world communism, socialism, social democracy, and Keynesian non-operational Economics) out of ignorance, poverty, starvation, disease and tyranny. Why? Because democracy in the ancient and modern world was nothing but a lie by which the middle class could take over the government from the aristocracy – and then over-extend growth until the polity developed economic, political, social, and genetic fragility. Our Western habit. One the Chinese did not practice. (If you must expand to grow productivity you are not in fact productive and innovative, but consumptive.) But neither the Western Aristocracy, nor its bourgeoise caste could speak the truth: that man, like plant and other animal, had been domesticated for fun and profit by the imposition of meritocracy by shrinking the reproduction of the lower classes, – and that the differences in the rate of development of civilizations is the result of the shrinking of the underclasses, making possible the progress of the civilization in every possible field of endeavor: linguistic, informational, economic, normative, social, cultural, political, and institutional. The lesson: In the absence of profit through conquest, the most eugenic civilization will always emerge as the most advanced civilization. And this uncomfortable truth is incompatible with unearned (universal) enfranchisement that justifies bourgeoise takeover of government from the aristocracy.PART IV – What Must Be Done? ( The Second Reformation Against Parasitism and Deceit. ) So armed with this knowledge, how do we reverse the century of propaganda, lies, and pseudoscience of the alliance between the Jews, women and minorities, and return the west its lost confidence, and restore the civilization’s strategy of truth+commons? We extend the warranty of due diligence against fraud that we require in products in the market, and services in the market, to cover information in the market, and we restore liability to all participants in a chain of production. We eliminate the economic subsidy for ‘entertainment’ we call copyright. We eliminate financial profiting from the sale of shares of the polity (Fiat Money, or for ordinary people, ‘dollars’ in the form of electronic money), preserving all of the appreciation and interest for the polity (treasury). And we grant universal standing (class action) to defense of the market for information. Eventually, we create separate houses of government for separate classes. And we eliminate representatives and change to direct per-resolution, democracy. This will raise the cost of the various fictionalisms (pseudo-myths/religion, pseudo-rationalisms, pseudo-science, and outright deceit) and eliminate its profitability such that we end the industrialization of lying made possible by mass media. This solution is an incremental advancement upon classical multi-house government in which each class negotiates with other classes for the production of commons, while suppressing the consistent deception (lying) that has been made possible by the industrialization of information distribution (media). By stating in rational and scientific terms the reason for the West’s rapid success in the ancient and modern periods, despite its many disadvantages. Then using this knowledge to defeat this great utopian pseudoscientific lie, even though we failed in the 20th century, and even though we failed in the ancient world against utopian supernaturalism. Our ambition is to require truthful speech in economics, politics, and law, the way we require truthful speech in contract, in the market for goods, and in the market for services. There is no reason that one cannot warranty his speech against the great utopian lies if he is to publish it (sell it, distribute it) in the market for information we call ‘the media’. The West practiced Agency, Sovereignty, Testimony in Deflationary Truth, Natural Law of Cooperation, Markets in Everything, and Aristocratic Egalitarianism (a form of eugenics at scale), and the Militia – and profited from the incremental domestication of the animal man lacking agency, in to the human that possesses it. But this strategy was never written down, only handed down I’m writing it down. Forever. Truth was enough to create the West, and truth is enough to restore the west. THE NORTH SEA PEOPLE AND HANSEATIC CIVILIZATION (MEDITERRANEAN:V3, AGEAN:V2, BLACK SEA:V1) http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ A SHORT COURSE IN SOVEREIGNTY AND AGENCY https://propertarianinstitute.com/category/attributes/sovereignty-and-agency/ THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOVEREIGNTY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/11/27/consequences-of-sovereignty/ A VERY SHORT COURSE IN DECIDABILITY http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/30/a-very-short-course-in-decidability/ A SHORT COURSE IN TESTIMONIAL TRUTH http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/28/a-short-course-on-propertarianisms-testimonial-truth/ THE DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR A WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/04/due-diligence-necessary-for-the-warranty-of-truthfulness/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/09/26/a-short-course-in-propertarian-reasoning/ THE EVOLUTION OF SUPPRESSION VIA COMMON LAW http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/10/the-evolution-of-suppression/ A SHORT COURSE IN NATURAL LAW https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/29/a-short-course-in-natural-law/ A SHORT COURSE IN ACQUISITIONISM (PSYCHOLOGY) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/23/core-acquisitionism-restating-psychology/ A SHORT COURSE IN GROUP ORGANIZATION (SOCIOLOGY) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/30/a-short-course-in-sociology-group-cooperation/ ( Still working with this one)THE TRANSACTION COST THEORY OF GOVERNMENT https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/02/04/a-short-course-in-the-transaction-cost-theory-of-government/ A SHORT COURSE IN MARKET GOVERNMENT (“Perfect Government”, “Markets in Everything”, and sarcastically: “Market Fascism”) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/30/a-short-course-in-perfect-government/ A SHORT COURSE IN THE WESTERN (ARISTOCRATIC) GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY ( … ) A SHORT COURSE IN GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY (COOPERATION/COMPETITION/WAR) ( … ) 1000 WORDS THAT CAPTURE IT ALL http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/19/the-most-profound-1000-words-you-can-read-on-political-philosophy-today/ THE CURE FOR PROPAGANDA (LYING) AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/01/18/the-cure-for-propaganda-and-western-civilization/ THE END OF HISTORY IS NOT DEMOCRACY BUT THE TRUTHFUL CIVILIZATION http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/06/the-end-of-history-the-truthful-civilization-sorry-francis/ There is much, much more online. But this is enough to keep you (or anyone else for that matter) busy for quite a while. Curt

    MORE – Outline By Chapter (needs updating for 2016 and 2017) [T]he Outline of Propertarianism in posts organized by chapter. This is only useful at this point to scan and get a sense of the structure of the argument. But you’re a smart guy and it might bear glancing. http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/propertarian-posts-by-chapter/ MORE (for 20th c. libertarians)FOR CONTRA MISES: https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/ FOR CONTRA ROTHBARD The Minimum Basis for Law (Nomocracy) http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/02/propertarianism-vs-rothbardiansm/ Fallacies http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/ A Lot More On Rothbard’s Low Trust Ghetto Ethics. http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=ghetto+ethics