Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE TECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF RELIGIONS The technical properties of a religion are

    THE TECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF RELIGIONS

    The technical properties of a religion are rules or norms, and a set of (costly) rituals, and a mythology, that together provide a means of people to collect in numbers safely, and feel the safety in numbers.

    There are really three properties of religions, and all religions use these properties differently. I tend to represent them as a triangle, saying that different approaches emphasize one or more of the properties.

    1) Legal Religions – which to some degree the west practices – they contain no mysticism. American judges are fairly close to priests in their devotion to the ‘sacredness’ of the law. (future-looking)

    2) Behavioral Religions contain spirituality – the pack response. Emphasis is on ritual for generating the pack response. Stoicism, Shintoism, and to some degree early buddhism. (past-looking)

    3) Supernatural Religion. The pack response is obtained through the telling of narrative, and the promise of some mystical reward. (escapism).

    In practice most cultures use multiple ‘religions’ for the purpose of creating shared experience, ethos, behavior and trust. We tend to focus on monotheism because the church FORCED us to, because jews force themselves to, and because islam forces its adherents to.

    The function as a hierarchy of intelligence dependent upon the abilities of the population.

    Mythos at the bottom, for Virtue Ethics.

    Rituals in the middle for Deontological Ethics

    Procedures at the top for Teleological Ethics.

    Hence we do see that as IQ increases the religious emphasis increases from the virtue ethic of the young and ignorant, to the ritual ethic of the young adult, to the technical ethic of the mature.

    If one is raised in a religion, It is hard to view religion as a purely ritualistic purely programatic form of education and training. But for all intents and purposes, the function of religious myth is to get you to imagine a ‘model’ by which to made decisions; to practice costly rituals with others in order to invoke the submission of the pack response; and to teach you traditional rules of the social order as if they are physical properties of objective reality (metaphysical) rather than merely a group evolutionary strategy that has been demonstrated to work at perpetuating the population.

    If you told a mathematician he had to forget math he would say “well I don’t know how to do that – or think otherwise”, and the religious person says the same.

    That is why these things work.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-15 05:58:00 UTC

  • There is no more reason we should fear teaching testimonialism’s extension of th

    There is no more reason we should fear teaching testimonialism’s extension of the scientific method, than we fear teaching grammar, rhetoric, or newtonian physics. Because unlike mathematics, chemistry, and post-newtonian physics, testimony is a property of perceptions, experiences and limitations – not something that we cannot directly grasp.

    1) TESTIMONIALISM

    Experience (filling your mind)

    Creativity (free association)

    Hypothesis

    Identity (property, method, relation, and category)

    Internal Consistency (logic)

    External Correspondence (experiment)

    Existential Possibility (operationalism)

    Morality (fully informed voluntary exchange free of negative externality)

    Limits (falsification)

    Parsimony

    Evolution of Truthfulness (epistemology):

    Experience,

    Free Association,

    Hypothesis,

    Theory,

    Law,

    Truth,

    Tautology

    2) PROPERTARIANISM:

    Morality: The necessity of cooperation: natural law: necessary for the construction of the voluntary organization of demand, invention, production, distribution and trade, and the formation of prices and incentives which inform our actions in the service of one another.

    The basis of natural law of voluntary cooperation and the construction of the voluntary organization of production: The Productive, Fully informed, Warrantied, Voluntary exchange, of property-en-toto, free of imposition of costs by externality.

    3) PROPERTY EN TOTO (Demonstrated Property)

    I. SELF-PROPERTY

    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    ….a) Physical Body

    ….b) Actions and Time

    ….c) Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

    ….d) Status and Class (mate and relation selection, and reputation.)

    II. PERSONAL PROPERTY

    ….a) Several Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over.

    III. KINSHIP PROPERTY

    ….a) Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    ….b) Children (genetics)

    ….c) Familial Relations (security)

    ….d) Non-Familial Relations (utility)

    ….e) Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)

    IV. COOPERATIVE PROPERTY

    ….a) Organizational ties (work)

    ….b) Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)

    V. SHAREHOLDER PROPERTY

    ….a) Shares: Partnership or shareholdership: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset)

    VI. COMMON PROPERTY

    ….b) Commons: Unrecorded and Unquantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons)

    ….c) Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.

    VII. COMMON INFORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY:

    ….a) Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.

    VIII. COMMON FORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY

    ….a) Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.

    3.2) Categories of Property, Rights and Oblications:

    0) Non-Property (Bring under total control)

    ….CONTROL: Total Control

    ….PURPOSE: Create Property

    ….YES: Constituo, Transitus, Usus, Fructus, Mancipio, Abusus.

    1) Personal (Private) Property (limited control)

    ….PURPOSE: Acquisition Inventory and Consumption

    ….YES: Transitus, Usus, Fructus, Mancipio,

    ….MAYBE: Abusus

    2) Shareholder (Private) Property (very limited control)

    ….CONTROL: Very Limited Control

    ….PURPOSE: Dividends from Cooperation

    ….YES: Fructus

    ….MAYBE: ?Transitus, ?Usus,?Mancipio,

    ….NO: Abusus

    3) Common (Public) Property (All Citizen Shareholders)

    ….CONTROL: No control.

    ….PURPOSE: Prohibition on Consumption.

    ….MAYBE: Transitus, Usus, Fructus,

    ….NO: Mancipio, Abusus

    4) RIGHTS

    1) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation.

    2) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space.

    3) Usus – Use: setting up a stall.

    4) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits)

    5) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer)

    6) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.

    5) OBLIGATIONS

    1) Non-Imposition : Productive, Fully informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer(Exchange) of property-en-toto, Free of External Imposition of Costs against Property-en-toto.

    6) LAW, JUDGE AND JURY

    (obvious)Law is discovered by judges as the incremental suppression of parasitism that violates property en toto. While government may produce commons and it may construct contracts, all law must be discovered.

    7) MONARCH(JUDGE), HOUSES (MARKETS), ADVOCATES (CITIZENS)

    Decidability: Equidistribution of proceeds to houses. Economic Investment as ‘voting’. Legal Dissent prevents passage. Otherwise all legal contracts are binding.

    Houses, chosen by lot, 90 days on. 90 days off:

    7.1) Judge: The Monarchy, Judiciary

    7.2) Force: Military, Sheriffs and Militia

    7.3) Production and Property: Treasury, Finance and Banking, Entrepreneurs, Professionals, Employers of non relations.

    7.4) Reproduction, Consumption, and Insurance: Race, Nation, Tribe, Clan, Family, Individual

    The House-out-of-House.

    7.5) Gossip: Academics, Intellectuals, and media.

    – may not participate.

    – must speak truthfully (warranty)

    8) WILSONIAN SYNTHESIS: LAW, MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE(TRUTH TELLING)

    1) Morality: preservation of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation by a total prohibition on imposition of costs against property-en-toto.

    2) Law: an evolutionary list of the accumulated prohibitions on innovations in the means of immoral actions: impositions of costs on property en toto.

    3) Property Rights: The promise that third parties will warranty restitution and retaliation, and not retaliate for restitution and retaliation, for imposition of costs against property en toto in exchange for the same warranty from the defending party or parties.

    4) Science: the discipline(technology) of laundering imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception from testimony, leaving only truth candidates.

    5) Philosophy: The discipline(technology) of improving truthful testimony.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-14 06:37:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) It is evident that aristotelian science produces a dramatic inc

    (from elsewhere)

    It is evident that aristotelian science produces a dramatic increase in the abilities of a people no matter what people learn it. It is evident that Christianity is good for a people – better than the alternatives – because it asks that we eliminate hatred from the human heart, and forgive our many failings, and producing economic velocity. It is evident that rule of law is good for a people – better than the alternatives, since rule of law – traditional law – does not depend upon the wisdom of men, only the results of their prior actions: it is scientific – while legislative law is always a questionable hypothesis. It is also clear that democracy is not better for a people than a benevolent monarchy. It is clear that a bureaucracy is more expensive and more corrupt than an upper class and nobility. It is clear that that the large nation state is not better for a people than the monarchical city state with ‘quarters’ for different groups none of whom can obtain political power over the other.

    One thing I have learned in my life is that the western overemphasis of verbal transmission of abstract principles is inferior in result to ritualistic learning by doing as a member of the group. A minority of men, verbally gifted, can learn by this means. And while it is an inexpensive means of teaching, precisely because it is merely verbal, we cannot make the method of teaching the of verbally gifted a universal expectation any more than we can make the physical fitness of our best athletes a universal expectation – without failing the majority of our peoples. The west attempted to create an aristocracy of everyone and has failed and killed itself in doing so. The colonial era was a catastrophe because it broke property, territorial, hereditary, tribal and monarchical bonds, in exchange for literacy, numeracy, science, medicine and law.

    Enlightenment era western political orders have been a catastrophe. It’s democratic incompetence was a luxury made possible by the rewards of the technological advancements of the era, military power, expanding trade, and colonial conquest. It is not something to be imitated. The west was made great by small nations, with kings, who prohibited the use of government for the exercise of power, relied at the demand of the church and tradition upon the rule of traditional common law, the effect of literacy, beneficial geography, and the aggressive hanging of large numbers of criminals every year – removing them and their genes from the population.

    Africa certainly benefits from christianity, literacy, medicine, science, technology, property rights, and rule of common law. But Africans must develop a reproductive, social, pedagogical, and political order of their own. The west’s model of education, production, production of commons, and political legislation, is unique to westerners and causes damage wherever it is tried. The world, Africa included, needs to develop its own success not to imitate western failure. Universalism is a european enlightenment fantasy, and we cannot conflate the success of western technology, with the failure of western social and political orders. The west is dying from its own designs. The rest of the world should not imitate it and perish as well.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-14 04:31:00 UTC

  • CAPITALISM IS WON, NOW ITS A BATTLE FOR RULE OF LAW, STRICT CONSTRUCTION, AND MA

    CAPITALISM IS WON, NOW ITS A BATTLE FOR RULE OF LAW, STRICT CONSTRUCTION, AND MARKET GOVERNMENT.

    Capitalism is the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade made possible by the preservation of property allocation to individuals, the universal requirement of voluntary exchange, insured by common law, the evolution of contract, money, prices, and interest – which provide information and incentives to each individual necessary for choosing between available actions. Consumer capitalism has won. We’ve spent over a century conquering the pseudoscience of marxism and socialism. But despite kicking and screaming, we’ve dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty with capitalism.

    Now the battle has changed. The problem is not property rights, or capitalism, but rule of law and corruption.

    We must incrementally suppress discretionary legislation, corruption, and lying, framing and propaganda from the world, starting first, here at home.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-12 16:26:00 UTC

  • Putin would be the most popular politician in the world if he had offered (he st

    Putin would be the most popular politician in the world if he had offered (he still could) to pay Ukraine for the territories (under threat that he could take them otherwise) and he could have kept ukraine in his orbit. Instead, he impoverished ukraine further, and drove her forever to europe, broke the postwar consensus on borders that was the principle necessary to prevent another world war, demonstrated that the only guarantee of sovereignty is ownership of nuclear weapons, generating new demand for proliferation, pivoted the USA and NATO back to Russia, created justification to expand american military spending, and dramatically harmed his people and their economy. He panicked and he flinched and he confirmed eastern europe’s fears: that he is an irresponsible threat to civilized peoples. Worse he has restarted the propaganda war, and saturates his people with fabricated news on purpose. Not of utopian fantasy like american politicians but out of nihilism.

    It would be terribly easy to fix this problem and he lacks the will to do it. Fix ukraine with discounted gas, stop lying and propagandizing, and just assert that he’s right in his opposition to the USA’s intrusions, the fallacy of democracy, and western hedonistic (barbaric) western culture – and keep suppressing home dissidents. It’s not like most of the world doesn’t agree with him outside of left leaning western pseudo-intellectuals.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-12 16:08:00 UTC

  • What Constitutes a Truthful Religion?

    (important) [I] have a soul. I can observe it through introspection. It is a full accounting of my sins, offset by a selective accounting of my acts of charity. I know the balance of that account. We all know the balance of that account – even if we fear to look at it. The chief value of an all-knowing god, is as a psychological device that assists us in looking at the transactions in, and balance of, that account, without any ability to lie to ourselves. The chief value of confession is to publicly admit this balance, and use peer pressure to eliminate any deficit. Whether that soul is eternal is not a question – of course it is. We can commit no sin or perform no charity without the existence of others to sin or perform charity against. Our actions leave a permanent record in the universe. We live on eternally in the changes to the universe that we have made by our actions. That is what acting means: to alter the course of events. Each action does so. That our simple human minds need to anthropomorphize these ideas so that they are easier for the ignorant, dim, and fearful to grasp is no more surprising than that children need parables, myths, legends, and fairy tales to grasp basic concepts using models for concepts otherwise beyond their experience.

    [pullquote]the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.[/pullquote]

    This scientific view of one’s soul is not without what humans consider supernatural properties however. It is increasingly clear that we do not understand the structure of matter, space, and time, and that our perception of matter, space, and time, is limited to that in which we can act. If even some small part of our understanding of the universe is true, then it is entirely possible that it matters not only how we act, but how we think, and what we believe, and how others remember us. Given that the worst case argument we can construct about supernatural forces is to say “I do not know, but it places no cost upon me either way,” or that “I choose to act as if it is so because there is no penalty for doing so, but a benefit for doing so”, “and there are benefits to psychological rituals for all mankind”, we have enough justification for the conceptual use of one or more all knowing gods that assists our minds in confronting a full accounting of our actions, and the presumption of the possibility that collective ritual may in fact alter the structure of not only our minds, but the minds of others, and potentially the structure of the universe in beneficial ways. Moreover, since it is increasingly clear that we are not cognizant of the power of our genes, our intuitions and our biases upon our minds and actions, it is not clear that there is an as yet unrecognized equivalent of a calculating system of some sort – ostensibly unaware – produced by the actions, thoughts and memories of all of us. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. But without knowing I will not fail to pay the cost of perpetuating what has worked for all of human history: rituals that bind us to one another through invocation of the submission-to-the-pack response ever present in our brain stems. Our understanding is overrated, because it is extremely limited. So in these cases I prefer to do what is beneficial for men and man, assuming that the recipe we follow for collective religious ritual is causing us to produce some product that I do not understand, rather than to write it off as a psychological crutch or weakness. It’s just science. How we justify this particular thing as purely scientific and useful, rational, psychological or mystical is not important to me. These are just languages for different levels of abstraction, all of which describe the same process and its effects. As such I merely prefer the least false set of beliefs, and the most constructive forms of ritual. And those are, from my knowledge: the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • What Constitutes a Truthful Religion?

    (important) [I] have a soul. I can observe it through introspection. It is a full accounting of my sins, offset by a selective accounting of my acts of charity. I know the balance of that account. We all know the balance of that account – even if we fear to look at it. The chief value of an all-knowing god, is as a psychological device that assists us in looking at the transactions in, and balance of, that account, without any ability to lie to ourselves. The chief value of confession is to publicly admit this balance, and use peer pressure to eliminate any deficit. Whether that soul is eternal is not a question – of course it is. We can commit no sin or perform no charity without the existence of others to sin or perform charity against. Our actions leave a permanent record in the universe. We live on eternally in the changes to the universe that we have made by our actions. That is what acting means: to alter the course of events. Each action does so. That our simple human minds need to anthropomorphize these ideas so that they are easier for the ignorant, dim, and fearful to grasp is no more surprising than that children need parables, myths, legends, and fairy tales to grasp basic concepts using models for concepts otherwise beyond their experience.

    [pullquote]the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.[/pullquote]

    This scientific view of one’s soul is not without what humans consider supernatural properties however. It is increasingly clear that we do not understand the structure of matter, space, and time, and that our perception of matter, space, and time, is limited to that in which we can act. If even some small part of our understanding of the universe is true, then it is entirely possible that it matters not only how we act, but how we think, and what we believe, and how others remember us. Given that the worst case argument we can construct about supernatural forces is to say “I do not know, but it places no cost upon me either way,” or that “I choose to act as if it is so because there is no penalty for doing so, but a benefit for doing so”, “and there are benefits to psychological rituals for all mankind”, we have enough justification for the conceptual use of one or more all knowing gods that assists our minds in confronting a full accounting of our actions, and the presumption of the possibility that collective ritual may in fact alter the structure of not only our minds, but the minds of others, and potentially the structure of the universe in beneficial ways. Moreover, since it is increasingly clear that we are not cognizant of the power of our genes, our intuitions and our biases upon our minds and actions, it is not clear that there is an as yet unrecognized equivalent of a calculating system of some sort – ostensibly unaware – produced by the actions, thoughts and memories of all of us. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. But without knowing I will not fail to pay the cost of perpetuating what has worked for all of human history: rituals that bind us to one another through invocation of the submission-to-the-pack response ever present in our brain stems. Our understanding is overrated, because it is extremely limited. So in these cases I prefer to do what is beneficial for men and man, assuming that the recipe we follow for collective religious ritual is causing us to produce some product that I do not understand, rather than to write it off as a psychological crutch or weakness. It’s just science. How we justify this particular thing as purely scientific and useful, rational, psychological or mystical is not important to me. These are just languages for different levels of abstraction, all of which describe the same process and its effects. As such I merely prefer the least false set of beliefs, and the most constructive forms of ritual. And those are, from my knowledge: the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • WE ARE THE ONLY ARISTOCRATIC PEOPLE. WE NEED TO STOP TRYING TO CONVERT OTHERS TO

    WE ARE THE ONLY ARISTOCRATIC PEOPLE. WE NEED TO STOP TRYING TO CONVERT OTHERS TO OUR ANCIENT WAY OF LIFE.

    Wars are won by deception, logistics, and numbers. And the Chinese are better at all three. The western alternative – well-equipped professional warriors in small numbers – is to strike early, quickly and decisively to settle matters now before they become more than we can handle. The Chinese strategy is to lie, delay, build an unassailable edifice and then to surprise, disregard, decimate, conquer, and assimilate enemies. They are not like us. They do not seek to make peers, nor to become peers in aristocracy. And we need to stop trying to create peers of foreign peoples. We are the only aristocratic people. The only people desirous of it. The only capable of it. We are alone. We forever will be. And we need to start acting like it. At some point susceptibility to consensus bias is instead just an excuse to submit to conquest in order to escape paying the cost of self-defense.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-12 11:48:00 UTC

  • If You Don’t Like What I Say – Think About This…

    [I] work on the discipline (technology) of speaking truthfully. Not honestly, but truthfully – as in “as scientifically as possible”. Now like any human being I absolutely do engage in various forms of sarcasm, humor, honorarium, and illustration. But in general, I try to write ‘proofs’: a proof includes including tests of internal consistency, external correspondence, informational availability, existential possibility, limits, parsimony, and full accounting. That’s the innovation that Propertarianism and Testimonialism provide us with: an amoral (unloaded) language for the articulation and comparison of various political, ethical and moral statements. Now, I don’t (like everyone else in the world, and almost everyone in intellectual history) want to know the truth so that I can justify the use of my particular moral bias over your particular moral bias. Instead, I want to know the truth so that you and I can conduct an exchange – a compromise – rather than a conquest. A trade rather than a monopoly act of oppression. A ‘truth’ rather than a falsehood. And that is how Propertarianism differs from the fallacies of authoritarian monotheism, utilitarian rationalism, and democratic majority rule: that the only ‘truth’ we can know is when your bias and my bias results in a compromise that is mutually beneficial.

    [pullquote]But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
    [/pullquote]

    Now that does not mean that we need to agree – another fallacy of democracy – but it means we cannot materially dissent. In other words, we can trade in a compromise, or we can prevent each other from imposing costs upon one another’s property-en-toto (what you’ve acted to obtain), but we cannot by any method impose costs on one another’s property-en-toto without consent. So if you don’t like something that’s true, or you want to speak an untruth, then you’re just a bad dishonest person unworthy of cooperation. If you want to preserve monopoly democracy, then you’re just a bad and dishonest thief unworthy of cooperation and worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. If you want to just get away with stealing from others without engaging in trade then you’re again, a bad, dishonest, thief worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. But if you want to do something that does not impose a cost upon me or mine, I will not and cannot interfere with you. And if you want to impose a cost upon me, or gain my cooperation then I will enter in an exchange with you. I cannot stop you from doing good, I can only prevent you from imposing harm. But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. If that is the case then I am morally justified, ethically justified, and biologically mandated to exterminate you. And that applies to me as well. So if you disagree with this I must end you, and all like you. Not for me, but for all of mankind. Just as if I disagree with this you must end me. This is the most and best moral position any man can take. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • If You Don’t Like What I Say – Think About This…

    [I] work on the discipline (technology) of speaking truthfully. Not honestly, but truthfully – as in “as scientifically as possible”. Now like any human being I absolutely do engage in various forms of sarcasm, humor, honorarium, and illustration. But in general, I try to write ‘proofs’: a proof includes including tests of internal consistency, external correspondence, informational availability, existential possibility, limits, parsimony, and full accounting. That’s the innovation that Propertarianism and Testimonialism provide us with: an amoral (unloaded) language for the articulation and comparison of various political, ethical and moral statements. Now, I don’t (like everyone else in the world, and almost everyone in intellectual history) want to know the truth so that I can justify the use of my particular moral bias over your particular moral bias. Instead, I want to know the truth so that you and I can conduct an exchange – a compromise – rather than a conquest. A trade rather than a monopoly act of oppression. A ‘truth’ rather than a falsehood. And that is how Propertarianism differs from the fallacies of authoritarian monotheism, utilitarian rationalism, and democratic majority rule: that the only ‘truth’ we can know is when your bias and my bias results in a compromise that is mutually beneficial.

    [pullquote]But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
    [/pullquote]

    Now that does not mean that we need to agree – another fallacy of democracy – but it means we cannot materially dissent. In other words, we can trade in a compromise, or we can prevent each other from imposing costs upon one another’s property-en-toto (what you’ve acted to obtain), but we cannot by any method impose costs on one another’s property-en-toto without consent. So if you don’t like something that’s true, or you want to speak an untruth, then you’re just a bad dishonest person unworthy of cooperation. If you want to preserve monopoly democracy, then you’re just a bad and dishonest thief unworthy of cooperation and worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. If you want to just get away with stealing from others without engaging in trade then you’re again, a bad, dishonest, thief worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. But if you want to do something that does not impose a cost upon me or mine, I will not and cannot interfere with you. And if you want to impose a cost upon me, or gain my cooperation then I will enter in an exchange with you. I cannot stop you from doing good, I can only prevent you from imposing harm. But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. If that is the case then I am morally justified, ethically justified, and biologically mandated to exterminate you. And that applies to me as well. So if you disagree with this I must end you, and all like you. Not for me, but for all of mankind. Just as if I disagree with this you must end me. This is the most and best moral position any man can take. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine