Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • WHY RULE? Europe ended at the Sahara. Now Africa ends at the Alps. Soon it will

    WHY RULE?

    Europe ended at the Sahara. Now Africa ends at the Alps. Soon it will end at the North sea.

    It doesn’t take great wisdom to see that the Arab Conquest of north Africa was as great a tragedy as the Arab Conquest of byzantium, and the Arab conquest of Persia.

    It doesn’t take great wisdom to see that our efforts at colonization were mixed – where we ruled it added net value, where we exploited it was a criminal theft.

    I reject colonialism, but I do not reject rule. The construction of commons and social order are the providence of peoples. The construction of moral order is merely a scientific and absolute truth. Rule = Law. Governance = Contract. Contract=Commons. Commons=Group Strategy. Group Strategy=Group Persistence. Group Persistence=Universal Goal.

    Conquest doesn’t stop any more than evolution. Someone will conquer. We must always choose the least bad choice. The least bad means of conquest is Rule. Rule of law is a moral universal. There is no exception to this rule. Without it we do not cooperate we prey upon one another.

    Save Christendom. We cleaned Europe of the Moors. Time to do it again.

    Export jurists. Move justice to people not people to justice.

    Move capital to people, not people to capital.

    We are the only truth tellers.

    Spread the truth.

    Prosperity will follow.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 09:22:00 UTC

  • PROPERTY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE – THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS IS. (important concept) (l

    PROPERTY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE – THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS IS.

    (important concept) (learning propertariansm)

    The informational content of Property Rights is less than the informational content of the Prohibition on the Imposition of Costs Upon the Property-en-toto of Others.

    Property Rights are not an epistemological or decidable absolute in Propertarianism, but the positive assertion of the negative prohibition of the imposition of costs.

    One possesses rights to restitution for violations of property en toto not to the property itself, which one need no ‘right’ to – one need only acquire it without imposing costs upon others that both generate the demand to retaliate, and that violates the incentive to cooperate, and therefore is merely a moral consideration.

    So:

    – property exists prior to cooperation,

    – morality preserves cooperation, by prohibitions and positive assertions (advice)

    – law records both positive morality and negative on immorality

    – law records positive property rights and methods of restitution (or punishment).

    Property is not an absolute. The imposition of costs is. Property rights are constrained by the reality of temporal existence, and the prohibition on the imposition of costs upon others.

    The model is that if your store of grain exists during an era of crisis, that you may not use the opportunity to either determine who lives or dies, or to profit from suffering of others. It means that one sells the grain to them at prices that prevent your loss (an imposition of costs upon you).

    It means that in the example of the value of water in a desert, you will ensure that the sale of water to a dying man is not an imposition of costs, but not a means of increasing profits. It means that if he lacks the money to pay, that you must give him water now, as long as he commits to paying, and that you are due damages from him if you must collect.

    Profit from suffering violates the principle of productive exchange and the avoidance of retaliation.

    This fact amounts to a ‘shall-issue service to my kith and kin’, and that I shall seek profit only from mutually productive exchange, and not that I shall maximize profits in all circumstances.

    It means that one does not take opportunistic profits from the suffering of others without alternative.

    This fact separates the aristocracy of Propertarianism from the Libertinism of cosmopolitan libertarianism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 23:53:00 UTC

  • The Great Error, And The Great Lie To Compensate For It.

    (important piece) (solutions) (historical context)
    [A]merica was designed to restore and preserve the Anglo Saxon rights of Englishman, for Englishman and the occasional Scot. The constitution is an English document articulating English rights, for English men and their families, justified as necessary using Natural Law thought beneficial for all men. The source of the declaration constitution and bill of rights was English, Anglo Saxon, Norman, Germanic, Indo-European traditional common law. Everyone else is a free rider. The constitution is not a living document open to interpretation but the most modern articulation in law of that ancient aristocratic egalitarian tradition, designed to require strict construction, by formal operations, and near universal assent in order to implement change. It is the most conservative document ever written, depriving the government, the court, and the people of the ability to infringe upon those ancient rights. The error in Britain and then in the states, was the failure to see government not as a constructor of law, but as a market for the contractual construction of commons between the classes, holding different abilities, knowledge and interests. And that as the franchise expanded with economic and military participation, the British and Americans failed to add new “houses” for the new states, colonies, classes and genders. All political, moral, ethical and legal philosophy since the revolutionary period has consisted entirely of a series of convenient lies, justifications, and errors by which to compensate for the failure to extend the classical liberal model to allow citizens to construct a market for contractual commons, maintain separation of law and contract creation, and to convert from ascent by majority rule to dissent via suit in court of law by universal standing. But the progressive lies are just that. Lies. The constitution is the most strictly constructed, empirically demanding, operationally articulated document in history. And progressives have sought to destroy it for the better part of two centuries while lauding the power the errors of the British and Americans granted them to do so. This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism. Perhaps I should claim Propertarianism was written in metal tablets buried in the ground or handed to me in a burning bush or visited to me in my dreams, rather than the product oaf a life-long search to the problem of political and ethical conflict that has plagued us since 1960. But no. That would be a violation of those ancient traditions: speak the truth even if it means your death. All else follows from that expensive payment in exchange for reciprocity.
    [A]t this point in time we know that the economic benefit of slavery in the states, and the desire of the throne to ban slavery were in conflict. We also know that the americans didn’t want to pay the crown for the defense in the french and indian war, yet the british felt that they had nearly bankrupted the crown to protect the colonies. We also know that the americans were desperate to remain united with the crown. We also know that the crown could not for some reason develop the solution of a separate house for the colonies, or grant them membership in the house. The problem was solvable in 1775, but no one thought about legal dissent instead of democratic assent, or new houses for newly enfranchised interests.  It’s tragic. The tragedy of my people. Makes me sad as hell. – Curt

  • The Great Error, And The Great Lie To Compensate For It.

    (important piece) (solutions) (historical context)
    [A]merica was designed to restore and preserve the Anglo Saxon rights of Englishman, for Englishman and the occasional Scot. The constitution is an English document articulating English rights, for English men and their families, justified as necessary using Natural Law thought beneficial for all men. The source of the declaration constitution and bill of rights was English, Anglo Saxon, Norman, Germanic, Indo-European traditional common law. Everyone else is a free rider. The constitution is not a living document open to interpretation but the most modern articulation in law of that ancient aristocratic egalitarian tradition, designed to require strict construction, by formal operations, and near universal assent in order to implement change. It is the most conservative document ever written, depriving the government, the court, and the people of the ability to infringe upon those ancient rights. The error in Britain and then in the states, was the failure to see government not as a constructor of law, but as a market for the contractual construction of commons between the classes, holding different abilities, knowledge and interests. And that as the franchise expanded with economic and military participation, the British and Americans failed to add new “houses” for the new states, colonies, classes and genders. All political, moral, ethical and legal philosophy since the revolutionary period has consisted entirely of a series of convenient lies, justifications, and errors by which to compensate for the failure to extend the classical liberal model to allow citizens to construct a market for contractual commons, maintain separation of law and contract creation, and to convert from ascent by majority rule to dissent via suit in court of law by universal standing. But the progressive lies are just that. Lies. The constitution is the most strictly constructed, empirically demanding, operationally articulated document in history. And progressives have sought to destroy it for the better part of two centuries while lauding the power the errors of the British and Americans granted them to do so. This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism. Perhaps I should claim Propertarianism was written in metal tablets buried in the ground or handed to me in a burning bush or visited to me in my dreams, rather than the product oaf a life-long search to the problem of political and ethical conflict that has plagued us since 1960. But no. That would be a violation of those ancient traditions: speak the truth even if it means your death. All else follows from that expensive payment in exchange for reciprocity.
    [A]t this point in time we know that the economic benefit of slavery in the states, and the desire of the throne to ban slavery were in conflict. We also know that the americans didn’t want to pay the crown for the defense in the french and indian war, yet the british felt that they had nearly bankrupted the crown to protect the colonies. We also know that the americans were desperate to remain united with the crown. We also know that the crown could not for some reason develop the solution of a separate house for the colonies, or grant them membership in the house. The problem was solvable in 1775, but no one thought about legal dissent instead of democratic assent, or new houses for newly enfranchised interests.  It’s tragic. The tragedy of my people. Makes me sad as hell. – Curt

  • THE GREAT ERROR AND THE GREAT LIE TO COMPENSATE FOR IT. (important piece) (solut

    THE GREAT ERROR AND THE GREAT LIE TO COMPENSATE FOR IT.

    (important piece) (solutions) (historical context)

    America was designed to restore and preserve the Anglo Saxon rights of Englishman, for Englishman and the occasional Scot.

    The constitution is an English document articulating English rights, for English men and their families, justified as necessary using Natural Law thought beneficial for all men.

    The source of the declaration constitution and bill of rights was English, Anglo Saxon, Norman, Germanic, Indo-European traditional common law.

    Everyone else is a free rider.

    The constitution is not a living document open to interpretation but the most modern articulation in law of that ancient aristocratic egalitarian tradition, designed to require strict construction, by formal operations, and near universal assent in order to implement change. It is the most conservative document ever written, depriving the government, the court, and the people of the ability to infringe upon those ancient rights.

    The error in Britain and then in the states, was the failure to see government not as a constructor of law, but as a market for the contractual construction of commons between the classes, holding different abilities, knowledge and interests.

    And that as the franchise expanded with economic and military participation, the British and Americans failed to add new “houses” for the new states, colonies, classes and genders.

    All political, moral, ethical and legal philosophy since the revolutionary period has consisted entirely of a series of convenient lies, justifications, and errors by which to compensate for the failure to extend the classical liberal model to allow citizens to construct a market for contractual commons, maintain separation of law and contract creation, and to convert from ascent by majority rule to dissent via suit in court of law by universal standing.

    But the progressive lies are just that. Lies. The constitution is the most strictly constructed, empirically demanding, operationally articulated document in history.

    And progressives have sought to destroy it for the better part of two centuries while lauding the power the errors of the British and Americans granted them to do so.

    This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism.

    Perhaps I should claim Propertarianism was written in metal tablets buried in the ground or handed to me in a burning bush or visited to me in my dreams, rather than the product oaf a life-long search to the problem of political and ethical conflict that has plagued us since 1960.

    But no. That would be a violation of those ancient traditions: speak the truth even if it means your death.

    All else follows from that expensive payment in exchange for reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 04:39:00 UTC

  • THE COSTLY FEMININE EXPERIENCE OF REALITY AND THE INSUFFICIENCY OF OUR LANGUAGE

    THE COSTLY FEMININE EXPERIENCE OF REALITY AND THE INSUFFICIENCY OF OUR LANGUAGE

    (worth repeating)(revised and expanded)

    It is extremely difficult to translate subjective experiential feminine language into rational and scientific masculine language. Which is something that is often agonized over by feminist philosophers. One of the things I like about propertarianism is that it is possible to translate feminine experiential language into a neutral medium.

    But it is impossible to capture the fact that emotions are COSTLY for women and their reactions UNCONTROLLABLE or overwhelming. So while we see women as absurd creatures it is because we do not appreciate the effort and therefore the cost that women feel they bear in managing them.

    Our language, developed largely for men, and by men, does not account for this burden. I think if it did, it would go a long way to improving inter-gender understanding of the vast differences between the male and female experiences of life that are not captured in our language.

    That does not mean we should tolerate the diminution of our language into postmodern or worse devolutions, but it does me that we should develop a language for the rational description of the female experience so that we are aware of their costs.

    Because of this high cost of emotions, women use verbal deceits to morally justify the transfer of emotional costs from the self to the rest of society.

    Meanwhile, men, who have developed a multitude of institutions to control and suppress their equally expensive to control emotions of violence somehow are taken for granted. We exert equal control, but we have had 50K years to develop institutional means of directing our aggressiveness and competition to productive ends.

    As yet women have not found a way to devote their emotions to constructive ends. Instead, they have – or at least single women have – in large part voted to destroy civilization by the systematic attack on property, family, and marriage that makes the compromise between the gender’s possible despite our differences in reproductive strategy.

    Language would help women articulate the cost of their experience and allow the genders to engage in exchanges to assist them, rather than lies and rents in order to justify them.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-05 20:16:00 UTC

  • NOW WHY IS CURT INTERESTED IN THE PROBLEM OF BURDENSOME TRUTHFUL AND OPERATIONAL

    NOW WHY IS CURT INTERESTED IN THE PROBLEM OF BURDENSOME TRUTHFUL AND OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE RATHER THAN EASIER, MEANINGFUL AND ALLEGORICAL LANGUAGE?

    (important piece)

    Because the latter 19th, and majority of the 20th century, used allegorical language to load, frame, construct narratives, pseudosciences, and outright lies, to overload, and produce suggestion that evoked pathological altruism and altruistic punishment for the purpose of leftist deception.

    Could the postmoderns(mythicists), the socialists(pseudoscientists), the feminists(ralliers), the social ‘scientists’ (liars), the psychologists (shamers), keyensians (innumerists), have been able to destroy western common law, western high trust society, the civic society, the nuclear family, and social science, even truth itself, and create demand for authority had political speech been held to the same standards of truthful speech as we hold scientists to?

    My work in Testimonial Truth is designed to rescue western civilization from postmoderns by legally protecting the informational commons from untruthful public speech. That does not mean one cannot err. It means that in matters of the commons one can be held to the same standards of truth as are the sciences. It means reinstatement of libel, slander, defamation, for false statements. It means extension of truth to the defense of the informational commons by the same means we defend all other commons.

    It means we saturate the population in truth rather than in lies.

    POSITIVISM VS CRITICISM / OBVERSE VS REVERSE

    So the most common objection I receive from the literary and the scientific fields is that, like you, they seek to understand truth as a means of exploration, while in law and in politics, I seek to understand truthfulness as a means of preventing the **externalization** of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception.

    Science has largely abandoned justificationism in favor of criticism. But public intellectuals (people who preach, advocate, talk) retain justifiactionism. Largely because it is easily used to create moral signals, moral activism, and moral outrage.

    So while expansion of knowledge may be improved by the use of justification in for the purpose of constructing hypotheses, the truth is determined by the survival of those hypotheses from criticism.

    Now I understand that it would place a higher cost on individuals to warranty their public speech in matters of the commons (costs to others) but the entire construction of civilization by constraining others from violence, theft, fraud, extortion, conspiracy, free riding, conversion, immigration, and conquest has cost a great deal.

    In fact, the high trust society, the fact that we even try to speak truthfully, and hold each other accountable for truthful speech, is perhaps the most expensive commons ever created by man.

    That is why no one else does it.

    And why no one else approaches our wealth.

    CLOSING

    It might take a second read to grasp how I constructed my argument from existential, empirical, and necessary rather than allegorical and ‘meaningful’ terminology.

    It is extremely burdensome to write in this fashion, but by that burden we test our understanding of the subject matter. If we cannot articulate our ideas under such constraints we cannot warranty the truthfulness of our statements.

    And so we take a discount on the effort of warrantying our statements for truthfulness, and place the cost of the externalities cause by our laziness (discounting) on the rest of society.

    The problem is, as the postmoderns and socialists and feminists have shown, is that it is much cheaper to produce deceit than it is to refute it.

    So liars won the 20th century.

    Now, you may be a moral man, and as a moral man you write moral content. As such you are immaterial other than that by such arguments as you’ve presented you give permission to the worlds most sophisticated liars to lie.

    So in order to preserve a discount for yourself you preserve the discount for the immoral men and women of this world – who arguably outnumber those of us who are moral men and women.

    Instead I would argue that you can write in whatever mode you prefer, as long as the content of your argument is test-ably moral. This is not a problem for you, certainly.

    But I want to make it a problem for immoral men by opening them to liability for pollution of the informational commons.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-05 12:27:00 UTC

  • YES THE USA EXPORTS COSTS (TAXES) TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. BUT ARE YOU REALLY S

    YES THE USA EXPORTS COSTS (TAXES) TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. BUT ARE YOU REALLY SURE YOU DON”T WANT TO PAY THEM?

    QUESTION:

    —“How much of a connection, ultimately, is there between American military might and the global reserve status of the US Dollar? With global reserve status, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) has license to print currency almost indiscriminately, because that liquidity injection can be off-shored (often into sovereign wealth funds, that are used in oil trade). “—Davin.

    ANSWER:

    Yes, this is how America taxes the world for policing of the air, sea, land, trade and financing system.

    (The use of the euro for oil purchases is another means of tax evasion so that europeans do not have to pay for nato defense. A fact that is not lost on Americans.)

    But without this method of taxing the rest of the world, we would have to export the cost of military defense to the rest of the world, which is terribly expensive, inefficient and provides opportunity and stimulus for warfare.

    Military overhead is high. Military duplication is terribly expensive. Individual states paying for their own militaries is actually comparatively impossible.

    I have been advocating the export of military and military costs to the rest of the world, **OR** the transfer of the US government to NATO, and the fragmentation of the USA into separate nations for the better part of two decades for this reason.

    So while I agree with your description of the seemingly unjust mechanics of exporting inflation I disagree with the presumption that the USA is imposing costs. It is instead, providing the most expensive service a nation can undertake at a fraction of the necessary equivalent. A tremendous discount, without which the liberal order of the west is not possible.

    So I am perfectly happy to unwind the Nixon-era world-defense-tax, but the anglo-germanic-catholic western world should be very well aware that by doing so, they will sacrifice the vast discount and be forced for some period, to spend upwards of 10% of gdp to construct a military equivalent of the American forces.

    For all intents and purposes nato is a lie. America pays for the defense of the western world after the fall of the British empire that did the same.

    We paid for it by means of asymmetric production ability through about 1970. After 1970 we paid for it by indirect taxes on oil. Going forward, we will not be able to pay for it.

    This is why the next world war will occur, as the western world attempts to preserve unearned privileges of redistribution and social programs, while US power diminishes, and competitors with less liberal (less libertarian, less meritocratic, less individualist and less global) incentives (competitive needs) seek to capture control of trade, finance, political, and rent opportunities.

    And once that set of events becomes visible (which it will with the ascent of iran and russia if not china) then the arms race will accelerate as smaller weaker governments seek to preserve sovereignty in the face of expansionary state capitalism, and expansionary islam.

    So my advice is just the opposite. Make sure either the USA gets its taxes, or make sure that each western country goes through a radical reallocation of resources to economic, territorial and political defense.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-05 08:32:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW: CONTRACTUALISM Oliver Wendel Holms really screw

    PROPERTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW: CONTRACTUALISM

    Oliver Wendel Holms really screwed American and anglo law.

    The more I study American history the more obvious it becomes that without the many nearby competitors we had faced as Europeans in Europe, that the new continent provided an excuse for the conquerors to take license given the unanimity of sentiment. A unanimity that was not present in Europe (and which is only present under empire.)

    LEGAL SCIENTISM (SCIENTIFIC)

    Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated (true). As such, law is if not a science, at least a formal logic, that is both internally consistent, externally correspondent and universally decidable. Political preference cannot override these principles. (Rule of Law)

    LEGAL REALISM (RATIONAL) – THE FIRST AMERICAN VIOLATION OF RULE OF LAW

    Law is constructed from both political and logical origins.

    LEGAL POSITIVISM (ARATIONAL) – THE SECOND AMERICAN VIOLATION AND THE TOTAL ABANDONMENT OF RULE OF LAW

    Law is a social construction unbound by any constraint other than its origin.

    REFORMATION: LEGAL SCIENTIFIC CONTRACTUALISM (RATIO-SCIENTIFIC)

    Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated, since such violation whether singular grand and visible, or invisibly accumulated from multitudinous and minor errors, would violate and destroy the incentive to cooperate within a government by rule of law. However, nearly any desirable contract can be constructed by voluntary agreement of parties, so long as the internal transfers are enumerated and the net result is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of external imposition of costs upon others.

    PROPERTARIANISM = LEGAL CONTRACTUALISM

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine, (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-01 04:59:00 UTC

  • THE END OF PSUDOSCIENTIFIC AND RATIONALIZED LIBERTY I’m still wondering how much

    THE END OF PSUDOSCIENTIFIC AND RATIONALIZED LIBERTY

    I’m still wondering how much life the Cosmopolitan Libertines, and Separatist libertarians, and Pseudoscientific Libertarians (Misesians) have as a movement. Especially given the increasing relevance of the aristocratic libertarians, and the rapidly accumulating scientific evidence that the conservative (aristocratic) vision of man is correct, and the libertine and the progressive are lies, cognitive biases, or errors.

    A LIST OF HOPPE’S ERRORS

    (copied here from comments, in reply to Samuel)

    Well, I consider my work as a restatement of Hoppe’s in ratio-scientific terms instead of his use of aprioristic justificationary rationalism.

    Hoppe’s problems (errors) are natural for a german philosopher who was trained by Marxists. But they are considerable errors in construction.

    – We justify moral actions within a normative system of evolved rules. We criticize truth propositions to test whether the theories survive. We do not find truth in justification – we find permission. We find truth in survival against all known criticism. Justification translates to “I can get away with saying this so you cannot say I violated the rules of cooperation: morality or law” while truth propositions under ratio-scientific criticism translates to “I have done due diligence to determine if this argument survives all know attempts at failure, regardless of preference, morality or law.”

    – Property demonstrably (empirically) exists prior to cooperation, and so does scarcity. But scarcity is imperceptible. Cost is perceptible. The origin of demonstrable property is in the cost to acquire. Scarcity explains why things are costly, but not the origination of property. Scarcity is an abstract explanation not a cause.

    – Property rights exist due to the disproportionate returns on cooperation, and the necessity of preserving those returns by prohibiting parasitism. Property rights do not originate in scarcity of goods, they originate in the scarcity and disproportionate return on cooperation.

    – Argumentation and contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not necessary constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and

    – The minimum scope of property reciprocally necessary to defend for the rational formation of a voluntary polity is demonstrated property (defense of that which we have paid costs to acquire), not intersubjectively verifiable property (that is epistemologically easy to test if we transfer). Hoppe and Rothbard misapply separatist ethics between polities (between states) as sufficient for the formation of a polity. (Ghetto Ethics.)

    – The formation of a voluntary (anarchic) polity requires that local transaction costs are low enough to limit demand for authority to either prevent retaliation for violations of property en toto, and to provide sufficient incentives to join such a polity rather than say, a democratic humanist polity. The reason is we must choose between high local transaction costs with low political costs that prohibit economic velocity, and low local transaction costs that encourage economic velocity with high political costs. Humans rationally choose government over anarchy unless anarchy provides the lower transaction costs. This means that anarchy is only possible under high trust. High trust is only possible under property en toto with it’s total prohibition on deception (cheating) rather than intersubjectively verifiable property with its tolerance for deceptoin and cheating.

    – Those voluntary anarchic polities that have existed, on the few occasions that they have existed, have been the target of extermination by neighbors. Because the only reason to seek a low trust polity is some variation of parasitism: gypsies on the low end, pirates in the center, and financial predators (moral hazards) on the high end.

    – The formation of a voluntary polity (anarchic) will only be possible under western aristocratic martial egalitarianism and the independent common law, prohibiting all parasitism against demonstrated property (what we bore costs for and defend), whether that parasitism is by violence, theft, extortion (blackmail, racketeering), fraud, (fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission), externality, (free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses), or conspiracy (statism, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide).

    – Mises was, like many of his contemporaries, trying to solve the problem of his era, and incorrectly cast operational testing by subjective analysis of rational incentives (praxeology) a positive means of exploration sufficient for the investigation of cooperation, instead of a test of existential possibility of claims. Economics is empirical as any other of the science and only differs in that we know the first principles of cooperation (rational incentives on the positive side and non-imposition of costs – parasitism- on the negative side.) Whereas the first principles of the physical universe are as yet unknown to us. And where the first principles of declarative systems (logics) are matters of our discretion. (This is a rather difficult subject for all but those of us who specialize in epistemology.)

    I could go on a bit, but Hoppe’s insights are in the perverse incentives of bureaucracies – even under democracy, and the exposition of all moral and legal argument as reducible to property rights.

    All his justificationary argument is pure Kantian,Cosmopolitan and Marxist nonsense. We do not justify truth propositions. Truth propositions survive attempts to refute them.

    I love the man, honestly. But he was a product of his time and place just as I am a product of mine. Science wins. Rationalism loses. Not only because science is necessary for the provision of truth, but because PHILOSOPHY HAS LARGELY BEEN USED TO LIE.

    I hope this is of some value to you.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-30 09:40:00 UTC