Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Relationship Between (Neo)Reaction and Science

    CONSERVATISM -> REACTION -> PROPERTARIANISM (TESTIMONIALISM)

    —“Reaction is foremost about embracing reality. An objective reality exists apart whatever stories men may tell themselves. This reality is harsh and bitter as we live in a fallen world. Reality can be denied temporarily, but will always win in the end.”—

    [I] thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the relationship between Reaction and Science. (a) Reaction is an articulate criticism not a solution, and what solutions Curtis provided are afterthoughts – which is why we never talk about them seriously. (b) Reaction provides a language – a terminology of criticism. Which is good. Not just for signaling one another, but because the terminology provides a consistent argumentative structure for ongoing development of ideas – and leaves behind a cannon of ideas easier to learn and whose meaning is easier to maintain over time. Terms frame arguments. And members of reaction have succeeded in framing the argument. To defeat an idea, we must be able to name it and discuss it. That effort was successful. (c) But Reaction is stated in Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. Just as the opposition relies upon Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. It is NOT stated in scientific language free of moral loading and framing, nor is it stated in the Anglo Analytic (scientific) language. It is an argumentatively moral and rational criticism, not a legal, analytic, and scientific alternative. Criticisms are necessary because they motivate us as all good ideology should, but solutions are necessary also, because they can be stated operationally, and put into place operationally, and the rule of law can institutionalize them over long periods of, because they are ‘calculable’ statements rather than ‘interpretable’ statements. (d) The opposition uses pseudoscience. And reaction uses science to counter their pseudoscience – thanks to the revolution started by Pinker. And that corresponds to our history: The Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our European and indo-european ancestors, manorialism as an economic and political system, conservatism as a political philosophy, are each objectively scientific processes (observation, trial, error, and reaction), using the scientific method of cooperation (rule of law, common law, property rights, independent judiciary), (e) Conservatism as an intellectual movement failed, in no small part, because our scientific civilization was still reliant upon the rational moral language of our religious ancestors. Reaction is the first meaningful improvement in conservative (aristocratic) argument in decades. But, ’embracing reality’ is done in the language of correspondence with reality: science and the philosophy of science: analytic philosophy. Science has evolved to become the universal language of truthfulness. In no small part because it is laundered of moral loading, framing, and justification. Morality and Rationalism are allegorical and sentimental technologies. Science and Analytic philosophy are procedural, operational, existential, and unloaded technologies. Morality may be inspiring but science is actionable. I can make a legal contract – a constitution – that is hard to break. But I cannot make a moral analogy that survives the same attacks. (f) The next evolution of reaction must be not one of improving our loading and framing – although that is necessary for moral antagonism that encourages people to take up arms – but one of articulating the revocation of the errors of the enlightenment in actionable, scientific, analytic, and legal terms. These scientific, analytic, LEGAL and therefore AMORAL terms, are not as inspiring as the pervasive moral indignation we can load in continental rationalism. They are not as easy to understand, either. And we will require even more new terms. But they are much more precise tools for the construction of a set of demands for a set of institutions that will restore our ancient scientific civilization to its original direction as the guiding language of mankind. Finish the transformation of the scientific civilization to the language of science. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Propertarianism for New Friends: One Bite at a Time.

    [L]ibertarianism is an intellectual, empirical and analytic movement, and conservatism is a sentimental, moral, and analogistic movement.

    The difference in the language of the movements has partly to do with the production cycles that conservatives (human capital and norms) and libertarians (economic production) each emphasize. We use arguments that reflect the temporal bias of our political and reproductive preferences.

    Which is why I argue that political exchanges between conservatives(warriors/long term risk abatement), libertarians(investors/medium term production), and progressives (mothers/short-term consumption) are necessary in order to make use of the perceptive and cognitive differences of the division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor. Each of us is temporally spectrum biased (and in the case of progressives: spectrum blind.)

    Propertarianism suggests that innovation in anglo classical liberal institutions and law are necessary under total enfranchisement – both as a means of dividing power(negative), AND to make use of all available information (positive).

    There is no reason that we cannot create a market for commons just as we create a market for private consumption in goods and services. There is no reason except the existing monopoly government that the socialists put into place as a means of destroying our division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor.

    So, that is the central hypothesis I work from: that while we only NEED rule of law, under the one principle of non-imposition of costs, articulated in law as positive property rights, managed by an independent judiciary, decided by a jury of one’s peers – that we also prefer and possibly need, the production of commons.

    And that while we are universally governed by rule law, and only law, that we can construct markets for the production of commons. And that the ‘legislature’ then is eliminated from all of politics. No law can be created, only discovered. And that the government need only concern itself with governance of the production and maintenance of commons.

    This is, I believe, the next evolution of classical liberalism, and the means of eliminating majority tyranny, and perhaps all tyranny.

    Anarchy is not the answer, and we were merely useful idiots for libertine anarchists as we were for neo-conservatives, socialists and communists..

    WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?

    Well it means you have something to fight for, instead of something just to fight against.

    It means that propertarianism is the first intellectual, analytic, scientific, fully rational means of arguing our ancient, unique, high trust / rapid growth model of civilization.

    It also means though, that I tend to see sentimental expression and moralizing as a regressive and damaging means of expressing our preferences. In other words, it might feel good to express your sentiments, but it doesn’t change anything except your emotional state.

    So I ask you to try to learn Propertarianism by following me and Eli Harman (Eli is much easier to understand). And I ask you to be patient because it will take one year or more to swallow the “Very, Very, Very, Big Red Pill” that is Propertarianism, one bite at a time.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

    SUGGESTED TO FOLLOW OR FRIEND:
    Curt Doolittle (Ukraine) – Propertarianism and Institutions.
    Eli Harman (Alaska) – (How do I position Eli? Poet? New-Nietzche?)
    Michael Phillip (NZ) – Philosophy of Science (Michael is a critic of unscientific thought)
    Skye Stewart (Maine) – Skye pans for gold in the intellectual stream.
    My site: www.propertarianism.com – I sketch work here on Facebook and post the better pieces to the site a few times a month.
    The Propertarian Forum propertarianforum.wordpress.com
    HBD_Chick’s blog on marriage patterns.
    Any Alt-Right
    Any Neo-Reaction.
    Any Red Pill.
    Any of the top 100 econ blogs.

    EDITORS/CRITICS
    Roman Skaskiw (My ‘Boss’ – What I should and should not be doing at any given moment)
    Ayelam Valentine Agaliba (UK / Ghana) – Critical Rationalism / African Politics (Philosophy advisor to whom I am forever grateful)
    Karl Brooks (has recently begun correcting for argumentative clarity and seems to ‘grok it’ all.)
    Johannes Meixner (Grammar, sentence and sense editor)
    Don Finnegan (my other boss, soul mate, who inspired me to take my work public)
    And the dozens of others I haven’t mentioned but who help me every day. (You know who you are. smile emoticon )

    READING LIST
    I try to keep a current ‘short list’. It’s the first section at the top of the page:
    http://www.propertarianism.com/reading-list/

    BLOGS ETC
    I read pretty much every single economist’s blog every day, every paper at SSRN that’s relevant. And some books – although I usually limit myself to empirical works in the social sciences.

    Source: Curt Doolittle – FOR MY NEW FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: “ONE BITE AT A…

  • Propertarianism for New Friends: One Bite at a Time.

    [L]ibertarianism is an intellectual, empirical and analytic movement, and conservatism is a sentimental, moral, and analogistic movement.

    The difference in the language of the movements has partly to do with the production cycles that conservatives (human capital and norms) and libertarians (economic production) each emphasize. We use arguments that reflect the temporal bias of our political and reproductive preferences.

    Which is why I argue that political exchanges between conservatives(warriors/long term risk abatement), libertarians(investors/medium term production), and progressives (mothers/short-term consumption) are necessary in order to make use of the perceptive and cognitive differences of the division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor. Each of us is temporally spectrum biased (and in the case of progressives: spectrum blind.)

    Propertarianism suggests that innovation in anglo classical liberal institutions and law are necessary under total enfranchisement – both as a means of dividing power(negative), AND to make use of all available information (positive).

    There is no reason that we cannot create a market for commons just as we create a market for private consumption in goods and services. There is no reason except the existing monopoly government that the socialists put into place as a means of destroying our division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor.

    So, that is the central hypothesis I work from: that while we only NEED rule of law, under the one principle of non-imposition of costs, articulated in law as positive property rights, managed by an independent judiciary, decided by a jury of one’s peers – that we also prefer and possibly need, the production of commons.

    And that while we are universally governed by rule law, and only law, that we can construct markets for the production of commons. And that the ‘legislature’ then is eliminated from all of politics. No law can be created, only discovered. And that the government need only concern itself with governance of the production and maintenance of commons.

    This is, I believe, the next evolution of classical liberalism, and the means of eliminating majority tyranny, and perhaps all tyranny.

    Anarchy is not the answer, and we were merely useful idiots for libertine anarchists as we were for neo-conservatives, socialists and communists..

    WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?

    Well it means you have something to fight for, instead of something just to fight against.

    It means that propertarianism is the first intellectual, analytic, scientific, fully rational means of arguing our ancient, unique, high trust / rapid growth model of civilization.

    It also means though, that I tend to see sentimental expression and moralizing as a regressive and damaging means of expressing our preferences. In other words, it might feel good to express your sentiments, but it doesn’t change anything except your emotional state.

    So I ask you to try to learn Propertarianism by following me and Eli Harman (Eli is much easier to understand). And I ask you to be patient because it will take one year or more to swallow the “Very, Very, Very, Big Red Pill” that is Propertarianism, one bite at a time.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

    SUGGESTED TO FOLLOW OR FRIEND:
    Curt Doolittle (Ukraine) – Propertarianism and Institutions.
    Eli Harman (Alaska) – (How do I position Eli? Poet? New-Nietzche?)
    Michael Phillip (NZ) – Philosophy of Science (Michael is a critic of unscientific thought)
    Skye Stewart (Maine) – Skye pans for gold in the intellectual stream.
    My site: www.propertarianism.com – I sketch work here on Facebook and post the better pieces to the site a few times a month.
    The Propertarian Forum propertarianforum.wordpress.com
    HBD_Chick’s blog on marriage patterns.
    Any Alt-Right
    Any Neo-Reaction.
    Any Red Pill.
    Any of the top 100 econ blogs.

    EDITORS/CRITICS
    Roman Skaskiw (My ‘Boss’ – What I should and should not be doing at any given moment)
    Ayelam Valentine Agaliba (UK / Ghana) – Critical Rationalism / African Politics (Philosophy advisor to whom I am forever grateful)
    Karl Brooks (has recently begun correcting for argumentative clarity and seems to ‘grok it’ all.)
    Johannes Meixner (Grammar, sentence and sense editor)
    Don Finnegan (my other boss, soul mate, who inspired me to take my work public)
    And the dozens of others I haven’t mentioned but who help me every day. (You know who you are. smile emoticon )

    READING LIST
    I try to keep a current ‘short list’. It’s the first section at the top of the page:
    http://www.propertarianism.com/reading-list/

    BLOGS ETC
    I read pretty much every single economist’s blog every day, every paper at SSRN that’s relevant. And some books – although I usually limit myself to empirical works in the social sciences.

    Source: Curt Doolittle – FOR MY NEW FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: “ONE BITE AT A…

  • PROPERTY PROVISIONS Bruce, Another great piece for nomocracyinpolitics. Excuse m

    http://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2015/06/10/when-does-copyright-become-wrong-by-bruce-frohnen/INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROVISIONS

    Bruce,

    Another great piece for nomocracyinpolitics.

    Excuse me in advance for the language of my analytic philosophy. That said, I tend to describe the grant of limited monopoly license under similar criteria to which we grant the license to property: “Transitus(transit), Usus(use), Fructus (fruits of), Mancipio(transfer), and Abusus(consumption)”.

    We can grant different rights to property. We can grant different rights to the market as well.

    In intellectual property I use: Innovatio(invention), Investimus(investment), Moralis(morality- necessary for preservation of cooperation and prevention of retaliation for free riding) . We can grant these three rights as long as we maintain the corresponding requirements – of which time is actually a poor measure.

    1) ‘INNOVATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a lottery effect as a means of encouraging innovation.

    – In which case, one must maintain a product in production in order to maintain the original intent. In other words, there can be no patent protection per se, merely a patent serves as prohibition on competition for the resulting products and services.

    2) ‘INVESTIGATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a limited monopoly as a means of funding off-book research and development for goods not possible for the market to produce otherwise at current incentives. This is probably a much better solution to basic research than is the grant system.

    – In which case it is possible to set a limited return on the limited monopoly – not just in time but also in income.

    3) ‘MORALIS’ : The moral prohibition on free riding*, and a requirement for production in order to participate in the commons (market).

    – In which case the prohibition must be limited to profiting in the broadest sense, not to personal copying, for personal use. (Creative Commons for example).

    *The prohibition on free riding (imposition of costs) that we evolved to prevent ‘cheating’ in parallel to our evolution of cooperation might require some explaining. We retaliate, at cost, against the imposition cost, whether it be obvious violence theft and fraud, less obvious free riding, or imperceptible violation of moral norms.

    REPAIRING EXTERNALITIES

    Now, some side effects are perverse and obvious:

    (a) patent trolls (our friends in Seattle for example)

    (b) patents as total market prohibitions. (the rubber tires example)

    (c) lawsuits the content of which we cannot construct juries capable of adjudicating. (Samsung and Apple for example).

    (d) the need to defend patents even if you don’t want to in order to prevent reverse-prohibitions.

    (e) The absurd costs of researching and filing and defending them.

    (f) The result that it’s not the patent that secures your invention, but the financial ability to wage a lawsuit at high risk.

    But some externalities are less obvious:

    (a) How would plot lines, and movie portfolios, and bookstore catalogs differ, without copyrights? How would the high arts be affected? At present, we produce almost none, and we produce almost entirely what can be considered folk arts and vaudeville at best. Wouldn’t the elimination of copyrights change arts back to a form of conspicuous elite consumption, and the product of the aristocracy rather than the proletariat? (I am more concerned about this then the other factors combined.)

    Hope that gave you a few ideas.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 06:45:00 UTC

  • Is Propertarianism Utilitarian?

    (worth repeating) ( h/t: Kyle Trotta ) [I]s Propertarianism Utilitarian? First, Propertarianism consists of multiple concepts: (a) Testimonial Truth. (b) Testimonialism: The unification of morality, philosophy, law and science under testimonial truth. (c) Propertarian Ethics and Politics: a universal language of ethics and politics. (d) Testimonial Classical Liberalism: the means of constructing institutions that produce commons – (because truth and consequential trust, is the reason westerners can produce such hyper-competitive commons.) (e) Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Western Aristocratic Group Evolutionary Strategy) We (meaning the people who advise me) felt that lumping everything under the single term ‘Propertarianism’ was simply easier. It’s easier to understand one name than five or six. So when we say ‘Propertarianism’ in the narrowest sense, its the formal logic of ethics and politics. When we use it casually, in the broader sense, we refer to the use of that formal logic to create aristocratic egalitarian political orders. Now, back to “Utilitarian”. When we say something is utilitarian, we mean that the decidability of moral questions is determined by the usefulness of some outcome or other, by some criteria or other. In Propertarianism, I’ve tried to provide an AMORAL (non-moral), logically and operationally articulated, empirically derived, means of deciding moral questions: the prohibition on the imposition of costs – a prohibition that MUST exist for cooperation to remain rational. To state this prohibition in positive terms we can say we require: “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality of the same criteria.” We can further express this requirement in law, as both the logical origin of all law, and the formal expression of that law as property rights where the scope of property is defined as property-en-toto; where property-en-toto is defined as accumulated capital of all forms that people will demonstrably defend and retaliate against impositions upon (enumerated on propertarianism.com), and where that capital was obtained by the same criteria. Propertarianism then, is the legal codification of the single necessary principle of rational cooperation. With it we can create nomocracy: Rule of Law, under the one law of rational cooperation. And it applies whether we resolve interpersonal disputes, or organize to construct commons. Propertarianism is expressible as the incremental, evolutionary suppression of parasitism (free riding) in all its forms, by the most immediate means possible: the organic, evolutionary, independent, rule of law, under the one principle (law) of anti-parasitism: the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against property-en-toto. Leaving no means of sustenance available except productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality. [D]oes Propertarianism take biological influences into account? The answer is yes. Both in ethics and in politics. One of the aspects I have tried to get across is that just as the market forms an information system that by way of prices provides us with information needed to serve ourselves by the service of others – to cooperate at vast scales – that our moral biases, and moral blindnesses, and rational justifications constitute a division of inter-temporal reproductive perception, cognition, negotiation, and labor. As such, voluntary excahgen between not only males and females, but voluntary exchange between progressives(feminine bias), libertarians(production bias), and conservatives(masculine tribal bias) are the only means by which to make full use of the information perceived by all. Each inter-temporal and moral specialization must specialize to gain expertise, but compromise to with other parts of the spectrum to obtain what their bias suggests to them. As such the market for commons must be divided as were the original houses into classes, and classes into genders, to reflect the biases of the groups. This is not to say we need representative government. It is only that no matter what means we use to make decisions on the provision of commons, whether direct, representative or economic, that monopoly decision making (majority rule) is not required, only the non-imposition of costs by the participants in the agreement and those who do not wish to participate in it. To facilitate negotiation it appears that criteria for joining one house or another is extremely useful. Although I suggest this be a virtual house, not a physical one. We are no longer limited by space and time in our communications. I hope this helped Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (1) Curt Doolittle – IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE…

  • Is Propertarianism Utilitarian?

    (worth repeating) ( h/t: Kyle Trotta ) [I]s Propertarianism Utilitarian? First, Propertarianism consists of multiple concepts: (a) Testimonial Truth. (b) Testimonialism: The unification of morality, philosophy, law and science under testimonial truth. (c) Propertarian Ethics and Politics: a universal language of ethics and politics. (d) Testimonial Classical Liberalism: the means of constructing institutions that produce commons – (because truth and consequential trust, is the reason westerners can produce such hyper-competitive commons.) (e) Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Western Aristocratic Group Evolutionary Strategy) We (meaning the people who advise me) felt that lumping everything under the single term ‘Propertarianism’ was simply easier. It’s easier to understand one name than five or six. So when we say ‘Propertarianism’ in the narrowest sense, its the formal logic of ethics and politics. When we use it casually, in the broader sense, we refer to the use of that formal logic to create aristocratic egalitarian political orders. Now, back to “Utilitarian”. When we say something is utilitarian, we mean that the decidability of moral questions is determined by the usefulness of some outcome or other, by some criteria or other. In Propertarianism, I’ve tried to provide an AMORAL (non-moral), logically and operationally articulated, empirically derived, means of deciding moral questions: the prohibition on the imposition of costs – a prohibition that MUST exist for cooperation to remain rational. To state this prohibition in positive terms we can say we require: “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality of the same criteria.” We can further express this requirement in law, as both the logical origin of all law, and the formal expression of that law as property rights where the scope of property is defined as property-en-toto; where property-en-toto is defined as accumulated capital of all forms that people will demonstrably defend and retaliate against impositions upon (enumerated on propertarianism.com), and where that capital was obtained by the same criteria. Propertarianism then, is the legal codification of the single necessary principle of rational cooperation. With it we can create nomocracy: Rule of Law, under the one law of rational cooperation. And it applies whether we resolve interpersonal disputes, or organize to construct commons. Propertarianism is expressible as the incremental, evolutionary suppression of parasitism (free riding) in all its forms, by the most immediate means possible: the organic, evolutionary, independent, rule of law, under the one principle (law) of anti-parasitism: the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against property-en-toto. Leaving no means of sustenance available except productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality. [D]oes Propertarianism take biological influences into account? The answer is yes. Both in ethics and in politics. One of the aspects I have tried to get across is that just as the market forms an information system that by way of prices provides us with information needed to serve ourselves by the service of others – to cooperate at vast scales – that our moral biases, and moral blindnesses, and rational justifications constitute a division of inter-temporal reproductive perception, cognition, negotiation, and labor. As such, voluntary excahgen between not only males and females, but voluntary exchange between progressives(feminine bias), libertarians(production bias), and conservatives(masculine tribal bias) are the only means by which to make full use of the information perceived by all. Each inter-temporal and moral specialization must specialize to gain expertise, but compromise to with other parts of the spectrum to obtain what their bias suggests to them. As such the market for commons must be divided as were the original houses into classes, and classes into genders, to reflect the biases of the groups. This is not to say we need representative government. It is only that no matter what means we use to make decisions on the provision of commons, whether direct, representative or economic, that monopoly decision making (majority rule) is not required, only the non-imposition of costs by the participants in the agreement and those who do not wish to participate in it. To facilitate negotiation it appears that criteria for joining one house or another is extremely useful. Although I suggest this be a virtual house, not a physical one. We are no longer limited by space and time in our communications. I hope this helped Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (1) Curt Doolittle – IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE…

  • IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE BIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES INTO ACCOUNT?

    IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE BIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES INTO ACCOUNT?

    (worth repeating) ( h/t: Kyle Trotta )

    1) Is Propertarianism Utilitarian?

    First, Propertarianism consists of multiple concepts:

    (a) Testimonial Truth.

    (b) Testimonialism: The unification of morality, philosophy, law and science under testimonial truth.

    (c) Propertarian Ethics and Politics: a universal language of ethics and politics.

    (d) Testimonial Classical Liberalism: the means of constructing institutions that produce commons – (because truth and consequential trust, is the reason westerners can produce such hyper-competitive commons.)

    (e) Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Western Aristocratic Group Evolutionary Strategy)

    We (meaning the people who advise me) felt that lumping everything under the single term ‘Propertarianism’ was simply easier to understand one name, than five or six. So when we say ‘propertarianism’ in the narrowest sense, its the formal logic of ethics and politics. When we use it casually, in the broader sense, we refer to the use of that formal logic to create aristocratic egalitarian political orders.

    Now, back to “Utilitarian”. When we say something is utilitarian, we mean that the decidability of moral questions is determined by the usefulness of some outcome or other, by some criteria or other.

    In Propertarianism, I’ve tried to provide an AMORAL (non-moral), logically and operationally articulated, empirically derived, means of deciding moral questions: the prohibition on the imposition of costs – a prohibition that MUST exist for cooperation to remain rational.

    To state this prohibition in positive terms we can say we require: “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality of the same criteria.”

    We can further express this requirement in law, as both the logical origin of all law, and the formal expression of that law as property rights where the scope of property is defined as property-en-toto; where property-en-toto is defined as accumulated capital of all forms that people will demonstrably defend and retaliate against impositions upon (enumerated on propertarianism.com), and where that capital was obtained by the same criteria.

    Propertarianism then, is the legal codification of the single necessary principle of rational cooperation. With it we can create nomocracy: Rule of Law, under the one law of rational cooperation. And it applies whether we resolve interpersonal disputes, or organize to construct commons.

    Propertarianism is expressible as the incremental, evolutionary suppression of parasitism (free riding) in all its forms, by the most immediate means possible: the organic, evolutionary, independent, rule of law, under the one principle (law) of anti-parasitism: the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against property-en-toto. Leaving no means of sustenance available except productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    2) Does Propertarianism take biological influences into account?

    The answer is yes. Both in ethics and in politics.

    One of the aspects I have tried to get across is that just as the market forms an information system that by way of prices provides us with information needed to serve ourselves by the service of others – to cooperate at vast scales – that our moral biases, and moral blindnesses, and rational justifications constitute a division of inter-temporal reproductive perception, cognition, negotiation, and labor.

    As such, voluntary exchange between, not only males and females, but voluntary exchange between progressives(feminine bias), libertarians(production bias), and conservatives(masculine tribal bias) are the only means by which to make full use of the information perceived by all.

    Each inter-temporal and moral specialization must specialize to gain expertise, but must also compromise with other parts of the spectrum to obtain what their bias suggests to them.

    As such the market for commons must be divided as were the original houses into classes, and classes into genders, to reflect the biases of the groups. This is not to say we need representative government. It is only that no matter what means we use to make decisions on the provision of commons, whether direct, representative or economic, that monopoly decision making (majority rule) is not required, only the non-imposition of costs by the participants in the agreement and those who do not wish to participate in it.

    To facilitate negotiation it appears that criteria for joining one house or another is extremely useful. Although I suggest this be a virtual house, not a physical one. We are no longer limited by space and time in our communications.

    I hope this helped

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-08 02:52:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN NOMOCRACTIC CLASSICAL LIBERAL AND THEREFORE LIBERTARIAN

    ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN NOMOCRACTIC CLASSICAL LIBERAL AND THEREFORE LIBERTARIAN. ( 🙂 )

    My point is that I’m not a ‘white nationalist’. I’m a universal nationalist. A higher-tribalist. An advocate for truth, science, and nomocracy; for the market production of commons.

    What does that mean?

    It means that we can choose a spectrum between a corporations resulting in castes, or nations (extended families) resulting in aristocracy. But we will never achieve equality. It’s impossible because we are too vastly unequal to one another in value to one another (capability).

    It is our lower classes that cannot merge. Our aristocracies are, and must be global. But bringing our lower classes – reliant on one another – to capital, and particularly to normative and institutional capital, is suicidal.

    Our differences are expressed by our lower classes. our similarities by our upper classes.

    Yet our upper classes can only obtain status (and status can only be widely manufactured by positive (non consumptive) means, if there are many nations, with many aristocrats. Aristocracy gains its status signals from raising its people from one state and one distribution to another state and another distribution. Otherwise they are just parasites on their own people.

    So I advocate universal aristocracy. Universal tribalism. Universal familialism. And as such I am an anti-corporatist in both private and public institutions.

    To no small degree, I view the emphasis on signaling via consumption and the offloading of underclasses to more developed nations, as a total abdication of aristocratic responsibility for the parental development of their civilizations.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-07 04:34:00 UTC

  • MY NEW FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: “ONE BITE AT A TIME”. Libertarianism is an intelle

    http://www.propertarianism.com/FOR MY NEW FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: “ONE BITE AT A TIME”.

    Libertarianism is an intellectual, empirical and analytic movement, and conservatism is a sentimental, moral, and analogistic movement.

    The difference in the language of the movements has partly to do with the production cycles that conservatives (human capital and norms) and libertarians (economic production) each emphasize. We use arguments that reflect the temporal bias of our political and reproductive preferences.

    Which is why I argue that political exchanges between conservatives(warriors/long term risk abatement), libertarians(investors/medium term production), and progressives (mothers/short-term consumption) are necessary in order to make use of the perceptive and cognitive differences of the division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor. Each of us is temporally spectrum biased (and in the case of progressives: spectrum blind.)

    Propertarianism suggests that innovation in anglo classical liberal institutions and law are necessary under total enfranchisement – both as a means of dividing power(negative), AND to make use of all available information (positive).

    There is no reason that we cannot create a market for commons just as we create a market for private consumption in goods and services. There is no reason except the existing monopoly government that the socialists put into place as a means of destroying our division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor.

    So, that is the central hypothesis I work from: that while we only NEED rule of law, under the one principle of non-imposition of costs, articulated in law as positive property rights, managed by an independent judiciary, decided by a jury of one’s peers – that we also prefer and possibly need, the production of commons.

    And that while we are universally governed by rule law, and only law, that we can construct markets for the production of commons. And that the ‘legislature’ then is eliminated from all of politics. No law can be created, only discovered. And that the government need only concern itself with governance of the production and maintenance of commons.

    This is, I believe, the next evolution of classical liberalism, and the means of eliminating majority tyranny, and perhaps all tyranny.

    Anarchy is not the answer, and we were merely useful idiots for libertine anarchists as we were for neo-conservatives, socialists and communists..

    WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?

    Well it means you have something to fight for, instead of something just to fight against.

    It means that propertarianism is the first intellectual, analytic, scientific, fully rational means of arguing our ancient, unique, high trust / rapid growth model of civilization.

    It also means though, that I tend to see sentimental expression and moralizing as a regressive and damaging means of expressing our preferences. In other words, it might feel good to express your sentiments, but it doesn’t change anything except your emotional state.

    So I ask you to try to learn Propertarianism by following me and Eli Harman (Eli is much easier to understand). And I ask you to be patient because it will take one year or more to sallow the “Very, Very, Very, Big Red Pill” that is Propertarianism, one bite at a time.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    SUGGESTED TO FOLLOW OR FRIEND:

    Curt Doolittle (Ukraine) – Propertarianism and Institutions.

    Eli Harman (Alaska) – (How do I position Eli? Poet? New-Nietzche?)

    Michael Phillip (NZ) – Philosophy of Science (Michael is a critic of unscientific thought)

    Skye Stewart (Maine) – Skye pans for gold in the intellectual stream.

    My site: www.propertarianism.com – I sketch work here on Facebook and post the better pieces to the site a few times a month.

    The Propertarian Forum propertarianforum.wordpress.com

    HBD_Chick’s blog on marriage patterns.

    Any Alt-Right

    Any Neo-Reaction.

    Any Red Pill.

    Any of the top 100 econ blogs.

    EDITORS/CRITICS

    Roman Skaskiw (My ‘Boss’ – What I should and should not be doing at any given moment)

    Ayelam Valentine Agaliba (UK / Ghana) – Critical Rationalism / African Politics (Philosophy advisor to whom I am forever grateful)

    Karl Brooks (has recently begun correcting for argumentative clarity and seems to ‘grok it’ all.)

    Johannes Meixner (Grammar, sentence and sense editor)

    Don Finnegan (my other boss, soul mate, who inspired me to take my work public)

    And the dozens of others I haven’t mentioned but who help me every day. (You know who you are. 🙂 )

    READING LIST

    I try to keep a current ‘short list’. It’s the first section at the top of the page:

    http://www.propertarianism.com/reading-list/

    BLOGS ETC

    I read pretty much every single economist’s blog every day, every paper at SSRN that’s relevant. And some books – although I usually limit myself to empirical works in the social sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-07 04:15:00 UTC

  • Scientific and Libertarian vs Mythical and Authoritarian: The Burden of Thought.

    (religious trigger warning) [K]ant understood the central value of the west was truth speaking.  But Kant was still a Christian – arguing in unscientific language of morality. He was not able to make the leap from truth to jury, law, science and economics. We face the same problem with Today’s Christians. Traditionalists often hold proper sensibilities and express them in the language of belief, rather than the language of institutions, incentives, law, and economics – the art of cooperation rather than totalitarianism that requires submission in all the monotheistic religions, and which demands we abandon truth in favor of useful analogy. What traditionalism requires is submission – and in exchange one gains freedom from the burden of perpetual calculation of events. The value of religion – still measurable today – is that it is increasingly valuable as intelligence decreases. And decreasingly valuable as intelligence increases. Religious authority obviates need for reason.  Truth, science and reason obviate the need for authority. So we really have two choices: we can have two systems of thought: scientific and mythical, while insisting that the mythical contain moral content only, with full knowledge that the scientific method is aristocratic and libertarian in construction and the mythical narrative is proletarian and authoritarian in construction. Or, we can suppress the reproduction of the lower classes and merely pay them off until there are so few left that their cost is below noise level. (Spoken as a Catholic myself.) Source: Curt Doolittle