Form: Reply

Josh Jeppson Any chance you’d want to debate some Ancaps on on a call tomorrow night? (I”m booked already)

RE: “CURT: YOU REMIND ME OF EVOLA”

I get that a lot because we are both making aristocratic arguments. And doing so unapologetically. But that is where the comparison ends. I see him as a poet or inspirational essayist, not a philosopher or scientist, but an artist. Those are the tools he uses.

I see myself using the same tools as Hayek, Marx, Darwin, Hume, Smith, and Locke: I write about the institutional frameworks necessary for cooperation, because cooperation as i see it produces competitive advantage in desirability of society, economic productivity, scientific innovation, military advantage, and genetic evolution.

In my mind my work is largely a refutation of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, and the Frankfurt School, as well as against the Anglo Puritans and their postmoderns that have adopted their work. And as a refutation I’m trying to complete the scientific enlightenment, by exposing and defeating the great lies of the cosmopolitans and their second attempt at a new religious conquest of the west, and correcting the Anglos, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Eastern Europeans, Russians, and to a lesser degree the (hopeless) French.

I don’t claim any particular brilliance, and the rather slow pace of my work may confirm that humility, but I do claim to ‘have got it right’, even if for no other reason than I stand on the shoulders of giants, (and that among them is Turing – who is not studied by philosophers despite the fact that he has probably answered the questions they have been seeking.) So I live in an era where a great synthesis is possible, and the attack on our civilization by the Cosmopolitans has been successful enough that there exists intellectual demand for a work of this nature. And so most of my work over the past two years is largely in an attempt to articulate what is a very sweeping set of ideas in a form that is digestible by more than a literate few. And I’m getting there.

I see myself as an answer to Marx, by extending Hayek’s work – he had found that the answer was in the law. But he was not able to define truth nor did he grasp that the asymmetric costs of competition between truth and falsehood could only be resolved by a market for prosecuting falsehood in the distribution of information, just as we had prosecuted falsehood in the distribution of services and products.

To solve this problem one must solve the problem of truth. The problem of truth consists however, not in justificationary explanation, but in warranty of due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. The problem of developing that warranty is the criteria that the jury must comprehend, and the judge must facilitate. And this is what I have done. In the end result, testimonialism consists of a set of warranties of due diligence that will prohibit error bias and deceit to such a significant degree that the cost of it will be unbearable, and the market for competition between ideas can be restored to one of symmetric costs.

The rest of the work just explains how and why that is possible, and why it has in the past been successful, and why in the present it would be preferable.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.