Source: Facebook

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BEWEEN YARVIN’S NRX AND PROPERTARIANISM?

(notes from an interview)

1) WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM

We tend to think in terms of ideological “-isms” which are loose proposals for political orders.

Propertarianism is on the scale of aristotelianism, empiricism and the empirical revolution, science and the scientific revolution, in that it’s a system of measurement for the human sciences.

So if I ask you to describe what we achieved with the Aristotelian, empirical, and scientific revolutions, you would have to cover a host of topics. Aristotle applied his system of thought to all the philosophical categories. Well, propertarianism is just like that. It’s a very big thing. So we have to break it down into parts to understand something that big.

1. Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method, by extending it to language(metaphysics), the psychological and social sciences(ethics and politics).

That scientific method is then applied to the totality of human knowledge – meaning every discipline.

The result is a universally commensurable, value neutral, vocabulary and logic of language and the psychological and social sciences that at least most of the time, is most similar to the language of economics.

Then we restate the natural common law of tort in that logic and vocabulary.

Then we use that law to write Constitutions of strictly constructed Natural Law, closed to interpretation.

The principle innovation is to (a) close constitutions to circumvention by ‘interpretation’, and (b) extend involuntary warranty of due diligence and subsequent liability from commercial to political speech. (c) solve the common problems of the day through policy.

You’d think this isn’t possible but it is. We can test whether speech is truthful and reciprocal. Really. We can. (Seriously).

The purpose of these increases in precision of the constitution is reversal the second conquest of civilization – first by the abrahamic religions and now by their pseudoscientific and sophomoric modern versions in boaz, marx, freud, the frankfurt school, feminism, and postmodernism – by the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.

That constitution contains a basic structure for the uniqueness of western civilization’s member polities, reversing the tribalism being brought back into our civilization by the enemy, but with increasingly severe terms if our demands are not met. In other words, the initial conditions eradicate leftism forever and reform every aspect of our lives by eradicating all parasitism in all forms – especially financial, political, economic, and academic.

So we begin with an acceptable settlement for all and end with an imposition, punishment, and forced relocation if it isn’t met.

2) WHAT COMMONALITIES DOES PROPERTARIANISM SHARE WITH NRX & WHAT ARE THE KEY DIFFERENCES?

We are all libertarians of one stripe or another resisting denial of our ability to creatively improve or experience our lives.

But all of us bring our group morals, our group strategy, and the means of arguing our group morals and strategy.

Rothbard speaks Jewish middle class ambitions in Jewish Pilpul(sophism) and Yarvin in jewish middle class ambitions using critique (criticism) in continental prose, Hoppe in middle class ambitions and his free cities in silly Kantian rationalism, and Doolittle middle class ambitions in science law and the British empire.

Likewise we all take something from christian and jewish branches of Austrian economics. I’m anglo so I treat it as the economics of rule of law – which is where hayek ended up as well.

This is partly because the three extremes of economic analysis are

1. The Jewish Ukrainian/Russian of the pale, previously called jewish economics, but which we now call Austrian or at least Misesian and their amoral ethics. of separatists. As with all separatist strategy it ignores common property necessary for land holding people.

2. The Christian Austrian which is just rule of law – meaning social science, of aristocratic governance of many disparate polities, where commons are produced locally.

3. The classical liberal hayekian, we call classical liberalism of the aristocracy of an homogenous people that minimize the production of commons and maximize the private.

4. and the keynesian continental democratic socialist interpretation of marx, the maximize commons and minimize the private.

So, no commons(Jewish), local commons(Austrian empire), limited commons(British empire) and majority commons(socialist majority of europe).

So it’s perhaps more useful to use a descriptive name for austrian economics and call it rule of law economics or just the logic of – ‘social science’. To call classical liberal, hayekian, and Friedman (chicago) economics as fiat currency economics under rule of law; and to call keyesian economics as insured fiat currenty, and neo-keynsian social democratic as discretionary economics.

And economics simply the relationship between private property and common. Or in other words, the difference between rule of law that allows parasitism (jewish), and rule of law that prohibits parasitism, and rule of law that redistributes parasitically.

I think that’s what all of us share. Rule of law. Empirical law. Not discretionary rule.

We just were suckered yet again by the marxists into the false dichotomy of unfettered capitalism – monopoly of the middle class, or unfettered socialism – the monopoly of the underclass, rather than the successful european invention of rule of law, an unfettered monopoly of the upper, aristocratic, or martial class that derives its income from suppression of parasitism resulting in commission we call taxation.

3) HOW IS YOUR PLAN MORE ACTIONABLE/SCIENTIFIC THAN CURTIS YARVIN’S PLAN?

I’m not sure Yarvin has a plan – just an idea. If you can’t write a constitution you’re just talking smack. I’m not sure how much of Aristotle’s thought was formed by his authoring of the athenian constitution, or the founding fathers by theirs, but I know how much of mine has been. Writing a constitution in operational language under sovereignty and reciprocity is quite difficult because you must operationalize what you’re saying.

Now to say a government must run like a business is rather daft because in fact, governments all do, and always have run as a business. That’s why governments invented writing and numbers – so that they could manage inventory, revenue- and expenses. What occurred since the 1500’s was an improvement in accounting and literacy that made empirical government possible. What occurred with every instance of fiat money was un-empirical government. What occurred in all civilizations that entered periods of stagnation was a conversion from empirical and to moral because they failed to produce institutional means of maintaining empirical measurements. Well we have radically increased our ability to conduct empirical measurements, but we are still treating fiat money like a physical resource, and distributing it through the financial system making that accounting impossible. So while we need professional bureaucracy, and we need to staff it with our best people, it really doesn’t matter if they’re using intuition rather than measurement. the I-pencil problem is much easier to solve in the late monarchical age, and far harder to solve

The same is true for law. Treating everyone as sovereign is in law is just like creating an account for a person. Strictly constructed law of tort is a purely empirical system of rule.

Civilizations that scale beyond the means of empirical – meaning measurable – administration are simply governed by intuition, rumor, speculation, and habit rather than reason and measurement, and so are not able to resist rents and corruption, nor adapt to shocks.

One of the means of scaling beyond the empirical is through reproduction of the underclasses, which violates the demand that as the complexity of the division of labor increases, the demand for a genetically middle class population increases.

So one can run a eugenic polity like the northern europeans, one can run one like the Chinese Koreans and Japanese. Or one can NOT run a eugenic polity like the Muslim, Indian, african, and now south American worlds. And instead of increasing genetic, skilled, Knowledge, and Institutional capital, spend it down by underclass population expansion.

In any polity we struggle to create a Pareto distribution of property in order to make possible the voluntary market organization of production. But we also struggle to prevent defection and anti-market sentiments by …. proportionality – meaning a Nash equilibrium of outcomes – meaning any one of us might do better but all of us do as best as we can in the group.

Now, one can run a corporation (heterogeneous state) or one can run a family (homogenous state) or one can run a familial state (homogenous access to power, heterogeneous access to markets). Homogenous states run as families have less competition for status and power and tolerate greater asymmetry of wealth, yet produce relatively greater homogeneity of wealth.

So in the twentieth century we destroyed (a) rule of law of tort, destroyed (b) the limits on reproduction of the underclasses, (c) destroyed the monetary and accounting system, (d) destroyed homogeneity of the population, and (e eliminated the monarchy and created a conflict for access to power to circumvent the market and obtain privileges and rents by the state, and (f) ended the prohibition on libel, slander, duel, hanging, fighting, civic defense and policing – all in order to accommodate those peoples not majority middle class (g) ended the family as a system of measurement by which resource consumption was measured.

We did what the Chinese did when they stagnated, then we allowed underclass immigration that they did not.

The twentieth century ended the age of empirical social organization and we see the results.

Yarvin is just saying what everyone else says “I give up – I can’t solve the problem of government, and I trust a bureaucracy more than I trust the majority”, whereas the lesson of history is that “you can trust the middle class to govern and only the middle class, because only the middle class has interests in common with all people, practices middle class ethics of customer service, and governs their lives empirically.”

There is no difference between cameralism and the Chinese method, and german method of a professional bureaucracy – and this is Fukuyama’s position. And he was wrong. Because the ability of people to produce a government of limited corruption begins before the government. It begins with their customary law, and the organization of their military.

The west evolved from cattle raiders that fought on land like vikings and pirates – entrepreneurially. And defended collectively. So like the economics of pirates we developed sovereignty reciprocity and meritocracy (male proportionality) governed by rule of law of tort (property). And the jury and the law rather than authority as the means of dispute resolution. Add to this that unlike the fertile crescent, it took vast lands to feed horses and cattle, and bronze armor and chariots were expensive and funded by whole families, and you have western contractualism we still practice today. (Unfortunately the french – at least Parisians – were romanized and feminized and they are the sponsors of authoritarianism and socialism in Europe.)

In other words, people think in terms of government like they do religion – conflationary terms. Religion only seems complicated until you operationally construct its constituent parts. The same for government. If instead of conflating we disambiguate the term government into the functions or institutions it must create, then we can more precisely analyze what we’re talking about, and in face, talk abut the same things.

At the highest level we can disambiguate government into Rule (decisions), Government (production and administration of commons), Treasury (revenue and expenses), and insurer of last resort (both negative like military and positive like care taking).

So, let’s separate rule from government. Rule of law means rule without human discretion (choice).

The romans knew there was a limit to rule of law during war. And that rule of law must be restored after the war. That’s because in war all assets must be put to collective single uses whereas in daily functioning all assets must be put to self interested uses, from which the body collects revenue in the form of a commission we call taxes.

So there is no one static form of government producing the commons necessary for the current conditions, but one rule of law under which the production of commons varies according to the demand for commons.

With P-law. we can produce any system of rule, production of commons, treasurer, and insurer of last resort.

My understanding is that if we fix the conflict between the feminine consumptive and the masculine conservative by devolving the production of commons, particularly normative commons, out of the federal government, and if we fix the financial system, and end the lying, that it’s possible to settle this problem relatively peacefully.

Western civilization’s uniqueness was in developing rule of law by sovereignty and reciprocity adjudicated by jury to prevent the most possible corruptions, and thereby forcing everyone into different markets whether military, commercial, philosophical, literary,, or supernatural. This is the fastest system of adaptation to change that is possible – it’s why the anglos adapt faster than continentals, but why continental rule is more stable.

So I proposed a strictly constructed rule of law, with a monarchy as judge of last resort, a cabinet of professionals, subcontracted bureaucracies, houses for the classes and genders randomly selected like juries, requiring property and service, that have right of veto over taxes, fees. 

In this system no one is insulated from the law, and we create a market for the suppression of parasitism.

There is more to it but that’s most of it. 

This system scales up and down from authoritarian to redistributive as circumstances permit.

it also allows us to include and exclude groups arbitrarily.

So that’s really my argument: government doesn’t matter, it’s rule of law that matters, and rule of law by sovereignty and reciprocity that matters.

A government must satisfy market demand for governments by authority when needing to make leaps or defend; profitably operate a going concern; and redistribute windfalls when they occur.

How this is accomplished is largely determined by the demographics with majority middle class the optimum participatory, majority working class some authority, majority underclass more authority

The difference is that under my proposals the whether at the top or bottom is mostly via-negativa (veto). This is because the production of commons for excellences( upper), practicalities (middle), and insurance (bottom) are best left to those with understanding of them – and produced by trade rather than by consensus.

4) WHAT IS YOUR POSTURE TOWARDS REACTIONARIES? ARE THEY USEFUL ALLIES, OR PEOPLE WHO MUST ULTIMATELY BE CONVERTED TO YOUR CAUSE?

I’m a reactionary right? I’m just scientific one that solved the problem of restoring measurement to government rather than throwing my hands up and giving up.

Children need parables, teens need heroic stories, adults need security stories, and those who rule need only the truth and history, and those who govern need to engineer a solution with incentives that doesn’t not require people to act against their incentives in order to operate an organization of vast scale.

Which one are you?

I deal with engineering by that system of measurement we call law. I let other people tell stories. 🙂