Q&A: CURT: HOW DO HOPPE’S COVENANT COMMUNITIES FIT WITH PROPERTARIANISM? (good piece) (for newbies especially) —“Hoppe’s advocating for so-called covenant communities seems a decent idea on paper, people establish communities based on contractual relations and setting rules based on the will of the community. Now I have seen videos of you talking about the “absolute nuclear family” and societies where everyone treated everyone the same and there was no difference between in-group and out-group trust, this seems like a rather vital part of propertarianism. Now my question is, does the idea of covenant communities fit within the propertarian framework? Because while it seems a decent idea, it does certainly look like it would create a major difference between in-group treatment and out-group treatment, seeing as these communities could, and probably would, have vastly different rules than the one next to them, so to say. Do you see covenant communities as an extension of Rothbardian ghetto/gypsy/Jewish ethics, or have I totally misunderstood either you or Hoppe?”— GREAT QUESTION. This is such a great question. Thank you for it. – Preamble – I consider myself a Hoppeian (although Hans would likely differ) in that all ethics and politics can be expressed as property rights. Part of what I tried to do in propertarianism was illustrate how the three empirical-rational cultures: English Empirical, German Rational, and Jewish Pseudoscientific, (and I suppose we could include the frech-pseudo-moral), tried to restate their group evolutionary strategy as universal ethics and politics – and all failed. So what you see is rothbard attempting to universalize jewish law, and cosmopolitan pseudoscience (of separatist disasporic people), hoppe attempting to universalize german rationalism (of homogeneous agrarian landed people), and me trying to use anglo-saxon empirical contractualism (of a trading naval people) as a universal – within which we can construct a variety of orders. So when my work differs from Hoppe’s it differs largely in the fact that he relies on’ justificationary rationalism’ (tests of internal consistency and subjective non-contradiction) using intersubjectively verifiable property as the basis for common law, and I rely on ‘testimonialism’ which is an advancement over scientific empiricism, for reasons that are complicated – but which are reducible to adding the tests of existential possibility when describing human actions, and the requirement for full accounting, assuming that man is NOT naturally moral, but naturally rational, and will choose immoral-unethical or moral-ethical actions based purely on intuitionistic estimation of costs and benefits. That paragraph is extremely loaded, (dense) with meaning. I would point you to my introductory writings to understand it if you need to. But in simple terms, that means that I consider my work a SCIENTIFIC restatement of hoppe’s reduction of all ethical, moral, political decidability to expressions of property rights, and the first cause of property rights non imposition of costs upon the property in toto of others that would cause them to retaliate in ANY way – this is in fact (as Butler Schaeffer has tried to show us) the meaning of ‘natural law’. Hoppe constructs his anarchism (german rule of law) on the lower standard of intersubjectively verifiable property, and fully voluntary production of commons. I construct my rule of law (anglo anarchism) on the higher standard of property-in-toto, and creating a market for the voluntary exchange of commons – much more like the stock market which is competitive, rather than the current houses of government which are monopolies. The reason I do this is because the west beat the rest with commons production – truth-telling, private-property, sovereignty, rule of law, and militia chief among them. The other reason is that communities that do not produce commons across the spectrum: normative, ethical, moral, legal, institutional, martial, and territorial, NEVER survive competition from competitors. because they cannot. They cannot positively because it is always preferable to give up liberties in order to obtain predictabilities needed for complex commercial production. They cannot Negatively because the only individuals suitabe for a lower trust polity based upon several property and lacking commons are thieves, pirates, and other predators. And so external groups always exterminate them. So anarchic polities without commons cannot survive. And this is evidenced by jews themselves, gypsies, and the hundreds of other societies that have been out-gunned, out-steeled, out-germed, out-bred, out-farmed, out-traded, and generally ‘out-civilized’. What we see with Rothbard and Hoppe’s higher standard, and my higher standard, is that Rothbard brings Jewish ethics of diasporic people, who want to privatize (parasitically consume) the commons that preserves parasitism via deception but prevents retaliation against it; Hoppe’s separatist ethics of the protestant evangelists who want to construct private commons only (civic society) but prevent all free riding (the opposite of Rothbard’s strategy) and my (Doolittle’s) imperial ethics (rule of law) that prohibits parasitism entirely. I might state it less charitably, as Rothbard and the cosmopolitans, Hoppe and the germans, and the enlightenment anglo-Americans all failed to solve the problem of creating a market for commons instead of a monopoly bureaucracy for the production of commons (anglo/german/french) and the civic production of commons (Hoppe). Whereas what I have tried to do is create a market for commons as the old English houses created, but failed to expand both on the enfranchisement of non-land owners (non-business owners, and those with diasporic or naval interests) and the enfranchisement of women (who have polar opposite ethics from the males entirely and want to marry the ‘state’ or ‘tribe’ again – obviating them from exchanging sex and care with males for survival.) So propertarianism includes covenant communities, but the standard by which these contracts are judged in matters of conflict is by property in toto: complete, not partial, non-parasitism. The anarchic model of Rothbard and Hoppe does not survive competition. That’s why it won’t work. Property rights are not something we ‘have’ but something we obtain ONLY in trade. The same is true for the survival of an anarchic community: you cannot choose a community by will, but by incentives. You do not choose the incentives, they are chosen for you by the nature of man. Civilization – complex cooperation outwitting the dark forces of time and ignorance – is the result of the incremental suppression of parasitism in all its forms by genetic, normative, ethical, moral, traditional, legal, political, and economic means: eugenics. When we remove all parasitism, what we are left with is truth, property, liberty, knowledge, and cooperation. And those are the torches that give us the time to light the darkness and eventually transcend into the gods we seek. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Source: Original Site Post
-
Marxists Salve The Useful Idiots
ISLAMISTS USE THE MARXIST STRATEGY: PLAY TO THE DISCOUNT-SEEKING OF USEFUL IDIOTS —“Moderates exist only to salve the anxieties of the useful idiots. They were given the right to determine customary problems, then they said that they needed a parallel judiciary. When this was achieved, they asked to be governed according to Sharia. When this was achieved the “extremists” appeared. They said that it was not right for Gods law to be checked by secular law. What was required was the entire islamisation of Nigeria. They realised this could not be achieved democratically, so they took up arms. Abacha gave them sharia and his successors got war as payment.”— Haille Mariam-Lemar
-
Marxists Salve The Useful Idiots
ISLAMISTS USE THE MARXIST STRATEGY: PLAY TO THE DISCOUNT-SEEKING OF USEFUL IDIOTS —“Moderates exist only to salve the anxieties of the useful idiots. They were given the right to determine customary problems, then they said that they needed a parallel judiciary. When this was achieved, they asked to be governed according to Sharia. When this was achieved the “extremists” appeared. They said that it was not right for Gods law to be checked by secular law. What was required was the entire islamisation of Nigeria. They realised this could not be achieved democratically, so they took up arms. Abacha gave them sharia and his successors got war as payment.”— Haille Mariam-Lemar
-
Sigh. All The Enlightenment Theories Failed.
—“How about stopping with the anti-Semitic nonsense. Rothbard’s libertarianism has nothing to do with “Jewish Ethics”. . . try reading the Old Testament. Rothbard was for libertarian elites and opposed to statist ones.”— Peter E McAlpine Conversely, it has everything to do with jewish ethics, because likewise, it has everything to do with the attempt by the anglos, french, germans, and ashkenazi’s to express their group evolutionary strategies as universals. That’s the context of all my arguments: ALL ENLIGHTEMNTS FAILED because all enlightenments stated their nature as ‘the nature of man’ and it’s anything but the nature of man. The theory behind propertarianism and testimonialism is that we all screwed up. 1) man is rational and chooses rational actions. (cog sci) 2) groups develop competitive strategies that suit their geographic and demographic conditions. (Huntington) 3) these strategies evolved at the time of the Great Transformation out of whatever military (physically competing) strategies we used at the time, and were converted from physical tactics to political, ethical, moral, and religious justificationary narratives and arguments. (Gimbutas, Armstrong) 4) they evolved further when our family structures began to reflect our agrarian inheritance structures (Todd) 5) Evidence from American diaspora is that these properties were incorporated into our genes during the past x thousand years.(Fischer) 4) however universal decidability in matters of conflict is possible across whatever those boundaries are (Natural Law) 5) and that universal decidability is provided by nonimposition of costs against property-in-toto (across group strategies) not against just several (private) property within-groups, or across near-groups. 6) and therefore we can create a market for the production of commons that crosses preferences (in, near, out-group), not under the monopoly of consent (assent), but under the minority of legal prohibition on the use of commons as a means of parasitism (dissent). 7) and that it was this attempt to preserve in-group authority under majoritarian democracy that each group attempted to seize during the enlightenment, using whatever strategy was available to them: Anglo empirical – using very close to strictly constructed law – by misstating the nature of man as moral rather than rational German rational by attempting to preserve authority of the church and nobility through rational statement of the great narrative. French moral, by attempting to preserve the authority of the church on entirely moralistic (catholic) grounds. Russian romantic by attempting to preserve nihilism as the need for authority given the immorality of man, using nothing but narrative. Jewish pseudoscientific by using authoritarianism and pseudoscience, and suggestion that appeals to moral bias. WHY DO I MAKE THIS ARGUMENT? To show that all these errors, wishful thinking, and deceptions failed. And that the enlightenment was incomplete. But that it need not be overturned. Instead, that we might COMPLETE the enlightenment by completing the failed movement of the last century: the requirement for existentially rather than allegory in matters published into the informational commons – and by further requirement of strict construction in the publishing of laws proper, legislation(common contract), and regulation (unregulated commands). WHY SUCH STRICTNESS Because of the need to continue our historical evolution by incrementally suppressing new means of parasitism as they are created by man. ERGO: Do not criticize my work for what you ascertain, when I construct it based upon what I ascertain. NO MORE LIES. The next evolution of man is as costly as the last. We can complete the enlightenment. We can convert from the use of internally consistent rationalism to fully correspondent testimonialism, and eradicate the methods of deception in ethics, morality, politics, law, economics, and social science, and even the arts. Just as we converted from mysticism. And the rewards appear at least, to be equally as great if we do. Curt Doolittle The Philosohpy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>
-
Sigh. All The Enlightenment Theories Failed.
—“How about stopping with the anti-Semitic nonsense. Rothbard’s libertarianism has nothing to do with “Jewish Ethics”. . . try reading the Old Testament. Rothbard was for libertarian elites and opposed to statist ones.”— Peter E McAlpine Conversely, it has everything to do with jewish ethics, because likewise, it has everything to do with the attempt by the anglos, french, germans, and ashkenazi’s to express their group evolutionary strategies as universals. That’s the context of all my arguments: ALL ENLIGHTEMNTS FAILED because all enlightenments stated their nature as ‘the nature of man’ and it’s anything but the nature of man. The theory behind propertarianism and testimonialism is that we all screwed up. 1) man is rational and chooses rational actions. (cog sci) 2) groups develop competitive strategies that suit their geographic and demographic conditions. (Huntington) 3) these strategies evolved at the time of the Great Transformation out of whatever military (physically competing) strategies we used at the time, and were converted from physical tactics to political, ethical, moral, and religious justificationary narratives and arguments. (Gimbutas, Armstrong) 4) they evolved further when our family structures began to reflect our agrarian inheritance structures (Todd) 5) Evidence from American diaspora is that these properties were incorporated into our genes during the past x thousand years.(Fischer) 4) however universal decidability in matters of conflict is possible across whatever those boundaries are (Natural Law) 5) and that universal decidability is provided by nonimposition of costs against property-in-toto (across group strategies) not against just several (private) property within-groups, or across near-groups. 6) and therefore we can create a market for the production of commons that crosses preferences (in, near, out-group), not under the monopoly of consent (assent), but under the minority of legal prohibition on the use of commons as a means of parasitism (dissent). 7) and that it was this attempt to preserve in-group authority under majoritarian democracy that each group attempted to seize during the enlightenment, using whatever strategy was available to them: Anglo empirical – using very close to strictly constructed law – by misstating the nature of man as moral rather than rational German rational by attempting to preserve authority of the church and nobility through rational statement of the great narrative. French moral, by attempting to preserve the authority of the church on entirely moralistic (catholic) grounds. Russian romantic by attempting to preserve nihilism as the need for authority given the immorality of man, using nothing but narrative. Jewish pseudoscientific by using authoritarianism and pseudoscience, and suggestion that appeals to moral bias. WHY DO I MAKE THIS ARGUMENT? To show that all these errors, wishful thinking, and deceptions failed. And that the enlightenment was incomplete. But that it need not be overturned. Instead, that we might COMPLETE the enlightenment by completing the failed movement of the last century: the requirement for existentially rather than allegory in matters published into the informational commons – and by further requirement of strict construction in the publishing of laws proper, legislation(common contract), and regulation (unregulated commands). WHY SUCH STRICTNESS Because of the need to continue our historical evolution by incrementally suppressing new means of parasitism as they are created by man. ERGO: Do not criticize my work for what you ascertain, when I construct it based upon what I ascertain. NO MORE LIES. The next evolution of man is as costly as the last. We can complete the enlightenment. We can convert from the use of internally consistent rationalism to fully correspondent testimonialism, and eradicate the methods of deception in ethics, morality, politics, law, economics, and social science, and even the arts. Just as we converted from mysticism. And the rewards appear at least, to be equally as great if we do. Curt Doolittle The Philosohpy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>
-
Q&A: Why Does Attraction Wear Off After Seven Years Of Monogamy
It’s pretty simple. We get natural ‘heroin’ when we are attracted to a woman. we get more when she pays attention to us. and we get a lot more of it when we have sex with her. we get accustomed to it and agitated by its loss. And then we develop a tolerance for it. The same is true for negative experiences. It takes about three to five years to ‘unlearn’ a trauma. It takes the same to unlearn a ‘dose of pleasure’. I am not sure why this is hard to understand. Even if you really like someone, without all sorts of incentives to carry you from year 7-20 (at which point everyone stays together – if for no other reason than transaction costs, and marketability) then it just ‘wears off’ and you want another ‘fix’ of heroin.
-
Q&A: Why Does Attraction Wear Off After Seven Years Of Monogamy
It’s pretty simple. We get natural ‘heroin’ when we are attracted to a woman. we get more when she pays attention to us. and we get a lot more of it when we have sex with her. we get accustomed to it and agitated by its loss. And then we develop a tolerance for it. The same is true for negative experiences. It takes about three to five years to ‘unlearn’ a trauma. It takes the same to unlearn a ‘dose of pleasure’. I am not sure why this is hard to understand. Even if you really like someone, without all sorts of incentives to carry you from year 7-20 (at which point everyone stays together – if for no other reason than transaction costs, and marketability) then it just ‘wears off’ and you want another ‘fix’ of heroin.
-
Intellectuals Are Wrong More Than The Common Man For A Reason
When we combine anchoring, with intellectual investment, with the status benefits, and with the high cost of changing frames, it’s not rational to expect intellectuals to act otherwise. What we find is this: intellectuals who specialize in very narrow domains and are current with the data tend to be very good. Whenever intellectuals try to work on generalizations it at least appears that we do better asking people on the street. this is why economists supposedly disagree: most economic knowledge of any discreet topic is almost always counter-intuitive. So if you ask a thousand economists a question you will get terrible results, but if you as the top 12 in any niche you will get awesome results.
-
Intellectuals Are Wrong More Than The Common Man For A Reason
When we combine anchoring, with intellectual investment, with the status benefits, and with the high cost of changing frames, it’s not rational to expect intellectuals to act otherwise. What we find is this: intellectuals who specialize in very narrow domains and are current with the data tend to be very good. Whenever intellectuals try to work on generalizations it at least appears that we do better asking people on the street. this is why economists supposedly disagree: most economic knowledge of any discreet topic is almost always counter-intuitive. So if you ask a thousand economists a question you will get terrible results, but if you as the top 12 in any niche you will get awesome results.
-
Like All Things, The Cost Of Teaching Lies Includes The Unseen As Well As The Seen.
I wonder what would happen to boy’s performance in school if we stopped forcing them to memorize, and telling them lies, and instead forced them to repeatedly solve model-problems, and taught them the truth? Sure, girls mature faster than we do, are more interested in pleasing others, are more verbally inclined, and more comfortable sitting still. Sure, boys mature more slowly, are less interested in pleasing as they are discovering limits, are more spatio-physically inclined and it appears that they are brain damaged by sitting still so much. In other words, *boys are more expensive to teach*. But, when we account for outcomes, what is the cost of teaching obeyance, lies, memorization, and sitting still, compared to the cost of teaching how to form hunting parties, the truth of the word, learning by doing, and engaging in action. We all know the answer intuitively – that we have made our western aristocracy into scribes and water-carriers for a deceitful priesthood conducting a genetic, cultural, and territorial war under the ruse of ‘care’ – when it’s just dysgenics warfare.