Source: Original Site Post

Libertines Masquerading As Libertarians

[B]lock is the poster child for unethical, immoral, ghetto libertarianism, and he hurts the movement every time he opens his mouth. Rockwell is barman of the lunatic fringe, and Kinsella the bouncer of ignorance and dogmatism — they’re the three stooges of the red-flag rothbardian conspiracy to cause the failure of the western liberty movement – and the’re live onstage, nightly. Our enemy is the state. It’s not ethics or morality. The libertarian’s only moral question is how to maintain a moral and ethical high trust society while getting rid of the state, and all possible demand for the state. Libertines are a cancer. There isn’t any ‘thick’ or ‘thin’ libertarianism. That’s another ruse to obscure the red flag operation of the libertines to undermine the high trust society we have slowly built for millennia. Aristocratic egalitarianism is the only source of liberty that ever was or will be. The enfranchisement of the willing in the reciprocal insurance of one another’s property by the promise of organized violence to defend it. That is “Right” libertarianism. The wealth and liberty that comes from Right libertarianism, makes possible the LUXURY of left libertarianism’s moral appeals for charity. But libertines are merely parasites on aristocratic necessity and charitable luxury. Non-aggression is a ruse. A lie. A convenient distraction. A false flag. The means of violating our property is immaterial. All that is necessary is that property is violated in whatever creative manner than man invents. Hoppe was right. We need no more than property for our freedom. And we have no use for libertines: parasites by any other name. Moral Realism, Propertarianism, Aristocratic Egalitarianism. The virtue of violence. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

May 15, 2014
Review: Misreading Popper

REVIEW OF POPPER BY WAY OF REVIEW OF ‘MISREADING POPPER’. Great book. Got a chance to read it this morning. THOUGHTS [I] do not know if it is fair to say that people misread popper, or that popper failed to make his case, but that he failed to reduce his ideas to general assertions that obviate the need to sympathetically (intuitively) agree with him in the first place in order to understand his case. Popper attempts to speak analytically at times, but he remains (as Alex Naraniecki has pointed out) a cosmopolitan author. The Popperian work that needs to be written is the one that this one ALMOST is, and that is to construct assertions that render the criticisms unnecessary. The historical parts of this book are exceptional and contextual, and in my view the best to date. A few of Rafe’s insights are in the book and they are insights that I learned from him years ago. The most important of which was the project to develop a philosophy of the social sciences, and the multiple authors who failed to succeed at that project, and the consequences for all of us, not so much scientifically, but politically an economically , precisely because they failed to succeed in that project. However, of those authors, Popper appears, perhaps not so well as Hayek did with law, but better than Mises with his pseudoscience of praxeology, to have come closer to articulating general universal statement of epistemology than anyone else. None the less, all of these authors failed to complete the project. (I think I understand why now.) So, Popper did not, like Hume (or Kant who I despise) take us across the finish line. And I suspect, that as Rafe points out in the book, it is because he did not lay out his project, because he was unsure of what it was. He wanted to criticize a prevailing trend, and he succeeded in that criticism. But a criticism in itself is not a positive assertion reducible to analytic terms describing an analogy to experience: a usable theory. CR/CP can be reduced to a list of assertions. Falsification is not the central proposition, but a contingent one, and as Rafe points out, an unfortunate choice of words. The scientific method can be generalized as the universal epistemological method, independent of purpose. And perhaps solve the problem of the social sciences. However, that project is incomplete. Given that Popper was largely correct, and that Hayek was largely correct, ( do not value the other authors terribly much), it should be possible to complete this project. But as yet, no one has. So again, I think it is an unjust burden to place the error of interpretation upon readers, and instead, to place the failure to organize, prosecute, and articulate the program and his solution to it. It is instead, proper I think, to state that Popper made correct assertions, in CR/CP, left his effort at falsification incomplete, and failed to complete the program he intuited but could not articulate. Most of this I believe, is a problem of language and culture. He had the right pieces. But our minds are structured by the language we use, and the culture that we live in, and he could no more escape his than we ours. Hopefully someone will write that book. Hopefully the person who writes that book will complete the program. As someone who tries to complete the overarching program myself – although I do not see it as Popperian but as a general problem of false distraction by extant platonic concepts, and the near magical results of the mathematical program despite its platonic concepts and language – legitimizing Popper is not terribly interesting to me. Nor is further promotion of his work as it stands. Nor is suppressing the absurdly persistent human cognitive bias toward justification. The matter at hand is to complete the research program. Hero worship is for priests. Some of us are out working in the mines. And the answer lies there not in hermeneutic interpretation of Popper’s extant works, or those of his successors. Great book. I wouldn’t have given it this much thought if it wasn’t. Cheers Curt Misreading Popper www.amazon.com

May 15, 2014
Review: Misreading Popper

REVIEW OF POPPER BY WAY OF REVIEW OF ‘MISREADING POPPER’. Great book. Got a chance to read it this morning. THOUGHTS [I] do not know if it is fair to say that people misread popper, or that popper failed to make his case, but that he failed to reduce his ideas to general assertions that obviate the need to sympathetically (intuitively) agree with him in the first place in order to understand his case. Popper attempts to speak analytically at times, but he remains (as Alex Naraniecki has pointed out) a cosmopolitan author. The Popperian work that needs to be written is the one that this one ALMOST is, and that is to construct assertions that render the criticisms unnecessary. The historical parts of this book are exceptional and contextual, and in my view the best to date. A few of Rafe’s insights are in the book and they are insights that I learned from him years ago. The most important of which was the project to develop a philosophy of the social sciences, and the multiple authors who failed to succeed at that project, and the consequences for all of us, not so much scientifically, but politically an economically , precisely because they failed to succeed in that project. However, of those authors, Popper appears, perhaps not so well as Hayek did with law, but better than Mises with his pseudoscience of praxeology, to have come closer to articulating general universal statement of epistemology than anyone else. None the less, all of these authors failed to complete the project. (I think I understand why now.) So, Popper did not, like Hume (or Kant who I despise) take us across the finish line. And I suspect, that as Rafe points out in the book, it is because he did not lay out his project, because he was unsure of what it was. He wanted to criticize a prevailing trend, and he succeeded in that criticism. But a criticism in itself is not a positive assertion reducible to analytic terms describing an analogy to experience: a usable theory. CR/CP can be reduced to a list of assertions. Falsification is not the central proposition, but a contingent one, and as Rafe points out, an unfortunate choice of words. The scientific method can be generalized as the universal epistemological method, independent of purpose. And perhaps solve the problem of the social sciences. However, that project is incomplete. Given that Popper was largely correct, and that Hayek was largely correct, ( do not value the other authors terribly much), it should be possible to complete this project. But as yet, no one has. So again, I think it is an unjust burden to place the error of interpretation upon readers, and instead, to place the failure to organize, prosecute, and articulate the program and his solution to it. It is instead, proper I think, to state that Popper made correct assertions, in CR/CP, left his effort at falsification incomplete, and failed to complete the program he intuited but could not articulate. Most of this I believe, is a problem of language and culture. He had the right pieces. But our minds are structured by the language we use, and the culture that we live in, and he could no more escape his than we ours. Hopefully someone will write that book. Hopefully the person who writes that book will complete the program. As someone who tries to complete the overarching program myself – although I do not see it as Popperian but as a general problem of false distraction by extant platonic concepts, and the near magical results of the mathematical program despite its platonic concepts and language – legitimizing Popper is not terribly interesting to me. Nor is further promotion of his work as it stands. Nor is suppressing the absurdly persistent human cognitive bias toward justification. The matter at hand is to complete the research program. Hero worship is for priests. Some of us are out working in the mines. And the answer lies there not in hermeneutic interpretation of Popper’s extant works, or those of his successors. Great book. I wouldn’t have given it this much thought if it wasn’t. Cheers Curt Misreading Popper www.amazon.com

May 15, 2014
Question: "What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?"

QUESTION

“Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

May 12, 2014
Question: “What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?”

QUESTION

“Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

May 12, 2014
Question: "What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?"

QUESTION

“Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

May 12, 2014
Question: “What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?”

QUESTION

“Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

May 12, 2014
Why Does The Belief Exist That The Usa Is A Conservative Country?

Asking who wins versus the vote distribution is confusing you. Our votes are polarized between right and left, and must be since these two views are in direct competition.

If american had a european mulit-party parliamentary system rather than just two choices our government would be very different, and it is likely that compromises would be achieved. However, the american system favors extremes because the party in power has really, too much power.

Europeans invented hard right politics. And had a war over it. European progressivism comes from (a) multiple homogenous local nations that act like extended families, (b) the collapse of european self-confidence during the wars (the second time since the 30 years war) (c) because europe is not required to pay for, or perform it’s own defense.

Americans have always been somewhat heterogeneous, a virtual island (like britain and australia), have had confidence, and are self-defending. On top of that (a) we follow the anglo absolute nuclear family model, (b) the culture is pure commercialism at its core, and (c) we are very heterogeneous.

Both european and american models are collapsing right now due to a century of postwar bad judgement, but the seriousness of that collapse is only now becoming visible. Which is why the academics have abandoned the taboo and started writing about it.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-belief-exist-that-the-USA-is-a-conservative-country

May 10, 2014
What Do American Girls Think About Chinese Guys?

Over the past decade we have collected amazing data from dating sites, and it confirms most of our old fashioned assumptions. In the case of asian males, while it depends upon which race of Americans we’re talking about, ethnically Asian men are slightly less desirable, and ethnically Asian women are slightly more desirable. Whites and Asians intermix, I think, at around 10% of Asian marriages right now. (I can’t remember exactly.) The more culturally Chinese you are the more narrow your choices are, since American women see this as ‘backward’. (Out of all the cultures on earth, why you would want an American women is another question I’ll leave open since that data is interesting too.)
https://www.quora.com/What-do-American-girls-think-about-Chinese-guys

May 10, 2014
Why Does The Belief Exist That The Usa Is A Conservative Country?

Asking who wins versus the vote distribution is confusing you. Our votes are polarized between right and left, and must be since these two views are in direct competition.

If american had a european mulit-party parliamentary system rather than just two choices our government would be very different, and it is likely that compromises would be achieved. However, the american system favors extremes because the party in power has really, too much power.

Europeans invented hard right politics. And had a war over it. European progressivism comes from (a) multiple homogenous local nations that act like extended families, (b) the collapse of european self-confidence during the wars (the second time since the 30 years war) (c) because europe is not required to pay for, or perform it’s own defense.

Americans have always been somewhat heterogeneous, a virtual island (like britain and australia), have had confidence, and are self-defending. On top of that (a) we follow the anglo absolute nuclear family model, (b) the culture is pure commercialism at its core, and (c) we are very heterogeneous.

Both european and american models are collapsing right now due to a century of postwar bad judgement, but the seriousness of that collapse is only now becoming visible. Which is why the academics have abandoned the taboo and started writing about it.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-belief-exist-that-the-USA-is-a-conservative-country

May 10, 2014