Theme: Coercion

Propertarian Class Theory
1) CLASS BY SPECIALIZATION Weapon of Coercion (influence) Product of Coercion
```
TABLE:
ARISTOCRACY........OLIGARCHY............PRIESTHOOD...CRAFT
Violence...........Payment..............Gossip.......Production 
Suppress Disorder..Organize Production..Resistance...Goods
```
Humans are capable of only three means of coercion: violence, payment and gossip. Every society produces specialists (elites) in the three means of coercion, violence, payment and gossip, and one non-coercive group: producers. The size of each group varies and the power varies. But because of the limited choices available for coercion, this law of social orders exists of necessity everywhere at all points in time 2) GENDER DIFFERENCE IN STRATEGIC REPRODUCTIVE CONTROL Masculine Aristocratic Eugenic vs Female Gossip(priestly) Dysgenic. 3) COMPETITION FOR RENTS BETWEEN PRODUCERS AND INFLUENCERS I should probably alter this chart so that it operates on three axis to show how aristocrats, oligarchs and priests/academics/public-intellectuals seek rents. CONCLUSION I have been working on this for years and there appears to be no compromise to maintaining the balance of these powers. Anglos had the correct model. The greeks and romans did. We simply lacked the technology (communication and data storage) to extend enfranchisement, and the lower classes were too disgusting (hedonistic and fertile) to include in the power structure.
September 28, 2014
Propertarian Class Theory
1) CLASS BY SPECIALIZATION Weapon of Coercion (influence) Product of Coercion
```
TABLE:
ARISTOCRACY........OLIGARCHY............PRIESTHOOD...CRAFT
Violence...........Payment..............Gossip.......Production 
Suppress Disorder..Organize Production..Resistance...Goods
```
Humans are capable of only three means of coercion: violence, payment and gossip. Every society produces specialists (elites) in the three means of coercion, violence, payment and gossip, and one non-coercive group: producers. The size of each group varies and the power varies. But because of the limited choices available for coercion, this law of social orders exists of necessity everywhere at all points in time 2) GENDER DIFFERENCE IN STRATEGIC REPRODUCTIVE CONTROL Masculine Aristocratic Eugenic vs Female Gossip(priestly) Dysgenic. 3) COMPETITION FOR RENTS BETWEEN PRODUCERS AND INFLUENCERS I should probably alter this chart so that it operates on three axis to show how aristocrats, oligarchs and priests/academics/public-intellectuals seek rents. CONCLUSION I have been working on this for years and there appears to be no compromise to maintaining the balance of these powers. Anglos had the correct model. The greeks and romans did. We simply lacked the technology (communication and data storage) to extend enfranchisement, and the lower classes were too disgusting (hedonistic and fertile) to include in the power structure.
September 28, 2014
COMPLETING MY ANALYSIS OF LESTER (FINAL WORD NECESSARY I SUSPECT) (thanks to Kar

COMPLETING MY ANALYSIS OF LESTER (FINAL WORD NECESSARY I SUSPECT)

(thanks to Karl for helping me with this topic)

An individual, a gang of thugs, and members of a state, all may impose costs on you. They call may conduct criminal, unethical and immoral actions. However since it takes more than one to conspire, only a gang and a state can conspire. And since it requires a state (a territorial monopoly) to violate your liberty (freedom of interference from the state) then only state actors, by definition, can violate liberty in fact, while the gang and a group and an individual can only violate your liberty by ANALOGY. They can all engage in immoral actions, where the spectrum of immorality includes criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions.

Why is this very technical argument necessary? Because it shows that while morality (freedom from imposed costs) evolved, and for the purpose of distinction, was divided into morality and liberty, all Lester has done is to divide Liberty into two categories: Political Liberty and Interpersonal Liberty, by constructing the NAME interpersonal liberty, (which is itself a contradiction in terms), and claiming that he has made a pre moral pre-property argument. He hasn’t. He’s just made up a new word. That doesn’t diminish that he worked backwards from political liberty to identify morality, but it does mean that his claim that he has created a pre-moral definition of liberty is false.

History tells us that morality evolved first, and that Liberty evolved second, like rule of law, a constraint upon the government, no matter how that government was constructed, that it must perpetuate and not violate those moral rules. Religion even today constrains government to not violate moral rules – that is why conservatives are successful.

Science tells us that (a) humans evolved to be acquisitive of many things, and changes in human gratification, are synonymous with changes in property en toto, (b) morality, and agitated punishment for moral violation, evolved as instinct against free riding and imposting costs against property en toto, of those with whom we cooperate in order to prevent parasitism, (c) property rights adjudicable under law, constitute a contractual agreement to resolve conflicts over only a subset of those forms of property needed for cooperation in the community given its division of knowledge and labor, and (d) the subset of property necessary to construct liberty (from the state) is that which prevents enough retaliation for any moral violation in the possible scope of moral violations, that will produce conflict or retaliation, and therefore demand for an authoritarian state, to either suppress retaliation or apply violence to those who violate moral rules outside of courts, and; (e) the subset that prevents demand for government is the construction of contractual institutions rather than authoritarian instructions which allow the construction of enforceable contracts for the production of commons necessary for any group to compete against any other group, as well as those commons which groups wish to prevent from consumption (parks etc).

Lester practices “get away with it’ Truth. He’s a cosmopolitan libertine using marxist arguments and hiding behind a misrepresentation of critical rationalism – which is in itself hermeneutic and cosmopolitan. He has constructed and makes use of extant meaning, not action or necessity. As such I cannot use his work. He is the kind of fuzzy thinker that we require propertarianism, operationalism and testimonial truth to defend ourselves from – and therefore end the century of pseudoscientific and pseudo philosophical mysticism.

I have sketched this out enough times that I have reduced the necessary argument to this little bit. It has taken me, as usual, quite a bit of effort to do so. But as far as I know, my criticism of Lester is the best extant, and he is little other than another example of the culture of critique: a cosmopolitan of libertine sentiments using marxist arguments like most libertine libertarians will be all but impossible to refute.

So as far as I know, Lester not immoral like Rothbard, he’s just immaterial.

I may refine this a net or two, but it’s pretty much rock solid. Like I say. I am good at what I do. It’s just an objective observation. It sounds like egoism – but the truth is it’s because I work very, very hard, and no other reason. When I construct a debate it is so that I can learn under fire. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian after all.

Source date (UTC): 2014-09-22 16:10:00 UTC

September 22, 2014
WEAPONIZED GOSSIP (Profound) We humans are capable of three means of influence,

WEAPONIZED GOSSIP

(Profound)

We humans are capable of three means of influence, persuasion, and coercion.

1) Violence or the threat of it.

2) Remuneration or the threat of deprivation if it.

3) Ostracization or the threat of it.

I’d originally taken the idea from Johnson, who referred to ostracization as morality.

But with our advances in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, and anthropological knowledge it has become clear to me that the means of influence is gossip. That our gossip accuses others of moral violation. And that moral violation drives ostracization. And that ostracization drives up opportunity costs and transaction costs.

Gossip evolved as a means of rallying betas to kill, punish, or control alphas. And therefore return reproductive control to females.

Once you approach political speech as gossip for the purpose of reproductive control, you rapidly come to the conclusion why it is morally loaded and why it is rarely rational or scientific.

You also will understand why the culture of critique was successful in the 20th century.

Its weaponized gossip.

Source date (UTC): 2014-09-19 08:31:00 UTC

September 19, 2014
CONTRA JAN LESTER’S THEORY OF LIBERTY? I AM NOT SURE YET. (edited and expanded f

CONTRA JAN LESTER’S THEORY OF LIBERTY? I AM NOT SURE YET.

(edited and expanded for clarity)

The history of the term liberty and corresponding concept of liberty is what it is. The history of property is what it is. The history of law is what it is. The history of cooperation, family and production are what they are. The history of criminal, unethical and immoral behavior are what they are. We define these terms many ways but the common element that they share is the prohibition on free riding (morality) or the prohibition on involuntary transfer (various forms of fraud and indirection), and prohibitions on the imposition of costs (various forms of crimes against life and property).

The only difference between the criminal, ethical, and moral spectrum, and the historical definition of liberty, is whether the actions are criminal, unethical, and immoral violations precipitated by non-government actors against whom we can retaliate or request resolution of the dispute, OR whether they are precipitated by members of the monopoly we call bureaucracy, government and state, against whom we cannot retaliate.

We can define liberty as it has been throughout time (freedom from governmental interference in our thoughts, actions, relations and property.) I think attempting to redefine it is merely an attempt at verbalism. Rationalism has nothing to add but justification.

At this point, I am still stuck with the same problem I have been since Lee Waaks suggested Jan Lester’s work to me: that I see that he has correctly identified the causal property of morality as imposed costs. (But costs imposed against what?) But that I don’t really see that his ‘theory of liberty’ holds any meaning or if it’s an empty verbalism (confusion and conflation). But then again, I am not sure that I understand his point.

For example, I think this is a nonsensical statement: Lester’s theory of liberty –“is pre-propertarian because we need a theory of liberty *before* we can know how society should be “arranged” to maximize liberty.”–

That’s like saying we need the head of a coin before we can have a tail of it. It’s not possible. You cannot have a coin with one side anymore than you can have good without evil, morality without property, and liberty without a state.

We evolved property prior to government and the state – we had to. Otherwise cooperation is not evolutionarily beneficial but parasitic. Which is why our instincts and cognitive biases are so exaggerated in such cases.

Liberty cannot exist without government – only morality can – unless you are redefining liberty as morality. Which I suggest that he is doing as a word game to avoid addressing that morality and property evolved prior to the state, and as such prior to liberty.

Liberty is a state in which we experience the the absence of immoral action by state actors, just as a condition of morality is the a state in which we experience the absence of immoral action by non-state actors. Immorality and morality are instinctual biases that evolved along with cooperation. Immorality and Morality can and must refer to in-group actors violating the necessary terms of cooperation: the prohibition on parasitism (imposed costs, free-riding, involuntary transfer).

In order to state a cost is something to bear, we must state what it is bears the cost. We cannot bear a cost unless we possess property. We may, prior to the state, define property normatively rather than legally, and we may not even produce a name for it (although all languages I know of contain the idea of possession) but legal definitions again exist post-government and post-state, but property exists prior to state, or cooperation is not possible – and it clearly has been.

I am fairly sure this set of assertions is irrefutable. Which is why I assume that I do not understand Lester’s argument. Otherwise I would outright criticizing him for empty verbalism – word games, if not simply conflation and confusion.

It is unscientific of me to assume I am correct, and that he errs, rather than to assume I fail to understand. However, logic and evidence are what they are: unless he can answer this objection he is using rationalism for precisely the reasons I am trying to reform the use of rationalism in politics and ethics: because it is too easy to employ rationalism as a means of obscurantist justification of presumed conclusions. Actions (operations) are the only means of avoiding word games. It is still surprising to me that a theory of human action should be expressed in rationalism, the purpose of which, as far as I know, is, and always has been, justification.

His argument, at least in my current state of ignorance, appears to be a series of errors of verbalism, and my criticism remains: that there is nothing to be had here other than that he has correctly identified morality and is merely confusing morality with liberty, where morality must, as property must, be antecedent to any concept of liberty. I mean must, as in it is impossible otherwise.

The question is not liberty but morality. How do we get state actors to act morally?Otherwise the properties of individual moral action and the properties of state action are not identical. Since the state consists of individuals this seems illogical, and therefore a mere verbalism.

Maybe I don’t understand. Maybe there is something I don’t see. I just think it is unlikely. I am pretty sure my arguments are bulletproof (as usual lol).

Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 09:57:00 UTC

September 15, 2014
Reading violence and social orders. And I am getting so angry that I want to bur

Reading violence and social orders. And I am getting so angry that I want to burn the book.

To create an “impersonal order” one requires a military – since only impersonal militaries can compete, the military that survives produces impersonality. This means more successful militaries produce impersonality.

But since we also require extremely limited rents, to provide the incentives to members for an impersonal military, and against a profiteering military which would eradicate impersonality , the militia which supplies its own small arms, is the only means by which an impersonal order can evolve. A small professional warrior class dependent upon a militia provides the balance between the functional necessity of impersonality (meritocracy) and the incentive against re-personalizing for the purpose of rent seeking.

From the military one needs to produce judges. Societies that do not produce impersonal judges, are those that do not produce impersonal militaries.

This is why so few states developed impersonality. And by consequence equality under the law and limited corruption.

Now, a society that can evolve some set of affairs is different from one that can choose to intentionally implement a state of affairs.

If a group of individuals can hold military power sufficient to construct a body of law defending private property; train a staff of lawyers and judges and sheriffs (police) to operate the courts.

These individuals can be fully aware that they are constructing impersonality in their societies. And the heroic, status, and monetary incentives will provide all that is necessary as long as, like the army, their peers do as well.

Truth and transparence are martial virtues and only martial cultures develop them.

As far as I know, this is an iron law if social orders.

Source date (UTC): 2014-09-14 09:43:00 UTC

September 14, 2014
THE CONDUCT OF EASTERN EUROPEAN FOURTH GENERATION WAR There is a limited but fai

THE CONDUCT OF EASTERN EUROPEAN FOURTH GENERATION WAR

There is a limited but fairly extensive literature on infantry tactics – the kind of things ordinary soldiers need to do in 20th century armies. In that literature, the primary objective has been to get the US military to abandon pre-vietnam military structures in favor of higher reliance on skilled and equipped infantry, and less on complex weapons systems.

Moreover, since 1990, the literature has been advocating means of fighting insurgents, and now islamists, who use decentralized “4gw” (Fourth generation warfare). Meaning, the fourth generation signifies the nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times. Or as we anti-statists would argue, the post-state era is upon us because militias with machine guns and RPG’s selecting targets of opportunity can effectively crush any concentration of armed forces. Modern economies are fragile and the nation state cannot survive long term insurrections.

The problem with the literature is that it does not address how to ACT like a 4GW opponent – only how to defend against them. When I read these manuals, they seem very antique. They are manuals for soldiers not warriors. In the sense that soldiers patrol territories, in order to create order, while warriors conduct raids in order to destabilize economy, infrastructure, and daily life.

If you are an eastern european, you need to have a few nuclear weapons to keep Russia at bay (Russia being the most concentrated civilization of white people, and reliant on concentration of forces), and a very inexpensive military, which consists of a militia that can readily get access to RPG’s and AK47’s and warm clothing and rations. Ukraine would benefit from the regimental system, wherein good leaders could recruit talent, and the central government would only need to ensure that they had access to USA-style national guard armories. This is an inexpensive and unstoppable form of military order on the swiss model.

All of that boils down to a mixture of the swiss and american reserve models, with more frequent training for the men in the american model, and a reliance on infantry tactics and militia in the swiss model. Ukraine is a larger territory and supply lines for the militia are more challenging. However, a decentralized militia, skilled in 4gw themselves, rather than the US/NATO 3gw, attacking not in concentration, but against weakness would make eastern europeans nearly impervious to Russian conquest – just as Afghanistan was.

The problem is, that the manual for conducting such a military does not exist, and must be written. Strangely enough, the Islamists are writing it for us. And it is a much more bloody form of warfare, more suited to the warriors, personal grievances and close relations of regiments than the slave labor and cautious patrolling of NATO military training.

I do not need more work to do unfortunately. I have enough of it. I have enough for two of me, and one more project is more than I can manage.

NOTE: The swiss strategy is to make attempts to occupy or conquer Switzerland extremely costly in men and machines. They rely upon an almost entirely militial military. Professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel and the rest are male conscripts 19 to 34 (but in some cases up to 50) years old. The soldiers keep their own equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home. Military service is compulsory for all male Swiss citizens, and women serve voluntarily. About two-thirds of young Swiss men are found suitable for service, while alternative service exists for those found unsuitable. Annually, approximately 20,000 persons are trained in basic training for a duration from 18 to 21 weeks.

Source date (UTC): 2014-09-10 16:10:00 UTC

September 10, 2014
WE SHALL HAVE A GOVERNMENT – BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Man organizes. He forms or

WE SHALL HAVE A GOVERNMENT – BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

Man organizes. He forms organizations. Just as surely as he acts.

One cannot, in pursuit of individualism, prohibit organization, nor the allocation of control of individual property rights to the organization, so that capital can be concentrated and applied for the group’s advantage. Since people will seek to form commons, and seek to form organizations to produce commons, and since property rights and rule of law must exist as a commons, and since humans seek monopoly advantage for their preferred organization, then the question is how to construct institutions that allow for the formation of organizations for the production and EXCHANGE OF commons, the production and exchange of which are unachievable without such institutions, because, while the market is an institutions just as property rights are an institution, markets produce consumables, not commons which we must prohibit from consumption. This is the difference in production between productive markets (the market) and commons markets (what we call ‘government’). As such the task is to produce commons markets (governments) which allow for the production and trade of commons which are non-consumable, yet prohibit monopoly control of that means of production. The consumer market allows us to produce consumable goods by the voluntary organization of production. A government market allows us to produce commons by the voluntary production of commons. FOr this system to function all that need be guaranteed is individual property rights. However, any commons created within the market for the production of commons must be prevented from privatization – just the opposite of that which is produced in the market for consumption. And no body of people unable to produce commons could survive in competition with those that do. So government is not a matter of preference. We must have government and we must produce commons, even if the only commons we produce is the rule of law and property rights. The principle challenge is converting from monopoly government and monopoly bureaucracy to monopoly property rights, and a government that facilitates the voluntary organization of production of commons just as we voluntarily organize to produce goods and services today.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Source date (UTC): 2014-09-09 17:33:00 UTC

September 9, 2014
ON MORALITY (THE FINAL WORD?) GIVEN 1) The Set of all objective prohibitions on

ON MORALITY (THE FINAL WORD?)

GIVEN

1) The Set of all objective prohibitions on involuntary-transfer/free-riding/imposed-costs in the spectrum criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial.

2) The Set of all normative rules that impose costs on participants for some normatively strategic purpose, enforced by inclusion or exclusion.

3) The Set of formal laws intended to capture all of the above, and enforce by violence.

4) The Set of all subjective categorical applications of those rules to concrete circumstances, not yet determinable as 1, 2, or 3.

ASSERTIONS

a) 1 is Universally true, since cooperation is irrational in the presence of parasitism.

b) 2 is NOT universally true since under no universal set of norms are all groups equally competitive. Therefore it is advantageous for higher groups (with better abilities, norms, and institutions) to operate in libertarian ethics, and lower groups (those with worse abilities, norms and institutions) to operate under social democratic, or even despotic conditions.

c) 3 is not universally true because law is a pragmatic organic adoption to the necessary condition of set 1, and the strategic condition of set 2.

d) 4 is not universally true because because it is hypothetical experimentation not yet codified as law, norm, or necessity.

EXPLANATION

Different groups develop different evolutionary strategies that require treatment of in-group and out-group members differently. Under the Absolute nuclear family and the nuclear family the distinction between out-group and in-group members has been eradicated due to outbreeding. Communism and socialism likewise are attempts to destroy the family in an attempt to mitigate reproductive differences between Tribes, classes and families. As such this is a ‘white people’ problem since only northern european white people have abandoned the family and tribe and the rest of the world has not.

In polities with Traditional and STEM families, there exists high demand for the state because in-group and out-group members are treated very differently. In a northern european aristocratic polity, in-group and out-group members are not treated differently – because there are no out-group members. However, external polties entering into the northern european polity demonstrate in-group vs out-group ethics and morality. This means that universalism or better stated, monopoly ethics, or perhaps ‘totalitarian ethics’, are in fact competitively disadvantageous against those who practice out-group ethics.

The more ‘insurance’ provided by the state the more disadvantaged is universalism and libertarianism. Because not only are universalists paying into the commons with late child birth, working parents, and the nuclear and absolute family costs, but competitors do not practice these same constraints, and rates of birth and place multiplicative burden on the commons generated by those who contribute to it.

So the northern european strategic advantage brought about by manorialism and the church’s prohibition on inbreeding reduces population growth rates, eliminates even in-family free riding, all in an effort to add capital to the commons, and to suppress underclass rates of reproduction. Meanwhile those that do not practice such abstinence are able to consume the commons thus saved.

We can analyze each group’s reproductive(family structure), social (trust radius), and productive (economic) strategies but in the end, this is what is codified in our laws and norms. As such norms are morals unique to a given reproductive strategy for a given people, in competition with other peoples.

Moral universalism is true in matters of dispute resolution – voluntary exchange is the only rational means of dispute resolution. Moral particularism is true in the case of fulfilling a reproductive strategy. But no moral strategy can be universal since that would deterministically eliminate some groups from participation. ergo -libertarianism is an aristocratic philosophy for a creative class, and other classes require other strategies. In the context of moral utility then these strategies are each moral within group and not across group. For cross group morality we only require property rights. However, since any and all collections of property rights whether objective and necessary or normative and strategic, require institutional support, we require different political orders to satisfy the reproductive strategies of each while cooperating via market means (voluntary exchange) at both the consumer, producer and political levels.

Monopoly is tyranny.

There is no optimum.

Any optimum would produce deterministic ends.

And that would mean some people would have to prefer losing the genetic competition.

And that will never happen. Never has happened. Never can happen.

Universalism is non-logical. Libertarian or otherwise.

Instead, libertarianism forms the legal basis of the negotiation of conflicts between groups with heterogeneous wants and needs.

As far as I know, albeit in brief form, this is the last word on morality, its scope and the argument for universalism.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine

Source date (UTC): 2014-08-29 09:14:00 UTC

August 29, 2014
WORTH REPEATING —“The fallacy of the enlightenment is that of equality, since

WORTH REPEATING

—“The fallacy of the enlightenment is that of equality, since equality is a code word for monopoly, and monopoly is a code word for tyranny, and tyranny is a code word for parasitism.”—

Source date (UTC): 2014-08-29 04:31:00 UTC

August 29, 2014