Theme: Constitutional Order

  • Q&A: WHAT DOES ANCAPISM DO RIGHT AND WRONG? (trigger warning: criticism of ashke

    Q&A: WHAT DOES ANCAPISM DO RIGHT AND WRONG?

    (trigger warning: criticism of ashkenazi cosmopolitanism) (low trust ashkenazi anarcho capitalism vs high trust germanic rule of law under the common law)

    Hey Curt,

    —“What does AnCap-ism do right and what does it do wrong form the Propertarianism perspective. I know there is a problem with Rothbard’s ghetto ethics, and I know AnCap-ism has a problem with its limited understanding of human nature. But that is where my understanding ends. If you have written anything on this subject I would love to read it.”—

    First, lets contrast Ashkenazi Anarcho Capitalism with the Germanic (Teutonic) Rule of Law.

    What does it do right?

    (a) expresses all morality as reducible to property rights.

    (b) and as such creates an amoral (non-moral) and therefore objective means of analyzing, criticizing, describing, and debating moral arguments.

    What does it do wrong.

    (a) Falsely sets the criterion for moral action as voluntary rather than non-production-of-incentive-to-retaliate, which is the basis for all moral systems, and moral instincts and intuitions. The first question of ethics is “Why do I not kill you and take your things?” The answer is, “only if it is preferable not to kill you.” The reason law developed was to prevent retaliation. The division of labor came much later, and scarcity does in fact exist, but was not the origin of moral choice: non parasitism was.

    (b) Falsely sets the limit of property protections to intersubjectively verifiable property instead of the scope of property necessary to prevent retaliation.

    (c) By falsely establishing (a) and (b), fails to provide sufficient means of dispute resolution that demand for authority – the state – is eliminated. This effectively falsifies all of rothbardian thought.

    (d) By falsely establishing (a) and (b) fails to provide sufficient economic incentive to join an anarchic polity rather than a rule-of-law polity, or even sufficient incentive to join an anarchic polity rather than a social democratic polity – simply because local transaction costs are so high that it is non-rational to join a lower trust, higher transaction cost polity, than a higher trust, low transaction cost polity, or a higher cost social democratic polity.

    So in summary, Ancapism cannot possibly produce a society that it is rational to join – unless one is a pirate or other distributor of harm.

    Only Germanic Rule of Law that prohibits any action that might produce retaliation, can produce a society that it is rational to prefer over the alternatives, since only under rule of law, and under high trust law, are the reasons for conflict suppressed.

    Ashkenazi Anarcho Capitalism is a proposed **competitor** to European Aristocratic Rule of Law. The Ashkenazi practiced this form of capitalism as a means of preying upon eastern europeans.This has been the ashkenazi reproductive strategy for centuries: ally with the state against the people. (just as socialists, left anarchists, and neocons have done);

    The origin of the Ashkenazi ethic (its extreme example in the parasitism of the most devoted sect: the hassidim (which developed in Ukraine), originated in pastoralists (shepherds). In other words, transitory raiders. They succeeded by isolationism and high trust inside and low trust outside (just as gypsies do today, and jews somewhat less so).

    The Teutonic rule of law practiced by the ruling classes originated in the need to prevent warfare or fighting or feuds among warriors who were in effect their own legislators, but were dependent upon one another in times of war. So the purpose of european law (christian law, pagan law) was to prevent retaliation by the total prohibition of the imposition of costs upon others – including lying and cheating.

    The ethic of Men who move on or run away, versus the ethic of men who must hold a fixed territory.

    In historical context, cleansed of the pretenses of liberty, ancapism is an attempt to restore the parasitism of the ashkenazim and hassidim, by changing the definition of moral from that which causes retaliation, to that which one voluntarily enters into regardless of whether he was lied, cheated, or taken advantage of in a period of weakness.

    Ancapism is no less immoral than marxism and neo-conservatism. The only source of liberty is the high trust society made possible by the total prohibition on parasitism of any kind, forcing all men to engage in productive work, and productive work only, in order to survive. Under common law, under rule of law, the law adapts to the first newly invented means of parasitism. By prohibiting the construction of incentives to retaliate, requiring truthful speech, using rapid evolution of the common law, we eliminate all possible transaction costs.

    This is the origin of Austrian Economics by the Christian and Germanic Austrians: the study of that which increases the quality of available information, reduces risk, and transaction costs, and therefore create the highest velocity economy that is possible for man to participate in.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-24 15:07:00 UTC

  • A Monopoly of Law, A Monopoly of Commons, A Market of Everything Else

    [T]he single necessity of monopoly organization is the holding of territory. The single necessity of objectively moral law is universal: prohibition on parasitism. The single necessity of objectively moral commons is universal: prohibition on privatization – also parasitism. The objective necessity of group survival is cooperation in the means of production. The objective necessity of group persistence is cooperation in the means of reproduction. To evolve these necessities we need a territory secured by men willing to fight for it; we need an independent judiciary that discovers objectively moral law during the resolution of conflicts; and we need an independent market in which the classes can conduct exchanges in order to construct their desired commons, and to prohibit the privatization of those commons; and we need a market for the division of knowledge and labor; and we need a market for reproduction that produces families families that bear and rear offspring for subsequent generations.

  • A Monopoly of Law, A Monopoly of Commons, A Market of Everything Else

    [T]he single necessity of monopoly organization is the holding of territory. The single necessity of objectively moral law is universal: prohibition on parasitism. The single necessity of objectively moral commons is universal: prohibition on privatization – also parasitism. The objective necessity of group survival is cooperation in the means of production. The objective necessity of group persistence is cooperation in the means of reproduction. To evolve these necessities we need a territory secured by men willing to fight for it; we need an independent judiciary that discovers objectively moral law during the resolution of conflicts; and we need an independent market in which the classes can conduct exchanges in order to construct their desired commons, and to prohibit the privatization of those commons; and we need a market for the division of knowledge and labor; and we need a market for reproduction that produces families families that bear and rear offspring for subsequent generations.

  • The Third Way (the end of history) Is The Truthful Society – Not Democracy

    [I] am not sure how Fukuyama missed it, other than it seems like all throughout his career he seeks to justify his theory of monopoly bureaucracy, and his admiration of Sinic civilization. He investigates the problems of bureaucracy under democracy – the failure to develop an independent professional bureaucracy first, and then democracy, such that patronage jobs are not given out.

    But he does not demonstrate that the public intellectual class and private companies would not create problems of the Deep State’s self maximization of self interest, the parasitism of bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy’s attempt to eliminate all competition, and it’s enforced stagnation. To create a high trust society one requires (a) a near universal militia (b) private property rights, independent judiciary (‘priesthood’) and rule of law proper (c) a natural nobility with long term interest in the territory, (d) insurers of last resort operated by professionals. One does not require a monopoly bureaucracy. It is an admission of the failure of a people to develop and maintain rule of law. One requires rule of law, law sufficiently articulated that it is inescapable (decidable), and universal standing such that the people can make use of it to control anyone acting in a public capacity in addition to private capacity. If the basis of law is articulated as the total prohibition on free riding in all its forms, including: violence, theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy, invasion and conquest; and if we defend the informational commons from pollution (“Abusus”), by requiring proof of existence and morality in any claim of common good; and if we construct a market for the construction of commons between the classes; then the end of history is not as Fukuyama claims – the professional bureaucracy. Instead, the professional bureaucracy is yet another example of the failure of a people to develop an answer to the problem of politics, ethics, economics and the social sciences. Chinese failed first to solve the problem of politics. They created the monopoly state first, and never discovered the rule of law. And in doing so, they failed first. The end of history – at least the end of history that we can see today – is the truthful society. And democratic polities of all stripes are yet another failure to construct rule of law applicable to every living soul. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
  • The Third Way (the end of history) Is The Truthful Society – Not Democracy

    [I] am not sure how Fukuyama missed it, other than it seems like all throughout his career he seeks to justify his theory of monopoly bureaucracy, and his admiration of Sinic civilization. He investigates the problems of bureaucracy under democracy – the failure to develop an independent professional bureaucracy first, and then democracy, such that patronage jobs are not given out.

    But he does not demonstrate that the public intellectual class and private companies would not create problems of the Deep State’s self maximization of self interest, the parasitism of bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy’s attempt to eliminate all competition, and it’s enforced stagnation. To create a high trust society one requires (a) a near universal militia (b) private property rights, independent judiciary (‘priesthood’) and rule of law proper (c) a natural nobility with long term interest in the territory, (d) insurers of last resort operated by professionals. One does not require a monopoly bureaucracy. It is an admission of the failure of a people to develop and maintain rule of law. One requires rule of law, law sufficiently articulated that it is inescapable (decidable), and universal standing such that the people can make use of it to control anyone acting in a public capacity in addition to private capacity. If the basis of law is articulated as the total prohibition on free riding in all its forms, including: violence, theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy, invasion and conquest; and if we defend the informational commons from pollution (“Abusus”), by requiring proof of existence and morality in any claim of common good; and if we construct a market for the construction of commons between the classes; then the end of history is not as Fukuyama claims – the professional bureaucracy. Instead, the professional bureaucracy is yet another example of the failure of a people to develop an answer to the problem of politics, ethics, economics and the social sciences. Chinese failed first to solve the problem of politics. They created the monopoly state first, and never discovered the rule of law. And in doing so, they failed first. The end of history – at least the end of history that we can see today – is the truthful society. And democratic polities of all stripes are yet another failure to construct rule of law applicable to every living soul. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
  • A MONOPOLY OF LAW, A MONOPOLY OF COMMONS, A MARKET OF EVERYTHING ELSE. The singl

    A MONOPOLY OF LAW, A MONOPOLY OF COMMONS, A MARKET OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

    The single necessity of monopoly organization is the holding of territory. The single necessity of objectively moral law is universal: prohibition on parasitism. The single necessity of objectively moral commons is universal: prohibition on privatization – also parasitism. The objective necessity of group survival is cooperation in the means of production. The objective necessity of group persistence is cooperation in the means of reproduction.

    To evolve these necessities we need a territory secured by men willing to fight for it; we need an independent judiciary that discovers objectively moral law during the resolution of conflicts; and we need an independent market in which the classes can conduct exchanges in order to construct their desired commons, and to prohibit the privatization of those commons; and we need a market for the division of knowledge and labor; and we need a market for reproduction that produces families families that bear and rear offspring for subsequent generations.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-30 03:01:00 UTC

  • ANOTHER THOUGHT ON REPUBLICS A republic or an oligarchy by any other name, even

    ANOTHER THOUGHT ON REPUBLICS

    A republic or an oligarchy by any other name, even one ruled by law, is a notoriously indecisive form of organization. I do not see a better division of labor than the one we discovered by accident. A republic is an excellent means of producing commons. A monarchy an excellent means of conducting war. And a democracy an excellent means of fooling the people into suicide.

    The Optimum that I know of:

    1) Monarch, Military, and Militia for the defense of people, territory, routes, and trade.

    2) Independent Judiciary for the resolution of conflicts, Rule of law, Property en Toto.

    3) An independent treasury for the provision of credit (issuance and repurchase of shares)

    4) Houses for the Production of Commons with members drawn by lot.

    5) Families for the production of generations under voluntary selection of mates.

    6) Men and Women forming Militia and emergency services.

    7) Private provision of public goods.

    We had it about right. If we had given women and the proletarians houses and maintained land and property requirements we would have created a market for commons, instead of the fallacy of majority rule (mob rule).


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-29 11:07:00 UTC

  • British gun laws, hanging and Grand Juries

    British gun laws, hanging and Grand Juries:


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-28 20:21:00 UTC

  • THE THREE WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE, AND THE EVOLUTION OF LAWS (Natural Law is an exc

    THE THREE WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE, AND THE EVOLUTION OF LAWS

    (Natural Law is an excuse that justifies indo-european / Hanseatic property rights)

    There are only three means of coercion (weapons of influence), although they can be, and are frequently, used in concert:

    1) Force (threatening, punishing, killing)

    2) Remuneration (payment/opportunity – boycott/deprivation)

    3) Gossip (rallying, shaming, ostracizing)

    We can engage in force to create property, remuneration once we possess it, and gossip to advocate it. Or we can do just the opposite.

    The Jewish historical method is to apply the female reproductive strategy (gossip), because they lack the numbers (and the ability) to fight. Westerners took the libertarian strategy(synthesis). The barbarians take the masculine strategy of predation.

    Jewish law, Islamic law, and Natural Law represent the three attempts to construct a legal system on first principles. However, jewish and islamic maintained ingroup/outgroup polylogical ethics, mysticism and authoritarianism.

    Natural law (which propertarianism translates from rational to scientific, just as lock translated it from theological to rational) is typically western attempt at science (“without intent”), by stating that these principles are required for flourishing – which is true. However, that is the reverse logic. The obverse is that these rules are required for voluntary cooperation and the voluntary organization of production, and to suppress parasitism of the people by the rulers(nobility), governors(politicians), and state (bureaucracy).

    I do not use the term natural law for propertarainism, just as I do not use critical rationalism for testimonialism. The reason being that these archaic terms are too loaded and open to bias and interpretation. But for all intents and purposes I have continued the Natural Law tradition, just as the natural law philosophers continued the greek and roman traditions: noble families would not surrender power to a tyrant and as such required rules of voluntary cooperation. Just

    So I see the battle between western science, libertarianism, universalism, and truth telling and eastern pseudoscience, authoritarianism, separatism, and deceit, as continuing.

    We first had an invasion of babylonian mysticism and authoritarianism.

    Then we had an invasion of Christianity.

    Then we had the invasion of Marxism/Boazianism/freudianism (pseudoscience)

    Then we had the invasion of Cultural Marxism (ridicule of excellence – shaming us for our excellences.)

    Three waves of increasingly articulate lies.

    The only way to defeat lying as a strategy, is to defeat lying altogether as a possible strategy, just as we have defeated every other form of fraud.

    Testimonialism and the legal protection of the informational commons under universal standing may seem a bit expensive.

    But it is less expensive than the alternatives: the ongoing conquest of the west. And the loss of the truth telling civilisation to another dark age.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-25 05:49:00 UTC

  • AGAINST POLYCENTRIC LAW AND IN FAVOR OF INSURERS. The reason that Americans can

    AGAINST POLYCENTRIC LAW AND IN FAVOR OF INSURERS.

    The reason that Americans can trust you by default in business is because our courts will punish the HELL out of you if you act in an untrustworthy fashion. American courts largely function as lie detectors more so than truth detectors.

    This is what separates Common law courts from Napoleonic law courts: There is (or should be) no difference between state and civic action; and we punish the hell out of violators, rather than regulate actions.

    That this produces superior economic velocity for the middle and upper classes while allowing the lower classes enough rope to constantly hang themselves is not obvious. For this reason – difficulty for the proletarians – I do not see the necessity of a monopoly homogenous set of rules of operation.

    If I am willing to operate by aristocratic (outcome based) common law, then I should be able to. If I prefer to have the protection of regulatory law (as instruction and guidance relieving the burden of knowledge) then I should be able to enjoy it.

    But despite propter-hoc regulatory law, or post-hoc common law, in neither of these cases are the laws of dispute resolution in matters of property different. What differs is the form of insurance I expect in defense of them.

    This differs from polycentric law, in the sense that there is no difference whatsoever in law, only difference in the requirements of the insurer. As such, the governmental ‘houses’ function as insurance agencies – insurers of last resort – rather than polycentric legal houses.

    This difference separates Propertarianism from Libertinism (Cosmopolitan libertarianism) permanently. There is but one law of cooperation necessary for the preservation of cooperation as preferable to predation: non-parasitism (non-imposition of costs). There is but one positive expression insuring the victim: property rights to property en-toto. And therefore all conflict is decidable, and all law universal regardless of polity. But the means by which we insure one another, and the contracts we enter into one another, are something quite different. (We merely lie and equate legislation and regulation with law so that the government can claim false legitimacy for its actions. One can violate a political contract, but that is a contract violation not a legal violation. Whether one can issue regulation is not a question as long as it meets testimonial and propertarian criteria, and citizens have universal standing in juridical defense – which they don’t have today.)

    The classical liberal model of houses that represent the interests of the classes and force exchanges between the classes was very close. The first mistake was investing power in the parliament rather than in the houses of parliament, and the second mistake was failing to add a house of labor and a house of dependents so that we could conduct trades between the newly enfranchised classes. Just as the British error was its failure to add a house of colonies to the government, rather than equal participation in the parliament.

    SIMPLE RULES FOR COMPLEX LAW

    There is but one cause of law, that is the facilitation and preservation of the incentive of cooperation and non-retaliation. There are no other causes of law other than the principle of non-parasitism that preserves the incentive of cooperation and non-retalitation.

    There is but one law and that is property en toto. There i

    All legislation consists of contract. No legislation consist of law.

    All legislation must apply universally. All standing must mirror any application.

    All legislation may only carry forward. No legislation may be retroactively imposed.

    All legislation must consist of voluntary transfers. No legislation may force involuntary transfer.

    All regulation is refinement of legislation. No regulation may extend beyond its governing legislation.

    All regulation consists of contract modifications. No regulation may violate contract provisions.

    All propertarian and testimonial contracts assent. No non-propertarian, non-testimonial contracts may assent.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-16 07:22:00 UTC