—“Curt, you’ve been hinting that you think that high trust, low ethnocentrism is not an evolutionary strategy superior in every regard.”— [T]his is an interesting question because like supply-demand curves, no evolutionary strategy is beneficial under all conditions – other than rate of adaptation. Humans are special in our rate of adaptation because not only can we adapt by developing tools, we can adapt by changing our behavior, AND we can adapt merely by selective reproduction for the EXPRESSION of genes, AND we can adapt by selective SUPPRESSION of genes (genetic pacification), rather than merely waiting for mutations. As such we actually only have to modify our behavior, and reproductively select for different goods and pacify other traits as conditions change. So we naturally encounter three overlapping fallacies in study of ourselves: The fallacy of linear progression(instead of supply-demand curves). The fallacy of progress (rather than adaptation). The fallacy of evolutionary direction (rather than evolution has no direction other than a bias for complexity in order to exploit niches). Well, a small, high trust, highly innovative, technically advanced, militarily excellent, aristocratic population that is willing to conquer and rule can compete. Conversely, a small, high trust, highly innovative, technically advanced that is unwilling to maintain military excellence, unwilling to rule, and unwilling to defend its territory from incursion cannot compete. So the reason I’m addressing these issues is the theory of “Peak Human”. Its not necessarily true that intelligence and limited reproduction are more beneficial than rapid reproduction and aggression. Malthus unbound means reproduction and aggression are more competitive than intelligence, innovation, and quality of life. Expensive and pacifist humans are a liability in a world of inexpensive and aggressive humans. More reproductive, less intelligent, more aggressive people will defeat less reproductive, more intelligent, less aggressive people. And it’s happening. Which is obvious when we state it that way. —“I got the impression that you thought the West would eventually be able to detect lying high ethnocentric cultures. Do you no longer feel this way? Because your exchange with him made it seem they’d have to become familial, rather than simply upgrade infringements of trust.”— We can put into a constitution, and therefore into the common law an equivalent of the requirement for mathematical proofs (demonstrations of possibility), and scientific papers (a loose analogy but the best I can do). We can enumerate the steps necessary to propose a political statement (an offer of contract, bound by contract). We can return grammar, rhetoric, and logic to education. We can prosecute offenders, and suppress lying as well as error, bias, and wishful thinking. It might take six to ten years to work its way through the culture, but at some point after ten or more years, people will be so habituated into the demands of truth telling by simple exposure to it, that they’ll spot error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit easily. I mean, a lot of the most important disciplines do this today already. Law is not strictly constructed, but contracts are very close to programming at this point. Science does a fairly good job of peer review in the top journals – and law is nowhere near as difficult a problem as is physical science, because law (contract) is a justificationary process (known) and physical science is a critical process (unknown). Now, I advocate a return to the traditional family because the absolute nuclear family is no longer useful because we move around too much. It was useful for forcing people to obtain homes, and for delaying child bearing, when they lived near one another. But what’s happened is that our people are becoming unhappy because they’re alone. And (in particular, our women) are more susceptible to ideology if they are alone rather than in families. And our rates of reproduction are better in traditional families with greater mutual economic, emotional, and generational support. For men, the ANF and divorce means early death. Germany has for example, built large family sized apartments in the postwar era while Asia and to some degree, america, are building every smaller apartments – which is terrible for everyone involved. The argument is that ANF families are higher trust than TRAD/STEM families, but that is because of norms not laws. If we have a legal system that enforces truth telling (now that we know how), that means that trust can be created regardless of reproductive family structure. I try to say it this way: that while only northern europeans could EVOLVE high trust, once the technology is know everyone else can APPLY high trust ethics in law. Just like we invent other technologies that different cultures adapt. My fantasy world is a future of high trust societies slowly suppressing low trust societies, just as agrarian societies suppressed banditry and raiding. As far as I can tell this is a logical progression of the incremental suppression of parasitism. Not that it’s a deterministic process, but because it’s a competitive evolutionary strategy just as the suppression of fraud, theft and violence were competitive strategies. —“It’s hard for me to see how regression back to familialism is progress by any perspective. This “propagation of local genes” seems a flawed model, because it’s often not ultimately eugenic.”— Well I think I answered the first part of this question already, but the second part is a common misunderstanding of inbreeding. It’s true that there is a minimum population necessary to prevent the problems of inbreeding. But it’s also true that there is a maximum population before we prevent error-correction. And a maximum population to produce attractive people by pairing off. Large Cities, particularly diverse large cities, are dysgenic as hell. What we see today is very much the reproductive strategy of crows: young people move to the city for opportunity and mating, then move to the suburbs to raise children. —“I have my own Nietzschean critiques of the West, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t continue to pursue their evolutionary strategy of building a superior commons.”— I agree. And that commons will be superior under Truthful Speech, Propertarian ethics, the traditional (extended) family, the elimination of the death tax, and the restoration of nobility (access to the senate) to a family that maintains its military, economic and social status sufficiently to afford to contribute to the commons over three or more generations. Honestly, the forced exit of the martial class from politics since the Vietnam war is a significant part of the problem here. And it’s easy to fix.
Theme: Cooperation
-
Loyalty: Forgoing Opportunities.
[L]OYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure (genetic, normative, physical, institutional, territorial) that you and others have been contributing to. The limit of opportunity. (The family, tribe, and nation)
James: Can “loyalty” also be the assumption or even shouldering of risks or costs, without a clear or immediate return?
Curt Doolittle: Yes
-
Loyalty: Forgoing Opportunities.
[L]OYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure (genetic, normative, physical, institutional, territorial) that you and others have been contributing to. The limit of opportunity. (The family, tribe, and nation)
James: Can “loyalty” also be the assumption or even shouldering of risks or costs, without a clear or immediate return?
Curt Doolittle: Yes
-
Axelrod’s Model of Ethno Centrism
[A] friend sent this update on Axelrod’s work on the competitive value of ethnocentrism, and how entho-centrism always wins. I had assumed this was fairly obvious, but while axelrod also focuses on cooperation, I want to convert this into propertarian language and therefore make it more compatible with ethics and political economy. So over the next few months I’ll try to write a few posts that make use of this argument. (Thanks)
THE ERROR OF ANGLO UNIVERSALISM – CONVERSATION WITH NICHOLAS CARDACI ON EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES
DAVID Were you aware of this series of experiments that were carried out on evolutionary strategies competing with one another? I found them very useful: https://egtheory.wordpress.com/…/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-r…/ CURT Yes. Axelrod and followers have been working on this model for many years. I include him in my reading list. This particular set of studies is interesting in that it addresses the value of ethnocentrism. While economic utility CAN be expressed as reproduction, it is not always the case as Sweden shows today. But I should probably comment on the study so that I draw the connection with propertarianism. DAVID Were you surprised that the mechanism of ethnocentric ascension was straight up robbery of humanitarians, rather than limitation of free riding? I think there’s definitely both going on, but the weakness of the mediation (?) hypothesis surprised me. CURT No, it’s obvious. One of the values of modeling that Axelrod (and other life-models) brought to the debate (with the aid of computer science) was equilibrial modeling rather than linear projection. It’s great stuff. I think I read him first … I dunno. It seems like the 80’s or maybe early 90’s. My wife and I were travelling in the UK at the time and I read it in the wee hours of the morning. It was one of the most influential pieces that I read. Actually, maybe i’ll write a post about the relationship between axelrod in cooperation and mandelbrot in stock markets, and taleb in risk, and equilibrium in prices. These behaviors are all the same: before we had data and computers we could not conduct these measurements and we could not see them. This means that unless one can describe an idea as a supply and demand curve, that one is engaging in idealism. DAVID I’ve been pondering this topic recently, mulling over the conflict between the moral universalism and ethnocentrism. One thing that’s readily obvious to me, especially being around alot of southern europeans, is that this ethnocentrism though isn’t always great. As it seems to me that it’s always accompanied with high family nepotism. Italy, is extremely regionalist and nepotistic within the family, and seriously limits how big their commons can be I think. The country is way too big as it is, with that level of heterogeneity. Some of it seems to be the greater levels of inbreeding that’s gone on historically. The bolded text in this post by hbd chick pretty much nails the kinship/family nepotism that goes on down there. https://www.reddit.com/…/the_reality_of_deep_southern_euro…/ Even in the anglo countries, I still see it going on, with italians from the same region letting eachother off parking fines It makes them more impervious to outside infiltration, but they can never reach the same commons as their northern neighbors. CURT Nepotism (family corporialism) is not the same as corruption or deceit. if one biases opportunities toward the family in maters not in the commons then that is not an imposition of costs upon others. If one exercises corruption in the production of commons, then that is another thing altogether. So you’d distinguish those then? CURT Yes. Favoring market opportunity is different from imposing costs upon the commons. Even the innocent nepotism, seems to be harmful to an extent. Like you mentioned on the Shoah, it limits a society’s ability to put the best person in the job. There was a good article recently outlining how in Romance Europe, family owned corporations are far more dominant than in the Anglo markets, where there’s ‘market-based management’, meritocracy essentially. So just as anglo model works under great opportunity (and as the model shows) the family model (and aristocracy which is also a family model) defeats the anglo over time. that’s what Axelrod’s model shows. DAVID This is true. As they cooperate with people defecting against them. Yes. It seems to me to be both a gift and a curse. That’s cliched, but its the only way I can think do describe attitudes in southern europe. CURT It’s just that no principle of measurement is infinitely extensible. A rule acts as a means of measurement (decidability). There are not infinitely true rules. There are limits to every rule. (Which is a very complex bit of philosophy, but the reason why apriorism can’t be true.) The tactics you use in one circumstance and those in another are different. It is probably short term better to use universal ethics until your competitors catch up, and then return to familial ethics in order to prevent defectors from becoming parasites. (this is a very good discussion we should probably post for others to follow) DAVID Yes. That’s what it seems to me. Southern europeans are capped in what they can do, but what they have is far more robust and secure than what the anglos and co have achieved. Should we post it on the Subreddit? CURT Yes. It’s a pretty good conversation that we can probably use to educate others. We are touching on a set of very big ideas here that are not obvious: the limits to any evolutaionary strategy, the advantage of familialism over universalism in the long term, the conceptual problem of training people to models and demand curves instead of ideal types and linear progressions. What we are saying is that we must increase the complexity of the basis of moral argument. DAVID Yes, we cant simply pretend to have moral arguments among ourselves (as europeans) in isolation any longer. It’s eating away at us. I went through my finance textbook and found the study about family ownership I mentioned. Faccio & Lang, “The Ultimate Ownership of Western European Corporations” (1997) A bit older than I thought Also, there’s a study indicating their outperformance over more anglo style firms, strangely enough. Anderson & Reeb, “Founding Family Ownership and Firm Performance from the S&P500” (2003) Going to head off. CURT Cheers
-
Axelrod’s Model of Ethno Centrism
[A] friend sent this update on Axelrod’s work on the competitive value of ethnocentrism, and how entho-centrism always wins. I had assumed this was fairly obvious, but while axelrod also focuses on cooperation, I want to convert this into propertarian language and therefore make it more compatible with ethics and political economy. So over the next few months I’ll try to write a few posts that make use of this argument. (Thanks)
THE ERROR OF ANGLO UNIVERSALISM – CONVERSATION WITH NICHOLAS CARDACI ON EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES
DAVID Were you aware of this series of experiments that were carried out on evolutionary strategies competing with one another? I found them very useful: https://egtheory.wordpress.com/…/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-r…/ CURT Yes. Axelrod and followers have been working on this model for many years. I include him in my reading list. This particular set of studies is interesting in that it addresses the value of ethnocentrism. While economic utility CAN be expressed as reproduction, it is not always the case as Sweden shows today. But I should probably comment on the study so that I draw the connection with propertarianism. DAVID Were you surprised that the mechanism of ethnocentric ascension was straight up robbery of humanitarians, rather than limitation of free riding? I think there’s definitely both going on, but the weakness of the mediation (?) hypothesis surprised me. CURT No, it’s obvious. One of the values of modeling that Axelrod (and other life-models) brought to the debate (with the aid of computer science) was equilibrial modeling rather than linear projection. It’s great stuff. I think I read him first … I dunno. It seems like the 80’s or maybe early 90’s. My wife and I were travelling in the UK at the time and I read it in the wee hours of the morning. It was one of the most influential pieces that I read. Actually, maybe i’ll write a post about the relationship between axelrod in cooperation and mandelbrot in stock markets, and taleb in risk, and equilibrium in prices. These behaviors are all the same: before we had data and computers we could not conduct these measurements and we could not see them. This means that unless one can describe an idea as a supply and demand curve, that one is engaging in idealism. DAVID I’ve been pondering this topic recently, mulling over the conflict between the moral universalism and ethnocentrism. One thing that’s readily obvious to me, especially being around alot of southern europeans, is that this ethnocentrism though isn’t always great. As it seems to me that it’s always accompanied with high family nepotism. Italy, is extremely regionalist and nepotistic within the family, and seriously limits how big their commons can be I think. The country is way too big as it is, with that level of heterogeneity. Some of it seems to be the greater levels of inbreeding that’s gone on historically. The bolded text in this post by hbd chick pretty much nails the kinship/family nepotism that goes on down there. https://www.reddit.com/…/the_reality_of_deep_southern_euro…/ Even in the anglo countries, I still see it going on, with italians from the same region letting eachother off parking fines It makes them more impervious to outside infiltration, but they can never reach the same commons as their northern neighbors. CURT Nepotism (family corporialism) is not the same as corruption or deceit. if one biases opportunities toward the family in maters not in the commons then that is not an imposition of costs upon others. If one exercises corruption in the production of commons, then that is another thing altogether. So you’d distinguish those then? CURT Yes. Favoring market opportunity is different from imposing costs upon the commons. Even the innocent nepotism, seems to be harmful to an extent. Like you mentioned on the Shoah, it limits a society’s ability to put the best person in the job. There was a good article recently outlining how in Romance Europe, family owned corporations are far more dominant than in the Anglo markets, where there’s ‘market-based management’, meritocracy essentially. So just as anglo model works under great opportunity (and as the model shows) the family model (and aristocracy which is also a family model) defeats the anglo over time. that’s what Axelrod’s model shows. DAVID This is true. As they cooperate with people defecting against them. Yes. It seems to me to be both a gift and a curse. That’s cliched, but its the only way I can think do describe attitudes in southern europe. CURT It’s just that no principle of measurement is infinitely extensible. A rule acts as a means of measurement (decidability). There are not infinitely true rules. There are limits to every rule. (Which is a very complex bit of philosophy, but the reason why apriorism can’t be true.) The tactics you use in one circumstance and those in another are different. It is probably short term better to use universal ethics until your competitors catch up, and then return to familial ethics in order to prevent defectors from becoming parasites. (this is a very good discussion we should probably post for others to follow) DAVID Yes. That’s what it seems to me. Southern europeans are capped in what they can do, but what they have is far more robust and secure than what the anglos and co have achieved. Should we post it on the Subreddit? CURT Yes. It’s a pretty good conversation that we can probably use to educate others. We are touching on a set of very big ideas here that are not obvious: the limits to any evolutaionary strategy, the advantage of familialism over universalism in the long term, the conceptual problem of training people to models and demand curves instead of ideal types and linear progressions. What we are saying is that we must increase the complexity of the basis of moral argument. DAVID Yes, we cant simply pretend to have moral arguments among ourselves (as europeans) in isolation any longer. It’s eating away at us. I went through my finance textbook and found the study about family ownership I mentioned. Faccio & Lang, “The Ultimate Ownership of Western European Corporations” (1997) A bit older than I thought Also, there’s a study indicating their outperformance over more anglo style firms, strangely enough. Anderson & Reeb, “Founding Family Ownership and Firm Performance from the S&P500” (2003) Going to head off. CURT Cheers
-
Alt-Right, Reactionary, or Radical?
[M]y “thing” is truth. Propertarianism solves the problem of cooperation in morally heterogeneous societies by the construction of a market for commons just as we constructed a market for goods and services: but incrementally suppressing parasitism in the production of commons (government) just as we incrementally suppressed parasitism in the production of goods and services (the market). In that sense I am a radical(progressive), and propertarianism is radical (an alteration of the status quo. That propertarianism alters the status quo by suppressing the parasitism of dysgenic socialists, is either an improvement in truth or a devolution of free riding.
I take the objective and empirical position that independent of human perception, propertarianism provides the means of the pursuit of all forms of capital (including genetic) as well as human experience, by suppressing parasitism, and suppressing the reproduction of parasites, through a one-child policy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. -
Alt-Right, Reactionary, or Radical?
[M]y “thing” is truth. Propertarianism solves the problem of cooperation in morally heterogeneous societies by the construction of a market for commons just as we constructed a market for goods and services: but incrementally suppressing parasitism in the production of commons (government) just as we incrementally suppressed parasitism in the production of goods and services (the market). In that sense I am a radical(progressive), and propertarianism is radical (an alteration of the status quo. That propertarianism alters the status quo by suppressing the parasitism of dysgenic socialists, is either an improvement in truth or a devolution of free riding.
I take the objective and empirical position that independent of human perception, propertarianism provides the means of the pursuit of all forms of capital (including genetic) as well as human experience, by suppressing parasitism, and suppressing the reproduction of parasites, through a one-child policy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. -
The Fallacy of Rothbardian Optimistic Consequences: Another Hack of Pathological Altruism
—“The entire basis of Anarcho-capitalism is that reputation networks will convey information “— [T]hat fallacy is a hack of pathological altruism. It is neither logically no empirically true. The reason being that production and consumption decrease rapidly due to the increased transaction costs with the necessity of reputation (knowledge) in a market that exists precisely because of anonymity (complexity and ignorance). And empirically we cannot find evidence to the contrary. So as long as you cannot run out of customers to cheat, it is cheaper and more rewarding to cheat customers than engage in production. (rothbardian ghetto ethics again). The state need not regulate the market, however, to create competitive economic velocity the law must prohibit ‘cheating’. Or better stated, the legal prohibition on parasitism that violates the incentive to cooperate (thereby increasing transaction costs and decreasing economic velocity), expressed as a requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality of the same criteria, must expand with inventions of means of parasitism. The sequence of parasitism from the most direct and to the most indirect is: murder, violence, theft, fraud, extortion, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, genocide. As the division of knowledge and labor and the complexity of production increases, anonymity increases, and new opportunities for parasitism are invented, requiring the common law to respond with new prohibitions on parasitism. Well functioning markets with adequate suppression of parasitism increase trust. Poorly functioning markets function poorly because of inadequate suppression of parasitism. If we say that we desire freedom from a parasitic government (liberty) how can we logically claim not to desire freedom from parasitic individuals (morality)? The only logical answer, if one claims both liberty, and opportunity for parasitism, is that one seeks to cheat both the commons and cheat others. As such one is simply a parasite identical to those of that populate the state and justify their parasitism with claims of the common good. Rothbardianism is, like neo-conservatism, and socialism, a hack of our western gullibility due to pathological altruism. It’s one of the great deceits. Not as great as Socialism and particularly (pseudo)scientific socialism, and not as great in success as neo-conservatism, but certainly as well articulated as the former. IF we desire existential liberty it cannot be obtained by fallacy. It can only be obtained the only way it has been in the past: the reciprocal insurance against all parasitism by the promise of violence to suppress it. This is the operational definition of liberty, just as liberty: the constraint of state actors to the morality of interpersonal conduct, is the descriptive definition of liberty, just as freedom from imposition is the experiential description of liberty. All ‘optimistic consequences’ argued in Rothbardian libertinism are false. That is because the optimistic consequences increase the expense of suppression of parasitism with ongoing diligence, that never ends. There is no end to policing against parasitism. There is only the necessity of non-interference in the common law, which offers the most rapid means of suppression of parasitism: making new inventions of parasitism illegal with the first suit adjudicated. **Liberty: Every man a warrior. Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. This is the only known means of constructing liberty.** Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
The Fallacy of Rothbardian Optimistic Consequences: Another Hack of Pathological Altruism
—“The entire basis of Anarcho-capitalism is that reputation networks will convey information “— [T]hat fallacy is a hack of pathological altruism. It is neither logically no empirically true. The reason being that production and consumption decrease rapidly due to the increased transaction costs with the necessity of reputation (knowledge) in a market that exists precisely because of anonymity (complexity and ignorance). And empirically we cannot find evidence to the contrary. So as long as you cannot run out of customers to cheat, it is cheaper and more rewarding to cheat customers than engage in production. (rothbardian ghetto ethics again). The state need not regulate the market, however, to create competitive economic velocity the law must prohibit ‘cheating’. Or better stated, the legal prohibition on parasitism that violates the incentive to cooperate (thereby increasing transaction costs and decreasing economic velocity), expressed as a requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality of the same criteria, must expand with inventions of means of parasitism. The sequence of parasitism from the most direct and to the most indirect is: murder, violence, theft, fraud, extortion, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, genocide. As the division of knowledge and labor and the complexity of production increases, anonymity increases, and new opportunities for parasitism are invented, requiring the common law to respond with new prohibitions on parasitism. Well functioning markets with adequate suppression of parasitism increase trust. Poorly functioning markets function poorly because of inadequate suppression of parasitism. If we say that we desire freedom from a parasitic government (liberty) how can we logically claim not to desire freedom from parasitic individuals (morality)? The only logical answer, if one claims both liberty, and opportunity for parasitism, is that one seeks to cheat both the commons and cheat others. As such one is simply a parasite identical to those of that populate the state and justify their parasitism with claims of the common good. Rothbardianism is, like neo-conservatism, and socialism, a hack of our western gullibility due to pathological altruism. It’s one of the great deceits. Not as great as Socialism and particularly (pseudo)scientific socialism, and not as great in success as neo-conservatism, but certainly as well articulated as the former. IF we desire existential liberty it cannot be obtained by fallacy. It can only be obtained the only way it has been in the past: the reciprocal insurance against all parasitism by the promise of violence to suppress it. This is the operational definition of liberty, just as liberty: the constraint of state actors to the morality of interpersonal conduct, is the descriptive definition of liberty, just as freedom from imposition is the experiential description of liberty. All ‘optimistic consequences’ argued in Rothbardian libertinism are false. That is because the optimistic consequences increase the expense of suppression of parasitism with ongoing diligence, that never ends. There is no end to policing against parasitism. There is only the necessity of non-interference in the common law, which offers the most rapid means of suppression of parasitism: making new inventions of parasitism illegal with the first suit adjudicated. **Liberty: Every man a warrior. Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. This is the only known means of constructing liberty.** Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Libertarianism is Reducible to Nomocratic Prohibition on Parasitism for the Purpose of Preserving the Rewards of Cooperation
LIBERTARIANISM IS REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS…OR ISNT IT? http://angrybearblog.com/2015/08/libertarianism-simplified-the-three-proper-powers-of-government.html [R]ule of Law (universal application, universal standing), Common Law (organic), Property en Toto (right to seek restitution for any imposition upon anything constructed by the bearing of costs: that which is obtained by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality of the same criteria. The challenge for libertarians has been the definition of private property: that which one can seek restitution for in court under rule of law. Saying we defend it without defining it is an incomplete statement that allows the audience to assume his concept of private property is what the speaker refers to. This is a cute act of suggestion that inspires moral affiliation, but it is not sufficient for representation as the basis for law that provides non discretionary decidability in matters of conflict. Rothbardians define property with the ethics of pastoralists and the ghetto: inter subjectively verifiable property. These are the low trust ethics of the steppe, levant, and medieval ghetto. If we look at high trust societies instead, they assert property rights not only to physical property, but to all property that causes conflict and retaliation for the imposition of costs. So humans demonstrate that they treat as their property all that they have expended resources to obtain with the expectation of a monopoly of control(private), fruits from(shareholder property), and prevention from consumption (commons). We agree to enforce retaliation or restitution against impositions against all of those forms of property. But why? Because the most scarce and rewarding good is cooperation. We evolve moral intuitions, moral and ethical rules, manners, laws and traditions to preserve the value of cooperation. Property rights then represent a warranty by the group members of those forms of property that one has acquired or invested in or refrained from the consumption of, in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate and the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, including the rewards from the production of commons- property rights being the first commons. The origin of property preceded cooperation. The origin of morality followed cooperation. The origin of rights evolved from morality. Law evolved from the need for uniform application of restitution for impositions upon property. Property rights did not evolve from the scarcity of goods but from the gradual atomization of the family in the increasingly individualistic division of labor. So while libertarianism contains comforting memes, it is predicated on a number of half truths and falsehoods. The problem we face is the preservation of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation. Property rights – insuring one another – are the means by which we do so. As such, the scope of property necessary for an anarchic polity is that which preserves the will to cooperate. And as far as we know, that is a high trust requirement. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian institute Kiev, Ukraine. Libertarianism is reducible to rule of law under the total prohibition against the imposition of costs against that property necessary to preserve the incentives to cooperate.