Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • Ethnocentrism Is Superior to Humanitarianism at Suppressing Free Riders

    —“Ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because ethnocentrics do a better job at suppressing selfish free riders. If an ethnocentric group comes across a group riddled with selfish individuals, they’ll refuse to cooperate. Over time, thanks to the ethnos’ mutual cooperation and the selfish group’s total refusal to even help themselves out, ethnos will reproduce faster than the non-cooperators and thus expand at the selfish group’s expense.

    Meanwhile those nice humanitarian fellows blissfully waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders, who are all to happy to receive their favor, giving nothing in return. We call this idea, that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because it is better at suppressing free-riders, the “mediation hypothesis,” and it is the mechanism favored by Hammond and Axelrod in their original paper. Another possibility is that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism outright. Imagine an ethno group next to a humanitarian group. Individuals on the group boundary benefit from the cooperation of their own group-mates behind them. But the ethnocentrics at the front doubly benefit from the cooperation of those hapless humanitarians. Might this give the ethnos the edge they need? We call this the “direct hypothesis”.—-

  • Q&A: Are There Limits To Western Evolutionary Strategy?

    —“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.

  • Q&A: Are There Limits To Western Evolutionary Strategy?

    —“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.

  • Tweak to Positioning the Enligthenents

    [C]onversation on positioning with Don the other night. This is how I came away with a minor tweak to the positioning. Cosmopolitan Ashkenazi, Low Trust, Un-landed, Authoritarian, Anarcho Capitalism vs Aristocratic, Anglo, High Trust, Landed, Legal, Anarcho Capitalism vs Martial, Germanic, High Trust, Landed, Hierarchical, Tribal/Familial Capitalism.

    As far as I can tell the germans were right prior to the conquest of the german civilization by it’s heretical offshoot the anglo civilization. The anglo method of law is correct but the strategy is incorrect. The german social order strategy is correct, but the justificationary kantian method is incorrect. The Ashkenazi social strategy is incorrect AND the pseudoscientific method is incorrect. Everyone got the enlightenment at least half wrong.

  • Tweak to Positioning the Enligthenents

    [C]onversation on positioning with Don the other night. This is how I came away with a minor tweak to the positioning. Cosmopolitan Ashkenazi, Low Trust, Un-landed, Authoritarian, Anarcho Capitalism vs Aristocratic, Anglo, High Trust, Landed, Legal, Anarcho Capitalism vs Martial, Germanic, High Trust, Landed, Hierarchical, Tribal/Familial Capitalism.

    As far as I can tell the germans were right prior to the conquest of the german civilization by it’s heretical offshoot the anglo civilization. The anglo method of law is correct but the strategy is incorrect. The german social order strategy is correct, but the justificationary kantian method is incorrect. The Ashkenazi social strategy is incorrect AND the pseudoscientific method is incorrect. Everyone got the enlightenment at least half wrong.

  • 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

  • Aristocratic vs Cosmopolitan Ancapism.

    ARISTOCRATIC ANARCHO CAPITALISM VS COSMOPOLITAN ANARCHO CAPITALISM (from elsewhere) [B]oth Aristocratic (British, Critical, and Legal), and Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi, Justificationary, and Moral) Anarchism, advance the open market. They are opposite methods of expressing the same argument:scientific prohibition and justificationary advocacy. Both evolved as ethno-centric evolutionary strategies: agrarian islanders evolving into seafaring traders, and diasporic pastoralists into diasporic traders. Both groups, in the Enlightenment, (the Anglo first, French second, Germans third, and Cosmopolitans last) attempted to universalize and evangelize their group evolutionary strategy as a universal ethic – just as groups attempt to universalize their myth and religion. Given freedom from the church and landed aristocracy, the middle class sought to justify their ascent into political power by expanding their middle class ethics as a universal, just as the nobility had justified its ethics as a universal. But aside from differences in method of argument, Aristocratic and Cosmopolitan ethics vary considerably in the causality their arguments depend upon, and in the scope of their ethical prohibitions, and in their means of enforcement of those prohibitions. As well as their unstated assertion of the behavioral nature of, and rational interests of, man. Upon the outcome of models. And lastly upon the empirical evidence. Causality and Scope Aristocratic ethics depend upon the causal property of non-retaliation – prohibiting conflict that destroys capital and impedes cooperation – in order to preserve the disproportionate returns on cooperation. In aristocratic ethics, only productive, fully informed, and warrantied voluntary exchange, free of externality by the same criteria is ethical. Cosmopolitan ethics depend upon the presumption of the sufficiency of satisfaction, and justify non-retaliation with the excuse of volition, thereby justifying outwitting or fooling or taking advantage of the asymmetry of knowledge of the parties. While outright ‘fraud’ misrepresentation is available contractually, it is not mandated by the ethics. In Aristocratic ethics, the person who fails to fully inform is the party at fault – increasing trust, economic velocity, and capital. In Cosmopolitan, Desert and Steppe ethics, the person who errs is the party at fault – thereby decreasing trust, economic velocity and capital. In Aristocratic ethics exchanges must be productive. In Cosmopolitan ethics they need not be. Aristocracy prohibits blackmail which undermines cooperation and Cosmopolitan ethics justify blackmail as voluntary. Again, aristocracy seeks to preserve cooperation, trust, economic velocity, and Cosmopolitanism seeks to preserve profiting regardless of consequences. Why? Because in Aristocratic society, the army consists of a universal militia and a heavily armored and equipped professional warrior class. Aristocracy preserves the high trust ethic of warriors across all classes, as a means of preserving cohesion in defense of the territory and commons. For diasporic raiders and traders who engage in various levels of parasitism, they need not defend a commons, nor refrain from parasitism on hosts or opponent’s commons, nor preserve cooperation with hosts, because there are other hosts to move to, and no value in constructing fixed capital or commons, and no value in preserving the reciprocal insurance of the militia in defense of land and capital. Land holding is terribly expensive. Land holding and truth telling are terribly expensive. But they eliminate the need for a central state. If a group demonstrates in-group bias, parasitically consumes a host’s commons, does not build its own commons, and does not pay the high normative, material, and personal risks to life and limb to defend territory, then it is much easier to accumulate that wealth internally than it is for hosts who must pay all those costs. Enforcement Aristocracy enforces high trust ethics by economic ostracization(boycott), productive ostracization(prevention of holding land), restitution, punishment and culling (usually hanging). The west culled .5%-1% of malcontents every year from about 1100 through about 1800 (the industrial revolution absorbed more labor and lowered demand for criminality). Cosmopolitanism instead, enforces ethics by disenfranchising those who cannot pass the tests of adulthood. By economic ostracization (boycotting), by reproductive boycotting (ostracization), or what we call ‘shunning’. And given that groups who demonstrate and advocate low trust and parasitic relations with non members, and that this behavior generates hostility by non-members, ostracization traditionally amounted to a virtual death sentence. That illustrates the difference between land holding (punishing) and non-landholding (ostracizing) means of maintaining control. Prohibition vs Advocacy Aristocratic Pessimistic Prohibition(law) vs Cosmopolitan Optimistic Advocacy(morality). So law which prohibits violations of the incentive to cooperate in the production of land-holding, commons, capital formation, and reproduction is very different from the moral advocacy which advocates the concentration of capital and preserves parasitism. This is why Law is the means of constructing a negative philosophy under aristocracy, and why Moral argument is the means of constructing a positive advocacy of preferred behavior (musts) dictated by gods. Evolutionary Strategies Aristocratic ethics are an evolutionary strategy for land-holding, farmers, craftsmen and warriors mutually dependent upon one another for defense of the land in the absence of a standing army. Cosmopolitan ethics are an evolutionary strategy for a minority of migratory traders (who can move on without paying the cost of retaliation), and who favor exchange and cunning rather than honesty and production. The even less ethically constrained version of cosmopolitan ethics is that of gypsies, that practice theft, charlatanry, prostitution and suppress internal attempts to engage in production and trade instead of the group strategy of parasitism. The even less ethically constrained version is that of desert and steppe raiders (bandits) that engage in pastoralism for subsistence, and raiding for wealth. So the question is, how is it POSSIBLE to construct an anarcho-capitalist (stateless) social order without Aristocratic ethics, embodied in rule of law, using a common organic law, under strict construction, under universal standing, and a universal militia? It isn’t. That’s why it hasn’t been. Truth. Trust. Commons. Law. Science. Welcome to Aristocracy. The only Anarcho Capitalism Possible. The only liberty possible. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia) PS: See why western libertarians are morally blind: Moral Blindness: URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/n4qL7 Libertarian Moral Blindness: URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/AE9oE

  • Aristocratic vs Cosmopolitan Ancapism.

    ARISTOCRATIC ANARCHO CAPITALISM VS COSMOPOLITAN ANARCHO CAPITALISM (from elsewhere) [B]oth Aristocratic (British, Critical, and Legal), and Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi, Justificationary, and Moral) Anarchism, advance the open market. They are opposite methods of expressing the same argument:scientific prohibition and justificationary advocacy. Both evolved as ethno-centric evolutionary strategies: agrarian islanders evolving into seafaring traders, and diasporic pastoralists into diasporic traders. Both groups, in the Enlightenment, (the Anglo first, French second, Germans third, and Cosmopolitans last) attempted to universalize and evangelize their group evolutionary strategy as a universal ethic – just as groups attempt to universalize their myth and religion. Given freedom from the church and landed aristocracy, the middle class sought to justify their ascent into political power by expanding their middle class ethics as a universal, just as the nobility had justified its ethics as a universal. But aside from differences in method of argument, Aristocratic and Cosmopolitan ethics vary considerably in the causality their arguments depend upon, and in the scope of their ethical prohibitions, and in their means of enforcement of those prohibitions. As well as their unstated assertion of the behavioral nature of, and rational interests of, man. Upon the outcome of models. And lastly upon the empirical evidence. Causality and Scope Aristocratic ethics depend upon the causal property of non-retaliation – prohibiting conflict that destroys capital and impedes cooperation – in order to preserve the disproportionate returns on cooperation. In aristocratic ethics, only productive, fully informed, and warrantied voluntary exchange, free of externality by the same criteria is ethical. Cosmopolitan ethics depend upon the presumption of the sufficiency of satisfaction, and justify non-retaliation with the excuse of volition, thereby justifying outwitting or fooling or taking advantage of the asymmetry of knowledge of the parties. While outright ‘fraud’ misrepresentation is available contractually, it is not mandated by the ethics. In Aristocratic ethics, the person who fails to fully inform is the party at fault – increasing trust, economic velocity, and capital. In Cosmopolitan, Desert and Steppe ethics, the person who errs is the party at fault – thereby decreasing trust, economic velocity and capital. In Aristocratic ethics exchanges must be productive. In Cosmopolitan ethics they need not be. Aristocracy prohibits blackmail which undermines cooperation and Cosmopolitan ethics justify blackmail as voluntary. Again, aristocracy seeks to preserve cooperation, trust, economic velocity, and Cosmopolitanism seeks to preserve profiting regardless of consequences. Why? Because in Aristocratic society, the army consists of a universal militia and a heavily armored and equipped professional warrior class. Aristocracy preserves the high trust ethic of warriors across all classes, as a means of preserving cohesion in defense of the territory and commons. For diasporic raiders and traders who engage in various levels of parasitism, they need not defend a commons, nor refrain from parasitism on hosts or opponent’s commons, nor preserve cooperation with hosts, because there are other hosts to move to, and no value in constructing fixed capital or commons, and no value in preserving the reciprocal insurance of the militia in defense of land and capital. Land holding is terribly expensive. Land holding and truth telling are terribly expensive. But they eliminate the need for a central state. If a group demonstrates in-group bias, parasitically consumes a host’s commons, does not build its own commons, and does not pay the high normative, material, and personal risks to life and limb to defend territory, then it is much easier to accumulate that wealth internally than it is for hosts who must pay all those costs. Enforcement Aristocracy enforces high trust ethics by economic ostracization(boycott), productive ostracization(prevention of holding land), restitution, punishment and culling (usually hanging). The west culled .5%-1% of malcontents every year from about 1100 through about 1800 (the industrial revolution absorbed more labor and lowered demand for criminality). Cosmopolitanism instead, enforces ethics by disenfranchising those who cannot pass the tests of adulthood. By economic ostracization (boycotting), by reproductive boycotting (ostracization), or what we call ‘shunning’. And given that groups who demonstrate and advocate low trust and parasitic relations with non members, and that this behavior generates hostility by non-members, ostracization traditionally amounted to a virtual death sentence. That illustrates the difference between land holding (punishing) and non-landholding (ostracizing) means of maintaining control. Prohibition vs Advocacy Aristocratic Pessimistic Prohibition(law) vs Cosmopolitan Optimistic Advocacy(morality). So law which prohibits violations of the incentive to cooperate in the production of land-holding, commons, capital formation, and reproduction is very different from the moral advocacy which advocates the concentration of capital and preserves parasitism. This is why Law is the means of constructing a negative philosophy under aristocracy, and why Moral argument is the means of constructing a positive advocacy of preferred behavior (musts) dictated by gods. Evolutionary Strategies Aristocratic ethics are an evolutionary strategy for land-holding, farmers, craftsmen and warriors mutually dependent upon one another for defense of the land in the absence of a standing army. Cosmopolitan ethics are an evolutionary strategy for a minority of migratory traders (who can move on without paying the cost of retaliation), and who favor exchange and cunning rather than honesty and production. The even less ethically constrained version of cosmopolitan ethics is that of gypsies, that practice theft, charlatanry, prostitution and suppress internal attempts to engage in production and trade instead of the group strategy of parasitism. The even less ethically constrained version is that of desert and steppe raiders (bandits) that engage in pastoralism for subsistence, and raiding for wealth. So the question is, how is it POSSIBLE to construct an anarcho-capitalist (stateless) social order without Aristocratic ethics, embodied in rule of law, using a common organic law, under strict construction, under universal standing, and a universal militia? It isn’t. That’s why it hasn’t been. Truth. Trust. Commons. Law. Science. Welcome to Aristocracy. The only Anarcho Capitalism Possible. The only liberty possible. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia) PS: See why western libertarians are morally blind: Moral Blindness: URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/n4qL7 Libertarian Moral Blindness: URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/AE9oE

  • The Rothbardian Fallacy of Race

    –“race is a lousy proxy for violence”– [T]his is empirically false in every walk of life. The reason being that the different tribes within each race have been asymmetrically successful in genetic pacification, with westerners the most successful, followed by the Japanese and Chinese. So empirically race IS an empirical signal of criminality. (Hence “The Talk”.)

    In criminality – roughly speaking impulsivity and aggression and IQ determine potential criminality, although with increases in IQ, the impulsive and the aggressive merely change tactics from physical, to deceitful, to conspiratorial. In the market for goods and services all people are the color of money – although different populations are of higher risk and cost than others because of genetic pacification. In politics people act as competing and hostile blocks each seeking higher status and privilege. This is a universally demonstrable practice since status signaling and self perception of status is the innate accounting system of mankind. So in the market for goods and services, it is irrational to treat an individual by the properties of his class or race , and conversely it is rational in politics and social science to treat a class or race by the properties of its individuals. Because individuals act as blocks in politics. That’s the domain of politics. Just as individuals act as individuals in the market. That is the domain of the market. Rothbardian Libertarianism is an excuse for taking discounts, just as socialism is an excuse for involuntary transfer and dysgenic reproduction. Just as neo-conservatism is an excuse for forcing costs of expansion and conquest upon others. There are no free rides. The only liberty possible is constructed by reciprocal insurance against parasitism by the promise of organized violence to suppress it, thereby forcing all humans into the market for production distribution and trade, and forcing all humans to save for their unproductive years. **Liberty: Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. Every man a warrior. This is the only know means of constructing liberty.** NO MORE LIES. THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine