Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • A set of ‘principles’ are not a ‘model’ they are an ambition in competition with

    A set of ‘principles’ are not a ‘model’ they are an ambition in competition with reality. Your philosophy fails as did all libertarian and anarchist: The philosophy of the homogenous genetically european polity does not scale, cannot scale, and therefore will not scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 14:18:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197157158137352195

    Reply addressees: @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196839626998202368

    IN REPLY TO:

    @StefanMolyneux

    I oppose making light of the Holocaust.

    I oppose arguments for ethnic cleansing.

    I oppose support for Nazism, fascism and communism.

    I oppose ALL aggression and violence, esp against kids.

    I stand for free speech, free will, private property and the non-aggression principle.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196839626998202368

  • Norms

    Manners Ethics Morals Traditions Holidays

    The Problem of Habituation (state, monopoly) vs Reason (spectrum, markets)

    MORALITY DOESN’T SCALE. The reason we need a Sun Tzu a Machiavelli, and a Doolittle, is because we are civilized and moral people and do not grasp the limit beyond which the immoral is necessary for group success. Conversely, the reason for Jewish and Muslim success in undermining, weakening, conquest, destruction by consumption, and failure of creating a civilization of their own as a growing, going concern, is their immorality. In other words. Law may be a moral discipline, but war by genetic, informational, financial, economic, and military means is not a moral discipline. You cannot simply, like a pet, learn habits, without reason. Because other people do not learn moral habits. They learn immoral habits and call them ‘good’. We live in an era of SCALE. The world, the universe, the very large and the very small. Our minds evolved to habituate almost everything and reason only when necessary. But we live in an era where reason is always necessary. ANd this is why democracy fails. Not enough of us have knowledge. Not enough skill, and far too few of us reason, and fewer still who reason across time. Most of us are still semi-domesticated, well trained animals. That does not mean that like the herd we must tolerate being led to slaughter.  

    Absolute Morality?

    Morality is as absolute as mathematics. Everything else is not morality but competitive strategy: contractual variations upon objective morality. Just as all law is as absolute as mathematics but all legislation contractual variation (or command). Cooperation evolved after individual survival. For cooperation to be rational it must be mutually beneficial. For it to be mutually beneficial it must be (in the aggregate) non-parasitic.  We raise our children, demonstrate kin selection with kin, and we cooperate with non-kin, and we compete with those with whom we do not cooperate. The conflation of morality with strategy and law with command is a long-standing problem in rational philosophy. The Natural Law and Morality are identical but Group Strategy and Group Contract are merely utilitarian. Morality is absolute. Norms are not necessarily moral. Norms are merely tactics. Legislation, Regulation is not necessarily (and rarely) lawful (under Natural Law). As such, we can measure whether some cultures are more moral than others, by measuring the degree of suppression of parasitism (free-riding) that is suppressed by law and norm. So not only is morality absolute, but the relative moral content of different cultures is absolute. That this difference determines economic velocity, and economic velocity affords us greater morality (if we choose it) is the more interesting area of inquiry.

  • Norms

    Manners Ethics Morals Traditions Holidays

    The Problem of Habituation (state, monopoly) vs Reason (spectrum, markets)

    MORALITY DOESN’T SCALE. The reason we need a Sun Tzu a Machiavelli, and a Doolittle, is because we are civilized and moral people and do not grasp the limit beyond which the immoral is necessary for group success. Conversely, the reason for Jewish and Muslim success in undermining, weakening, conquest, destruction by consumption, and failure of creating a civilization of their own as a growing, going concern, is their immorality. In other words. Law may be a moral discipline, but war by genetic, informational, financial, economic, and military means is not a moral discipline. You cannot simply, like a pet, learn habits, without reason. Because other people do not learn moral habits. They learn immoral habits and call them ‘good’. We live in an era of SCALE. The world, the universe, the very large and the very small. Our minds evolved to habituate almost everything and reason only when necessary. But we live in an era where reason is always necessary. ANd this is why democracy fails. Not enough of us have knowledge. Not enough skill, and far too few of us reason, and fewer still who reason across time. Most of us are still semi-domesticated, well trained animals. That does not mean that like the herd we must tolerate being led to slaughter.  

    Absolute Morality?

    Morality is as absolute as mathematics. Everything else is not morality but competitive strategy: contractual variations upon objective morality. Just as all law is as absolute as mathematics but all legislation contractual variation (or command). Cooperation evolved after individual survival. For cooperation to be rational it must be mutually beneficial. For it to be mutually beneficial it must be (in the aggregate) non-parasitic.  We raise our children, demonstrate kin selection with kin, and we cooperate with non-kin, and we compete with those with whom we do not cooperate. The conflation of morality with strategy and law with command is a long-standing problem in rational philosophy. The Natural Law and Morality are identical but Group Strategy and Group Contract are merely utilitarian. Morality is absolute. Norms are not necessarily moral. Norms are merely tactics. Legislation, Regulation is not necessarily (and rarely) lawful (under Natural Law). As such, we can measure whether some cultures are more moral than others, by measuring the degree of suppression of parasitism (free-riding) that is suppressed by law and norm. So not only is morality absolute, but the relative moral content of different cultures is absolute. That this difference determines economic velocity, and economic velocity affords us greater morality (if we choose it) is the more interesting area of inquiry.

  • ELECTIVE MONARCHY VS HERIDITARY MONARCHY by Daniel Gurpide A hereditary monarchy

    ELECTIVE MONARCHY VS HERIDITARY MONARCHY
    by Daniel Gurpide

    A hereditary monarchy lends a certain sense of stability to a democratic people, the sense of a family. That is not so under the… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=509570412973187&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-18 15:14:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196446497098911744

  • I’ve gone through the military families and it’s possible to find one. It’s almo

    I’ve gone through the military families and it’s possible to find one. It’s almost impossible to substitute the european monarchic tradition in a family. Just as entrepreneurs come from entrepreneurial families, monarchs come from monarchic families for good reasons:being raised.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-17 15:30:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196088294557261824

    Reply addressees: @QuestionMThings

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196077087297277953

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196077087297277953

  • Marriage and Family – Production of Generations

    On Marriage

    How Do Family Structures Vary?

    The family structure determines:

    • the amount of inbreeding
    • the inheritance system
    • the private property rights that originate with the inheritance system
    • the degree of trust extended to non-family members, with inbreeding producing
    • lower overall trust, and outbreeding higher trust.
    • the degree of authority necessary to maintain order (prevent violence in retaliation for unethical and immoral actions.)
    • the level of corruption demonstrated by members of the government since they are merely members of society in a position to abuse authority.
    • the mobility of labor, since the larger the family structure the harder it is to move it to capital.
    • the economic velocity of the polity (wealth).

    Conversely, increases in family size determine:

    • The degree of alienation and loneliness, since family members treat you almost always better than others will.
    • The stress of raising children, since sharing child-rearing across generations is so much easier.
    • The redistribution family members provide each other with.
    • The insurance from the vagaries of the economy and life
    • The demand for the state to provide all of the above in the absence of the family that the state has destroyed in pursuit of economic velocity.

    List of Family Structures

    Small Homogeneous High Trust Privileged Societies Can Tolerate Highly Redistributive Governments

    State Financed Single Parent Family – Medium-term and short term pairings with or without a marriage ceremony that produces offspring, whereupon the parents cease cohabitation, and state redistribution finances directly or indirectly the support of the mother’s household.High Trust Societies with Higher Economic Velocity, Can Tolerate Libertarian Governments

    Absolute Nuclear Family – The “absolute nuclear” family is liberal and non-egalitarian (that is, indifferent to equality). Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is freely distributed by will.

    Nuclear Family, Egalitarian Nuclear – The “egalitarian nuclear” family is liberal and egalitarian. Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is equally distributed, implying at least a vestigial necessary link between parents and children throughout their lives.Medium Trust Marginal Societies with Medium Economic Velocity – Require Social Democratic Governments

    Extended Family, Stem Family, Authoritarian Family – The “stem” family is authoritarian and inegalitarian. Several generations may live under one roof, notably the first-born, who will inherit the entirety of property and family headship (and thus perpetuate the family line). Other children typically leave the home to get married or become priests/soldiers.

    A family that extends beyond the immediate family, consisting of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all living nearby or in the same household. The stem family is sometimes associated with inegalitarian inheritance practices, as in Japan and Korea, but the term has also been used in some contexts to describe a family type where parents live with a married child and his or her spouse and children, but the transfer of land and moveable property is more or less egalitarian. In these cases, the child who cares for the parents usually receives the house in addition to his or her own share of land and moveable property.Low Trust, Poor Societies with Low Economic Velocity – Require Authoritarian Governments

    Traditional Family, Communitarian Family – The “communitarian” family is authoritarian and equal. Several generations live under the same roof until the eldest die and the inheritance is divided equally.

    Hetaeristic Monogamy – Monogamy with frequent extra marriage sexual relations. Pairing Family, Serial Marriage – Medium-term pairing of individuals either in patrilineal or matrilineal property systems.

    Consanguine Family – three generations of interrelated individuals live together (pre-polynesian) without any prohibition on relations. Property is irrelevant in this system.

    Marriage is a Corporation

    I won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but under Propertarian analysis, marriage is a name for a corporation for the purposes of:

    (a) reciprocal insurance of participant; and in modernity; (b) power of attorney over one another, in the case of the incapacity of the other; (c) a political requirement that one eschew free-riding in one’s reproduction by requiring self-supporting production; (d) a political incentive for males, who would otherwise act without incentive to preserve order (production); and (e) a legal incentive to prevent violence over mates by treating the corporation of marriage as property that cannot be infringed upon (or rather, justifying violence if it is imposed upon.); (f) and finally, a political strategy that forces the resolution of differences in reproductive strategy into the family, and conversely, to insulate politics from the differences in reproductive strategy between the genders. Now, just so we are clear on whose interests are affected by these rules, (c) is meant to control female instinct to bear children of her choice, but to place burden of them on the tribe. (d) is meant to domesticate males so that they do not overthrow the existing order. (e) is largely to constrain females from destroying (a,b,c,d). So in this light, the institution of marriage is in large part necessary for the prevention of free riding that is natural for all females, and out of that prevention we obtain property rights, and peace. Various societies construct and enforce these properties of the corporation. No societies do NOT suppress female parasitism, since societies that do not suppress female parasitism cannot survive competition with those that do. So while we tend to think in terms of suppressing the more visible threat of male violence, the central problem of producing prosperity is not male aggressiveness, but female reproductive free riding. This turns the criticism of demonic males on its head, such that short term male aggression and violence and long term female parasitism and gossip, are resolved in an equilibrium we call ‘marriage’. However, once such an institution such as Marriage{a,b,c,d,e,f} exists, it is somewhat difficult to deny others other than male and female pairings, from access to the formation of their own corporations. My argument is that they are not equal to the purpose of marriage in all dimensions, but certainly: reciprocal insurance, common property, and power of attorney are rights we cannot deny people. In fact, I cannot imagine why we cannot create many such private institutions with however many members we desire. That seems to be something we can all benefit from – and which weakens the state, and state-corporatist power over us. So what is important, and what I think is the proper subject for debate, is not this thing we call marriage that we argue in terms of traditional ceremonies and our own traditional intuitions, but instead, how to we grant (a) and (b) including community property if so desired, while preserving (c),(d),(e) and (f) – the prevention of these corporations from exercising political power with which to extract rents (parasitism), or by which they can export costs(parasitism). Those of us who seek individualism in politics are wrong of course. We must construct law individually since only individuals can act, and be punished for action; but policy must be constructed familially, because the purpose of policy by any intertemporal judgement is familial: reproductive. So conservatives are correct in their attempt to preserve familialism in government. That is because the central problem of any society is the perpetuation of generations. So as long as any corporation is eugenic (meritocratic), and therefore possesses equal interests in government, then there is no problem with participatory government except that of class – and we can solve class conflict with houses of government established by property under one’s control. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN It means that we should articulate the properties of marriage as I have stated above, and state those which we grant and require of any corporation: we will defend these rights, as long as you hold to these other obligations. If those are established, then by all means, one can form a private corporation for the purpose of mutual insurance at a minimum. And for the purpose of reproduction if possible. As long as one does not export one’s differences into the political sphere by engaging in rents (redistribution) or externalities (exporting of costs). Under this analysis I see no reason to do other than encourage the greatest number of these alliances (corporations) regardless of constituency, regardless of gender, as a means of decreasing individualism and therefore incompatibility, in the production of policy. All families have similar interests. All individuals have dissimilar interests. A family is the smallest possible tribe we can form: a man and a woman. And a jury (government) that treats all families equally save for differences in wealth is very different from a management organization (government) that attempts to calculate the impossible diversity of interests of individuals, when those interests are largely parasitic. CLOSING This may be a bit hard to digest, especially in short form. However, what I am advocating is that we have as many marriages as possible, and that we encourage as many forms of marriage as possible, as long as such a grant of property rights to one another is also met with obligations to one another: that we do not use government to compensate for our productive differences. My view of Aristocracy takes the same approach to mankind: all tribes are the same, and we can cooperate as long as we do not engage in parasitism. If we do this, reproductive rates will solve our problems and man will evolve into a fairly equal creature regardless of race and gender.

  • Marriage and Family – Production of Generations

    On Marriage

    How Do Family Structures Vary?

    The family structure determines:

    • the amount of inbreeding
    • the inheritance system
    • the private property rights that originate with the inheritance system
    • the degree of trust extended to non-family members, with inbreeding producing
    • lower overall trust, and outbreeding higher trust.
    • the degree of authority necessary to maintain order (prevent violence in retaliation for unethical and immoral actions.)
    • the level of corruption demonstrated by members of the government since they are merely members of society in a position to abuse authority.
    • the mobility of labor, since the larger the family structure the harder it is to move it to capital.
    • the economic velocity of the polity (wealth).

    Conversely, increases in family size determine:

    • The degree of alienation and loneliness, since family members treat you almost always better than others will.
    • The stress of raising children, since sharing child-rearing across generations is so much easier.
    • The redistribution family members provide each other with.
    • The insurance from the vagaries of the economy and life
    • The demand for the state to provide all of the above in the absence of the family that the state has destroyed in pursuit of economic velocity.

    List of Family Structures

    Small Homogeneous High Trust Privileged Societies Can Tolerate Highly Redistributive Governments

    State Financed Single Parent Family – Medium-term and short term pairings with or without a marriage ceremony that produces offspring, whereupon the parents cease cohabitation, and state redistribution finances directly or indirectly the support of the mother’s household.High Trust Societies with Higher Economic Velocity, Can Tolerate Libertarian Governments

    Absolute Nuclear Family – The “absolute nuclear” family is liberal and non-egalitarian (that is, indifferent to equality). Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is freely distributed by will.

    Nuclear Family, Egalitarian Nuclear – The “egalitarian nuclear” family is liberal and egalitarian. Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is equally distributed, implying at least a vestigial necessary link between parents and children throughout their lives.Medium Trust Marginal Societies with Medium Economic Velocity – Require Social Democratic Governments

    Extended Family, Stem Family, Authoritarian Family – The “stem” family is authoritarian and inegalitarian. Several generations may live under one roof, notably the first-born, who will inherit the entirety of property and family headship (and thus perpetuate the family line). Other children typically leave the home to get married or become priests/soldiers.

    A family that extends beyond the immediate family, consisting of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all living nearby or in the same household. The stem family is sometimes associated with inegalitarian inheritance practices, as in Japan and Korea, but the term has also been used in some contexts to describe a family type where parents live with a married child and his or her spouse and children, but the transfer of land and moveable property is more or less egalitarian. In these cases, the child who cares for the parents usually receives the house in addition to his or her own share of land and moveable property.Low Trust, Poor Societies with Low Economic Velocity – Require Authoritarian Governments

    Traditional Family, Communitarian Family – The “communitarian” family is authoritarian and equal. Several generations live under the same roof until the eldest die and the inheritance is divided equally.

    Hetaeristic Monogamy – Monogamy with frequent extra marriage sexual relations. Pairing Family, Serial Marriage – Medium-term pairing of individuals either in patrilineal or matrilineal property systems.

    Consanguine Family – three generations of interrelated individuals live together (pre-polynesian) without any prohibition on relations. Property is irrelevant in this system.

    Marriage is a Corporation

    I won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but under Propertarian analysis, marriage is a name for a corporation for the purposes of:

    (a) reciprocal insurance of participant; and in modernity; (b) power of attorney over one another, in the case of the incapacity of the other; (c) a political requirement that one eschew free-riding in one’s reproduction by requiring self-supporting production; (d) a political incentive for males, who would otherwise act without incentive to preserve order (production); and (e) a legal incentive to prevent violence over mates by treating the corporation of marriage as property that cannot be infringed upon (or rather, justifying violence if it is imposed upon.); (f) and finally, a political strategy that forces the resolution of differences in reproductive strategy into the family, and conversely, to insulate politics from the differences in reproductive strategy between the genders. Now, just so we are clear on whose interests are affected by these rules, (c) is meant to control female instinct to bear children of her choice, but to place burden of them on the tribe. (d) is meant to domesticate males so that they do not overthrow the existing order. (e) is largely to constrain females from destroying (a,b,c,d). So in this light, the institution of marriage is in large part necessary for the prevention of free riding that is natural for all females, and out of that prevention we obtain property rights, and peace. Various societies construct and enforce these properties of the corporation. No societies do NOT suppress female parasitism, since societies that do not suppress female parasitism cannot survive competition with those that do. So while we tend to think in terms of suppressing the more visible threat of male violence, the central problem of producing prosperity is not male aggressiveness, but female reproductive free riding. This turns the criticism of demonic males on its head, such that short term male aggression and violence and long term female parasitism and gossip, are resolved in an equilibrium we call ‘marriage’. However, once such an institution such as Marriage{a,b,c,d,e,f} exists, it is somewhat difficult to deny others other than male and female pairings, from access to the formation of their own corporations. My argument is that they are not equal to the purpose of marriage in all dimensions, but certainly: reciprocal insurance, common property, and power of attorney are rights we cannot deny people. In fact, I cannot imagine why we cannot create many such private institutions with however many members we desire. That seems to be something we can all benefit from – and which weakens the state, and state-corporatist power over us. So what is important, and what I think is the proper subject for debate, is not this thing we call marriage that we argue in terms of traditional ceremonies and our own traditional intuitions, but instead, how to we grant (a) and (b) including community property if so desired, while preserving (c),(d),(e) and (f) – the prevention of these corporations from exercising political power with which to extract rents (parasitism), or by which they can export costs(parasitism). Those of us who seek individualism in politics are wrong of course. We must construct law individually since only individuals can act, and be punished for action; but policy must be constructed familially, because the purpose of policy by any intertemporal judgement is familial: reproductive. So conservatives are correct in their attempt to preserve familialism in government. That is because the central problem of any society is the perpetuation of generations. So as long as any corporation is eugenic (meritocratic), and therefore possesses equal interests in government, then there is no problem with participatory government except that of class – and we can solve class conflict with houses of government established by property under one’s control. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN It means that we should articulate the properties of marriage as I have stated above, and state those which we grant and require of any corporation: we will defend these rights, as long as you hold to these other obligations. If those are established, then by all means, one can form a private corporation for the purpose of mutual insurance at a minimum. And for the purpose of reproduction if possible. As long as one does not export one’s differences into the political sphere by engaging in rents (redistribution) or externalities (exporting of costs). Under this analysis I see no reason to do other than encourage the greatest number of these alliances (corporations) regardless of constituency, regardless of gender, as a means of decreasing individualism and therefore incompatibility, in the production of policy. All families have similar interests. All individuals have dissimilar interests. A family is the smallest possible tribe we can form: a man and a woman. And a jury (government) that treats all families equally save for differences in wealth is very different from a management organization (government) that attempts to calculate the impossible diversity of interests of individuals, when those interests are largely parasitic. CLOSING This may be a bit hard to digest, especially in short form. However, what I am advocating is that we have as many marriages as possible, and that we encourage as many forms of marriage as possible, as long as such a grant of property rights to one another is also met with obligations to one another: that we do not use government to compensate for our productive differences. My view of Aristocracy takes the same approach to mankind: all tribes are the same, and we can cooperate as long as we do not engage in parasitism. If we do this, reproductive rates will solve our problems and man will evolve into a fairly equal creature regardless of race and gender.

  • Appendix – Three Generations to Our Success

    THREE GENERATIONS: OUR SUCCESS

    THE SUCCESS OF THE LIBERTARIAN RESEARCH PROGRAM

    Rothbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is to resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community. The Mises Institute group (Lew Rockwell) then took this ideology and used the internet to propagate that ideology the way the Marxists used inexpensive pamphlets, newspapers, books and universities. But, Rothbard’s libertarianism is an ideology (religion) not politics (formal institutions of cooperation).othbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community. That Rothbard used the rebellious ethics of the Jewish ghetto rather than the high trust ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian society (protestant Christianity) is just because it was familiar to him. Hoppe by contrast, repaired many Rothbard’s errors, but in doing so left us with not necessarily utopian, but certainly a system of ethics dependent upon the equality of ethical and moral action, under the nation-states with absolute nuclear families, and therefore fully homogenized property rights. This system cannot tolerate diversity. However, by adding monarchies, and strict property rights, Hoppe’s argument is such that it is possible to have DIVERSE COMMUNITIES each of which uses its own norms and status signals, but which trades and exchanges according to private property rights. And this is possible because, under monarchy and property rights, individuals are denied access to coercive political power. So, in Hoppeian terms, groups may continue to act as extended families. What I have tried to do is empirically demonstrate that both genetics of gender and family structure (the structure of reproduction) determine moral codes. And that the Absolute Nuclear Family is the ultimate compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. But that the evolution of democracy combined with feminism, and the destruction of the nuclear family by feminists in alliance with socialists, has led to a circumstance where women can now ‘marry the state’ for financial support and obtain support from males without the exchange of care and sex. This is not unnatural. Humans are naturally serially monogamous and women in history seize both the best male fertility and the best male support in exchange for sex, that they can – but not from the same person, from many men. Property is not natural. It allowed men to control reproduction, and women resent this because it places a greater burden on them to make a choice of husband, and they are stuck with what they get. And they can no longer control group behavior by trading sex and affection. It is this choice, plus the need to create a home and property to support a family that created the compromise that was the protestant ANF. For this reason, both Rothbard and Hoppe make the mistake that was made by classical liberals: once included in the voting and work pool, women have sought to restore control over their reproduction and independence from the compromise with males. If you want to understand the drive to socialism, there are two axes of cause. This is the first, the second is that small homogenous groups that are out-bred are in fact, family members and as such socialism (in the nordic model) makes sense. There is no ‘belief’ system here. it is all justificationary language. The fact is that the structure of production at any given time can be optimized by a particular structure of reproduction (the family). And that freedom (liberty) is only possible in small, homogenous, out-bred, groups formally forbidden to intermarry as a means of obtaining insurance, and instead, forced to outbreed, and therefore seek insurance from ‘the tribe’ with the state as the insurance broker. This situation cannot change, because it is against the reproductive interests of humans to change. It is suicide to change. Small homogenous outbred families are in fact, highly redistributive, healthy organizations that eliminate near proximity competition and force all competition into the market for goods and services – there is no outlet left. NONE. That is why it works. The ANF, is the genetic institution that creates a compromise. It is, in fact, SOCIALISM. (Let that sink in a bit and it will alter your world.) It explains the diversity and immutability of moral codes, and therefore the political expression of morality informal institutions, as relationships between the structure of production and the structure of the family; And it is illogical to expect humans to act otherwise – against their reproductive and experiential interests. It is NOT PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL to ask people to act against their interests. SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN THREE GENERATIONS ACROSS THREE CIVILIZATIONS: ROTHBARD-Jewish, HOPPE-German, AND DOOLITTLE-Anglo 1) Rothbard (tribal religion of non-landholders) 2) Hoppe (private nation-state of landholders) 3) Doolittle (private federation of states of landholders) With these three models, we complete libertarianism in all its possible forms. This is the corpus of solutions from the most ideological and religious (Rothbard) to the most practical and moral (Hoppe) to the ratio-scientific (Doolittle). All of which are founded on property rights – although I have used DESCRIPTIVE property rights across ALL family structures where Hoppe and Rothbard have used PRESCRIPTIVE property rights and ASSUMED the nuclear family as the unit of reproduction. (That’s what I’m up to. ‘Completing’ libertarianism by restoring it to its european origins as rule of law of sovereign men: sovereignty. ) UTOPIAN? Rothbard’s fantasy is clearly utopian. It hasn’t worked very well for the Jews, that’s for sure. Except for the postwar period, the entire world has been killing them by the hundreds, thousands and millions for millennia. Comparisons to India’s Gypsies is pretty common, except that gypsies are anti-intellectual at the bottom and Jews hyper-intellectual at the top. But, what Rothbard DID, was reduce all rights to property rights, and give us the answer to human cooperation in doing so. Hoppe’s solution is ABSOLUTE GENIUS and so deeply engrained in political discourse by now that everyone’s forgotten it’s his idea already. While Argumentation is an analogy, not a cause, (and so I’m critical of it), he used it to deduce the solution to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy and the state by reducing the state to a contract on property rights, and using insurance companies, which is the States’ actual function, to form a competitive bureaucracy. His solution is not empirically derived, it is rationally derived, and he still makes (unfortunately) moral arguments in the Rothbardian model, but in fact, he DID SOLVE THE PROBLEM that has been the ‘problem of politics’ for 5000 years. And as far as I know, no other thinker has done this – based on argumentation or not. I won’t go into why argumentation worked despite the fact that it’s a bit silly. That would take me too long. But it allowed Hoppe to deduce the correct answers in almost all cases. IN particular, to immigration. Which again, the migratory, non-property owning, progressive Jewish wing of libertarians find understandably uncomfortable. END RESULT : A RESEARCH PROGRAM There is nothing utopian about a RESEARCH PROGRAM, which is what I see Hoppe, Rothbard, and Hayek pursuing. Hayek did not have information theory. Hoppe did not have the empirical evidence we have today. Rothbard either didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand his moral code’s implications. Mises got Praxeology backward. But it was all there. It was all there. We just needed a little more time. And as far as I can tell it is the most valuable political research program since the enlightenment and not matched in creativity since Athens. Calculation is necessary. Reproduction is necessary. Cooperation is necessary. Everything else is preference.

  • Appendix – Three Generations to Our Success

    THREE GENERATIONS: OUR SUCCESS

    THE SUCCESS OF THE LIBERTARIAN RESEARCH PROGRAM

    Rothbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is to resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community. The Mises Institute group (Lew Rockwell) then took this ideology and used the internet to propagate that ideology the way the Marxists used inexpensive pamphlets, newspapers, books and universities. But, Rothbard’s libertarianism is an ideology (religion) not politics (formal institutions of cooperation).othbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community. That Rothbard used the rebellious ethics of the Jewish ghetto rather than the high trust ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian society (protestant Christianity) is just because it was familiar to him. Hoppe by contrast, repaired many Rothbard’s errors, but in doing so left us with not necessarily utopian, but certainly a system of ethics dependent upon the equality of ethical and moral action, under the nation-states with absolute nuclear families, and therefore fully homogenized property rights. This system cannot tolerate diversity. However, by adding monarchies, and strict property rights, Hoppe’s argument is such that it is possible to have DIVERSE COMMUNITIES each of which uses its own norms and status signals, but which trades and exchanges according to private property rights. And this is possible because, under monarchy and property rights, individuals are denied access to coercive political power. So, in Hoppeian terms, groups may continue to act as extended families. What I have tried to do is empirically demonstrate that both genetics of gender and family structure (the structure of reproduction) determine moral codes. And that the Absolute Nuclear Family is the ultimate compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. But that the evolution of democracy combined with feminism, and the destruction of the nuclear family by feminists in alliance with socialists, has led to a circumstance where women can now ‘marry the state’ for financial support and obtain support from males without the exchange of care and sex. This is not unnatural. Humans are naturally serially monogamous and women in history seize both the best male fertility and the best male support in exchange for sex, that they can – but not from the same person, from many men. Property is not natural. It allowed men to control reproduction, and women resent this because it places a greater burden on them to make a choice of husband, and they are stuck with what they get. And they can no longer control group behavior by trading sex and affection. It is this choice, plus the need to create a home and property to support a family that created the compromise that was the protestant ANF. For this reason, both Rothbard and Hoppe make the mistake that was made by classical liberals: once included in the voting and work pool, women have sought to restore control over their reproduction and independence from the compromise with males. If you want to understand the drive to socialism, there are two axes of cause. This is the first, the second is that small homogenous groups that are out-bred are in fact, family members and as such socialism (in the nordic model) makes sense. There is no ‘belief’ system here. it is all justificationary language. The fact is that the structure of production at any given time can be optimized by a particular structure of reproduction (the family). And that freedom (liberty) is only possible in small, homogenous, out-bred, groups formally forbidden to intermarry as a means of obtaining insurance, and instead, forced to outbreed, and therefore seek insurance from ‘the tribe’ with the state as the insurance broker. This situation cannot change, because it is against the reproductive interests of humans to change. It is suicide to change. Small homogenous outbred families are in fact, highly redistributive, healthy organizations that eliminate near proximity competition and force all competition into the market for goods and services – there is no outlet left. NONE. That is why it works. The ANF, is the genetic institution that creates a compromise. It is, in fact, SOCIALISM. (Let that sink in a bit and it will alter your world.) It explains the diversity and immutability of moral codes, and therefore the political expression of morality informal institutions, as relationships between the structure of production and the structure of the family; And it is illogical to expect humans to act otherwise – against their reproductive and experiential interests. It is NOT PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL to ask people to act against their interests. SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN THREE GENERATIONS ACROSS THREE CIVILIZATIONS: ROTHBARD-Jewish, HOPPE-German, AND DOOLITTLE-Anglo 1) Rothbard (tribal religion of non-landholders) 2) Hoppe (private nation-state of landholders) 3) Doolittle (private federation of states of landholders) With these three models, we complete libertarianism in all its possible forms. This is the corpus of solutions from the most ideological and religious (Rothbard) to the most practical and moral (Hoppe) to the ratio-scientific (Doolittle). All of which are founded on property rights – although I have used DESCRIPTIVE property rights across ALL family structures where Hoppe and Rothbard have used PRESCRIPTIVE property rights and ASSUMED the nuclear family as the unit of reproduction. (That’s what I’m up to. ‘Completing’ libertarianism by restoring it to its european origins as rule of law of sovereign men: sovereignty. ) UTOPIAN? Rothbard’s fantasy is clearly utopian. It hasn’t worked very well for the Jews, that’s for sure. Except for the postwar period, the entire world has been killing them by the hundreds, thousands and millions for millennia. Comparisons to India’s Gypsies is pretty common, except that gypsies are anti-intellectual at the bottom and Jews hyper-intellectual at the top. But, what Rothbard DID, was reduce all rights to property rights, and give us the answer to human cooperation in doing so. Hoppe’s solution is ABSOLUTE GENIUS and so deeply engrained in political discourse by now that everyone’s forgotten it’s his idea already. While Argumentation is an analogy, not a cause, (and so I’m critical of it), he used it to deduce the solution to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy and the state by reducing the state to a contract on property rights, and using insurance companies, which is the States’ actual function, to form a competitive bureaucracy. His solution is not empirically derived, it is rationally derived, and he still makes (unfortunately) moral arguments in the Rothbardian model, but in fact, he DID SOLVE THE PROBLEM that has been the ‘problem of politics’ for 5000 years. And as far as I know, no other thinker has done this – based on argumentation or not. I won’t go into why argumentation worked despite the fact that it’s a bit silly. That would take me too long. But it allowed Hoppe to deduce the correct answers in almost all cases. IN particular, to immigration. Which again, the migratory, non-property owning, progressive Jewish wing of libertarians find understandably uncomfortable. END RESULT : A RESEARCH PROGRAM There is nothing utopian about a RESEARCH PROGRAM, which is what I see Hoppe, Rothbard, and Hayek pursuing. Hayek did not have information theory. Hoppe did not have the empirical evidence we have today. Rothbard either didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand his moral code’s implications. Mises got Praxeology backward. But it was all there. It was all there. We just needed a little more time. And as far as I can tell it is the most valuable political research program since the enlightenment and not matched in creativity since Athens. Calculation is necessary. Reproduction is necessary. Cooperation is necessary. Everything else is preference.

  • Sorry but I am not wrong on Monarchy. I don’t make errors. Read Hoppe Monarchy i

    Sorry but I am not wrong on Monarchy.
    I don’t make errors.
    Read Hoppe

    Monarchy is the last line of defense against the failure of institutions to protect the people from usurpation by… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=507393189857576&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-15 16:48:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1195383069089370112