Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • How Would Our Lives Change Under Truthfulness?

    (note that this is a Socratic Dialog and Edward is playing devil’s advocate in order to force me to articulate the ideas. I dont want to miscast his intentions. 🙂 ) [Q]UESTION: How would our lives change if pseudoscience were prohibited from the commons?

    Give the government the power to define and prohibit pseudoscience. Rushton would have been executed for sure. Sounds like the high road to tyranny.—Edward Fürst

    Why would we give the government such power? Defense of the informational commons, like that of water, air, and land, is a property right like any other. And as a property right, It’s a matter for judges, not government.

    Are judges not government functionaries? – Edward Fürst

    Are they? Is it necessary that they be? Did they evolve as such? Operationally, judges (conflict resolution over property) are necessary and government (production of commons) is preferential. Lets go through the difference between non-discretionary organizations, and preferential. NECESSARY FUNCTIONS (RULE)

            UTILITARIAN FUNCTIONS (PRODUCTION) The Voluntary Organization of Production. Meaning: – Industry, Entrepreneurship, (free association) – Finance, Banking, (hypothesis) – Craftsmanship, Distribution, Trade (theory) – and Consumption. (law) The Voluntary Organization of Reproduction. – Meaning “Family” (reproductive provision). PREFERENTIAL FUNCTIONS (GOVERNMENT) Academy (education production), Government (commons production), Hospital (healthcare production) Church(insurance provision),

            Let me get this straight: Rothbard and Mises promoted pseudoscience. Authors of pseudoscience should be punished and suppressed. Therefore, if you had your druthers, Rothbard and Mises should have been punished and suppressed for their writing? And that is your idea of liberty? —Edward Fürst

            As to the past, We didn’t know. Now we know. As to the present, there exists a general principle of rule of law: it cannot be retroactively applied. As to the future lets work through it… So let me ask the question again, if we incrementally suppress pseudoscience in the commons, and we know the full scientific method, then what would be the consequences. My idea of liberty is non-imposition of costs. 🙂

            Ok. You say now “we” know. As far as i’m concerned, “we” don’t know anything but that you along with all the Keynesians, monetarists, socialists, communists, and fascists disagree with Mises/Rothbard. So far you have not won me to your side, but i am still gradually reading through your work. Regardless, given your premises that you have delivered the ultimate gospel of True Science (IE your synthesis of Northern European enlightenments) “we know” now that Mises and Rothbard, how should i be “suppressed” and “punished” for continuing to espouse their ideology? — Edward Fürst

            Are you trying to profit from your espousal?

            Why sure! Spreading the ideas of what i consider to be liberty is of great profit to me. Maybe im contributing to real change and maybe i’m just inflating my ego. Regardless, it feels good and is therefore profitable. But enough with the rat-faced, demonic, jewish semantics. Let’s say i’m Tom Woods for instance: i make my living publishing books In the Rothbardian tradition. What is my punishment? — Edward Fürst

            1) well that is not the definition of profit, it’s the definition of pleasure. Profiting would require that you sell something, and calculate the difference between costs of inputs and rewards from outputs. Analogies are not truths, they are merely meaningful. 2) Do you think anyone would object to your utterances as falsehoods or deceits, under which involuntary transfer would be conducted? 3) Do you think that what you’re arguing can pass the tests of categorical consistency(non-conflation), internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, morality (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of costs upon that which people have obtained by the same means), Full Accounting, Limits, and Parsimony? 4) If not, then could you state why they fail these tests of truthfulness and morality, or why you do not know whether they do or now? In other words could you include a warning of incompleteness? If one cannot perform this due diligence such that he can warranty his actions against harm, then one can for forced to pay restitution. And informational restitution like pollution of air, land, and water is costly – most often a large multiple of the original discount achieved by the pollution. Lastly, rejection of this demand is how you tell the difference between a LIBERTINE (imposer of costs) and a LIBERTARIAN (non-imposer of costs). THE HIGH COST OF TRUTHFULNESS The Costs of Truth http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/the-costs-of-truth/ The Truth is Expensive http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/07/truth-is-expensive-but-the-returns-warrant-it-and-morality-demands-it/ Lies and Opportunity Costs http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/lies-damned-lies-and-opportunity-costs/ The Cost of Teaching Truth http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/the-cost-of-teaching-truth/ Truth Avoiders are Taking Discounts http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/those-who-fear-truth-are-taking-discounts/ Truth is Enough http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/22/the-high-cost-of-truthfulness-but-truth-is-enough/

          • Does The Market Produce Truth Telling?

            [D]oes The Market Produce Truth Telling? Every polity possesses a market order – it must. Very few polities produce truth telling – truth telling is extremely expensive. Its expensive because its an investment in a commons (norm). And that investment is easily open to privatization (cheating). Ergo, groups demonstrate the minimum truth possible necessary to survive rather than the highest trust necessary to complete. Cheating is demonstration of a shorter(higher) time preference, and truth telling and longer(lower) time preference. With meritocratic ability (skill talent knowledge) determining the value of common investment(truth telling/production) versus private consumption (cheating/parasitism). Ergo the less genetic pacification (culling of the underclass), and the less pacification of parasitism (rule of law and property), the lower the trust and the greater the parasitism, and the greater the demand for the state. This is compatible with the Nozickian origins of social order (they will emerge out of cooperative necessity). But not with locke,hobbes,rousseu,hume who seem not to have (I could be wrong) identified the equilibrium between pure self interest and cheating and the extraordinary returns on morality and cooperation. Meaning Axelrod is right that the prisonner’s dilemma is the state of nature we must answer. So of all the prior era writers’ imaginings of the state of nature, appear to have been either wrong or insufficient.

          • Does The Market Produce Truth Telling?

            [D]oes The Market Produce Truth Telling? Every polity possesses a market order – it must. Very few polities produce truth telling – truth telling is extremely expensive. Its expensive because its an investment in a commons (norm). And that investment is easily open to privatization (cheating). Ergo, groups demonstrate the minimum truth possible necessary to survive rather than the highest trust necessary to complete. Cheating is demonstration of a shorter(higher) time preference, and truth telling and longer(lower) time preference. With meritocratic ability (skill talent knowledge) determining the value of common investment(truth telling/production) versus private consumption (cheating/parasitism). Ergo the less genetic pacification (culling of the underclass), and the less pacification of parasitism (rule of law and property), the lower the trust and the greater the parasitism, and the greater the demand for the state. This is compatible with the Nozickian origins of social order (they will emerge out of cooperative necessity). But not with locke,hobbes,rousseu,hume who seem not to have (I could be wrong) identified the equilibrium between pure self interest and cheating and the extraordinary returns on morality and cooperation. Meaning Axelrod is right that the prisonner’s dilemma is the state of nature we must answer. So of all the prior era writers’ imaginings of the state of nature, appear to have been either wrong or insufficient.

          • Argumentative Assistance for Students of Debate

            [A]RGUMENTATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR STUDENTS OF DEBATE 1 – “Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. One either has sufficient data to eliminate more parsimonious alternatives, wishful thinking, and error, or one is engaged in justification of a prior, with or without your knowledge and understanding of it.” 2 – “Outliers do not distributions make. The terms Men, Women, Class, Race, and Culture refer to distributions not outliers. Outliers are not evidence of anything except noise.” 3 – “The central objective of political representation is to do no harm, not to find an imaginary perfect candidate, and not to give everyone a chance to rule. Exceptional people are marginally indifferent and learn by doing.”

          • Argumentative Assistance for Students of Debate

            [A]RGUMENTATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR STUDENTS OF DEBATE 1 – “Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. One either has sufficient data to eliminate more parsimonious alternatives, wishful thinking, and error, or one is engaged in justification of a prior, with or without your knowledge and understanding of it.” 2 – “Outliers do not distributions make. The terms Men, Women, Class, Race, and Culture refer to distributions not outliers. Outliers are not evidence of anything except noise.” 3 – “The central objective of political representation is to do no harm, not to find an imaginary perfect candidate, and not to give everyone a chance to rule. Exceptional people are marginally indifferent and learn by doing.”

          • Why is it that brutal honesty is such an effective political weapon in a democra

            Why is it that brutal honesty is such an effective political weapon in a democracy? lol It’s not the honest man. It’s all the liars that created a vacuum by disrespecting voters.

            Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 09:42:00 UTC

          • ARGUMENTATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR STUDENTS OF DEBATE 1 – “Anecdotal evidence is a con

            ARGUMENTATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR STUDENTS OF DEBATE

            1 – “Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. One either has sufficient data to eliminate more parsimonious alternatives, wishful thinking, and error, or one is engaged in justification of a prior, with or without your knowledge and understanding of it.”

            2 – “Outliers do not distributions make. The terms Men, Women, Class, Race, and Culture refer to distributions not outliers. Outliers are not evidence of anything except noise.”

            3 – “The central objective of political representation is to do no harm, not to find an imaginary perfect candidate, and not to give everyone a chance to rule. Exceptional people are marginally indifferent and learn by doing.”

            Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 06:25:00 UTC

          • What is the Difference Between Information and Statement

            [I]’m working through Kripke again because I know it’s a half truth and I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing. I know what is wrong with analytic philosophy (sets): their construction destroys information, causation, and operational construction, and therefore existential possibility. I know what’s right with information analysis: marginal difference (cause of change in state). So analytic philosophy is a sort of dead end in the sense that language is always informationally incomplete. But his understanding of names is correct. Even if his examples are not (the referent Aristotle isn’t identical to the referent Aristotle if he dies at age two and never creates the set of properties Aristotle). We cannot construct the references to the two year old without the reference to the man Aristotle. Therefore operationally, the example cannot exist. I can refer to Aristotle at the age of two, but I cannot refer to a greek two year old with the name of Aristotle. and convey any meaning without the existence of the aforementioned Aristotle as an accomplished adult. Meaning does not tell us much about truth – if anything. And the verbalists (analyticals and rationalists) are working with too little information to achieve much. Existence tells us a great deal about truth. Even if other methods tell us a lot about meaning. But even where they tell us about meaning, they tell us nothing about truth. And I think this is the area of confusion, because of hermeneutic conflation. We see this coming out of judaism and christianity and into law, where it did not previously exist. But this conflation of truth and meaning has imposed a catastrophically damaging influence on western thought. And in both the ancient(agrarian), modern(industrial), and current (information) eras, it has constituted a revolt against truth and the undesirability of truth for the parasitic and unproductive classes, peoples, and cultures. Meaning is dependent upon the content of one’s mind, and analogy to experience, but has little to no dependence upon truth content. Truth is dependent upon reality that is independent of the content and mechanism of of one’s mind – even if it is dependent upon the reduction to analogy to experience so that the mind can grasp it. But meaning is required as part of the process of free association. It is useful in obtaining information (hypotheses) that we may pursue and turn into truth candidates. It is useful in the transfer of experiences whether or not those experiences contain truth content. We must construct hypotheses out of concepts we can grasp, and we can only grasp concepts reducible to analogies to experience. So we must accumulate analogies to experience in sufficient number that we are able to run tests for possibility. This is one of the reasons for the value of scientific thinking (theories of general rules) since they reduce the informational content we must process in order to identify patterns and test perceptions and information against them. My hope (my suspicion) is that truthfulness once practiced like any other set of general rules will have an equally influential impact on human demonstrated intelligence and cooperation as has science. My concern is that we have passed peak human and are damaging our gene pool, and that we must reverse our century and a half of dysgenia before the accumulated damage is not correctable through assortative mating. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Lviv Ukraine

          • What is the Difference Between Information and Statement

            [I]’m working through Kripke again because I know it’s a half truth and I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing. I know what is wrong with analytic philosophy (sets): their construction destroys information, causation, and operational construction, and therefore existential possibility. I know what’s right with information analysis: marginal difference (cause of change in state). So analytic philosophy is a sort of dead end in the sense that language is always informationally incomplete. But his understanding of names is correct. Even if his examples are not (the referent Aristotle isn’t identical to the referent Aristotle if he dies at age two and never creates the set of properties Aristotle). We cannot construct the references to the two year old without the reference to the man Aristotle. Therefore operationally, the example cannot exist. I can refer to Aristotle at the age of two, but I cannot refer to a greek two year old with the name of Aristotle. and convey any meaning without the existence of the aforementioned Aristotle as an accomplished adult. Meaning does not tell us much about truth – if anything. And the verbalists (analyticals and rationalists) are working with too little information to achieve much. Existence tells us a great deal about truth. Even if other methods tell us a lot about meaning. But even where they tell us about meaning, they tell us nothing about truth. And I think this is the area of confusion, because of hermeneutic conflation. We see this coming out of judaism and christianity and into law, where it did not previously exist. But this conflation of truth and meaning has imposed a catastrophically damaging influence on western thought. And in both the ancient(agrarian), modern(industrial), and current (information) eras, it has constituted a revolt against truth and the undesirability of truth for the parasitic and unproductive classes, peoples, and cultures. Meaning is dependent upon the content of one’s mind, and analogy to experience, but has little to no dependence upon truth content. Truth is dependent upon reality that is independent of the content and mechanism of of one’s mind – even if it is dependent upon the reduction to analogy to experience so that the mind can grasp it. But meaning is required as part of the process of free association. It is useful in obtaining information (hypotheses) that we may pursue and turn into truth candidates. It is useful in the transfer of experiences whether or not those experiences contain truth content. We must construct hypotheses out of concepts we can grasp, and we can only grasp concepts reducible to analogies to experience. So we must accumulate analogies to experience in sufficient number that we are able to run tests for possibility. This is one of the reasons for the value of scientific thinking (theories of general rules) since they reduce the informational content we must process in order to identify patterns and test perceptions and information against them. My hope (my suspicion) is that truthfulness once practiced like any other set of general rules will have an equally influential impact on human demonstrated intelligence and cooperation as has science. My concern is that we have passed peak human and are damaging our gene pool, and that we must reverse our century and a half of dysgenia before the accumulated damage is not correctable through assortative mating. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Lviv Ukraine

          • An Overview of Propertarianism for Serious Newbies

            Some Introductory Help:

            • On The Use and Meaning Of “-ism’s”.
              https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/02/20/the-definition-and-use-of-isms/
            • The Meaning of Fictionalism
              https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/24/definition-fictionalism/
            • Significant Definitions 
              https://propertarianinstitute.com/category/attributes/definitions/
            • Series/Sequences
              https://propertarianinstitute.com/category/attributes/sequences/
            • The Glossary 
              https://propertarianinstitute.com/glossary/
            • The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
              https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

            THE UNIQUENESS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION: TRUTH (AGENCY, SOVEREIGNTY) 1) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/17/we-put-the-west-in-western-civilization/ 2) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT – THE CONFLICT OF CIVILIZATIONS ACROSS MILLENNIA Part I – The Beginning – Sovereignty, and The Counter Revolution against it. (Bronze Age – Black Sea)

            • The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, and as a consequence Agency, Natural Law, Thang (Jury), Testimonial (Deflationary) Truth, and Markets in Everything (Meritocracy).
            • The Counter-Revolution: The Eastern Development of Fictional Scriptural Religion in the Oral Tradition.

            Part II – The Counter Revolution Against Reason and Sovereignty. (Iron Age – Aegean-Mediterranean)

            • The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, Agency, Natural Law, Jury, Senate, Testimonial (Deflationary) Truth, Reason, and Markets in Everything.
            • The Counter Revolution: The Eastern (Jewish, Byzantine, Muslim) Development of Fictional, Scriptural, Authoritarian Religion, conflated with Law, in the Written Tradition.

            Part III – The Counter Enlightenment Against Science and Sovereignty. (Steel Age – North Sea-Atlantic) 

            • The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, Agency, Natural Law, Jury, Multi-House Government, Testimonial (Deflationary Truth), Reason, Rationalism, and Empiricism, and Markets in Everything.
            • The Counter: Revolution: The Eastern (Jewish, French, Russian) Development of Fictional, Pseudoscientific, Authoritarian Religions.

            The Anglos (Legal Empiricists / Locke-Smith-Hume-Jefferson), French (Literary Moralists / Rousseau) and The Germans (Literary Rationalists / Kant) had attempted to restate their group evolutionary strategy in modern terms. So did the Cosmopolitan Universalist Jews ( Argumentative Fictionalists (pseudo-mythology[authoritarian religion] / pseudo-law/ pseudo-rationalism / pseudoscience / outright-lying)) advocating separatism, poly-ethicalism, fictional utopianism as a universal ‘moral’ strategy. The Cosmopolitan Universalists (Jews) started producing pseudoscience as the enlightenment change rolled across Eastern Europe, (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Frankfurt) primarily as a reaction to the articulation of aristocratic thought in scientific terms (Darwin, Social Science, Spencer, Nietzsche, and the Romanticists.) ( FYI: Marxism: parasitism upon in-group private production. Libertarianism: parasitism upon in-group commons production. Neo-Conservatism: Parasitism upon other nations’  (out-group) private and commons production. ) While the Germansdefended against the enlightenment by rational restatement of hierarchy, duty, and reason in a new literary fashion invented by Kant. The French, Jewish and Russian together attacked the Anglo Enlightenment: the restoration of sovereignty and the attack on Fictionalism which all those nations depended upon. They each responded with a new fictionalism: The French out of feminine idealism and preservation of authority, Jews out of separatism, fear and preservation of authority, and Russians out of opportunity for aggression, restoration of orthodox civilization, usurpation, and preservation of authority – and our Puritans (anglo separatist equivalent of the Jews), and our women (as always) were, frankly, “suckers” for it. Just as they were in the ancient world. The Great Catastrophe  Just as Byzantium overextended herself and lost to the Turks. Just as Persia and Byzantium overextended themselves and lost to Arabs. Just as Rome overextended herself in Europe and lost to Byzantium; Just as Athens overextended herself in Sicily, and lost to Sparta; Just as the Bronze Age civilizations overextended themselves in the eastern mediterranean and lost to the barbarians. Just as all civilizations overextended themselves, Britain, in an effort to preserve the balance of powers from which she profited, constrained Germany, leaving America as her heir. Just as Athenian democratic greed prematurely ended the first industrial revolution (the Antikithera device only one step removed from Babbage’s mechanical computer), leaving pragmatic Rome to rule with Athenian and Carthaginian invention – the British, French, and American democratic (commercial) greed ended the second (this time German) scientific revolution, leaving pragmatic America to rule with German and British inventions. The European civil war to contain Germany was a catastrophe for the West in that it both truncated the completion of the Enlightenment (scientific revolution), whose second phase, and our rescue from eastern mysticism, was in progress in Germany (and from which 19th and 20th century America was the chief beneficiary – not originator.) It cast doubt upon the Western (aristocratic) order just as the thirty years war had cast doubt upon the prior (religious) order. Thereby reversing our prior gains against supernatural utopianism and the restoration of aristocratic (rule of law) rule, and replacing that supernatural utopianism with economic and political utopianism: pseudoscience. Postwar Jews immigrating to the United States used their pseudoscience (see “Pilpul”) and attacked and took over the academy and media just as they had used the pulpit in the ancient era, and the printing press in the prior era, to spread their second great lie of pseudoscience in every field of human social order. Women freed from labor under the industrial revolution used these arguments to reform slavery, seek the vote, and then using the vote, to claim men were their enemies and oppressors rather than their domesticators in a great compromise between the reproductive strategies of women (numbers) – their genes, and those of men (the tribe) – their genes. Once the slaves had been freed, the women also demanded equal representation, and within one generation after obtaining it used ‘the great lies’ of the cosmopolitans to undermine the western order further by creating a century of pseudoscience. They used this pseudoscience to pursue the destruction of the church, the destruction of the family, and the conquest of academy, state and media by women’s interests (r-selection), because women dispose of more of the earned income than do men in all these areas. Women are great consumers and it is profitable to serve them – even when they are spending down five thousand years of accumulated cultural and genetic capital. Women were sold Christianity. Women were sold Cosmopolitanism. Therefore the industrialization of lying found ready consumers. In marketing and advertising, in media and entertainment, and in democratic politics. The insatiable desire of women to consume, preen, signal, nest, care, and redistribute regardless of long term consequences, provided ready ground for the utopian ideology of endless resources provided by endless growth and the end of constraint. The Failure of Western Thinkers Western thinkers (for a variety of reasons) in the 20th century were unable to defeat this pseudoscientific utopian fiction, just as Western thinkers had been unable to defeat the previous age’s supernatural utopian fiction in the ancient world. As Poincare (mathematics) and Friedrich Hayek (economics and law) warned us, the twentieth century would be, and was, regressive in social science, economics, and politics – and it will be remembered as an age of mysticism (actually an age of fictionalism). Even though our progress in Physical Sciences, Chemistry, Engineering, and Information Technology — all products of the truncated German Scientific Revolution – combined with the continued sale of the conquered American continent, combined with the inheritance of the British Empire, combined with the new (now necessary) invention of fiat (stock) money, gave 19th and 20th century America a vast economic boom, which allowed the USA to drag recidivist civilizations (those that adopted the new Jewish Fictionalisms under world communism, socialism, social democracy, and Keynesian non-operational Economics) out of ignorance, poverty, starvation, disease and tyranny. Why? Because democracy in the ancient and modern world was nothing but a lie by which the middle class could take over the government from the aristocracy – and then over-extend growth until the polity developed economic, political, social, and genetic fragility. Our Western habit. One the Chinese did not practice. (If you must expand to grow productivity you are not in fact productive and innovative, but consumptive.) But neither the Western Aristocracy, nor its bourgeoise caste could speak the truth: that man, like plant and other animal, had been domesticated for fun and profit by the imposition of meritocracy by shrinking the reproduction of the lower classes, – and that the differences in the rate of development of civilizations is the result of the shrinking of the underclasses, making possible the progress of the civilization in every possible field of endeavor: linguistic, informational, economic, normative, social, cultural, political, and institutional. The lesson: In the absence of profit through conquest, the most eugenic civilization will always emerge as the most advanced civilization. And this uncomfortable truth is incompatible with unearned (universal) enfranchisement that justifies bourgeoise takeover of government from the aristocracy.PART IV – What Must Be Done? ( The Second Reformation Against Parasitism and Deceit. ) So armed with this knowledge, how do we reverse the century of propaganda, lies, and pseudoscience of the alliance between the Jews, women and minorities, and return the west its lost confidence, and restore the civilization’s strategy of truth+commons? We extend the warranty of due diligence against fraud that we require in products in the market, and services in the market, to cover information in the market, and we restore liability to all participants in a chain of production. We eliminate the economic subsidy for ‘entertainment’ we call copyright. We eliminate financial profiting from the sale of shares of the polity (Fiat Money, or for ordinary people, ‘dollars’ in the form of electronic money), preserving all of the appreciation and interest for the polity (treasury). And we grant universal standing (class action) to defense of the market for information. Eventually, we create separate houses of government for separate classes. And we eliminate representatives and change to direct per-resolution, democracy. This will raise the cost of the various fictionalisms (pseudo-myths/religion, pseudo-rationalisms, pseudo-science, and outright deceit) and eliminate its profitability such that we end the industrialization of lying made possible by mass media. This solution is an incremental advancement upon classical multi-house government in which each class negotiates with other classes for the production of commons, while suppressing the consistent deception (lying) that has been made possible by the industrialization of information distribution (media). By stating in rational and scientific terms the reason for the West’s rapid success in the ancient and modern periods, despite its many disadvantages. Then using this knowledge to defeat this great utopian pseudoscientific lie, even though we failed in the 20th century, and even though we failed in the ancient world against utopian supernaturalism. Our ambition is to require truthful speech in economics, politics, and law, the way we require truthful speech in contract, in the market for goods, and in the market for services. There is no reason that one cannot warranty his speech against the great utopian lies if he is to publish it (sell it, distribute it) in the market for information we call ‘the media’. The West practiced Agency, Sovereignty, Testimony in Deflationary Truth, Natural Law of Cooperation, Markets in Everything, and Aristocratic Egalitarianism (a form of eugenics at scale), and the Militia – and profited from the incremental domestication of the animal man lacking agency, in to the human that possesses it. But this strategy was never written down, only handed down I’m writing it down. Forever. Truth was enough to create the West, and truth is enough to restore the west. THE NORTH SEA PEOPLE AND HANSEATIC CIVILIZATION (MEDITERRANEAN:V3, AGEAN:V2, BLACK SEA:V1) http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ A SHORT COURSE IN SOVEREIGNTY AND AGENCY https://propertarianinstitute.com/category/attributes/sovereignty-and-agency/ THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOVEREIGNTY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/11/27/consequences-of-sovereignty/ A VERY SHORT COURSE IN DECIDABILITY http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/30/a-very-short-course-in-decidability/ A SHORT COURSE IN TESTIMONIAL TRUTH http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/28/a-short-course-on-propertarianisms-testimonial-truth/ THE DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR A WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/04/due-diligence-necessary-for-the-warranty-of-truthfulness/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/09/26/a-short-course-in-propertarian-reasoning/ THE EVOLUTION OF SUPPRESSION VIA COMMON LAW http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/10/the-evolution-of-suppression/ A SHORT COURSE IN NATURAL LAW https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/29/a-short-course-in-natural-law/ A SHORT COURSE IN ACQUISITIONISM (PSYCHOLOGY) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/23/core-acquisitionism-restating-psychology/ A SHORT COURSE IN GROUP ORGANIZATION (SOCIOLOGY) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/30/a-short-course-in-sociology-group-cooperation/ ( Still working with this one)THE TRANSACTION COST THEORY OF GOVERNMENT https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/02/04/a-short-course-in-the-transaction-cost-theory-of-government/ A SHORT COURSE IN MARKET GOVERNMENT (“Perfect Government”, “Markets in Everything”, and sarcastically: “Market Fascism”) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/30/a-short-course-in-perfect-government/ A SHORT COURSE IN THE WESTERN (ARISTOCRATIC) GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY ( … ) A SHORT COURSE IN GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY (COOPERATION/COMPETITION/WAR) ( … ) 1000 WORDS THAT CAPTURE IT ALL http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/19/the-most-profound-1000-words-you-can-read-on-political-philosophy-today/ THE CURE FOR PROPAGANDA (LYING) AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/01/18/the-cure-for-propaganda-and-western-civilization/ THE END OF HISTORY IS NOT DEMOCRACY BUT THE TRUTHFUL CIVILIZATION http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/06/the-end-of-history-the-truthful-civilization-sorry-francis/ There is much, much more online. But this is enough to keep you (or anyone else for that matter) busy for quite a while. Curt

            MORE – Outline By Chapter (needs updating for 2016 and 2017) [T]he Outline of Propertarianism in posts organized by chapter. This is only useful at this point to scan and get a sense of the structure of the argument. But you’re a smart guy and it might bear glancing. http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/propertarian-posts-by-chapter/ MORE (for 20th c. libertarians)FOR CONTRA MISES: https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/ FOR CONTRA ROTHBARD The Minimum Basis for Law (Nomocracy) http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/02/propertarianism-vs-rothbardiansm/ Fallacies http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/ A Lot More On Rothbard’s Low Trust Ghetto Ethics. http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=ghetto+ethics