Proper concurrency – e.g. multitasking – is hard, we all know that.

In the following post I analyze its economics, using the example of a layered conversation with two members, and many concurrent threads occurring in overlapping time intervals.

If you would think it a fun exercise, write up a comment about another topic of choice in multitasking – besides conversations, that is — and I’ll merge it into a generalized theory.

I already have that theory in the back of my head one way or another, and  social proof by induction is nice (beware the pun.)


Handling n+1 threads of conversation with another person concurrently requires:

  1. excellent working memory, to generate shared implicit context,
  2. excellent verbal intelligence, to generate shared explicit context for ambiguity mitigation,
  3. precision in phrasing,
  4. parsimony in phrasing,
  5. shared, similar, experiences,
  6. unshared, differing, experiences,
  7. similar time preference

Fulfilling these seven requirements, it is possible to handle any amount of conversations at the same time, where the amount must not conflict with

a) your working memory limitations – most people can maintain five to nine different chunks of data at the same time quite well – to generate implicit shared context, or,
b) the verbosity of speech you can mentally afford to invest in, to generate explicit shared context, or,
c) the precision of speech you can mentally afford to invest in – from fluffy-emotive to precise-systemizing – or,
d) the use of the absolute minimum amount of words necessary to convey your point precisely,

and converges on having

e) experienced, and grown up with, overlapping and similar, as well as differing past life histories, and
f) overlapping future planning horizons, and
g) similarity in future time orientation.

So you see, handling any amount of ongoing conversations with the same person is a matter of fulfilling those requirements, and not putting oneself under too many restrictions due to acting, and having acted, stupidly.


Now, the above part was about one quite specific use case. Can you think up more?

Head tips to Bernard Spil for the idea and Curt Doolittle for review.

Propertarianism vs Rothbardiansm

 (revised and expanded)(worth repeating) (from 2014)


It’s true that aggression is immoral and it’s true that aggression must be illegal. But is it rational for humans to join a voluntary, anarchic polity, if the basis of **LAW** is “non-aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property”, or must the basis of law be either based on something other than aggression, or broader in scope than intersubjectively verifiable property?

What is the minimum basis for the law upon which it becomes rational to join a voluntary, anarchic polity?

If we have a choice between:
(a) a Totalitarian consumer capitalist society, like say, China.
(b) a  Napoleonic, prior-restraint, contemporary social democracy like Germany.
(c) a Common Law, restitutionary, contemporary social democracy, like say the States.
(d) an anarchic polity in which one CAN bring suit against immoral and unethical actions (say, blackmail, and fraud by omission).
(e) an anarchic polity where we cannot bring suit against immoral and unethical actions; and as such, unethical and immoral actions are expressly licensed by the law, and retribution for immoral and unethical actions is forbidden.

1) Then which of these will which people of which moral biases, choose?
2) How will members of that polity be treated by members of the competing polities? (They will be exterminated)
3) How will the territory and trade representatives of that polity be treated by competing polities? (They will be boycotted.)

I think that an intellectually honest analysis of those questions produces an obvious, and remarkably consistent answer. That is, that either aggression is the incorrect test of peaceful cooperation, or intersubjectively verifiable property is an insufficient test of the scope of property that must be protected from violation, or more likely both.


Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than individual production. We evolved to cooperate when possible. But it is only beneficial if it is mutually productive, rather than asymmetric in result, and parasitic.

The current proceeds of anthropology, genetics, and cognitive science, tell us that violations of the evolutionary preference for cooperation, are reducible to ‘free riding': that is non-contribution. Since in any set of individuals, if we do not require productive contribution, then some are the victims of free riding (parasitism) and others benefit from free riding (parasitism).


If we analyze the common prohibitions of all moral codes under all family structures, and we remove moral constraints that are purely ritualistic, these moral codes are universally reducible to necessary prohibitions on what we would call ‘property violations’ in an effort to facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation.

Evolutionary, Biological, Intuitionistic, Moral Prohibition Spectrum:
1) Agression: Harm/Oppression,
2) Free Riding: Parasitism
3) Trust: Subversion/Betrayal/Cheating,
4) Purity: Inobservance of Norms/Behavioral impurity/Pollution
All of these prohibitions are reducible to shareholder rights and obligations.

Humans universally demonstrate a greater interest in punishing moral violations than we demonstrate self-interest. In fact, we justify our pre-cognitive moral punishments without even being able to articulate why we hold them. We are wired by evolution for morality.

We evolved language and punishments for violations of these moral intuitions in the form of criminal, ethical, and moral prohibitions:
1. Violence (asymmetry of force)
2. Theft (asymmetry of control)
3. Fraud (false information)
4. Omission (Omitting information)
5. Obscurantism (Obscuring information)
6. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)
7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)
8. Free Riding (using externalities for self-benefit)
9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)
10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)
11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)
12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)
13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)
14. Extortion (Organized direct theft)
15. Conversion (Religious or normative theft of norms)
16. Immigration. (dilution of norms, institutions, genes)
17. War (organized violence for the purpose of theft)
18. Conquest. (reorganization of all property and relations)
19. Genocide. (extermination of kin and genetic future)

We can empirically observe that people treat a broad spectrum of things as their property, and that they intuit violations of that property, and act to defend that property. Those things that people seek to acquire, accumulate and preserve are:

I. Self:
Life, Body, Memories, Mind, Attention, Time, and Liberty

II. Status and Class (reputation)
Social Status

III. Kin and Interpersonal (Relationship) Property
Mates (access to sex/reproduction)
Children (genetic reproduction)
Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)

IV. Sustainable Patterns of Reproduction, Production, Distribution and Trade
Friends, Associates and Cooperative Relations
Trade Routes

V. Several (Personal) Property
Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”
Physical Body and Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

VI. Shareholder Property
Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

VII. Title Property (Weights and Measures)
Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

VIII.  Common Property, or “Commons” (Community Property)
Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

(i) Informational commons: public speech, real-time and recorded media.

(ii) Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.

(iii) Physical Commons: the territory, it’s waterways, parks, buildings, improvements and  infrastructure.

(iv) Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.

(v) Monuments (art and artifacts). 
Monuments claim territory, demonstrate wealth, and provide one of the longest most invariable normative and economic returns that any culture can construct as a demonstration of conspicuous production (wealth), and as such, conspicuous excellence. (hence why competing monuments represent an invasion. Temples, Churches, Museums, Sculptures being the most obvious examples of cultural claim or conquest. )  

If we eliminate all prohibitions of parasitism (imposed costs) then what moral actions remain?

(i) Productive (non-parasitic, increase in subjective value);
(ii) Truthful (Fully Informed);
(iii) Warrantied (by oath);
(iv) Voluntary Transfer of Property;
(v) Free of Imposed Cost by Externality

It is those criteria that define an ethical (interpersonally moral) and moral (externally moral) action. And any action that does not meet those criteria is not ethical and moral.

The simple rule of ethical and moral action: “My actions cannot cause another to bear a cost against his property-en-toto.”


(1) Dividends from the construction and maintenance of the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade by forgoing opportunities for parasitic consumption (acting ethically and morally).
(2) One against Access to Consumption in the market.
(3) Earnings from the personal production of goods and services in the market for goods and services. (income from profits)
(4) Dividends for maintenance of the commons in all its forms.
(5) Dividends for the policing (defense) of the commons in all its forms.




We can judge economic impacts of high trust societies that practice near total prohibition on criminal, unethical and immoral actions. And we can compare those to  low trust societies that suppress fewer unethical and immoral actions.









(text) (question)




So under what reasoning, would it be logical to support the Non-Aggression Principle under Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (NAP/IVP) as the basis for the law, which explicitly licenses unethical and immoral action and prohibits retribution against unethical and immoral action?

The NAP/IVP has been a detriment to liberty wherever advocates argue that it is a sufficient means of determining moral and legal rules of cooperation. Because it’s not.

And we cannot pursue an alternative to the existing high trust society without providing people with an alternative that is morally SUPERIOR to the state. And the NAP/IVP fails that test.


Conversely, imposition against, or aggression against, property-en-toto. Property-en-toto: meaning that which humans demonstrate as their property by acting to acquire it, defending it, and retaliating against impositions of costs upon it.  

And where they have expended resources, time and effort in the accumulation of that property without imposing costs upon others property that has been accumulated by the same lack of imposition of costs.

And where imposition of costs is performed by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by suggestion, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by omission, theft by constructed externality, free-riding, privatizing commons, socializing losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, invasion, conquest, and genocide.


So the non-aggression principle holds under Propertarian ethics, and it fails under Rothbardian ethics.  And to state the principle of non-aggression without stating also what cannot be aggressed against, is an act of fraud: fraud by omission and fraud by suggestion.  Rothbard was an advocate for fraud.  Rothbardian libertinism is a fraudulent claim for the production of a condition of liberty.



Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

Universal Grammars of Action and Experience

I think that any set of symbols in any form, capable of reconstructing the requisite experience of reality allows for some degree of truth communication between humans, superhumans, human-made-machines, and if they exist, aliens capable of action and communication.

I have a hard time imagining that a basic instruction set is not accessible to any sentient creature capable of acting in reality. That’s because most of what we wish to communicate is state change, and I can easily see a universal grammar of state change in the physical world, just as easily as I can see a universal grammar of mathematical operations. Actions produce state changes.

What I can’t see is a universal grammar of subjective experience. It is hard enough to communicate across cultures and languages. I can see “in my interests” and “against my interests” as well as the plural “our interests”. It appears to be possible to create a universal grammar of emotion among earth’s creatures, because it is a very simple thing. So maybe a universal grammar is possible (now that I think about it, I think I might be able to do it.)

(Damn…. I just gave myself more work to do.)

Man Creates Truth


You see, the statement ‘full of truth’ is an existentially impossible statement. The universe exists. Truth must be stated. Error, bias, imagination, wishful thinking,  and deception can be removed from our utterances. I use the term “Truthful” for warrantied speech. It is not so much that ‘Truthful’ speech is full of truth, but that it is laundered of error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, and deception. So our utterances can never ‘be full of truth’. Truth is constructed. It does not exist prior to its construction. Truth is a product of man’s action. Everything else is just existence.


Can The Truth Be A Commons? 


—“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—

Let me state this clearly:

“The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.”

1) How does truth telling exist?

The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law.

2) How does truth exist?

I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative.

So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons.

That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed.

3) So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall.

There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

Language, Like Genes and Traditions….

The Good, the useless and the bad.

—“But my experience is that language, like traditions, and genes, grows to contain useful, useless, and damaging content.”— Curt

Source: Curt Doolittle

Operationalism is a Means of Falsification

 A criticism from Bruce, on my failure to make clear that Operationalism is a means of conducting a test of falsification.

–“This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-sacs.”— Bruce Caithness


1) Operationalism is an attempt at falsification. Just as in math, if we can construct a statement through operations then it is existentially possible. Just as in economics, if we can reduce an economic statement to a sequence of rationally executable decisions. Just as in science, if we can reduce a test to a repeatable sequence of operations, and if we can reduce our measures to those that are possible then the test is existentially possible, assuming determinism in the universe and therefore the constancy of that which we measure (without which no science ,and no theory, can be possible).

If I conduct tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, repeatability, full accounting, parsimony (limits), existential possibility, objective morality (voluntary transfer), then I have laundered imaginary content from my statements. This is what science consists in: identifying existential information and eliminating imaginary information.

If I have performed the due diligence to launder by speech of imaginary information, then I speak as truthfully as is possible. I may indeed speak the most parsimonious testimony possible (the truth) or I may not – a matter of error at one end of the possibilities, or of imprecision at the other end.

I can warranty that I have performed that due diligence by stating that I speak truthfully: I give testimony in public, as to the truthfulness of my speech.


2) One can speak truthfully, and warranty that one speaks truthfully. If one speaks in e-prime (specifying means of existence), and in operational definitions (rather than experiences), it is extremely difficult to articulate an idea that still contains imaginary content.


3) Rather than “leading to cul-de-sac’s” I suspect that this is the completion (or repair) of the critical rationalist research program and the most important invention in philosophy since the failure of that program.

Just is what it is. I just did a good yeoman’s labor. But between explanatory power, and parsimony it’s a pretty powerful theoretical structure, and it’s pretty hard to defeat it.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Q&A: “Is The Soul Property?”

Q&A: “Curt, What do you say about soul? And its relation to property?” – Mahmoud B.

Your indisputable Property is that which you act to obtain without forcing involuntary transfers upon others. Meaning: without {violence,theft, fraud, suggestion, obscurantism, omission, indirection (externality), free riding, socializing losses and privatizing commons, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest, and genocide.}

  • You may act to construct your life.
  • You may act to construct your kin.
  • You may act to construct cooperative relations.
  • You may act to construct your reputation.
  • You may act to construct private property
  • You may act to construct common physical property.
  • You may act to construct normative property (by forging opportunity)
  • You may act to construct institutional property (by bearing costs of such things as military service, jury duty, emergency services, and ‘policing’ the preservation of life and property.)

Your soul, if you believe in such things, and act as if you believe in such things, is, like reputation, something you must constantly bear costs to maintain.

As such since you have born costs for both physical and normative constructs, and have done so morally – without the imposition of costs upon others – they are by definition your property.

Now, the manner in which your soul may or may not exist is somewhat challenging, because it can only knowingly exist as an analogy: a form of anthropomorphization of the record of one’s actions recorded in memories of people, physical marks on reality, and the long term consequences of events in the physical world.

In this sense your ‘soul’ good or ill, does persist, just as the interaction of molecule of water affects all those around it. (the theory that water has memory is a useful analogy.)

So for those who wish to preserve the traditional behavior and traditional anthropomorphism in a manner that we can say may or may not be scientific, we can suggest that primitive man intuits his soul as his thoughts and actions, just as we intuit the persistence of our genes through reproduction.

To take it further, we can (and we will very likely never disprove this so it’s useful for religious folk), we can work with what is called quantum mysticism. That is, that your thoughts take place in physical space and time and affect the universe around you. So even your thoughts affect the universe.

The thing is, the concept of a soul (an accounting of your life) is a useful one. It seems to produce good outcomes.

You should not take this argument as terribly firm support for monotheism, but as a purely normative exercise in the economically beneficial results of providing an intuitive means of behavioral accounting in which individuals can resist cooperating with others on matters of ill intent under the correct presumption that the consequences of thought and action are kaleidic and infinite, and that one cannot be forced for any reason into immoral actions (those that impose costs upon others property.) Not all of us are above 125 in intelligence, and we require such analogies for both pedagogical purposes and for use by those who cannot grasp either rational or scientific arguments. The same is true for ethics. We need virtue (imitative), rule, and outcome based ethics, because we have young and simple, adult but not wise, and wise and experienced people in the world. We are unequal. As unequals we need unequal tools.

I hope this helps you. As far as I know this argument will survive all current criticism. Existentially, your soul does exist as a record of your actions in the universe, and primitive man could not articulate such ideas. If you want to get into reincarnation then I cna’t help you. Neither can the Dali Lama. He knows it’s a great argument because it is untestable.

As you may see, I am trying to provide a means of reformation to the main religions while at the same time undermining those parts of religion that are false, lies, or harmful. But I am not hostile to religion: myth and ritual. Personal religion is a good thing (having been near death at least three times myself).

I hope that this answered your question.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

Fear of Outsiders: Against Psychologism

1) Fear of outsiders is not ‘a thing’ but a universal human reaction. Or at least it is outside of northern europeans. It is not an irrational fear. It is a rational fear. That is why humans bear the intuition. It is an instance of the disgust response.

2) The Fear of Catholics and Jews was warranted. Any student of intellectual and legal history will have trouble arguing otherwise. Prohibition was an example of the reaction to catholic immigration. Jews have had an equally negative effect in a number of areas. YOu can say in both cases that we have endured those negatives. But it is very hard to say that between the catholics and jews that rule of law persists. (you may not like it, but it is what it is.)

3) High trust society resists lower trust cultures. And we pay the price for integrating lower trust cultures with traditional families into high trust culture with absolute nuclear families. It is what it is. Trust decreases, civic participation decreases, economic velocity decreases. (and yes that’s the case, although it’s very contentious, I am pretty sure I can hold that argument against any economist living).

So it is a rational instinct (we evolved it for a reason) and a rational fear (empirically the consequences have been catastrophic since 1963). And we require both empirical and operational means of testing such statements to the contrary.

(Human perception being one of frog-boiling intertemporal incompetence.)

Will We See A Post-Religious Future?

Given that we see a decline in religiosity.

– Rationalism (rational ethics) increases as IQ increases
– Religiosity (arational ethics) increases as IQ decreases.
– Impulsivity and crime increase as IQ decreases.
– There is a positive correlation between non-criminality and religion as IQ decreases. (The whole “love” thing works really)
– All that differs in people’s behavior is the justification for their actions.
– All people justify their intuitions, they do not rationally choose moral behaviors.
– So whether we are indoctrinated into an arational, or a rational ethic is one of whether we are able to practice arational or rational justifications.
– And conversely, we require both arational and rational ethics to provide for people capable of arational and rational justification.
– Just as we require virtue (imitative), rational (rule based), and empirical (outcome based) ethics for children, adults, and elders.

Marxism, Freudianism, Socialism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Keyensian economics, Cantorian sets, Misesian economics, libertine libertarianism, neo-conservatism, are all pseudoscientific nonsense.

Much of religion is mythical and arational in content, but produces highly desirable results. The purpose of monotheism was the conduct of warfare by pre-state peoples. From iran/india (the same peoples at the time) forward that is the purpose of religion: power.

Just as the purpose of the 19th and 20th century philosophies was to produce ideologies that assisted in the seizure of political power.

So while I am happy we had a reformation. And I am happy that we had Darwin, I am unhappy that the intuitionistic and operationalist revolutions failed – and allowed pseudoscience (lies) to replace myths (allegories).

I wouldn’t be too impressed with myself by thinking the era of religion had passed. Democratic secular socialist humanism is just as nonsensical (as stated) as is any of the main religions of the earth.

Dressing the emperor in new clothes does nothing to change his identity.

I have a vision. That vision is to create the truthful society just as we created the scientific society(the anglo enlightenment), and before it the rational society (the Hellenic enlightenment).

And if we did that we would look at the pseudoscience, outright lies, and propaganda of the 20th century just as we look at the medieval period: an age of mysticism.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.