Archive for February, 2012

A Propertarian Description Of Causality

Monday, February 27th, 2012

Causality, like all human concepts, is a product of the necessity of humans to act, in order to alter the course of events, so that they can consume the difference. Causal understanding is then bounded by human perceptive ability, processing power, in real time. And from this perspective, whether something is causally replicable on one end, or correlatively positive but causally uncertain at the other end, is only as relevant as the cost and risk of the actions necessary to achieve the outcome.

We often confuse truth in the abstract, with truth-for-action. Truth in the abstract is a metaphysical tautology. Truth-for-action is simply scientifically pragmatic. Evolution works by trial and error, and so do we.

Defining Libertarianism

Sunday, February 26th, 2012

On Hillsdale Natural Law Review, Tyler O’Neil suggests that many conservatives aren’t libertarians despite using the term. Because Kinsella posted about it being a bit sloppy, I thought I’d use it as an excuse to try and write something definitive.


“Libertarian Party” vs “Libertarian philosophy” vs “libertarian movement” vs “libertarian sentiments”

A) “Libertarian Party” : The name of a political party that makes use of Libertarian philosophy in its policy platform.

B) Uppercase “L”-Libertarian = Libertarian in the narrow sense: The self identifying name “Libertarian” has been appropriated by members of a the majority faction of the broader group of libertarians and requires total observance of the twin concepts of Property Rights and the Non Aggression Principle. This of necessity places a Libertarian as an advocate of either minimal state, private government, or anarcho-capitalist forms of creating a social order. And it specifically excludes Classical Liberals and Neo-classical Liberals for whom enforcement of norms is a necessary and beneficial defense of political shareholder property rights.

C) Lowercase “l”-libertarian: Libertarian in the broader sense: A movement consisting of multiple factions, employing a rationally articulated set of arguments, each of which include or exclude certain secondary properties in addition to the twin concepts of property rights and the non-aggression principle. Those additional properties consist of a)the scope of property, and b)the scope of the ethics of exchange, and c) the scope of institutions necessary to establish those property definitions, those normative ethics, as well as d) to provide a means for the resolution of disputes.

D) “libertarian sentiments” (Or “libertarian-like” affiliations): A general, abstract, sentimental preference in which political decisions err on the side of individual property rights, small government, and individual responsibility for making the best of one’s lot in life.
In colloquial language, ‘libertarian’ is a self-identifying synonym for anyone who uses anti-statist arguments which may include social, religious or martial conservatives. One can possess “libertarian sentiments” and not be either cognizant of, able to articulate, or self identify as an ideological “libertarian”. Classical liberals and neo-classical liberals possess ‘libertarian’ sentiments. They do not possess a fully articulated philosophical framework.

In technical terms the libertarian sentiments are used by that category of people with conservative classical liberal ideologies who have integrated libertarian commercial ideas into their conceptual framework as a means of combating encroaching statism and bureaucracy, but who have no material knowledge of libertarian philosophy, nor would they apply the libertarian constraints upon their ideology if they could articulate it.

Therefore “conservatives” possess libertarian sentiments, but do not subscribe to the social implications of “libertarian” philosophy. This is because ‘conservative classical liberals’ believe an entire suite of norms to be a form of ‘property’: an asset in which they are shareholders that is depreciated by a failure to observe and adhere to those norms. And political failure to enforce those norms constitutes an involuntary transfer of assets from them to others.


Two dominant traditions divide the “libertarian” movement roughly reflecting B and C above:

1) The Anarchic tradition specifically articulated by Rothbard in The Libertarian Manifesto, as well as the Ethics of Liberty. In contemporary parlance, “Libertarian” means unlimited adherence to Rothbard’s Manifesto’s single principle of non-aggression.

2) The Classical Liberal and “Hayekian” tradition. Hayek adopted the term “Libertarian” because the term “Liberal” had been appropriated by the left. Hayek sought to maintain and expand the classical liberal tradition under then name “Libertarian”. The classical liberals hold libertarian sentiments but are not libertarians. The current big-‘L’ Libertarian movement has so successfully dominated the political discourse that the neo classical liberals are only now beginning to form an ideology. Unfortunately, they have failed to understand Rothbard and Hoppe’s ethics well enough to articulate Neo Classical Liberalism in Propertarian terms. (A problem I am slowly trying to correct.)

In no small part, the two libertarian traditions reflect the religious and social strategies of the authors from each tradition, with the Christian authors maintaining the concept of a collective ‘corporation’ in which all citizens are shareholders, VS the Jewish diasporic religious and social strategy of creating a ‘kingdom of heaven’ independent of the norms and institutions necessary for land-holding. It is this difference between the martial landholding Christians and the diasporic capital holding Jews that gives each branch of the movement its preferences. And it is the inability of the two movements to find a compromise position that precludes current ‘libertarians’ from forming a sufficient political block with which to alter the political discourse by incorporating classical liberal, social, religious and martial conservatives who have unalterable landholding sentiments without which ‘community’ and ‘norms’ are impossible to conceive of.


1) Non-Aggression Principle (A negative which is often stated in its positive form: Voluntarism, meaning all exchanges of property are voluntary).

2) The institution of Private Property initiated by “homesteading”: acting to transform something not property into property, over which one has a monopoly of control. 3) By implication: All human rights can be reduced to property rights.   No human rights can exist where they cannot be expressed as property rights. It is an impossibility due to scarcity and incalculability under complexity.

II. VARIABLE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES (Limited to common properties)

1) symmetrical-knowledge ethics (classical liberals and christian authors), VS asymmetrical-knowledge ethics (anarchists and jewish authors) Rothbard and Block are asymmetrical advocates. Most classical liberals lack the knowledge of Rothbardian/Hoppian ethics necessary to articulate their values in Propertarian terms. However, the classical liberals as well as the Hayekians, both advocate symmetrical-knowledge ethics whether they articulate the ideas effectively or not. “in any exchange the seller has an ethical obligation to mitigate fraud from the asymmetry of knowledge”

2) Implied Warranty (classical liberal and Christian authors), VS expressly denied warranty (Anarchist and Jewish authors). Rothbard and Block deny warranty. Classical liberals imply warranty. Implied warranty is a derivation of 1, above. “in any exchange the seller must warrant his goods and services to prevent fraud by asymmetry of information.”

3) Prohibition against all involuntary external transfers (classical liberal and Christian authors), VS prohibition only against state involuntary transfers (anarchist and Jewish authors). “No exchange, action or inaction may cause involuntary transfers from others”.

1) Shareholder Property Forms (classical liberal and Christian authors) VS Prohibition on Shareholder Property Forms (anarchists and Jewish authors). Whether intentional or not, Rothbard all but places a ban on organizations with geographic monopolies on rule making. Block expressly advocates geographic rule making, although he only expresses it in individual rather than organizational terms.

2) Norms as Arbitrary VS Norms as Shareholder Property. Since norms require restraints from action (forgone opportunities), and property itself is a norm paid for by restraints from action (forgone opportunities), then all those who adhere to norms, ‘pay’ for them. Therefore norms within a geography are a form of shareholder property, and violations of norms are involuntary transfers (thefts) from norm-holders to norm-destroyers.

3) Preferred Institution: Classical Liberal State, Minimal State, Private Government or Anarchic “Religion”.

4) “Markets Evolved” and regulation is a form of theft VS “Markets Were Made” and regulations by shareholders or their representatives are an expression of property rights. In practical terms, this is a derivation of principles 1, 2 and 3 above, since regulation is an attempt to solve the problem of involuntary transfers, fraud due to asymmetry of information, and fraud due to external involuntary transfers.

5) Artificial Property VS No Artificial Property (Intellectual Property VS no intellectual property. ) In practical terms, this is a derivation of 8 above, since if markets were made their owners have a property right to create artificial forms of property – (because different portfolios of property types are artificial norms that vary from group to group.)


Beyond the points listed above, “libertarian” becomes arbitrary and loses its distinction from “Classical Liberalism” and “neo Classical Liberalism”, since any discussion of the state, government, or shareholder returns on shareholder investments is alien to big-L Libertarianism because they believe that it violates their concept of the non-aggression principle. (I argue otherwise but that’s a longer topic.) Hayek, Popper and Parsons all failed to develop an articulated ethical language capable of expressing the logic of classical liberal sentiments in a rational ethics. Rothbard did it. Hoppe nearly finished it. No one on the conservative bench has so far seen to adopt it, and the classical liberal and conservative movements are trapped in Kirkian moralistic reasoning. Which is useless against encroaching statism. (Hence why I’ve formed the Propertarian Institute.)

The term “Conservative” describes a reaction to the status quo. As does progressive. In the USA, the status quo is what remains of American classical liberalism. So conservatives are American Classical Liberals who cannot use the term, because ‘liberal’ has been appropriated by the left. They are classical liberals, who DO have libertarian sentiments, but are not Libertarians because they disagree with the Libertarian prohibition on shareholder-community, and denial of norms as property.

That is a “propertarian” analysis of the political spectrum. The fact that propertarian reasoning allows us to differentiate by concept of property rights rather than institutional ‘beliefs’ is just one illustration of the explanatory power of propertarian ethics.

Curt Doolittle

An Example Of Scientistic Hubris In Economics

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

“Ben Bernanke has said that he could not save Lehman because it would be have been in violation of the law. My response is that it is not his responsibility to enforce the law. It is his responsibility to safe guard the lives of millions of people. … When the Capitol Police haul him away in chains then his responsibility to prevent the Great Recession ends. Until that moment the choice not to act, is his choice alone. … The constitution is no shield.” – Karl Smith, Modled Behavior

Thus begins all violent ends.

Government consists of institutions. People have the institutions that they choose to. People deserve the consequences of those institutions. They learn from those consequences. People choose or choose not to alter institutions to prevent repeats of the past. People deserve the consequences of choosing or not choosing to alter those institutions. Political externalities are so vast, economic consequences are a trifle by comparison.

Politics is the exercise of power. Power is the ability to alter the probability of outcomes. It is the ability to transfer, or deny the transfer, of opportunities and rewards between groups.

Let’s see what this economist has done: 1- The scientistic fallacy. 2 -The fallacy of goodwill. 3- The false consensus bias. 4-Fallacy of collective terms. 5-The denial of externalities. 6- The fallacy of the short run.

So he errs. And in that error would open the door to far greater horrors than the one we suffer now.

The west is unique: it is the only social order that employs the competition between organizations with competing interests who must enact rules which are used by ordinary people who run institutions to conduct the affairs of the polis. It is a ‘game’ form of government for a ‘game’ marketplace. It is the only instance of that model to survive. and as a consequence it breaks the consanguineous bonds that determine the fate of all other civilizations.

So, Fix the laws. The rule of law is all we have. Without it, we cannot have a high trust society, and would quickly devolve into either india or south america.

Politics is more complex than economics. Political externalities have greater consequences than economic externalities.

And Scientistic hubris is legion.

It’s Not That I Value Free Markets In The Abstract.

Tuesday, February 21st, 2012

Last night, a wonderfully intelligent Canadian I’ve recently met referred to me as a ‘free marketer’. Which in Canadian lingo is a synonym for Libertarian. (We clearly need a Mises chapter up here in eastern Canada.)

And, I’m fussing with writing a page the separates Propertarians from Anarcho Capitalists. If it was possible to regulate trade intelligently, I don’t have a problem with it per se. I have a problem with market regulation because its not possible to regulate it without causing harm. I don’t see regulation as an abstract ethical question, because I see markets as intentional not natural constructs. (Which I’ve addressed elsewhere.) I see it as a time-knowledge problem.

That’s a long way of stating that it’s kind of interesting to be referred to by a property of one’s classification, where the property is tangental to the classification. :) I’d prefer to be called a conservative or libertarian. I want freedom on principle. The economy is just a tool.

Propertarian reasoning says that we cannot do certain things. It explains why we must do certain things. It allows us to do stupid things if we want to. It allows us to do beneficial things if we want to. We pay or gain the consequences either way.

Just like any other corporation.

What I Learned From Lew Rockwell

Tuesday, February 21st, 2012

There are few worthy intellectuals outside of Sowell who are capable of, or have succeeded, in altering the conservative public rhetorical framework. Our think-tanks are largely efforts at consolidating political parties behind the language of moral sentiments — not adapting the political system, nor providing outlets or alternatives to the progressive temptation to manipulate the economy. Partly, that’s because ANY manipulation of the economy is a violation of conservative values. However, conservatives have demonstrated that they are not able to prevent progressive policies. They are arguably the victims of them. And the conservative sentiments are in danger of becoming the private religion of the white minority.

Understanding our conservative sentiments requires that we explore our pre-classical-liberal history and traditions, and the economic and social models that gave birth to them, and that we correct our interpretation of our aristocratic and monarchical past. In justifying the classical liberal conquest of the expanding state power, conservatives demonized the aristocracy and monarchy and its recent past, and embraced the religious norms of the time. Embracing religion was nothing more than use of available political power against the entrenched landed classes by the new middle class.

After Darwin undermined the church, the strategy of attacking aristocracy backfired. Conservatives had nothing to hold onto other than classical liberalism as a civic religion grounded in tradition – the religion of ‘freedom’. A religion that is outnumbered by masses desirous of redistribution, and public intellectuals who profit from selling the promise of it.

The conservatives had demonized the aristocratic political system, despite the fact that their entire society was based upon its social model – a model which they had no rationally articulated explanation of, and even less comparative understanding of their model versus that of others. The church and its religious language was merely a necessary allegorical verbal framework for social thought given the total absence of rationally articulated aristocratic philosophy. That allegorical language lacked the supporting economic information needed to understand its workings and its value. With the destruction of the church, Conservatives were left devoid of a language. The entirety of french and german cultures raised generations of philosophers attempting to reframe religious language in rational terms. They all failed.

Conservatives are still devoid of a rational language. They are trapped in the allegorical and sentimental era. They have demonized the aristocracy to the point where propaganda has been interpreted as received history. Yet most of that demonization is a matter of propaganda, not fact. Left only with the classical liberal religion of freedom, and the constitution and the american political institutions, the aristocratic order crumbled under the combined assault of Keynesian/Knightian economics, reformed socialism in the form of redistributive social democracy, and public intellectuals enabled by the profits the mass media could make selling the new religion of the state.

Russell Kirk and his generation failed to produce anything more than a restatement of conservative sentiments in moral post-religious language. The primarily jewish Libertarians took leadership, and produced economic arguments that by the 1980’s succeeded in gaining policy influence. And the anti-left is now split between the christian social conservatives, classical liberal christian conservatives, libertarian commercial christians and the judaic anarcho-capitalists.

Languages are necessary in order to articulate political preferences. Political preferences are the result of metaphysical value judgements. Value judgements are social strategies.

The Libertarians have developed a language for universal political speech. Unfortunately, that language is grounded in a moralistic assumption about the very nature, cause and necessity of ethics.

One brick at a time, one day at a time, I’m trying to reform the libertarian language into aristocratic language, so that conservative sentiments, values, and social strategy can be articulated in the public debate — so that we may conduct a battle of social models against encroaching totalitarianism brought about by Shumpeterian intellectuals.

It’s a yeoman’s labor. But Lew proved it can be done.

Karl Smith Is A Better Public Intellectual Than Paul Krugman

Tuesday, February 21st, 2012

Today, Karl reminds us that he has been harping for a long time on the fact that we could borrow money very cheaply during the recession — actually, with negative real costs — and put it to use in the economy.

This post is another example of why Karl Smith is a better public intellectual than Paul Krugman, and why we need to get Karl a top ten news media publication vehicle. In the end, no matter how many insights Krugman has had in the field, he is an ideologue advancing a METHOD for intellectual, and personal reasons, not a practical intellectual seeking meaningful solutions to tactical problems. Krugman is the proverbial hammer looking for a rusty Keynesian, government-expanding, nail.

Please encourage informed people to read Karl’s work on Modeled Behavior. Karl is both an exceptional analyst, a moral public intellectual, and an accessible teacher.

Karl Smith is the real thing: a public intellectual with potential to be the rarest of creatures: a statesman. A “skeptical empiricist” who is willing to employ a far wider toolset, constantly seeking innovative means of altering the economy.

The only thing Karl needs to do is incorporate the practical reality of the use of political systems as the pursuit of power by interest groups, who have permanent, irresolvable, mutually exclusive, conflicting goals, not only because of differences in group preferences, ability and resources, but because of the conflict between the conservative constrained vision of hubristic human nature, and the progressive unconstrained vision of egoistic human nature. And the conflict between the conservative desire to regulate birth rates among the lower classes and to accumulate capital, and the progressive desire to expand the birth rates of the lower classes, and distribute and consume capital. Politics is the pursuit of power. Political systems exist to resolve conflicts between groups who compete for power. The “Common Good” is an accidental byproduct of the political competition between groups who seek expansion of power, rents, status, and opportunity.

Karl, like most sentimental Progressives, (in contrast to his Smithian intellectual framework) believes that the future is uncertain and we can and must adapt to it. Conservatives believe that the scope of the kaleidic future can be narrowed if we ‘do no harm’ in the short term.

One cannot make meaningful economic policy in a democratic polity without treating political powers as materially meaningful weights which must be applied to any model, and an integral part of any consequential recommendation for political action.

Ignoring politics is unscientific. Plain and simple.

An Propertarian Interpretation Of The Timeline Of Philosophy

Sunday, February 19th, 2012

The history of philosophy can be reduced to the five struggles:

    1) First, between man’s primary desire to retreat into the limits of his senses in the face of evolving complexity, and his reluctant acknowledgement that he must learn and employ the tools of reason and calculation in order to extend those limited senses, despite the discomfort these unintuitive abstract tools subject him to.

    2) Second, the conflict between his preference for the material ease of the division of labor and his emotional discomfort at the consequential alienation caused by post-tribal, post familial, and increasingly individualistic commercial society.

    3) Third, between the comfort of historical norms and the precious status we each achieve by adhering to them, and the opportunity of economic, technical and organizational innovation that of necessity disrupts those norms.

    4) Fourth, the need to develop justification of our system of norms such that we can resist or conquer the economic strategies, organizational strategies, and status signals embedded in competing systems of norms.”

    5) And fifth, the most disturbing: between the masculine aristocratic inter-temporal instinct to concentrate capital and to constrain the breeding and consumption of the lower classes, and the feminine communal instinct to perpetuate her genes no matter how she has bred them, and her defensive posture of granting others the same opportunity, despite that it threatens us with Malthusian fragility, and eternal poverty.

These five conflicts define the history of philosophy as an attempt to justify existing norms, or an appeal to modify them so that we may adapt to the future or regress into the past.

The Real Class Struggle is not hierarchical, it’s vertical. The proletarians are simply the tools of each. There are only three forms of human persuasion and three forms of political persuasion:

    1) Martial (warriors and politicians) Makers of Laws and Violence – the fast moving organizers.
    2) Public Intellectual (priests, speakers and writers). The makers of moral arguments – the slow moving resistance.
    3) Entrepreneurial (tradesman, commerce and banking). The pragmatic actors of change.

The Philosophical Eras:

  • POST ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY 1970-> ( Abandonment of the transcendental program and complete reliance on natural sciences )
    • 1) Post Analytic Philosophy is pragmatic rather than transcendental: Post Analytic Philosophers attempt to solve real world problems.

      2) Postanalytic philosophy makes use of the methods of analytic philosophy, but opposes its transcendental aspirations and its assumption that we’re engage in a process discovery rather than invention.

      3) Postanalytic philosophy is also referred to as Postphilosophy: the notion that philosophy no longer serves its historical role in society, having been replaced by the natural sciences and the wide availability of literacy, media, and information.

    1) I have very little confidence in the symbolic system outside of using very simple diagrams. And political philosophy, by its nature, requires that we use common language in an effort to make our ideas accessible to non specialists who can then proselytize our ideas to the common man. As such, I see symbolic systems as a convenient but self-defeating shorthand that serves only to inhibit us from achieving our goals.)

    2) I believe the discipline of philosophy can add value to the post-analytical era, not just in ensuring the fitness of minds, but that philosophers must reorder causal categories using empirical information so that new useful narratives can be added to the political discourse in order to assist in the evolution of norms from those that are beneficial in and older technological and organizational state to those that will be more beneficial in the new technological and organizational state.

  • ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY 1900-1960 ( Incorporation of Natural Sciences, abandoning history, abandoning religion, abandoning norms, while retaining the transcendental program. )
  • The term “analytic philosophy” refers to a method of argument that emphasizes clarity – testable rather than normative statements. It uses:

      1) Formal Logic
      2) Linguistic Analysis
      3) Respect for the natural sciences.
      4) Specifically abandons the assumptions of Religious and Institutional ‘Norms’.

    Analytic philosophy is identified with specific philosophical commitments (many of which are rejected by contemporary analytic philosophers), such as:

      1) The principle of Logical Positivism: that the object of philosophy is the logical clarification of our thinking. This may be contrasted with the traditional foundationalism, which considers philosophy as a special, elite science that investigates the fundamental reasons and principles of everything. As a result, many analytic philosophers have considered their work as a means of improving our interpretation of the evidence that we have obtained from the natural sciences.

      2) The principle that the logical clarification of thoughts can only be achieved by analysis of the logical form of propositions, often using the formal grammar and symbolism of a logical system of notation. The logical form is a way of representing a proposition in similarity with all other propositions of the same type.

      3) The rejection of heavily loaded and inarticulate philosophical systems in favor of attention to detail, exposing causal relations, using ordinary, clear language.

    But practically speaking, the analytical program was an attempt to turn philosophy into a natural science, to retain philosophy’s historical public importance by pursuing the transcendental program. And it was a total failure outside of improving the philosophy of science.

  • Empiricists Adapt To Modernity

  • ( Attempts To Retain Historical Norms In The Face Of The Agricultural and Industrial Revolution, Science and Darwin )
    The Germans And The French Hold On To History, Hierarchy And Privilege.
    France As The Most Backward Country In Europe
    The Anti-Empirical French Moralists
    The Bloody Revolution As Proof Of Failure
    The Third Attempt At Germanic Expansion
    The Marxist Religion As A Revolt Against Modernity

  • The Return Of Science
    The Return Of Commercial Society In Italy
    The Move Of Trade From The Mediterranean to the Atlantic
    The Rise Of British Empirical Pragmatism
    The Downfall Of Islamic Disruption Of Trade
    The Scholastic’s React To The Conquistadors
    The Printing Press And Germanic Craftsmanship
    The The Second Attempt At Germanic Expansion

  • THE REVOLT AGAINST REASON AND MODERNITY 70AD->1400 ( Incorporation of Magianism – The Spread Of Ignorance From Augustine To William Of Ockham )
  • The Roman Problems Of Administering A Landed Empire Rather Than A Naval Empire
    The Abrahamic Invasion and Conquest
    The Surrender to Immigration and Over-expansion
    The Justinian Oppression Of Northern Europe
    The Augustinian Attempt At Assimilation.
    The Plagues And The Shortage Of Coinage
    The Jewish Revolt Against Reason
    The Islamic Revolt Against Reason
    The Hindu Revolt Against Reason
    The Chinese Revolt Against Reason
    The Arab Conquest of Mediterranean Trade

  • THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION II – RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE – The First Commercial Society ( Greek Rationalism – The Emphasis On Human Actions – Empirical Pragmatism )

    • “We Control Our Destiny”
      The Limits of Rational Pedagogy
      The Twin Rivers, The Nile, and The Agean

  • GREAT TRANSFORMATION I – THE AGRARIAN REVOLUTION AND RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS ( The Scriptural Religions – Uniting The Tribes – The Agrarian Era )
  • NATURAL RELIGION ( Rituals Staring With Sacrifice )

A Few Timelines Of Philosophy Elsewhere:
The Basic Philosophy Alternative To Wikipedia
The Thompson Wadsworth Philosophy Timeline
The Western Philosophy Movements Timeline
RIT’s Timeline of Major Philosophers
The HyperHistory Wall Chart
Peter von Stackelberg’s Comparative History Chart

Getting To Denmark

Friday, February 17th, 2012

This has a distinctly Chinese authoritarian tone to it. And that’s OK. If we can admire the Chinese for their current economy we can admire the rest of their political edicts too:

Economists, social scientists, public intellectuals and politicians all use the Nordic Fallacy: the goal of making every country like Denmark. ie: a small homogenous germanic protestant country surrounded by other germanic protestants, with no exterior enemies and no need for self defense, and no strategic resources. We might ask, why we don’t ‘get to Switzerland’ which as a country has a far harder political problem.

That said, here is how the average country can Get To Denmark:

  1. Any state larger than 10M must secede a territory sufficient to reduce it to 10M.
  2. Outlaw Consanguineous marriages out to three generations (This is the most important tactic one can take.)
  3. Outlaw non-english foreign web access, video, television channels, and literature. (english is Lingua Franca of business and science, that’s the only reason to grant it an exception.)
  4. Outlaw and eliminate non christian and or non-secular religious buildings, businesses, and associations.
  5. Raise the age of consent to 21, and the age of marriage to 25 with severe penalties, including prison or permanent deportation and tattooing.
  6. Require proof of sustainable income in order to have a child, with loss of the child, permanent imprisonment or deportation as the consequence.
  7. Enumerate all Property Rights within an immutable constitution, and require all legislation passed to demonstrate why it is permitted by the constitution.
  8. Use lottocracy rather than democracy to rotate political positions every two years.
  9. Outlaw job protection for anyone who directly or indirectly serves the government.
  10. Get a king and queen. The nordics have them. Monarchs are the only form of government people understand and the most common in history – and the tend to stop people from seeking too much political power, or being too ridiculously ambitious.
  11. Mandatory eduction in the western cannon for all citizens regardless of their age at immigration. Religion doesn’t matter as much as the western cannon does. It’s secular but the moral christian values are pervasive and unavoidable.
  12. Mandatory use of single language. Period. No exceptions. Give tickets for it if you have to.
  13. Mandatory civil service for women (delay marriage, and forcibly indoctrinate into cultural norms, with extended work, loss of fertility, and prison for abdication.)
  14. Mandatory military service for males (Forcible cultural indoctrination with physical punishment and loss of fertility for abdication.)
  15. Zero Tolerance Policy with 3 strikes life prison sentences. (Harsh prison sentences have been successful in the USA as a deterrent.)

That’s what it will take to get to ‘Denmark’. Twenty years of that and you’ll have a solid polity with redistsrbutive instincts. That’s exactly what the european monarchies and nation states did. It’s what the Chinese are doing. And that’s why no one will get there.

And in case find that list objectionable, I don’t usually do this but I’ll quote Rand:

“It’s only human,” you cry in defense of any depravity, reaching the stage of self-abasement where you seek to make the concept “human” mean the weakling, the fool, the rotter, the liar, the failure, the coward, the fraud, and to exile from the human race the hero, the thinker, the producer, the inventor, the strong, the purposeful, the pure–as if “to feel” were human, but to think were not, as if to fail were human, but to succeed were not, as if corruption were human, but virtue were not–as if the premise of death were proper to man, but the premise of life were not.

In other words, the progressives forgive all possible depravity and call the coward, lazy and fools heroic. While those of us who work daily with discipline and courage are called selfish and inhuman.

Nonsense. Time to be done with the cult of guilt: No guilt. No white guilt, no christian guilt, no colonial guilt, no male guilt. Take it back. Take it back now. We did the world the greatest favor since the domestication of plants and animals. Ask for respect not forgiveness.

We’re Not Exporting Democracy. We’re Exporting Consumer Capitalism. And Our Military Is Very A Profitable Investment. (Really)

Friday, February 17th, 2012


On [online magazine] Counterpunch today, Paul Craig Roberts asks Is Western Democracy Real or a Facade?

He starts with:

The United States government and its NATO puppets have been killing Muslim men, women and children for a decade in the name of bringing them democracy. But is the West itself a bastion of democracy?

He then goes on to list a number of American sins that broadcast to the world our hypocrisy.

It’s a straw man argument that seeks to reframe historical American strategic policy into current populist jargon for what must be purely political reasons. I have only met Paul once, quite a few years ago, and only for a few minutes of discusion at a conference, but he appears to be an honest man, and I can only attribute this article to the effects of accumulated frustration. Which I can understand. But a questionable portrayal of events hinging upon a specious moral argument does nothing to improve matters at all. It’s much more helpful to deal with the facts and determine where we go from there:

1) The United states government has been attempting to contain the Muslim world since the fall of the British Empire for the following reasons:

    a) To prevent the spread of world Marxism and Communism to the Islamic world. This effort was largely successful. We can take credit for saving millions of lives by preventing the Soviet and Chinese deaths, as well as preventing Hindu suffering. Containment has worked for us. And the world has adopted Consumer Capitalism. And in doing so, lifted billions out of permanent poverty.

    b) To prevent ideologically and commercially competing countries from gaining control over middle eastern oil, and therefore endangering American (and Western) economies by using oil as a strategic and military threat.

    c) To contain militant expansionist Islam that is exporting terror, and that is able to spread under the support and funding of local governments.

    d) To allow popular commercial capitalist revolutions to take place when the society had matured enough that they could no longer tolerate their poverty, in the hope that like many other countries we can encourage them to join the modern world of consumer capitalism.

    e) To disallow the development of a militant ‘core state’ such as iran or iraq, that is able to unite a block such as syria, lebanon, iraq, iran, and pakistan, which would be both nuclear and would create the basis for a third world war funded by our dependence upon oil.

    f) To assuage our Christian guilt over the extermination of jews by protecting Israel and Israelis despite the constant irritation cause by a successful and prosperous middle eastern country that daily demonstrates the failure of Islamic civilization causes to Muslims and confirms their feelings of inadequacy and failure.

Americans are pragmatic. They ally with successful states and not with failed or failing states. The determine failed or failing by the level of internal conflict. As the world’s policemen Americans see conflict as requiring their involvement, and at great cost. So they are simply pragmatic in seeking to support ‘successful’ states: those without violent conflict.

America has assumed the role of the world’s policemen for two reasons:

    a) The assumption of the international system of finance, law, shipping and trade after the fall of the british empire. An assumption that was necessary for the preservation of the american economy, and second only to the Louisiana Purchase (land at 42 cents an acre in today’s terms). The assumption of that trade allowed us to replace the pound with the dollar as the reserve currency and to force oil to be traded in dollars – thereby giving us an invaluable economic advantage that persists to this day.

    b) The necessity of providing an alternative to World Communism that was more attractive and more supportive of ‘the people’ of the world.

Both the assumption of the system of trade, and the the desire to provide an alternative to world communism, are pragmatic choices, not ideological choices. For some reason americans are comfortable criticizing a political ideology like communism that is little more than a religion wrapped in pseudo economic dogma, than they are in criticizing a religion that is little more than a political movement. If americans would correct this error in their ‘talking points’ the battle against Islam would be much easier. Islam is not a religion. It is a political system, and a religion in name only.


American errors over the past decades have been the following:

    a) A naive belief that it is possible to transform paternal, tribal, consanguineous, anti-rational, illiterate, pre-modern societies into modern consumer capitalist republics. The interior social and political structure of these societies will not tolerate the dramatic change for a single reason: the near total disruption of their status-signaling economy. The concept of ‘common good’ does not exist as we understand it outside of the familial and tribal order. (The same is true for the Mediterranean cultures.) Extra-familial trust is almost impossible to build and is effectively unique to the germanic northern european and international anglo germanic cultures. We call these ‘high trust societies’ without understanding just WHY they are high trust societies. Nor understanding that the germanized christian west we have been building a high trust society arguably for thousands of years, and only succeeded a thousand years ago. (I’ll tell you a very valuable secret that has eluded philosophers, historians and economists: it’s because of corporatism. The manorial system, the aristocratic church, as well as the modern corporate system encourage commercial corporeal loyalty not familial, consanguineous, or tribal loyalties.)

    b) We are still ‘talking democracy’ not ‘talking consumer capitalism’ as if we’re fighting World Communism. Democracy is a luxury available to a small homogenous high trust society. It is a means of peacefully transitioning power. It is a means of limiting corruption. (The greeks used Lottocracy, which is clearly superior to Democracy in preventing corruption.) Democracy is not a means of enacting good economic policy. It is not a means of raising people out of illiteracy, ignorance and poverty. Paul is right in criticizing us for ‘talking democracy’. We should be talking consumer capitalism. The world has abandoned communism. What we do not understand yet, is that from academics to politicians worldwide, the world began abandoning democracy in academica in the 1990′s, and in the world political elite by 2000. Our failure to transform our ‘talking points’ from democracy to ‘consumer capitalism – regardless of political system’ — is what has caused the problems Paul refers to in his article.

Historian Oswald Spengler called western civilization Faustian: westerners keep pursuing this ideological view of human nature despite the obvious fact that we are making a deal with the devil in order to achieve the impossible. The west is exceptional. Our culture can never be universal. Criticisms of the NeoCons are correct in that they assume human consensus with western values and where they attempt nation building. Criticisms of the NeoCon’s are wrong where they seek to contain islamic civilization by military means. Islam is far worse a threat than marxism. At least marxism was subject to rational criticism. Muslims appear entirely happy to think themselves self righteous and holy as they descend into permanent ignorant illiterate abject poverty and vent their failure outward as terrorism.

2) The US does not support Democracy. It supports success. Americans are a commercial people. Much more commercial even than Europeans (which is why they don’t understand Americans at times.) In fact, the only thing Americans have in common is their commercial sentiments.

3) The US advances “Consumer Capitalism” not Democracy. Democracy is a code word for “Consumer Capitalism”.

    a) Consumer Capitalism is apolitical – it can be enacted by a authoritarian individual or a democratic house. It is blind to race, blind to religion, blind to gender. It is unforgiving. It is a purely meritocratic system. As a purely meritocratic system it favors people with both genetic and cultural advantages: Asians and Indo-Europeans. It puts the less literate and more magian people at a distinct disadvantage — something which all of Islam understands. And this is born out by the data: Muslims are 1/10th as productive as westerners. They are uncompetitive with the rest of the world. Without oil, they are no better off than sub-saharan Africans.

    b) Consumer Capitalism is a threat to the paternalistic, hierarchical, non-meritocratic, social status of almost every single male in Islamic society. And that’s something that must be understood. A male does not have to earn his position in the tribal society. He must earn it under consumer capitalism and he must compete with women under consumer capitalism. And each and every man in the society will take a dramatic ‘status discount’. Which they understandably find untenable. It is irrational to expect otherwise. Consumer Capitalism must grow organically from a slowly percolating middle class which creates new materialistic status signals that the lower classes can imitate by working hard and accumulating ‘things’ and experiences. A new ‘status economy’ must form.

4) Consumer Capitalism is not incompatible with what we popularly call Social Democracy: Redistributive Social Democracy. Under Redistributive Social Democracy, profits are captured through taxation and redistributed, allowing the market system to function using both incentives and the information embodied in prices. Consumer capitalism is incompatible with Socialism and Communism, both of which destroy incentives and the information embodied in prices. Consumer capitalism is compatible with libertarianism, conservative classical liberalism, and progressive social democracy – all of which interfere in the economy to varying degrees. Consumer Capitalism is just not compatible with a managed economy. Americans are exporting social democracy and consumer capitalism. But they’ll take consumer capitalism alone if they can get it. Why? Because it decreases the cost of policing and decreases the risk to the average American (Canadian, Brit, German, Belgian, Italian, Australian.)

5) Technically speaking, the USA is not a democracy. It’s a representative republic. That’s why we have the Senate and the Electoral College: to inhibit the dangers of democracy. In particular, our political system is organized to prevent democratic ‘fashionability’ with a hard constitution (that the progressives have effectively ruined via the commerce clause, and through judicial activism rather than calling for a constitutional convention) a high-turnover house, and a longer turnover senate (that was originally appointed not directly elected). So technically, we’re exporting “Social Democratic Republican Consumer Capitalism.”

6) If America loses its military power, its control over oil, or the dollar’s status as a reserve currency, then the ‘average’ American, if there even is such a thing, will experience a drastic reduction in standard of living. We complain about our national debt and our military expense. But really, this is how it all works out: We spend a lot of money policing the world. We export debt to pay for it. The debt encourages the world to support our policing activities. We inflate the debt away. And we obtain economic advantage that directly benefits the average American raising his or her economic class by something on the order of 50%. If you travel the world, and then come back to the states,its blatantly obvious the average person can consume vastly more as an American than anyone else on earth: more living space, more heat and air conditioning, more varieties of food, more kinds of entertainment, more information, and more air travel, more car travel, more free time. More everything. So, the pure COST of our military activity is a cheap return. It costs $700B this year, and our entire interest burden is $227B. Over the next three years alone, the American government will inflate 30% of that debt away.  We do not directly bill the world for our services, but we DO INDIRECTLY charge them for it, and it is our MOST PROFITABLE export.  There is a difference between wasting money and putting it to good use. Our military is not a poor use of funds. BUT the cost of nation building is impossible to bear. If we must bomb a country into submission that’s one thing. In many cases — preventing communism, preventing a nuclear Iran — its the lesser of two evils. But we cannot transform its culture or its economy. We can’t. That cost is infinite. And it’s futile.

Curt Doolittle

Defending Karl Smith

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

On Modeled Behavior, a commenter pulls an ad hominem:

Karl, I won’t call you a hack–you aren’t, but the first part of that post contained breathtaking partisan quackery.

And I replied:


Karl is not a quack. He honestly holds his positions and he can articulate why he holds them. He may be the only top blogger I can say that of. I know. I monitor the entire ecosystem.

The truth is that none of us are certain. Economics and sociology are immature fields with a short history and insufficient data. We’re all trying to figure out the human race. And we’re all claiming that our preferences are somehow scientific, and independent of our underlying sentiments both paternal and maternal, and are ultimate truths rather than cognitive biases in a fragile equilibrium. They are not. It is the equilibrium that we don’t know how to measure, not our paternal and maternal sentiments.

I disagree with Karl on the consequences of progressive Keynesian policy (spending). I don’t disagree with him on its operating principles. I think we just don’t know the answers yet, and that we shouldn’t create fragility in our very unique society until we do know.

It is not useful to debate with foolish or deceitful people. Deception is eristic. Foolish is a waste of time.

Karl Smith is the real thing. He may be the only top blogger that I can say that of.

(And I can go through probably the top hundred bloggers and enumerate the irrational tactics that each of the others relies upon for no other reason than to avoid exposing the sentimental rather than rational basis of his arguments.)