Author Archive

Criticism as Justification?

Saturday, September 26th, 2015


1 – We justify moral action ( dependence upon norm )
2 – We justify legal contract ( explicit reference to law)
3- We are skeptical of perception and cognition. (Honesty of witness)
4 – We criticize truth propositions (theory)

Because in each case we test for different properties all of which we blanket under an analogy to the term “true”, but none of which are informationally complete enough to in fact be true (ultimately parsimonious).

Instead, when we use the term true, we mean that we have adhered to moral norms in each case, when we give our testimony ( speak ).

Truth then is a moral warranty of due diligence against falsehood. It is not and cannot ever exist outside of tautology.

As far as I know that is the final analysis available to us.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute.
Kyiv, Ukraine.

The Three Weapons of Influence and the Evolution of Laws

Saturday, September 26th, 2015

(Natural Law is an excuse that justifies indo-european / Hanseatic property rights)

There are only three means of coercion (weapons of influence), although they can be, and are frequently, used in concert:
1) Force (threatening, punishing, killing)
2) Remuneration (payment/opportunity – boycott/deprivation)
3) Gossip (rallying, shaming, ostracizing)

We can engage in force to create property, remuneration once we possess it, and gossip to advocate it. Or we can do just the opposite.

The Jewish historical method is to apply the female reproductive strategy (gossip), because they lack the numbers (and the ability) to fight. Westerners took the libertarian strategy(synthesis). The barbarians take the masculine strategy of predation.

Jewish law, Islamic law, and Natural Law represent the three attempts to construct a legal system on first principles. However, jewish and islamic maintained ingroup/outgroup polylogical ethics, mysticism and authoritarianism.

Natural law (which propertarianism translates from rational to scientific, just as lock translated it from theological to rational) is typically western attempt at science (“without intent”), by stating that these principles are required for flourishing – which is true. However, that is the reverse logic. The obverse is that these rules are required for voluntary cooperation and the voluntary organization of production, and to suppress parasitism of the people by the rulers(nobility), governors(politicians), and state (bureaucracy).

I do not use the term natural law for Propertarianism, just as I do not use critical rationalism for testimonialism. The reason being that these archaic terms are too loaded and open to bias and interpretation. But for all intents and purposes I have continued the Natural Law tradition, just as the natural law philosophers continued the greek and roman traditions: noble families would not surrender power to a tyrant and as such required rules of voluntary cooperation. Just

So I see the battle between western science, libertarianism, universalism, and truth telling and eastern pseudoscience, authoritarianism, separatism, and deceit, as continuing.

We first had an invasion of babylonian mysticism and authoritarianism.
Then we had an invasion of Christianity.
Then we had the invasion of Marxism/Boazianism/freudianism (pseudoscience)
Then we had the invasion of Cultural Marxism (ridicule of excellence – shaming us for our excellences.)

Three waves of increasingly articulate lies.

The only way to defeat lying as a strategy, is to defeat lying altogether as a possible strategy, just as we have defeated every other form of fraud.

Testimonialism and the legal protection of the informational commons under universal standing may seem a bit expensive.

But it is less expensive than the alternatives: the ongoing conquest of the west. And the loss of the truth telling civilization to another dark age.

As Far As I know, This Is The Definitive Analysis of the Church

Saturday, September 26th, 2015

As far as I know:
1) The church served as a wealthy but weak professional administrative branch of government.
2) The church could grant moral authority to nobility and monarchy, or revoke it. Meaning that if revoked, your lands were marked for conquest by others.
3) The central tenet of christianity is the extension of kinship love to non-kin, breaking familial and tribal bonds. This is the only meaningful principle. It also happens to intuitively reflect hunter gatherer ethics and morality.
4) The church was able to legally enforce this policy by the prohibition on cousin marriage, and the grant of property rights to women.
5) While the church pursued these policies purely out of self interest: the removal of competition to the church as government, and the cheaper acquisition of lands, the net effect was to restore order to Celtica after the Roman destruction of Celtic Civilization and the impact of the migration period, and to provide sufficient administrative support that Saxon (north sea hanseatic) civilization could evolve into what we think of as Protestant Europe.

There is nothing valuable at all in the literature. It is mere nonsense. The ‘good’ outcomes were the product of one principle ‘love’ and one institution: property rights under the common saxon law, administered by literate if ignorant clerks.

Rome created a false history of european barbarism. The church, starting with Bede, has been successful in authoring a false history of Europe. Just as the “democratic era’ has authored a false history of Europe. Just as americans are being taught a false history of Europe. Economic history tells us differently.

Aristocracy, sovereignty and Militita, Rule of Law, the common law of property, Extra-kinship love and high trust.
These institutions produce the lowest transaction costs, and therefore highest possible economic velocity humans are capable of.

Why The Anne Hathaway Effect? The Cold Hard Truth: Shaming Alphas

Saturday, September 26th, 2015

We have overwhelming data, in all walks of life, that shows that ‘beta’ women and ‘beta’ males fear standards (other’s behavior) that they cannot themselves adhere to, and that are existential reminders of the inferiority of their social standing.

The technique that they use to vent their self loathing is gossip. Or what we call “rallying and shaming”. There are three purposes to Rallying and Shaming. (a) To alter the public perception of what is admirable, (b) to deprive the exceptional person of status signals (c) to decrease the relative distance between the ‘beta’ and the ‘alpha’.

We see this technique used pervasively in economics and politics under ‘inequality’, in the gender wars as ‘paternalism’, in the race wars as ‘privilege’, and in the arts as subjectivism. But in all cases, it is the same behavior: the less desirable, able, and articulate, polluting excellence so that it is not copied by others, by rallying and shaming against those who are objectively their superiors.

By shaming what is objectively superior, they hope to prevent being ‘left behind’ as inferiors, and to maintain their relative social standing – at least in their own minds, and among their peers. This strategy is known as ‘keeping each other down.”

A Short Course in Propertarian Reasoning

Saturday, September 26th, 2015

(introduction to propertarianism)

Note: this is a sketch of propertarian reasoning I’ve put together to satisfy some of your requests. If you follow me you will recognize the technique as the application of the scientific method and amoral economic language to questions of social science.

1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost.

2) We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy.

3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien.

4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axis of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites.

5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production.

6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.

7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production.

8) We seek discounts in our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation.

9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new, or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria.

10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean.

11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting).

12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments.

13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society.

14) In all political matters ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the christian mythos) was let loose by the middle class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo european genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability.


1) take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else.
2) identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.)
3) identify the property-en-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire.
4) determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism).
5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange.
6) State the user’s request in amoral propertarian terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading.


This example addresses the term ‘evil’ in propertarian terms, and provides an example of how highly loaded terms from antiquity can be converted into scientific (propertarian) terms.

Demonstrated Property / Property en Toto
Exchange / Transfer / Voluntary Transfer / Involuntary Transfer
Parasitism / Free Riding / Imposed Costs
Productive / Unproductive
Fully Informed / Asymmetric Information
Warrantied / Un-warrantied
Discount / Premium
Coercion / Influence
Voluntary Organization of Production
Incremental Suppression of free riding
Truth / Truthfulness / Honesty
Moral / Amoral / Immoral
Morality / Cooperation / Retaliation

On NSA Interest in You or Me or Anyone.

Saturday, September 26th, 2015

Why They Don’t Care About You.
1) Search engines are more effective than friends lists.
2) And you don’t write in Arabic.
3) And you aren’t writing across borders.
4) They have better things to do.

I’ve been both a justice department employee, and on the C list in the past, and that hasn’t stopped the government from asking me for help.

RUSSIANS: The Russians work by buying influence with public intellectuals (people who write stuff). They play to egos. Russian ‘spies’ have the easiest job of all: find ‘useful idiots’. They are great at it.

CHINESE: The Chinese work by stealing info via blood relations in the states. They play to genetics, nationalism, racism, and the Chinese ‘chip on their shoulder’. They are very good at it.

MUSLIMS: The Muslims work by inciting violence with outcasts. They play to the contradiction between islam’s utopian promise and it’s evident contradiction in reality as the religion of the lower (lowest) classes. They are becoming reasonably good at it.

JEWS: The Jews work by using money to buy influence and by using their control of the media. They play of tribal common interest. They are very good at it.

AMERICANS: Americans work by gathering signal intelligence. They play off the distribution of american military, technical, financial, and commercial prowess to less developed countries, and discontent by the middle and upper middle classes in those countries.
Real ‘spies’ are very small in number. The simple ones are attache’s to embassies. The better are employees of foreign companies, or foreigners hired as employees of companies. Then there are just plain specialists who can be inserted into nearly any position as needed, and they develop

We all know how each group works. So we investigate each group by the means that group uses to organize.

So unless you start threatening the president, or specifically inciting violence you’re just another annoying malcontent. And there are a lot of you. And you’re little more than evidence of the superiority of our legal system’s ability to tolerate intellectual dissent, while at the same time prohibiting physical violence.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

Opinion on Tucker? Missing the Boat.

Saturday, September 26th, 2015

(from elsewhere)

—“What’s your current opinion of Jeffrey Tucker?”—Johannesson

Tucker is a decent fellow seeking income by popularizing libertinism.
As a writer he is articulate.
As a marketer of ideas he is quite good.
As an editor he is even better.
As a theorist he is as weak as the rest.
As an entrepreneur he conflates his advocacy of his over-investment in his passion with the demands of the market: something no libertarian should fail to recognize. Ideology must satisfy market demand just as any other product.

Like the MI he failed to see the dramatic sea change from hopeful and rebellious classical liberals combined with a few social misfits, to alt-right classical liberals and many socially con-formative. And by missing that shift, and holding onto prior intellectual investments, he has missed his opportunity to generate revenue by continuing WITH the stream, rather than now struggling against it.

The world has moved on. The Alt-right owns the momentum because it attacks the lies and pseudoscience of the postmoderns head-on, rather than continuing the won-battle against socialism.

The Libertine generation is over. Libertines cannot hold territory against invaders wishing to impose alternative normative and institutional ambitions.

No one gets a free ride on liberty. The only means of obtaining liberty is the violent suppression of those who would take it from us.

Alt-right is the only possible form of liberty, and therefore the only direction of libertarian investment.

It is what it is. Adapt or perish.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Mises Gets Credit – for both his insights and his failings.

Saturday, September 26th, 2015

—“Curt Doolittle and Chris Cathcart — I am not sure I get your point that [Mises] will never get credit … he already does!”—Peter Boettke

Well, we all agree that he gets credit for stating that socialism was impossible. The question is whether he did so using justification from axiom, or by analysis of available information, available operations, and rational incentives.

I don’t think anyone argues that his insight was correct. What I argue is that he, like Freud, Boaz, Cantor, Marx, (Mises), the Frankfurt School and Rothbard, demonstrated the pervasive Cosmopolitan error of creating an authoritarian pseudoscience in justification of his priors, rather than engaging in science for the specific purpose of eliminating error, bias and priors, wishful thinking and deceit from one’s theories.

All knowledge is theoretical because outside of trivialities and tautologies, no premises are certain. Einstein demonstrated that if we cannot count on a concept such as length or time, that no premise is informationally complete enough to deduce necessary consequences. An axiom is a declarative construction – an analogy to reality, and is informationally complete. But no non trivial statement about reality is informationally complete. It cannot be. (hence critical rationalism and critical preference). Science is not justificationary, it is critical: we do not prove something is true, we see if it survives criticism. And the only test of existentially of any hypothesis is operational construction. As such praxeological analysis tests whether a statement CAN be true. So we cannot deduce all of economics from first premises (particularly the incomplete sentence “man acts”). We can observe (empirically) the unobservable, and then construct the observation out of rational actions to test if it is a truth candidate. But we cannot deduce all candidate operations from first principles – demonstrably so.

As such correctly positioning Mises in intellectual history as the another failure of the 20th century thinkers to complete the evolution of the scientific method from moral and justificationary to objective and critical.

This demonstrates that mises was, like Brouwer and Bridgman and Popper, attempting to eliminate the evolution of 19th and 20th century pseudoscience that Hayek warned us was the advent of a new form of mysticism.

Unfortunately, Bridgman and Brouwer did not understand Popper, Hayek could’t put the fields together because he started with psychology rather than ‘calculability’ and ‘computability’. Mises correctly understood calculation but not computability, nor the relation between computably and subjective human incentives. Mises missed the boat by trying to create an pseudoscience or authoritarian logic to suppress pseudoscientific innumeracy in economics.

What none of them realized – Popper included – is that the scientific method is a MORAL WARRANTY of due diligence in the elimination of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit. And that what each of them had done was attempt to prevent the emergent pseudoscience of the Cosmopolitans and Postmodernists that for all intents and purposes functions as the second ‘christianization’ of Europe, this time, by pseudoscientific rather than mystical means.

And that mises had incorrectly conflated logical necessity with adherence to the necessary morality of voluntary cooperation.

This is a very profound insight into intellectual history.

If I wanted to reform Mises I could. But that isn’t necessary. The world has moved on. Instead, the problem we face in our generation is not socialism, but postmodernism and lingering Cosmopolitan pseudoscience and innumeracy in the social sciences. We face pervasive mysticism, pseudoscience, innumeracy, propagandizing, and outright lying in politics and daily life after more than a century of diluting our education in grammar, rhetoric, logic, history and morality.

Undermining Rothbardian fallacies is just as important as undermining socialist, postmodern, democratic secular humanist, and neo-conservatism.
And unfortunately to undermine Rothbardian fallacies requires we undermine the fallacies that Rothbard depends upon in his arguments. And to some degree that means doing greater criticism of Mises than we might like.

A philosopher’s followers can ruin his legacy. His did. There is Precious little Austrian in Mises to start with. He is from Lviv Ukraine, and a Cosmopolitan author in genetics, culture, and method of argument. He is not a scientist. He is attempting to write scriptural law. And he makes consistent errors of conflating law, hermeneutic interpretation in the construction of his insight: it’s not moral or true if it’s not constructible out of rational human actions, and it’s not calculable, moral, and true for human beings to attempt rational planning in the face of state-manufactured deceit.

There is very little difference between postmodern propagandism and monetary manipulation. They are both disinformation campaigns designed to alter public behavior to state rather than individual, family, group and tribal ends. So it is not that state interference in the economy cannot be studied in the discipline of economics. It is that doing so studies disinformation, whereas the study of fully informed voluntary cooperation free of error, bias, wishful thinking and deception is the study of moral economics.

In retrospect it’s not complicated.

So while I partly agree with you, the damage done by his fallacies to the progress of liberty, and their amplification by rothbard/HHH/MI, have been far more harmful than good. LR at MI tried to use Alinsky’s model of creating propaganda and community. But this battle was above the heads of these people. Whether well intentioned or not.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

No, Mises is Not a Hero. (Not that he wasn’t pretty good)

Saturday, September 26th, 2015

I love him but he was wrong. He conflates definitions with demonstrated behavior and this is an example of why he was ostracized for his dogmatic verbalisms.

His method of investigation, which he calls Austrian but is arguably Ukrainian instead, is reducible to the study of the means of improving the institutions that facilitate the voluntary organization of production by eliminating all possible frictions to economic velocity.

Whereas the mainstream is reducible to the maximum consumption that can be generated by interfering with the voluntary organization of production without producing the disincentives that would increase frictions sufficiently to produce results counter to the ambition.

When the differences between misesian and mainstream are one of morality and externality, not definition.

Mises engaged in fallacies throughout his work. He makes consistent mistakes in the application of aprioristic logic of axiomatic systems to the proximal logic of theoretical systems.

He discovered operationalism in economics just as Brouwer discovered it in math, and Bridgman in physics, and popper in philosophy.

But none of them managed to put their efforts together into an innovation in the scientific method and the formal uniting of philosophy and science into a single discipline; and finally retiring moral discourse just as moral discourse retired religious discourse.

This is perhaps one of the greatest failures of the twentieth century.

Mises was a little right. But his dogmatism ended both his career and his potential to solve the problem not just if economics but if the social sciences.

Unpleasant Truth: Hiring a Female CEO is a Negative Indicator

Saturday, September 26th, 2015

The primary reason that women and minorities are put into power because they lack the ability to alter the status quo through the construction of stress-bearing loyalties. Boards hire them as weak placeholders – a strategy of delay an wait.

The assignment of a woman to a leadership position in a troubled company is an admission by the board that they cannot come to consensus on a strategy, or that they have exhausted available strategies, and that further investment in the firm will perform negatively.

They are aware that a woman and minorities will be willing to take the position due to the status perk of obtaining a rare executive position even while winding a company down, while men will not find status in such an effort, but failure.

They are also aware of the positive PR that such appointments generate, and the negative that white male appointments generate under duress: in other words, the media will criticize a white male on his abilities, and laud the progressive appointment of a woman or minority in the hope that he or she succeeds. So the company is buying resistance to criticism by the press.

Women and minorities will readily walk off the glass cliff because they are desperate for status from other women and minorities for having obtained a rare position. Men of equal ability will evaluate taking such a position as career ending and avoid it. Women having held such a status position can hold that status even after their failure. Men having failed will carry the stigma of failure, not the status of having obtained a rare position. So the long term consequences of an executive position in a declining company vary by gender and race.

The glass ceiling exists because women are less loyal to their faction under stress than men of equal abilities. Meaning that men view women as less trustworthy. So, men view women (subconsciously) as untrustworthy under duress, if not weak allies at all times, and thereby untrustworthy in general.

Conversely, this weakness means that the status quo will not be upset, and further confusion created if a woman or minority is appointed.

Lastly, any professional c-level executive is very well aware prior to taking a position, of the prospects for the company. These things may seem complex to non-professionals, but in general it’s a matter of talent, alliances, incentives, assets, debt and time.

I’ve been writing and talking about this topic for two decades now. Outside of obvious industries selling consumer products to women, boards choose women execs as an admission of failure. (Xerox, HP, Yahoo…) Even Meg Whitman was a placeholder for the two founders.

Truth hurts. Science is uncomfortable. But it is what it is. We are unequal. And that’s a good thing.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine