Author Archive

Capitalism Refers to a Bias within Government, Not a System of Government.

Tuesday, July 7th, 2015
A couple of thoughts for you:

Is an organization for the purpose of producing commons.
In practice that may mean Commons for a few.
In practice that may mean Commons for some.
In practice that may mean Commons for all. 

Capitalism isn’t a form of government.
It’s often inarticulately referred to as an economic system (god knows what that means).
But operationally it’s a means of voluntarily organizing production.
We can organize production voluntarily(market capitalism),
We can organize production semi-voluntarily(mixed economy),
or We can organize production involuntarily(socialism/slavery).
We can leave individuals with all of the proceeds (no commons).
We can leave the individuals with most of the proceeds (some provision for commons).
We can leave individuals the minimum proceeds necessary to preserve the incentives required to voluntarily organize production. We can never let the individuals see the proceeds of their production (socialism, slavery).
In practice all economies are mixed. Out of necessity.  The current attempt at ‘maximizing taxation’ is an attempt to determine the maximum takings that can be appropriated by the government before the incentive to cooperate fails to allow for the rational formation of the voluntary organization of production.  (In other words, they are looking to reproduce slavery.)
When we say ‘capitalism’ we are referring to a bias in favor of either the voluntary means of organization, the voluntary means of distributing dividends, or both.

AXIS (A Better Nolan Chart):



meritocratic (liberty)<—->utilitarian<—>equalitarian(communism)



Source: Frequently Asked Questions |

Critique vs Criticism

Monday, July 6th, 2015


– Critique is a cosmopolitan discipline(as in Culture of Critique).
– Criticism is a scientific discipline (as in Popperian Criticism).
– Criticism is necessary in order to determine whether a theory survives attempts to falsify it. Critique is a means of loading, framing, framing, overloading, and constructing suggestion by means of deceit.

Moralizing is very different from constructing models of transfers to determine whether thefts have occurred.

–“Are correct incentives what others have called the kool-aid?”–

Correct incentives are those that do not create hazards thereby encouraging parasitism (involuntary transfer), but instead construct incentives for productive voluntary transfers. The counter proposition is that deceit and parasitism are somehow objective ‘goods’, rather than providing a disincentive for cooperation, increasing transaction costs, lower trust, lower economic velocity, lower production and lower consumption. In order to counter this argument one would have to provide a different method of decidabily in the conduct of human interactions. (which will be very difficult)

—“write as more idealistic than moralistic, “—

Well I don’t have to think of it ‘like’ anything, I can categorize it as analogical appeal to subjective preference rather than operation description without appeal to subjective preference.

Source: Curt Doolittle

Useful, Useless, and Harmful…

Monday, July 6th, 2015

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

Source: Curt Doolittle

Truth: Doing The Laundry of Imagination

Monday, July 6th, 2015

Truth: Laundering Error, Bias, Imaginary Content, Wishful Thinking, and Deceit from our free associations, hypothesis, theories, and laws.

Source: Curt Doolittle

Universities are Repositories for Discarded Theories

Monday, July 6th, 2015


—“Universities may see themselves as bastions of knowledge and intellectualism, but they have long since forfeited this role. Instead, they have become repositories for theories long since discarded in the region and which bear little resemblance to reality today. The more professors prioritise theory over fact, the more they will condemn themselves to irrelevance. Unfortunately, when policymakers embrace blindly their untested conventional wisdom, the consequences can be far worse.”—–

I could not have done this work in the Academy.  It wouldn’t have been possible.  You can’t really assemble degree in this kind of philosophy, this kind of economics, this kind of politics.

The system is the problem.

Source: Curt Doolittle

Retrospect. Babbage Could Have Saved Us A Century?

Monday, July 6th, 2015

Well, I in retrospect I understand why no one else solved the problem of the Wilsonian synthesis: the merger of science and philosophy. Why no one else came up with testimonialism, propertarianism, and operational criticism.

Also in retrospect, I am fairly certain that had Babbage’s machine been built and worked, that the synthesis would have happened in Hayek’s generation, instead of mine.

But I am still suspicious that anything could have stopped the travesty of marxism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism, as a war against truth.

Why? Women did an amazing amount of damage with their enfranchisement.

Obverse and Reverse

Monday, July 6th, 2015

Obverse / Reverse.
Silver Rule / Golden Rule.
Act to Obtain / Act to Defend
Non-Parasitism / Property
Freedom to / Freedom From
Obligation / Right

Source: Curt Doolittle

Aristocratic Libertarianism vs Ghetto Libertinism

Monday, July 6th, 2015

You know, you can put a sign over your head and call yourself a libertarian: an advocate for a condition of liberty, but that doesn’t make you a libertarian. Any more than calling someone an Austrian Economist in the Cosmopolitan wing makes you an Austrian Economist in the German Wing. What makes you an Austrian economist is seeking to improve institutions of cooperation so that we reduce all possible friction (transaction costs). And what makes you a libertarian is to seek to improve cooperation by opposing all institutional means of free riding, so that we reduce all friction (transaction costs).

So if you want a libertarian movement, you are kind of stuck with Aristocratic Libertarianism, because ONLY aristocratic libertarianism (and not ghetto libertinism) can produce sufficient elimination of transaction costs that it is rational to join an anarchic, and by anarchic I mean NOMOCRATIC, polity.

I want to unite libertarians and conservatives. But to do that I have to demonstrate the propaganda of the Rothbardians as not only insufficient, but an obscurantist deception on the same scale as neo-conservatism, marxism, socialism, and monotheism.

So we now know Rothbardianism is another cosmopolitan deception – just like socialism – by means of loading, framing, and overloading.

And we also know that the conservatives have failed to produce a ratio-scientific and institutional solution to the problem of the destruction of western civilization through lying, pseudoscience, propaganda, using the academy and media.

So knowing that classical liberal conservatism and rothbardian libertinism have failed, and why they have failed (which I have elaborated upon repeatedly elsewhere) we can abandon hope that either classical liberal conservatism or rothbardian libertinism will restore western civilization to a condition of liberty.

And then we can look at the institutional solution provided by Propertarianism, and create a post-classical liberal political system that does not require majority rule, and allows groups to conduct political exchanges in a market for the construction of commons, rather than impose their will upon minorities.

We do not need to approve such contracts. We need only demonstrate that they are objectively ethical and moral. And if all such contracts like all commons are open to criticism under universal standing, then we need no assent. Our proposals instead, need to survive criticism.

And by that structural change we turn politics into a branch of science.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

I’m In This Fight For All of Humanity

Monday, July 6th, 2015


I don’t really care about race. I acknowledge our differences, and I write about our differences as a small number of differences in cognitive distributions. But race and racism doesn’t help me or anyone else solve any material problem. I know the white nationalist movement uses my work, but I am just as happy if EVERY nationalist movement uses my work, because it will make all of us happier if we do. (Because we can use trade policy to offset our differences in distributions, and within any nation we can use the norms appropriate for our distributions.)

But bitching about other people’s evolutionary strategies is just gossip. It means nothing. It doesn’t fix anything. It doesn’t provide a political solution to the problem of prosperity, kin selection, beneficial evolution, and the ultimate achievement of mankind.

So my objective is to provide solutions. And those solutions should assist all of us regardless of our race and tribe. Because all our races and tribes are stuck on this planet together. And as such, we need a way of cooperating, even if that way of cooperating is to peaceably choose not to cooperate.

And Truth is enough. If we eliminate deceit from the public discourse, and eliminate theft from the public trough, then that will force the outcome you probably desire.

But I will not engage in racial gossip. I am just as interested in helping Whites, Africans, Asians, and Indonesians, achieve liberty and prosperity as I am my own people.

We had enough of this damage done by the Enlightenment. And I just want to fix it for everyone.


Good. So I support nationalism. All of it. For everyone. Becuase the family defeats the corporation as a means of human reproductive cooperation.

I Love Everybody. So Go Hang Some Politician :)

Monday, July 6th, 2015

I Love everybody. I’m a Christian.  That’s what it means to be Christian.

It’s one thing to deny the differences in our distributions. It’s one thing deny we vote in blocks. One thing to want to limit sacrifices to kin. But it’s something altogether different to fucking hate people. This is why I get frustrated with the right. We have lunatics and autistics in libertarianism, and they hate the abstract thing called the state. But the right has these lunatics that just hate other humans.

Instead of saying ‘what is wrong with us that we fail to protect ourselves?’ they criticize others for satisfying their own strategies. THE PROBLEM IS US, NOT THEM. You wanna hate? Hate OUR people that did this. But don’t others for seeing the walled garden and wanting to live in it. That’s insane.

I want to know how to protect my tribe from losing its competitive advantage: high trust and the commons. And I’m as kin-selection oriented as the next guy. And I don’t like immigrating MORE of the below 105 median peoples into a high trust society when I can see Mathusian limits to work on the horizon.

But I don’t hate people. People are pretty stupid wetware machines that just follow breadcrumbs. I get frustrated like everyone else. I get angry like everyone else. But you know, the blame is due the guy that’s looking at you in the mirror who isn’t out there shooting some politician in the head for what he or she has done. It’s not in the people wanting to live in our high trust society.

Find a way not to leave the breadcrumbs.

Source: Curt Doolittle