Author Archive

Capitalism and the Capitalist System?

Sunday, May 10th, 2015

All Social, economic and political orders require: 

(1) The suppression of predation and parasitism,
(2) the establishment of an allocation of property,
(3) a construction of a means of resolving disputes, and;
(4) a means by of organization of production.

Totalitarian: It can be organized involuntarily: the elimination of private property, planning and slavery in many of its forms.

Capitalist: It can be organized voluntarily by the use of private property, money, and prices.

Mixed: It can be organized by a mix of private property, money, and prices, and the totalitarian construction of commons. (Which is what we do today). 

A market forms under any condition in which goods are constructed for the purpose of exchange. 

The Demographics of Gun Ownership

Sunday, May 10th, 2015


The Correlative Answer: Part 1: Social Structure
Northern Europeans above the Hanjal Line (The North Sea Peoples who successfully out-bred) sometimes referred to as the Protestant Peoples) retain an ancient set of traditions requiring all men to obtain legitimacy and honor (equal status) through participation in the militia, and the purpose of the militia is to deny all men power over all other men. This is preserved most strongly in the anglos dutch and less so in the germans, who were anglicized.

The Causal Answer: Part 2 Tradition
There are a small number of underlying heroic traditions that carry the western Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarian (enfranchisement to all who fight) tradition – and that tradition is the cause of the rapid rate of western development compared to all other civilizations, both in the ancient, and modern eras. These are:
1) Heroism (purchase of enfranchisement and status through sacrifice)
2) All property is private (all property is earned)
3) Every man is his own legislator over his domain.
4) The common law and independent judiciary permit the resolution of differences between equals without appeal to authority.
5) The rule of law, the common law (organic law, natural law) applies to all men equally. 
6) Hierarchy is necessary for decision making in war, the resolution of conflicts, and for the suppression of free riding.

The value in this structure is that the common law can evolve with the first judicial ruling, and therefore both transaction cost and risk are reduced, and the chance of free riding, parasitism, fraud and predation are eliminated before they can be institutionalized. The market for law suppresses parasitism as fast as innovations in parasitism are created. In turn, innovation in products, services and ideas can progress with the least resistance from predators. Costs: The consequence for the underclasses is that while they benefit from the rapid innovation, they are more aware of the difference between those who are less productive and those who are are more so.

The Causal Answer: Part 3 : Incentives
As population destiny increases, all effects increase by approximately 20% for every doubling of the population. 
The incentives for people in rural areas where all men bear a high cost of policing the commons, is more restrictive than the incentives for people in urban areas where few bear the cost of policing the commons.

In general, people in areas of dense population discount the cost of policing commons and norms because opportunity, transaction and policing costs are lower.

The Causal Answer Part 4: Diversity.
Diversity decreases trust, increases political divisiveness and decreases economic velocity. Urban areas can afford immigrating diversity. Rural areas cannot.

It’s all rational really.

The effort to expand ownership has been successful and once people have limited skill with, and ownership of guns, it tends to transfer like all traditions between families.

The greater the effort to suppress gun ownership the greater the passion with which gun owners preserve the tradition.

We have roughly tripled gun sales under this administration. Demographically the argument is over and the pro gun movement has won. (surprisingly)

The supreme court has learned a tragic lesson from Roe v Wade: that the court should not solve social matters until they are first resolved by the states. That decision has nearly destroyed the court. “The Democratic Process Must Do Its Work” is the phrase we hear from the court.

The general consensus is that we have a problem controlling mental illness, and urban poverty, and not a problem with firearms.

So as far as I understand, the matter is settled for at least the next generation.

The Operational Revolution

Sunday, May 10th, 2015

(important piece)

One can describe events subjectively (how we feel about them); 
one can describe them objectively (how we observe others), and;
one can describe them operationally (by the actions taken).

One of the most useful methods of overloading, framing, and loading is to describe a process subjectively. Hence why physical scientists write operationally, why mathematics requires the test of intuitionism, and why psychology requires the test of Operationism; and why in economics (cooperation), we write in human actions.

The chief innovation of the left was to legitimize the pseudoscience of psychology for the purpose of loading, framing, and overloading. Postmodernism and propaganda are the ultimate achievement of the technology of ‘lying’.

– If we see myth as an attempt to convey truths. We can see monotheism as the organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

– if we see reason as an attempt to convey truths. We can see philosophy as the organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

– If we see empiricism as an attempt to convey truths, we can see rational philosophy as an organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

– If we see the darwinian scientific revolution as an attempt to convey truths, we can see the psueudoscientific revolution as an organized development of lying by loading, framing, and overloading.

– If we see the logical revolution (analytic philosophY) as an attempt to convey truths, we can see the postmodern revolution as an organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

– If we see the (Failed) operational revolution:
– intuitionism in mathematics 
– operationalism in physics
– strict construction in law.
– operationism in psychology.
– praxeology in economics.
– e-prime in language
– performative truth in philosophy
we can also see the the development of the academy since its seizure by the left, public intellectuals prior to the conservative 1980 movement, the media prior to the fox news and drudgereport movement, as a means of preventing the completion of the operational revolution.

We are defending truth but liars compete with us. They compete with us because we tolerate their competition. Lying and parasitism and immorality in all its forms are just thefts from the commons.

I can fix all of this even if I cannot alone, distribute the technology for defeating liars. The only means of defeat is the common law, the informational commons, universal standing, and the mandate for warranty of all public speech.

They will simply invent a new method of lying. However, we will have the tools to constrain them for centuries I suspect.

Curt Doolittle 
The Propertarian Institute 
Kiev, Ukraine

The New Reconstruction of British and North Sea History

Thursday, May 7th, 2015

One of the great civilizations of human pre-history. A center not an outlier.

Reincarnation. An underworld. Oak Trees Planted Upside down. 
The Hearth. Homes built around hearths. Stone circles built around homes. 
Feats of public engineering. A bronze age industrial revolution. 
The intentional destruction of our Priest-Judges and our civilization by Rome.
The consequent destruction of our entire european religion (civilization) by Justinian.
There was no Celtic conquests. There were no anglo-saxon conquests. There were no Viking conquests. There was even limited norman conquest. We see cultural adoption of British civilization on the continent, then after conquest by Rome and the destruction fo the druids, adoption of roman status signals and culture. Then after the departure of Rome, the adoption of north sea Scandinavian signals and culture. 
Bede’s Justification of the Church and the Fabrication of Primitivism of the British peoples. It was a lie.

We had liberty in pre-history: rule of law and an independent judiciary in prehistory.
The north sea peoples were constantly trading and inbreeding. 
The use of flint was eliminated by the oversupply of bronze tools. 
We were cut off at the knees by Romans, not civilized by them. 
We were enslaved into hierarchy by the church, not civilized by it.
Yet with the reintroduction of pagan thought (greek) we restored our civilization in but a few hundred years, and again produced an industrial revolution.

As far as I can tell, we never developed centralized government and taxation, so we did not develop inventories and writing. That is because we never had to construct irrigation or armies. We would only have developed writing if we had expanded commerce sufficiently to require inventories and contracts. But we did not get the chance. Romans killed our civilization. Bede and the church lied to us to pretend they had civilized us.

The Americans tried to restore our ancient civilization. But the Louisiana purchase and the failure to divide north and south into separate nations by aggressive conquest by the north, repeated the process.

Knowledge is power.

We can restore our northern European civilization.

No state. Rule of Law. Professional, devoted, judiciary. Private property. Militia. Universal standing. And civic construction of commons.


Is Philosophy Empty?

Thursday, May 7th, 2015

I can answer this question I think, as well or better than anyone living.  (Despite the obscurant framing of the question.)

1) Rationalism and justification were dead ends. Theory and criticism have replaced rationalism and justification. We can justify contract, and therefore moral action, but we cannot justify truth. We can construct proofs of internal consistency, but never justification. 

2) As far as I know the analytic method survives as a form of well-structuring our criticism, but the promise of analytic philosophy was a dead end: it’s entirely tautological.

3) We can theorize by whatever means we choose, from unstructured free association to formal deduction. But theories must survive criticism. Philosophy remains an exceptional vehicle for theorizing while reducing errors. Therefore as a means of criticism philosophy is not empty.

4) While, in philosophy, we have constructed: 
(a) the logic of identity 
(b) the logic of naming (including counting)
(c) the logic of ratios (mathematics)
(d) the logic of causality (physics)
(e) the logic of language (‘logic as we use it’);

we failed to complete:
(f) the logic of existence (operationalism/operatio­nism/intuitionism/action­/e-prime)
(g) the logic of cooperation (morality)
(h) the logic of completeness (full accounting)
(i) that truth must be testimonial (performed), and that all other use of analogy to testimonial truth, is an a subset of testimonial truth, limited to properties of the logic we use for criticism (a thru g).

As far ask I know (and I work on this problem) can be completed since at present I am fairly confident that the logics of existence and cooperation, and the definition of truth have been solved. This means that philosophy is not empty, just that it took us a very long time to grasp its function as critical: most likely because moral argument is justificationary, and truth and morality are very different things. 

– Cheers

Raise The Cost Of Tyranny Through Violence

Sunday, May 3rd, 2015

The only way to obtain liberty is to raise the cost of tyranny, just as the only means of constructing property is to raise the cost of parasitism.

We can raise costs by a) gossip – meaning shaming, b) economic ostracization – meaning boycott, and c) violence.

a) does not work for obvious reasons – the incentives to act as a parasite are superior under redistributive government.

b) does not work, since we are actively prohibited by law from ostracization and separatism.

Therefore (c) violence, is our only choice. Since even with small numbers we can dramatically raise the cost of parasitism upon us, and the destruction of our family and civilization.

Thankfully, at no time in human history, save perhaps during the sea people’s period, has civilizatino been so fragile.

It is the easiest period in which we can restore our liberty.

Or lose it forever.

The First Question of Ethics Is The Rationality of Cooperation

Sunday, May 3rd, 2015

The first question of ethics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff. 

The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest conveniently assumed as the starting point, rather than the necessity of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume cooperation this is a fallacy.  Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation.

Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous? 

Certainly it is not rational to permit violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin.

Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )).

If We Punish Lying As Aggression Then That is Enough

Sunday, May 3rd, 2015

—“We have to punish liars. Suppressing lying the way we suppress aggression is probably enough.”— Roman Skaskiw

Race Is A Problem Of Distributions

Sunday, May 3rd, 2015

I hate discussion of race really, but since my position is somewhat novel, I feel the need to vent my frustration at what I see as a the result of a series of mainstream errors that attempt to justify democracy by criticizing the natural and unavoidable behavior of man.   Instead of truthfully addressing the issue, we lie and try to convince each other of the lie.  It doesn’t work. Religion works because you can’t see any evidence other than people’s behavior.  Criticisms of race don’t work because we can always see evidence of group behavior.

Race: Demonstrated behavior in favor of kin selection; most commonly performed as some form of ostracization by means of (a) physical and legal, (b) boycott of commerce and cooperation, (c) gossip and ridicule.

So, the whole debate over race is a dishonest postmodern byproduct of the fallacy of democracy. People will never stop favoring kin selection in politics or any other walk of life. Race is extremely valuable to the middle and lower classes, even if almost entirely irrelevant to the upper classes. The margins will always interbreed because it’s to their status advantage if not their offspring’s.

Democratic empires like the USA and Europe are a catastrophe that makes hostility between of families with different abilities, needs and wants. Representative Democracy is an obscurant technology similar to overloading in rhetoric, pooling and laundering in money and finance, platonism in mathematics, and morality in politics.  Democracy obscures, and justifies, because it is only possible to employ in the consideration of particulars, and NOT in the consideration of sets of decisions. Especially when the particulars within each set of decisions provides incentives for corruption, contrivance, and deceit.  

There isn’t necessarily any problem with direct democracy on normative matters, and economic democracy on investment matters.  There just isn’t.  The problem with direct democracy is no longer one of practicality, but one of the impossibility of common interest.  

The only material difference between the races is the rates of reproduction of the underclasses. This problem was solved in the west by marriage, manorialism and harsh winters if not plagues, and in the east through starvation and political killing of even the most marginal of malcontents. It was marginally solved by the hindus via the caste system, while muslims, and africans had no means of solving it at all. Thankfully, in modernity it can be solved through redistribution in exchange for one child limits, rather than through starvation and extermination.  We can pay people NOT to commit the crime of parasitic reproduction, rather than punish them and the innocent for parasitic reproduction.

The only significant political difference between races is merely one of distributions.  

Without this difference in distributions, we would have very few political problems between the races of man.

(NOTE: I suppose I should diagram this argument as a set of demand curves for desirability as mates, group insurance value, and IQ/Impulsivity.  I haven’t really spent much time demonstrating propertarianism using Austrian ‘triangles’ – or, more appropriately: multi-dimensional demand curves.  But the world needs such a thing. And needs it desperately.)   

On Marriage

Friday, May 1st, 2015

I won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but under Propertarian analysis, marriage is a name for a corporation for the purposes of:
(a) reciprocal insurance of participant; and in modernity;
(b) power of attorney over one another, in the case of the incapacity of the other;  
(c) a political requirement that one eschew free-riding in one’s reproduction by requiring self-supporting production;
(d) a political incentive for males, who would otherwise act without incentive to preserve order (production); and
(e) a legal incentive to prevent violence over mates by treating the corporation of marriage as property that cannot be infringed upon (or rather, justifying violence if it is imposed upon.);
(f) and finally, a political strategy that forces the resolution of differences in reproductive strategy into the family, and conversely, to insulate politics from the differences in reproductive strategy between the genders.

Now, just so we are clear on whose interests are affected by these rules, (c) is meant to control female instinct to bear children of her choice, but to place burden of them on the tribe. (d) is meant to domesticate males so that they do not overthrow the existing order. (e) is largely to constrain females from destroying (a,b,c,d). So in this light, the institution of marriage is in large part necessary for the prevention of free riding that is natural for all females, and out of that prevention we obtain property rights, and peace.

Various societies construct and enforce these properties of the corporation. No societies do NOT suppress female parasitism, since societies that do not suppress female parasitism cannot survive competition with those that do. So while we tend to think in terms of suppressing the more visible threat of male violence, the central problem of producing prosperity is not male aggressiveness, but female reproductive free riding. This turns the criticism of demonic males on its head, such that short term male aggression and violence and long term female parasitism and gossip, are resolved in an equilibrium we call ‘marriage’.

However, once such an institution such as Marriage{a,b,c,d,e,f} exists, it is somewhat difficult to deny others other than male and female pairings, from access to the formation of their own corporations. My argument is that they are not equal to the purpose of marriage in all dimensions, but certainly: reciprocal insurance, common property, and power of attorney are rights we cannot deny people. In fact, I cannot imagine why we cannot create many such private institutions with however many members we desire. That seems to be something we can all benefit from – and which weakens the state, and state-corporatist power over us.

So what is important, and what I think is the proper subject for debate, is not this thing we call marriage that we argue in terms of traditional ceremonies and our own traditional intuitions, but instead, how to we grant (a) and (b) including community property if so desired, while preserving (c),(d),(e) and (f) – the prevention of these corporations from exercising political power with which to extract rents (parasitism), or by which they can export costs(parasitism).

Those of us who seek individualism in politics are wrong of course. We must construct law individually since only individuals can act, and be punished for action; but policy must be constructed familially, because the purpose of policy by any intertemporal judgement is familial: reproductive. So conservatives are correct in their attempt to preserve familialism in government. That is because the central problem of any society is the perpetuation of generations. So as long as any corporation is eugenic (meritocratic), and therefore possesses equal interests in government, then there is no problem with participatory government except that of class – and we can solve class conflict with houses of government established by property under one’s control.

It means that we should articulate the properties of marriage as I have stated above, and state those which we grant and require of any corporation: we will defend these rights, as long as you hold to these other obligations.

If those are established, then by all means, one can form a private corporation for the purpose of mutual insurance at a minimum. And for the purpose of reproduction if possible. As long as one does not export one’s differences into the political sphere by engaging in rents (redistribution) or externalities (exporting of costs).

Under this analysis I see no reason to do other than encourage the greatest number of these alliances (corporations) regardless of constituency, regardless of gender, as a means of decreasing individualism and therefore incompatibility, in the production of policy.

All families have similar interests. All individuals have dissimilar interests. A family is the smallest possible tribe we can form: a man and a woman. And a jury (government) that treats all families equally save for differences in wealth is very different from a management organization (government) that attempts to calculate the impossible diversity of interests of individuals, when those interests are largely parasitic.

This may be a bit hard to digest, especially in short form. However, what I am advocating is that we have as many marriages as possible, and that we encourage as many forms of marriage as possible, as long as such a grant of property rights to one another is also met with obligations to one another: that we do not use government to compensate for our productive differences.

My view of Aristocracy takes the same approach to mankind: all tribes are the same, and we can cooperate as long as we do not engage in parasitism. If we do this, reproductive rates will solve our problems and man will evolve into a fairly equal creature regardless of race and gender.