Legal Prohibitions on Free Riding Must Expand With Minimum Friction

Entrepreneurs innovate. Property is necessary for calculation and incentives. Trust is necessary for economic velocity (rates). As complexity expands so does the means of free riding and theft, so legal prohibitions must expand in criminal, ethical, moral, conspiratorial coverage at a marginally indifferent rate from the complexity of associations in order to maintain trust and economic velocity.

This state of affairs is only possible in homogenous polities.

A Quarterly Reminder – Fair Warning.

For new friends and followers, please understand what I do here and on FB. It is my sketch pad. I work in public like a village blacksmith where you can peer into the forge and see the experimental work being done – good and bad.

Propertarianism is a very special thing and you can learn a lot about the world by following me. But it does require that you keep in mind that I am constantly using the community as an experimental pool to test ideas and seek criticism.

I am slaying a few hundred years of sacred western ideas, and doing so mercilously. This often requires that I experiment in everything from very rigorous philosophy, to the most general of aphorisms and narratives. Some of which are guaranteed to offend you. (And me sometimes, too.)

But my goal is to capture what made the west competitively successful in our history in formal logical and scientific terms – for the first time, to capture it as an analytic political philosophy, recommend formal institutions, espouse it as an ideology, and provide moral authority for revolution, the strategic and tactical means of conducting that revolution.

I am not so much a populist as an engineer. Its not my job to be popular. It’s my job to discover the truth.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine

Who Will Contain American Barbarism? Not Quite: American Stupidity Maybe.

QUESTION: If we contain Russian barbarism, then who will contain American barbarism?

ANSWER: Well that is not an honest statement right? It posits a false moral equivalency rather than the truth that each party is half-right. Moreover, it is easier to correct the half-right anglo island dweller political ideology, but very difficult to correct half-right russian-steppe low trust and pervasive corruption.

The answer of course is to close borders, and bring capital to people rather than people to capital, and cause internal reformation through capitalism, trade, and prosperity, rather than export of cancerous low trust behavior to higher trust countries, and buildup of land, sea, and air, state-militaries.

So, if you mean, who will correct American perception of the value of extending democracy – which requires a high trust society – rather than just limiting protecting property rights (borders, human rights/liberty, capitalism/property rights)? Then that is an honest question.

If you mean that you think that the world will naturally adopt borders (common property), human rights(mind and body), and capitalism (private-property), that is possible. But then again, we cannot have any of these things unless we insure others and they insure us – by intervention when asked.

Russia is correct in its criticism of American ideological error in failing to understand the importance of authority in heterogeneous low trust polities with complex borders. More primitive people require more authoritarian governments. More advanced peoples require less authoritarian governments. Democracy is a luxury good of advanced, high trust homogenous societies with absolute nuclear families. I

As far as I know the USA largely plays sheriff, and is incorrect only in the sense that (a) we do not require Europe(Germany) to carry its own water, (b) we are wrong that democratic governments are superior to authoritarian governments.
Why? Because democratic and authoritarian governments are mere reflections of the demands of homogeneity-high trust and diversity-low trust societies, not reflections of good intentions.

We are also wrong in that we should support the formation of more governments into smaller polities to solve problems due to artificial or legacy borders that prevent the formation of higher trust polities. So we should support secession. The problem is that if we support secession that will be also supported at home and the ability of the government to finance playing sheriff to the world will dissipate even more quickly.

My preference is to increase awareness of the fallacy of borders/democracy and the importance of property/liberty, and to advocate separatism and secessionism at home so that we may incrementally lose the ability to project wars.

I suspect the opposite will happen: that new redistribution of economic power will cause existing large states to attempt to expand privilege (influence) and control (rents) and that the world will continue on its present course toward Huntington’s conflict.

Libertines should try to keep in mind that the purpose of the cosmopolitan movement was to retain Jewish separatism, identity, law, ethics, morality and custom, while justifying their expansion into any and all economies and walks of life, without paying the high costs of land-holding that host populations constantly pay and whose narratives place upon them so many obligations. And we also forget that that the purpose of the anglo-puritanical movement was religious anti-statism using the same jewish model, but that by divorcing it from militialism, and associating itself with more easily seduced women and socialists, that the puritanical movement could overtake academy and state and create the Cathedral.

The way to change this state of affairs, which I argue in propertarianism – I think fairly persuasively – is to return to cost, science and action from cost-evasion, belief and verbalism, and make each of us accountable for the rights that we must pay for in order to possess them.

Learn: Jury, Testimony, Law, Property-en-toto, and Evolutionary Strategy. The reliationship between family structure and trust; and between homogeneity and borders and trust. The relationship between trust and economic velocity. The relationship between the evolution of free riding, the rate of evolution of law, trust and economic velocity.

The relationship is between homogeneity, property, family, law, truth, trust and economic velocity.

Curt Doolittle
(H/T to William T Houston for the inspiration).

It’s All So That We Can Act As Specialists – Not As Equals

(worth repeating)

–“The whole anglo philosophical and political fantasy of equality has been a disaster for mankind. We must be equal in property rights and equal under the law, but that’s so that we may coordinate our actions as specialists, and succeed as specialists – not so that we can act as equals.”–

Economy: Family Business and State Are Just Matters of Scale

(h/t Andy Curzon )(edited and revised)

If we look at Austrian business cycle theory as merely an instance of the cycle of ‘flocking and schooling’ that follows any kind of change in knowledge that as a consequence produces an opportunity, then the century of pseudoscience was just another business process by which to exploit a market opportunity, and it played out as a series of eddies and pools, which are currently in the process of maximum exploitation and collapse.

And so governments are just temporary corporations exploiting business opportunities. And management(government), employees(bureaucracy), customers(consumers), and investors(citizens) all compete for the maximum returns.

This matches all political theory throughout history that suggests that people seek opportunities until it is possible to seek rents, and rents expand until the civilization collapses. It also matches the data that without private(shareholder) public(corporation) alliance no city state became economically competitive.

I disagree with Diamond for example, since I am pretty sure the reason for these collapses is a breakdown of incentives : the information system that allows for the organization of production. I would say that civilizations collapse either due to extreme efficiency followed by shocks (1200 BC), or the equivalent of cancer: damage to the information system that eliminates the relationship between production and consumption.

But since humans flock and school, then break off in smaller schools, to exploit opportunities, we are pretty good at a sort of fractal exploitation of every possible opportunity until it’s been exhausted.

I suspect either an expansion of statism in order to extend the status quo, or an upcoming era of increased statist tyranny in the name of order. If not I suspect collapse of the western control of commerce and trade, and an expansive war or system of wars, to fill the vacuum; and an acceleration of civil wars to take advantage of change at home.

It is better to study businesses than states, because the model is sufficient and the data is better.

It’s A False Moral Equivalence: Comparing Russian and American Political Interference

(reposted from original site)


I rarely disagree with you, but regarding Russia, you posit a moral equivalency where none exists. Here is why:

The USA’s  *Demonstrated* postwar policy operates by the following criteria:

1) BORDERS – states who don’t respect borders can lead to world wars.

2) HUMAN RIGHTS – states who don’t respect human rights export problems to the rest of us.

3) CONSUMER CAPITALISM – consumer capitalism is in the interests of ordinary people, because it will raise them out of ignorance and poverty, and more importantly, it creates states that can be competed with, and cooperated with, economically rather than militarily – this is profound because just as under consumer capitalism the market competition and conflict produce beneficial ends for consumers, so does does market competition between states produce beneficial ends for consumers since it forces a choice between consumption and expenditure on the ambitions of the central government – not the least of which is military expansion.

But that same policy also includes our greatest failure:

4) DEMOCRACY – it is our evangelism of democracy under the myth that all people desire and are capable of it, which has led to most or our failures.

Why? Because Northern europeans were uniquely capable of self rule for historical reasons:

a) we have a high trust society build through extensive outbreeding. (See Emmanuel Todd)
b) we have had centuries of suppression of the breeding of the underclasses under manorialism and its predecessors (See Clark and Todd)
c) We have had a unique history of the jury of our peers, rather than authority, for what appears to be more than 4000 years, and the common law for nearly as long – and as such a fairly unique ability and cognizance of truth and truth telling that separates us from the rest of the world.

The rest of the world, even southern Europe, cannot accomplish self rule because of pervasive corruption (See Fukuyama).

Russia is a very, very, low trust society that DEPENDS upon systemic corruption to function, but that imposes corruption on its client states. Russia actively imposes brutality, murder, genocide on low trust countries to create military and commercial order necessary for low trust peoples to cooperate.

Conversely eastern europeans, especially Ukrainians, are NOT low trust peoples, any more so than Poles who are indistinguishable from Ukrainians, or even northern Italians (whom despite being largely germanic, the western Slavs resemble in many ways). So, Russian export of low trust means of government onto middle trust countries that can easily develop into high trust countries is by any definition evil and immoral, (they are Christian here in the east after all, and christianity breeds wealth because it breeds trust.) Just as American export of high trust means of government into low trust polities is harmful to them – they are incapable of self rule. They are incapable of self rule in many cases because they still practice inbreeding to control property in the family. (This is what prevents India from advancing more rapidly as well.)

So this is the difference between American and Russian political exports: If you export good government onto a medium or high trust people they they will flourish. If you export a low trust means of government on a low trust polity, they will also benefit somewhat – Russia’s southern neighbors did even if eastern europeans were murdered by the millions because of it.

Neither the Russians nor the americans are aware of Emmanuel Todd’s insights: That the only way to create a high trust society is the combination of consumer capitalism and outlawing near-breeding and inbreeding. Because as soon as you see everyone as a potential customer, business associate, mate or family member, trust must increase. Just as if you inbreed and rely upon relationships and corruption and parasitism, you will live in poverty (see Banfield’s Moral Basis of a Backward Society).

Most of the world lives in poverty because they have not adopted the christian ethic of treating all men as members of your family. This is the the first secret of christianity The second is the outlawing of cousin marriage by the church. The third was the granting of property rights to women by the church. The fourth was the construction of chivalry so that status only achievable by martial means was achievable by acts of public service.

These activities by the church were not prescient, but practical, and when combined with out indo-european heroism, birth control, truth telling, juries, and local sovereignty made us capable of self rule.

But none of these would have been possible had it not been for the aristocratic egalitarian ethos (see Ricardo Duchesne), which states that any man who wishes to fight for sovereignty must be aided: we must insure anyone who asks for defense as a means of increasing our numbers. We have been insuring one another’s property for thousands of years by the point of our spears, swords, bayonets and bullets. It is how we keep our numbers – we have always been a minority on the western edge of the world, and for most of history of poor one. Yet we were able to defeat greater numbers and and wealthier opponents for thousands of years.

Other countries cannot self rule because they have not experienced any of these advances. In fact, they find it heinous and prefer their familialism. And given our differences in reproductive rates, they may hold the correct evolutionary strategy – and not us. Western high trust society, high consumption and low birth rates, are not mathematically compatible with immigration of low trust peoples, dependence upon growth of consumption, and extensive redistribution. It is mathematically inescapable suicide (which you know, I know.)

So while in general I share your ideological position on all but marginal matters, it is this one that I think you err in: you are presuming we are strong enough on our own, and abandoning our aristocratic egalitarian strategy of keeping up our numbers by supporting the liberty of any who will fight along side us to preserve it. Instead we must always seek to increase our numbers – of high trust Christians.

Eastern European Christians are ‘us’. Ukrainians are ‘us’. Russians are steppe barbarians that understand only power. And in their world-view, truth is concept for fools. For Russians, “Words are just sounds you make to distract people so that you can defeat them”.

This difference in trust and truth is what separates Russians from westerners: they are a mix between us and the Chinese. Thy are a despotic low trust people with european aspirations and european mythos, but who have been influenced by mongol, muslim and turkic despotism such that they remain low trust people – what we mean by ‘barbarians’. They never had our commerce and outbreeding so they never developed trust and universalism.

Unfortunately Gorbachev’s vision to unite the circumpolar people would have been successful and beneficial for the world could we have achieved it. The only thing keeping Russians from despotism is 100 thousand western europeans running their laws for three generations.

Which is exactly what it takes to transform a country to western levels unless it can construct a powerful christian minority capable of taking rule long enough to transform the culture’s expectations into one that depends upon property rights, human rights, and dependable rule of law.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine,

Regarding: A Russophobic Rant From Congress

Bring Back the Guillotine – For the Cathedral

I couldn’t care less about social justice and equality. I despise the terms and the feelings that inspire them.
But when a young man who is willing and able to work, and work hard, to feed his family cannot find work, and the only reason that he cannot is low trust, no credit, and low economic velocity – that makes me angry.

I know too many men here who want to work, are willing to work, at ANY work, to feed and house their families, that cannot find it. And they cannot find it while government bureaucrats seek pervasive rents and participate in pervasive corruption.
And it makes me want to kill every living soul in that government that I can get my hands on.

We need to bring back the guillotine.

When Did They Start Teaching Us To Lie?

Question: One thing I wonder is: How many generations ago did we sell out and start lying to our children, until the lie was forgotten? – Molly

It started fairly early. But it is largely a product of the strategic application of the Ten Planks. But, in addition world circumstances helped a great deal:

Education evolved along with industry so education stopped being a craftsmanly product for small shops delivered by professionals, and instead became a manufacturing process delivered as were all manufactured goods. This is the heart of it.

Soldiers in WW1 were widely distributed in ability ( the southern problem was real at that point it appears) mostly due to literacy and ignorance.

The expansion of consumer society in tandem with first inexpensive print, then radio, then television, meant that the public was constantly hammered with sentimental nonsense at low levels of education, in order to sell new consumers newly available household goods.

We had successfully integrated ‘the flood’ of post-civil war immigration into ‘the american way’ by 1960, but the postwar economic period, in which the world manufacturing and production system had been destroyed leaving only the USA intact, led to a class-shift as our lower classes were paid middle class wages due to temporary scarcity (which has been ending, now that the world has recovered, and former socialist and communist countries have entered the world economy). These new people now were able to exercise influence in the market and in politics, and even in the educational market because of their newly acquired wealth. And sought to rebel against previous generations – just as all generations do.

The addition of the underclasses to the university system postwar provided great incentive, and lack of regulation of colleges and universities allowed the dilution of the meaning of education.

The (real) problem of integrating less capable minorities into grade schools dependent upon 110 IQ’s. (yes). Then once they had been, getting them into colleges where 110iq was necessary to manage the work. This is not statistically possible since the Pareto optimum is around 115 – meaning that only about 20% of people or so actually could complete college course work (adjusting for willingness to work on the down side, and character flaws on the up side.) So education had to be dumbed down **A LOT** so that this many people could get into and graduate from college.

The economic incentive of selling college tuition to women – which like selling representation, or ANYTHING for that matter, is more effective than selling to men (I go by the data and that’s what it says).

The success of cosmopolitan socialism in the 1960’s because of their successful capture of media and the ‘soft disciplines’ in colleges (white collar occupational training) and universities (‘education proper’).

Big mistakes were not having many but smaller schools, not keeping boys separate from girls, and not keeping multiple grades in the same room, low standards for teachers (still), reducing time reading, and reducing the physical education (movement) time.

In other words we should educate our children as large families where they are subject to the same material repeated over and over, and then bring them together to play a few sports and get some exercise.

Curt Doolittle


How To Present Mises and Rand in the Context of the 20th Century?

I would present it (as I do) as a last ditch desperate  attempt to reach the enlightenment utopia embodied in both cosmopolitan middle  class universalism, and anglo puritanical middle class universalism. But that both movements were failures and had to be, because universalism and equality are merely utilitarian merchant philosophies of self interest made possible by temporary economic advantage….

It is cheaper to believe everyone is your friend rather than your competitor. It’s not only the europeans who have converted the cost of defense to consumption – it’s all of western civilization.

Writing up presentation on Mises, Rand and the 20th Century. In a very un-Rand thing to do, crowd source, what points would you stress? If you‘re at all familiar with me you will know where I‘d go in this, but where would you go?
– Peter Boettke

Only Landed People Create Monuments and Art


California. A very desirable geography. The best other than France. In both cases the geography is a natural resource exploitable by the state.

As I said to Ron Manners: natural resources make you a slave because States must defend them. Diasporic peoples avoid these high costs at the expense of permanent insecurity. The golden mean (happy median) is Liberty – prevention of the state while also holding land.

Only landed people create monuments and art.   And Europe is a vast, open air museum.