Author Archive

Criticism: Tech As Belief In New Gods

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

The only energy technology that we are going to use and depend upon is nuclear, helped by water, and as a minor contributor – solar, because it’s the only source of energy strategically tolerable to depend upon. 

And while teenage boys like to fantasize about star trek technology, adult men only spend vast amounts of money on strategically defensible assets. – That’s Just How It Is. 

The way you get to be in charge of money is because people put you in charge of money, and people put you in charge of money largely because they trust what you will do with it. And that means the use of loss aversion, and opportunity cost to make decisions. And expensive, failure-prone, strategically indefensible, and therefore vulnerability-inducing assets are pretty unintelligent investments.

We will explore space when we develop both an extremely light craft big enough for humans to trundle around in, AND an engine capable of efficient conversion of energy to velocity, at constant acceleration of one G or greater. We already have cheap means of flying stuff into orbit. That’s why there is so much in low orbit already. But there appears to be less free ‘stuff’ in space to convert into energy along the way so we are going to have to act like primitive ships and move from mass-port to mass-port, and spending more time traveling because we cannot carry the mass with us to convert into energy.

It is possible that we will discover or invent the interstellar equivalent of hydrocarbons (a very dense store of energy for newtonian scale), but as yet we don’t know of such a thing even though from what precious little we understand about the universe, such a thing should be possible in theory even if in practice we cannot find a means of constructing it.

North Sea Truth vs Levantine Critique

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

(profound)(group evolutionary strategies)(macro-sociology)

Once you grasp that Cosmopolitan (Marxist-Socialist, Libertine, Neoconservative) Critique is an attempt at exclusionary authoritarianism – a modern restatement of the technique applied in Jewish argument and law – it becomes fairly obvious why the combination of (a) desire for obscurant arguments to be true, (b) emotional and intellectual investment in the truth of these obscurant arguments, and (c) hostility to refutation, are so pervasive: 1) psychological utility obtained from intuitional moral ‘righteousness’, 2)group unity in that moral conviction, and 3) ostracization of non-believers on the other, are precisely what ‘separatists’ require of a religion.

However, this modern set of religions is pseudo-scientific and pseudo-rational rather than legal, mystical and monotheistic in verbal construction. But the verbal construction is merely a technological advancement over monotheistic mythology, and jewish dual-ethics-law.

Northern europeans used truth, property and fighting as the binding commitment to one another, not belief. We used opportunity to join success in a hostile landscape, and they used threat of ostracization in among hostile tribes. We are all the product of our ancient geographies.

The strategies of the weak and small in number, versus the strong and small in number. Both Jewish and Germanic systems of thought evolved for use by small populations.

You will take notice which strategy leads to the construction of vast civilizations, technology, art, science and medicine, and what the other led to – near extermination.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

An Example Refuting Hoppe: The “Right to Value”

Thursday, December 11th, 2014


All property must represent value to its owner or the statement ‘own’ has little sense.

–“a common mistaken belief is that one has a property right in the value, as opposed to the physical integrity of, one’s property.”–

Correctly stated:

Others cannot promise you that the value of any property will remain constant. However, likewise, they *CAN* promise you that they will take no criminal (physical), unethical, immoral or conspiratorial action to damage that value or transfer that value to themselves.

–“the basis of many fallacious notions of property rights, such as the idea that there is a right to a reputation because it can have value.”–

This is unclear at best, false under scrutiny. I can, and do value my reputation; and my reputation demonstrably has value to me and to others. But that is not to say that I can control that reputation – it is information. Only that I may act to claim restitution for the use of false statements in the actions of defamation, libel and slander. Just as I cannot claim to control the market price of an asset, but I can act to protect against others damage to it.

–“According to this understanding of private property,”–

That statement contains no truth proposition. It posits a straw man as a means of criticism. This is a marxist technique developed in the art of deceptive argument we call “Critique”. The author posits a straw man as a vehicle for criticism of an opposing position rather than defending one’s proposition as incontrovertibly true. (See Rockwell’s most recent book which promises an hypothesis but never delivers, just consists of chapter after chapter of critique.)

–“property ownership means the exclusive control of a particular person over specific physical objects and spaces.”–
—“property rights invasion means the uninvited physical damage or diminution of things and territories owned by other persons.”–

There is no evidence of this anywhere in the world. Humans demonstrate universally that they consider the following categories of relations their property: physical and mental, kin, allies and useful relations, and private property, corporeal property, common property, and normative property.

So to state that any definition of property is other than those demonstrated by man requires that we define some utility – some purpose, for which we select some subset of demonstrated property to be enforced by consent (under law); or even that some subset of demonstrated property is only possible to enforce by consent under law. But we cannot without dishonesty state that the definition of property is other than that which is demonstrated by man to be evidentially categorized as property.

As for the entire paragraph:

–“According to this understanding … …complete ignorance of others’ subjective valuations.”–

It is difficult to tell if this is a disingenuous argument, an incomplete argument, or a mistaken argument. Why?

Let’s start with what humans demonstrate to be non-parasitic beneficial cooperation: the prevention of imposed costs (what term free-riding) expressed as the requirements for: (a) Productive, (b) Fully informed, (c) Warrantied, (d) Voluntary Exchange free of (e) Negative Externality.

In various polities, one or more of these attributes can be violated for the purpose of practical expediency. The less conformity to these properties the lower the trust and slower the economic velocity, and the greater conformity the higher the trust and higher economic velocity. And this is in fact what we see.

Now, why do people tolerate competition on price, when competition on price causes losses? Well, they don’t. In fact, it was very hard to break natural ‘price’ cartels, and in many agrarian cultures the trend persists. Humans naturally seem to tolerate competition on quality but not on price.

Early market owners understood by practice what we have learned through the study of economics: that competition forces positive incentives to innovate, which rewards all consumers while increasing stress on producers. Just as we have learned that suppression of unethical and immoral activity increases trust.

So, now lets look at Hoppe’s argument: he talks about the market effects that we cannot control, and that we had to learn are positive consequences of what we may intuit as unethical and immoral.

But he falsely categorizes ALL activity under the EXCEPTION of competition – which produces beneficial externalities, instead of under the RULE of the prevention of free riding – which we evolved as cooperative organisms to prevent negative actions and externalities. He conflates the minor exception with the major rule.

So his argument is either dishonest or false: just because we cannot control and do not want to control prices, does not mean that we cannot control and do not want to control criminal, immoral, and unethical actions, particularly those actions which impose costs upon one another.

Just as we bear a cost by forgoing opportunities for personal gain by engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial behavior, and in doing so we construct property rights, we bear the cost of forgoing opportunities for prosecution of competition on prices in order to create the normative incentive, and the consumer economy.

As such, price competition is the exception to moral intuition, not the rule from which moral intuition can be deduced.


Furthermore, since prices are the exception to the prohibition on parasitism necessary for the rational formation of cooperation and the abandonment of violence in exchange for the benefits of trade, then all other non-price, non-production assets retain their prohibition on criminal, ethical, moral, and conspiratorial actions that cause the involuntary imposition of costs; and therefore the use of violence for the purpose of punishment and restoration is categorically ethical, moral, and rational. Because cooperation is not logical or in one’s interest, and violence is useful and necessary preference in order to prevent parasitism.

The virtue of suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial imposition of costs other than those conducted under the constraints of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, exchange, is that individuals are forced exclusively into productive activity rather than parasitism. Whether that parasitism be physical, deceptive, indirect, or conspiratorial.

By contrast, Rothbardian ethics, argue for the expressed legalization of unethical, immoral, conspiratorial parasitism, because such moral rules, embodied in law, by logical necessity, legalize and prohibit retaliation for unproductive, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, actions.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
December 2014

Looking Into The Future: Doolittle, Haidt, Hawkins, Dennett

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

William L. Benge just pointed out to me that “Dennett and Hawkins” have pretty much demonstrated the end of the Cathedral’s fallacy, and have moved beyond it.

I think if you watch Hawkin’s talk, then Haidt’s talk on moral blindness, then my talk on The Inter-temporal Division of Reproductive Labor. Then you begin to see the future : we act more like a set of hives than the individually rational actors proposed by the greeks and the enlightenment.





Adults and Institutions, Children and Beliefs

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

Children talk of beliefs.  Adults talk of institutions.

Children talk of “Want and Belief”  Adults of “Expectations and Habits”.

The mind plans with what it has available.  We need develop means of creating habits that produce expectations.

People then plan with those expectations – because that is what is available to them.
As far as I know only property, homesteaded and voluntarily exchanged, allows such planning by the individual, and decidability by third parties in the case of conflict.

And far as I know the only means of creating ‘scientific’ rules of human cooperation is the organically evolved common law, constructed upon the one rule of property and the one operation of voluntary exchange.

Just as with mathematics we can take the concept of a single unit and simple operations we create all of mathematics, with the concept of property and the simple operation of voluntary exchange, we can create all of human cooperation in equally rich variety.

In the logic of human cooperation that we inarticulately call moral prohibitions and ethical rules, and which we can easily embody in law, we need only one unit “property” and one operation “exchange”.

All commons can be constructed as long as the principles of existence, calculability, and operation-ability are maintained, such that all propositions are decidable without dependence upon information external to the operation.

The only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are synonyms.

Curt Doolittle 
The Propertarian Institute 
Kiev Ukraine.

Self-Criticism and Self-Reformation – Not Racism or Anti-Semitism

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

I am critical of every one of the enlightenment groups for their stupidity.

So I am not interested in racism or anti-semitism so much as self-improvement. I argue only against the accidental application of jewish in-group ethics and argument structure as pseudoscience in an era where our western extant means of logic and argument at human scale required our retention of european testimonial truth and operationalism because at that time our intellectual problems in all fields exceeded human scale.  This is a profound statement if you grasp it.

I am not anti semitic. Just the opposite. I’m a compatibilist. I do think the Jewish century is over with, and that it was tragically harmful. But if you want to get involved in or discuss racism or whatever, then that is not what I do. I think it’s always the wrong question. The answer is why you subject yourself to internal political competition – not why others pursue a better life for themselves.

**I do not think Jews understood what they were doing any more than we anglo europeans understood what we were doing, or the germans or the french understood what they were doing. We all just justified what we had done before in the new context in order to maintain group cohesion.**

My effort is to make us understand what happened, and why Jewish pseudoscientific thought in all disciplines was so easy to attack and destroy western civilization with – for the SECOND TIME.

What didn’t we learn the first time?  What have we learned or failed to learn this time?


Curt Doolittle 
The Propertarian Institute 
Kiev, Ukraine

Race: The Desire for Liberty and Equality

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

My objective is the achievement of liberty. But there are very few means of achieving it.

For all intents and purposes, classes are genetic in origin: reproductive desirability, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression determine your class as much as do your parents norms.

As a rule of thumb, the races act as political blocks (kinship) and they possess different distributions of abilities, forming a racial stratification of means, with east asians, Askenazim and northern europeans on the higher side and others on the lower side. As far as I know this difference in distributions means only that there are more people in the lower classes of some races than there are in the lower classes of others. And that the reason for this is the reproductive challenge of the circumpolar peoples, plus the Ashkenizi outcast of those who can’t pass the tests of admission; the northern european use of manorialism to reduce breeding of the lower classes; the asian systemic murder of anyone and everyone with the least impulsivity.

The problem of racial conflict is one of defense of our lower classes. Our white lower classes are justifiably racist, because their elites have abandoned them and redistributed their kinship privileges to other groups.


Equality is impossible without tyranny. The only way to approach equality is either homogenous populations of near-kin, (the nordic model) or heterogenous populations with marginally indifferent abilities (aristocratic classes, and suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses).

An advanced economy requires sortition: the voluntary organization of production by natural ability. Any group that does not practice natural meritocracy will be crushed and impoverished by those that do. (because that is the logic and the evidence).


(a) Tyranny – forcible organization of production and forcible redistribution (the anglo model); 
(b) Homogeneity (kinship) of small states which voluntarily organize and redistribute, (the nordic model) or;
(c) Dramatic reduction of the reproduction of the lower classes (those below 105-107) for larger states, in which all members can contribute to production. (ancient model)

That is it. As far as I now human beings can and will possess liberty only under (b) and (c). And only those models can produce both relative equality and relative liberty.


If you disagree with this then you are de-facto arguing in favor of racism.

As far as I know my argument stands under all conditions no matter what.

The Law Must Address The Full Spectrum of Thefts

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

The manner of theft is immaterial. Either the court provides a means of remedy for a theft, or we are free to use violence to obtain remedy for the theft. The court does not grant what we may do. It holds provision only over those conflicts which it agrees to resolve via property rights.

See Burke
—-“In a state of nature, it is true, that a man of superior force may beat or rob me; but then it is true, that I am at full liberty to defend myself, or make reprisal by surprise or by cunning, or by any other way in which I may be superior to him.

But in political society [, outside of the state of nature], a rich man may rob me in another way. [And] I cannot defend myself; for money is the only weapon with which we are allowed to fight [in political society]. If I attempt to avenge myself, the whole force of that society is ready to complete my ruin.” -– Edmund Burke

Ergo, political society fails, and juridical society succeeds.

Contra Locke on Self Ownership

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

Guest Post by Michael Phillip

Locke’s argument starts with the notion that we own ourselves. It does not rest on us being the creation of our own labour, but a notion of self-ownership. By “mixing our labour” with things acquired from nature we “create” property by a process of extension of our self-ownership.

There are a series of problems with this argument. First, if we own ourselves, do we really think that we can therefore sell ourselves, either entire or by amputation and alienation of bits? And, if not, in what sense is this ownership? Is there not something perverse about a concept which implies an acceptable separation of our physical self (in whole or in part) from ourself.

To be property is to be owned by something that is not itself and which can be passed on to others. So, to be property, even of ourself, is to be lessened from what we feel is the proper status of being a moral agent.

A notion of self-dominion makes more sense; we control ourselves and property extends from that control. By taking some unowned thing from nature, we assert control over it; it is the assertion and acceptance of control which creates property.

As ever, slavery provides a limiting case. The institution of slavery contradicts Locke’s notion that we own ourselves. Slavery is morally obnoxious (a violation of self-dominion, and so human autonomy, in the most profound sense) but it does not make slaves any less property. It is the acknowledged assertion of control over the slave that creates slavery, not the labour of the slaveowner (even if it is directed to that end) extending the slaver’s self-ownership to cover the slave.

Do we really think that the process of enslaving is a process of the slaver “mixing their labour” with the slave? Surely not; neither as a description nor as some act of legitimation. No amount of applied labour by the slaver makes slavery legitimate nor is it what makes slaves property.

The process of enslaving is a process of getting acknowledged control over the slave. The more difficulty involved, the more the slaver has to act to do so, but the effort required does not affect any “level” of being property, merely whether it is worth the bother.

Locke’s use of the term ‘labour’ directs attention to the effort and not to what is being effected. (Hence the connection to the labour theory of value, which makes the same error.)

Note: My position is that the necessity of cooperation determines property, not self owenrship. Michael (as usual) is correct. – Curt

Against Reverse Racism

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

Guest Post by Michael Phillip

I don’t think “reverse racism” is a useful or even entirely coherent concept, and I don’t think thought-experiments are a particularly helpful way to think about racism in the first place: in my view, something about the subject demands an “ecological” or “in vivo” rather than thought-experimental approach.

In other words, the topic demands engagement with the living, breathing complexity of real-live experiences of racism, not with thought-experiments that abstract away from them.

I also think that if the topic is racism, as it should be, focusing on black-white relations in the U.S. is overly narrow, and problematically distortive of our thinking.

It doesn’t even capture race relations in the U.S., much less race relations beyond American borders.