Author Archive

Individual Law, Family Policy, National Defense

Monday, August 24th, 2015

The individual must be the subject of law; the family the subject of policy; and the nation the subject of the military. Misapplication of individualism is the origin of western suicide. An economy merely produces consumption. A family produces reproduction. Our purpose is either reproductive and perpetual or consumptive and temporary.

Tweak to Positioning the Enligthenents

Monday, August 24th, 2015

Conversation on positioning with Don the other night. This is how I came away with a minor tweak to the positioning.

Cosmopolitan Ashkenazi, Low Trust, Un-landed, Authoritarian, Anarcho Capitalism
vs
Aristocratic, Anglo, High Trust, Landed, Legal, Anarcho Capitalism
vs
Martial, Germanic, High Trust, Landed, Hierarchical, Tribal/Familial Capitalism.

As far as I can tell the germans were right prior to the conquest of the german civilization by it’s heretical offshoot the anglo civilization.

The anglo method of law is correct but the strategy is incorrect. The german social order strategy is correct, but the justificationary kantian method is incorrect. The Ashkenazi social strategy is incorrect AND the pseudoscientific method is incorrect.

Everyone got the enlightenment at least half wrong.

Axelrod’s Model of Ethno Centrism

Monday, August 24th, 2015

Nicholas Cardaci sent this update on Axelrod’s work on the competitive value of ethnocentrism, and how entho-centrism always wins. I had assumed this was fairly obvious, but while axelrod also focuses on cooperation, I want to convert this into propertarian language and therefore make it more compatible with ethics and political economy. So over the next few months I’ll try to write a few posts that make use of this argument.

(Thanks Nick)

THE ERROR OF ANGLO UNIVERSALISM – CONVERSATION WITH NICHOLAS CARDACI ON EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES

NICK
Were you aware of this series of experiments that were carried out on evolutionary strategies competing with one another? I found them very useful:

https://egtheory.wordpress.com/…/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-r…/

CURT
Yes. Axelrod and followers have been working on this model for many years. I include him in my reading list.

This particular set of studies is interesting in that it addresses the value of ethnocentrism.

While economic utility CAN be expressed as reproduction, it is not always the case as Sweden shows today.

But I should probably comment on the study so that I draw the connection with propertarianism.

NICK
Were you surprised that the mechanism of ethnocentric ascension was straight up robbery of humanitarians, rather than limitation of free riding?

I think there’s definitely both going on, but the weakness of the mediation (?) hypothesis surprised me.

CURT
No, it’s obvious. One of the values of modeling that Axelrod (and other life-models) brought to the debate (with the aid of computer science) was equilibrial modeling rather than linear projection.

It’s great stuff. I think I read him first … I dunno. It seems like the 80’s or maybe early 90’s. My wife and I were travelling in the UK at the time and I read it in the wee hours of the morning.

It was one of the most influential pieces that I read.

Actually, maybe i’ll write a post about the relationship between axelrod in cooperation and mandelbrot in stock markets, and taleb in risk, and equilibrium in prices. These behaviors are all the same: before we had data and computers we could not conduct these measurements and we could not see them.

This means that unless one can describe an idea as a supply and demand curve, that one is engaging in idealism.

NICK
I’ve been pondering this topic recently, mulling over the conflict between the moral universalism and ethnocentrism.

One thing that’s readily obvious to me, especially being around alot of southern europeans, is that this ethnocentrism though isn’t always great. As it seems to me that it’s always accompanied with high family nepotism. Italy, is extremely regionalist and nepotistic within the family, and seriously limits how big their commons can be I think. The country is way too big as it is, with that level of heterogeneity.

Some of it seems to be the greater levels of inbreeding that’s gone on historically.

The bolded text in this post by hbd chick pretty much nails the kinship/family nepotism that goes on down there.

https://www.reddit.com/…/the_reality_of_deep_southern_euro…/

Even in the anglo countries, I still see it going on, with italians from the same region letting eachother off parking fines

It makes them more impervious to outside infiltration, but they can never reach the same commons as their northern neighbors.

CURT
Nepotism (family corporialism) is not the same as corruption or deceit. if one biases opportunities toward the family in maters not in the commons then that is not an imposition of costs upon others.

If one exercises corruption in the production of commons, then that is another thing altogether.

So you’d distinguish those then?

CURT
Yes. Favoring market opportunity is different from imposing costs upon the commons.

Even the innocent nepotism, seems to be harmful to an extent. Like you mentioned on the Shoah, it limits a society’s ability to put the best person in the job.

There was a good article recently outlining how in Romance Europe, family owned corporations are far more dominant than in the Anglo markets, where there’s ‘market-based management’, meritocracy essentially.

So just as anglo model works under great opportunity (and as the model shows) the family model (and aristocracy which is also a family model) defeats the anglo over time.

that’s what Axelrod’s model shows.

NICK
This is true. As they cooperate with people defecting against them. Yes. It seems to me to be both a gift and a curse. That’s cliched, but its the only way I can think do describe attitudes in southern europe.

CURT
It’s just that no principle of measurement is infinitely extensible. A rule acts as a means of measurement (decidability). There are not infinitely true rules. There are limits to every rule. (Which is a very complex bit of philosophy, but the reason why apriorism can’t be true.)

The tactics you use in one circumstance and those in another are different. It is probably short term better to use universal ethics until your competitors catch up, and then return to familial ethics in order to prevent defectors from becoming parasites.

(this is a very good discussion we should probably post for others to follow)

NICK
Yes. That’s what it seems to me. Southern europeans are capped in what they can do, but what they have is far more robust and secure than what the anglos and co have achieved.

Should we post it on the Subreddit?

CURT
Yes. It’s a pretty good conversation that we can probably use to educate others. We are touching on a set of very big ideas here that are not obvious: the limits to any evolutaionary strategy, the advantage of familialism over universalism in the long term, the conceptual problem of training people to models and demand curves instead of ideal types and linear progressions.
What we are saying is that we must increase the complexity of the basis of moral argument.

NICK
Yes, we cant simply pretend to have moral arguments among ourselves (as europeans) in isolation any longer. It’s eating away at us.

I went through my finance textbook and found the study about family ownership I mentioned.

Faccio & Lang, “The Ultimate Ownership of Western European Corporations” (1997)

A bit older than I thought

Also, there’s a study indicating their outperformance over more anglo style firms, strangely enough.

Anderson & Reeb, “Founding Family Ownership and Firm Performance from the S&P500” (2003)

Going to head off.

CURT
Cheers

Aristocratic vs Cosmopolitan Ancapism.

Monday, August 24th, 2015

ARISTOCRATIC ANARCHO CAPITALISM VS COSMOPOLITAN ANARCHO CAPITALISM
(from elsewhere)

Both Aristocratic (British, Critical, and Legal), and Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi, Justificationary, and Moral) Anarchism, advance the open market. They are opposite methods of expressing the same argument:scientific prohibition and justificationary advocacy.

Both evolved as ethno-centric evolutionary strategies: agrarian islanders evolving into seafaring traders, and diasporic pastoralists into diasporic traders. Both groups, in the Enlightenment, (the Anglo first, French second, Germans third, and Cosmopolitans last) attempted to universalize and evangelize their group evolutionary strategy as a universal ethic – just as groups attempt to universalize their myth and religion. Given freedom from the church and landed aristocracy, the middle class sought to justify their ascent into political power by expanding their middle class ethics as a universal, just as the nobility had justified its ethics as a universal.

But aside from differences in method of argument, Aristocratic and Cosmopolitan ethics vary considerably in the causality their arguments depend upon, and in the scope of their ethical prohibitions, and in their means of enforcement of those prohibitions. As well as their unstated assertion of the behavioral nature of, and rational interests of, man. Upon the outcome of models. And lastly upon the empirical evidence.

Causality and Scope
Aristocratic ethics depend upon the causal property of non-retaliation – prohibiting conflict that destroys capital and impedes cooperation – in order to preserve the disproportionate returns on cooperation. In aristocratic ethics, only productive, fully informed, and warrantied voluntary exchange, free of externality by the same criteria is ethical.

Cosmopolitan ethics depend upon the presumption of the sufficiency of satisfaction, and justify non-retaliation with the excuse of volition, thereby justifying outwitting or fooling or taking advantage of the asymmetry of knowledge of the parties. While outright ‘fraud’ misrepresentation is available contractually, it is not mandated by the ethics.

In Aristocratic ethics, the person who fails to fully inform is the party at fault – increasing trust, economic velocity, and capital. In Cosmopolitan, Desert and Steppe ethics, the person who errs is the party at fault – thereby decreasing trust, economic velocity and capital.

In Aristocratic ethics exchanges must be productive. In Cosmopolitan ethics they need not be. Aristocracy prohibits blackmail which undermines cooperation and Cosmopolitan ethics justify blackmail as voluntary. Again, aristocracy seeks to preserve cooperation, trust, economic velocity, and Cosmopolitanism seeks to preserve profiting regardless of consequences.

Why? Because in Aristocratic society, the army consists of a universal militia and a heavily armored and equipped professional warrior class. Aristocracy preserves the high trust ethic of warriors across all classes, as a means of preserving cohesion in defense of the territory and commons. For diasporic raiders and traders who engage in various levels of parasitism, they need not defend a commons, nor refrain from parasitism on hosts or opponent’s commons, nor preserve cooperation with hosts, because there are other hosts to move to, and no value in constructing fixed capital or commons, and no value in preserving the reciprocal insurance of the militia in defense of land and capital. Land holding is terribly expensive. Land holding and truth telling are terribly expensive. But they eliminate the need for a central state. If a group demonstrates in-group bias, parasitically consumes a host’s commons, does not build its own commons, and does not pay the high normative, material, and personal risks to life and limb to defend territory, then it is much easier to accumulate that wealth internally than it is for hosts who must pay all those costs.

Enforcement
Aristocracy enforces high trust ethics by economic ostracization(boycott), productive ostracization(prevention of holding land), restitution, punishment and culling (usually hanging). The west culled .5%-1% of malcontents every year from about 1100 through about 1800 (the industrial revolution absorbed more labor and lowered demand for criminality). Cosmopolitanism instead, enforces ethics by disenfranchising those who cannot pass the tests of adulthood. By economic ostracization (boycotting), by reproductive boycotting (ostracization), or what we call ‘shunning’. And given that groups who demonstrate and advocate low trust and parasitic relations with non members, and that this behavior generates hostility by non-members, ostracization traditionally amounted to a virtual death sentence.
That illustrates the difference between land holding (punishing) and non-landholding (ostracizing) means of maintaining control.

Prohibition vs Advocacy
Aristocratic Pessimistic Prohibition(law) vs Cosmopolitan Optimistic Advocacy(morality).
So law which prohibits violations of the incentive to cooperate in the production of land-holding, commons, capital formation, and reproduction is very different from the moral advocacy which advocates the concentration of capital and preserves parasitism. This is why Law is the means of constructing a negative philosophy under aristocracy, and why Moral argument is the means of constructing a positive advocacy of preferred behavior (musts) dictated by gods.

Evolutionary Strategies
Aristocratic ethics are an evolutionary strategy for land-holding, farmers, craftsmen and warriors mutually dependent upon one another for defense of the land in the absence of a standing army. Cosmopolitan ethics are an evolutionary strategy for a minority of migratory traders (who can move on without paying the cost of retaliation), and who favor exchange and cunning rather than honesty and production. The even less ethically constrained version of cosmopolitan ethics is that of gypsies, that practice theft, charlatanry, prostitution and suppress internal attempts to engage in production and trade instead of the group strategy of parasitism. The even less ethically constrained version is that of desert and steppe raiders (bandits) that engage in pastoralism for subsistence, and raiding for wealth.

So the question is, how is it POSSIBLE to construct an anarcho-capitalist (stateless) social order without Aristocratic ethics, embodied in rule of law, using a common organic law, under strict construction, under universal standing, and a universal militia?

It isn’t. That’s why it hasn’t been.
Truth. Trust. Commons. Law. Science.
Welcome to Aristocracy.
The only Anarcho Capitalism Possible.
The only liberty possible.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

PS: See why western libertarians are morally blind:
Moral Blindness: URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/n4qL7
Libertarian Moral Blindness: URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/AE9oE

Those Who Fear Truth – (Are Taking Discounts)

Monday, August 24th, 2015

The truth may be an advantage, neutral, or disadvantage for you. But if the truth is a disadvantage, that does not mean that we need to lie to preserve that advantage. Instead, we need to determine what we have to trade to restore it. But there are two reasons that we cannot conduct a trade to restore an advantage: (a) the institutions make trade impossible (as does democracy), or (b) you seek avoiding the payment of the cost of the exchange to obtain the advantage.

THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES

Alt-Right, Reactionary, or Radical?

Monday, August 24th, 2015

My “thing” is truth. Propertarianism solves the problem of cooperation in morally heterogeneous societies by the construction of a market for commons just as we constructed a market for goods and services: but incrementally suppressing parasitism in the production of commons (government) just as we incrementally suppressed parasitism in the production of goods and services (the market).

In that sense I am a radical(progressive), and propertarianism is radical (an alteration of the status quo. That propertarianism alters the status quo by suppressing the parasitism of dysgenic socialists, is either an improvement in truth or a devolution of free riding.

I take the objective and empirical position that independent of human perception, propertarianism provides the means of the pursuit of all forms of capital (including genetic) as well as human experience, by suppressing parasitism, and suppressing the reproduction of parasites, through a one-child policy.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

The ‘Aggressiveness’ of NRx Advocates?

Monday, August 24th, 2015

The NRx movement evolved as a criticism of political correctness, dishonesty, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and lying in politics.

The current alt-right has evolved into the practice of activism against political correctness, dishonesty, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and lying. In their ethos you are practicing political correctness (lying) not science or truth. If we all practice pragmatism we are merely all lying.

So the question is, how, given the truth, should we construct the commons (social order and the law that enforces it)?

It is not pleasant to look in the mirror and admit that one is just practicing political correctness (lying) for the purpose of self interest. And that for all intents and purposes one is no different from a neocon or socialist or any other niche that lies for the purpose of self-signal production.

Truth is a mirror. Use it.  Be aggressive about it.

TRUTH IS ENOUGH.

The Rothbardian Fallacy of Race

Monday, August 24th, 2015

–“race is a lousy proxy for violence”–

This is empirically false in every walk of life. The reason being that the different tribes within each race have been asymmetrically successful in genetic pacification, with westerners the most successful, followed by the Japanese and Chinese. So empirically race IS an empirical signal of criminality. (Hence “The Talk”.)

In criminality – roughly speaking impulsivity and aggression and IQ determine potential criminality, although with increases in IQ, the impulsive and the aggressive merely change tactics from physical, to deceitful, to conspiratorial. In the market for goods and services all people are the color of money – although different populations are of higher risk and cost than others because of genetic pacification.

In politics people act as competing and hostile blocks each seeking higher status and privilege. This is a universally demonstrable practice since status signaling and self perception of status is the innate accounting system of mankind.

So in the market for goods and services, it is irrational to treat an individual by the properties of his class or race , and conversely it is rational in politics and social science to treat a class or race by the properties of its individuals. Because individuals act as blocks in politics. That’s the domain of politics. Just as individuals act as individuals in the market. That is the domain of the market.

Rothbardian Libertarianism is an excuse for taking discounts, just as socialism is an excuse for involuntary transfer and dysgenic reproduction. Just as neo-conservatism is an excuse for forcing costs of expansion and conquest upon others.

There are no free rides. The only liberty possible is constructed by reciprocal insurance against parasitism by the promise of organized violence to suppress it, thereby forcing all humans into the market for production distribution and trade, and forcing all humans to save for their unproductive years.

**Liberty: Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. Every man a warrior. This is the only know means of constructing liberty.**

NO MORE LIES. THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

The Fallacy of Rothbardian Optimistic Consequences: Another Hack of Pathological Altruism

Monday, August 24th, 2015

—“The entire basis of Anarcho-capitalism is that reputation networks will convey information “—

That fallacy is a hack of pathological altruism. It is neither logically no empirically true. The reason being that production and consumption decrease rapidly due to the increased transaction costs with the necessity of reputation (knowledge) in a market that exists precisely because of anonymity (complexity and ignorance). And empirically we cannot find evidence to the contrary. So as long as you cannot run out of customers to cheat, it is cheaper and more rewarding to cheat customers than engage in production. (rothbardian ghetto ethics again).

The state need not regulate the market, however, to create competitive economic velocity the law must prohibit ‘cheating’. Or better stated, the legal prohibition on parasitism that violates the incentive to cooperate (thereby increasing transaction costs and decreasing economic velocity), expressed as a requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality of the same criteria, must expand with inventions of means of parasitism. The sequence of parasitism from the most direct and to the most indirect is: murder, violence, theft, fraud, extortion, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, genocide. As the division of knowledge and labor and the complexity of production increases, anonymity increases, and new opportunities for parasitism are invented, requiring the common law to respond with new prohibitions on parasitism. Well functioning markets with adequate suppression of parasitism increase trust. Poorly functioning markets function poorly because of inadequate suppression of parasitism.

If we say that we desire freedom from a parasitic government (liberty) how can we logically claim not to desire freedom from parasitic individuals (morality)? The only logical answer, if one claims both liberty, and opportunity for parasitism, is that one seeks to cheat both the commons and cheat others. As such one is simply a parasite identical to those of that populate the state and justify their parasitism with claims of the common good.

Rothbardianism is, like neo-conservatism, and socialism, a hack of our western gullibility due to pathological altruism. It’s one of the great deceits. Not as great as Socialism and particularly (pseudo)scientific socialism, and not as great in success as neo-conservatism, but certainly as well articulated as the former. IF we desire existential liberty it cannot be obtained by fallacy. It can only be obtained the only way it has been in the past: the reciprocal insurance against all parasitism by the promise of violence to suppress it. This is the operational definition of liberty, just as liberty: the constraint of state actors to the morality of interpersonal conduct, is the descriptive definition of liberty, just as freedom from imposition is the experiential description of liberty.

All ‘optimistic consequences’ argued in Rothbardian libertinism are false. That is because the optimistic consequences increase the expense of suppression of parasitism with ongoing diligence, that never ends. There is no end to policing against parasitism. There is only the necessity of non-interference in the common law, which offers the most rapid means of suppression of parasitism: making new inventions of parasitism illegal with the first suit adjudicated.

**Liberty: Every man a warrior.  Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. This is the only known means of constructing liberty.**

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine

Shaming is Only Effective as Long as Men Care.

Monday, August 24th, 2015

Men require an incentive to care about women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative liberty, men will cease suppressing their desires for the benefit of women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative illiberty, then they will force women into submissive roles.

These are empirical statements and constant throughout history. There is no free lunch for women. There is no feminist utopia. The compromise between the genders that is the family is the result of the evolutionary game theory: it is the best option available for both genders, even if it is not the best for either gender.

So, a few of us may ‘cheat’ the compromise and get away with it. But if enough of us cheat the compromise it will break. If it breaks we end up with either men enforcing it, or conquest by those that do.

Civilization may be constructed almost entirely by men, but the INCENTIVE to produce civilization is provided by women.

That is because for the alpha males, who are the world’s greatest super-predator’s. War, Raiding, Fighting, Pillaging, Stealing and Raping are preferable and enjoyable activities.