Obverse and Reverse

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

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


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 :)

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

Civic Evolution

(important idea) (very interesting)

The Ancestry of Cooperative Institutions:

1) TEMPLE(adds cooperation)
2) —–>CHURCH(adds education)
3) ————->BANK(adds production)?
Were the templars the highest political order we achieved? (yes?)

I have been fairly certain that the most important recent institutional development has been the Credit Union.

But what if your credit union also offered education?

Individual + Family + Education + Credit Union + Insurance.
Individual + Partnership + Banking + Investing + Treasury.
Individual + Unit + Regiment + Militia.
Individual + House + Government + The Law.

(Is the central bank the central force prohibiting the conversion of Credit Unions into the central means of producing a civic order?)

I think this is my big idea for Q3 2015.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute.
Kiev, Ukraine

Source: Curt Doolittle

Chain of Education

In a family, ***REGARDLESS OF SIZE*** if everyone takes care of educating the rank below them, then the entire group will prosper.

It doesn’t work the other way though. ie: democracy is a bad thing.

Source: Curt Doolittle

The Free Market is a Fiat Construct, Produced by Organized Violence

The free market itself is a fiat construct. Just as property rights are a fiat construct. Morality, Property, and Free Markets require forcible imposition. The condition of primitive man is one of overlapping rents. Paternalism, Non-kin-Morality, Property and Trade were institutional innovations all of which required the organized application of violence to construct.

Neither violence nor fiat are ‘bads’. They are means, not ends. One either constructs a distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, distribution, and trade by the imposition of property rights, morality, and free markets or one fails to do so by constructing a network of rents.

Fiat criticism is non-substantive. The natural order of man is an equilibrium between static rents and innovative freedoms.

To construct liberty requires a constant application of organized violence to resist the equilibrating forces of rent seekers.

Pacifist Libertinism is an attempt by means of obscurantist loading, framing, and overloading to achieve cheaply, by sophisticated gossip, that which can only be achieved by organized violence.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

Source: Curt Doolittle


Concurrency – e.g. multitasking – is hard, we all know that.

In the following post I analyze the economics of concurrency, using the example of a layered conversation with two members, and many concurrent threads occurring in overlapping time intervals.

(If you would think it a fun exercise, write up a comment about another topic of choice in multitasking – besides conversations, that is — and I’ll merge it into a generalized theory.  I already have that theory in the back of my head one way or another, and  social proof by induction is nice (beware the pun.) )


Handling n+1 threads of conversation with another person concurrently requires:

  1. excellent working memory, to generate shared implicit context,
  2. excellent verbal intelligence, to generate shared explicit context for ambiguity mitigation,
  3. precision in phrasing,
  4. parsimony in phrasing,
  5. shared, similar, experiences,
  6. unshared, differing, experiences,
  7. similar time preference

Fulfilling these seven requirements, it is possible to handle any amount of conversations at the same time, where the amount must not conflict with:

a) your working memory limitations – most people can maintain five to nine different chunks of data at the same time quite well – to generate implicit shared context, or,
b) the verbosity of speech you can mentally afford to invest in, to generate explicit shared context, or;
c) the precision of speech you can mentally afford to invest in – from fluffy-emotive to precise-systemizing – or;
d) the use of the absolute minimum amount of words necessary to convey your point precisely;

and converges on having:

e) experienced, and grown up with, overlapping and similar, as well as differing past life histories, and;
f) overlapping future planning horizons, and;
g) similarity in future time orientation.

So you see, handling any amount of ongoing conversations with the same person is a matter of fulfilling those requirements, and not putting oneself under too many restrictions due to acting, and having acted, unconstructively.


Now, the above part was about one quite specific use case. Can you think up more?

Head tips to Bernard Spil for the idea and Curt Doolittle for review.

What is the Minimum Basis for the Law Necessary for Liberty?

 (revised and expanded)(worth repeating) (from 2014)


It’s true that aggression is immoral, and it’s true that for people to rationally cooperate aggression must be illegal. But this is a deceptively incomplete statement, because we all intuit that aggression is a bad thing, but we almost all differ in what one can or cannot aggress against.  No one argues that aggression is immoral. Where ‘immoral means’ violates the limits of rational cooperation by imposing costs upon others that produce a disincentive to cooperate and an incentive to retaliate.

But is it rational for humans to join a voluntary, anarchic polity, if the basis of **LAW** is “non-aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property”, or must the basis of law be either based on something other than aggression, or broader in scope than intersubjectively verifiable property?

What is the minimum basis for the law upon which it becomes rational to join a voluntary, anarchic polity?

If we have a choice between:
(a) a Totalitarian Involuntary Order society like communist China, and Russia.
(a) a Totalitarian State Capitalist society, like say, contemporary China and Russia.
(b) a  Napoleonic, prior-restraint, contemporary social democracy like Germany.
(c) a Common Law, restitutionary, contemporary social democracy, like say the States.
(d) an Anarchic polity in which one CAN bring suit against immoral and unethical actions (say, blackmail, and fraud by omission).
(e) an Anarchic polity where we cannot bring suit against immoral and unethical actions; and as such, unethical and immoral actions are expressly licensed by the law, and retribution for immoral and unethical actions is forbidden.

1) Which of these will which people of which moral biases, choose?
2) How will the territory and trade representatives of that polity be treated by competing polities? (They will be boycotted.)
3) How will members of that polity be treated by members of the competing polities? (Answer: They will exterminated.)

I think that an analysis of those questions produces an obvious, and remarkably consistent answer. That is, that either aggression is the incorrect test of peaceful cooperation, or intersubjectively verifiable property is an insufficient test of the scope of property that must be protected from violation, or more likely both.


Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than individual production. We evolved to cooperate when possible. But it is only beneficial if it is mutually productive, rather than asymmetric in result, and parasitic.

The current proceeds of anthropology, genetics, and cognitive science, tell us that violations of the evolutionary preference for cooperation, are reducible to ‘free riding': that is non-contribution. Since in any set of individuals, if we do not require productive contribution, then some are the victims of free riding (parasitism) and others benefit from free riding (parasitism).


If we analyze the common prohibitions of all moral codes under all family structures, and we remove moral constraints that are purely ritualistic, these moral codes are universally reducible to necessary prohibitions on what we would call ‘property violations’ in an effort to facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation.

Evolutionary, Biological, Intuitionistic, Moral Prohibition Spectrum:
1) Agression: Harm/Oppression,
2) Free Riding: Parasitism
3) Trust: Subversion/Betrayal/Cheating,
4) Purity: Inobservance of Norms/Behavioral impurity/Pollution
All of these prohibitions are reducible to shareholder rights and obligations.

Humans universally demonstrate a greater interest in punishing moral violations than we demonstrate self-interest. In fact, we justify our pre-cognitive moral punishments without even being able to articulate why we hold them. We are wired by evolution for morality.

We evolved language and punishments for violations of these moral intuitions in the form of criminal, ethical, and moral prohibitions:
1. Violence (asymmetry of force)
2. Theft (asymmetry of control)
3. Fraud (false information)
4. Omission (Omitting information)
5. Obscurantism (Obscuring information)
6. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)
7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)
8. Free Riding (using externalities for self-benefit)
9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)
10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)
11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)
12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)
13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)
14. Extortion (Organized direct theft)
15. Conversion (Religious or normative theft of norms)
16. Immigration. (dilution of norms, institutions, genes)
17. War (organized violence for the purpose of theft)
18. Conquest. (reorganization of all property and relations)
19. Genocide. (extermination of kin and genetic future)

We can empirically observe that people treat a broad spectrum of things as their property, and that they intuit violations of that property, and act to defend that property. Those things that people seek to acquire, accumulate and preserve are:

I. Self:
Life, Body, Memories, Mind, Attention, Time, and Liberty

II. Status and Class (reputation)
Social Status

III. Kin and Interpersonal (Relationship) Property
Mates (access to sex/reproduction)
Children (genetic reproduction)
Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)

IV. Sustainable Patterns of Reproduction, Production, Distribution and Trade
Friends, Associates and Cooperative Relations
Trade Routes

V. Several (Personal) Property
Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”
Physical Body and Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

VI. Shareholder Property
Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

VII. Title Property (Weights and Measures)
Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

VIII.  Common Property, or “Commons” (Community Property)
Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

(i) Informational commons: public speech, real-time and recorded media.

(ii) Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.

(iii) Physical Commons: the territory, it’s waterways, parks, buildings, improvements and  infrastructure.

(iv) Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.

(v) Monuments (art and artifacts). 
Monuments claim territory, demonstrate wealth, and provide one of the longest most invariable normative and economic returns that any culture can construct as a demonstration of conspicuous production (wealth), and as such, conspicuous excellence. (hence why competing monuments represent an invasion. Temples, Churches, Museums, Sculptures being the most obvious examples of cultural claim or conquest. )  

If we eliminate all prohibitions of parasitism (imposed costs) then what moral actions remain?

(i) Productive (non-parasitic, increase in subjective value);
(ii) Truthful (Fully Informed);
(iii) Warrantied (by oath);
(iv) Voluntary Transfer of Property;
(v) Free of Imposed Cost by Externality

It is those criteria that define an ethical (interpersonally moral) and moral (externally moral) action. And any action that does not meet those criteria is not ethical and moral.

The simple rule of ethical and moral action: “My actions cannot cause another to bear a cost against his property-en-toto.”


(1) Dividends from the construction and maintenance of the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade paid for by forgoing opportunities for parasitic consumption (acting ethically and morally).
(2) One gains access to opportunity for cooperation and consumption in the market.
(3) One gains earnings from the personal production of goods and services in the market for goods and services. (income from profits)
(4) Dividends for maintenance of the commons in all its forms.
(5) Dividends for the policing (defense) of the commons in all its forms.




We can judge economic impacts of high trust societies that practice near total prohibition on criminal, unethical and immoral actions. And we can compare those to  low trust societies that suppress fewer unethical and immoral actions.









(text) (question)




So under what reasoning, would it be logical to support the Non-Aggression Principle under Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (NAP/IVP) as the basis for the law, which explicitly licenses unethical and immoral action and prohibits retribution against unethical and immoral action?

The NAP/IVP has been a detriment to liberty wherever advocates argue that it is a sufficient means of determining moral and legal rules of cooperation. Because it’s not.

And we cannot pursue an alternative to the existing high trust society without providing people with an alternative that is morally SUPERIOR to the state. And the NAP/IVP fails that test.


Conversely, imposition against, or aggression against, property-en-toto. Property-en-toto: meaning that which humans demonstrate as their property by acting to acquire it, defending it, and retaliating against impositions of costs upon it.  

And where they have expended resources, time and effort in the accumulation of that property without imposing costs upon others property that has been accumulated by the same lack of imposition of costs.

And where imposition of costs is performed by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by suggestion, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by omission, theft by constructed externality, free-riding, privatizing commons, socializing losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, invasion, conquest, and genocide.


So the non-aggression principle holds under Propertarian ethics, and it fails under Rothbardian ethics.  And to state the principle of non-aggression without stating also what cannot be aggressed against, is an act of fraud: fraud by omission and fraud by suggestion.  Rothbard was an advocate for fraud.  Rothbardian libertinism is a fraudulent claim for the production of a condition of liberty.



Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

Universal Grammars of Action and Experience

I think that any set of symbols in any form, capable of reconstructing the requisite experience of reality allows for some degree of truth communication between humans, superhumans, human-made-machines, and if they exist, aliens capable of action and communication.

I have a hard time imagining that a basic instruction set is not accessible to any sentient creature capable of acting in reality. That’s because most of what we wish to communicate is state change, and I can easily see a universal grammar of state change in the physical world, just as easily as I can see a universal grammar of mathematical operations. Actions produce state changes.

What I can’t see is a universal grammar of subjective experience. It is hard enough to communicate across cultures and languages. I can see “in my interests” and “against my interests” as well as the plural “our interests”. It appears to be possible to create a universal grammar of emotion among earth’s creatures, because it is a very simple thing. So maybe a universal grammar is possible (now that I think about it, I think I might be able to do it.)

(Damn…. I just gave myself more work to do.)