Q&A: Revolution. Will it Result in the ‘Right’ People?

(worth repeating)


—“How do we demand a return to an Aristocracy of the right people? This is a steep hill we’re climbing.”—

The right people are impossible to know. And even such, it’s not a matter of choosing the right people. It’s a matter of preventing all the WRONG people. And preventing the wrong people is something that we can do.

Prosecute the bad, and only the good remain. Determine the false, and only true remains.

Fragility is easy to exploit into a cascade.

It was one thing to promise democracy when there was no empirical evidence. But the evidence is in. It’s genocidal. Mostly because women lacked the experience and accountability for the votes that they cast. We got what the majority of women and the minority of men desired: largely by destroying the family and expanding immigration, and transferring reproduction from the middle to the lower classes through aggressive taxation.

The problem for creating momentum in any revolution is that people need an alternative institutional framework to accept, if not advocate, that will solve present problems and provide them with a means of understanding how the future might unfold. So, we need something for them to demand. Just as the founding fathers did. Just as all enlightenment movements did. And it must take a moral high ground.

After that, there are 3 hours of energy, 3 days of water, 6 days of food in the channel, and an economy that cannot tolerate shocks.

Long gone are the days where the multitudes must take to the streets with pitchforks.

A small number of men with a few pages of instructions can do far more damage than the communist insurgents did. A sustained but short period of unpredictability and a positive set of demands will collapse the channels, and the government with it.

All governance is an illusion created by the accumulated momentum of common interests. It is a fragile illusion easily dispelled, which is why governors are so paranoid about the slightest threat.

It’s easy, with just a few thousand. With 1% it’s all but certain. We have more than 1% if we give them actionable direction.

(Look at the middle east.)


Welcome To The Revolution.

(important piece)(pinned)

I do my work in public, like a medieval street merchant. You get to see the product being made. Including its successes and failures. It’s been an interesting experience for me and those who follow me.

But for new-comers, my work is radical. It is a reformation of truth, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics – and as broad an effort as that of Kant’s(rationalism), Marx’s(pseudoscience) and equalled only in recent scope by Heidegger(pseudorationalism) – all of whom were on the opposite end of the spectrum. It is a continuation of the Locke/Smith/Hume revolution, and a refutation of the Kant/Marx/Heidegger counter-revolution’s introspective revolt by meaning against comparatively autistic science (truth).

Trying to follow or understand my work is non-trivial. I place a great deal of burden on the audience for knowledge of physical science, economics, and philosophy. On my website is a ‘short list’ of books that I try to keep current that should allow someone with a university education in an empirical discipline to gain a basic scientific knowledge necessary to understand propertarianism. But even reading those works will take time.

And, even if you possess the underlying knowledge, my program is RADICAL, and that means novel, and somewhat hard to learn:

1 – Testimonial truth and Testimonialism (epistemology) are themselves a profound innovation that unifies science, philosophy, morality and law into truth-telling or ‘testimony’ which is the only existentially possible truth available for man to write and speak. Under testimonialism, we warranty we have performed the necessary due diligence to claim we testify truthfully. This due diligence is an extension of the scientific method to include ethics constructed as a rigorous logic: a scientific ethics.

2 – Propertarian Ethics (ethics and morality) is an objective amoral language for expression and comparison of ethics that states that only productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of externalities of the same criteria are rationally tolerable if we are to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and not to retaliate, and thereby preserve the disproportionate rewards of cooperation. As such the preservation of cooperation is the basis for ethics. And all ethical propositions are decidable.

3 – Propertarian Liberalism (politics) is a radical reformation of classical liberalism that articulates how and why the classical liberal model failed: failing to create new houses for newly enfranchised classes with competing reproductive interests, and the conflation of law with contract – thereby creating a voluntary market for the production of commons between classes with disparate interests and abilities.

Propertarianism invalidates democratic assent, replacing it with legal criticism, meaning that any political contract that is not illegal may pass, and other groups may prohibit it only if it fails the legal prohibition on involuntary transfer – thus eliminating monopoly rule under democracy, and converting the legislative branch to a market for the production of commons.

4 – Propertarian Strict Construction (law) is a reformation of law that completes the now-failed american constitutional program by requiring strict construction equal to that of mathematical proofs, thereby eliminating legal activism, parasitism, and providing universal decidability to matters of law, reducing the court’s function to determination of truth telling, and responsibility for causal relations.

5 – Propertarian Informational Commons (law) is an extension of the prohibition on “Abusus” (pollution or abuse) with which we protect the commons of the air, water, land, infrastructure, parks and monuments from damage, privatization, and consumption. Under universal standing in matters of the commons, activists can use the courts to protect not only air, land, sea, wildlife, but the truthfulness of information.

Propertarianism provides the missing logic of cooperation that has caused the artificial separation between science, philosophy, and law for 2500 years. This has stumped great minds for over two millennia. I am just a lucky man, standing on the shoulders of giants, peering into history, and by accident at the right point in time; and I see the errors of the past only because I am keenly aware of the failure of the 20th century philosophers, the success of operational thinking we call 20th century computer science, and the recent innovations in genetic, biological, cognitive, behavioral sciences since Pinker fired the first volley.

If this problem stumped so many greater minds than mine, it is no wonder that it’s hard for some of you to grasp the scope of the revolution in intellectual history. I understand it.

There will always be passionate activists and those heavily invested in dogma that will hold desperately to their priors and criticize innovations that they do not understand. This is natural human conservatism regardless of which point of the political and moral compass they originate from. And it is very hard to ask passionate people who are heavily invested in comforting justificationary priors to spend a great deal of effort in learning a radical program that requires substantial effort and knowledge to understand and apply. Those people may possess the ability, not possess the ability, have the time and effort, or not have the time and effort, be willing to invest, or not willing to invest.

So the only means of demonstrating to them that they should or must invest in learning such a thing, is for those who choose to make that investment for whatever reason, by their arguments and by their numbers, provide evidence that they should do so.

That is where you come in.

Propertarianism is the antidote to Marxism, Pseudoscience, Postmodernism and Deceit. It is the correction and completion of the classical liberal project, which is itself an expansion of the anglo saxon franchise, and in turn an expansion of the european and indo-european project: the heroic society. Where the greatest heroism is the costly burden of truth telling and personal sovereignty.

If there is any end of history, it is not marxist socialism, or democratic secular humanism, but the truthful society made possible by the reformation of classical liberalism to facilitate cooperation between heterogeneous peoples while prohibiting every possible means of parasitism, and demanding productive efforts in order to survive. By prohibiting all parasitism we leave only productive voluntary exchange as a means of survival.

So it may indeed be work to follow me on this journey. But buy doing so you are participating in the greatest revolution since Marxism, and together we are constructing the only means I have found for the restoration and perpetuation of western civilization: the people who speak the truth, and the vast benefits that we westerners bring to mankind by having spoken the truth; despite the terrible difficulty in learning how to speak truthfully, and the enormous cost of truthful speech that each of us pays every day, as the most important tax, so that with truth telling that we have used in both the ancient and modern eras, to drag humanity kicking and screaming against its will, out of illness and disease, malthusian poverty, constant conflict, universal ignorance and crippling mysticism.

Liberty in our lifetimes.

Welcome to the revolution.

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


The Conduct of a Contemporary Revolution


1) Develop a political solution to issue as a demand, and a plan for orderly transition.

2) Raise the cost of the status quo until the status quo is intolerable.
….a) inform the population of demands, and warn them to inventory goods.
….b) begin civil disobedience and malicious compliance (raise costs of maintaining order)
….c) create lists of names, and issue threats (create fear in state, academy, and media.)
….d) start fires (cheap, effective friend)
….e) disrupt infrastructure (power largely)
….f) selective kidnapping and assassination (make locals unwilling to govern)
….g) tactical entrapment and assassination (make locals unable to govern or protect)
….h) draw in the military and hold them in many locations. (delegitimize the government and show it is incapable of rule, and bankrupt it and the economy.)

3) Allow transition to occur by any of the possible means:
….a) enactment of changes (modify government)
….b) nullification (incrementally replace government)
….c) secession (create new governments)
….d) coup-d’-etat (military take over the government)
….e) insurrection and revolution (replace the government)
….f) civil war (replace the government after costly warfare)

Each of these solutions is more costly than the previous. But thankfully, contemporary economies and governments are very fragile when subject to economic and infrastructure disruption. So lower cost solutions are likely.

It is easier to replace a government today than at any time in history. And it takes a smaller number of people to cause disruption than at any time in history.

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


The Deceitful Use of “We”

The misuse of the word “we” imposes costs upon others, since it is a form of deception that is to distract us from actions of predation and theft.

Most frequently, the deceptive use of the word “we” is employed in the political sphere, in the west, is to further violate property en toto under the pretense of equality of interest.

It’s a verbal parlor trick for the purpose of theft. It’s chicanery.

–William Benge


Our Inescapable Cultural Biases

(anarchism, neo-reaction, testimonialism)

Curtis Yarvin kinda did the Jewish thing: rhetorically loaded criticism (gossip).

Hans Hoppe kinda did the German thing: rational justification of moral priors.

Doolittle (that’s me), I kinda did the Anglo thing: science and law.

–“Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation..”—

So true. We are just reminders in the algorithm that we call our cultural traditions. Free will? Maybe.

But I feel like I’m a tiny rider on the elephant of Indo-European, Anglo Saxon, and Norman traditions.

Curt Doolittle


Classical Contractualism and Rule of Law

(law) (definitions) (learning propertariansim)

Oliver Wendel Holms really screwed American and anglo law.

The more I study American history the more obvious it becomes that without the many nearby competitors we had faced as Europeans in Europe, that the new continent provided an excuse for the conquerors to take license with the law given the unanimity of sentiment: seizure of the opportunity to profit from the conquest of the continent. A unanimity that was not present in Europe (and which is only present under empire.)

Law consists of the one rule necessary to preserve cooperation: the prohibition on parasitism that causes cooperation to be a rational preference.  And by causing cooperation to be a rational preference, we create and preserve the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, and the disproportionate rewards of the division of labor and knowledge in that is possible under cooperation.

The one rule of prohibition on parasitism includes all forms of parasitism: violence, theft, extortion, fraud, externality and conspiracy. 

Parasitism must be performed against something: Life, Mates and Offspring, Relations, Property,  Shareholder Property, Informal Institutional Property, and Formal Institutional Property.

And we must know how NOT to perform parasitism: by limiting our actions to Productive, fully informed,  warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of parasitism by the same criteria.

And we must agree to enforce this requirement in fulfillment of the prohibition on parasitism, by providing insurance to one another consisting of both the Obverse: we will provide a means of retaliation against violations of the rule; and Reverse: we will not retaliate against  retaliations that are performed against a violation of the rule.

To provide means of insurance by providing an organizational means of retaliation against violations of the one rule, we will construct a court (testimony), a jury, presided by one or more judges.

To simplify the act of determining whether violations have or have not occurred, we will record our decisions as the obverse: property rights, and the reverse: prohibitions on violations of those rights.


Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated (true). As such, law is if not a science, at least a formal logic, that is both internally consistent, externally correspondent and universally decidable. Political preference cannot override these principles. (Rule of Law)

Law is constructed from both political and logical origins.

Law is a social construction unbound by any constraint other than its origin.

Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated, since such violation whether singular grand and visible, or invisibly accumulated from multitudinous and minor errors, would violate and destroy the incentive to cooperate within a government by rule of law. However, nearly any desirable contract can be constructed by voluntary agreement of parties, so long as the internal transfers are enumerated and the net result is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of external imposition of costs upon others.


See Also: “The First Principles of Propertarian Ethics”

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


Definitions: Calculable, Computational, Rational, Irrational, Arational, and “Black Box” 

(draft) (learning propertarianism)

The subtle differences in terms of comparison.


CALCULATIVE (HYPOTHETICAL) vs COMPUTATIONAL(DETERMINISTIC) – A process is CALCULATIVE if human beings are required to perform it, and COMPUTATIONAL if (current) computers can perform it.

CALCULATIVE INSTITUTIONS – The set of technologies that permit human beings to extend their perception and comparison ability, and therefore their ability to understand and forecast in complexity, particularly a division of knowledge and labor, as a means of assisting in planning, forecasting, production and decision making. Specifically: numbers, counting, arithmetic, accounting, algebra, calculus, statistics, combined with money, numeric time, banking, interest, contract, rule of law, combined with narrative, history, objective truth, combined with property, exchange, trade, markets.

CALCULATION / CALCULATIVE: A calculation is a deliberate process for transforming one or more inputs into one or more results, with variable change. The term is generally used to describe a spectrum of methods of reasoning, from the very definite arithmetical calculation of using an algorithm, to the vague heuristics of calculating a strategy in a competition or calculating the chance of a successful relationship between two people.

OPERATIONAL: A recipe for a description of a series of actions that produce a result within a limit of precision. (an existence proof)

COMPUTATIONAL: A sequence of mechanically producible and repeatable operations.

LOGICAL – A sequence of operations Not entirely a synonym for rational, since logical statements should be formally testable, while rational statements nearly need not be irrational.

RATIONAL – Reasonable. Reasoned. A conclusion achieved through the process of reason. Drawing hypotheses from juxtaposing facts against each other and determining their relations. Does not imply that the answer is correct. Only that logic was reasoning was properly applied.

IRRATIONAL – Not reasonable. Not correctly reasoned. In philosophical usage, means illogical, or poor reasoning. Specifically that the reasoning applied or decision made, does not result in the desired ends.

ARATIONAL – Having no rational characteristics; having no capacity to reason. In philosophy, not within the domain of what can be understood or analyzed by reason; outside the competence of the rules of reason.

ARATIONAL BLACK BOX – I use the terms “Black Box” and “Arational” to refer to non-logical content that produces beneficial ends. The problem with all religions other than perhaps stoicism and Buddhism, is that their resulting strategy differs from their claimed mythology. Christianity for example is a set of myths and ideals the purpose of which is to encourage if not force the extension of kinship love to non-kin, and by consequence, produce a high trust society.


A List of Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Errors

(from elsewhere)

I consider my work as a restatement of Hoppe’s in ratio-scientific terms rather than his use of aprioristic justificationary rationalism.

Hoppe’s problems (errors) are natural for a german philosopher who was trained by Marxists. But they are still considerable errors. But while he makes errors in construction, his conclusions from his justifications are correct.

– We justify moral actions within a normative system of evolved rules. We criticize truth propositions to test whether the theories survive. We do not find truth in justification – we find permission. We find truth in survival against all known criticism. Justification translates to “I can get away with saying this so you cannot say I violated the rules of cooperation: morality or law” while truth propositions under ratio-scientific criticism translates to “I have done due diligence to determine if this argument survives all know attempts at failure, regardless of preference, morality or law.”

Property demonstrably (empirically) exists prior to cooperation, and so does scarcity. But scarcity is imperceptible. Cost is perceptible. The origin of demonstrable property is in the cost to acquire. Scarcity explains why things are costly, but not the origination of property. Scarcity is an abstract explanation not a cause.

– Property rights exist due to the disproportionate returns on cooperation, and the necessity of preserving those returns by prohibiting parasitism. Property rights do not originate in scarcity of goods, they originate in the scarcity and disproportionate return on cooperation.

– Argumentation and contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not necessary constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into a contract do we justify our actions. Prior to that fact no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists.  The logic of cooperation is not binary.  We live in an amoral world of  violence, theft, conspiracy and deception,  and construct cooperation at will. And our choices at any time are to (a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it, (b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either (c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation (d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same, (e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level. So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation.

– The minimum scope of property reciprocally necessary to exchange, in order to provide minimum incentives for the rational formation of a voluntary polity is property-en-toto, or what we call “demonstrated-property” (demonstrated defense of that which we have paid costs to acquire), and the minimum scope of property is not IVP: intersubjectively verifiable property – (property that is epistemologically easy to test if we transfer). Hoppe and Rothbard misapply separatist ethics between polities (between states) as sufficient for the formation of a polity. (Ghetto Ethics.)  Arguably hoppe suggests that IVP is merely a minimum criteria and that all other properties must be arbitrarily constructed upon it.  However, this means that IVP is an insufficient criteria for a basis for law.  WHerease Property en Toto is a sufficient criteria for the basis for law.

– The formation of a voluntary (anarchic) polity requires that local transaction costs are low enough to limit demand for authority to either prevent retaliatiion for violations of property en toto, and to provide sufficient incentives to join such a polity rather than say, a democratic humanist polity. The reason is we must choose between high local transaction costs with low political costs that prohibit economic velocity, and low local transaction costs that encourage economic velocity with high political costs. Humans rationally choose government over anarchy unless anarchy provides the lower transaction costs. This means that anarchy is only possible under high trust. High trust is only possible under property en toto with it’s total prohibition on deception (cheating) rather than intersubjectively verifiable property with its tolerance for deceptoin and cheating.  A rational anarchic polity can only form under property en toto, not IVP.

– Those voluntary anarchic polities that have existed, on the few occasions that they have existed, have been the target of extermination by neighbors. Because the only reason to seek a low trust polity is some variation of parasitism: gypsies on the low end, pirates in the center, and financial predators (moral hazards) on the high end.

– The formation of a voluntary polity (anarchic) will only be possible under western aristocratic martial egalitarianism and the independent common law, prohibiting all parasitism against demonstrated property (what we bore costs for and defend), whether that parasitism is by violence, theft, extortion (blackmail, racketeering), fraud, (fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission), externality, (free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses), or conspiracy (statism, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide).

– Mises was, like many of his contemporaries, trying to solve the problem of his era, and incorrectly cast operational testing by subjective analysis of rational incentives (praxeology) as a positive means of exploration sufficient for the investigation of cooperative and economic phenomenon, instead of a test of existential possibility of claims. Economics is empirical as any other of the science and only differs in that we know the first principles of cooperation (rational incentives on the positive side and non-imposition of costs – parasitism- on the negative side.) Whereas the first principles of the physical universe are as yet unknown to us. And where the first principles of declarative systems (logics) are matters of our discretion. (This is a rather difficult subject for all but those of us who specialize in epistemology.)

I could go on a bit, but Hoppe’s insights are in the perverse incentives of bureaucracies – even under democracy, and the exposition of all moral and legal argument as reducible to property rights.

All his justificationary argument is pure Kantian,Cosmopolitan and Marxist nonsense. We do not justify truth propositions. Truth propositions survive attempts to refute them.

I love the man, honestly. But he was a product of his time and place just as I am a product of mine. Science wins. Rationalism loses. Not only because science is necessary for the provision of truth, but because PHILOSOPHY HAS LARGELY BEEN USED TO LIE.

I hope this is of some value to you.

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


Reformation: The Study Of Man Before and After Propertarianism

Given the Spectrum of : {Neurobiology, Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Evolutionary Strategy, Politics and War}.

1) Neurobiology: how the brain works: chiefly: it’s biological limits to perception, cognition, memory, knowledge and reason.

2) Psychology: the study of the brain’s struggle to acquire and inventory, its limits, and its errors (cognitive biases) given the individual’s reproductive strategy.

3) Sociology: the study of cooperative acquisition by groups: the production of cooperative and normative commons.

4) Economics: the study of cooperative reproduction, production distribution and trade for the purposes of persistence. The productive commons.

6) Evolutionary Strategy: The suite of informal(manners, ethics, morals, myths, education), economic (production distribution and trade), and formal (law, politics ) institutions that allow the extant peoples to compete with other extant peoples. The competitive commons.

5) Politics: the study of organizational institutions for the purpose of producing competitive(group evolutionary strategy), reproductive, productive(economic), normative(institutions) and material commons.

6) War: the study of the limits of productive cooperation, and the imposition of cooperation, elimination of threats, and elimination of competition.

Man Acts To Acquire To Survive. Cooperation Is The Most Beneficial Means Action to Acquire. But only if cooperation is non-parasitic. And for cooperation to be non-parasitic it must be: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality by the same criteria.

So, the study of man is the study of man’s acquisition of all that he desires. Man acts to acquire.

While we will undoubtedly gain further insights into man, brain and mind, it is unlikely that the Propertarian principles will be falsified – only increased in precision.
1) that man acts to acquire property en toto,
2) moral bias is determined by reproductive strategy
3) specialised moral biases that reflect our reproductive strategies and voluntary cooperation allow us to produce a market for cooperation that functions as an information system making use of the entire spectrum of perceptions in the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy.
4) language evolved largely to justify actions in the context of cooperation rather than to identify truth propositions. Truth is difficult for us because it is critical. Justification is easy for us.

Instead of asking what is right or wrong (deviation from an ideal) with someone’s thinking (a totalitarian doctrine) we ask what they seek to acquire, and whether they seek to acquire it by moral or immoral means. All human behavior can be expressed as interactions between desires for acquisition, the need to negotiate, and moral constraint, and the relative value, or lack of value, of cooperation.

Instead of asking what is right or wrong (deviation from an ideal), we ask what the group seeks to acquire, and whether they seek to acquire it by moral or immoral means.

Instead of asking what is right or wrong (deviation from an idea) we ask what the group seeks ot acquire, and whether they seek to acquire it by internally and externally moral, or immoral, means.

Economics can be studied as the means by which we eliminate frictions (transaction costs) and thereby increase the ease and decrease the risk of cooperation (Austrian Economics), OR economics can bes studied as the means by which we search for extensions of rule of law such that interference in the economy is non-discretionary (Chicago Economics), OR economics can be the means by which we determining the maximum disinformation that we can insert into the economy for the purpose of increasing consumption, and by consumption, employment(Keynesian economics). But we now know that Austrian is the most moral, Chicago at least interferes under rule of law, and Keynesian (saltwater) economics is the means by which we conduct the most deceit.

Instead of asking what action is best (monopoly) we ask how individuals can organize into groups to conduct exchanges with other groups, in order to acquire what they wish to by moral or immoral means.

Instead of the empirical falsehood that war is universally bad, war is the only solution to the failure to cooperate on marginally indifferent moral terms, and war is perhaps the most productive effort man can undertake if one group increases the suppression of parasitism of another group, and especially if it creates or improves trade routes. Violence is either the means by which we enact parasitism, or the means by which we eliminate parasitism. If we eliminate, or at least reduce parasitism substantially, then war, like all prosecution of parasitism, is by definition, moral.

The study of man prior to Propertarianism and post-Propertarianism is equal to the study of man prior to the enlightenment and after the enlightenment.

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


Art.  Fashion or Monument.

Contemporary art produces fashion not monument. It is high(short) time preference. A proletarian art. Not an aristocratic one.