See http://topinfopost.com/2014/06/30/ultra-rich-mans-letter-to-my-fellow-filthy-rich-americans-the-pitchforks-are-coming

(regardless of your political persuasion, you should read this. because it’s the best existing answer to the social problem of post-agrarian capitalism).

This might sound like a criticism, but it’s not: he “gets it” sentimentally, he doesn’t get it economically, or institutionally, because he’s not knowledgeable enough to ‘get it’ economically or institutionally. But the fact that he expresses his ideas sentimentally, is more USEFUL than expressing them economically or institutionally. Because people will not understand the importance of the economic and institutional arguments.

The institutional problem we face with engaging in systematic dependency-creating redistribution is giving everyone the right incentives, rather than those that encourage the expansion of the government, which is a parasite on consumers and producers alike. The economic problem we face with creating institutionalized redistribution is doing it without doing more damage to the complex system of information provided by prices and wages. We forget too easily that capitalism refers to the *voluntary organization of production* in contrast to the various involuntary means of organizing production.

The reason why capitalism produces prosperity and socialism doesn’t is because under the voluntary organization of production people have both the incentive to work and producers the ability to make rational plans under ever-changing conditions. Under socialism, people have the incentive not to work, or to work as little as possible, and it is impossible to rationally organize production to serve the desires of other producers and consumers. So capitalism isn’t a matter of preference, it’s a matter of necessity.

But here is the rub – and the solution.

When our governments were invented, people worked in an agrarian society where our productivity was marginally indifferent, and determined not so much by our abilities, but whether we controlled our breeding, and whether we had the discipline to work hard. Today, disconnected from the productivity of the land, no longer farmers, no longer farm workers, even if we want to work, many of us cannot, because we can do nothing productive enough to participate in production under the voluntary organization of production.

But this is logical a mistake we’ve inherited from our agrarian past. The most important part of making the voluntarily organization of production possible, is respecting other people’s property rights, and respecting the commons, and not increasing the expenses that others must bear for your existence in the world. That is why the west is wealthier than the rest – the high trust society.

But respecting property – forgoing pleasures, and policing other so that they also forgo pleasures that would make the voluntary organization of production difficult and expensive if not impossible – is a form of work. If you respect property, the commons, and do not increase the costs that others must bear to support you, and police the behavior of others so that they respect property rights too, then you are in fact, working in production. You are working to produce the law, order and property rights that make the voluntary organization of production possible. The high trust society is just as important to the voluntary organization of society as are the resources that go into that production.

As such, we must pay people for that work that they do, or we are failing to pay them for their participation in the production of the necessary conditions under which we can voluntarily organize production using the information provided by the pricing system, and our individual incentives to work in order to increase our consumption.

This is the “missing” moral argument for redistribution that is economically sound, and institutionally sound, that we have been searching for since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the late 1700′s in England (and which Marx got terribly wrong at the cost of 100M lives, and which Keynes also got terribly wrong, which has cost us again, possibly, the economic health of western civilization.)

The economically sound, and institutionally safe method of accomplishing this wage payment for constructing the social order that is necessary for the voluntary organization of production under the pricing system is to (a) redistribute money directly from the treasury to consumers via debit cards (b) base the amount of the distribution on monthly sales taxes collected, and eliminate as much of the income tax structure as possible, if not all of it, and (c) construct that payment as a non-guaranteed commission such that the more people in the work force, the less there is to go around (d) give it to everyone. (e) remove all employment laws, discrimination laws, minimum wage laws and the like (f) make it as much as we can economically tolerate (f) eliminate all other redistributive and controlling government programs and organizations and add that to the payment. (g) and lastly, and perhaps equally as importantly, use direct-from-treasury lending on all single-home single-owner mortgages, and single owner business properties at zero interest rate over 15 years. (g) As Galbraith and I both argued before his death, refinance and write down all mortgages against the treasury and pay them off over 30 years. There is no reason that an investor has the long term right to the interest on a mortgage at public expense. (And yes I have worked through the consequences to institutional investors. This bypasses institutional investors by eliminating the need for them.)

Why this set of solutions? Because this (1) makes employment a preference not a necessity, and therefore not subject to regulation, (2) encourages everyone to limit the scope of government and maximize personal take home giving producers and consumers the same interest in keep ing the parasitic state as small as possible (3) doesn’t interfere with the pricing structure by artificially pricing labor and distorting the international price of american products and services. The macro economic importance of this point is greater than the importance of the first two. (4) also this solution would force the population to resist all immigration other than that which increases productivity, and depress the current fictionalization. (5) eliminates the class warfare in government by giving us exactly the same interest. (6) most importantly, it eliminates the majority of the financial sector, by pushing money directly to consumers and causing the banks to compete for consumer savings, rather than construct predatory consumer credit schemes, as we distribute money from the treasury down through the banking system. The impact of this on dismantling the influence of the financial sector on political and world affairs is something that if understood is more profound than the evolution of fiat currency in the first place.

I wish I had time to give this the treatment it’s worthy of, but it will have to do for now.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine


Operations are not analogies, the exist, they are ‘real’. That’s what’s so ‘truthful’ about them. When we perform an operation, there is no information loss, and conversely, no information is ‘gained’, or assumed, that isn’t there.



Unfortunately Socrates’s criticism applies to all of academia. Or in the new vernacular, all members of the neoreactionary’s ‘Cathedral’ – the replacement of the church and academy with the state and academy under a bizarre form of numerical and technological heresy.

I was thrilled at the church’s restoration of the exorcists today. When the church re-institutes the Templars or Hospitallers and we warriors have moral sanction to restore the church’s property, and the church as opponent to the state, we will rescue not only the church, but the west itself.

But without that sanction the church will continue to decline, and the west with it.

The problem being that the church needs a new knightly order, and to be in an position of desperation.

My current belief is that mysticism is more important to the church than philosophy. And the talents in the church more suitable to mysticism than philosophy. And the third world, not Europe, the church’s economic and intellectual interest. As such the church will not save Europe, and ceases to be a european institution other than ceremonially.

The church created Europa and at present the church may be the only means of saving it.

In Europe god speaks three languages: the science and history of warriors, the reason and allegory of protestants, and the mythology and passion of the catholics.

The church no longer speaks the languages of god.

And Europa is abandoned by her church because of it.


(worth repeating)

Most of my arguments consist of various permutations that point out the fallacies of the libertarian, classical liberal, and progressive canons that do not account for the three genetic problems of (a) outbreeding and extension of kinship trust, (b) minimum pareto distribution of verbal intelligence, and (c) reduced genetic testosterone and therefore impulsivity, in the construction of a polity capable of the voluntary organization of production, and a sufficient velocity of exchange, such that we produce the constant innovation necessary to stay ahead of both the (i) genetic red queen, the (ii) malthusian red queen, and (iii) the technological red queen – and how those three red queens must be defeated in order to preserve economic prosperity that allows us to have whatever nonsensical social order we choose.


The least likely people on earth to say “I don’t know enough about that to have an opinion.”

We have the most confident, yet most ignorant populace in the developed world. A massive progressive-induced, Dunning Kreuger test, serving no other purpose than to give righteous inspiration to the ignorant to cast votes for that which they cannot comprehend.

I mean, when you sort of sit back an think about it, at first it’s funny, then its tragic, then depressing, then frightening.


Damn it. I do not think of people’s race except in descriptive terms, the same way I point out the color of a shirt, car or house when describing it. There are great men. If I have to think of the person’s race to determine if they are great men, then they aren’t. Either a man carries his water or he doesn’t. His race doesn’t matter. If he makes it matter, then unfortunately I have to make it matter too.

One of the reasons that I find Aristocracy so appealing, is that it’s appealing to EVERY TRIBE out there. It’s GOOD FOR ALL tribes. It doesn’t matter if this tribe or that tribe has better or worse individuals. What matters is that aristocracy can construct the educational and commercial order necessary for that tribe to participate in the global economy.

The only reason race is a problem, is the denial of it, and the fantasy that all our tribes are equal. They aren’t any more equal than families are equal or classes are equal. We’re just not equal in our traits. But we are equal in the market where we are anonymous and invisible to one another, and equal in our interests in helping one another.

Aristocracy around the world is the same. It’s the bottom 3/4 of any tribe that is materially different, and its in their interests and possibly in mankind’s interest to be genetically different.

The only reason to desire large numbers is to conquer people or colonize people according to your favorite biases.

I can’t for the life of me understand how the world would not be better constructed of 5M person city states rather than 1 billion person empire-states, except that big states can conduct bigger wars.

If the head of tribe/state X race Y talks to the head of tribe/state A race B get together it probably will work out just fine if they want to conduct a trade. But the minute tribe C tries to increase its dominion nothing good comes out of it except war.


Many utilitarian concepts are convenient, but not true. Most untrue things produce negative externalities. Most negative externalities cause others harm. Small things in large numbers produce vast consequences.


Many immoral things are convenient. The reason we refrain from them despite their convenience, is that when we agree to cooperate with others, we agree to avoid exporting costs onto them as individuals, and we agree not to pollute the commons and therefore export costs onto them as a group.

There is no difference between polluting a stream, and composing and publishing a theory in non-operational (particularly experiential) language. Both are immoral.



I have spent years on this question and I am fairly certain now that Mises’ work, like Bridgman’s was an unsuccessful attempt at developing operationalism.

Both Mises and Popper can best be understood as cosmopolitan intellectuals bringing their pseudoscientific allegorical culture to their work, just as Kant brought continental duty and authority to his – both rebelling against anglo empiricism.

Hayek could not solve the problem of the social sciences either. He correctly intuits that the problem exists, but he can only offer us laments, criticisms, and classical liberal solutions. Unfortunately he did not have decades of computer science to provide him with an alternative conceptual framework and terminology to replace his classical liberalism and moral psychology.

Post mainstream economists cannot yet solve the relationship between mathematics, logic, ethics and economics. And Austrians should have. But the sad state of our ranks and the distraction of philosophers by the marxist, socialist, and postmodern programs misallocated intellectual capital in pursuit of the impossible. So when hayek says the 20th century will be remembered as an era of reemergent mysticism, he only knows something is wrong : endemic pseudoscience – but he does not know why or how to fix it.

He was a herald and a critic but he did not solve it. So did Poincare, Mandelbrot, Bridgman, the mathematical Intuitionists. So did mises.

The interesting insight that I have only recently understood, is that the other disciplines succeeded but their scope was narrower than that of economics. And had mises not failed. Had popper not failed. Had Hayek not failed, then the missing argument would have been available to the less complicated fields of math, logic and science, as well as economics.

The insight that the only truth that can exist is performative, and the only possible claim to sufficient knowledge necessary to make a truth claim, is the demonstration if construction by operational means and measures. Ie: the problem is ethical.

I am fairly certain now, that I have solved that mussing bit -by accident. And that the necessary insights exist in the multiple attempts at articulating operationalism in multiple fields – thereby solving, finally, the nature and definition of truth.

This allows us to repair praxeology as an empirical research program whose theoretical constructs are reducible to operational statements, each of which is sympathetically testable by human perception, as to the rationality and volition of those statements. Ie: truth.

Mises was too much on a mission, too arrogant, too culturally biased, and too ignorant of mathematics, science and philosophy to solve the problem. But he came closer than anyone else had to date.


QUESTION: “Hello Curt. What’s your stance on IP especially taking Kinsella’s arguments into account?” (Derogatory reference to Kinsella’s personality edited out. – Ed.)

In the abstract I agree with the principle that easily accessible licenses for limited monopolies are not beneficial for consumers. However, that rational argument may or may not mean much in practice.

1) IP does appear to rapidly affect business willingness to invest. So, just like property rights exclude people from commons to facilitate the willingness to take risks, IP excludes people from opportunities in order to facilitate the willingness of individuals to take risks. So empirically speaking and rationally speaking, these are trade-off questions not matters of truth and falsehood.

2) Humans don’t like free riding and we intuitively dislike direct copying – seeing it as a case of free riding. I think the question is limited to whether you’re fooling someone or not (trademarking). So as long as you’re not violating a trademark, which is a question of ‘weights and measures’, (fraud), then I think it’s hard to argue against copying anything at all. The test is pretty empirically simple – if you can glance at something for two seconds and tell the original from the copy, then it’s not a trademark violation. If you can then it is. It’s a pretty simple test. We have proven it over and over again.

3) For licensed monopolies, I think it is entirely moral to appeal to the ‘people’ asking for a limited monopoly to produce a good that the market cannot reliably produce. This tends kind of thing tends to be limited to very specific goods (health and medicine) or expensive original research in physical sciences, or high risk investments with high benefit to the commons (transportation and infrastructure). All that occurs is that private investment takes risk and reward, with some lottery bonus from the commons, that if they succeed they will recover their costs free of predation from others. Again, this is a purely pragmatic thing. And as long as such things are put out to ‘bid’, so that whomever wins gets the benefit, then I think it’s just a rational choice to get individuals do off book research and development on behalf of the commons in exchange for winning a lottery if they succeed.

However I see these licenses as exceptions on the same level as laws, not grants to be easily obtained without serious discretion.

4) My problem with the rothbardian (ghetto) ethic is that it’s advocating free riding on the work of others, and NOT a matter of competition if you did not conduct the research yourself. Competition is not free riding, since you are doing a better job of voluntarily organizing production and satisfying customers. However, benefitting from someone else’s research and development and capturing the rewards for it is simply free riding.

Again, I see the Rothbardian ethic as simply an obscurantist set of arguments meant to justify parasitism rather than enforcing the fundamental requirement for rational cooperation: that we all contribute to production without parasitism upon others.

Humans punish cheaters. The only way to increase the velocity of production and trade is to increase trust, and the way to increase trust is to suppress all free riding so that every individual is forced to participate in production, rather than engage in parasitism.

Rothbardianism is simply a complex, overloaded, obscurant argument meant to justify ghetto parasitism. It is irrational to choose a stateless polity with low trust and persistent retribution over a stateful polity with low trust and high suppression of retribution. This is why people demand the state: to suppress immoral and unethical people such as rothbardians, so that a high trust society can develop.

An anarchic or private polity will only be possible to form under a high trust society that prohibits all free riding with the exception of kin.

Curt Doolittle

PS: I’m sure this will generate nonsense but I’m pretty sure my argument is rock solid. Just how it is. Rothbardians need to get over it.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.