(insightful)(first application of operationalism)

West Point forbids its cadets to use the passive voice. It’s an excellent practice. In the strict sense we forbid the passive voice in English and it makes for much more solid communication than in French where the passive voice acceptable. Inverted sentences in the passive voice drive me nuts as they seem nothing more than the exclamation of a noun that the speaker modifies with adjectives and participles, which he, in turn, further modifies with adverbs.

I think also that the passive voice makes for a cultural vulnerability that socialism and the ‘victimism’ exploit. If you are a people to whom things happen (passive voice), are you not more likely to allow a nebulous 3rd party (the State) act on you? If, on the other hand, you are a nation that makes things happens (active voice), are you not more likely to oppose the usurpation/negation of your liberties?”– Don Finnegan

Active Voice, E-Prime, and Operational Language place increasing demands on the speaker such that his words cannot contain obscurantisms.

(Germans were wrong. English is better for philosophy. lol)


A kinship of property rights.
The initiatic brotherhood of warriors.
The cult of egalitarian sovereignty
The origins of western exceptionalism.
The only possible means of possessing liberty.

The solution to the problem of creating extra-familial trust, is achieved by the extension of property rights, in exchange for the reciprocal guarantee of defending each other’s property.

I didn’t invent it. I just wrote it down. For the first time in 4000 years.

(And it wasn’t easy either.)


FROM : Roman Skaskiw
QUESTION: Been reading Fukuyama — Seems state structures replaced kinship-Aristocratic ones b/c states were better at coordinating violence and meritocracy (first in war, then in bureaucracy).

He uses the end of the Chou Dynasty in China to illustrate this.

1. Do you agree with this assessment? 2. Do you think modern technology and understanding could overcome these disadvantages if we reverted to some form of aristocratic kinship?

Yes. Because they had insufficient property rights.
Yes, Because they had a low trust society.

The monarchies did not have this problem. Nor could they build such great edifices of war. I think, whether Fukukuyama admits it, where all other historians do, the purpose of the Chinese system was the conduct of war and suppression.

By contrast, the purpose of the western model is ADJUDICATION. One cannot had adjudication without property rights. One must have tyranny. One cannot have adjudication without property rights, one must have tyranny.

Command and control under the western model is superior. Rates of innovation under the western modal are superior. The fact that the Chinese got started first, is not much testimony. The fact that no matter what Europe did, when it used science, it exceeded rates of development of all other civilizations. Property rights and science. They are both ‘CALCULABLE’ institutions.

The west, under duress kept the “east” (desert and steppe people) at bay.
The east, under duress, kept the “west ” (desert and steppe people) at bay.
We just chose different models, and the desert and steppe people are still a (fkng) problem to this day.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine


(Guest Post by Eli Harman: )

Asking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation (if they’re strong) is asking them to bear a substantial opportunity cost. They will only do so if someone stands ready to impose a higher actual cost for choosing to engage in them.

This is what Curt Doolittle means when he says “liberty must be manufactured by violence.”

Libertarians love to sing liberty’s praises, and there is much to be said in its favor. But it does not follow from this that liberty is always in everyone’s best interests. There are many people who stand to lose more from liberty than they would stand to gain. (And not just because they misperceive the situation.) There are still more people for whom the uncertainty over what they would stand to gain or lose would make desiring liberty irrational.

The incentives that favor liberty do not exist by default, they must be proactively created. And in order for this to happen there must be people likely to benefit from liberty, strong people, capable people, wise people, intelligent people, responsible people, farsighted people; in short, aristocrats. And they must organize to impose liberty on the remainder by force, and in many cases, to their detriment, or to their enduring resentment.

If liberty is thus to be manufactured, the problem of free-riding must also be overcome by institutional forms that deny the benefits of liberty to those unwilling to participate in its manufacture, and that preserves the benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of those so willing.


(profound) (reformation of libertarianism)

From my position as a scientific realist, understanding that praxeology is and must be an operational discipline, the advocates of apriorism and the universal deducibility of economics appear humorously ironic – whenever they are not exasperatingly frustrating.

We cannot deduce economic phenomenon (laws) from fist principles. We have not. We do not. We will not. The matter is settled by the evidence that we did not deduce sticky prices, consumer irrationality, the extraordinary impact of morality on economics, and the multitude of cognitive biases that incorrectly inform our intuitions.

But, what we CAN do, given an empirically, instrumentally observed phenomenon, is to deduce the incentives to act, and therefore the actions that produce economic phenomenon, particularly emergent economic phenomenon, once they are empirically observed.

And conversely, we can test the rationality of incentives, and the voluntary or involuntary transfer of property, of economic propositions, if they are stated in operational language: as a SERIES OF HUMAN ACTIONS. (ie: operationalism)

We can perform this test because human incentives sufficient for the voluntary organization of production are marginally indifferent. If they were not marginally indifferent then the voluntary organization of production in a polity of humans would be if not impossible, at least far more difficult.

We do experience this level of difficulty whenever the difference in the portfolio of property rights used in any two polities are sufficiently different that trade must be reduced to the lowest common denominator. This is the case for trade barriers.

Trade barriers compensate for differences in local purchasing power, but also for differences in local property rights – for example, when the export of natural resources are subject to tariffs for redistribution to the polity. But the more common example is trade with primitive societies in which intertemporal contract and property do not exist.

Operationalism is the requirement that we express statements as a series of actions. Operationalism requires that we demonstrate knowledge of construction, because one cannot make operational statements without knowledge of construction.

Human action is an operationalist discipline. It a contradiction to state that the study of human actions differs from the study of operations in sequence. These terms are synonymous. The logic of describing the world in terms of human actions.

Kant invented his philosophy to construct obscurantism in an effort to restore authority lost by religion in the enlightenment. It is an anti-scientific, anti-anglo empiricist philosophy of social rebellion. Cognitive science has come down on the Anglo side of the argument. The study of economics is, like all human investigation into phenomenon, one requiring the scientific method.

The scientific method is not particular to science. It only emerged in that discipline and therefore bears the name of that discipline. The scientific method is the only known means of organized, intentional, investigation of reality.

The scientific method is the universal epistemological method. It is the best one that we have found.

One of the most common fallacies of libertarian arguments is the conflation of science and the scientific method with either empiricism or positivism or both.
Science as it is practiced states that we never know the most parsimonious theory with the greatest explanatory power that explains causal relations and changes in state. And, that any model we construct whether verbal, operational, or logical and axiomatic rests upon a network of concepts that can be restructured at any point forward. This is a skeptical position and science has taught us it is correct to be skeptical. But in economics and politics, this uncertainty is not a weakness. It is a strength. We do not need greater certainty to act. We need greater certainty only to compel others to action. And in libertarian theory we should never seek to compel others to action except through fully informed voluntary exchange.

-Context and Precision-
Some of the time our theories are entirely false (phlogiston theory) some of which are limited by precision (newton’s theory of gravity). Both theories are false. But phlogiston theory is false in all circumstances, and newton’s theory of gravity is only false outside of the boundaries of “human scale” (the very small and the very large). Economic theories, referring to aggregates, are almost always false for any given case within the aggregate, but not for the aggregate expression itself. So theories, correspondence with reality, always and everywhere, are context dependent.

-Math and Logic-
Now, the same is true for most mathematical theories. The goal of mathematics is to create context independent general rules. So rules of arbitrary precision. And mathematics has had terrible difficulty in maintaining deductive certainty while trying to create rules independent of context. ie: with arbitrary precision. They solved it with the axiom of choice and maintaining the law of the excluded middle. Both of which are logical violations necessary to construct rules using arbitrary precision independent of context

Falsification only requires that a statement be both falisifiable and that we can no longer identify new tests. It does not say that we need to repeat tests. Just the opposite. It says that we must create more precise, narrower tests, to further harden a theory if we wish to further test it. In fact, confirmation (repeating a test) is, under falsification, a fallacy. Since it merely confirms the prior test, and says nothing about the theory itself.

-Sufficiency For Voluntary Action-
*The Only Form Of Scientific Certainty Is The Level Sufficient For Voluntary Action*: Science states that we can never know enough to be certain, only that we can know enough to willingly ACT using the best of our knowledge at any given point; and that our confidence in those actions must be limited by the durability of a theory.

The important point for libertarians being, that unlike the ironic fallacies put forth by Mises, the scientific argument is that there is NEVER a case where if you are not convinced of something, that you may be deprived of your property for political purposes – unless you are free riding.

Some theories are very durable. We call them laws. A law is a theory that we cannot figure out how to disprove, and whose precision and explanatory power we do not yet know how to increase.

Most theories that describe economic aggregates are imprecise, time variant, and open to additional precision, and externalities. In fact, it is nearly impossible to make statements about economic phenomenon that are not imprecise, time variant, and open to additional precision and externalities.

So as general, imprecise, time variant, rules, open to increases in precision, for the description of aggregates, most ‘laws’ are not useful for the ascertainment of any individual case within that aggregate. We can make a general statement about aggregates, but we cannot make particular statements about cases.
In other words, economics is a young, immature, scientific discipline, consisting of observations both external and internal, logical instrumentation to prove the internal, physical to measure the external, and reason to judge the sufficiency of correspondence.

The question of whether or not state manipulation of information carried by the pricing system as a means of producing incentives to increase consumption and employment, is one not of scientific validity – but whether one uses false claims of certainty to justify the immorality of stealing from people by various means of involuntarily transfer for the purpose of conducting experiments that produce negative externalities equal to or worse than the benefits of consumption and employment.

Three cultures: the anglo transparent and empirical, german continental obscurant and authoritarian rational, and the jewish cosmopolitan separatist obscurant pseudo-rational, were all different reactions to the enlightenment that attempted to preserve group evolutionary and competitive strategy in their arguments.

However, only one of those three strategies is true, transparent, operational, and scientific: the anglo empirical. Anglos were an homogenous outbred polity on an island. Germans a semi-homogenous semi-outbred polity holding borders. Jews where an unlanded, unwanted, outcast polity held in isolation within host countries. The evolutionary, competitive, cultural and therefore philosophical needs of these groups reflected their circumstances. Anglo transparency is evidence of a lack of fear of conflict of interest.

So, liberty must be resurrected from the failed Continental and Cosmopolitan programs, and, like all other disciplines, restated scientifically such that it can evolve into the 21st century, and lose it’s cultish and archaic dogma. Without that reformation, it is impossible to engage the majority polities, that do rely on scientific language in rational arguments. And if we are to escape the justified criticism of dogmatic and false misesian and rothbardian arguments, then to escape ridicule and fallacy alone we must make this transformation.

Jewish Cosmopolitanism attempted to preserve group cohesion by adapting their cult language and philosophy to rely upon secular arguments. Cult language and philosophy creates barriers to cooperation outside the group and increases utility of cooperation within the group. Science instead, is an attempt to create a universal language independent of group esotericists designed for group cohesion. (Against religions in particular.) And that attempt to create a universal language, succeeded. Science has won. The universal language, grammar, and process consist of scientific realism, and the scientific method, and it’s inclusion of empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism, and falsificationism.

Misesians and Rothbardians and their ‘Austrian’ offshoots, all engage in loading, framing and overloading. Loading is the act of adding moral and emotional content to an argument. Framing is a form of fraud by omission, in which only preferred causes and effects are used for the argument, usually in support of some form of loading. Overloading is a form of deception, and exaggerated form of framing, where you construct a great body of information and argument using framed and loaded (selective) arguments in order to overwhelm the listener’s ability to conduct truth tests against it. And the reduction of statements to operations on the exchange of property eliminates this ability to conduct deception by loading, framing, and overloading.

Science, by use of the scientific method, tries to solve the problem of causal density by breaking the the infinite causal density of the universe into discreet statements of cause and effect. The use of Operationalism in ethics, is an attempt to solve the problem of obscurantism, which is deceptive or self deceptive construction of artificial causal density for the purpose of persuasion.

If you cannot state something in operational language that demonstrates knowledge of construction,then you cannot make a truth claim about it, because you do not possess knowledge upon which to make such a truth claim. Moreover, since any true statement can be made operationally and therefore transparently and subject to subjective testing for rationality, then the only reason to NOT make a statement in operational language is to construct obscurant deception. Once aware of this fact, then you are by definition and necessity violating the ethics of debate by relying on other than transparent and operational arguments.

Libertarians are laughable for good reason. If we are to reform libertarianism we must restore liberty to anglo empirical aristocracy, and pull it from german continental authoritarian obscurantism, and jewish cosmopolitan hermeneutic ghetto obscurantism. Libertarianism must evolve so that honest transparent debate in rational and scientific terms can be conducted in favor of liberty and against collectivism in all its forms.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Kiev Ukraine



Aphoristic arguments, programmatic as they may be, are ideologically utilitarian, and place limited burden on the speaker. They teach the intuition through use and repetition, better than verbose and detailed arguments.

Conservatives (aristocratic egalitarians) understand this. Or at least intuit it. That is why they win the moral battle for votes, despite inferior intellectuals, and arational arguments.

One may not see it, but look at how fast the work I have done, just since December, is spreading across the internet. My terminology alone is working its way into dialog.

Thanks to the internet, we live in a new order, with new distribution channels. In the current order, the market for information is not controlled by the paradigm of the prior generation.

One need not seek approval or permission from the establishment – only provide the market with product it demands.

One can sell an idea, or, one can create demand for an idea.

One can attempt to create demand for inadequate libertarianism, or one can satisfy demand for an adequate libertarianism.

Liberty that satisfies demand.

Liberty in our lifetimes.

Aristocratic Egalitarianism. Aristocracy (liberty) of the willing.

Ayelam Valentine Agaliba
Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori.

Curt Doolittle
—“Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori.”—

Wow. I… I really want to kiss you for that quote. But I think you would object. So I’ll just thank you profusely. lol


(seriously) (worth reading)

It’s been done. Secret? Threaten a big company’s revenue stream or customer base, by providing a service better than they do.

Why is that possible? Internal incompetence of bureaucracies. Why? Because brands always seek to facilitate the brand with tangential value rather than deliver a product or service in the most excellent way possible for consumers regardless of brand. Almost all companies make this mistake, Apple and Microsoft included.

Dropbox should never have had a chance. But every other large organization failed by trying to “leverage”. That is a fallacy.

Beats threatened Apple. Multiple companies threatened Facebook.

Unfortunately management falsely understands the leverage as risk mitigation rather than risk amplification.

Make it excellent. Threaten them over their mistakes.

That is how you become a billionaire in short fashion.

Thankfully I don’t care to be more than a millionaire. I do my threatening of paradigmatic fallacies with political philosophy and for me that is a greater reward.


—“Surely you understand how individualists might view your little eugenics project as pretty unworkable, fucked and backwards, don’t you”—

I don’t have a eugenics project, I make the argument that at some point in your chain of reasoning you must have a means of making judgements between one set of preferences and another, and that the progressive preference is dysgenic. To warn against dysgenia is very different from conducting eugenia.

I do not see the political reason for redistributing from the middle class to the lower class if this constructs dysgenia that inhibits the formation of the high trust society which is necessary for the standard of living that allows for redistribution. In other words, i’m making an argument against a logical fallacy. This might seem to you as if I am making a sentimental argument,b ecause you argue largely sentimentally. But I don’t. I might actually be largely incapable of it.

Most of my arguments are in the general vein of pointing out the fallacy of the libertarian and classical liberal, and progressive canons that do not account for the problem of trust, intelligence, and impulsivity in the construction of a polity capable of constant innovation necessary to stay ahead of both the genetic red queen, the malthusian red queen, and 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.

I suspect that this argument is not obvious to you and most others, but that is my fundamental argument and the insight I am trying to incorporate into political science, political economy, economics, and philosophical ethics.



(Profound)(reposted)(worth repeating)

While a failure to rely upon operational definitions in mathematics, logic and philosophy may only be immoral, and in science unethical – in economics, politics and law it is criminal.

In Mathematics avoiding operationalism merely perpetuates an error; in logic and philosophy it is deceptive of both others and one’s self; in science wastes others’ time. But in economics, politics and law, failure to use operationalism creates theft.

That is the answer to the riddle Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe couldn’t solve in economics and ethics. Nor Hayek and Popper and their followers in politics and philosophy. But then, neither did Bridgman and his followers in science, nor Brouwer and his followers in math. I don’t think the long list ending with Kripke solved it either in logic.

One cannot use this heavily loaded term ‘true’ as other than analogy without a constructive knowledge of its meaning. And the only meaning that is constructively possible is testimony: performative truth. All else is merely proof. And the quaint linguistic contrivance that conflates the most parsimonious possible theory with testimony is, much like multitudinous abuses of the verb to-be, nothing more than a means by which we obscure our ignorance as a means of making mere analogies as a substitute for truth claims. Only constructive proofs demonstrate that one possesses the knowledge to make a truth claim. Everything else is merely analogy.


Propertarianism can be used to describe, compare, and advocate any political system in rigidly logical, universally commensurable form.

While one can surely advocate liberty with it, its primary purpose is to suppress error, fallacy and deception.

Its the logic of cooperation. The logic of ethics and politics.

Aristocratic Egalitarianism can be argued with it. Which I do every day.

And AE is the most ethical political model yet developed.

But propertarianism only allows me to argue in favor of it logically and truthfully – to construct proofs.

But preference for any given political order is still one if choice.

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