Propertarianism Doesn’t Require Cunning – Just Effort and Honesty

Propertarian reasoning is a formal logic. Once you understand it, it isn’t like dodgy philosophy or dishonest mysticism: you don’t really need to be very cunning.

Either some proposition is constructable out of human operations on property or it isn’t.

Once you know the four categories of property that humans demonstrate and the different reproductive strategies we demonstrate, and the different group evolutionary strategies we demonstrate, you can pretty much explain all human political activity.

And this is different from the physical sciences in the sense that we don’t know the first principles of the universe, but we do know the first principles of man: acquire, defend, cooperate, divide labor, develop information systems for extending cooperation – and justify our reproductive strategies constantly for the purpose of negotiating our cooperation.

Man is simple it turns out.

Freedom is Wasted On Those Seeking Consumption

Guest Post by Anonymous

–“The founding fathers knew that freedom is wasted on those who are not pursuing virtue. They envisioned America, not as a hedonist utopia, but as a place where one was free to pursue a virtuous life. The French, on the other hand, began their revolution as a revolution our modern progressives would love to implement now: they executed all the priests and clergy they could get their hands on, burned churches, slaughtered the upper classes, erected a statue to “Reason”, and created an a theocratic tyranny of relativism, that suffered no dissent. They descended into such a sustained orgy of violence and destruction, that the only thing that could stop it was the military dictatorship of Napoleon.”–

The founding fathers did not understand virtue as excellences: production, rather than consumption: transforming the world for the betterment of man.

Becoming gods.

Eli: Women’s Sufferage

Guest Post by Eli Harman

Men and women are different, with different priorities, values, motivations, interests, and reproductive strategies (on average.)

The family is a compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. It isn’t what either men or women would choose if they had their druthers. (Men would build harems and women would be promiscuous and enlist the aid of the tribe to support their offspring.) But it’s the best either can achieve in compromise with the other.

Now, democracy, as a structure of government can *only* function as a means of selecting priorities among parties with interests that are aligned (that’s why it works so well for corporations, because shareholders interests are perfectly aligned towards maximization of profit.) Democracy and voting can never ever, never ever, never ever, reconcile conflicting interests. In the case of genuine conflict, it can only determine which interests are to prevail at the expense of which others.
When it was one family, one vote, democracy worked better, because the conflict between male and female reproductive strategies was resolved within the family, and it never rose to the level of politics.

Families could use democracy to cooperate with one another on shared interests (although this was not without some conflict already.)

But when women were enfranchised, and permitted to vote independently from men, this completely unbalanced things. Now the essential conflict between male and female could rise to the level of politics.

And in this arena, women posses the advantage. In the first place, women are 51% of the electorate, so they possess a simple majority. in the second place, women tend to be more similar, and men more variable, so we might expect women to form a more cohesive voting block. Third, in addition to their own numbers, women can always count on the support of at least some men.

This has a lot of consequences which it would take a while to explain even in part so I’ll let you follow the logic from there.
But it does not bode well for western civilization. Female dominated societies are always conquered and subjugated by male dominated ones.

Eli Harman.

We Took The  Family For Granted

We spend all this time, text and talk on the individual, women, government and economy. But we took the structure of reproduction for granted.

We compete, using 1) the structure of group competition, 2) the structure of reproduction, 3) structure of pedagogy, 4) structure of production, and 5) structure of commons.

Liberalism has been nothing more than an exercise in hedonistic consumption at the expense of the civilization that made that consumption possible. We destroyed the family. And with it, our civilization.

It’s solvable. But it’s going to require blood and treasure to do it.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Johannes Meixner :
There is no better way of productively reproducing than the nuclear family with two partners both merging assets together, and not separating until the offspring is at least adult (death is preferable).

Curt Doolittle:
Yep. Exclusive of formal institutions that is true. Although I could argue that a 2M-person homogenous-polity closed to immigration, with a great deal of government-as-insurer, and without marriage could work if savings were enforced on all parties in greatly expanded version of the Singaporean or Galveston models.

Johannes Meixner:
…well if you enjoy risk transfers beyond the top level required to offset moral hazard, you can choose to do that.

My “Bosses” in the Evolution of Propertarianism


You know, it’s funny, but Propertarianism is no longer a solo effort. I have a manager, an editor, and multiple advisors, helpful critics, and in some cases, people who are better than I am at USING propertarianism. And it feels a little bit like I’m an engineer on a project trying to create infrastructure.

You *are* creating infrastructure, Curt – for sure! Intellectual and moral infrastructure!  — Davin Eastley

Criticism: Tech As Belief In New Gods

The only energy technology that we are going to use and depend upon is nuclear, helped by water, and as a minor contributor – solar, because it’s the only source of energy strategically tolerable to depend upon. 

And while teenage boys like to fantasize about star trek technology, adult men only spend vast amounts of money on strategically defensible assets. – That’s Just How It Is. 

The way you get to be in charge of money is because people put you in charge of money, and people put you in charge of money largely because they trust what you will do with it. And that means the use of loss aversion, and opportunity cost to make decisions. And expensive, failure-prone, strategically indefensible, and therefore vulnerability-inducing assets are pretty unintelligent investments.

We will explore space when we develop both an extremely light craft big enough for humans to trundle around in, AND an engine capable of efficient conversion of energy to velocity, at constant acceleration of one G or greater. We already have cheap means of flying stuff into orbit. That’s why there is so much in low orbit already. But there appears to be less free ‘stuff’ in space to convert into energy along the way so we are going to have to act like primitive ships and move from mass-port to mass-port, and spending more time traveling because we cannot carry the mass with us to convert into energy.

It is possible that we will discover or invent the interstellar equivalent of hydrocarbons (a very dense store of energy for newtonian scale), but as yet we don’t know of such a thing even though from what precious little we understand about the universe, such a thing should be possible in theory even if in practice we cannot find a means of constructing it.

North Sea Truth vs Levantine Critique

(profound)(group evolutionary strategies)(macro-sociology)

Once you grasp that Cosmopolitan (Marxist-Socialist, Libertine, Neoconservative) Critique is an attempt at exclusionary authoritarianism – a modern restatement of the technique applied in Jewish argument and law – it becomes fairly obvious why the combination of (a) desire for obscurant arguments to be true, (b) emotional and intellectual investment in the truth of these obscurant arguments, and (c) hostility to refutation, are so pervasive: 1) psychological utility obtained from intuitional moral ‘righteousness’, 2)group unity in that moral conviction, and 3) ostracization of non-believers on the other, are precisely what ‘separatists’ require of a religion.

However, this modern set of religions is pseudo-scientific and pseudo-rational rather than legal, mystical and monotheistic in verbal construction. But the verbal construction is merely a technological advancement over monotheistic mythology, and jewish dual-ethics-law.

Northern europeans used truth, property and fighting as the binding commitment to one another, not belief. We used opportunity to join success in a hostile landscape, and they used threat of ostracization in among hostile tribes. We are all the product of our ancient geographies.

The strategies of the weak and small in number, versus the strong and small in number. Both Jewish and Germanic systems of thought evolved for use by small populations.

You will take notice which strategy leads to the construction of vast civilizations, technology, art, science and medicine, and what the other led to – near extermination.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

An Example Refuting Hoppe: The “Right to Value”


All property must represent value to its owner or the statement ‘own’ has little sense.

–“a common mistaken belief is that one has a property right in the value, as opposed to the physical integrity of, one’s property.”–

Correctly stated:

Others cannot promise you that the value of any property will remain constant. However, likewise, they *CAN* promise you that they will take no criminal (physical), unethical, immoral or conspiratorial action to damage that value or transfer that value to themselves.

–“the basis of many fallacious notions of property rights, such as the idea that there is a right to a reputation because it can have value.”–

This is unclear at best, false under scrutiny. I can, and do value my reputation; and my reputation demonstrably has value to me and to others. But that is not to say that I can control that reputation – it is information. Only that I may act to claim restitution for the use of false statements in the actions of defamation, libel and slander. Just as I cannot claim to control the market price of an asset, but I can act to protect against others damage to it.

–“According to this understanding of private property,”–

That statement contains no truth proposition. It posits a straw man as a means of criticism. This is a marxist technique developed in the art of deceptive argument we call “Critique”. The author posits a straw man as a vehicle for criticism of an opposing position rather than defending one’s proposition as incontrovertibly true. (See Rockwell’s most recent book which promises an hypothesis but never delivers, just consists of chapter after chapter of critique.)

–“property ownership means the exclusive control of a particular person over specific physical objects and spaces.”–
—“property rights invasion means the uninvited physical damage or diminution of things and territories owned by other persons.”–

There is no evidence of this anywhere in the world. Humans demonstrate universally that they consider the following categories of relations their property: physical and mental, kin, allies and useful relations, and private property, corporeal property, common property, and normative property.

So to state that any definition of property is other than those demonstrated by man requires that we define some utility – some purpose, for which we select some subset of demonstrated property to be enforced by consent (under law); or even that some subset of demonstrated property is only possible to enforce by consent under law. But we cannot without dishonesty state that the definition of property is other than that which is demonstrated by man to be evidentially categorized as property.

As for the entire paragraph:

–“According to this understanding … …complete ignorance of others’ subjective valuations.”–

It is difficult to tell if this is a disingenuous argument, an incomplete argument, or a mistaken argument. Why?

Let’s start with what humans demonstrate to be non-parasitic beneficial cooperation: the prevention of imposed costs (what term free-riding) expressed as the requirements for: (a) Productive, (b) Fully informed, (c) Warrantied, (d) Voluntary Exchange free of (e) Negative Externality.

In various polities, one or more of these attributes can be violated for the purpose of practical expediency. The less conformity to these properties the lower the trust and slower the economic velocity, and the greater conformity the higher the trust and higher economic velocity. And this is in fact what we see.

Now, why do people tolerate competition on price, when competition on price causes losses? Well, they don’t. In fact, it was very hard to break natural ‘price’ cartels, and in many agrarian cultures the trend persists. Humans naturally seem to tolerate competition on quality but not on price.

Early market owners understood by practice what we have learned through the study of economics: that competition forces positive incentives to innovate, which rewards all consumers while increasing stress on producers. Just as we have learned that suppression of unethical and immoral activity increases trust.

So, now lets look at Hoppe’s argument: he talks about the market effects that we cannot control, and that we had to learn are positive consequences of what we may intuit as unethical and immoral.

But he falsely categorizes ALL activity under the EXCEPTION of competition – which produces beneficial externalities, instead of under the RULE of the prevention of free riding – which we evolved as cooperative organisms to prevent negative actions and externalities. He conflates the minor exception with the major rule.

So his argument is either dishonest or false: just because we cannot control and do not want to control prices, does not mean that we cannot control and do not want to control criminal, immoral, and unethical actions, particularly those actions which impose costs upon one another.

Just as we bear a cost by forgoing opportunities for personal gain by engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial behavior, and in doing so we construct property rights, we bear the cost of forgoing opportunities for prosecution of competition on prices in order to create the normative incentive, and the consumer economy.

As such, price competition is the exception to moral intuition, not the rule from which moral intuition can be deduced.


Furthermore, since prices are the exception to the prohibition on parasitism necessary for the rational formation of cooperation and the abandonment of violence in exchange for the benefits of trade, then all other non-price, non-production assets retain their prohibition on criminal, ethical, moral, and conspiratorial actions that cause the involuntary imposition of costs; and therefore the use of violence for the purpose of punishment and restoration is categorically ethical, moral, and rational. Because cooperation is not logical or in one’s interest, and violence is useful and necessary preference in order to prevent parasitism.

The virtue of suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial imposition of costs other than those conducted under the constraints of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, exchange, is that individuals are forced exclusively into productive activity rather than parasitism. Whether that parasitism be physical, deceptive, indirect, or conspiratorial.

By contrast, Rothbardian ethics, argue for the expressed legalization of unethical, immoral, conspiratorial parasitism, because such moral rules, embodied in law, by logical necessity, legalize and prohibit retaliation for unproductive, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, actions.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
December 2014

Looking Into The Future: Doolittle, Haidt, Hawkins, Dennett

William L. Benge just pointed out to me that “Dennett and Hawkins” have pretty much demonstrated the end of the Cathedral’s fallacy, and have moved beyond it.

I think if you watch Hawkin’s talk, then Haidt’s talk on moral blindness, then my talk on The Inter-temporal Division of Reproductive Labor. Then you begin to see the future : we act more like a set of hives than the individually rational actors proposed by the greeks and the enlightenment.





Adults and Institutions, Children and Beliefs

Children talk of beliefs.  Adults talk of institutions.

Children talk of “Want and Belief”  Adults of “Expectations and Habits”.

The mind plans with what it has available.  We need develop means of creating habits that produce expectations.

People then plan with those expectations – because that is what is available to them.
As far as I know only property, homesteaded and voluntarily exchanged, allows such planning by the individual, and decidability by third parties in the case of conflict.

And far as I know the only means of creating ‘scientific’ rules of human cooperation is the organically evolved common law, constructed upon the one rule of property and the one operation of voluntary exchange.

Just as with mathematics we can take the concept of a single unit and simple operations we create all of mathematics, with the concept of property and the simple operation of voluntary exchange, we can create all of human cooperation in equally rich variety.

In the logic of human cooperation that we inarticulately call moral prohibitions and ethical rules, and which we can easily embody in law, we need only one unit “property” and one operation “exchange”.

All commons can be constructed as long as the principles of existence, calculability, and operation-ability are maintained, such that all propositions are decidable without dependence upon information external to the operation.

The only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are synonyms.

Curt Doolittle 
The Propertarian Institute 
Kiev Ukraine.