Race Is A Problem Of Distributions

I hate discussion of race really, but since my position is somewhat novel, I feel the need to vent my frustration at what I see as a the result of a series of mainstream errors that attempt to justify democracy by criticizing the natural and unavoidable behavior of man.   Instead of truthfully addressing the issue, we lie and try to convince each other of the lie.  It doesn’t work. Religion works because you can’t see any evidence other than people’s behavior.  Criticisms of race don’t work because we can always see evidence of group behavior.

Race: Demonstrated behavior in favor of kin selection; most commonly performed as some form of ostracization by means of (a) physical and legal, (b) boycott of commerce and cooperation, (c) gossip and ridicule.

So, the whole debate over race is a dishonest postmodern byproduct of the fallacy of democracy. People will never stop favoring kin selection in politics or any other walk of life. Race is extremely valuable to the middle and lower classes, even if almost entirely irrelevant to the upper classes. The margins will always interbreed because it’s to their status advantage if not their offspring’s.

Democratic empires like the USA and Europe are a catastrophe that makes hostility between of families with different abilities, needs and wants. Representative Democracy is an obscurant technology similar to overloading in rhetoric, pooling and laundering in money and finance, platonism in mathematics, and morality in politics.  Democracy obscures, and justifies, because it is only possible to employ in the consideration of particulars, and NOT in the consideration of sets of decisions. Especially when the particulars within each set of decisions provides incentives for corruption, contrivance, and deceit.  

There isn’t necessarily any problem with direct democracy on normative matters, and economic democracy on investment matters.  There just isn’t.  The problem with direct democracy is no longer one of practicality, but one of the impossibility of common interest.  

The only material difference between the races is the rates of reproduction of the underclasses. This problem was solved in the west by marriage, manorialism and harsh winters if not plagues, and in the east through starvation and political killing of even the most marginal of malcontents. It was marginally solved by the hindus via the caste system, while muslims, and africans had no means of solving it at all. Thankfully, in modernity it can be solved through redistribution in exchange for one child limits, rather than through starvation and extermination.  We can pay people NOT to commit the crime of parasitic reproduction, rather than punish them and the innocent for parasitic reproduction.

The only significant political difference between races is merely one of distributions.  

Without this difference in distributions, we would have very few political problems between the races of man.

(NOTE: I suppose I should diagram this argument as a set of demand curves for desirability as mates, group insurance value, and IQ/Impulsivity.  I haven’t really spent much time demonstrating propertarianism using Austrian ‘triangles’ – or, more appropriately: multi-dimensional demand curves.  But the world needs such a thing. And needs it desperately.)   

On Marriage

I won’t go into the full analytical treatment of it here, but under Propertarian analysis, marriage is a name for a corporation for the purposes of:
(a) reciprocal insurance of participant; and in modernity;
(b) power of attorney over one another, in the case of the incapacity of the other;  
(c) a political requirement that one eschew free-riding in one’s reproduction by requiring self-supporting production;
(d) a political incentive for males, who would otherwise act without incentive to preserve order (production); and
(e) a legal incentive to prevent violence over mates by treating the corporation of marriage as property that cannot be infringed upon (or rather, justifying violence if it is imposed upon.);
(f) and finally, a political strategy that forces the resolution of differences in reproductive strategy into the family, and conversely, to insulate politics from the differences in reproductive strategy between the genders.

Now, just so we are clear on whose interests are affected by these rules, (c) is meant to control female instinct to bear children of her choice, but to place burden of them on the tribe. (d) is meant to domesticate males so that they do not overthrow the existing order. (e) is largely to constrain females from destroying (a,b,c,d). So in this light, the institution of marriage is in large part necessary for the prevention of free riding that is natural for all females, and out of that prevention we obtain property rights, and peace.

Various societies construct and enforce these properties of the corporation. No societies do NOT suppress female parasitism, since societies that do not suppress female parasitism cannot survive competition with those that do. So while we tend to think in terms of suppressing the more visible threat of male violence, the central problem of producing prosperity is not male aggressiveness, but female reproductive free riding. This turns the criticism of demonic males on its head, such that short term male aggression and violence and long term female parasitism and gossip, are resolved in an equilibrium we call ‘marriage’.

However, once such an institution such as Marriage{a,b,c,d,e,f} exists, it is somewhat difficult to deny others other than male and female pairings, from access to the formation of their own corporations. My argument is that they are not equal to the purpose of marriage in all dimensions, but certainly: reciprocal insurance, common property, and power of attorney are rights we cannot deny people. In fact, I cannot imagine why we cannot create many such private institutions with however many members we desire. That seems to be something we can all benefit from – and which weakens the state, and state-corporatist power over us.

So what is important, and what I think is the proper subject for debate, is not this thing we call marriage that we argue in terms of traditional ceremonies and our own traditional intuitions, but instead, how to we grant (a) and (b) including community property if so desired, while preserving (c),(d),(e) and (f) – the prevention of these corporations from exercising political power with which to extract rents (parasitism), or by which they can export costs(parasitism).

Those of us who seek individualism in politics are wrong of course. We must construct law individually since only individuals can act, and be punished for action; but policy must be constructed familially, because the purpose of policy by any intertemporal judgement is familial: reproductive. So conservatives are correct in their attempt to preserve familialism in government. That is because the central problem of any society is the perpetuation of generations. So as long as any corporation is eugenic (meritocratic), and therefore possesses equal interests in government, then there is no problem with participatory government except that of class – and we can solve class conflict with houses of government established by property under one’s control.

It means that we should articulate the properties of marriage as I have stated above, and state those which we grant and require of any corporation: we will defend these rights, as long as you hold to these other obligations.

If those are established, then by all means, one can form a private corporation for the purpose of mutual insurance at a minimum. And for the purpose of reproduction if possible. As long as one does not export one’s differences into the political sphere by engaging in rents (redistribution) or externalities (exporting of costs).

Under this analysis I see no reason to do other than encourage the greatest number of these alliances (corporations) regardless of constituency, regardless of gender, as a means of decreasing individualism and therefore incompatibility, in the production of policy.

All families have similar interests. All individuals have dissimilar interests. A family is the smallest possible tribe we can form: a man and a woman. And a jury (government) that treats all families equally save for differences in wealth is very different from a management organization (government) that attempts to calculate the impossible diversity of interests of individuals, when those interests are largely parasitic.

This may be a bit hard to digest, especially in short form. However, what I am advocating is that we have as many marriages as possible, and that we encourage as many forms of marriage as possible, as long as such a grant of property rights to one another is also met with obligations to one another: that we do not use government to compensate for our productive differences.

My view of Aristocracy takes the same approach to mankind: all tribes are the same, and we can cooperate as long as we do not engage in parasitism. If we do this, reproductive rates will solve our problems and man will evolve into a fairly equal creature regardless of race and gender.

The Only Means Of Eliminating The State And Constructing Liberty

(north sea libertarian liberty)

The only way to eliminate the state, is to eliminate demand for the state. To eliminate demand for the state, we must construct institutions that provide the services of the state, without the free riding endemic to the state.

The state provides just these services:
…1) an allocation of property and property rights, and means of transfer.
…2) a means of resolving all differences that lead to conflict.
…3) a means of constructing and protecting commons from free riding.
…4) a means of exclusion of competing allocations, means of resolution, means of construction.

The only means of providing these services without the state, is to construct institutions that do not require a state.
…1) the law of non-parasitism positively expressed as Property-en-Toto, the common organic law, an independent professional judiciary RATHER THAN an independent professional bureaucracy. ie: the fourth wave.
…2) a market for commons consisting of houses of common interest in the commons, in which non-monopoly contracts are negotiated for the construction of commons.
…3) a universal (or near universal ) militia, caretaking, emergency and rescue, in order to participate in the market for commons – participation must be earned, even if protection from parasitism need not be.

A bureaucratic state then, is an evidence of the failure to construct institutions necessary for the provision of services that allow groups to compete against other groups.

Fukuyama has not identified the alternative to social democracy, nor has he identified the transitory nature of monopoly institutions, as necessary for the construction of a commons prior to the development of a competing market for the provision of those commons. He failed to grasp the difference between research and development of expensive common institutions, and the conversion of those monopoly institutions to non-monopoly institutions that exclude conflicting institutions, while competing on the efficient provision of services.

The end of history is quite different from that which Fukuyama imagines, and what the academy (as a profiteering church) advocates and desires. There is an alternative to monopoly government, if not an alternative to a monopoly of property rights articulated as property-en-toto. He is a product of the academy and history despite his honest intellectual interests – because he is not a product of economics and law: political economy. He is forgivable as are most students of history, of looking backward at patterns, without understanding the causal properties of human cooperation and the necessity of increasingly complex means of calculation.

As advocates for liberty, it is our function, our mission, to provide these superior solutions to the problem of cooperation at scale that we call “government” by the invention of, advocacy of, demand for, and rebellion in pursuit of, formal institutions that prohibit tyranny, and preserve our unique western rate of innovation, by prohibiting all parasitism (rent seeking) in all walks of life, at all times.
…1) The universal requirement for productivity and it’s obverse, the prohibition on parasitism.
…2) The institutionalization of that rule as property rights encompassing property-en-toto.
…3) The common organic law, the independent professional judiciary, universal standing, the jury, truth telling, restitution, multiples of restitution, punishment and ostracization (imprisonment).
…4) The nuclear family (and perhaps not the absolute nuclear) as the first commons in which gender competition is resolved outside of the production of commons.
…5) An hereditary monarch (a head of state) with veto power, but without positive power.
…6) A set of houses representing the classes, populated by random selection, who act as a jury, in the selection of contracts proposed for the annum and specific prohibition from the construction of law….7) The inclusion of the informational commons in property rights and therefore (a) the requirement for truthful (‘scientific and Propertarian’) speech in matters of the commons.(b) the requirement for operational language, (c) the prohibition on pooling and laundering (d) the prohibition on intertemporal and transferred commitment, and (e) the liability of jurors (representatives and voters) for their actions on behalf of others.

The only defense is requirement for production, the common law, the jury, the truth, universal standing, universal liability, and competitive markets. This produces the least opportunity for rent seeking and privatization and forces all into the market for the production of goods and services in order to survive and reproduce.

Insurance of one another against error and failure, and a limit of one child to those who are unproductive solves the problem of charity without the problem of eugenic immorality.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Against The Boomer-Academy’s Sale of Indulgences – A Charter for The New Reformation

(good arguments for your use.)


This self-serving post is disingenuous at best.

As far as we know, right now, students learn almost nothing in university that is used in life. University largely performs a filtering and indoctrination service. So students are filtered out of the workforce by extremely expensive procedural gymnastics. They are not taught anything that helps them in the workforce. They are only taught the work discipline that was not provided to them in public k-12. We can test this argument fairly easily by employment and productivity comparisons of other northern European education systems and ours – which expensively educate far fewer, but impose far greater discipline in k-12.

The empirical and honest analysis, which has been provided by economists for years now, is to (a) perform output rankings of colleges by the performance of students, giving no weight to capital resources, (b) to measure how much of the revenue capture is devoted to undergraduates and teaching professors, versus how much of the revenue is spent on dead weight (administration), profiteering (the physical plant and endowment), and graduate programs (profiteering). (c) how much retention there is of the freshman class through graduation(test of honesty rather than entrapment). (d) how much is diverted for publicity and status purposes (sports).

The empirical test of education is this: If (1)overhead was capped at 15%, and (2) all but an additional 10% was required to stay within the departments that performed the teaching, and (3) if teaching and research departments were separated, and (4) if graduate programs had to be self-funding, and (5) if universities were only able to collect a percentage of income from their graduates for a period of 30 years, and so if graduates could not earn, then universities could not collect income, then what would universities teach, and how would they teach instead?

That is the reform that is required.

As far as we know, educational institutions since at least 1963 have provided a means of privatizing public wealth that parents could have saved for their retirements, and we have now a generation about to retire that has been sold a defective product without warranty, at the expense of their retirements, for no marginal increase in the employability of their offspring.
This is era has been one of the most massive misappropriations of public wealth in western history – equal to that of the church’s selling of indulgences, and the reason for the protestant reformation against the church. The military industrial complex at very least, is a net break even for Americans because of the petro-dollar, and the regulatory capture we impose on world politics, finance and trade. But the academy literally sells indulgences: fraudulent, underperforming products without warranty, insulated from claims against warranty by the state, and the outcome of which produce seriously damaging externalities for our economy, culture, and civilization.

Those are the facts. The boomer-generation’s Academy has not only been a bastion of pseudoscience in the social sciences, instituted a permanent degradation of the western canon, and has been a bastion of financial privatization on a scale we have not seen since the late middle ages.

We should note that all of the sources you quote are paid interests, and that none of the sources you list are independent economists specializing in education, nor advocates of education reform.

We are conservatives. We are supposed to be the people that tell the truth.

Postmodern deceits, pseudoscience, statistical deception, propagandism, and reality-by-chanting are tactics of, and mastered by, the left. There is no room in conservatism (aristocracy) for foolery and deceit. Civilization is too important a craft to be left to the foolish and corrupt.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

Operationalism as Criticism: Repairing The Errors of 20th Century Philosophy

I have chosen the term ‘Operationalism’ over Praxeology, Actions, Intuitionism, and Operationism because it seems most intuitive given our language’s use of ‘Mathematical operations”, and “Human Actions”.

Ray (who is very helpful) does the logical thing which is treat critics of critical rationalism’s early errors as behind-the-times or ignorant, while himself making the same mistake. Because we all do. However, I have tried to repair the individual errors of the last century by uniting and repairing Critical Rationalism’s emphasis on criticsm (but painful use of analogy), and combining the various attempts to construct criticism in other fields.

So (Irony being what it is) critical rationalism (philosophy), intuitionism (mathematics), praxeology(economics), operationalism(physics), operationism(psychology), strict constructionism(law), are all parallel developments that occurred in human thought in multiple disciplines, as we evolved our scope of scientific inquiry beyond human scale; and therefore when the ‘arbitrary precision’ of the language and concepts that we had evolved WITHIN human scale, reached their limits and began to fail us. Or technically speaking, we assumed the continuous application properties predictively useful at a prior level of precision, into conditions where they no longer held.

Secondly, as as we converted from human-scale to beyond-human-scale, the problem we faced was not identifying success, but identifying error. (This is an information problem. And Taleb isn’t quite there in piecing this together yet, but he is getting very close with the math of late.) In other words, we changed from trying to find things that worked, to trying to find things that failed. And that is because we changed from individuals making discoveries, to a division of labor in the process of discovery. We changed from the high cost of experimentation, to the high cost of propagating error.

In Propertarianism I have tried to reform the 19th-20th century’s errors by completing the unification of the process of justification – which is necessary for moral testimony and in particular warranty – with criticism, which is necessary for scientific testimony. And where scientific testimony is more correctly stated as truthful testimony, that has been warrantied by due diligence (criticism) to be free of imaginary content.

I know that most people are interested in my political and moral arguments – because they advance their agendas (or refute them). But as far as I know this repair to philosophy and the merger of philosophy and science into a single discipline is my greatest achievement so far.


***Ray Scott Percival***
Operationalism has insuperable problems similar to logical positivism. This article is a nice synopsis of the rise and fall of operationalism, Ala the physicist Bridgeman. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/

***Curt Doolittle***
I cannot be accountable for the errors of prior generations, I can only seek to repair them. smile emoticon And as far as I know I have done so.

Operationalism(science), Intuitionism(mathematics), Operationism(psychology), Praxeology/Propertarianism(economics) must be seen as instances of criticism. It is the criticism first, that ensures that we have not misapplied extant concepts beyond the limits of their arbitrary precision; and second, that each named sequence of our observations is existentially possible, and third, free of imaginary content – particularly imaginary content supplied by analogy.

So, collectively, the set of criticisms must be seen as provisions for the issue of warranty of due diligence. In other words, that we have not polluted the informational commons in a world where investigation is distributed (and therefore one has exported costs upon others), and where the expectation of our contribution to the informational commons is a contribution, not a harm.

And, any theory, in order for one to attest that it is truthful, must be criticized( falsified) by tests of:
1) external correspondence
2) internal consistency (logic)
3) existential possibility and freedom from imaginary content (operationalism/intuitionism/operationism/propertarianism)
4) parsimony (falsification)
5) morality (consisting entirely of voluntary transfer)
6) warranty (promise of having performed all criticism)

We cannot know if something is true, but we can warranty that it is truthful. If a statement provides explanatory power, and is truthfully constructed, we can testify that it is true for known applications.

But as Bridgman pointed out, there are no certain premises, because any rule of arbitrary precision (theory) likely fails at some scale. (This is a superior restatement of infinitely parsimonious scientific truth in critical rationalism.) Since there are no certain premises there are no certain non-tautological deductions – at scale. However, it is problems of scale – those beyond our senses, and those at the margins of our instruments – that we struggle to solve.

As such, our definition of a ‘true’ theory is mistaken. A theory is truthful if we have performed due diligence. A theory is true if it works at scales we currently comprehend. If the scale changes, and we improve precision, that does not invalidate the theory, but improves it. A complete theory is one in which no further parsimony is possible.

Or stated differently, we cannot treat theories as analogies wherein properties are transferred for the purpose of transferring meaning. Theories are names for categories of similar operations that produce similar outcomes. We can theorize by any means possible, but no matter how we theorize, we cannot justify a theory, we can only criticize it or state that the cost of failure using the extant theory is less than the cost of investigating a new one. We can justify our actions but not our theories. We can justify adherence to moral, legal, an contractual norms, but we cannot justify our theories.

For example, Einstein improves upon Newton, he does not render Newton false. Just as someone will undoubtably improve Einstein, not necessarily render him false. The purpose of a theory is to provide us with case independent explanatory power.

That is all it can do for us. And as such good theories can save us effort and risk and provide us with rewards while useless theories do not – not because of the theory but because of the results. And bad theories merely waste our time and effort.

Even pure (non-correspondent) mathematics fails, since, for example, infinities are impossible to construct. So even mathematical rules that remain consistent regardless of scale (which is the point of logic of ratios), are only useful as ideals. And the failure of those ideals at scale assists us in identifying the physical properties of the universe.

So by whatever name we call it “warranty of existential possibility and freedom from imaginary content”, the form of criticism I refer to as Operationalism holds. It holds because it is the only means of warrantying that we are not substituting imaginary information into an observation.

Operations constitute names. All else is analogy. Analogies allow – if not mandate – the introduction of external, imaginary information, by the natural process of substitution that makes the human mind useful for theorizing.

Worse, analogies can be used for loading, framing, overloading and suggestion, and as such have been the source of error and deceit – not only in anglo, but in german, and jewish enlightenment thought.

(I solved it. That’s just how it is. I didn’t set out to. But I did. CR requires a minor reformation. Austrian econ a minor reformation. And political theory a major one – away from monopoly rule, and into a market for commons. Science can be more correctly described as the disciple of truth telling, and that there is no difference between philosophy and science any longer. And we can abandon psychology forever as one of the most destructive theoretical systems ever developed. Only monotheism and Marxism/Keynesianism were worse.)

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

Sophisticated People In The World Are Not Necessarily Stupid or Selfish

The USA’s budget consists roughly of 1/3 defense, 1/3 mandatory payments (Social Security and Medicaid) and 1/3 discretionary payments (everything else).

We finance 1/3 (the military), and inflate it away. The world pays for our military through indirect taxation on the price of oil bought in dollars. This was the invention that the Nixon administration achieved with the Petro-Dollar and it was how we were able to run up the credit to defeat world communism under Reagan.

So technically speaking, 1/2 is discretionary, 1/2 is for redistribution, and the remainder – the military – is effectively free.
Possessing this knowledge radically alters your perception of the world.

It is why Iran wants nuclear weapons – to control oil, and to create a bourse, and to capture that ability to tax currency for itself.

Sophisticated people in the world are not stupid, nor necessarily selfish. They merely take advantage of stupid people.

My Criticism Of David Miller Is A Very Limited One

—“What, if i may ask, is your criticism of Miller? it would be interesting to see if it holds water”— Ayelam Valentine Agaliba
(reposted for archival purposes)


I don’t disagree with Miller’s multiple “standards of justice”. I just would state it very differently, as necessities, demands, incentives, and evolutionary strategies. I mean, I say the same thing. I just say it very differently.) That said, standard of logical decidability in all matters is provided by one universal moral rule that is necessary – but we can build infinitely complex systems upon it. That one rule provides us with Decidability in law regardless of construction of social norms, and that single, necessary inescapable, universal logical test is very different from the contractual terms by which we construct social orders out of various exchanges, and inside of which we produce multiple standards of justice.

One thought: (A Criticism)
—“By mistakenly supposing that thinking intelligently is identical with
thinking logically, critical thinking textbooks almost invariably regard the purpose of argument to be a combination of justification and persuasion, authoritarian goals that critical rationalists, and other supporters of the open society, must shun. “— David Miller

Well, his criticism is correct, in that our populace is being taught very bad (justificationary ideas). But then, he doesn’t solve the problem. Popper’s argument is much narrower than Miller intuits.

So, I think that this is not quite right. Instead:
(a) I must justify my actions in accordance with objective morality, local norms and laws. (I must show that I met terms of the contract for cooperation – thus if I err I am blameless and free of restitution.)
(b) I must warranty my testimony is truthful by critically prosecuting it.
(c) I must(can) Innovate (reason / Develop Theories) by any free associative principle possible.
I believe that is the correct hierarchy. Because it is a NECESSARY hierarchy. Just as these are necessary hierarchies:
(a) Tautology, Deduction, Induction, Abduction, Guessing, and Free associating.
(b) Teleological ethics, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, and intuitionistic ethics.
(c) Murder, violence, theft, fraud, omission, indirection, socialization, free riding, privatization, rent seeking, corruption, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, conquest, and destruction.
(d) manners, ethics, morals, laws, constitutions, property.
(e) life, movement, memory, cost, property, cooperation, norms, property rights laws, government, state, empire.

So, I while I understand Miller’s assumption, he is making a mistake of ‘one-ness’ or ‘monopoly’ that is a byproduct of some rather structural errors implicit in the use of logic in the discipline of philosophy. Which, if were instead, express not as manipulation of sets (which is how he works if I remember correctly) , but as a sequence of possible actions (existentially possible categories of actions), then he might not make this mistake. I mean, it seems that falsification is a hammer, and everything appears to be a nail. But at some point this is nothing but framing (using concepts one has specialization in, rather than integrating those concepts into the greater whole.

And in this case, the greater whole, is the universal language of truth telling: science. And until insights obtained through logical analysis can be converted into truthful speech (scientific language) then it remains UNFALSIFIED. <– ***Which is my underlying argument.***

One of the things economics teaches you is to think about equilibrating processes that negate all our actions into the realm of marginal indifference, rather than seeking binary truth of states.

So I would argue that we should be taught the following:
1) Manners, ethics, and Morality under the Golden Rule, Silver Rule, and the one-rule of property and voluntary exchange. The miracle of cooperation. How we insure one another in a multitude of ways.
2) Truthfulness, Witness and Testimony (Operationalism and Existential Possibility) as well as how to spot errors in truthfulness, witness, and testimony.
3) Logic, Grammar, Rhetoric, Debate and Oratory (as we once were), including how to spot ignorance, error, bias, deception, and Loading-Framing-Overloading (“Suggestion that overwhelms reason”).
4) External Correspondence (empirical observation, analysis and testing) with a nod to Instrumentalism. And how to falsify external correspondence. What a pseudoscience is, and how to spot it.
5) How to use free association (what we call ‘creativity’) “Filling the shelves of your mind, and then ‘playing’. Which is a discipline if you work at it. (It’s my preferred discipline.)
6) arithmetic, accounting, finance, economics (in that order)
7) Mathematics, Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry, and at least the ‘idea’ of calculus. But taught as the history of the development of these problems that people were solving, instead of as wrote. With far more emphasis on word problems.
8) Mind. Biology. Chemistry, Physics, (in that order)

And honestly, I think all philosophy is discardable except as an interesting inquiry into the intellectual history of the struggle to develop science: Truth telling.

I hope this puts my criticism of Miller in perspective.

Curt Doolittle

Pinker’s Criticism of Group/Multi-level Selection

First, both Pinker and Haidt are making the enlightenment error of equality of individuals, and of individualism instead of a population of man as a division of intertemporal knowledge and labor. (See my video on the subject.) We evolve first under this inter-temporal distribution of biases, and second under cultural adaptation, and third under everything else. Genders, distribution of gender bias, and the fact that genders are constructed from a female base, guarantee that.

Second, as far as I know, Pinker is making an argument against the evolution by multi-level selection of altruism. This is the purpose of his article. And I agree with him. And in Propertarianism I explain why.

Third, (if you read the comments it’s obvious) is that group and multi-level selection are pretty rigorous mathematically described facts. Pinker isn’t saying that it isn’t. He’s saying that we can’t fantasize that altruism developed because of group selection (I argue that aggression defeats altruism and is currently doing so – high trust westerners are not aggressive enough.)

Fourth, (if you read the comments) the argument is partly a problem of verbalism. And to some degree, pinker is playing too much psychologist and telling us not to think in fuzzy terms, and not so much that multi-level selection doesn’t occur. It’s that it doesn’t occur the way we think it has. Now, it is this point I disagree with since as far as I know, the very great differences between the competing populations is determined by a wide variation in the distribution of only four things: (1) intelligence, (2) aggression, (3) impulsivity, and (4) fear of unfamiliar people. And that list may be in fact reducible to two: impulsivity and intelligence. Just as a wide variety of behavior is reducible to the solipsistic(female bias) and autistic(male bias) spectrum. Great complexity arises from the interaction of only two or three spectra. Emotions are a great example: as far as I know, we have only three, and our rich range of emotional experience is produced by combinations of levels of those emotions. And as I have written extensively, all of these emotions can be explained as reactions to change in state of property-en-toto (reactions to acquisition or loss).

Fifth, and I think this isn’t terribly complicated: norms are sticky and group strategy is sticky, and populations breed to take advantage of status under norms. This is just a mathematically describable problem and as far as I know it’s pretty solid:

Sixth, as far as I know, Haidt’s correct identification of moral intuitions, holds under Propertarianism. So whatever Haidt’s justification for these traits, it is immaterial. In my first few propertarian arguments I made the point that MY CONTRIBUTION was to tie Haidt’s OBSERVATIONS and descriptions, to CAUSALITY. And that Propertarianism correctly describes that causality: acquisitiveness, and the utility of cooperation only in so far as it improved acquisition.


So the debate here is not concrete. Pinker is doing no more than making a cautionary argument against the development of altruism by selfish creatures, as anything other than yet another selfish act. And he is correct.

Everyone else is saying that cultural norms drive reproductive adaptation. And they are correct. And that multi-level selection is the product of cultural biases incorporated in genes.

So this whole argument is a lot of nonsense between geeks as to the effect of their as-yet-imprecise language on the non-scientific community. And it is not so much a debate about facts.

And furthermore, you have to look at these men as part of the REACTION to postmodern lies – they are all engaged in trying to overthrow the deceits of 150 years of postmodern reactionary thought. I am not sure that they have (As I have) joined The Dark

Enlightenment, in trying to overthrow not just the postmoderns and the pseudoscientists, but the enlightenment fallacy of equality and democracy. They are concerned about the consequences of language because they are well aware of the consequences of language.

The Human Operating System

Something I wrote yesterday helped me clarify my argument on human anti-equalitarianism.

– First: with very slight hormonal variation, we are able to reproduce in a distribution (division) of inter-temporal perception, cognition, knowledge and labor. And, that the initial division of perception cognition knowledge and labor began as a reproductive division of labor.

– Second, that our information system consists of mutually beneficial consent through demonstration of voluntary exchange.

– Third, that through denying people sustenance by other than market means, we forcibly incorporate them into this information system.

– Fourth, that western truth telling, common law, property rights, rule of law, and forcible expansion of rule of law, construct the most efficient and therefore rapidly adaptive system by which we expand and enforce the quality of our information system.

– Fifth, the side effect of this enforcement of market participation is the constant improvement our our genetics in no small party by the allocation of reproduction to the productive.

– Sixth, that insuring individuals provides incentives that keep them within the information system.

– Seventh, but reproduction via redistribution cannot be a ‘right’ because it is a forcible cost put upon others. In other words, your right of reproduction and insurance is predicated upon your ability to pay for your offspring. Or in moral terms reproduction without production is ‘a lie’ inserted into our information system.

This list explains a great deal. Forgive me for using analogies, but it is a fairly short and tight description of the properties of the human operating system.

With this understanding, Keynesian credit expansion for the purpose of increasing employment is suicidal. And by contrast, the Propertarian “shareholder” system is a natural extension of the human information system. In Propertarianism, I suggest inserting liquidity through the consumer directly, but limiting reproduction for dependents to one child, and limiting immigration to highly skilled individuals, and moving and therefore exporting capital and Propertarian institutions to groups of people, rather than moving people to capital.

We have spent most of our scientific history (our search for truth) considering problems of mass and velocity. We have spent much of our economic history considering money and credit. But in both cases, we were mistaken – as the physicists and as Hayek have informed us. The model for all human understanding is that of information. Physics must be understood as information, and mass as a generalization of it. The economics of human cooperation must be understood as information, and physical representations a generalization of states of information.

Hoppe’s criticisms of Hayek are purely psychological, and only half right. Hayek correctly unites physics and economics by combining information and institutions. And yes, Hayek placed his emphasis on the institutions without fully appreciating property. Hoppe places emphasis on property without fully appreciating institutions – particularly norms. Hoppe incorrectly defines property to suit rothbardian separatist ends, rather than as a general and universal rule of human evolution. And very likely, without fully appreciating the distribution of human character traits – he is an odd, somewhat angry and frustrated duck himself – so it is no wonder. Hayek understands man correctly – and is a saint of a man if there was one. But neither man of either character grasped the very great specialization in our perception and cognition – nor that they are both useful and necessary.

The only end to our evolutionary development is to increase intelligence, decrease impulsivity and aggression, to the point where we still perform our different reproductive functions relying upon our emotional intuitions, but where we are able to rationally observe them for what they are, and enjoy them, rather than be driven by them. Thankfully this requires only increasing our median intelligence by a standard deviation. Unfortunately for other groups, it means they are nearly prohibited from it.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

The Decline in the USA’s Military Power Is Not A Problem for Americans – Only For Bureaucrats

(from elsewhere)

The USA pays for its military through the sale of petro-dollars and debt that it inflates away. It was this technique started under Nixon that allowed the USA to economically bankrupt the soviets via military competition. (Something easy enough to repeat with the Putinista Russians.)

The sale of oil in euros was the first blow that limited future american military expansion. This allowed europeans to cease indirect payment for defense to the USA. The rise of China and demand for american debt sustained american military expansion. The attempt of Iran to create a bourse and take over this tax on world oil production by demanding middle eastern oil in the currency of their choice, is an effort to transfer this power. With nuclear weapons it becomes a possibility for them.

China has set out to replace america as the global power in the current century. But to do so requires weakening the USA’s state department, and to weaken american financial interests. It is more important to weaken the relationship between capital and democracy. So for china, the use of such a bank, will extend its power, and more importantly, eliminate the correlation between demand for credit, demand for commerce, and the corresponding demand for democracy and human rights. In other words, china wants to spread authoritarian capitalism, by improving the standing of authoritarian capitalism.

So in the long term, americans will have to retrench, because democracy is a failed experiment, social democracy a failed experiment, and authoritarianism with limited capitalism (aristocratic capitalism), superior to proletarian capitalism (social democracy).

Americans would very much prefer to withdraw from world affairs. Especially that we are now marginally oil independent. Unfortunately, the left has succeeded in overwhelming americans through immigration, and thereby achieving through population-conquest what could not be achieved through ideas.

But to state that this change in power is a ‘problem for americans’ is simply not true. It’s a problem for bureaucrats. But americans will merely experience a decline in standard of living to european levels of consumption. They will dramatically decrease their public spending on the military. Europe will dramatically increase its military spending on the military. And the world will equilibrate to less variation in purchasing power between nations. And the nations with the greatest purchasing power will be those that possess the best legal systems, with the greatest experimentation, and the least rents. In that race, americans may still win.