I don’t like to just ‘point’ to my glossary entries every time I use some term. I’d rather defend each term in context – it’s like physical fitness. I get better at my arguments with every ‘set of reps’.

In a perfect world, every time a use a term, FB would link to it in my glossary. (Even on my web site I have to do it manually).

But my Glossary is 50K words of definitions. I started it in 2009. I don’t really have to add to it all that often any longer.

I periodically take a given letter (A-Z) and update it. But you know, it’s turned out to be pretty stable.

Some terms are marked “undone” so that I go back and finish them. Some could use some clarification.

My original intention was to emphasize those terms that I have modified or which I’ve created. But many many terms have been modified to abandon enlightenment errors and introduce propertarian corrections to those terms.



All religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under that premise for over a decade. Once you have a book, philosophy doesn’t float. You have an authoritarian position to refer to. Debate over that position creates invention in the minds of those who are interested.

If the book is very good, then the results are self organizing. If you have a book and advocates, then you have political means. If you have a book, advocates and members, then you political power. If you have political power you can institute your ideas. If your book morally condones violence in the pursuit of your ideas, you have an eternal irrevocable advantage independent of current circumstance.

The problem for the west is that we have never had a book. Plato failed. The monarchs ruled by tradition. The church spoke in allegory. Smith Hume and Jefferson wrote advice not rules, and they created the catastrophic error that the near universal aristocratization of the English could have the same breadth of application as the doctrine of the church.


(important piece)

The intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone.

The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions.

But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive.

It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state.

Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintian their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange.

Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk.

We are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth.

Aristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute


(important piece)

Propertarianism is an ethical model for use in self government. Under Propertarianism I do not advocate a form of self government, other than an independent judiciary under the common law and under a constitution enumerating propertarian ethics – as such I advocate only rights that must be observed by ANY form of self government – anywhere – if people are to possess liberty.

Most political philosophy advocates forms of government in the hope of creating certain rights or opportunities, rather than addressing the fundamental problem of whether or not those rights necessary for flourishing exist. Flourishing requires that we suppress free riding in all its forms. Some groups may suppress more, and some less, but those that suppress more will always and everywhere flourish (over the long term) more so than those that suppress less, because free riding is perhaps the most expensive and burdensome transaction cost that can be imposed upon a society by its own institutional failures.

Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism – I make use of Propertarian Ethics. Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism, we obtain our property rights from others in exchange for the promise of defending their property rights with violence. We must accept exchange with any person who wishes property rights, and therefore defend the rights of all others who desire freedom.

Rothbardian Libertarianism is an unethical, immoral and parasitic philosophy.

Aristocratic Egalitarianism under Propertarian Ethics, is the most moral philosophy that I believe man has yet developed. If one wants liberty and property rights, he may have them in exchange for his commitment to use violence to defend them always and everywhere.

This was the origin of Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Northern Europeans. Unfortunately our ancestors practiced it by habit and tradition, not by written articulation and so it did not survive the attack on by the enlightenment and the democratic revolutions. The reasons are simple: First, written rules tend to freeze evolutionary development unless limited to fundamental first causes. Secondly, we lacked the knowledge of economics to translate that tradition from moral and traditional terms into rational terms.

If you fill fight for my rights. I will fight for yours. That is the contract for aristocracy.

That is the contract we must bring back, if we are to have our liberty once again.



—”I think it’s pretty simple: the NAP has proven to be demonstrably insufficient to use as the basis of the common law, because it preserves and licenses immoral and unethical behavior, which impose high transaction costs on in-group members. As such, no such polity is possible, and that is evidenced by the fact that no such polity has ever existed. … Rothbard’s ethics license parasitism, and the high trust society that created liberty requires contribution to production. It’s not complicated. Rothbard was wrong. Its impossible to form a polity on rothbardian ethics. Period.”–

In-group ethics necessary for the formation of a voluntary polity require the standard of moral action be based upon a requirement for contribution, which mirrors the human moral instincts for cooperation.

if you want an involuntary polity then you can choose any property rights (or lack of) that you want.

If you want a high trust polity that organizes voluntarily, and in which production is voluntarily organized, then you must find an institutional means of resolving ethical and moral conflicts as well as criminal conflicts.

The only institution that we have yet developed that is capable of providing dispute resolution without the presence of a central authority is independent courts under the common law, with articulated property rights.

If property is well defined such that it mirrors ethical and moral prohibitions on free riding in all its forms, all that remains is the voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, productive voluntary exchange free of negative externalities.

You may choose a less moral and ethical society. And I am not sure at what point all humans will demand the state, or a sufficient number to form a voluntary polity will prefer anarchy, but I do know that regardless of that point of inflection, this is the means by which to achieve it that we know of.



If one makes truth claims, one carries the burden of demonstration.

And, unfortunately, language is a terribly convenient tool for engaging in both deception and self deception. So to prohibit deception as well as self-deception, we must rely on a demonstration of knowledge of construction of terms, not just a knowledge of the use of terms. Just as we must rely upon the demonstration of internal consistency using logic, and external correspondence using tests.

This means that if you make a truth claim using platonic language, you are not demonstrating knowledge of construction.

And therefore is it is not possible to make truth claims under platonism.

You are claiming truth which you cannot demonstrate the knowledge to claim.

Which is unethical.


“The failures of Praxeology, Rothbardian Ethics, and Argumentation to withstand rational and scientific criticism do not diminish Hoppe’s solutions to the problems of democracy, monopoly bureaucracy, and the private production of public goods.”


Michael Pattinson likes this.

Ayelam Valentine Agaliba
Quite true. The problem of course is that Hoppe purports to derive his solutions from his meta-ethics and philosophy. An argument may have true conclusions and yet invalid premises.

Ayelam Valentine Agaliba
If we treat argumentation and praxeology as metaphysical assumptions that are thereby unjustified and unjustifiable, we can now just turn pur attention to the a detailed analysis of conclusions without worrying about meta-theory


(interesting)(important piece)

Our logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.

And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.

Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent, and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.

Reason (Kahneman’s System “2″) rides on the elephant of intuition (Kahneman’s System “1″), whose objects of consideration (System “0″) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

William L. Benge likes this.

Curt Doolittle
I wrote, I think, about six months ago, that property was the missing necessary means of commensurable data representation required for functional AI to simulate the behavior of man. I knew this back when David Trowbridge and I were thinking about Runcible.
April 17 at 9:38am · Like

William L. Benge Utterly fascinating interview of Kahneman by Charlie Rose.
April 17 at 5:28pm · Like · Remove Preview

William L. Benge
This really is an amazing post, Curt. Grateful for your work.
April 17 at 5:34pm · Like

Curt Doolittle
Thank you william. That means a lot to me.
April 17 at 6:20pm · Like


Murder, violence, destruction, theft by physical appropriation, theft by fraud, theft by fraud using omission, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest – all deprive others of that which they have acted to obtain an interest in, against their will. ie: theft – the taking of that which is not obtained by voluntary exchange or first-use.

Humans reject, universally, and punish, universally, “theft”. But when we talk about ‘theft’, each discipline uses slightly different language

    1) In legal terms resolvable under the common law, the word we use for involuntary transfer is ‘theft’. That is the most general categorical name we have available to us.

    2) Now, the PROBLEM that arises with cooperation is called ‘free riding’. The “problem of free riding’ is how it is discussed in the literature. In the context of social science, and in the context of economics, the term ‘free riding’ refers to that category of involuntary transfers (thefts).

    3) In moral philosophy we must identify first causes. I have borrowed the term ‘involuntary transfer’ from law, in which title is forcibly transferred by the state without consent of its owner. This was the most general and unloaded term I could find. (I should note that Jan Lester uses ‘forced costs” or something of that nature, for the same purpose.)

I do not need to get into a semantic debate on normative terminology. I need only define my terms. “Free riding” is the broadest category I can use in the context of cooperation. While “involuntary transfer” is the broadest categorical term I can use in the context of moral philosophy. And “theft” is the broadest categorical term that I can use in the context of dispute resolution (law).

However, whether talking about cooperation (free riding), morality (involuntary transfer), or dispute resolution (theft), the human action they all refer to, is that act which transfers that which one has acted to accumulate or acquire without his informed consent.



You can’t reason with a libertarian who relies upon moral intuition any more than you can reason with a progressive who relies upon moral intuition.

So, it’s pretty clear to me today, that libertarians are as morally blind (or in Haidt’s terms ‘tasteless’) as progressives are (albeit at a different part of the spectrum), and that the only conservatives can carry on a rational moral discussion – because only conservatives are not affected by large moral blind spots. The data says it. But I just experienced it first hand. And I hate what it means. It means that libertarians are just as irrational and impenetrable as progressives.

That doesn’t mean that libertarians haven’t solved the problem of formal institutions. They have. (Hoppe has.) But it means that except as a sort of minority conducting intellectual experiments, libertarians are useless for the purpose of discussing political solutions. They’re by definition ‘immoral’. Or perhaps a form of moral color-blindness in which the majority of the spectrum is invisible to them.

I’m a conservative libertarian. I place a premium on liberty and discount all the other moral values. That’s the definition of the moral intuitions of a libertarian. But that PERSONAL intuition and personal objective, is different from my understanding of POLITICS as a set of institutions that allow heterogeneous peoples to cooperate on means even if they possess competing ends. (Give the citizenry a circus and let their actions sort them out.)

1) RED : PROGRESSIVISM – Sees only red. (Harm/Care : the adaptive challenge of caring for vulnerable children.)
2) BLUE : CONSERVATISM – Sees red, blue and yellow (Harm/Care, Proportionality, Authority/Hierarchy/Duty, Loyalty, Purity/Sanctity, Liberty/Oppression)
3) GREEN : LIBERTARIANISM – Sees only green (Liberty/Oppression : )

- Libertarians are “Red/Blue color blind.”
- Progressives are “Green/Blue color blind.”
- Conservatives are not color blind at all.

Just how it is.


You can’t actually reason with a libertarian who relies upon moral intuition. It’s as irrational as trying to reason with a progressive who relies upon moral intuition. Both just justify their positions.

You can reason to a conservative, or conservative libertarian, *EVEN IF* they rely on moral intuition. Because they aren’t morally blind to any part of the spectrum.

And here I keep thinking (stupidly) that because I am not morally blind, even though I place a premium on liberty, and because I understand the RESULT of libertarian moral blindness: the reduction of all rights to property rights – that other libertarians will of course be as rational as I am.

But that’s not true. I am literally talking to people who are for all intents and purposes, physically incapable of moral discourse, just as a color blind person is physically incapable of aesthetic discourse on colors that he cannot see. (Or the disability called “Ageusia” which prohibits taste.)


There is some point at which individuals abandon intuitionism (feelings) and resort to either rationalism (rules), or ratio-empirical science ( outcomes) for their epistemic judgements. The only libertarians that one can speak to rationally about morality are those that have abandoned intuitionism. And since it APPEARS to me that rationalism is just a form of justification, then further it appears that only those who adopt the ratio-scientific level of thought, abandon both intuition and justification, are capable of discourse.

That means that we are very limited in the number those people who possess the capacity for rational discourse on ethics and politics. And that since only conservatives are not morally spectrum blind, that it is only conservatives who can rationally discuss these issues EVEN IF they are relegated only to intuition.


Conservatives form the base of an inverted pyramid.
Progressives and Libertarians are specialized variants of human.
Progressives are ‘excessively female’ and libertarians ‘excessively male’.
(I think some conservatives specialize in being ‘warriors’ but they’re indistinguishable because they have identical moral intuitions.)
Where progressive, conservative and libertarian refer to moral intuitions.


The more I work on this problem the more I see humans of different moral persuasions just like specialized forms of ants. ‘Cause pretty much, that’s what we are.

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