Why do we refer to our voluntary organization of production as Capitalism when that era ended at least half a century ago –  and call it Consumer Cedit-ism instead.

Ukrainians are poor because they lack credit. Capitalism is a different social class problem altogether. And by historical standards we don’t really have any capitalists any longer – only people with enough trust to accumulate a lot if credit.  Our rich aren’t really rich enough to do much of anything other than try desperately to stay rich against all odds.

In the 18th and 19th century, It was easy to amass a little capital and produce consumer goods.

It was a lot harder to distribute consumer credit to all.  

Consumer Credit-ism is how we operate our society – capitalism died with the end of the conversion of people from the farm.



This word can be translated as the “mind of God”.

Because this word is used as if referring to the mind of God.

But, this use is a deception in and of itself.

There exists no mind to discover, and no truth to discover: it isn’t hidden. The universe lies bare for us all to see.

So it’s not that anything is hidden from us to uncover.

Instead, we lack the senses to see it, and we lack the mind to comprehend without some means of reducing it to analogy to experience that we can sense and perceive.

So, the problem we face, is not one of knowing the Truth – the mind of God – as if we seek to know the mind of one another.

The problem we face is in compensating for the frailty of our senses, perception, reason by the construction of instruments.

We construct four forms of instruments.

1- Physical Instrumentation (the instruments)
2- Logical Instrumentation (the logics and methods)
3- Social Instrumentation (institutional)

And of three, the third is most important, since it is the hardest to develop and control, because the incentives of individuals are contrary to the production of instrumental measurements.

We – all of us – constitute the third form of instrument – the division of calculation across individuals.

And our only means of producing accurate measures and calculations upon them is to require truthful testimony from one another.

But your take away from this short bit of prose, is that westerners engaged in methodological ternary-ism*, not methodological dualism.

And we didn’t even know that was our art.

I think this problem is now one I can consider solved.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy 
Kiev Ukraine

*Note: I mean ‘consisting of three’ and nothing more. I wanted to use the extant term “trinitarianism”, but it’s too loaded for practical use.


Preference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget':our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsively scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking. Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms.

It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience have been told in rational language.

So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man.

And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.


QUESTION: Curt Doolittle, how do you reconcile usufructs with Propertarianism?

ANSWER:  Just for everyone’s benefit, lets understand what these things mean:


- Commons (common ownership) – where the three rights of ownership are held by more than one individual: 

1 – Usus (use) The right to use or enjoy a commons, directly and without altering it. (Walking in a Park)

2 – Fructus (the fruits of) is the right to derive profit from a commons. (Selling the blueberries you have grown in the park).

3 – Abusus (abuse), the right to transfer, consume, or destroy. (Selling off a piece of the park, or building a home on it. So Abusus consists of two categories of rights
……(a) Right of transfer. (Emancipation) or ‘Mancipio’,
……(b) Right to consume or destroy, or ‘Abusus’.

- Ownership: (monopoly) Possession of all three rights determines ownership.

The right to use and bear the fruits of some asset without the right to transfer, consume, or destroy it. 

Usufruct is technically how land is treated in almost all civilizations: land is a commons distributed via some set of property rights or other (including none), and some set of limited ownership rights are transferred to individuals. 

Under anglo saxon and current property rights I have the right also to transfer, even if I do not possess the right to destroy or consume. (ie: pollute). 

So while Abusus means an abuse of the commons (Privatization), in the west the right of transfer is separate from the right of privatization, for example just as bitcoin is a fractional asset (divisible), in our western civilization, land is also a allocated as a fractional (divisible) asset. (A fairly uncommon thing as it turns out). 

So in the west we would separate the following rights in any commons.
1) Usus, 2) Fructus, 3) ‘Mancipo’, 4) Abusus

These are all just properties of contract. Propertarianism does not allow for incalculable statements of any kind since it is non-operational, undecideable, and therefore this allows for involuntary transfer – and therefore any contractual commons must possess an enumerated set of shareholders, with specifically articulated rights. 

I can conceive no conditions under which Abusus – destruction of land (pollution) – can exist as a declared right by any shareholders.

Basic argument is this: those who defend the land own the land, and allocate Usus, Fructus, and Mancipio to fellow shareholders, but never Abusus.

Now I am pretty sure I know all the directions anyone could run with this but I am confident I can cover all objections.

Curt Doolittle 
The Propertarian Institute 


It’s winter in Kiev. It’s 27F. It’s noticeably dark early again. I’ve hung up the leather jacket, switched to the wool coat and layers. The shops have heavily discounted what remains of fall, and those without winter stock are empty. They’ve skipped the ‘autumn’ coat season here and gone right to winter-wear. The music playlists have returned to normal – more synth and rock suitable for clubs, less pop suitable for cafes. Slavic men look GOOD in continental urban winter men’s wear – rather than our american faux-outdoorsman-look that hides our bulging american bellies. Winter wear is elegant here and varied. You can’t find mens’ shoes that aren’t insulated.

On my part, my body must have known, because I gained 3.5 kilos in the past two months, and it’s time to stop storing up fat for the winter already. :) I also realized that I am subconsciously afraid of another winter here, because last winter, between the US government trying to kill me, the financial catastrophe it put me into, the hostile takeover of my previous company, the revolution putting my new business at risk, Putin’s invasion of these beautiful people, and being sick for 12 weeks in the late winter and spring, that there is a left over bit of trauma in there I haven’t been able to expunge.

Meanwhile I still managed to fight off the government, settle the take-over amicably, get the men out of the country, nearly complete the product, open the intellectual attack on libertine Rothbardians, drop the winter weight, write some pretty solid philosophy.

Liberty just requires we demand truth-telling. Never surrender. Give no quarter. Show no mercy. If necessary, kill them all and let god sort it out. ;)



I’m really happy with having captured the difference between speaking honestly, speaking truthfully, and the mere concept of .

  • Platonic (Analytic) Truth: the most parsimonious description that is not a tautology.
  • Speaking Truthfully: promising an epistemic warranty, that you possess the knowledge of construction(causation) and of use(correlation), necessary to make a truth claim, consisting of the minimum error, bias, imaginary content, deception that is possible for you to render with current technology.
  • Speaking Honestly: that you testify only to experiential knowledge (correlation) but not to causation, and that your testimony is free of deception, because you cannot have warrantied that your testimony is free of error, bias, and imaginary content.

This is relatively important because, as I said yesterday, apriorism cannot be true, unless all all properties and contexts under such a general rule remain constant. This is very, very close to being limited to a tautologies – something I will have to work on further.


—“Service guarantees citizenship. – This is why I served in the US military even though I wasn’t compelled to.”—David M.

So, for use by our Corporations we have created various forms of stock: including Controlling, Various Preferred, Common, Non-Voting, and Options. These different shares roughly reflect the different value that we bring to companies. Controlling is for management and founders, preferred for professional investors (board members), common for uninformed lenders (‘pseudo-investors’ via the stock market), and non-voting (options in the event of a sale) and options (bonuses) for employees.

When we use the term ‘citizenship’ today it carries with it the current assumption that citizenship is at best equal to a common, non-voting, or option form of stock. When democratic indo europeans use that term, they mean it as a member that the corporation of the aristocracy or church has agreed to insure. In the pre-democratic era, Citizen refers to the heads of households, families or businesses, that have demonstrated investment in the corporation. In the greek era, that was less than 10% of the population (what we would consider the oligarchy (<1%) the nobility (1%), and the upper middle class (<10%)

I don’t really agree with Mencius’ approach, but if you told me instead, that we voted for ‘motions’, (internal contracts between shareholders), that any voting shareholder could put forward a motion, that such motions were perishable (had to collect votes in a specific period of time), that all voting was conducted publicly, entirely transparently, and recorded in the public block chain; that each share granted an individual one vote, and that all individuals were prohibited from possession of more than one share, and that a majority or supermajority of **each** class of shares had approve any vote, then I think that is a successful means of running some sort of juridical democracy under nomocratic rule (rule of law).

This approach, direct voting. does not eliminate public intellectuals, and their propensity to overload, lie, obscure, frame and load,  but it does eliminate politicians (agents) who are subject to opaque influences. If the normative and intellectual commons is as I have stated, property that the corporation agrees to defend, and all shareholders possess standing in court in suits concerning the commons, and that we require truthful speech in all matters of the commons, because we require warranty of products, services, and public speech, then public intellectuals can be independently regulated.

Rather than classify individuals ‘as’ something or other, we can issue (and possibly limit) shares (block chain / public-ledger accounts). Shares can be earned (purchased) through demonstrated actions, but not purchased by any material exchange, not transferred, and not awarded, granted, given, for any other reason). If one has earned a higher status share, he must trade in any existing share to redeem the new one.

Repeat felons for example, are effectively wards of the corporation, as are children, not shareholders. I suspect that the class of wards would be fairly large, the class of non voting shares – non-contributing people – fairly large, voting -contributing- fairly large, preferred services shares (care-taking), preferred production(professional, business, and industry), and preferred aristocracy (military, militia, law) fairly large. The most interesting problem is the judiciary, because the law has managed to create a secular ‘priesthood’ (cult) over time due to the very high investment costs in rituals, and to self- manage that cult. Which I find fascinating. And as long as one can preserve that cult via military service, indoctrination, truth-telling, and propertarian calculation, then I think it only requires a small number of people, all of whom have extraordinary interests in it, to preserve liberty.

I will cover this idea in greater depth as we go along.



That’s an indictment. My indictment is far harsher.  


(reposted from elsewhere) (I think this will blow your mind a little bit.)

Mises Human Action as Cosmopolitan Stoicism.

He was almost right. If Rothbard and the Rothbardians had not damaged his legacy so severely, he would not be ostracized by the main stream intellectual community. At present any mention of his name associates a public intellectual, an economist, or philosopher, with the pseudoscientific lunatic fringe.

Praxeology is a failed attempt at Operationalism, sure – but no one ELSE came close to developing economic operationalism but Mises. I only did it because I have the luxury of a century of additional development in computability (especially Turing), and because it’s clear now that the analytic program (attempt to convert philosophy into a science) has been a failure, and that the success in reforming both science and psychology has almost entirely been because of Operationalism.

Had Mises joined with Brouwer and Bridgman, the three of them might have saved us from a century of pseudoscience. But without a philosopher of ethics to unify them, Popper in the philosophy of science, Mises in Economics, Brouwer in mathematics, and Bridgman in physics all failed to come to the correct conclusion: that they were not in fact articulating logical constraints – because there is no logical constraint to theory-development. The logical constraint is only in the statement of promise (that you are telling the truth) that such a theory can be expressed existentially, as a sequence of operations (actions) or operational measures of observations. And as such, one’s theory, in any discipline, is free of content that was added by error, imagination, or deception. Man can testify to observation in the execution of recipes – all else is imagination. As such the practice of the sciences (or rather, the practice of *disciplined testimony* which the sciences developed, but which consists of nothing unique to the physical sciences) is a moral one, with ethical constraints.

As such, praxeology, mathematical intuitionism, operationalism, operationism, Popper’s critical preference, and the scientific method, as well as the discipline of science as currently practiced, are moral constraints, not logical ones. One can intuit a theory by whatever means possible. One can believe whatever he wishes to justify. But one’s promise of testimony to the actions that did or may produce consequences is a moral one, not a logical one.

As far as I know, the only meaningful reason to study economics for use in ethics and politics, is to justify the rule of law (Nomocracy), under the single rule of property rights, where property rights is as defined under Propertarianism, as property-en-toto (demonstrated property). And where that body of law suppresses sufficient involuntary transfer of property-en-toto, that the formation of a Nomocratic polity is possible. And where the formation and perpetuation of that polity is possible, because transaction costs are sufficiently suppressed that a rational choice for Nomocracy is possible, over a rational choice for statism. And that the normative preference of nomocratic rule over statist rule is maintained by the constant exercise of that body of law in daily life, rather than a phillosophical-rational, religio-moral, pedagogically-instructional, or normatively-habituated means of persistence.

If we look at his human action as an attempt to develop an economic version of stoicism – a mental discipline – I think it is probably a better frame of reference for his work than as economics or analytic philosophy.
As such I see him as creating a Cosmopolitan version of stoicism (economic/intellectual character) rather than western (Aryan if you will) stoicism (political/craftsmanship character).

Both forms of stoicism are early attempts at operationalizing philosophy for disciplinary action as an individual member of a complex division of labor in which we possess fragmentary information.

Since I quote him endlessly for his analysis of money and fiduciary media, which again, he (“a sequence of human actions” = “operational observations”) correctly uses operational analysis to isolate and articulate the causal rather than normative properties – I am clearly an advocate. But I am not an advocate of the misuse of Mises’ errors – his failed attempt to develop economic operationalism – to justify Rothbardian libertinism – an outright assault on the production of both high trust, and the commons – both of which are the primary competitive advantages constituent in the western indo-european (Aryan if you will) evolutionary strategy.

I walk by Mises’ childhood home every day. It has tempered my criticism. I see him making natural errors of Cosmopolitanism – as Hayek said “a victim of his upbringing”. Just as the Germans have made endless errors in conflating religion and philosophy to preserve their hierarchy and duty as a group competitive strategy. Just as British (Anglo/Irish/Scots if not the Belgae) have fought to preserve their island universalism despite the necessary suicide that results from universalism outside of their island (or the american island, or the Australian island.)

I will venture this post is one of the more important things that has been written about Mises in recent history, and my arguments, if not my criticisms will assist us in RESCUING Mises from the lunatic fringe, and RESCUING his work for use in intellectual discourse – as the first attempt at saving Economics through operationalism, the way that science and psychology (if not also mathematics and logic) have been saved by operationalism.

**I see myself as rescuing ALL of the Misesian/Hoppeian program from the fruitcake fringe: by laundering German, Jewish and British enlightenment fallacies – the attempt to universalize local evolutionary strategy – rather than simply adopt scientific epistemology (operationalism) as the only neutral tool for the use of studying group evolutionary strategies.**

Although it is, I am sure, somewhat difficult for those religiously devoted to immoral, libertine, Rothbardianism to either understand or accept.

I am quite sure I do not err in this analysis. A statement which I am aware further taunts libertines. But which my fellow aristocrats (libertarians-proper) both understand and expect from me as a promise. Because the anglo-empirical model of truth telling, quite opposite from the cosmopolitan, is that truth is the name for testimony. And as such I testify that to the best of my knowledge my statement is true. And that I bear the reputational consequences of my promise that this statement is true. This is the polar opposite of the Popperian, Analytic, and Cosmopolitan version of true: that truth is the unknowable province of god alone, and as such we can only ‘do what we can’, and as such are unaccountable for our words.

This ethic, this definition of truth, as performative – as operational, is what Kant was searching for, but could not find. And it is why both Jewish and German philosophy are dead ends. And it is why english philosophy became lost through its influence by the germans and the cosmopolitans.

We lost a century of philosophy to cosmopolitan pseudoscience in economics, politics, ethics and logic. Germans lost centuries to pseudo-philosophical religio-moralism. Mises can be seen in context as the most successful – if still failed – attempt to rescue german and cosmopolitan thought from its religious constraints.

– Cheers.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine


Rule of law, given a homogenous and therefore universal definition of property rights, constitutes a central authority. Just as mathematical operations constitute a central authority. Just as the scientific method constitutes a central authority. 

Humans must make judgements. A central authority can be reduced to judgements and decidability requires humans to make decisions.  If we articulate a sufficiently calculable rule of law, they only need determine the truth or falsehood of human testimony, and all questions are decidable.

The problem in constructing rule of law is too often to protect the credibility of the state, so that it does not miscarry justice.  Instead, if we focus on the incentive for truth telling.

1) Universal standing (ability to sue), universal vulnerability.
2) Warranty of for one’s truth telling.
3) Restitution plus costs, for truth telling.
4) Triple damages plus costs for not truth telling.
5) Ten times damages for immoral (illegal) directives. No limit of liability. No immunity in the chain of command. All employees personally insured, and all personally accountable. 

Truth telling matters. Right now lying does not increase risk. And so the law is currently constructed to provide perverse incentives.

We all err. We need not lie.

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