Why Do We Want Non-Imposition of Costs Against Demonstrated Property?

Because in the libertine vision of man, we just ‘move on’ after we have been imposed upon by some sort of cheating. But this is not true. The strong prefer, and enjoy conquest, enslavement, rape, pillaging. It eliminates competitors quickly and permanently. So cooperation must be preferable to conquest.

Why shouldn’t I kill a rothbardian and take his stuff rather than allow myself to be subject to low trust, low economic velocity, high transaction costs, constant parasitism, and feeding and funding of competitors?

The answer is that I prefer rapid killing, raping and taking to slow parasitic conquest.

Westerners take the christian ethic beyond its limits. All theories have limits. That is why there are no certain premises. Forgiving error and buying cooperation by forgiving a parasitism, is not the same as feeding parasites who them compete with and conquer you.

Conquest is evidence of the failure of genes and ideas.



I’m Just An Intellectual Arms Dealer…

I‘m just an intellectual arms manufacturer. I give a lot of product demos. But if you want a revolution, you need to learn to use those weapons and go to war with them. ;)


Overturning the NAP Fallacy By Explicitly Stating NAP/IVP and NAP/PT

NAP does not make a legal framework btw. And pretty much all libertarian authors have stated so.

Rothbardian Low trust (Ghetto) Ethics: Non aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property. (permits blackmail etc), does not preserve the incentive for cooperation.

Aristocratic High trust (warrior) Ethics: Non aggression against property-en-toto, for the total preservation of cooperation.

NAP/IVP (Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics) are insufficient incentive for the establishment or maintenance of a voluntary polity since the transaction costs alone are sufficient to drive demand for authoritarianism as a means of suppressing retaliation.

NAP/Property-en-toto (Aristocratic Warrior Ethics) provide sufficient incentive to eliminate demand for authority since the scope of law is sufficient to provide a means of dispute resolution (retaliation) regardless of method or scope.

The problem we face in constructing a voluntary polity is that the law must provide sufficient suppression of parasitism (aggression against that which others have expended resources to obtain) such that there is no incentive to demand the state as a means of dispute resolution.

Rothbard’s NAP/IVP is an insufficient basis for law and cannot produce an anarchic polity(civil society), while AHT/PT is a sufficient basis for law and can produce an anarchic polity (civil society).

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)


Yes, But **WHICH** Non-Aggression Principle?

Non Aggression, or the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), is an incomplete concept, and possibly an intentionally incomplete concept, and alone it is an untestable and therefore unscientific) statement. Without stating what one is prohibited from aggressing against, non aggression is a half truth, using a half statement, that hacks western altruism. Its an act of deception by suggestion.

The question is the possibility of constructing an anarchic polity using the prohibition on aggression.

But aggression against what?

A) Rothbardian Non-aggression against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property
B) Aristocratic Non-aggression against Demonstrated Property En Toto?

The only means of providing an anarchic polity that is preferable to a non-anarchic polity, is by aristocratic ethics. Otherwise a low trust environment with high transaction costs is not preferable – and particularly not preferable to those with expensive capital to protect, and complex production to engage in.

The NAP hacks western altruism by prohibiting aggression, which the westerner intuits as true, but only against intersubjectively verifiable property, which once understood, the westerner rightly deems immoral and irrational.

Blackmail is the canary in the ideological coal mine. Blackmail causes retaliation because it imposes an unwanted and unnecessary cost, and breaks the contract for cooperation.

Rothbard’s ethics produce ghettos, Mafias, and create demand for authority.

The only reason to advance ghetto ethics is to justify parasitism and attempt to outlaw retaliation.


Why Do We Need a Monopoly Form of Commons?  We don’t.

All we need is monopoly Rule. Defense (military), Rule (rule of law), Government (market production of commons), Market (market production of goods and services).

Why, instead of debating over whether to institute a universal socialist(consumptive), libertarian(productive), or conservative(accumulative), social(normative), economic(productive), and political(commons) order, do we not institute universal rule of law affirming property-en-toto, and let people choose the social, economic, and political order that they will ‘join’, and then use houses of government to conduct contractual trades between those classes? Why can’t socialists redistribute to one another, libertarians invest in production, and conservatives accumulate capital, and we conduct trades with one another in order to achieve our common ends? Why is monopoly necessary?

We have technology today that can enforce these contracts. Why? Because we have electronic money, and the ability to issue multiple currencies for multiple purposes. In essence, creating trade policy internally between classes as well as trade policy externally between polities.

Good government isn’t a problem.

We can do it.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Why Are All Books On Cosmopolitan Libertinism Introductory? (They Must Be)

There is a reason that all works on libertarianism are introductions and so very few are advanced, as are works in economics, capital, public choice, democracy, social democracy, marxism and even neo-conservatism.

We really have what, Hayek on classical liberal law, and Garrison and Reissman in classical economics? But advanced works on libertarianism don’t exist other than rothbard’s revisionist history and his works on banking. Criticisms (man economy and state) are not the same as advocacy of actionable production of institutions that can survive competition from opposing preferences.

The reason people rely upon catchphrases is because there is very little else to rely upon. And those other things we can rely upon (the business cycle, capital formation) are not special to us, but matters of mainstream argument.
As an empirical measure, why is it that largely intro works exist? Why is it that the near near propaganda level advocacy of Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe fails to include the critics? Why is it that of the scholars in the field only David Friedman survives – and he survives precisely because he makes preferential rather than rational or empirical arguments?

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Our Mistaken Emphasis on Government Rather than Juridical Defense From It.

We are always ruled. We are often governed. The law is the minimum rule. We can never escape law and commons and hold territory.

We spend far too much ink on how to insure good rule, government, rulers, and governors.

And we cannot make a good ruler or governor. We spend too little ink on universal standing and juridical defense from rulers and governors.
This is because we not only seek advocacy of political orders in order to rally allies with whom me seek advantage from both rule and government – but would be constrained ourselves by rule of law if our preferred leaders obtained it.

All political advocacy in favor of one form of rule, or one form of government, and another, is an attempt to circumvent the cost of exchange.
But if I am correct – and the science increasingly suggests so – then we libertarians are partly morally blind, progressives are almost entirely morally blind (libertarians and progressives) and conservatives not only see clearly but are over-sensitive. And all attempts at political power are merely attempts to circumvent voluntary exchanges of cooperation that occur in the family, tribe and market.

Rule that prohibits parasitism in the tribe, market and government forces us to conduct voluntary exchanges (compromises) none of which are optimum for the long term capital accumulators (conservatives), medium time frame producers (libertarians) and short time frame consumers(progressives).
Just as we use voluntary exchange in the market to organize production, distribution, trade, and consumption, we organize the production of commons via government. But if government is not a vehicle for the facilitation of trade between the long(conservative), medium(libertarian), and short(progressive) factions, it is no different from not possessing a free market for the production goods and services, an not possessing money to signal demand.

When free market advocates call for infinitely open markets this imposes costs on the other factions. When socialists call for redistribution this imposes costs on the other factions. When Conservatives call for the payment of normative costs, this imposes a cost on the other factions.
But if we instead of imposing costs upon one another, conduct trades, then those costs are the expenses that we pay to cooperate on means despite our cognitively biased different ends.

Cooperation lets a species specialize. Cooperation by voluntary exchange lets us specialized without dying off and producing a new generation.
Cooperation by voluntary exchange collects information from the specialists in intertemporal reproduction: short consumption progressives, medium productive libertarians, and long term, conservative capital accumulators.
By satisfying the wants of all through voluntary exchange, together we ‘calculate’ the optimum possible reproduction for all, the same way that the market calculates the optimum possible production for all.

If I have not converted you to market production of commons (a market government) consisting of at least four if not five houses, each of which splits by gender, then hopefully at least I will help you understand mankind’s long struggle to increase the scope and rewards of cooperation by the use of market and voluntary exchange to produce the information necessary for us to act in our collective interests.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)


Loyalty: Forgoing Opportunities.

LOYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure (genetic, normative, physical, institutional, territorial) that you and others have been contributing to. The limit of opportunity. (The family, tribe, and nation)

James: Can “loyalty” also be the assumption or even shouldering of risks or costs, without a clear or immediate return?

Curt Doolittle: Yes


Contra NRx’s Techno Commericalism

While technology (a)decreases the cost of relationship acquisition, (b)decreases the cost of property registries, (c) decreases the cost of and often need for, escrow services (financial transaction costs), (d) reduces the need for regulation, (e) decreases the cost of geographic and temporal constraints, technology does NOT change the fundamental problem of cooperation: the incremental suppression of parasitism and the decidability of conflicts across different or competing regulations, norms, property allocations, and institutional processes. Technology reduces costs. Good law reduces costs. And that is the best that we can do. Everything else is achieved by trial and error. Because we cannot necessarily know what is good. We can only know with confidence that which is bad: parasitism.


Love Reduces Transaction Costs


–“Love reduces transaction costs, just as truth reduces transaction costs, just as law reduces transaction costs. Love is an economically rewarding investment.”—

That’s the secret to western christendom.