Philosophy is too much like giving children matches to play with. And as Durant said, there are really no answers there. History is the only evidence of the nature of man, and the answers to our political nature are there. Philosophy is, at best, just a tool that helps us reduce our ever-present tendency to err. It is more often a tool by which we increase our errors. At its worst, it is a tool for self deception, or the deception of others.


If I succeed with a logic of cooperation, and the morality of stating philosophy operationally, I think that I will have ‘cured’ discourse.


Most of my attacks on a priorism are tests to see if the delta in utility between ratio-empirical and ‘Real’, and aprioristic-deductive and platonic, is sufficient to compel a change in method, but I am clearly dealing with very habituated people, and not giving them enough of a breadcrumb trail. And worse, I’m leading them into a dark and unfamiliar conceptual forest where they don’t want to follow. What do moral men do, when moral intuition fails them? They can’t do much until they learn enough new tools with which to restate their emotional intuitions in different terms now that the old terms are invalidated.

Even the best people, who tend to be technologists, conflate general rule, theory, and axiom, into a single utilitarian category. Yet again demonstrating the difference between knowledge of use and knowledge of construction.

I suppose I will just keep attacking a priorism as incomplete, and utilitarian, but now also as immoral obscurantism, and part of the continental-kantian and cosmopolitan-hermeneutic forms of deception. Part of the revolt against ratio-scientific.

Although since I’ve already outed Rothbardian ethics as parasitic, and stated that Misesian praxeology was an error, I suppose that adding that a priorism (or any kantian construct) is immoral obscurantism, and part of the continental-cosmopolitan attack on human reason so loathed by Rand is just a continuation of my criticisms.

So libertarianism as constructed, prior to its ratio-scientific expression in Propertarianism, is:
a) parasitic
b) insufficient for the production of a voluntary polity.
c) argumentatively obscurant and immoral
d) fails the test of its claims (deducibility of the scope of economics)
e) inferior to ratio-scientific method for the accumulation of general rules of human behavior.
But with Propertarianism, all of these faults are corrected.

Of course people being as simple as they are, and even the best philosophers fairly weak, it’s probably lost that my attack on a priorism is an attempt to delegitimize on the right and libertarian spectrum, the same as I delegitimize on left-postmodern and socialist programs.

I can’t kill off the obscurantist deceptions of the left without killing off the same techniques on the libertarian corner of the political spectrum. No matter what corner of the political spectrum one advocates, the prohibition on obscurantism that invalidates the arguments of the others, invalidates one’s own as well.

All I have to do with the right is to give them a rational language. Most of what they believe is right in the first place. They just don’t have the ability to talk about it in rational terms – and perhaps once I focus there, I’ll be equally frustrated by their lack of intellectualism and mindless dependence on moral intuition. And perhaps at that point I will have to fight the battle against religion. But I think that religion cohabitates with Propertarianism as comfortably as does capitalism.

BUT LIBERTARIANS DON’T GET A FREE PASS. I’m burning continental philosophy, cosmopolitan philosophy, psychological philosophy (classical liberal), and marxist-socialist-postmodern philosophy on the same pyre. And it is a bonfire unlike any before it.

The Ratio-scientific form of argument under Propertarianism (moral realism) is all that remains. Because it is the only moral form of discourse on ethics itself. Everything else is deception, fraud or worse.

Burn, baby, burn.


–”The absence of a workable integrated theory of economics and politics reflects the lack of systematic thinking about the central problem of violence in human societies.”– Violence and Social Orders (Preface).

The fundamental problem of cooperation is the suppression of free riding. Violence is but one of the many tools used by free riders.

Our emphasis on suppressing violence distracts us from the insufficiency of suppressing violence in creating a polity capable of generating wealth in a division of knowledge and labor.

Very poor societies manage to prevent violence and theft. What they do not prevent is every other possible means of free riding.

The smaller the family size the higher the trust in any polity.

But for small family sizes suppression of free riding must be nearly universal.

And therefore not only must we possess property rights to allow small families to engage in production, but we must suppress all forms of involuntary transfer to lower the risk enough to do so. (ANF societies are fragile.)

By eliminating free riding we obtain trust, and the low transaction costs that come with trust. In seeking to obtain trust, non-aggression is not enough.

The source of any liberty was, is, and will always be, the organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms.

The reason that democracy, policy and economics are in conflict is the intellectual failure to address the incompatible moral codes of the different demographic groups, and the degree of trust vs demand for intervention, that is expressed by these different groups.

As such, western high trust, which is an extension of the absolute nuclear family, democracy, rule of law, and the high economic performance of the few high trust societies, are assumed to be the consequence of democracy.

Whereas democracy is a luxury of the high trust society.

There is no free lunch. You either accept universal absolute nuclear families and total suppression of free riding in all its forms as a high cost you must bear for prosperity and liberty, or instead, you obtain some variant of every other lower and lowest trust societies on the planet.

No way out. Period.


–”Rights” are the terms in which the weak couch their desire for a liberty they have not the might to secure.”–Eli Harman

Your fellow men and women do not desire liberty. They desires consumption, status, and ease.

Liberty requires great expense, revolt against the masses, and constant diligence.

The source of liberty is the organize application of violence to deny access to others, that which you have labored to obtain by voluntary means.

The left’s irrational utopian vision is no worse than the rothbardian irrational libertarian utopia.

Aristocratic egalitarians invented liberty.

And the manufactured it with organized violence.


The central objective of the anarcho capitalist research program has been how to eliminate the monopoly bureaucracy and its institutionalize parasitism on the population, yet still produce a prosperous social order.

In libertarian circles we often refer to this simply as “the problem of social order.”

Like marxism, libertarian philosophy is pretty rigorously thought out. By the time we get to Hoppe, it’s a well articulated theory of politics. So the logical errors in libertarianism tend to be complex, not trivial.

Most criticisms of libertarianism are naive or irrelevant because libertarian claims are technical, articulated in a formal and technical language, and they are not intuitive or normative claims at all. So without knowledge of the libertarian terminology and it’s arguments, is pretty hard to make a legitimate criticism – and that’s why so many criticisms are not legitimate.

“NAP: the non-aggression principle. That one will not aggress against the life and property of others.”

“Property: (n) Your life, your mind, your body, things you have obtained in trade, and things you have converted to first-use (homesteading).”

“Violence: (n) Physical aggression against property.”

“Aggression: (n) hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.”

So it’s okay to use violence against aggression. ie: any time you and your property are threatened. And to obtain restitution for your lost property.

So, no, the NAP is not a prohibition on violence. It’s a prohibition on the violation of property in which you, yourself, are also your property (that which you must have monopoly of control). Or more accurately, private property functions as an extension of your body and life. (true) and as such violations against your ‘things’ are violations against your body.

The general theory upon which anarcho capitalism rests, is that a rigid definition of property, and the common law, are sufficient for the formation of a polity. And that monopoly government and its systematic predation due to lack of competition is not necessary. Because the common law is sufficient ‘government’ for an anarchic polity. (This is the legal framework of a migratory herding people, or disasporic traders.)

This differs from a high trust agrarian society where the people must organize to prevent others from displacing them from the land. In a landed society, it is necessary for organizations to have leaders, to prevent free riding by those not willing to fight for that land.

But since trust is an index of productivity, because lack of trust acts as a friction on seizure of opportunity – and particularly on the concentration of capital by future-oriented people – (a form of transaction cost) then high trust is the the greatest social asset a polity can possess in the production of wealth.

Property will evolve from trust. Trust evolves from the prevention of free riding. The prevention of free riding evolves from the need to cooperate.

Private property and a weak state only evolve in high trust societies. But high trust societies are not dependent upon the NAP. They are dependent upon the suppression of free riding. The absolute nuclear family for example, even prohibits free riding by your children.

The NAP doesn’t prohibit unethical and immoral actions, so you can’t initiate violence against, say, a blackmailer, or scam artist, or other person who engages in conspiracy. Its a license for predation. Given the high cost of violence and the low cost of unethical and immoral behavior, it’s non-logical to essentially prohibit violence but not prohibit every kind of cheating possible.

The NAP operates on the assumption that a high trust society already exists, but actually fosters the destruction of the high trust society.

Because high trust societies do not limit ‘property’ wither private or common to the physical.

High trust societies prevent free riding, of which private property crime is merely one component.

That is why it’s non-rational.


Property rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan.

All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer).

Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code.

The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor.

So while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father.

This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite.

So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society?

I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.


—”American might allowed the advocates of international law to live in an imaginary world in which their doctrines actually matter. And now that they have finally succeeded in tearing down American strength and ushering in a post-American world, their own world will end.

International law is a Potemkin village. A hollow facade upheld by the might of the United States. A post-American world means the end of international law.”—


You know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning.

I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights.

See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that?

Because it’s true.

You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights, from those who would deny them.


Pacifist (peasant and merchant) libertarianism is analogous to begging at the foot of the state, trying to get PERMISSION to enjoy some liberty.

Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism actively denies others the possibility of infringing upon liberty by the constant threat of violence.

Or put in Propertarian terms, whining, whimpering, pleading, chastising and justifying are just excuses to do nothing to advance liberty and feel good about it, or relying upon ‘faith’ while waiting to get liberty at a discount, rather than pay the high cost of denying others access to your property. It’s just christian ‘waiting for the savior’ in secular language.

We aren’t doing anything. The only reason it looks like we’ve moved the needle at all, is because everyone else is failing so badly – both the Cathedral and the Enlightenment are collapsing under the weight of democracy.

The source of liberty is the organized application of violence by every living should that desires it. And liberty is only earned by those willing to use violence to deny others the ability to infringe upon our liberty.

The cause of moral intuition is the prohibition on free riding: cheating, and trying to get something at a discount at other’s expense.

Pacifist libertarianism IS IMMORAL by that standard.

For millennia one gained property rights by fighting for them or committing to fight for them. That is the only means of possessing property rights – by obtaining them in exchange from others who are willing to fight for them.

Everyone else is a free-rider. If they possess liberty. It is only because those willing to use violence to deny others access to property give it to them.

That is a DESCRIPTIVE ethic. Rather than all the Continental nonsense that libertarians rely upon by taking cues from the obscurantism of the Marxists.



Most philosophical debate degenerates to a recursive discourse on norms.

That’s because human beings really enjoy the ease of introspection, and the self reinforcing reward of moral intuitionism.

But if Propertarianism is correct, and I am pretty certain that it is, then moral truths can be expressed as purely rational arguments, and introspection merely tells you about your own reproductive strategy, class strategy, culture strategy, and cognitive biases.

That means an end to moral intuitionism.

Propertarianism allows us to produce a formal logic of ethics and morality, that denies us our cognitive biases and rational limitations.

And that is why we need formal logics.

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