Those three terms, Logic, Praxeology, and Science describe a spectrum. But what is the point of demarcation between each?
Which of these domains is capable of testing which category of problems, and what constraints does any domain place upon the others, given that each is open to error, and requires the other to test its hypotheses.

I’ve been working on this problem now for quite some time, and have almost got my arms around how to talk about it praxeologically: as observable human action: and therefore a test of possibility, rational choice and incentives.

I have, I think, reformed the concepts of property and morality, but I can’t reform the system of thought that we call libertarian political theory without reforming the distinction between logic (unobservable, internally testable), praxeology (observable and subjectively testable), and science (unobservable, and objectively & externally testable.) That work may have been done somewhere but I haven’t found it yet. And I have a very hard time slogging my way through metaphysical assumptions and highly loaded vocabulary of both logicians on one end and rationalists on the other.

Current libertarian (Rothbardian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I’ve tried to systematically falsify each of them – there are only a handful really. And I think I have been successful.

Current progressive (Rawlsian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I think that I can falsify that argument without much difficulty. Veil of ignorance being a logical fallacy so to speak.

Conservatives don’t have an argument, so I have to explain their implied argument in libertarian terminology.

What I find most interesting, from our perspective, as libertarians, is that we acknowledge that the common law is an organic process, and it functions because it must be digestible and applicable by ordinary people in juries. We understand that the english built an empirical society, not a rational one. And that the French took the british concept of liberty and made it into a rational one. Then the germans have tried, and continue to, make it a spiritual one.

In other words, Rothbard’s arguments, and one of hoppe’s (his only weak one) rely on rationalism rather than empiricism. And while praxeology may be a test, and while reason may be a test, the purpose of empirical analysis is to extend our senses, and reduce what we cannot sense to analogies that we can perceive by proxy.

Now, prior generations had to suffer with the limited tool of Rational argument, because they didn’t have data, and the socialistic system of central control produces data on short periodicity, and can justify itself with that data. While the libertarian and conservative argument is that the externalities produced outweigh the short term benefits. But we have to WAIT for our data, and therefore socialistic arguments gather momentum in and civic behavior alters while we wait.

Thankfully we have data now. Our rational arguments were correct. The conservative arguments look like they are correct too. The only progressive argument we are unsure about at present is whether or not fiat money itself can function in a positive fashion, under some as yet undefined circumstance. (We argue that it can’t, out of hand, on rational grounds, but I’m not sure we can prove that there aren’t holes in our reason sufficient to undermine our position.)

We are lucky. Time has passed. We’ve learned more than our preceding generations had available to learn. And as such we can debate and restate libertarian theory using scientific rather than rational arguments.

And that is what I’m trying to do.


1% of people cause everything, and that 1% own 20% of everything
19% of people control everything and own 60% of everything by taking cues from the 1%.
80% of people are labor or consumers who own 20% and are directed by by the 19%.
It’s not just america.
It’s everywhere.
It has to be that way,
Because that is now knowledge is organized.
And that’s partly because how IQ is distributed.




Lies are lies, even if they are comforting lies. Falsehoods are falsehoods even if they are comforting falsehoods. In my work, I have to deal with facts, if I want to find new solutions to the failings of western social democracy. I can’t do that if people believe falsehoods.


Justice must be blind, but the rest of us must not be.

“…The problem is that profiling is an indispensable part of a living a safe, rational life…. ” – Taki’s Blog

Author John Derbyshire said exactly the same thing last year, and lost his job for it.

His job, in the dark enlightenment movement, is to point out the failings of enlightenment and postmodern thought. He tries to do it with british humor. Which may work or not. But that’s his work, just like most people in the dark enlightenment.

I defended him, and the Village Voice called me a member of the ‘hard right’. I’m actually a left-leaning libertarian by most accounts, making me a classical liberal on most things. But a conservative on the nature of man. That is because both left liberalism and right morality appear to consist largely of correct propositions – even if they are poorly stated in archaic or silly language.


That the law must treat all of us equally for it to be a just law, the fact is that we are not equal as individuals, and as groups we exaggerate those inequalities. And while the law MUST treat us equally to function justly, we CANNOT treat each other equally and function safely.

“…There actually are huge statistical differences in behavior by demographic groups. For example, an obscure Obama Administration report admitted:

“…While young [age 14 to 24] black males have accounted for about 1% of the population from 1980 to 2008…(b)y 2008, young black males made up about a quarter of all homicide offenders (27%).

“…Yet to many Americans these days, the thought of noticing giant facts such as this 27-to-1 ratio seems like blasphemy against the Declaration of Independence’s “proposition” that “all men are created equal.”


It is as irrational to attempt to preserve the falsehood of equality, as it is to preserve any other RELIGIOUS FALSEHOOD. This falsehood alone is enough to convict Postmodernism as a civic RELIGION, and therefore ban it from inclusion and support of state action.

Law must consist of truth, or it cannot be just.


What is the relationship between:

    a) the limits of our sense-perception,

and the combination of:

    b) scientific investigation’s ability to represent that which we cannot sense and perceive directly as measurements that can be reduced to analogy to experience, and;

    c) the ability of the tools of language to describe by analogy to experience,

when given

    d) that any process of aggregation into an abstract necessarily loses information, and;

    e) that the human mind must reduce streams of temporal relations to ‘states’ in order to compare them. (a computational necessity of limited memory) and;

    f) that our ability to comprehend by analogy to experience, multiple axis of causal relations is extremely limited. So limited that we had to develop the calculus, and models that make use of the calculus.

In purest terms, of course, there are limits because of necessary information loss from the process of categorization.

And it certainly appears that we can use science (categories and measurements and narratives that express causal relations that are allegories to experience) to understand almost everything we desire to = eventually.

But despite apparent successes, the question is whether those limits are meaningful in the context of being a human: converting extra sensual perceptions to sense perceptions.

Those limits can be meaningful in at least three dimensions:

a) the scope of the patterns that we can identify (which I suspect we can use machines for),
b) the period of those patterns, given that causality depends on arbitrary selection of periods of regularity,
c) the number of axis of causal relations that we can understand.

But since our problem is knowledge for the purpose of action in real time, not ‘knowledge’ as a static absolute, and it is our actions that are limited by our ignorance, and we would not be ‘human’ without those limits, the question always seems irrational.

If we understand that all thought is time-contingent based upon the knowledge at our disposal, then it’s simply illogical to even try to represent knowledge as static ‘truths’. The question itself is irrational.

If the standard is ‘enough perception that we can act to achieve our ends despite the limits of our minds’ that is very different from ‘we can understand the full set of causal relations by a process of representing measures of categories, and reducing them to expressions that are possible to articulate as a narrative.’

Since, we can test our theories, and science demands that we can both test (reproduce)( and determine the boundary conditions (falsify) our theories, using science and language to extend our sense perceptions, then we can test the correspondence of our understanding of the real world.

It certainly appears that we can be successful in reducing the unobservable complexity of the real world into symbolic and linguistic representations that are sufficient allegories to experience, that we can understand and at at any scale in which we an define a scheme of measurement (sensing). And there is no reason at present to believe that there is some limit to this, other than our ability to marshall the physical resources to perform tests, or because performing those tests would violate the terms of cooperation with other humans (morality).

And so, as Steven says above, theories are descriptive within the state of knowledge of the moment, if they correctly express the measurements and narratives of causal relations as we understand them at the moment, because they cannot exist without the context of the forms of measurement that we used to formulate them.

Those statements in fact, correspond with reality at some level of precision.

So the realist expectation is that we increasingly understand the complexity of reality, but may never fully achieve it. Although that imperfection may be meaningless for the purposes of action, as long as the allegory to experience is sufficient to produce the actions in question.

The generational problem affecting the discipline of philosophy is that the metaphysical assumption that we can introspectively solve these problems without the help of science is as absurd as thinking that we can solve these problems without language.

The discipline of Philosophy can help us construct analogies to experience so that we may consume those analogies and ‘understand’ them. But we cannot introspectively sense, perceive, and understand much outside of human scale, without the discipline of science.

Hence not only is CR a form of Realism, but it is an improvement on Realism because it does not assume that representations are static.


The source of property is the organized application of violence to create it.

Even on Rothbard’s Crusoe island, the violence that creates the property of the island FOR Crusoe is provided by the barrier of the sea. (That the see is analogous to the ghetto, which is the model of rebellion rothbard was using whether he know it or not, is obvious and ironic.)

But Rothbard’s logic is flawed.

The correct analogy is that on an infinite flat plain evenly distributed with people, how do you create the institution of private property so that one person’s will and wisdom can concentrate capital for future production and use?

By the application of violence to create that institution.

Can an individual do it? Not against numbers. No individual is powerful enough.

But can a group do it? Yes. A group requires another group to counter it, which produces diminishing returns for those members, who are more incentivized to also obtain property than reverse their claims. An organized group can create private property by the application of violence.

The source of private property is the organized application of violence to create it.

Arguments that try to justify private property by some other means, moral or utilitarian, are in fact, attempts to buy the right of private property at a deep discount.

And nobody’s selling at that price.

You have to rase the price pretty high.

And violence is a very high price.

The source of private property is violence.

Private property is a right one gains in exchange for the commitment to others who share the desire for private property, to use violence to preserve private property for one and all.

No other method is possible.


Private property is unnatural to man, even if it is necessary for mankind do produce a division of knowledge and labor.

Private property was a technical innovation that allowed males to take control of reproduction that they had lost with the invention of gossip, cooperation and spears, and to do so without resorting to in-group violence, or violence against women.

Private property was granted and gained in exchange for service in the creation and preservation of private property.

Monogamy was a compromise. It was an unnatural compromise.

Women, having obtained the vote, did not seek equal rights to property, but rents and privileges, and they are now able to use the state to extract rents from aggregate productivity regardless of gender – albeit mostly male productivity.

And women are abandoning seeking rents from a single male’s productivity through marriage.

It’s in women’s interest to violate private property, and regain reproductive and economic control through the state rather than through marriage or sex.

Marriage doesn’t make sense for women unless they can capture an alpha, and even then its a question of benefits versus compromises.

Marriage doesn’t make sense for men at all.

The logical outcome for men is to free ride as much as possible, and avoid having any property at all.

For those men that desire property, it cannot be obtained by majority decision. As such, it must be maintained by either exchange – buying off the rentiers – or by violence – preventing the rentiers.


Men and women are doing the logical thing. What else would we expect them to do? We may be irrational moral voters, but we are certainly rational moral consumers.

The source of property is use of violence to create the institution of property against the will of the majority. Only then is property an asset worthy of seeking by the middle and lower classes who which also to be enfranchised in the prosperity that results from the formal and informal institutions of private property.

(It’s thankless work, you know. …. Putting violence back into polite political discourse, one sentence at a time. ;)



(Re-Posted from elsewhere)

Tom DiLorenzo’s generation along with Rothbard, was trying to illustrate contrasts – to create a revisionist history to support libertarian ideology. Ideology changes VALUES, and motivates passions so that people ACT.

All I see from this nonsense is both CATO and BHL trying to whine that they don’t get the attention the ideological libertarians do.

Of course, that envy displays greater ignorance of the structure of political movements than does any revisionist history, shoddy or not. Ideology obtains participation. Intellectuals only battle other intellectuals. Reason is insufficient for motivation. Empiricism is insufficient for persuasion. That’s why we have ideology – passions.

Given the absolute failure of the classical liberals and the left libertarians to provide alternative solutions to the demonstrated failure of the classical liberal model’s means of preserving freedom – a desire that is a minority desire in the first place – it’s understandable that they retreat into intra-libertarian criticism.

I can understand Cato’s position. Their funding stream and interaction with the existing state is something that they have to stick with.

I can understand the investment that the Mises group has made in Rothbardianism, despite its demonstrated failure to enfranchise the moral values of classical liberals.

But I can’t understand attacks by BHL’s on anything given that they haven’t contributed a SINGLE DAMNED IDEA to the discourse other than ‘we aren’t them’.

Well, ‘them’ created an effective ideology that enfranchised a generation of zealots. ‘Them’ did more with one sound-bite speaker named Ron Paul than all the work of scribblers have done in sixty years.

So ‘them’ understands ideology – so to speak.

And this whole argument is a generation out of date. It’s as though we have to abandon the entire postwar liberty and conservative framework, and wait until the past generation of authors die off before we can advance the cause of liberty. Why?


The war is being won by a state religion, articulated as if it’s rational, and functioning as an ideology, despite it’s FALSE CONTENT.


The criticism of DiLorenzo as poor scholarship in an article written at the sophistication of a grocery store rag is embarrassing to our entire movement. And it certainly doesn’t advance the BHL cause of trying to get attention by actually contributing something to the debate.

It’s absolutely ridiculously childish. “Mee-too-ism”.

Some of us are out here on the fringe actually working on something other than ‘ideology’ and ‘belief’, as if we need to replace one secular religion with another, instead of replace both ideology and belief with practical institutional solutions. The very fact that you have to argue in favor of belief, rather than institutions, is an admission of failure.

Leave hokey religions to the Postmodernists and the Continentals. They’re better at it anyway.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute


Economic reasoning would argue that people follow incentives.

The incentives of scientists are to prosecute an idea regardless of its merit.

Science does not progress because scientists are self aware, or because they employ rational criticism and judgement. (Although I think this criticism applies to the 90% at the bottom more so than the 10% at the top.)

Science advances because either another’s career advance is obtained by discrediting an existing idea, or because its author dies and can no longer defend it from, or adapt it to, criticism.

For these reasons, requesting that scientists demonstrate "understanding" of the philosophy of science is overrated – unless incentives exist to enforce that understanding.

Since it is not in a scientist’s interest to use critical rationalism, it is very hard to imagine they will.

Philosophers are primarily cops: critics and articulators of what we humans say and do but do not fully understand. And honestly we are rarely inventors. And we function as critics of scientists, since it is in our interests to obtain status by criticizing scientists.

A scientist collects data and forms hypotheses. We collect arguments in support of hypotheses and criticize those arguments. That is our incentive: it is our specialization. Not data collection: criticism.

But it is patently irrational to expect scientists alone to demontrate behaviors counter to their incentives.

It’s a division of knowledge and labor in real time.

And we are supposed to be the rational ones after all.


Draft of the principles of the libertarian reformation.

1) Our generation’s challenge is not socialism, it’s the state religion of anti-scientific, anti-rational Postmodernism. (The religion of progressivism.) The dogma, literature, and ideological bias of the libertarian movement is a generation behind. Emphasis on past heroes is not constructive or valuable. It is indicative of the failure to produce successful solutions to the communalist adaptation to the failure of socialism in theory and practice: Postmodernism.

2) Government per se, is not a ‘bad’. What’s ‘bad’ is the corporeal state, monopoly, bureaucracy, majority rule, and legislative law. When we fail to make this distinction we are in fact, ‘wrong’. A government that consists of a monopolistically articulated set of property rights and the terms of dispute resolution, operating under the common law, and a group of people whose purpose is to facilitate investments in the commons by voluntary contract, but who cannot make legislative law, is in fact, a government. And it is a good government. It may not be necessary government among people with homogenous preferences and beliefs. But it is somewhere between necessary and beneficial government for people with heterogeneous preferences and beliefs. It is however, not a bad government. A monopoly set of property rights is necessary for the rational resolution of disputes, with the lowest friction possible.

3) Property is unnatural to man. Tribal human settlement is matrilineal, egalitarian, malthusian and poor. Mate selection is determined by sexual favors within the group, and raiding, capturing and killing for women outside the group whenever there was a shortage of women.

4) Property rights and paternalism were an innovation made possible by the domestication of animals and the ability of males to accumulate wealth outside of the matrilineal order. Property rather than sexual favors was such an advantage that it inverted the relationship between the sexes and determined mate selection. (The feminists are correct.)

5) Property rights were created by a minority who granted equality of property rights to one another in exchange for service in warfare. The source of property rights is the organized application of violence to create those property rights. Because property rights are the desire of the minority. However, property rights created such an increase in prosperity and consumption that others sought to join the ranks of property owners.

6) The redistributive state that was voted into power by women, has reversed the innovation of private property and in concert with feminists, is eroding the nuclear family, and the male ability to collect property. The institutions of marriage, nuclear family, and private property cannot survive when a democratic majority can deprive men of private property rights, and their ability to control mating and reproduction.

7 ) Rothbardian Libertarian ethics are ‘insufficient’. The high trust society forbids involuntary transfers by externality and asymmetry of information, and enforces this demand with a requirement for warranty. The ethics of the high trust society forbid all involuntary transfers except through competition in the market. They also boycott although they do not forbid, profit without demonstrated addition of value.

8 ) Rothbardian ethics are wrong (and bad): The market incentives alone are not high enough to overcome corruption, and create the high trust society without these two additional moral prohibitions instituted both formally and as norms: norms are a commons. They are property. Conservatives are right. “Externality and Symmetry Enforced By Warranty” are ethical constraints necessary for markets to function as the only permissible involuntary transfer: by competition in the market.

9 ) Libertarians do not exist in sufficient numbers. And it is not possible to enfranchise the conservatives (classical liberals) with Rothbardian ‘ghetto’ ethics. Without conservatives, who have the broader set of moral biases, and demand for adherence to norms, the libertarian bias is morally objectionable to too large a population, and libertarians are too small in number to accumulate and hold the power necessary to determine property rights in a geography. It’s important to understand that Rothbardian ethics are ‘wrong’ because they are insufficient to achieve what they claim to.


(Contrary to Searle’s nonsense. More in line with Bentham’s nonsense. Minor improvement to Hoppe. )

You DEMAND contractual RIGHTS in EXCHANGE for entering into a CONTRACT with others for some specific terms – and in the libertarian bias we demand absolute private property rights, and the right of first possession by transformation and homesteading.

Other people agree to NONE, SOME or ALL of those demands, in exchange for their specific terms. Non-aggressing on some terms, and preserving the opportunity to aggress on others.

One cannot ‘have rights’ without the presence of others to grant them in exchange.

    i ) One can suggest the world will be better for all if we grant each other certain rights.

    ii ) One can ‘demand rights’ in order for cooperation instead of conflict.

    iii ) One can ‘need and require necessary’ rights from others in order to survive.

But without the consent of others, one cannot ‘have or possess’ them.

The majority of the world cultures and subcultures evolved an allocation of each’s portfolio of property rights between the private and the commons on one axis, and between a) normative (habits, manners, ethics and morals), b) real (land, built capital, portable property, and c) artificial (intellectual property, limited monopoly privileges) on the other axis.

Those DEMANDS do you very little good without the ability to enforce your demands. In the case of private property, the coalition of statists is powerful enough to deny you demands, and force you to adhere to THEIR definition of property rights.

Might doesn’t make best.

Might doesn’t make right.

Might makes possible whatever property rights you have demanded.

So you must possess the might to institute the property rights you desire.

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