(Freedom vs Liberty)

Is it just my own selection bias in action, or has the term FREEDOM been sufficiently appropriated as to mean “Positive Freedom and liberty” and LIBERTY such that it currently means “Negative Freedom and liberty”?

It’s too bad we LIBERTARIANS don’t have such energetic literary activists who can put together a campaign to ‘reconstruct’ the meanings of liberty and freedom the way the marxists have, and by doing so appropriated our terminology: via editing, shaming and critique.

1) The available means of production.
2) The impact of the means of production on reproduction (family)
3) The allocation of property rights between individual, family and commons to suit production and reproduction.
4) The Freedoms and Duties we grant each other according to those rights, and the flexibility of altering those relations in response to changes in the means of production.
5) The degree of rent-seeking (corruption) by leaders of the hierarchy or network of organizations that resolve conflicts and facilitate investments (ownership or government).
6) The degree of contribution by individuals willingly paid to the extended family (commons) in exchange for status which increases their opportunities for mating, experience, and opportunity.

(Government members obtain status as well as compensation and earners do not obtain status OR compensation. The need is to create status signals such that the earners are willing to contribute to the commons of their extended family. If instead, high tax payers were publicly identified and given political voice, if not political vote, then the world would be a very different place. But politicians fear this fact. And to some degree, the corrupt on both sizes are protected by their anonymity. Imagine a state of the union meeting where the top 500 taxpayers instead of 500 elected politicians, were required to give their opinions on the state of the union. )


(good read)

“I don’t like package deals. That’s mainly the reason I don’t identify with a particular political position. If I end up looking like a libertarian, it’s only because they happen to be where I’m going anyway. I reserve the right to do my own thinking.” – Kenneth Allen Hopf

Ideologies can be as rigid as scripture to which you must adhere (totalitarianism), or mere boundary conditions that describe similar sentiments (freedom). They are both means of obtaining political power. The first is a means of coercion into dogma by threat of ostracization. The second a means of affiliation by promise of opportunity.

However, both scriptural threat and sentimental promise, are predicated on the absence of ratio-scientific knowledge. In the face of evidence of what man REALLY DOES with democracy, what he does with his economy, with his social order, with his freedom, with his laws, then we no longer are faced with an era of IDEOLOGY.

We are faced with the outcome of the era of ideology. And the outcome of that era is that the SUCCESS of rich democratic countries had nothing to do with their democracy. Democracy is a luxury good that was ALSO made possible wealth.


But that wealth had nothing to do with democracy. It had to do with:

1) The aristocratic egalitarian ethics of cattle raiding, land holders, bronze, the horse, the wheel, and chariot, who used inferior numbers, and voluntary, organized, cavalry tactics that required high personal and familial investment, as well as voluntary cooperation in tactics for shared risk and gain. The tendency to adopt disruption in the form of new technology, new members, and new leaders – because enfranchisement meant rights to private property and elected leaders rather than community property and static leaders.

2) Small homogenous countries – first Pagan, but the more protestant and german the better, operating as extended families, with the high trust of extended families.

3) The prohibition on cousin-marriage out to six or ten generations, and the Absolute Nuclear Family (ANF) as the organizational unit of production AND reproduction.

4) Common law, individual property rights, and rule of law. money, accounting, interest, credit and banking.

5) The manorial system that suppressed the fertility of the underclasses, and created the ‘protestant ethic’ in all of society, by requiring conformity to good practice in order to obtain access to rented land, and reproduction.

6) The evolution of credit backed by ‘the extended family’ represented by the state.

7) Plagues that suppressed and reversed the fertility of the underclasses, and which forced the upper classes to spread into the work force.

An ‘empirical bias’: a preferential bias toward, and continuous development of, technical, scientific, practical solutions. We cannot tell if this bias genetic or not yet but in part, it is beginning to look like a) minority status, b) competitive value of technology to compensate for small numbers, c) balance between verbal and spatial intelligence d) habituation.

9) The discovery and conquest of the New World and the subsequent trade, at a time when a plague had wiped out vast portions of north american indians.

10) The weakness of the Ottoman empire, Indian continent and the Chinese empire, from institutional decay. (In China, the failure to develop institutions of ‘calculation’ at scale and reliance on moral rather than empirical arguments. In Arabia, the persistent problem of ignorance, tribalism, low IQ, and inbreeding.) The weakness of the colonies, and the relative disparity in technological, calculative, and social development of the rest of the world meant the easy imposition of trade. And the re-adoption of ratio-scientism as a competitive advantage in the west while the other states had either fought it off intentionally (Islamic Civilization, Chinese Civilization), or who could not for a variety of reasons make use of it (Hindu civilization).

The importance of calculation was I think, discovered or at least elucidated by Weber. But calculation is important, because it is NECESSARY. Without means of calculation, as the society becomes increasingly complex,

The state is often credited with the origin of calculative technologies. But this is to overstate the ‘state’ in its primitive origins in the fertile crescent. However, these small city states had all the properties of western city states, but earlier. THey created their innovation when they were small. They LOST their innovation when they became states and empires.




Given that Don Finnegan has just hit a nerve by reminding me about Friedman’s perspective on Irish Law, I’m going to throw something out here that may not be as obvious and important as it seems.

As usual it might take me a bit to get there. But I think it’s worth the journey.


It is impossible to make guesses without some basis for decision. And every civilization constructs a set of narratives that contain those metaphysical means of decision making. Those rules or guidelines, or recommendations not only make decisions possible, and rational, in the presence of insufficient informaiton, but the biases contained in those metaphysical assumptions allow us to FUND by micropayments, of all kinds, our norms. We create a reality with them. And we cooperate at the metaphysical level. (We have to.) We couldn’t think otherwise.

The truth is that in almost no circumstance can humans make decisions as a group without shared metaphysical assumptions. Sure, without property man cannot form a division of knowledge and labor. But without metaphysical value judgements groups cannot cooperate at all.

We have a healthy literature of cultural differences in cognition. Cultural differences in verbal and spatial intelligence, and cultural and genetic differences in the distribution of intelligence. The east and west differ between emphasis on verb and noun, on connectivity versus particularism. On constitution versus Shape.

Most importantly, they differ ON BALANCE VERSUS TRANSFORMATION: “The purpose of man is to bend nature to his will, and to leave the world better for having lived in it”. That is the western metaphysics. Almost everything can be reduced to that statement of individual action. “Truth and debate mean the rapid resolution of differences by conflict” (See Donald Kagan); versus deception and delay until matters resolve themselves in the eastern sense (See Kissinger and Huntington.)

And for example Jewish civilization and western civilization vary between the rebellious ethics of the bazaar and ghetto (Rothbardian ethics) and the land owning ethics and morality of the aristocratic egalitarians in the high trust society. These are metaphysical group assumptions that constitute the primary means of decision making for each group given it’s evolutionary strategy.

For example, in the we often talk about Bouridans’ ass. The problem when you must choose between two orange vendors both offering equal oranges at equal prices. How do you choose? The only thing interesting about any exchange is this very question. Why? Because in large, any commodity is chosen not on price, or on consumption value, but on signal value, and the signal we most often pay for is contribution to our commons.

ie: price is meaningless, since it is rarely what is purchased. We largely pay for signals and norms, and we pay for our factions and our preferences. And therefore all the Misesian and Rothbardian ordinal arguments to price are meaningless outside of commodities trading, and nothing at all to do with social order AT ALL PERIOD. In, fact, it is quite easy to case Rothbard and Mises as continuing the cultural tradition of intentionally ignoring the normative economy of land holders as a means of rebelling against it.

When I first heard this argument from Dr Herbner, I was kind of stupefied that Misesians thought clearing preferences was ordinal predicated on price rather than a network (technically a graph) predicated largely on signals on norms, where price was merely the first marginal criteria. IN fact, the only way to argue for the ordinal versus the graph, was to argue AGAINST payment for norms, which puts Mises, Rothbard and Hayek into perspective. (And is why I criticize Mises and Rothbard. It’s why they failed.)

WE DID NOT KONW OUR METAPHYSICS NOR WRITE IT DOWN. As such we have been largely defenseless against jewish rhetoric, and franco-germanic counter-englightenment figures, desperate to restore the church under the authority of the educational institution. Desperate to wrest control of society back into obscurant language and moral mysticism, and away from the hands of the engineers, scientists, lawyers, accountants, entrepreneurs and consumers who create and maintain the society we live in.

Conservatives are largely right. But WE HAVE FAILED TO ARTICULATE FREEDOM AND LIBERTY in rational terms with MORAL DEPTH sufficient for they and their numbers to adopt in favor of the west.

We can be free amongst a majority of conservatives. But we cannot be free amongst a majority of statists. The state and democracy are just communism and are antithetical to liberty, private property, common law, personal sovereignty.




Yes, conservatives are INNATELY more critical of free-riders:

“North Eurasian and Circumpolar hunter-gatherers (Hutterites and Amish, Puritans) will be more prone to altruistic punishment than those from Middle Old World culture area (Jews, Gypsies, Chinese)”

“…. *** Puritan groups seem particularly prone to bouts of moralistic outrage directed at those of their own people seen as free riders and morally blameworthy.***” -Kevin MacDonald

Whether it is cultural or genetic or both doesn’t matter so much, although I’m in the 60/40 camp in favor of genetic on this topic. And the pareto rule would suggest that as long as you’re in a 90/10 proposition or less, diversity isn’t a problem.

But two things are certain: a) people don’t actually assimilate outside of their gene pool, and b) our tribal differences – our tribal DIVERSITY is something very precious for everyone. Probably the ‘cuircumpolar’ in particular. Because that individualism is economically superior to group-ishness.



Data is data. Turns out that what we melt is purely scientific, legal, and commercial; and what doesn’t melt is family, morality, metaphysics, and therefore politics.

Or, what I would describe in Propertarian terms, as “explicitly calculable” implicit knowledge vs “inexplicitly calculable” tacit knowledge.

We can structure formal institutions only for a subset of knowledge.

Myth, tradition, ritual, family, morals, ethics, and manners are something that can also be institutionalized.

And that us the conservative vision: formal institutions are not enough.


(good)(attack on academia)

(Disclaimer: I have a fine art degree: art history and theory. Aesthetic philosophy. Although I am also educated in economics, philosophy, history and computer science.)

[Warning: Harsh words follow.]
1) COST. Now, if I paid 10K for this degree, or even 20K, that would be one thing. But these degrees are too expensive for the cost of the education. Humans make cost benefit analyses and the data is in: there isn’t a return on them.

2) CONTENT. Philosophy departments can alight with the humanities and religion (which is a death sentence) or align with science, economics, politics, business and law (where it is terribly useful).

3) FAILURE OF PHILOSOPHICAL PROGRAM. The academic humanities bear much of the responsibility for their plight having tried fitfully to prove via the metaphysical program on one hand (a demonstrated failure), via the logical program on the other (a demonstrated failure), by the mathematical program (a failure at least at the set level to correct mathematical platonism rather than justify it), that philosophy is a science in itself, rather than the means by which we interpret the findings of the sciences and therefore to inform and alter our perception and understanding, such that we adapt our actions to the new knowledge. Philosophy then is a moral discipline, where morality is the study of action. It is not a means of attempting find justification that philosophy is a science. It is not. It cannot be. Because science requires that we use instrumentation to confirm our senses.

4) REPLACING THE CHURCH: It is not lost on those of us who are critics (even those few of us who write philosophy nearly full time), that Academia, originating as an extension of the church, has sought to replace the church’s influence over moral and political life. It has done so. It has done so largely by a) promoting both socialism, communism, postmodernism and totalitarian humanism, social democracy, and therefore bearing the responsibility of both the decline of the west’s aristocratic mythos, and the death of nearly one hundred million people. If that is not an indictment I don’t know what is. And rather than extend rights to all, academics encouraged extraordinary rights, and in particular supported feminism as a means of increasing revenues and attracting women to previously male dominated universities.
However, the feminist program has been successful in undermining the nuclear family, and are the voting force that allows socialists, democratic socialists, and totalitarian humanists produced by the university system, to obtain political power, by which to both undermine the 14th amendment, the Absolute Nuclear Family which is the necessary component of the high trust society, and to undermine the western model through forcible large scale immigration. Even now, the supreme court is populated by non-protestants. And that matters. Because protestants are the keepers of the Absolute Nuclear Family, and the High Trust, Individualist, Risk taking, Experimental society.

5) FRAUDULENT PRODUCTS: The source of much of our political trouble is the fascination in the humanities introspection and self reinforcement rather than external evidence and adaptation, combined with its fascination with totalitarian humanism, and philosophy with postmodernism and socialism. Economics departments don’t teach Marx. It’s bad economics, and really bad philosophy. Furthermore, the evidence is in, and is decidedly against democracy – we cannot seem to make all men aristocrats. So much of the philosophical tradition is not only demonstrably false. It is not only false. But it is harmful.

6) CRIMINALLY DEFECTIVE GOODS: It is not lost on us that academic wares are not warranted, any more than religious wares are warranteed. If they were I suspect academia would rapidly change. The fact that the state gives license to academics who sell faulty goods, but punishes ‘thought crimes’, is evidence enough to demonstrate that academic humanities has in fact, succeeded in replacing the mystical religion of christianity, discrediting the church, only to replace aristocratic egalitarianism and christianity, with totalitarian state humanism – effectively communism by other means.

7) INCENTIVES: It is not lost on any of us that the INCENTIVES in academia are (in economic terms ) ‘perverse’. That we have spent two generations now exchanging personal retirement accounts of parents, for overpriced education of children, most of which ends up in rapid expansion of academic administration, diversion from teaching professors to research faculty, physical capital, and endowments. That graduate students are little more than slave labor, that their work products are almost universally shoddy, that the quality of writing in the humanities is offensively bad, and that obscurant language is used consistently to mask weak, false and unsupported thought.


That’s what SCIENCES tell us. So choose whether you will be part of another tragic religion, or move into hard science with the rest of us.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute



The Decline of Humanities
One of the current narratives is that the humanities are in danger at American universities. Some schools are cutting funding for the humanities while others are actually eliminating majors and dep..


(explanatory power)(important)

“The Conscience Of An Immoral Man”

In a series of recent articles, Krugman suggests that there is only one answer for Europe and the world, and that is, for the Germans to redistribute to the periphery.

But that’s false. The opposite answer is that the periphery borrow to REFORM themselves. And when I say something is ‘moral’ I mean that it forces an involuntary transfer – a theft. One cannot dismiss morality unless one dismisses theft. That’s what it means to be immoral: to steal indirectly, and anonymously.

Once we include opportunity costs and the subset of social capital we now call ‘moral capital’, we see that material trade and consumption is just a minority of the human economy. And that the economy that makes material trade and consumption possible is the social and moral economy. And that theft of opportunity, or the various forms of free riding, or theft by immorality, are all equivalent forms of theft.

So, Krugman’s solution is immoral. The conservative solution is of course. moral. Because conservatism in the west is a defense of moral capital. Incentives are incentives. Actions have cumulative consequences. Money is only a unit of measure. Human beings keep account of not only money but opportunity costs. And what Krugman is saying is that Germans pay opportunity costs and should involuntarily transfer them to the periphery.

The trade is only IMBALANCED because of BEHAVIOR then it is not a trade imbalance, it is an incentive.

There is a very great difference between the imbalances in trade, education, technology, resources, and infrastructure and the imbalances in trust, discipline, time preference, and hard work.

And it is IMMORAL and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE if we do NOT use trade imbalances to transform those who have less trust, less discipline, work less.

The ongoing evolution of social capital requires that we punish free riders. And Free Riding IS THE PROBLEM that all societies must suppress. It is necessary for cooperation.

Paul studied trade between different STATES – plus he has deeply internalized both jewish ghetto ethics, and the need to justify the failure of his people to hold land through adoption of land-holder moral codes. (Albeit as a survival strategy.) Furthermore, for cultural reasons, he is an anti-aristocratic activist.

Like many people with specialized knowledge he uses overwhelming bis in all his arguments to mask the very simple, but catastrophic errors he makes on a daily basis: that it is necessary to conform to germanic high trust behavior and institutions if one desires a high trust society, and the economic productivity of the anglo-german sphere.

Conversely, and much more importantly, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY by policy and will rather than culture and incentive. Free riding is the primary problem of economic and social development and why the nuclear family is so important (if fragile.) If people see free-riding, then they will punish it. If free riding is pervasive, people will STOP over-contributing.

I cannot really tell if Krugman understands the importance of the high trust ethic, or if his ghetto ethics, hatred of white europeans, and his fascination with states and trade simply serve blind him to it.

But given his obvious joy at expressing ridicule, and his facility with intentionally OBSCURING the moral and necessary constraint of free riding, with the status signals obtained from using charity as a means of conspicuous consumption, I would say that Krugman is nothing more than one more exceptionally verbally talented man, using loaded and obscurant language, as a means of conducting MacDonald’s insight into the damaging nature of

Each expression of Krugman’s rhetorical glee, is a status perk he obtains, demonstrating both his conspicuous consumption, and therefore his status, while at the same time destroying the western high trust society by encouraging, in every way possible, free riding, rent seeking.

If Noam Chomsky is the high priest, then Paul Krugman is the parliamentary head of the “Culture Of Critique” that, by use of obscurant language, is a systemic means of conducting intentional fraud: it is ‘the prestige’ in the verbal sleight of hand; the gesture that hides the true action: **Obtaining status by demonstrating conspicuous consumption using other people’s money, to increase free riding and rent seeking, in order to destroy the high trust society – which is the FIRST CAUSE OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE.**

Once the speaker is possessed of status, then the ‘virtuously destructive’ cycle is complete. He has free reign to use that status, obtained by fraud and theft, to continue and expand his theft.

Understood in this light, we see both the legitimacy of Paul Krugman’s insight into interstate trade, and the moral criminality of his rhetoric as an expression of the ongoing damage of the Cultural of Critique to western civilization and the high trust society.

One can use verbal intelligence to articulate the truth. Or one can use verbal intelligence to construct obscurant language that by ‘the prestige’ – the award of status – under the rubric of care-taking, by encouraging people and policy makers to do just the opposite of what they intend: to destroy their high trust society by facilitating in every way possible the rent seeking and free riding that make the high trust society possible.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Note: I’ll improve this argument a bit. This is my first draft. But I’ve pretty much got the idea down. And I think I’ve united finally, Popper and Praxeology through operational language, fixing both of them. I am not sure how successful that I will be with the argument that obscurant (unscientific, non-operational) language is required for moral speech, because operational language places a high barrier for knowledge on any speaker. But if one makes public speech, about public matters, he is offering a product to the market, and is bound by warrantee.


A people must consist as an extended, outbred family. The philosophy (religion) of these people must be fairly homogenous. The men must be armed such that the government must fear the people.

The source of freedom is not democracy, it is the militia. Democracy is precisely the opposite of freedom. It is incompatible with freedom. Democracy is a means of enacting free riding and rent seeking.



Eliminate the state sponsored corporation.

A corporation is a partnership whose members are insured by a monopoly insurer insulated from competition: the state.

All associations are, and only can be, partnerships.

Restore right of suit for any and all involuntary transfers, outside of morally sanctioned competition, against any and all individuals within the partnership and their agents.

Require insurance bonds be purchased by the partnership.

Require all employees be bonded if they communicate with or act on behalf of, customers.

(The incentives will favor truth telling and allocate money and status to truth-tellers.)

Stock certificates shall not represent ownership, but a purchase of contractual rights to dividends that are guaranteed by the assets in the event of liquidation or sale. Control then shall not be democratic, but contractual.



Another social science academic concludes that there is little there there.

Writing in 1942, the Oxford Professor of Metaphysics, RG Collingwood, said that dismissing academic discussion for insignificant speech is like “scolding little girls for giving dolls’ tea-parties with empty cups and little boys for playing with wooden swords.” Academic discussions, he added, “belong to the world of make-believe.”

Collingwood was specifically talking about my field, political philosophy, as it is done in universities. Reflecting on his words over the last year, I’ve begun to realise how right he was.

–Craig Newmark, Newmark’s Door.

The fallacy of common interest.

The fallacy of common ends.

The necessity of common means of achieving opposing interests and ends.

The enlightenment vision of man was false. It is not mysterious that deliberation over public choice is nonsense, if it is predicated on nonsensical assumptions about the nature of man.

The market, noy politics, is the only mechanism for cooperating peacefully on means despite conflicting and irreconcilable ends.



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