Lets just keep in mind that Universalist Secular Democratic Socialist Humanism, is a religion too OK? And so is postmodernism. There is precious little difference between the church and the university liberal arts department except the anthropomorphized ‘we’ of a god has been replaced with the corporate ‘we’ of the state. In practice there is zero difference between them. Universalism whether under the edict of a mythical god, or the edict of a corporate state is equally unscientific.

The W.E.I.R.D. culture is unique. And it has to be.

Because it’s suicidal.

(WEIRD: Western, Educated, Indusrial, Rich, Democratic)


(controversy warning) (reposed from original site)

I would argue that the gay community successfully suppressed the visibility of its promiscuous behavior once the chance for enfranchisement became possible.

Furthermore the leadership changed the message from a request for tolerance of public promiscuity to one in favor of equal rights, marriage and stability.

With the genetic, or at least in-utero cause of homosexuality identified, the idea of putting youth at risk disappeared – leaving only the problem of promiscuous behavior.

The purpose of boycotting is to suppress undesirable behavior in favor of beneficial norms. Marriage is one of our most unnatural states, but most beneficial norms. In fact our moral codes are dependent, first and foremost, upon our family structures – which is why different family structures cannot politically cooperate. Different family structures means different property rights and different demands for state intervention.

Since it was promiscuity that violated norms, and the general fear of further attacks on the family that mainly drove resistance, then BOYCOTTING WORKED.

That’s important to grasp. BOYCOTTING WORKED BETTER than libertarian universal particularism. WE WERE WERONG.

Conservatives are right on norms, and we are not. Cosmopolitan (rothbardian) ethics cannot compete against traditional familial ethics. They can only undermine the hight trust society and require that we return to totalitarianism.

Freedom requires homogenous ethics. Heterogeneity simply increases the necessary demand for teh state.

BOYCOTTING is a necessary device for enforcing the heterogeneity of norms that make the high trust society, and low demand for state intervention possible.

That’s just how it is.

Period. This isn’t a preference. It’s a logical necessity.


The intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules:
0) Private property
1) Voluntary Exchange
2) Symmetry and Warranty*
3) Prohibition on Externality*
4) Requirement for Value Added*
5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding.
6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains
These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution.

Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws):

7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law)
8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.)
9) The right of exclusion (ostracization).

These last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft).

High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts
These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods.

As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market
Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust.

As Such,

1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts,
2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts
3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts.

As Such, A Common Law System Can Function
Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible.

Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability
As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts.

Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE.

1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable.
2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable
3) Measurements render relations commensurable
4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable.
5) Money renders goods and services commensurable
6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable



I doubt that economics will ever evolve to be predictive, since we would adapt to any prediction. I do not doubt that economics will evolve to be almost universally descriptive. or at least sufficiently so that further inquiry won’t provide additional knowledge about mankind and human behavior.

I **DO** believe that we can construct a science of COOPERATION instead of a science of ‘economics’. I think this categorization of cooperation as economic has taken root, and it may be impossible to fix at this point. However, the study of economic activity is the use of easily recorded economic data to capture the demonstrated behavior and preferences of human beings better than any other form of test can possibly do.

But the science we are constructing through economics, cognitive science, and experimental psychology, is the the science of COOPERATION.

That science, for all intents and purposes has yielded, and will yield, only one fundamental set of principles. And that single fundamental set of principles will undoubtably be categorized as what we USED to call, “POLITICAL ECONOMY”.

Because all human cooperation requires institutions that facilitate organization of invention, production, distribution and consumption by voluntary means, while at the same time prohibiting free riding in all it’s forms: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest.

As such, the science of cooperation, including:

    a) The formal logic of human organization (reproduction/family/production)
    b) The formal logic of ethics (voluntary exchange)
    c) The formal logic of cooperation ( law, contract)
    d) The formal logic of institutions. (commons via extra-market exchange)

      The major shifts will be:

        a) the abandonment of universalism and the universalizabiltiy of morals.
        b) abandonment of majoritarianism in favor of government of exchanges.
        c) The adoption of the Austrian theory of the business cycle as preservation of the integrity of monetary information.
        d) The adoption of Propertarian constraints on political argument and action.
        d) The segmentation of economics into the study of policy across specific time spectra.
        e) Abandonment of employment as the objective of policy, and instead the emphasis on the productivity of human capital, and the development of employment into a preference for increasing one’s standard of living.
        f) Abandonment of open immigration.
        g) Adoption of Self Determination as a human right.

      I do not know if we can obtain secession without using violence. However, we can popularize and probably enforce nullification such that secession is not as necessary as it is today.

      (More to come)


–“Human cooperation is the result of three factors: the differences among men and/or the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production; the higher productivity achieved under the division of labor based on the mutual recognition of private property (the exclusive control of every man over his own body and his physical appropriations and possessions) as compared to either self-sufficient isolation or aggression, plunder and domination; and the human ability to recognize this latter fact. “– Hoppe – “NATURAL ORDER, THE STATE, AND THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM”

I‘m going to correct Hans a bit here by saying that human cooperation is the result of these properties:

    1) the differences in abilities among men.
    2) the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production.
    3) the local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor.
    4) the local structure of the family and inheritance rights.
    5) the distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons.
    6) the degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family.
    7) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting).
    8) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints.
    9) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions.
    10) The recognition of these facts. (I question whether this last one is true.)


The more work I do the more I come to see my work as converting hoppe’s Continental arguments into Anglo Empirical arguments. Just like Hoppe converted Rothbard’s Cosmopolitan arguments into more rigorous continental language.

The vast majority of people do not desire liberty – they desire only consumption. They have the numbers. They always will.

I think a few people have caught on to what I mean when I say that Hoppe got most everything right. He just didn’t get to the CAUSE of liberty. He was able to deduce all the applications of property rights, but not it’s cause.

I got to its cause. The organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms, and the grant of property rights reciprocally to those who thusly applied their violence.

Understanding the cause changes our tactic in obtaining and maintaining liberty.

You don’t appeal for it. You demand it. If your demands aren’t met you take it.

The vast majority of people do not desire liberty – they desire only consumption. They have the numbers. They always will.

Property rights are a moral conspiracy so to speak.


I love Hoppe’s speech on good and bad economics. And regardless of my criticism of deductivism (a priorism) when economics is in fact, entirely empirical (not positivist, but empirical), I agree with him that economics doesn’t have ‘flavors’ but instead either makes true, internally consistent, and externally correspondent statements, or it does not. Worse, bad economics create bad behavior and bad economic conditions.

Now, philosophy is the same. While the discipline of philosophy attracts people who prefer many different FLAVORS of philosophy, the fact is that philosophy is either GOOD or it is BAD. In the sense that it is either TRUE and correspondent with reality, and encourages us to act in correspondence with reality, or it is FALSE and does not encourage us to act in correspondence with reality.

Now since philosophy consists of suites of statements, it’s possible for some philosophies to, as sets produce mixed goods and bads. But it is also possible for philosophies to produce net bads, and net goods.

In the end analysis, we will settle on one optimum philosophy. And that philosophy will be ‘the way’ (constructivism, intuitionism) which we now refer to as ‘the scientific method’.

Not that it has much to do with science. It just arose from the discipline of science.

There is good philosophy (Philosophical Constructivist Realism, and Moral Propertarian Realism) and there is bad philosophy: everything else.


What we have learned about humans from the discipline of science is that we must always adhere to two rules, in articulating any theory, because ALL LAW is a theory, and is bound by the same constraints as scientific theory.

Revision of law, is equally a revision of theory, bound by the same constraints as all theory.

Those two rules are:
– a) Calculability and;
— b) Operational language.

In the context of law, ‘Calculability’ is a property of Empiricism (observation) that refers to the necessity that all monetary actions are made visible – and therefore there is a prohibition on pooling and laundering data through the use of aggregates. This implication is vast, and applies to all laws in all circumstances.

For example, taxes are pooled into general funds, and their use discretionary, rather than taxes (fees) are collected for the purpose of particular contracts, and when those contracts are complete the taxes (fees) expire. Cause and effect are broken. Laws are not contracts that expire. They must be. Otherwise they would be ‘incalculable’.


Lets just keep in mind that Universalist Secular Democratic Socialist Humanism, is a religion too OK? There is precious little difference between the church and the university liberal arts department except the anthropomorphized ‘we’ of a god has been replaced with the corporate ‘we’ of the state.

In practice there is zero difference between them. Universalism whether under the edict of a mythical god, or the edict of a corporate state is equally unscientific.


–“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley

Precisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion.
The origin of textual interpretation is religion.
The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’.

Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience, is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation.

It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works.

The purpose of:
1) Operational language
2) Internal Consistency
3) External Correspondence
4) Verification and Falsification
…is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason.

Operational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims.

The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body.

The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.


(in order) (political particularism) (natural aristocracy) (profound)

1) Analytic/Ratio-Empirical (Propertarian/NeoReactionary) – the people of empire – Anglo American Protestantism.

2) Continental/Rational-Historical (Hoppeian) – the landed and encircled people – German Protestantism.

3) Psychological/Religio-Moral (Classical Liberal/BHL) – The homogenous island seafaring traders – Anglo/Scottish Protestantism

4) Cosmopolitan/Pseudo-Scientific (Rothbard and Mises) – The urban ghetto. A state with in a state. Judaism.

We all bring our baggage with us. Part of that baggage is cultural. Part of it is methodological.

One of the virtues of each author’s attempt to solve the problem of political institutions in the anarchic research program, is that while each err’s according to his culture’s biases, it is much easier in retrospect to find the common properties of each author’s arguments, than it is for any one of us, in any culture, to construct those properties ex-nihilo. Science progresses by falsification. The same applies to philosophy.

Violence is an art. A high art. It is the highest art that nobility can make. Everything else is just decoration.

In each generation, we stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us. And the only way to construct an answer, appears to be to pursue it for three generations. Which we have now done – each of us in our different cultures; and each with our different intuitional and methodological baggage.

1) All four methods are very different. Ratio-empirical, Rational-historical, Religio-Moral(psychological), and Pseudo-Scientific(hermeneutic). All, including the ratio-empirical, place greater weight on the method of distribution of their arguments than on the internal consistency, external correspondence of their arguments.

2) All four method share common properties: a preference for liberty, organizing society for prosperity, meritocracy, inequality, particularism, anti-statism.

3) All four depend differently on the means of propagation and enforcement of the content: Scientific, rational, moral and pseudoscientific arguments

3) All four demonstrate one very different property: The assumption of the effectiveness of the unity of interests in relation to others. Empire, Island, Land, and Ghetto all treat ‘others’ very differently and as such place different constraints on members.


Ratio-moral arguments are the most effective means of propagating ideas because they are the most pedagogically available to the entire population. But the Ratio-scientific is the most accurate description of the causes and consequences. As such, converting the Ratio-scientific into the Religio-moral form is the most effective means of distributing a particular moral code. The problem is that it takes a great deal of time and effort on the part of many people to do that.

Pseudo-science, as we have seen both in Marxism and in Austrian and Libertarian arguments, are exceptional means of inspiring action, but these arguments generally fail.

The value of religo-moral arguments is that they also inspire action, but if they are based upon ratio-empirical evidence, the elites can continue to construct arguments for the religio-moral mass evangelists.


The problem the west faced, is that while there existed a balance of power between the aristocracy and the church, only the church wrote down their ideas. Aristocracy handed it down by generation. So while the Religio-Moral narratives exist both in our norms and our fairy tales and myths, the underlying, scientific cause and consequences were lost.

Aristocracy depends not on universalism, but voluntary enfranchisement of those who would perpetuate aristocratic property rights against usurpation by a central control. It is not a majoritarian philosophy whatsoever. Majoritarianism was added by the enlightenment as an excuse for the mercantile elite to wrest power from the landed elite.

The origin of aristocracy is to allow a small number to concentrate capital in their families, and too make use of technology to prevent usurpation of that property, or position by others.

Aristocracy is a minority proposition. It is how and why, a small number of families could, by the use of technology, organization and expertise, keep the east and its despotism at bay.

That is the source of aristocracy.It is a minority proposition and always will be. Liberty is the desire of the minority. And it is only useful for a minority. It entirely permissible for the majority to engage in socialism because it is in their interests to do so. They are NOT aristocratic, meritocratic, or superior in ability and skill.

As such the purpose of a an aristocratic minority, as it has been for possibly 7000 years, is to deny socialists and tyrannists access to their property and control of their freedoms.

Liberty cannot be obtained at a discount. It is not ‘good’ for the majority except in their role as consumers. It is good for those that desire it. And the more liberty we create the more desirable it is for those that would join us.

But the others cannot rationally join us unless we first create property by denying it to socialists and tyrannists.

The source of liberty is the organized promise and application of violence to deny others access to our property, and limits to our freedom.

Violence is an art. A high art. It is the highest art that nobility can make. Everything else is just decoration.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute

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