Can The Truth Be A Commons? 


—“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—

Let me state this clearly:

“The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.”

1) How does truth telling exist?

The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law.

2) How does truth exist?

I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative.

So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons.

That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed.

3) So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall.

There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


Language, Like Genes and Traditions….

The Good, the useless and the bad.

—“But my experience is that language, like traditions, and genes, grows to contain useful, useless, and damaging content.”— Curt

Source: Curt Doolittle


Operationalism is a Means of Falsification

 A criticism from Bruce, on my failure to make clear that Operationalism is a means of conducting a test of falsification.

–“This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-sacs.”— Bruce Caithness


1) Operationalism is an attempt at falsification. Just as in math, if we can construct a statement through operations then it is existentially possible. Just as in economics, if we can reduce an economic statement to a sequence of rationally executable decisions. Just as in science, if we can reduce a test to a repeatable sequence of operations, and if we can reduce our measures to those that are possible then the test is existentially possible, assuming determinism in the universe and therefore the constancy of that which we measure (without which no science ,and no theory, can be possible).

If I conduct tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, repeatability, full accounting, parsimony (limits), existential possibility, objective morality (voluntary transfer), then I have laundered imaginary content from my statements. This is what science consists in: identifying existential information and eliminating imaginary information.

If I have performed the due diligence to launder by speech of imaginary information, then I speak as truthfully as is possible. I may indeed speak the most parsimonious testimony possible (the truth) or I may not – a matter of error at one end of the possibilities, or of imprecision at the other end.

I can warranty that I have performed that due diligence by stating that I speak truthfully: I give testimony in public, as to the truthfulness of my speech.


2) One can speak truthfully, and warranty that one speaks truthfully. If one speaks in e-prime (specifying means of existence), and in operational definitions (rather than experiences), it is extremely difficult to articulate an idea that still contains imaginary content.


3) Rather than “leading to cul-de-sac’s” I suspect that this is the completion (or repair) of the critical rationalist research program and the most important invention in philosophy since the failure of that program.

Just is what it is. I just did a good yeoman’s labor. But between explanatory power, and parsimony it’s a pretty powerful theoretical structure, and it’s pretty hard to defeat it.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Q&A: “Is The Soul Property?”

Q&A: “Curt, What do you say about soul? And its relation to property?” – Mahmoud B.

Your indisputable Property is that which you act to obtain without forcing involuntary transfers upon others. Meaning: without {violence,theft, fraud, suggestion, obscurantism, omission, indirection (externality), free riding, socializing losses and privatizing commons, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest, and genocide.}

  • You may act to construct your life.
  • You may act to construct your kin.
  • You may act to construct cooperative relations.
  • You may act to construct your reputation.
  • You may act to construct private property
  • You may act to construct common physical property.
  • You may act to construct normative property (by forging opportunity)
  • You may act to construct institutional property (by bearing costs of such things as military service, jury duty, emergency services, and ‘policing’ the preservation of life and property.)

Your soul, if you believe in such things, and act as if you believe in such things, is, like reputation, something you must constantly bear costs to maintain.

As such since you have born costs for both physical and normative constructs, and have done so morally – without the imposition of costs upon others – they are by definition your property.

Now, the manner in which your soul may or may not exist is somewhat challenging, because it can only knowingly exist as an analogy: a form of anthropomorphization of the record of one’s actions recorded in memories of people, physical marks on reality, and the long term consequences of events in the physical world.

In this sense your ‘soul’ good or ill, does persist, just as the interaction of molecule of water affects all those around it. (the theory that water has memory is a useful analogy.)

So for those who wish to preserve the traditional behavior and traditional anthropomorphism in a manner that we can say may or may not be scientific, we can suggest that primitive man intuits his soul as his thoughts and actions, just as we intuit the persistence of our genes through reproduction.

To take it further, we can (and we will very likely never disprove this so it’s useful for religious folk), we can work with what is called quantum mysticism. That is, that your thoughts take place in physical space and time and affect the universe around you. So even your thoughts affect the universe.

The thing is, the concept of a soul (an accounting of your life) is a useful one. It seems to produce good outcomes.

You should not take this argument as terribly firm support for monotheism, but as a purely normative exercise in the economically beneficial results of providing an intuitive means of behavioral accounting in which individuals can resist cooperating with others on matters of ill intent under the correct presumption that the consequences of thought and action are kaleidic and infinite, and that one cannot be forced for any reason into immoral actions (those that impose costs upon others property.) Not all of us are above 125 in intelligence, and we require such analogies for both pedagogical purposes and for use by those who cannot grasp either rational or scientific arguments. The same is true for ethics. We need virtue (imitative), rule, and outcome based ethics, because we have young and simple, adult but not wise, and wise and experienced people in the world. We are unequal. As unequals we need unequal tools.

I hope this helps you. As far as I know this argument will survive all current criticism. Existentially, your soul does exist as a record of your actions in the universe, and primitive man could not articulate such ideas. If you want to get into reincarnation then I cna’t help you. Neither can the Dali Lama. He knows it’s a great argument because it is untestable.

As you may see, I am trying to provide a means of reformation to the main religions while at the same time undermining those parts of religion that are false, lies, or harmful. But I am not hostile to religion: myth and ritual. Personal religion is a good thing (having been near death at least three times myself).

I hope that this answered your question.

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


Fear of Outsiders: Against Psychologism

1) Fear of outsiders is not ‘a thing’ but a universal human reaction. Or at least it is outside of northern europeans. It is not an irrational fear. It is a rational fear. That is why humans bear the intuition. It is an instance of the disgust response.

2) The Fear of Catholics and Jews was warranted. Any student of intellectual and legal history will have trouble arguing otherwise. Prohibition was an example of the reaction to catholic immigration. Jews have had an equally negative effect in a number of areas. YOu can say in both cases that we have endured those negatives. But it is very hard to say that between the catholics and jews that rule of law persists. (you may not like it, but it is what it is.)

3) High trust society resists lower trust cultures. And we pay the price for integrating lower trust cultures with traditional families into high trust culture with absolute nuclear families. It is what it is. Trust decreases, civic participation decreases, economic velocity decreases. (and yes that’s the case, although it’s very contentious, I am pretty sure I can hold that argument against any economist living).

So it is a rational instinct (we evolved it for a reason) and a rational fear (empirically the consequences have been catastrophic since 1963). And we require both empirical and operational means of testing such statements to the contrary.

(Human perception being one of frog-boiling intertemporal incompetence.)


Will We See A Post-Religious Future?

Given that we see a decline in religiosity.

– Rationalism (rational ethics) increases as IQ increases
– Religiosity (arational ethics) increases as IQ decreases.
– Impulsivity and crime increase as IQ decreases.
– There is a positive correlation between non-criminality and religion as IQ decreases. (The whole “love” thing works really)
– All that differs in people’s behavior is the justification for their actions.
– All people justify their intuitions, they do not rationally choose moral behaviors.
– So whether we are indoctrinated into an arational, or a rational ethic is one of whether we are able to practice arational or rational justifications.
– And conversely, we require both arational and rational ethics to provide for people capable of arational and rational justification.
– Just as we require virtue (imitative), rational (rule based), and empirical (outcome based) ethics for children, adults, and elders.

Marxism, Freudianism, Socialism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Keyensian economics, Cantorian sets, Misesian economics, libertine libertarianism, neo-conservatism, are all pseudoscientific nonsense.

Much of religion is mythical and arational in content, but produces highly desirable results. The purpose of monotheism was the conduct of warfare by pre-state peoples. From iran/india (the same peoples at the time) forward that is the purpose of religion: power.

Just as the purpose of the 19th and 20th century philosophies was to produce ideologies that assisted in the seizure of political power.

So while I am happy we had a reformation. And I am happy that we had Darwin, I am unhappy that the intuitionistic and operationalist revolutions failed – and allowed pseudoscience (lies) to replace myths (allegories).

I wouldn’t be too impressed with myself by thinking the era of religion had passed. Democratic secular socialist humanism is just as nonsensical (as stated) as is any of the main religions of the earth.

Dressing the emperor in new clothes does nothing to change his identity.

I have a vision. That vision is to create the truthful society just as we created the scientific society(the anglo enlightenment), and before it the rational society (the Hellenic enlightenment).

And if we did that we would look at the pseudoscience, outright lies, and propaganda of the 20th century just as we look at the medieval period: an age of mysticism.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


It’s Either Rights of Association or Slavery

Freedom requires:
1 – Right of Entrance / Exit.
2 – Right of Association / Disassociation.
3 – Right of Trade / Boycott

If you cannot exit, determine, association and disassociation, choose whom to trade and whom to boycott, then you are a slave. Period.


Islam vs Protestant (Germanicized) Christianity

Islam is a more aggressive evolutionary strategy. In that sense it is a superior competitive strategy. That does not mean it produces a superior mankind. It mereley means it is more competitive.

1) hatred is proscribed / hatred is prohibited
2) punishment is prescribed / punishment is prohibited
3) lies are permissible / lies are not permissible
4) dual ethics / universal ethics
5) respect a given / respect earned by actions.
6) knowledge is fixed / knowledge evolves
7) intolerance is required / intolerance is prohibited
8) inbreeding is promoted / inbreeding is prohibited
9) produces low trust societies / produces high trust societies
10) produces ignorance and poverty / produces knowledge and prosperity.
(….this list goes on forever)

But, I don’t think of it as most folks do because I don’t rely on introspection. 

I just look at the epistemic properties of each body of thought and I Compare their abilities to produce a high trust society and it’s corresponding innovation and wealth.


The First Principles of Propertarian Ethics


1 – Man must acquire resources.
2 – Man must act to acquire resources.
3 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources.
4 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.
5 – Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.
6 – Man conducts parasitism by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing,  fraud by omission, externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide.
7 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


The Church Amplified Western Civilization. It Did Not Create It.

The Church federalized the Aristocracy into The Christian Monarchies. And the Church amplified our hunter-gatherer lack of aggression. But that is very different from saying that the Church created western civilization. The Church was an amplifier, not a creator. The Church did good – but it has done both damage and good. And the enlightenment failed to overcome that damage. Our generation’s objective is to overcome the failure of the enlightenment, and overcome the damage of the church, and overcome the damage of the state that cast itself as a replacement for the church.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine