Aristocracy and Higher Tribalism (Instead of Democracy and Infighting.)

Aristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production.

I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology.

And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will.

All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.

Cultural Variants of Truth and the Consequences

Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission)
Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things.
Truth and Duty are two different things.
Truth and Knowledge are two different things.

Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world)
Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism)
Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans)
Truth as Science – Universalism. (english)

That members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.

That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.

Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost.

The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***.

If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools.

Small things in large numbers have vast consequences.

When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction.

But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence.

And the consequences are astounding.

Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence.

I have solved the problem you know.

It’s ethics.


From: Ayelam Valentine Agaliba:

The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***

This is a most penetrating line. It has vast political implications. Do you know what? I believe that you can better Samuel Huntington. Replace his Hegelianism with your program and what you have is a far more rigorous/descriptive explanation.

From: Curt Doolittle

(^^^Thank you for all the help you have been to me. Love you man.)

From: Frank Lovell
I’d add or say:

Where there are NO humans, truth rules; where there ARE humans, ethics rules, without which truth and knowledge of truth matter not.

20th Century Philosophers Were Seeking Power, Not Truth

Operationalism constructs rigid correspondence, eliminates the problem of imprecise language, even non-existent language, by creating names for operations rather than allegories, normative usage, or worst of all, relying upon names of experiences rather than the actions that cause them.

It has become increasingly frustrating, if not dismissive, to read the philosophical arguments of the 20th century, which seek to find truth in language through a variant of set operations – which of course, must be nothing more than circular. When the answer was just sitting there for everyone to pick up and run with.

But It was apparently much better to seek truth as a means of persuasion of others, rather than to seek truth as a means of testing the content of one’s testimony. And I think the psychologists and intellectual historians could spend a lot of time analyzing that particular bit of 20th century mysticism. Or perhaps pseudoscience. Or more graciously ‘error’.

What vanity, or error would lead a body of people to seek authority rather than duty?

I hope the depth of that question comes across.

We all seek power. But the truth is just as likely to impede our ambitions as assist in them. But the academy, sought to take power from the church. Moral power. Reason and Science were the first blow. Darwin was the second. The Universalist State the third. It was all in pursuit of power.

Philosophers of the 20th century, knowingly or not, were seeking power, not truth.

Completing the Transformation of Man?

I want to talk about the experience of the mind, under economics, science and operationalism, versus under language, logic and math under platonism. But I don’t know the words to use. There is a very great similarity between language, logic, math, mysticism and religion, that is not extant in economics, science, and operationalism. Now, I sort of ‘get’ it. But I can’t quite figure out how to talk about it. One of the problems is that under internally consistent mythos (declarative inventions) we call axiomatic systems, and objective reality (externally correspondent descriptions (descriptive statements) we call theoretical systems, is that there is some strange appearance of the infinite in axiomatic (mythical) systems that does not exist in theoretical (descriptive) systems. And I can’t quite put my finger on it. But I think Operationalism cures it. Maybe that is one of the metaphysical consequences of studying science and economics? Does it cure our native imaginary mysticism? Usually by writing something like this I can touch what is on the tip of my tongue. And I’m failing. But I know it’s something like this: when we describe an axiomatic system, it is unbounded by reality’s limits. I even know why it is so – the limit of the number of concepts we can run at one time. I know that we are often ‘awed’ by what should not awe us but be obvious: that whenever we stipulate models or axioms we construct all possible consequences in that utterance, even though we cannot ‘imagine’ all such possible consequences. Our imagination takes license to create ‘the imaginary reality’ out of what was merely a computationally larger set of consequences than our feeble minds can process. What bit of cognitive bias and psychology makes us attracted to the imaginary? Is it another garden of eden? An intellectual space where we are unbounded by reality for just a moment? I think so. I think it evokes the feeling of the undiscovered valley full of new resources and prey. It’s a cognitive bias. An evolutionary instinct. And another instinct or cognitive bias that is no longer useful in our current state. Does science train us out of it? I think so. We still have people, and I think we try to create people, who obtain their awe from scientific, or in the case of TED viewers, pseudoscientific, rather than imaginary exploration? But without operationalism the ‘conversion’ of scientific man is incomplete. Maybe that is what the 20th century represented? The last throws of mysticism? Our attempt to hold onto the imaginary garden of eden where we are unburdened by reality? Is that fascination in the 20th century a reaction to the vast increases in scale that affected all of our lives? Is it a distraction from alienation, disempowerment, the loss of our traditions, and the desperate need to feel we could regain previous sense of control and certainty. Is our job to complete the transformation? To abandon our last mysteries? So that we can RESTORE OUR CIVIL SOCIETY and once again eliminate our alienation? The central problem of modernity?

“Consensus, Intent, Taboo and Sacred” VS “Incentives and Institutions” : Another Inequality.


(very good piece)

We humans are usually much happier once we figure out that “consensus and intent” are possible only for small groups, and beyond that scale we must construct protocols (processes) and incentives (information) via institutions (formal institutions) such that it is unnecessary for individuals to constantly exist in conflict between incentives for self interest and the goals of the organization and the polity.

There are certain “taboos and sacredness” that it is possible to instill pedagogically. But the more rational and educated the human the less taboos can be used to restrain him from making exceptions that he can justify by his reason. The lower the intelligence of individuals, the more they rely upon intuition, upon the information that they obtain from others, and upon intuitions of ‘sacred and taboo’. So the more educated the populace, the more complex the division of knowledge and labor, the more necessary are incentives and institutions and the lower value there is to “consensus, intent, sacredness and taboo”.

We require formal institutions. The pricing system is our most important formal information system. It tells us everything we need to know about our condition related to that of others, and tells us what we we should be doing to serve others whether we want to do it, or can do it, or not. It is our most important information system. Morality and ethics captured in the law prohibits a spectrum of “free riding” (the violation of the contract for logical participation in cooperation) from the criminal, to the ethical, to the conspiratorial, to the moral. We are left to our own devices to prevent conquest. Army, Religion and Credit are our most common defenses.

The failure of the sentimental, lesser mind, is not to grasp this basic spectrum whereby humans are materially unequal in their abilities an there frames of reference, and therefore in their means of action. The lower you are on the scale, the more consensus, intent, taboo, and sacred, and the more you depend upon others for knowledge necessary for action. The higher you are on the scale the more you depend on reason, incentives, justification, institutions and abstract information to make your decisions independently of those who rely upon their peers.

This pattern means that the exceptional people are always trying to outwit the less, and therefore, invent new economic means which those below them adopt and later benefit from. We tend to think only in terms of technology and consumption, and not behavior as technology. But rational innovations can easily be adopted by repetition and habituation and from that we develop the sacred and the taboo.

As such the rational and scientific solution to the problem of creating commons is, as the british did, privatization of administration of the commons so that institutions and rules and incentives can suffice where consensus, intent, taboo and sacred cannot.

The enlightenment error is everywhere. We are not equal. We are not similar, and that is why we form a division of knowledge and labor. We cannot ask each other to operate by the same consensus, intent, taboo and sacredness. Because we unequally make use of peers versus non-peer, abstract, information.

The conservatives say this in moral language that is so arational it is impossible to disassemble. But they have made sacred this set of ideas. And that is how they function.

The Importance of Truth – The Consequence of Colonialism

It turns out that honesty (truth) is the most important political institution, because it permits people to trust, which in turn permits risk taking, which in turn permits capital accumulation, which in turn produces economic velocity, which in turn produces prosperity. You might not think it matters so much, but of all the institutions humans have invented, creating an incentive to tell the truth is perhaps the hardest one. And while we in the west, particularly the anglo-germanic west, take it for granted that telling the truth is ‘good’ in some sort of civic or spiritual way, the fact of the matter is that the rest of the world, outside of christendom, not only does not think that way but does not feel that way either.

Truth is a ‘universalist’ good. Only westerners are more universalist than familial or tribalist. We are the only people to have done it. We stomp around the world with our suicidal universalism promoted as a spiritual good, rather than contract and rule of law that hold us accountable for trades. It is quite possible to construct enforceable contracts as long as the language facilitates it,and by using an alternative language if not, and from the habit of rule of law, property rights, and enforceable contracts, an upper commercial class will form from the wealth generated by using them. Others, seeking entry into the commercial class and its resulting wealth, will adopt the behavior, and this becomes an upper class norm that people must demonstrate in order to participate in economic prosperity, and failure to participate in that norm will leave one in poverty.

Our civilization evolved truth telling first, because of our tactics in war. But most civilizations must have a reason to evolve property, truth telling, and therefore trust.

But just because a civilization evolves a normative technology, does not mean that the institutions that perpetuate that technology cannot be spread. They can. Anything that enforces a norm, can be used to instill a norm.

The technology to export around the world was (a) title registry – ie property rights. (b) contract law (c) trial by randomly selected jury (d) juridical (law) universities, with extraordinary performance requirements rather than recitation. One can use recitation of facts with those who already understand the norms, but one cannot instill facts dependent upon norms that do not exist.

For these reasons, democracy was damaging to societies. One can administer a territory in whatever way necessary for the production and service of the commons. And a leader can certainly seek rents this way, and not be threatened by commercial activity. But the means by which one conducts commerce via property law has nothing to do with that, and as such, there is no need for property rights and law to be part of the government – instead property law constructs the institutional means of cooperating within society itself, independent of government. Government need do nothing about it, except not to interfere.

Judges resolve disputes based upon property rights. Advocacy is for the church. Administration of the commons for the government. Mixing the three functions Commerce, Culture and Commons is a recent mistake even in our western cultures – the church, law and state must be independent creatures to keep each other from excessive rents.

We really screwed up the world. We gave them science, accounting, medicine and law, and the moral charter to service the population. But we also gave them democracy, which is dangerous luxury good. And we did not give them the means of producing the common law, which is the first NECESSARY good.

Passive Voice Allows For The Victimism Exploit

(insightful)(first application of operationalism)

West Point forbids its cadets to use the passive voice. It’s an excellent practice. In the strict sense we forbid the passive voice in English and it makes for much more solid communication than in French where the passive voice acceptable. Inverted sentences in the passive voice drive me nuts as they seem nothing more than the exclamation of a noun that the speaker modifies with adjectives and participles, which he, in turn, further modifies with adverbs.

I think also that the passive voice makes for a cultural vulnerability that socialism and the ‘victimism’ exploit. If you are a people to whom things happen (passive voice), are you not more likely to allow a nebulous 3rd party (the State) act on you? If, on the other hand, you are a nation that makes things happens (active voice), are you not more likely to oppose the usurpation/negation of your liberties?”– Don Finnegan

Active Voice, E-Prime, and Operational Language place increasing demands on the speaker such that his words cannot contain obscurantisms.

(Germans were wrong. English is better for philosophy. lol)

Aristocracy : A Kinship of Property Rights

A kinship of property rights.
The initiatic brotherhood of warriors.
The cult of egalitarian sovereignty
The origins of western exceptionalism.
The only possible means of possessing liberty.

The solution to the problem of creating extra-familial trust, is achieved by the extension of property rights, in exchange for the reciprocal guarantee of defending each other’s property.

I didn’t invent it. I just wrote it down. For the first time in 4000 years.

(And it wasn’t easy either.)

Is Statism More Utilitarian Than Aristocracy?

FROM : Roman Skaskiw
QUESTION: Been reading Fukuyama — Seems state structures replaced kinship-Aristocratic ones b/c states were better at coordinating violence and meritocracy (first in war, then in bureaucracy).

He uses the end of the Chou Dynasty in China to illustrate this.

1. Do you agree with this assessment? 2. Do you think modern technology and understanding could overcome these disadvantages if we reverted to some form of aristocratic kinship?

Yes. Because they had insufficient property rights.
Yes, Because they had a low trust society.

The monarchies did not have this problem. Nor could they build such great edifices of war. I think, whether Fukukuyama admits it, where all other historians do, the purpose of the Chinese system was the conduct of war and suppression.

By contrast, the purpose of the western model is ADJUDICATION. One cannot had adjudication without property rights. One must have tyranny. One cannot have adjudication without property rights, one must have tyranny.

Command and control under the western model is superior. Rates of innovation under the western modal are superior. The fact that the Chinese got started first, is not much testimony. The fact that no matter what Europe did, when it used science, it exceeded rates of development of all other civilizations. Property rights and science. They are both ‘CALCULABLE’ institutions.

The west, under duress kept the “east” (desert and steppe people) at bay.
The east, under duress, kept the “west ” (desert and steppe people) at bay.
We just chose different models, and the desert and steppe people are still a (fkng) problem to this day.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine

Manufacturing Liberty

(Guest Post by Eli Harman: )

Asking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation (if they’re strong) is asking them to bear a substantial opportunity cost. They will only do so if someone stands ready to impose a higher actual cost for choosing to engage in them.

This is what Curt Doolittle means when he says “liberty must be manufactured by violence.”

Libertarians love to sing liberty’s praises, and there is much to be said in its favor. But it does not follow from this that liberty is always in everyone’s best interests. There are many people who stand to lose more from liberty than they would stand to gain. (And not just because they misperceive the situation.) There are still more people for whom the uncertainty over what they would stand to gain or lose would make desiring liberty irrational.

The incentives that favor liberty do not exist by default, they must be proactively created. And in order for this to happen there must be people likely to benefit from liberty, strong people, capable people, wise people, intelligent people, responsible people, farsighted people; in short, aristocrats. And they must organize to impose liberty on the remainder by force, and in many cases, to their detriment, or to their enduring resentment.

If liberty is thus to be manufactured, the problem of free-riding must also be overcome by institutional forms that deny the benefits of liberty to those unwilling to participate in its manufacture, and that preserves the benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of those so willing.