People who live in tents, ride animals, and shepherd other animals, talk about beliefs. People with fixed capital, who live in castles talk about laws. There is a reason for that.

When you ask people to value something that’s an informal institution we call belief. When you tell people that property is a rule that you cannot violate, that’s a formal institution we call law.

The first is religion. The second is government.

Is your brand of liberty for goatherds living in tents (religion) that requires belief, or for engineers, builders and craftsmen, (government) that requires laws?

People who live in tents have very simple property. They need very simple laws.

Liberty in modernity isn’t for simpletons.

Try not to think like one.


Knowing is an experience. Constructing an existence, logical, or mathematical, proof is an action. We can demonstrate them. That is not to say that they are true, it is to say that they are proofs. If we have constructed proofs, we may err, but it is very hard to lie. And even if one does, err, we need not hold him accountable for his error.

Speaking truthfully, constructing a proof, and possessing the ultimate truth are very different things. I can however speak truthfully, and I can construct an existence proof, and that is the most that I can do. I can know those things even if I cannot know if I possess the truth. So what does that do for me? I doesn’t tell me anything about whether I possess the ultimate truth, but it does allow me to speak truthfully to the best of my ability – and that is all that we can ask of anyone. Because it is all that is possible for anyone.

Conversely, we must ask it of anyone who seeks to place an argument into the commons the result of which would subject others to harm.


Poincaré rejected the later foundational work of Cantor, saying that

—“There is no actual infinity, the Cantorians have forgotten that, and they have fallen into contradiction. It is true that Cantorism rendered services, but that was when it was applied to a real problem whose terms were clearly defined, and we could walk safely. Logisticians as Cantorians have forgotten. (Poincaré 1908: 212–213; 1913b: 484)”—


Are Criticism and Critique nothing but justifications for people who cannot invent? Isn’t that what the record of history tells us?


Damn. Yes. That’s the answer: Control. Power. Without contribution. Control without contribution.

From James Santagata
I wish C&C were only used as justifications for those who cannot invent. But it’s actually used as a weapon, as a compliance technique to force a “validation seeking / approval seeking” frame onto those who do create…By accepting this frame, the creator actually gives up his power to those who cannot create. So what is the most societally beneficial manner to critique? How about this one: “Critique by creating.” – Michelangelo

From Karl Brooks
In a scenario where the critic intends destruction of the invention, AND the critic has gained superior standing, so he is able to not only condemn but even to vandalize with impunity: What are the inventor’s options besides attempts at negotiating from weakness against an implacable foe?

    1. He can marshal advocates who have equal standing with the critic who are willing to recognize and champion the invention as beneficial to everyone, including the critic.

    2. He can marshal advocates from within his (weaker) standing to directly attack the critic.

    3. He can capitulate, allowing his invention to be destroyed, perhaps with the hope that many others will miss his invention enough to dethrone the critic.

    4. He can capitulate and contribute only inventions that meet with the critic’s approval, adopting a fatalist attitude towards lost benefits.

    5. He can capitulate and cease to invent within the critic’s view, operating underground for like minded people.

    6. He can cease altogether.

I suggest the first option.

Option 0: he can take a fraud to court for fraud. This reduces transaction costs for prosecution, and increases transaction costs of misrepresentation.


If one had to be insured to issue public speech (sort of like homeowners insurance – everyone had it) then we would rapidly evolve classes in making public speech, which would demonstrate how to witness (truth telling). (Heinlein suggested something of this order.) Now some speech advocates theft, and some does not. Some purports to convey truths, and some does not. This is essentially restoring the greek discipline of rhetoric in an age where media replicates faster than greek era human voices could quell. This is also much closer to anglo saxon law. Why is it that I an produce a ladder that subjects people to harm and am accountable, but if I advocate a political policy that causes millions of deaths, I am not accountable?

(as usual, I am suggesting a common law (property rights), universal standing, and private insurance based solution to regulation, with fairly high confidence that the public, insurers and producers will seek practical means of solving problems without authoritarian intervention.)


With private property rights, universal standing, the common (polycentric) law, shareholder dividends (what we think of as direct redistribution, but is constructed as a dividend), what policy is there for us to advocate? If we can’t justify stealing from one another by force of law then what can we try to do, without majority rule?

Well, a lot of commons, a lot of contracts, but no thefts. Propertarianism leads us to contractual government. We separate the law, from our contracts. Our law remains constant but we construct voluntary contracts for whatever we need to. Contracts expire, have terms and conditions, and laws do not.


Well, I guess I’m not done. Macdonald and Duchesne explain what happened, who did it, and how they did it, even why they did it.

But neither of them explain why we were vulnerable to it, other than we are less group-ish than other peoples with higher trust, (probably because of outbreeding.)

So our outbreeding created trust, which allowed us to be invaded by people who were not honest, did not practice trust, practiced parasitism,

In other words, is an aggressive parasitic people more successful than a high trust outbred productive people?



The reason you are conquered is that you are weak enough to be. Why are you weak enough to be conquered? Fix what is wrong with your civilization, rather than criticize your attacker. Understand why you are weak enough to be attacked.

We failed because we are altruistic. Not entirely, but more than anyone else.

Our high trust has a down side. And we just experienced a century of it.


Now, let us say in scenario (a) you observe a traffic accident. In scenario (b) you are standing outside of a building and hear noises inside. In scenario (c) you report on a stress test you performed. In scenario (d) you propose a theory of the behavior of a set of gasses under pressure. In scenario (e) you propose a solution the explanation of a particular trade cycle.

Giving witness in these cases, and in all cases, requires giving a sequential record of OBSERVATIONS, containing the information observed, without the addition of imaginary and hypothetical content.

Now, why is it that we rely upon all sorts of physical **instrumentation**, to extend our perception, improve our memory, reduce that which we cannot perceive to an analogy to experience which is open to perception and **comparison**? Why is it that we rely upon all sorts of conceptual **instrumentation** to test our own thoughts and perceptions: experience, reason, math, and logic? Because our memories are reconstructed from fragments every time, and because it is extremely difficult for us to compartmentalize memories – our minds evolved to do just the opposite, which is why we can construct generalizations of similar phenomenon much better than we can (like chimps) remember past events.

So truthful testimony is recitation of observation of differences which we call measures in terms which if repeated wold lead to the same conclusion.

In other words, the operationalists in all fields failed, (Poincaré being first, Brouwer, Bridgman, Mises being the first in each specialty) for the same reason that I am having a bit of difficulty making this very important point: that we do not know if you speak the truth, and you do not know if you speak the truth, if you cannot convey your argument as an extant (real and possible) construction of physical and mental operations, producing changes (or not) in state according to independent scales (measures), which if repeated would produce the same result.

Meaning: that operationalism is a MORAL AND ETHICAL constraint. And the assumption of moral and ethical conduct in fields of inquiry rapidly expanding beyond human scale, was an artifact of the past. Poincare, Brouwer, Bridgman and Mises were all trying to express in necessary terms that which was ethical and moral. Like ‘free speech’ at human scale (where the cost of speaking and publishing are high) the threat only emerged when the population involved and the problems involved expanded such that ‘honor’ (threat of outcast) was not sufficient a moral boundary. The same is true for political speech in mass market period after 1870, and accelerated with radio, television, and the internet: honor has no operational meaning because there is no peer group to ostracize anyone using norms. Instead, at scale, just as we require laws at scale, and the market at scale, or we require relativity at scale when the speed of light matters to the calculation versus the instantaneous perceptions we make use of at Newtonian scale, our political institutions, and moral and ethical institutions, lagged behind our technological means of publishing falsehoods.

We educated folk with our high mindedness (smart people bias) argue that the market corrects the truth over time. But this isn’t demonstrably true – and we have a lot of data to prove it. That is because negative information and lies spread faster than positive information and truths. The reason is that negative information that we can cheat with spreads faster than positive information that prevents us from cheating. It is much more expensive and lower incentive to produce truths and falsehoods because they are cheaper to construct and distribute faster. So just as in the market for goods and services, we see market failure, in the market for truth and fallacy we see market failure. People in both the market for goods and services and the market for truth and fallacy, commit fraud for personal gain.

The small scale response, the human scale response (solution), is to rely upon an authority to set rules. The catallatic response (solution) is to define the conceptual commons as a community property, to which all of us are owners, and allow all individuals to bring suit against what we believe to be fraud.

This does not require people who bear witness to speak the truth, which as we know from both popper and our examples above, is impossible, because causal density in all observations is a long exhausting chain. But it requires that we bear good witness. We cannot be held accountable for err if we bear true witness.

If I have a sport camera and record an accident, that does not mean it is ‘true’ in the sense that all the causal information is present. It means that I can bear witness with it.

And, that is speaking truthfully.

(ALSO: I think it might be obvious now how theorizing can be intentionally performed as a means of distorting the truth, and furthermore for the purpose of outright lying. We cannot assume that the scientist much less the ordinary man, and certainly less, those who seek power to alter the state of affairs by other than market means, are honest. This is a fallacy that is embedded in the act of argument: we assume the other person is honest. Because in history, the only reason not to stick a pointy metal object into someone, is when, like family members, they are honest with you. )

Now, I try to refrain from throwing out my theory until I can support it pretty thoroughly. But at this point, it should be pretty clear from the above paragraphs that I have pretty much put the problem of the 20th century to bed.

I didn’t realize the severity of impact that the cosmopolitans had on western civilization precisely because we did not understand the uniqueness of our truth-telling culture, or that we assume aristocratic truth from others, and that those who sought status in our culture also had to demonstrate aristocratic truth.

But one can blame one’s aggressors (germans, french, jews) or one can blame one’s self (anglos) for failing to look into the mirror and solve the problem.

I solved the problem. Too late maybe. But I solved it.


Misesian / Rothbardian / Hoppeian attempt to capture the credibility of classical liberal Austrianism by means of Cosmopolitan critique. Instead, it was just another pseudoscientific attack on western civilization. Just like Marx, Freud, Frankfurt, and Postmoderns: a sustained attack on the ethic of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. And we were fooled into thinking that it was from just the socialist direction. It wasn’t. It was from the socialists, the libertarians, and the neocons. From every angle of the political spectrum

We have been fighting the wrong battle. There are no answers there.

Time to fight for civilization.

For a return to truth, merit, honor.


Curt Doolittle

(Not to discredit hoppe’s solution to institutions, and his criticism of democracy. )

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