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


(minor criticism of the myth of the rational voter)

People do vote rationally. Its rational to vote morally even at high personal cost.

I dont have time to refute the part Kaplan got wrong. But it should be obvious that he got it wrong.

The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism.

The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism.

Any group that votes immorally will be exterminated by groups that vote morally.

That is why the anglo world is dying: its immoral (reproductively destructive).


The mathematical order of big data? Property.

1) Humans (life) is acquisitive.
2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things.
3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire.
4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions.
5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer)
6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under.
6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it.

(I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.)



Turns out he’s mostly wrong. Only chance of future funding streams, is to abandon parasitic ethics. Rothbard’s critique of the state is priceless, and his history is almost as good. But his choice to try to base liberty on the ethics of the ghetto, rather than the ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian polity did the movement more damage than all his other works did good. It’s non-logical, it’s ahistorical, and it’s a demonstrated failure.

Walter is the most popular justifier of parasitic ethics in the world. And I have learned a great deal from him. But , it turns out that like rothbard, he’s just wrong. The ghetto was a state within a state, acted like a state. And rothbard’s ethics are those of exchange between states, not polities. The irony of that statement is palpable.


I suppose I can’t say this enough,

Crusoe ethics aren’t ethical at all. They’re another form of obscurantist fraud that white people seem to just soak up like every other form of pseudoscience: Marxism, Socialism, Freudianism, Feminism, Cantor’s infinities, and Postmodernism.
but Crusoe economics is useful for the analysis of economics between states, but is entirely useless for the deduction of the properties of a social order.

It should be obvious by now that Crusoe’s island is an analogy to the medieval ghetto, of a state within a state. The sea constructs the borders and walls of the ghetto.

Crusoe ethics aren’t ethical at all.

They’re another form of obscurantist fraud that white people seem to just soak up like every other form of pseudoscience: Marxism, Socialism, Freudianism, Feminism, Cantor’s infinities, and Postmodernism.

Only white people can be this stupid.


Ghetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto.

As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group.

However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority.

In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly.

In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population.

The underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even.

Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.



Well, I can’t quite do that without a whole book. But I think some people are beginning to understand the whole package I’ve put together, and why I’m criticizing feminism, postmodernism, ghetto libertarianism, left libertarianism, and even to some degree, conservatism: because the moral codes of all these groups advocate are predicated on assumptions about the nature of man, our common interests, and our economy, that are a mix of agrarian, industrial, and marxist thought dependent upon assumptions about our equality of reproductive value , equality of reproductive organization, our equality of value in organizing and participating in production, and organizing and participating in the production of norms that facilitate production at low transaction costs.

All advancement of productivity and therefore wealth in civilization requires advancement in institutions that assist in creating ‘calculability’: the means by which we cooperate in a division of labor while suppressing the ability for anyone in that division of labor to conduct free riding.

…we must also compensate people outside of the production process for their diligence, labor, and construction of the normative commons that makes an elaborate division of labor in a high trust, low transaction cost society possible.

Outside of our direct perception, which is very limited, we can only know anything else about the world if it is calculable – and therefore reducible to analogy to experience. Otherwise we cannot sense or perceive it. And we are notoriously bad in our perceptions without instrumentation and calculation to assist us in judging even the most trivial of things.

Prices for example are calculable. Our imagination of people’s lives in different parts of the world is not. The evidence that someone is wiling to trade with us, is proof that we have calculated the use of resources and time correctly. Just as their failure to do so tells us we have wasted them – or consumed them as entertainment. Science is a discipline entirely devoted to using instrumentation to sense what we cannot, then reduce it to analogy to experience, where we can use our limited faculties of deduction by employing our various fascinating tools of logic to ensure that what we sense is both internally consistent and externally correspondent.

So whether we are talking about science, technology, production, money and accounting, cooperation or law, we are still talking about various forms of instrumentation that assist us in performing calculations on what we are not able to perform without relying upon those tools.

Now, because productivity was so important in the past, we assumed that our relative equality of value in production, organizing production, reproduction, organizing reproduction, investigation and discovery, were all the same, and we limited our concept of moral life to attempting to create universal rules and incentives for each of us to follow.

But that turns out to not make any sense. Because one must have the incentive to follow rules. And if we are marginally different in what we value, and in what we NEED to value as reproductive organisms; and we very clearly demonstrate that we are different, then the incentives that we have are quite different. And if the incentives are quite different we must construct alternative means, other than a MONOPOLY definition of human morality, that provides the incentives for us to act with common interests, despite the fact that we have uncommon interests.

That is the job of institutions. The market allows us to cooperate on means even if we cannot cooperate on ends. But the market assumes that the primary value we each provide is our productivity in the market. (Which was true during the formation of market towns, and when human labor was necessary for production.)

However, if we take into consideration, that in fact, only some of us have value in organizing production, only some others have value in participating in production, and still others only have value in organizing the norms such that production is possible, then we are all simply participating in a division of knowledge and labor. And therefore the rewards of production would be earned by those who prefer and are able to engage in production. But we must also compensate people outside of the production process for their diligence, labor, and construction of the normative commons that makes an elaborate division of labor in a high trust, low transaction cost society possible.

As such these people who are outside of the production process, but who facilitate the creation of the high trust society by suppressing free riding in all its forms: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, and statist behavior, therefore must be paid for their services (or not paid if they fail to deliver them.)

Furthermore, every individual who eschews criminal, immoral, unethical, conspiratorial, (statist) behavior, pays a cost with every opportunity he forgoes. Respect for property rights is costly for each individual. Every time an individual suppresses another’s ability to conduct free riding on others: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial (statist), it is a cost to him. To ask someone to obey these rules which facilitate the voluntary organization of low transaction cost hight trust society, when they are unable to participate in production or the fruits of it, is to ask them to conduct security guard work, and to exert restraint without compensation. Producers are nothing without consumers. Producers must compete for the attention of consumers. The more successful producers gain greater rewards, which in current civilization means little more than greater status signals and associations with others who likewise possess greater status signals, for more successfully satisfying the wants of consumers.

This argument is entirely consistent with property rights theory.

I will get to the criterion for compensation in one of my next posts.

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