Property rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan.

All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer).

Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code.

The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor.

So while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father.

This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite.

So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society?

I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.


—”American might allowed the advocates of international law to live in an imaginary world in which their doctrines actually matter. And now that they have finally succeeded in tearing down American strength and ushering in a post-American world, their own world will end.

International law is a Potemkin village. A hollow facade upheld by the might of the United States. A post-American world means the end of international law.”—


You know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning.

I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights.

See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that?

Because it’s true.

You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights, from those who would deny them.


Pacifist (peasant and merchant) libertarianism is analogous to begging at the foot of the state, trying to get PERMISSION to enjoy some liberty.

Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism actively denies others the possibility of infringing upon liberty by the constant threat of violence.

Or put in Propertarian terms, whining, whimpering, pleading, chastising and justifying are just excuses to do nothing to advance liberty and feel good about it, or relying upon ‘faith’ while waiting to get liberty at a discount, rather than pay the high cost of denying others access to your property. It’s just christian ‘waiting for the savior’ in secular language.

We aren’t doing anything. The only reason it looks like we’ve moved the needle at all, is because everyone else is failing so badly – both the Cathedral and the Enlightenment are collapsing under the weight of democracy.

The source of liberty is the organized application of violence by every living should that desires it. And liberty is only earned by those willing to use violence to deny others the ability to infringe upon our liberty.

The cause of moral intuition is the prohibition on free riding: cheating, and trying to get something at a discount at other’s expense.

Pacifist libertarianism IS IMMORAL by that standard.

For millennia one gained property rights by fighting for them or committing to fight for them. That is the only means of possessing property rights – by obtaining them in exchange from others who are willing to fight for them.

Everyone else is a free-rider. If they possess liberty. It is only because those willing to use violence to deny others access to property give it to them.

That is a DESCRIPTIVE ethic. Rather than all the Continental nonsense that libertarians rely upon by taking cues from the obscurantism of the Marxists.



Most philosophical debate degenerates to a recursive discourse on norms.

That’s because human beings really enjoy the ease of introspection, and the self reinforcing reward of moral intuitionism.

But if Propertarianism is correct, and I am pretty certain that it is, then moral truths can be expressed as purely rational arguments, and introspection merely tells you about your own reproductive strategy, class strategy, culture strategy, and cognitive biases.

That means an end to moral intuitionism.

Propertarianism allows us to produce a formal logic of ethics and morality, that denies us our cognitive biases and rational limitations.

And that is why we need formal logics.



The first question of politics (cooperation) is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?

If we cooperate for mutual gain then I agree not to kill you and take your stuff.

If you want to conduct a positive trade with me I will not kill you and take your stuff.

If you try to blackmail me or cheat me or my friends and allies, then I will kill you and take your stuff.

It is only rational not to kill you and take your stuff if you engage in mutually beneficial exchange.

You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and violence.

The logic of cooperation is ternary, not binary.

It is only binary when I’m in the ghetto and the monarchy leaves us alone as long as we don’t engage in violence.

The monarchy cannot trust either of us to tell the truth, so the monarchy limits its definition of crime to violence, while tolerating unethical and immoral behavior.

But that is not a voluntary society. That is a ghetto within a monarchy. Just like Crusoe’s island is a ghetto bounded by the violence of the sea.

But aristocracy, which possesses a WEALTH OF VIOLENCE is always in the proposition that voluntary exchange must be more rewarding than the application of violence, and that subjecting one’s self to criminal, immoral and unethical and conspiratorial is simply, always, and everywhere, unnecessary.

So for the weak, the choice is between cooperation and non-cooperation, the choice for the aristocracy is between cooperation, non-cooperation, and violence – whichever is more rewarding.

Rothbardians are engaged in a complex, obscurantist logical fallacy. Rothbardian anarcho capitalist ethics are PLAGUED with logical fallacies.

It is, like Marxism, a rich and varied set of logical fallacies. But logical fallacies none the less.

We don’t need the state. However, property rights as defined OR the NAP, are insufficient for the rational adoption of a voluntary society governed only by the rule of law, under the common law.


So is liberty defined by voluntary exchange?

Or is liberty defined by suppressing all in-group involuntary transfer?

I’ll help you: it’s the latter.

Just like the Golden and Silver Rules, these two propositions lead to vastly different conclusions and their application leads to vastly different societies.

The gnostics were right about ‘Jehova’ and I’m right about ‘Rothbardianism’.

You couldn’t invent a better way to destroy liberty than a pseudoscience that encouraged passionate devotion to a false theory as a distraction from a scientific answer to a true theory.

“You oughtta’ think on that a bit” before you repeat one more rothbardian falsehood as a prayer for liberty.

Rothbardian ethics are immoral and parasitic, and the NAP is immoral, unethical and socially destructive.

If there is a hell, Jehova is laughing at you every time you quote the NAP.


Imperialism is defensive when cooperation is structurally impossible.

But if cooperation is possible it is preferable.

Even then the goal is merely institutional development so that cooperation is possible.

Imperialism like violence is an amoral question.

Extraction is not. Predation is not. Parasitism is not.

There is a vast difference between teaching people reading, writing, arithmetic, accounting, property rights, and the common law, so that you can cooperate with them rather than either conquer or displace them, or parasitically using them. And since parasitism is a way of life in primitive cultures -which is why they are primitive – it is a very long and difficult lesson to teach them.

I don’t like imperialism. I don’t like empires at all. I do like cooperative production and trade.

Respect for others’ property today will mean others may at least attempt to respect your property tomorrow.

So I would have to separate cooperative imperialism from parasitic imperialism.

I just have no idea as yet how to guarantee the implementation of it except as containment and habituated exchange.


(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.

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


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)

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