Propertarianism’s High Barrier to Entry is a “Good”

One of the problems that plagues both Neo-Reaction and Libertinism(Rothbardian Cosmopolitan libertarianism), is the lack of formal logic (building proofs: criticisms) means both disciplines attract lunatics. And there isn’t any defense against it.

I had always considered Propertarianism’s rather challenging learning curve as a negative. But in light of what I’ve seen, it’s actually a positive. Either you can construct a Propertarian argument or you can’t. If you can’t, well, then you don’t have anything to say.

I Want The Churches.  All of Them.

Churches are our monuments. Monuments claim territory.
I want the churches: Arsenal. Banking and Credit. Education. Training.
It sounds nuts. But it’s brilliant really.

(h/t: Aaron Kahland )

Fukuyama Didn’t Understand

The Chinese developed their bureaucracy precisely because they FAILED to solve the problem of politics.

The west solved it. We just didn’t know it.


Licenses as Warranty Because of the Failure of the Academy.

We have Series 7 license for investment.
We have the MD for medicine.
We have the RN for medicine
We have the Bar for law.
We have the CPA for accounting

Why not an equivalent for lending?
Why not an equivalent for handling money in any capacity (all employees)?
Why not the same for speech-for-fee? (journalism)

After all, the academy makes no warranty.  We require these licenses precisely BECAUSE the academy makes no warranty.

The Libertarian solution is private insurance. But losing your ticket is insurance enough. Insurance creates perverse incentives also.

Defending Murray : Even Scott Sumner is the Victim of Selective Temporal ‘Mathiness’.



Murray, like most conservatives, is studying, and conveying observations about our change in NORMATIVE capital, not income or consumption.

Deviation from northern european traditional norms is a luxury good ( the absolute nuclear family, delayed marriage, delayed reproduction, high investment parenting, the manorial/protestant work ethic, hight trust from homogeneity, truth-telling/testimony ).


(a)While you haven’t read the book, the fact that you, who are one of our very best (IMHO), immediately assume the mainstream bias that income (an easily visible measure) is somehow meaningful rather than merely a justification of priors – and it provides a more valuable insight into the ‘mathiness’ of mainstream economics, than murray’s book does about the destruction of the family as the central unit of inter-temporal reproduction and temporal production that was in no small part, caused by that mainstream bias and ‘mathiness’.

(b) No economic hypothesis can be ‘true’ in the sense that it is descriptively complete, and therefore free of error, bias, and deception, if we fail to account for the full spectrum of costs in the full spectrum of time frames. That is after all, the only measure of costs: opportunity costs. So solving for income or consumption demonstrates a selection bias, under the assumption that all negative externalities are less ‘bad’ than the ‘good’ produced by observable increases in income and consumption.

In other words, if we stack all possible forms of capital by the length of the production cycle and it’s corresponding consumption or decay, then what is the net change?

The conservative mind is biased to the long term, to saving, to risk, and to disgust. It is a reproductive strategy – a very masculine one perhaps – and the absolute nuclear family is central to it. And it was a very expensive reproductive strategy to develop – which is why was unique.

He does not make the leap (not being an economist) to the extremely damaging suggestion that we move people to capital (a heavy industrial era bias) and it’s destruction of the family and its impact upon norms, instead of moving capital to people (a post-heaving-industrial economy) in order to preserve and expand normative capital.

America’s dirty secret is that pervasive consumption is an insufficient reward for loneliness and isolation. Americans are heavily drug dependent for the sole reason that they are the most lonely and isolated peoples on earth, for whom the media is a poor substitute for friends and family. The absolute nuclear family is necessary, perhaps, but it can only persist within a civic society. The civic society is a product of the absolute nuclear family. It cannot exist otherwise.

So what is the cost of the destruction of the family in pursuit of income and consumption?

What will be the cost of 40% of american women on anti-depressants?

Mathiness is most visible in the selection bias demonstrated by measuring temporally differential income rather than inter-temporarily differential consumption. But that is not the most important effect of quantitative pseudoscience: it is the destruction of long term capital in favor of short term consumption and the placement of faith in technology to rescue us from the consequences of it.

So, it is not so trivial a question as you suppose.

It’s an illustration of everything that is wrong with modern macro’s mathniess.

It’s not the use of math. It’s measuring in favor of bias.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

The Institutions of Nomocracy (Rule of Law)

The People : A partnership of reciprocal insurance including every living soul in the polity.
The Militia : Defense and Emergency Services
The Military : Defense, Strategy, Offense.
The Judiciary : The Common Organic Law
The Houses of the Commons : Production of Commons
The Treasury (The corporation that manages shares of stock as money)
The Academy : Education
The Monarchy : A family whose head has veto over the houses of the Commons.

Source: Curt Doolittle

Libertarian: Aristocratic Egalitarian Nomocratic Classical Liberal

ARISTOCRATIC (rule by best) EGALITARIAN (open to all)  NOMOCRACTIC (rule of law) CLASSICAL LIBERAL (divisions into houses representing classes ) AND THEREFORE LIBERTARIAN (an advocate for institutional liberty..

My point in writing this is that I’m not a ‘white nationalist’. I’m a universal nationalist. A higher-tribalist. An advocate for truth, science, and nomocracy; for the market production of commons.

What does that mean?

It means that we can choose a spectrum between a corporations resulting in castes, or nations (extended families) resulting in aristocracy. But we will never achieve equality. It’s impossible because we are too vastly unequal to one another in value to one another (capability).

It is our lower classes that cannot merge. Our aristocracies are, and must be global. But bringing our lower classes – reliant on one another – to capital, and particularly to normative and institutional capital, is suicidal.

Our differences are expressed by our lower classes. our similarities by our upper classes.

Yet our upper classes can only obtain status (and status can only be widely manufactured by positive (non consumptive) means, if there are many nations, with many aristocrats. Aristocracy gains its status signals from raising its people from one state and one distribution to another state and another distribution. Otherwise they are just parasites on their own people.

So I advocate universal aristocracy. Universal tribalism. Universal familialism. And as such I am an anti-corporatist in both private and public institutions.

To no small degree, I view the emphasis on signaling via consumption and the offloading of underclasses to more developed nations, as a total abdication of aristocratic responsibility for the parental development of their civilizations.

Source: Curt Doolittle

Propertarianism for New Friends: One Bite at a Time. 

Libertarianism is an intellectual, empirical and analytic movement, and conservatism is a sentimental, moral, and analogistic movement.

The difference in the language of the movements has partly to do with the production cycles that conservatives (human capital and norms) and libertarians (economic production) each emphasize. We use arguments that reflect the temporal bias of our political and reproductive preferences.

Which is why I argue that political exchanges between conservatives(warriors/long term risk abatement), libertarians(investors/medium term production), and progressives (mothers/short-term consumption) are necessary in order to make use of the perceptive and cognitive differences of the division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor. Each of us is temporally spectrum biased (and in the case of progressives: spectrum blind.)

Propertarianism suggests that innovation in anglo classical liberal institutions and law are necessary under total enfranchisement – both as a means of dividing power(negative), AND to make use of all available information (positive).

There is no reason that we cannot create a market for commons just as we create a market for private consumption in goods and services. There is no reason except the existing monopoly government that the socialists put into place as a means of destroying our division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor.

So, that is the central hypothesis I work from: that while we only NEED rule of law, under the one principle of non-imposition of costs, articulated in law as positive property rights, managed by an independent judiciary, decided by a jury of one’s peers – that we also prefer and possibly need, the production of commons.

And that while we are universally governed by rule law, and only law, that we can construct markets for the production of commons. And that the ‘legislature’ then is eliminated from all of politics. No law can be created, only discovered. And that the government need only concern itself with governance of the production and maintenance of commons.

This is, I believe, the next evolution of classical liberalism, and the means of eliminating majority tyranny, and perhaps all tyranny.

Anarchy is not the answer, and we were merely useful idiots for libertine anarchists as we were for neo-conservatives, socialists and communists..


Well it means you have something to fight for, instead of something just to fight against.

It means that propertarianism is the first intellectual, analytic, scientific, fully rational means of arguing our ancient, unique, high trust / rapid growth model of civilization.

It also means though, that I tend to see sentimental expression and moralizing as a regressive and damaging means of expressing our preferences. In other words, it might feel good to express your sentiments, but it doesn’t change anything except your emotional state.

So I ask you to try to learn Propertarianism by following me and Eli Harman (Eli is much easier to understand). And I ask you to be patient because it will take one year or more to swallow the “Very, Very, Very, Big Red Pill” that is Propertarianism, one bite at a time.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

Curt Doolittle (Ukraine) – Propertarianism and Institutions.
Eli Harman (Alaska) – (How do I position Eli? Poet? New-Nietzche?)
Michael Phillip (NZ) – Philosophy of Science (Michael is a critic of unscientific thought)
Skye Stewart (Maine) – Skye pans for gold in the intellectual stream.
My site: – I sketch work here on Facebook and post the better pieces to the site a few times a month.
The Propertarian Forum
HBD_Chick’s blog on marriage patterns.
Any Alt-Right
Any Neo-Reaction.
Any Red Pill.
Any of the top 100 econ blogs.

Roman Skaskiw (My ‘Boss’ – What I should and should not be doing at any given moment)
Ayelam Valentine Agaliba (UK / Ghana) – Critical Rationalism / African Politics (Philosophy advisor to whom I am forever grateful)
Karl Brooks (has recently begun correcting for argumentative clarity and seems to ‘grok it’ all.)
Johannes Meixner (Grammar, sentence and sense editor)
Don Finnegan (my other boss, soul mate, who inspired me to take my work public)
And the dozens of others I haven’t mentioned but who help me every day. (You know who you are. smile emoticon )

I try to keep a current ‘short list’. It’s the first section at the top of the page:

I read pretty much every single economist’s blog every day, every paper at SSRN that’s relevant. And some books – although I usually limit myself to empirical works in the social sciences.


Site Update

I‘ve finally finished rebuilding the site, repairing all the damage caused by our ISP’s SAN crash last December.  The business has taken all my time over the past five months, so I couldn’t get to it earlier.

– The main menu is working again.  Meaning we’ve restored access to the videos, reading lists and contact page.
– The Glossary now renders correctly.
– The Propertarianism section (The Book) is updated to reflect our change to use of ‘Testimonialism’. (Propertarianism and Operationalism are forms of Criticism under Testimonialism.)
– Edit in place for authors and editors is now functioning – although it still ignores shortcodes when you’re logged in, unfortunately.

– Edit the Glossary to reflect what I’ve learned over the past four years. I will change a lot of it.  But it’s 100,000 words.  And that’s a lot of editing.
– Start working on the “Application” section of Propertarianism.
– Rewrite or complete the Aristocracy section.
– Heavily revise the Debate Section to reflect what I’ve learned.
– Add the Timeline
– Add Mythology Section (literature)
– Produce a few more videos this fall.



Is Propertarianism Utilitarian?

(worth repeating) ( h/t: Kyle Trotta )

Is Propertarianism Utilitarian?

First, Propertarianism consists of multiple concepts:

(a) Testimonial Truth.
(b) Testimonialism: The unification of morality, philosophy, law and science under testimonial truth.
(c) Propertarian Ethics and Politics: a universal language of ethics and politics.
(d) Testimonial Classical Liberalism: the means of constructing institutions that produce commons – (because truth and consequential trust, is the reason westerners can produce such hyper-competitive commons.)
(e) Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Western Aristocratic Group Evolutionary Strategy)

We (meaning the people who advise me) felt that lumping everything under the single term ‘Propertarianism’ was simply easier. It’s easier to understand one name than five or six. So when we say ‘Propertarianism’ in the narrowest sense, its the formal logic of ethics and politics. When we use it casually, in the broader sense, we refer to the use of that formal logic to create aristocratic egalitarian political orders.

Now, back to “Utilitarian”. When we say something is utilitarian, we mean that the decidability of moral questions is determined by the usefulness of some outcome or other, by some criteria or other.

In Propertarianism, I’ve tried to provide an AMORAL (non-moral), logically and operationally articulated, empirically derived, means of deciding moral questions: the prohibition on the imposition of costs – a prohibition that MUST exist for cooperation to remain rational.

To state this prohibition in positive terms we can say we require: “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality of the same criteria.”

We can further express this requirement in law, as both the logical origin of all law, and the formal expression of that law as property rights where the scope of property is defined as property-en-toto; where property-en-toto is defined as accumulated capital of all forms that people will demonstrably defend and retaliate against impositions upon (enumerated on, and where that capital was obtained by the same criteria.

Propertarianism then, is the legal codification of the single necessary principle of rational cooperation. With it we can create nomocracy: Rule of Law, under the one law of rational cooperation. And it applies whether we resolve interpersonal disputes, or organize to construct commons.

Propertarianism is expressible as the incremental, evolutionary suppression of parasitism (free riding) in all its forms, by the most immediate means possible: the organic, evolutionary, independent, rule of law, under the one principle (law) of anti-parasitism: the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against property-en-toto. Leaving no means of sustenance available except productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

Does Propertarianism take biological influences into account?

The answer is yes. Both in ethics and in politics.

One of the aspects I have tried to get across is that just as the market forms an information system that by way of prices provides us with information needed to serve ourselves by the service of others – to cooperate at vast scales – that our moral biases, and moral blindnesses, and rational justifications constitute a division of inter-temporal reproductive perception, cognition, negotiation, and labor.

As such, voluntary excahgen between not only males and females, but voluntary exchange between progressives(feminine bias), libertarians(production bias), and conservatives(masculine tribal bias) are the only means by which to make full use of the information perceived by all. Each inter-temporal and moral specialization must specialize to gain expertise, but compromise to with other parts of the spectrum to obtain what their bias suggests to them. As such the market for commons must be divided as were the original houses into classes, and classes into genders, to reflect the biases of the groups.

This is not to say we need representative government. It is only that no matter what means we use to make decisions on the provision of commons, whether direct, representative or economic, that monopoly decision making (majority rule) is not required, only the non-imposition of costs by the participants in the agreement and those who do not wish to participate in it. To facilitate negotiation it appears that criteria for joining one house or another is extremely useful.

Although I suggest this be a virtual house, not a physical one. We are no longer limited by space and time in our communications.

I hope this helped

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine