Curt’s Most Accessible Video Yet

This video is Curt’s most accessible video yet. It’s very exciting to see these new, conversational videos. I understand: the scope of Curt’s work is so large, encompassing all of our science, that it is very difficult to comprehend, even for smart people. I think a couple of listens through this video will pay massive dividends and help us to spread this new rational, scientific language through which we can defend Western Civilization.

 

Propertarian Podcast #003

August 28, 2016

On Monotheism, Pseudoscience and the Domestication of Man

Rik’s Questions: “I would like to better understand the idea of falsehood and deliberately non empirical acts and how these are actually affecting the genetic property of individuals. I am also interested in the concept of an alternate and competing judicial system to create a stateless private system of government.”

“Truth/Falsehood: How are we susceptible to falsehood, how does this manifest itself? What are the techniques of falsehood”

“Competing judicial systems. What would that look like?”

“Religion: How we can use religion to further the Western evolutionary strategy?”

 

00:00:00 – Intro

00:01:00 – Formulating and clarifying questions:

How are we susceptible to deception?
How do we prevent deception?
What would a fix to the problem look like?
What is the role of the Church?

00:06:00 – Separation of Law, Science and Religion vs Monotheism

Monotheism = deception/conflation + authoritarianism

00:10:00 – Propertarianism: Natural Law as the Philosophy of the West

Non-Parasitism to keep us in a productive state

00:11:40 – Q: Why are we susceptible to deception? A: Our moral biases.

Distribution of Labor in sensing the world

Division on the Genetic Level:

  • Women – Sensitive to children/reproduction means, short-term
  • Brother – Hunting partner, mid-term. Seeking production to secure mates
  • Headman – Completely defensive, long-term keep tribe competitive to preserve genetic capital

What happens with this division, what is moral depends on which position you hold in the trichotomy above.

Division along Classes and status signals

  • Underclass
  • Low class
  • Middle class
  • Upper class

00:17:00 – Rik Storey on Monotheism

00:19:00 – Use of monotheism rather than exchange between classes

Western method of market exchange between classes (government houses echanging on behalf of classes.) Trades of behaviors and rewards = production of commons.

Current state: authoritarianism by the mob.

Market makes use of all information available from all the groups comprisinng the division of labor of cognition

00:23:30 – Propertarianism = Finishing the Enlightenment

Overview of problems with French, German, Jewish, Anglo and Russian Enlightenments

Finishing the Enlightenment:

  • End Babylonian, Egyptian, Jewish (Fertile Crescent) Mysticism
  • End French Authoritarianism/Moralism: excusing the middle classes to murder and steal from the landed aristocracy (upper classes)
  • End German (continental) ‘Philosophy’ (rationalism) (writing fiction/mythology as ‘philosophy’). Germans make fantasy out of verbalism (load, frame, distort meaning). Myth/fantasy/science fiction is fine, just don’t pretend it’s philosophy.
  • End Jewish Pseudoscience
    – Freud : Authoritarian Psychology  (forced conformity)(reaction to Nietzsche)
    – Boas : (reaction to Darwin)
    – Marx : Myth of Oppression

00:27:00 – The Great Deception vs The Truth

Conflation of Law, Science, Religion, History and Myth/Literature into Monotheism vs Competition/Separation between Law, Science, Religion and Myth.

Deception

  • Hermeneutic/Jewish/Talmudic tradition of making excuses.
  • Mises: asserts a logic = a science
  • Cantor: asserts mathematical platonism = mathematical operationalism. Turms math into a pseudoscience
  • Marx: Utopian version of history (Myth of Oppression vs Truth of Domestication)

The Truth

Aryan/Teutonic/Aristocracy = Paternalism = Human Domestication

German oath = Natural Law

  1. Tell the Truth
  2. Don’t Steal
  3. Take responsibility for the commons (reciprocal insurance)

Ending these last mysticisms and pseudoscience will complete the Enlightenment.

Mysticism (religion)/Pseudoscience/Myth(Literature)/History is simply a method of communicating these rules across the division of cognition and labor. Need separate means for the genetic distribution (woman – brother – father)(trichotomy), and need separate means crossing the scale of classes (every 10 points of IQ).

Polytheism = The necessary separate mysticism for the divisions of cognition and labor. Allows for separation and competition between Law, Science, Myth (literature) and Religion.

Monotheism = Authoritarian, one-size-fits-all enforcement = conflation of Law, Science, Myth (literature) and Religion.

Howdy, I’m Butch and you are listening to the Propertarian Podcast #3 on August 8, 2016.

00:34:00 – The Unasked Question: Why didn’t we complete the Enlightenment, and instead fell prey to the Pseudosciences?

Summary: The Problem with Surpassing Human Scale

Answer: Instrumentalism (extension of the perception of truth) is hard. We surpassed human scale (reached biomechanical limits and conceptual limits), now we require instruments (technologies both machine and conceptual) to manage our affairs. These deceptions all pretend to be ‘instrumentation’ (science), but they aren’t because they contain error. This created a market for lies, demand for falsehood. What is then missing? The ability to find and eliminate error. The solution: Testimonialism (the science of falsification or elimination of error). We can complete the Enlightenment by eliminating falsehood from our Science, and writing Law according to scientific principles.

00:43:00 – How to Reduce Error (Testimonialism)(falsification).

Here Curt executes an impressive dissertation on epistemology, to show the roots of the counter to empiricism (and the necessity of instrumentalism ).

We had the Enlightenment (perception of truth) at human scale, but now the challenge is to eliminate error from our instrumentation (our science) to perceive the Universe beyond human scale.

Full explanation of Testimonialism: how we counter error at every level and dimension.

Lack of Testimonialism in Economics.

Spectrum of Truth Tests to Warranty Testimony:

0) Sensible (intuitively possible)
1) Meaningfully Expressible ( as an hypothesis )
2) Internally Consistent and Falsifiable (logically consistent – rational)
3) Externally Correspondent, and Falsifiable ( physically testable – correlative)
4) Existentially Possible (operationally construct-able/observable)
5) Voluntarily Choose-able (voluntary exchange / rational choice)
6) Market-Survivable (criticism – theory )
7) Market Irrefutable (law)
8) Irrefutable under Original Experience (Perceivable Truth)
9) Ultimately Parsimonious Description (Analytic Truth)
10) Informationally Complete and Tautologically Identical (Platonic Truth – Imaginary)

00:56:00 – How do we construct a system of Law?

Rewrite Constititution in Operational Language with Strict Construction

Restore the market for juridical defense

Any legislation must follow natural law and be strictly constructed from it as a defense.

01:02:00 – What is the role of the Church in developing a system of Natural Law?

Church has been lost to Academia, Goverment and Media.

It failed to reform. It needs a reform to incorporate the insight of Natural Law, glory of man our attempt to transcend and sit at the right hand of the Father.

01:08:00 – Revolution

Revolution: state demands (intellectual), religion (spiritual), warrors to raise cost (military movement).

Demand that people must trade rather than steal, is the moral justification for war.

01:10:00 – Is genetic homogeneity a requirement?

Kin selection is real.

High trust society.

 

Rik Storey, blogger, contributor to ProudBoy Magazine and creator of YouTube channel That Libertarian Chap.

You can follow Curt on facebook (just search for Curt Doolittle), and on Twitter @curtdoolittle, and read is writings a Propertarianism.com.

You can follow me on Twitter @PoseidonAwoke and follow my blogs PropertarianForum.wordpress.com and PoseidonAwoke.wordpress.com. Thanks for listening and I’ll leave you with one last thought from Curt:

WE ARE THE MEN OF THE WEST

We hold formation despite our fear.
We speak the truth regardless of cost.
We attack the enemy despite our injuries.
And we will not rest until they are defeated.

Hail Victory.

 

Propertarian Podcast #002

August 25, 2016

Topic: Hillary Clinton’s Alt-Right Speech, Reno Nevada

With Eli Harman @MartianHoplite

Mentions:

The Twitter hashtag #AltRightMeans

Vox Day article An actual Alt Right take

Wall Street Journal article ‘Alt-Right’ Enters the Political Limelight

 

Production Notes

Skype call recorded with TotalRecorder Pro Edition 8.6.6040 and Blackout Edition Yeti Mic by Blue on Windows 10

Windows Sound Settings
> Playback
– Sound Blaster Recon3D1 enabled (default communications device)(physically turn down volume knob on desktop speakers while recording)
– Yeti enabled (default device)
> Recording
– Enabled: Microphone Sound Blaster Recon3Di (default device)
– Enabled: Microphone Yeti (default communications device)(selected in Skype and Total Recorder below)
– Ready: What U Hear (Sound Blaster Recon 3Di)
– Disabled: Microphone Array Sound Blaster Recon 3Di

Skype Settings
Call > Audio Settings
– Mic: Yeti > Volume: Max (auto checkbox = off)
– Speakers: Yeti > Volume 90% (this controls the level of the caller)(auto checkbox = off)

Total Recorder PE Settings
– Level +3dB (141%) (upped this level to get some peaks into yellow)
– Recording wizard
> Internet Telephony
— Playback: Speakers (Yeti)(headphones plugged into Yeti jack)
— Recording Device: Mic (Yeti)
— Record in different channels = No
> Recording Format
— MP3
— Middle Quality (CBR 56kBit/s, 22 050 Hz, stereo) (2hrs 5mins = 51MB)
> Pause Reduction and Split Settins
— Pause Reduction = No
— Auto-File Creation = No (I think this should be Yes in the future. With No, I was forced to stop and save periodically. I think this setting should allow me to hit stop and the file will already be saved. This seems safer in case of computer or application crash).

Yeti Settings
– Headphone Volume = 50%
– Pattern = Cardioid (#3, looks like a butt)
– Gain = 9:30 to 10 o’clock (approx 30%)

Post Production Notes

Use Mike Cernovich’s podcast improvement tips (But now skip Treble and Bass boost)
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/04/01/how-to-build-up-your-podcast/

How to edit your podcast in Audacity

I’ve edited podcasts for hours and had everything spliced together. It does not increase listens. I now spend 10 minutes editing podcasts to improve sound quality.

Noise Removal: Don’t talk for first five second of podcast to create a noise profile. Select those 5 seconds. Get noise profile. Then remove noise. Be sure to cut out those first five seconds of your podcast.

From there, apply these simple fixes to improve your podcast audio quality in Audacity.

  • Normalize | -1 Decibel
  • Compression | Threshold -15 to -20
  • Equalization: Do a treble boost, then do a bass boost.
  • Normalize | -1 Decibel
  • Hard Limit | -4 Decibel
  • Normalize | -1 Decibel
  • Export to mp3

My Steps

Back up raw podcast to separate file with ‘RAW_ORIGINAL’ label. Then edit the other file. Do not touch raw original, save it in case it is needed later or we screw up in post production.

Open a clean Audacity window and drop in the MP3. File > Save Project As… To safe file to disk. Added music bumpers by creating new tracks and copy/pasting from first episode Audacity file.

Noise Reduction
– select (click and drag in timeline) a quiet section (second or two)
(next time follow Mike’s advice and leave 5 seconds blank at beginning of podcast to get a better sound profile)
– Effect > Noise reduction > Step 1 > Click [Get Noise Profile] then close dialog
– select entire podcast (ctrl+a)
– Effect > Noise reduction >
— Noise reduction: 12 dB
— Sensitivity: 6.00
— Frequency smoothing: 0
— Noise: reduce
— Click [OK] to process, took about a minute

Normalize #1 (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Normalize
— Checked: Remove DC Offset
— Checked: Normalize Max Amplitude = -1.0 dB
— Unchecked: Normalize Stereo
— [OK]

Compressor (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Compressor
— Threshold: -17 dB
— Noise floor: -40 dB
— Ratio = 2:1
— Attack time: 0.2 sec
— Release time: 1.0 secs
— Checked: make up gain
— Unchecked: Compress based on peaks
— [OK]

 

Normalize #2 (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Normalize
— Checked: Remove DC Offset
— Checked: Normalize Max Amplitude = -1.0 dB
— Unchecked: Normalize Stereo
— [OK]

Hard Limit (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Limiter
–> Type: Hard Limit (0,0,-4,10)
— Input Gain (mono/left): 0
— Input Gain (right): 0
— Limit to dB: -4
— Hold to ms: 10
— Apply Make-up Gain = false/No
— [OK]

Normalize #3 (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Normalize
— Checked: Remove DC Offset
— Checked: Normalize Max Amplitude = -1.0 dB
— Unchecked: Normalize Stereo
— [OK]

Last I ran an Amplify at -.6, to reduce the levels because the above filters were causing the peaks all in the red. Maybe this was not a good idea, maybe they were perfect. Will have to listen and determine.

Basic Post Production is now done. I decided to do zero edits for pops, etc. I just don’t think it’s a big deal. We’ll see if I get any feedback in that regard.

 

 

Propertarian Podcast #001

August 21, 2016

Butch’s Notes and Outline for Episode

Intro

Howdy, this is Butch and you’re listening to the Propertarian Podcast with Curt Doolittle.

Curt is an American philosopher and entrepreneur based out of Kiev, Ukraine. He is the founder of the Propertarian Institute where he works on Propertarianism.  You can follow Curt on facebook (just search for Curt Doolittle), and on Twitter @curtdoolittle, and read is writings a Propertarianism.com.

I blog at PropertarianForum.wordpress.com and PoseidonAwoke.wordpress.com, and you can follow me on Twitter @PoseidonAwoke.

Propertarianism is a huge topic, so I’ll just read a brief introduction from Welcome to the Revolution at Propertarianism.com

“Propertarianism provides the missing logic of cooperation that has caused the artificial separation between science, philosophy, and law for 2500 years.

[…]

Propertarianism is the antidote to Marxism, Pseudoscience, Postmodernism and Deceit. It is the correction and completion of the classical liberal project, which is itself an expansion of the Anglo-Saxon franchise, and in turn an expansion of the European and Indo-European project: the heroic society. Where the greatest heroism is the costly burden of truth telling and personal sovereignty.

If there is any end of history, it is not Marxist socialism, or democratic secular humanism, but the truthful society made possible by the reformation of classical liberalism to facilitate cooperation between heterogeneous peoples while prohibiting every possible means of parasitism, and demanding productive efforts in order to survive. By prohibiting all parasitism we leave only productive voluntary exchange as a means of survival.”

Topic: Civilizational Strategies

ANCIENT GROUP STRATEGIES WRIT LARGE

– FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics:outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identified.

– BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitan(Jewish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/deontological ethics:rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). It is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means.

– STEPPELANDS: Russian(Orthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a difficult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one – aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory.

– RIVERLANDS: Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper-familialism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland. Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies.

– DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as I can tell islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy becuase it’s very low cost.

– HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create sufficient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now).

CIVILIZATIONS NOT STATES
It is a mistake (always), to consider conflicts within states over local power (capital allocation), as of the same consequence as conflicts between civilizations over borders. Because the former is a kinship conflict over priorities, while the latter is a genetic conflict over group evolutionary strategies.

[Curt’s Discussion of the Topic]

***The following are random notes by Butch***

Decideability, how do you provide everyone with decideability across the organization?

Topic = Comparative GeoStrategy, so we don’t reconfirm our biases. We learn our strengths vs weakness.

Martin van Crevald, 4th Gen Warfare, Culture of War

Keegan, History of Warfare

Armstrong, Age of Transformation. Where do religions come from? (decideability, conflict avoidance) (loyalty, truth, respect assistant to Mithra)

Zoroaster opposes militaristic Indo-Europeans (fairly equal). Religion becomes the method by which you oppose. Nobility is already a warrior elite. Division: split between the raiders and those who are religious.

Iranians, Europeans, Indians (too genetic)

Desert is a good fortress, can’t create bureaucracy.

Christianity (all religion) : How to control the aristocracy.

1-3 generation of war (require states)

Takes families to pay for the capital infrastructure of warfare.

Metaphysical cycle

Prosperity means consumption today. Transcendence means evolution tomorrow.

Law, what you cannot do. Religion, celebrations, Government, commons.

Indo-Europeans turned religion from bonding to opposition to government. 1500-3500 BC.

Dark Age caused by Muslim raiding, plagues of Justinian brought over by China, byzantium.

Secular humanism is warfare on the family.

Make the world safe for rule by credit, Cosmpolitan strat; marx socialism, rothbard, neocon

Make the world safe by lie

Make the world safe for natural law.

Paternalism = Domestication = Transcendence.

Q&A

Reddit, by of_ice_and_rock, Ancient Group Evolutionary Strategies.

Outro

You can follow Curt on facebook (just search for Curt Doolittle), and on Twitter @curtdoolittle, and read is writings a Propertarianism.com.

you can follow me on Twitter @PoseidonAwoke and follow my blogs PropertarianForum.wordpress.com and PoseidonAwoke.wordpress.com. Thanks for listening and I’ll leave you with one last thought from Curt:

WE ARE THE MEN OF THE WEST

We hold formation despite our fear.
We speak the truth regardless of cost.
We attack the enemy despite our injuries.
And we will not rest until they are defeated.

Hail Victory.

 

Curt’s Process:

create list

find examples in history

show as incentives

narration (say it over and over,sketch and make communicable)

 

Production Notes

Skype call recorded with TotalRecorder Pro Edition 8.6.6040 and Blackout Edition Yeti Mic by Blue on Windows 10

Windows Sound Settings
> Playback
– Sound Blaster Recon3D1 enabled (default communications device)(physically turn down volume knob on desktop speakers while recording)
– Yeti enabled (default device)
> Recording
– Enabled: Microphone Sound Blaster Recon3Di (default device)
– Enabled: Microphone Yeti (default communications device)(selected in Skype and Total Recorder below)
– Ready: What U Hear (Sound Blaster Recon 3Di)
– Disabled: Microphone Array Sound Blaster Recon 3Di

Skype Settings
Call > Audio Settings
– Mic: Yeti > Volume: Max (auto checkbox = off)
– Speakers: Yeti > Volume 90% (this controls the level of the caller)(auto checkbox = off)

Total Recorder PE Settings
– Level +3dB (141%) (upped this level to get some peaks into yellow)
– Recording wizard
> Internet Telephony
— Playback: Speakers (Yeti)(headphones plugged into Yeti jack)
— Recording Device: Mic (Yeti)
— Record in different channels = No
> Recording Format
— MP3
— Middle Quality (CBR 56kBit/s, 22 050 Hz, stereo) (2hrs 5mins = 51MB)
> Pause Reduction and Split Settins
— Pause Reduction = No
— Auto-File Creation = No (I think this should be Yes in the future. With No, I was forced to stop and save periodically. I think this setting should allow me to hit stop and the file will already be saved. This seems safer in case of computer or application crash).

Yeti Settings
– Headphone Volume = 50%
– Pattern = Cardioid (#3, looks like a butt)
– Gain = 9:30 to 10 o’clock (approx 30%)

Post Production Notes

Use Mike Cernovich’s podcast improvement tips
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/04/01/how-to-build-up-your-podcast/

How to edit your podcast in Audacity

I’ve edited podcasts for hours and had everything spliced together. It does not increase listens. I now spend 10 minutes editing podcasts to improve sound quality.

Noise Removal: Don’t talk for first five second of podcast to create a noise profile. Select those 5 seconds. Get noise profile. Then remove noise. Be sure to cut out those first five seconds of your podcast.

From there, apply these simple fixes to improve your podcast audio quality in Audacity.

  • Normalize | -1 Decibel
  • Compression | Threshold -15 to -20
  • Equalization: Do a treble boost, then do a bass boost.
  • Normalize | -1 Decibel
  • Hard Limit | -4 Decibel
  • Normalize | -1 Decibel
  • Export to mp3

My Steps

Back up raw podcast to separate file with ‘RAW_ORIGINAL’ label. Then edit the other file. Do not touch raw original, save it in case it is needed later or we screw up in post production.

Open a clean Audacity window and drop in the MP3.

Noise Reduction
– select (click and drag in timeline) a quiet section (second or two)
(next time follow Mike’s advice and leave 5 seconds blank at beginning of podcast to get a better sound profile)
– Effect > Noise reduction > Step 1 > Click [Get Noise Profile] then close dialog
– select entire podcast (ctrl+a)
– Effect > Noise reduction >
— Noise reduction: 12 dB
— Sensitivity: 6.00
— Frequency smoothing: 0
— Noise: reduce
— Click [OK] to process, took about a minute

Normalize #1 (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Normalize
— Checked: Remove DC Offset
— Checked: Normalize Max Amplitude = -1.0 dB
— Unchecked: Normalize Stereo
— [OK]

Compressor (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Compressor
— Threshold: -17 dB
— Noise floor: -40 dB
— Ratio = 2:1
— Attack time: 0.2 sec
— Release time: 1.0 secs
— Checked: make up gain
— Unchecked: Compress based on peaks
— [OK]

Equalization: Treble Boost (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Equalization
— Selected: Draw Curves
–> Select Curve: Treble Boost
— Length of filter: 50%
— [OK]

Equalization: Bass Boost (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Equalization
— Selected: Draw Curves
–> Select Curve: Bass Boost
— Length of filter: 50%
— [OK]

Normalize #2 (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Normalize
— Checked: Remove DC Offset
— Checked: Normalize Max Amplitude = -1.0 dB
— Unchecked: Normalize Stereo
— [OK]

Hard Limit (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Limiter
–> Type: Hard Limit (0,0,-4,10)
— Input Gain (mono/left): 0
— Input Gain (right): 0
— Limit to dB: -4
— Hold to ms: 10
— Apply Make-up Gain = false/No
— [OK]

Normalize #3 (entire file still selected)
– Effect > Normalize
— Checked: Remove DC Offset
— Checked: Normalize Max Amplitude = -1.0 dB
— Unchecked: Normalize Stereo
— [OK]

File > Save Project As… To safe file to disk. Perhaps I should have done this before running all the filters above.

Basic Post Production is now done. Now edit for content, remove bad spots, pops, etc.

Fix P-Pops

Created an EQ Filter curve called Fix P-Pops 1. Select pops and apply that curve in Effect Equalization. The curve zeros out everything under 100, then curves up to 400, then curves down from 1600 (1.6 KHz) to put 10KHz at zero. (looks like a mound)

I went around fixing pops and clicks for a while, then I quickly became bored of this. Ok, so there are pos and clicks? So what? Ain’t nobody got time fo dis. Most of the pops are on my side and clicks are on Curts. I just need a better pop filter on my side. Currently, I am using a thin gym sock. I think I’ll try a thicker, softer sock next. (Will have to see what the wife has available😀 ).

Post Production Thoughts

  1. Save project first
  2. Do editing first, fix pops, clicks, remove unnecessary/bad sections THEN run the filters.
  3. Not so much bass boos as above. My voice is a little too deep and it muddies me up too much. Curt and Mike Cernovich speak in higher tones so the bass boost applied is fine for them, but too much for me. (at least I’m guessing it’s the bass boost.)

Technologies of Cooperation

Curt Doolittle

August 7 at 1:54pm ·

AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES
Literal Scripture -> Static Rules (traditional)
Ethical Principles -> General Rules (rational)
Common law -> Evolutionary (empirical)

But you can only produce a common law if you argue to truthfulness (testimony), natural law( empirically), and objectively (truth as sacred).And only warriors evolved the technique of martial epistemology and the initiatic brotherhood of soldiers into testimony, jury, judge, thang/Senate, common empirical law, contractualism.

The fertile crescent could not accomplish that same evolution as could not the other river civilizations – because the capital was concentrated in authorities in order to organize the labor necessary for irrigation – whereas the european plain was wet and temperate allowing for both family farming, manorialism, and pastoral domestication of cattle and horses.

Geographic military and production strategies were deterministic. Whatever order was in place during the age of transformation (Karen Armstrong / Emmanuel Todd / Marija Gimbutas) is the order we still hold today.

Literal Scripture -> Static Rules (traditional)

Asiatic despotism has a static character to it. This provides long term stability: the duration of the Chinese dynasties are legendary. But this strategy has a tradeoff: slow innovation. Innovation is slowed because individual liberty to produce is restricted. This slows change in the society and provides stability, but stability is by its nature static.
We can look at Asiatic despotism and the stability/stasis that characterizes it, as literal scripture. This is also the function of monotheism and a belief in literal scripture.  As a side-note, the Muslims seem to have a system of literal scripture which leads to internal stability and external conflict: Dar al-Islam vs Dar al-Harb. But even among Muslims, notice that their internal culture remains very static, as it is modeled after the life of a single man 1,500 years ago. This is merely a strategy, which has its costs and benefits.

Rock, Paper, Scissors and Fascism

So, these are the rules of the Rock-Paper-Scissors of Fascism  (Liberty/Market, Fascism/War, Law/Culture):

War smashes Markets
Culture obviates War
Markets dissolve Culture

or, using the other set of words provided by Curt

Fascism smashes Liberty
Law obviates Fascism
Liberty undermines Law

The static strategy of literal scripture the strategy of: War Smashes Markets, aka Fascism Smashes Liberty, aka Authority Smashes Liberty. This is the strategy of Tradition.

The strategy of the West has been quick adaptation to reality. We have been winning these last thousand years because we can change and adapt faster. The cost of fast adaptation (provided by liberty: individual choice in the means of production) is instability in the culture. This is the strategy of Markets dissolve Culture, aka Liberty undermines Law.

Fast innovation requires fast adaptation of law to changes created by that innovation. Innovation creates new opportunities for parasitism. Liberty = non-parasitism, so innovation (resulting from liberty) actually produces the very parasitism which destroys that liberty (because the increase in parasitism creates an increased demand for authority to stop the parasitism). In this way, Liberty is self-limiting, there is a feedback loop through which Liberty creates the demand for the Authority/Fascism/War which returns stability.

A Quick Example of the Liberty > Innovation > Parasitism > Authority Feedback Loop

Consider media and language, for example. Humans are biomachines whose brains are coded by genes to release hormones which guide behavior that benefits that genetic interest (as it is understood at the time by the human). We are susceptible to story-tellers, who weave tales which when imagined release feel-good chemicals in our brains. Language was developed to help us to negotiate with one another, not to tell the truth. This innovation created an opportunity for story tellers, who could tell us stories based on truth or stories based on lies (parasitism). In the West, Authority captured this innovation and attempted to limit it to myths which were beneficial and instituted in the Church. In this way stability was restored.

Innovations in media (Gutenburg’s printing press) wrested control of narrative from the Church and distributed it (Protestantism). Eventually, the press overwhelmed authority. With the advent of radio, then movies, those who controlled narrative and story-telling came to rule the world. We currently live in an Age of Lies, as foreseen by Orwell. Each lie is parasitism, and this parasitism is the direct result of innovation, which is creating a massive demand for Authority to end the current set of lies (Political Correctness, Globalism, Multiculturalism).

Once authority is demanded and provided, then the society reaches a stasis, a cooling period where rules are absorbed into culture and law.

Breaking out of Static / Authority Mode: Ethical Principles and Common Law

There are two (or three) ways to break out of the static authoritarian mode: evolve the culture to bar the parasitism that authority is barring, or evolve law to bar the parasitism that authority is barring (or a combination, makes three). If authority is lifted before the parasitism is barred, then the parasitism will simply create conflict which creates the demand for authority.

These two paths are from Curt’s quote above:

  • Ethical Principles -> General Rules (rational)
  • Common law -> Evolutionary (empirical)

I found this post enlightening in this regard:

Curt Doolittle

23 hrs ·

0) Current innovators talk in group evolutionary strategies
1) Intelligent people talk in institutions and incentives.
2) Educated idiots talk in laws and rights.
3) Well meaning fools talk in should’s and morals
4) Idiots talk in meanings and contradictions
5) animals express emotions of acceptance and rejection.
The path of “Ethical Principles -> General Rules (rational)” is #2 above: Laws and Rights. These are merely models in the mind with no empirical content. They seem intelligent and require intelligence to manipulate, but there is a deeper hidden error: lack of relation back to nature (empirical content). These models may work for a time, but the problem with this is that ideas much reach their logical conclusions. Consider the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Was there ever a phrase lacking in empirical content more than ‘all men are created equal’? In what way are any two men equal? Only in the imagination of men could this be true, in some abstract Platonic sense, which in no way relates back to what we empirically find in nature. This is the problem of speaking in ‘laws and rights’: that we now live in a world where this concept of ‘equality’ is reaching its logical (and disastrous) conclusions in Western Civilization. Why couldn’t they have simply stated that our continued cooperation depends on the eradication of parasitism in all its forms?

So, for a time, we might be able to rely on Ethical Principles which are rational but lack empirical content. The problem is that the solution is temporary. The West developed another necessary innovation in this regard, the second path to break out of authoritarian stasis: common law.

In short, common law is discovered law. It is natural law, which is simply law. Civil law is executive law, law by fiat, in effect it is no different than authoritarian dictate written on a piece of paper. Common law are discoveries of parasitism and their solutions. As a new parasitism arises, the problem is brought before the judicial system, which makes a determination of parasitism and the proper redress. Common law evolves in lockstep with each new innovation in parasitism. It is an evolutionary legal system fit for evolving strategies of parasitism. Parasitism disrupts cooperation. Common law restores cooperation. This is #1 above: institutions and incentives. Common law is the institution which restores the incentive to cooperate.

However, the common law solution is the most difficult. Why? Because it hinges on truth. We cannot make rational decisions to restore cooperation without the necessary input of information: truth and truthful testimony. Here we reach the root: #0 from above: group evolutionary strategies. Truth and truthful testimony is the group evolutionary strategy of the West. Through truth we can implement common law, through common law we can maintain cooperation and innovation in an equilibrium. Through balanced cooperation and innovation, we can out-compete all other groups on the planet because we adapt faster than they do.

The linchpin of the competitiveness of our group evolutionary strategy and of the continuation of Western Civilization is truth. Truth is enough.

Q&A: Creating Property Rights

Asked by Butch:

Is it impossible to create a Libertarian order of ‘property rights’ with private courts and enforcement? Or is it simply cheaper to centralize the rents into a central organization, which is why we don’t see the private courts, arbitrators, etc. that libertarians think can replace the state?

Curt responds:

1) Let’s contrast Crusoe’s Island, where the sea forms a fortress around his territory, and the distance poses an unbearable cost of crossing… with reality: the North Black Sea steppe, and the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean in the center of the fertile crescent.

What is the cost of developing the institution of private property on Crusoe’s island versus on the horse-plain, or the alluvial plain?

The cost of suppression is much higher everywhere OTHER than where it is already subsidized by a major power: in this case, the sea. (or in eastern Europe or the European ghetto: one of the major powers.)

Meanwhile, we have outgroup members who are conquering, enslaving, killing, raping, pillaging, robbing, and if for some reason they can obtain the technology or numbers to do so AND there is conflict that they feel needs resolution.

Now, given that in consanguineous bands, the only private property you do not have to share is that which is un-sharable, and up until we have farming, tools, territory, and therefore inheritance, we really own most things collectively because attempts at privatization are seen as ‘greed’.

So at the low end, we have to pay the high cost of suppressing local and even familial rents, so that property can be placed in utilitarian hands willing and able to put it to productive use.

Above that, we must suppress crime in its various forms: violence, murder, theft, fraud — all of which inhibit cooperation.

Above that, in the middle we have to suppress local ‘rulers’ and gangster’s ‘rents’.

And above that, we must suppress external forces and organizations from attempting to take the territory and order it differently from how we are choosing to order it.

So whether we choose the false narrative of Crusoe’s island and do not see the costs, or we choose the empirical examples of the different regional territories and civilizations and we do see the costs, is one of whether we want to honestly expose or dishonestly obscure the high costs of creating that condition of liberty that we reduce to “property rights”.

The incentive to restore the ‘natural’ order of parasitism, from the ‘unnatural order’ of productivity, is always with us in every culture. Because man is a rational creature, and chooses what is rational — and parasitism is rational.

2) Once we centralize costs and use them to suppress local costs, we can then begin to suppress central corruption (rents) by outsourcing and thereby creating competition.

We can eliminate the need for monopoly production of commons through assent, and can instead create the opportunity for a market of commons prohibited only by dissent (law).

But the costs of maintaining this vast apparatus of suppression of rents at every level, and conquest and predation at the top and bottom remain the same: huge. (Which the puritans understood but the libertarians do not).

3) But either true = true, and moral = moral, and therefore natural law = law, or we will devolve the society.

So as far as I can tell we require a monopoly judiciary at the top, a monopoly king to resolve matters not decidable by other means, and a monopoly natural law for which all decidability stands.

To say otherwise is to say one wants to obtain benefits without paying for them (parasite), or that one wants to extract parasitism from others by circumventing natural law.


Butch’s Notes

Short Answer

The short answer is “No, a Libertarian order of property rights with private courts and enforcement is not possible”.

The reasoning provided above is that unless a monopoly judiciary exists, then there is an opportunity to extract rents (parasitize) on the judicial process. Basically, as in low trust societies, the legal system is up for sale to the highest bidder. A monopoly judiciary is a central requirement to sustaining a regime of ‘property rights’.

Island Privilege

The above post essentially explains ‘island privilege’: the sea subsidizes high trust because it prevents parasitism and predation from neighboring tribes. ‘Property rights’ is a high trust normative commons (shared behavior). In order to create ‘property rights’, parasitism must be incrementally suppressed (hence Curt Doolittle’s Incremental Suppression Service) and Curt lists the increments of parasitism:

  1. local: friends and family (see nuclear family, empty nesters)
  2. local: community members (violence, murder, theft, fraud, etc.)
  3. middle: local rulers/gangsters (justice for hire, libertarian ‘arbitration services’)
  4. highest: external forces/groups (tribal conquest)

Those living on islands are insulated from the highest level of parasitism (it is suppressed by the sea), so in effect, the process of building high trust is subsidized by the sea.

See: bonobos, a gynocentric group which lives south of the Zaire river, protected from invasion by chimpanzees.

See: galapagos islands, many creatures almost completely devoid of fight or flight response thanks to being protected from all large predators by the sea.

Property Rights and Liberty

Property rights and liberty are essentially different views on the same phenomenon. Liberty is an order where individuals are allowed to choose their own means of production. Without property rights, then division of labor is not necessary, therefore liberty is not necessary.


Related Post

“NONE OF US IS A POLITICAL ISLAND.”

—“I’ve heard many say they don’t believe the government should create and enforce laws that require certain actions be taken, such as for personal safety, general public safety, and reduction in personal injuries and resulting lawsuits, etc….I’m not going to say every Libertarian is like this, but I’ve heard this kind of thinking from such adherents a few times. I personally don’t agree with political ideals that treat each person as a practical island. A diverse, highly interconnected and fluid society cannot function that way, and I think it would probably end up being economically inefficient and unhealthy, ethical considerations aside. Of course, Libertarianism is more complex than that one issue, but it’s one that I disagree with in particular”— Athena (From Quora)

That’s right Athena. None of us is an island. Even Crusoe got to his via boat.😉

Unfortunately, there are foolish people in every political philosophy. Libertarianism is not immune, any more than is progressivism or conservatism is immune.

Unfortunately, once ignorant, socially incompetent, intellectual adolescents here the term “non-aggression principle” they apply this ideological hammer to everything that looks vaguely like a nail; the same way progressives use equality, diversity, and racism; and the same way that conservatives use meritocracy.

All three points on the political triangle advocate their priorities over those of the other two. Progressives advocate nurture, caretaking, and prevention of harm and all but ignore social capital and liberty. Conservatives advocate the accumulation of social and behavioral capital equally with liberty and caretaking. And libertarians advocate liberty at the expense of caretaking and social capital.

Libertarians place higher moral weight on liberty than the other groups do. And as such, their political preferences take on the name that represents that preference: Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is an evolutionary extension of Classical Liberalism. Classical Liberalism is likewise a revision of Greek Political philosophy. Both of which are the result of unique european preference for sovereignty (aristocracy).

Unlike all other world political traditions, which attempt to concentrate and manage the limits of power. Classical liberal institutions rely upon the balance of powers and consent among those powers. This reflects the european ancient prohibition on monopoly of political power. The prohibition against tyranny.

Chieftains, Kings, Presidents are judges and administrators, empowered to resolve and prevent conflicts by the ascent of their peers (other nobles – which should be translated as ‘business owners’ because that’s what farmers and craftsmen who are heads of families are).

The libertarian intellectual research program seeks to totally eliminate the coercive power of government, while at the same time providing the institutional, organizational, and procedural means by which people can cooperate and prosper, without the bureaucracy, corruption, self interest that results from monopoly bureaucracy and political representation.

Now, Rothbardian Libertarianism, which copies the ethics of the Jewish ghetto, advocates Anarchy – no government at all, calls itself ‘Libertarianism’ in a linguistic attempt to claim the they are the sole proponents of the preference for liberty. A fact which frustrates the other ‘libertarian’ factions, who are more intellectually honest.

While Classical Liberal libertarians may prefer something between… “Private Government” that resembles Lichtenstein, the small germanic states prior to German unification, or most clearly, the English model of layers of private government we call constitutional monarchy, but which is merely a continuation of ancient anglo saxon methods of government.

So, continuing the tradition that makes use of the separation of powers and the prohibition on bureaucracy and professional politicians, libertarians divide the functions of government into different institutions.

Technically speaking there is only one necessary institution of government: The common law. All other political institutions are not necessary, put preferences. Some libertarians would prefer to limit government to this one function, and other libertarians would like to make use of all of the functions I list below.

NECESSARY INSTITUTIONS
(1) Law: judges (courts) which adjudicate differences (conflicts) based upon just one universal law of private property and the common law, and naturally evolve the common law as was historically practiced by judges. Under this common law, everyone has universal ‘standing’ so members of corporations, politicians and bureaucrats who are today insulated from law suits by a requirement for ‘standing’ would not be, nor would those special privileges for government employees exist. Instead, people who care could control companies and other organizations both with market pressure AND with legal pressure.

*The conflict over the definition of property.*
Now some libertarians (the ones that most likely seem immoral (because they are), suggest that the definition of property is that which we can both verify by our own senses: our bodies and the stuff we know we own: IVP (Intersubjectively verifiable property). These are the people that obsess over the term NAP (the non-aggression-principle).

While the NAP and IVP (NAP/IVP) are sufficient criteria for ethical relations between states, the NAP/IVP limits you to prohibitions on theft and violence. But this leaves open all the unethical and immoral behavior that all societies prohibit of their members.

So for all intents and purposes, NAP/IVP legally institutionalizes permission for immoral and unethical behavior like scams and every other possible means of deception and criminal behavior. ie: it’s the ethics of the ghetto.

The rest of us who are NOT observers of the NAP/IVP and therefore not members of the ever-present vocal minority of Rothbardian ghetto-libertarians, have been trying to distance ourselves from these ‘thin libertarians’, or ‘immoral-tarians’ or as the conservatives call them ‘aspie-tarians’, who are busy advocating Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics.

The movements that distance themselves from such are called ‘thick’ libertarians who intuit, feel, think, believe, or what have you, that the NAP/IVP Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics are insufficient criteria for the formation of a polity whose members possess liberty.

Some of these people are banded together into the “Bleeding Heart Libertarians”. The BHL’s do not have a plan. they just know that Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics are somehow not right. The criticism of BHL’s is that they don’t have a plan, and that any solution they talk about simply expands the state further.

Others want to make use of private institutions to provide public services wherever possible. Some other people (on my side of the fence) are fairly rigorous and extend property rights to all those things that people act as if are a form of property, and therefore allow us all to adjudicate our disputes in court without the need for a third party. This is a very simple solution to a very difficult problem.

Other people want to return to the past – which isn’t going to happen unless we reinvent the church, treat it as an independent wing of the government, and return most domestic social services to control of that branch of government. (This is not a crazy idea really, since it’s that set of services that have expanded most and consume most of the budget, and the failure to separate that service from the commercial functions of government has probably led to our current state of conflict.)

PREFERENTIAL INSTITUTIONS
(2) REGULATION/INSURANCE: The purpose of regulation is to prevent harm, particularly irreversible harm, and to use the polity as the insurer of last resort. To accomplish regulation, the libertarian preference, rather than reliance on a monopoly bureaucracy, is to use competing insurance companies.

(Now, before you run away with criticisms, you’d have to understand how rigorous libertarian theory is on this topic. How universal standing, universal personal accountability, affect this. Today you cannot easily sue the guy who sold the poor family next door a cable plan that made them debt slaves, but under libertarian law you could. So people who want to ‘do good’ in the world would be able to, and not dependent upon approval of bureaucrats for it.)

3) COMMONS: Developing all the infrastructure that we need and desire. Some infrastructure is necessary for competitive survival, some is preferential, and some is a luxury. However, it must be possible to construct commons, even if they are constructed by private firms.
Most libertarians would deny this and state that commons are the responsibility of private parties, otherwise we get into taxation.
Most libertarian solutions suggest we vote our tax dollars to those things that we really want ourselves over the internet, sort of how we run auctions on Kickstarter.
Others suggest that we use a lottocracy (people are randomly selected like juries and proposals are put in front of them and they choose which ones.) The idea is to eliminate politicians who are open to special interest groups.

(4) CHARITY: Most libertarians want a return to the civil society where people conduct charity personally, and where it is the defacto ‘job’ of a lot of people to administer it. I think those of us who are a bit more institutionally creative, see five or six solutions to the problem of charity. (I’m going to address this later because I’m running out of time.)

5) CREDIT: borrowing money on behalf of the populace for the production of commons. Most libertarians would argue that if a population can print its own money then it is doomed, however, I won’t address that argument here.

6) DEFENSE. (Not much to say here that isn’t obvious) Other than that under fifth generation warfare (what terrorists do) our ancient tradition of forming a militia, and training it under the Swiss model is probably the most effective military with the least international intervention we can come up with. Our current model doesn’t work well. And it will just get worse.

Others have demonstrated how to create private firms that provide defense, however, history has told us that such groups never are effective compared to an armed citizenry.

At present, nuclear weapons are an insurance policy and a necessary one. One’s freedom of self determination probably depends upon possession of nuclear weapons.

CLOSING
I hope this is somewhat helpful. My main purpose is not to enumerate all possible libertarian institutional solutions, although If I had a little more time I’d do that since I think the internet community would actually like that. It’s to (a) position the ‘everything is a nail’ Rothbardian’s as what they are – the passionate lunatic wing of liberty; (b) outline the underlying problem we’re trying to solve as the elimination of monopoly bureaucracy that always accumulates to the point of predation tyranny and failure; (c) show that we have thought (a lot) about how to continue the western tradition of divided government as a defense against tyranny, and that we have some solutions to it – most of which rely on just expanding the methods of our ancestors.

Affections.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev.