Propertarian Podcast #001

August 21, 2016

Butch’s Notes and Outline for Episode


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

I blog at and, 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 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


– 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).

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.


Reddit, by of_ice_and_rock, Ancient Group Evolutionary Strategies.


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

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


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

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 ·

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


—“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.

(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.)

(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.

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.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute




Tired: NAP, Wired: NPP

Tired: The Non-Aggression Principle

From the Social Justice Encyclopedia, but still an acceptable definition:

The non-aggression principle (NAP) (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical principle that forbids actions that are inconsistent with libertarianism’s conception of property rights and other rights. The principle asserts that violation of these rights is “aggression“. NAP advocates deem violation of such rights to be a wrongful “initiation of force” by one party against another. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance. The NAP is considered by its supporters to be a defining principle of libertarianism.[1][2][3][4] The NAP conception of aggression is dependent on and closely linked to a particular conception of property rights, since aggression in this context is defined by what a person’s property rights are.[5] Because the principle defines aggression in libertarian terms, use of the NAP as a justification for libertarianism has been criticized as circular reasoning.[6]

The NAP is an exercise in circular reasoning (tautology). It depends on a definition of property rights which must first be accepted. This is axiomatic thinking, which is the root of any logical system. The problem with logical systems? They are purely conceptual, they are merely models, which may or may not have any reference back to reality (empirical content).

In a math problem we start with certain axiomatic rules, such as the order of operations and the logical operations themselves, then we say “let X = 5″ and we can construct a logical proof that a certain set of operations will yield a consistent result.  The problem? Well, if X changes from 5 to 7 in the middle of the operation, then it fails. How can X change from 5 to 7? If you’ve ever written code then you have probably made the beginner mistake of referencing a global variable in a function, in which case X may then be modified outside of the scope of the local function. So, you think X = 5, but somewhere else, while you aren’t looking, X becomes 7 and your perfectly logical function fails.

In this software example, the function is logically correct, provided that X does not change due to an outside force. In other words, the model works correctly, until it is tested empirically, in which case it can fail. This is the central problem of the NAP, the model doesn’t work in the real world (it cannot survive empirical criticism).

The axiomatic basis of the NAP is the conception of property, as though property is real, as opposed to merely being an norm, or an agreement of behavior. I explain this fully in the post Property and Norms. The NAP depends upon the Lockean Labor Theory of Property, which asserts that an object becomes property once a human homesteads it or mixes his labor with nature. What is the mechanism of the transmutation of an object into property? No one knows. How does the labor mix itself with nature? Are there atomic bonds which are broken and reformed during this process? No idea. Feasibly, it could be the same mechanism that powers transubstantiation: the change of substance by which the bread and the wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Or maybe it is the same process by which ancient alchemists could transmute lead into gold. Who knows? No libertarian alive can explain exactly how this process occurs, without in essence resorting to magic.

That’s how we know the NAP is tired.

Wired: The Non-Parasitism Principle

Curt Doolittle faceberg twitter has never used this phrase (to my knowledge), it’s one of my own invention. I use it because I think it might be a useful bridge from Libertarianism to Propertarianism. An essential approach of the Propertarian method is to start from observable phenomena (empiricism) and work out from there.

From The Cure for Propaganda and Western Civilization:

Science currently warranties speech by requiring the following tests, that demonstrate we are not adding imaginary or allegorical content, to our statements:

1) External Correspondence (we can observe the phenomenon)
2) Internal Consistency (logical)
2.1) Identity : The Logic of Naming
2.2) Mathematics: The logic of relations
2.3) Physics: the logic of causation
2.4) Logic: the logic of language
3) Operationally defined (existentially possible)
4) Falsified (parsimonious)

The Labor Theory of Property fails on tests 1, 3 and 4. However, do notice that the LTP passes #2, it is logically consistent. It just happens to not be externally correspondent.

#1: We cannot observe the transmutation of an object into property.

#3: Because we cannot observe the operation, we cannot define the operation by which objects are transmuted into property.

#4: How is the LTP to be falsified? I don’t think it can be. How do you falsify the existence of an operation which cannot be observed? This is like trying to prove that God doesn’t exist.

What is the Non-Parasitism Principle?

The argument works like this:

  1. Living beings require resources to survive and reproduce.
  2. Living beings, given the choice between defending a required resource, or death, will choose to defend (conflict, violence) that which is required for survival and reproduction.
  3. Humans working in cooperation (conflict minimized) are able to produce more resources (which may be consumed for the purposes of survival and reproduction), than humans working separately (division of labor) or humans in conflict.
  4. Humans have an incentive to maintain the benefits of cooperation, and thus to discover mechanisms which maintain cooperation and to teach these mechanisms to others within a cooperative group (tradition, culture, norms).
  5. Parasitism (theft, fraud, murder, etc.) destroys the incentive to cooperate, which has the result of decreasing the benefits of cooperation within a group.
  6. The norm of non-parasitism, when discovered, disseminated and enforced maintains the incentive to cooperate and thus is a competitive advantage to those groups which implement the norm.

The NAP essentially states that it is morally wrong to aggress against another’s property, where property is some holy, magical thing that shall not be violated. The NPP essentially states that the the Norm of Property (non-parasitism) provides a competitive advantage to groups that maintain the norm, therefore there is an incentive to maintain the norm. Nothing magical to it.

In essence, the NAP and the NPP are similar, with the exception that the NPP yields a greatly expanded portfolio of capital (property) which must not be parasitized. The goal of the NAP is similar: to maintain group cooperation, but it’s simply a rationalization which is used to advocate for certain behavior (non-aggression), and it is fundamentally flawed because it depends on magical thinking.

The NPP has the advantage of being scientifically (testimonially) and biologically correct. It’s time to break magically thinking about property and rights, and learn that these are merely norms, traditions and culture (contracts).

Property and Norms

From Cultures Are Portfolios Of Property Rights:

Cultures are portfolios of property rights. The composition of, and distribution of those property rights, varies from culture to culture. In each culture, those rights are expressed as norms. Property rights themselves are a norm. Those property rights perpetuated by norms may be more or less beneficial than other portfolios of property rights.

But any idiot who thinks that (a) formal institutions don’t matter – such as libertarians or (b) that formal institutions are sufficient – such as progressives, will have history prove him wrong to the chagrin of the people who understand (c) that norms are a form of property – conservatives. Norms are a commons that we all pay for. The tax we pay for them with is forgone opportunity to consume them, and absorbing the risk that no others will absorb them too.

One of the most difficult problems I have  when attempting to discuss Propertarianism is property. What is it? I want to get across two important ideas here: Property is a Norm and Norms are Property.

Property is a Norm

This may not seem intuitive to you. After all, an apple is property. It exists. You can touch it, you can trade it. We call this ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: that which we can all subjectively verify that it exists. Given this common understanding of physical property, such as an apple, this leads one to scratch his head and ask “How can an apple be a norm?”. That just doesn’t make sense.

Let’s look at it from another perspective. What if that apple were on the Moon. Would it then be property? Not really. No-one owns the moon. No-one owns the apple. Therefore it is not property. So we see there is actually a difference between the apple and property. An apple is an apple, but it may or may not be property. What’s the difference? It’s how we treat it. If we treat it as property, then it’s property. You see, an apple becomes property through an act of human behavior.

What’s a norm? “Norms are cultural products (including values, customs, and traditions)”

Customs and traditions are behavior which are the result of values. An apple becomes property through social behavior (custom/tradition). An apple on the moon isn’t property. An apple on a grocer’s shelf is property. The difference? The presence of humans behaving in a certain way.

What is the norm (the behavior, the custom or tradition) that we call property? The norm is ‘non-parasitism’ (Thou Shalt Not Steal). Group cooperation is valuable to us, and in order to maintain group cooperation we have a rule of non-parasitism: each person will produce what he needs and not take what others have produced.

In nature, the strong take from the weak, and a state of nature is a state of war (Hobbes). War is not cooperation, it is conflict. You have an apple and I have a rock. I hit you on the head with my rock and take the apple. That’s nature. But that destroys cooperation, and cooperation magnifies our production, so we build rules to preserve this cooperation. We then teach these rules to our children and enforce them. These rules are norms of behavior.

Once we create the norm of non-parasitism within a group (a laborious process), then all forms of theft are barred (by custom/tradition). So, now you have an apple and I want the apple but I can’t steal it (per our norm), so we negotiate a deal, a trade. Under the norm of non-parasitism, trade is the only mechanism remaining by which we can (knowingly) transfer objects to one another. Any object which is transferred in this system (of the norm of non-parasitism) is property. The system of trades within which we transfer these objects is called a market.

When non-parasitism is the rule, then the trading of objects (property in a market) is the only thing that is left. So, property only exists as an act of a social norm: non-parasitism. Property is a norm of behavior, not a physically measurable attribute. When we refer to property, we are really referring to property rights, and all rights originate in contract (agreement). Therefore property = property right = contract = agreement (of reciprocal behavior) = norm of behavior.

As an aside, it should also be clear that non-parasitism (the norm), property (the objects) and markets (the method of transfer) are all different ways to look at the same thing. There can be no markets without property. There can be no property without the norm of non-parasitsm.

Norms are Property

Once you understand that property is not a real thing, but instead is nothing more than an agreement of human behavior, a norm, then we can take the next step to understanding an expanded portfolio of human capital.

The process of discovering the rules of cooperation which then magnify production to yield prosperity for a group (values), and the process of transferring these rules (customs and traditions) within the group (horizontally) and through time (vertically/(intergenerationally ) is not free. The acquisition and transfer occurs only at a high cost. Allowing children to roam free is cheap (in the short term), educating (domesticating) them is expensive (in the short term) but yields long term benefits in increased group cooperation. Domesticating every man, woman and child is expensive.

The loss of this norm of non-parasitism (corruption, theft, fraud) is costly both to individuals and also to the group as cooperation is disrupted. Therefore, protecting property rights (remember, rights are a contract within a group) means protecting a norm: non-parasitism.

There are other norms which have beneficial long-term outcomes and which have been propagated (horizontally) throughout groups and (vertically) through time. Monogamy and marriage are such a norm. I’ll refer to monogamy/marriage as marriage, which is a set of social norms which were developed to regulate the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. Females, when given the opportunity, will breed with the highest ranking males (status) that they can attract, and will offload the cost of resulting offspring onto the group. Prior to the modern welfare state, this would have been family members with primarily the woman’s father and brothers providing resources for the offspring. Gestation, lactation and child rearing are resource-intensive activities which generally a single female cannot perform, thus requiring group cooperation. When a male produces offspring, but does not provide the necessary resources, then he is externalizing the cost of his own reproduction onto others. The creation of externalities (imposition of cost) are a form of parasitism. Thus, the norm of marriage is an extension of the norm of non-parasitism with regards to the activity of procreation.

The destruction of the norm of marriage (single motherhood financed through the redistributive welfare state) allows for the imposition of cost via externality upon men (taxpayers) who do not receive the benefit of having their genes propagated (gene propagation is the ultimate purpose of acquisition/production). It also creates a host of other costs to the group via propagation of social pathologies which are associated with the children of single mothers (dysgenia).

In the case of the norm of property rights and marriage there is a reduction in parasitism which is achieved, which maximizes cooperation and has other beneficial long term effects. This means that norms are capital, a form of property. They are expensive to discover, propagate and maintain, and their destruction imposes costs (or reduces benefits). For this reason, humans will defend norms, customs and traditions in exactly the same way, and for the same reason, that they defend physical property. Therefore, norms are property.

The portfolio of human capital includes not only physical objects, but also norms of behavior (customs and traditions which transfer values). Property is a norm, and norms are property.

Aristocratic Egalitarianism

A collection of Facebook posts and links which explain ‘Aristocratic Egalitarianism’.

From Eli Harman faceberg twitter:

If you would be free, you must fight.
If you would win, you must confederate.
If you would confederate, you must compromise.
If you would compromise, you must accept limits on your freedom.

Freedom will be won only by those who desire to exercise it within limits considered reasonable by their fellows.

From Curt Doolittle faceberg twitter:


—“Q&A: Curt, How Do We Refer To Your Work: Propertarianism or Aristocratic Egalitarianism”—

In my view (which may or may not be right) I have written down in rational and scientific terms, the western group evolutionary strategy – the philosophy of the west.

But it’s a very big scope of work. So what you call it depends upon which perspective you’re looking at it from. Culturally and civilizationally, it’s the philosophy of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. a set of values: Aristocratic, and the criteria for membership: open to anyone who will fight.

But if we are to ask what operations and processes do we use within aristocratic egalitarianism that refers to The metaphysics of action, Testimonial Truth and Epistemology, Propertarian Ethics, Market Government, and Aristocratic Ethics (excellence in man).

To make things ‘simple’ for people to understand we use the term ‘Propertarianism’ as a shortcut, even though that only technically refers to the ethical component of Aristocratic Egalitarianism.

We have debated using Testimonialism in order to place truth above property, but this term borders on the platonic, so we prefer the ‘real’ – propertarianism as a ‘common’ name for philosophical arguments that constitute the cultural strategy of the western indo European people we call Aryans: Aristocratic Egalitarianism.

So that’s the full explanation.

Aristocratic Egalitarianism

by  on MONDAY, JUNE 29TH, 2015  |  1 Comment   |

To say that European Aristocracy is Egalitarian is somewhat of a tautology.  An aristocracy requires numbers, and has an interest in creating large numbers in a hierarchy of aristocratic peers.  So aristocracy is egalitarian – open to meritocratic entry


Rock-Paper-Scissors and Fascism

Graphic provided by Curt Doolittle.


In effect, the graphic above represents the Trichotomy or Significant Triangles or the Three Estates of the Realm that I posted about in February of 2015 in Significant Triangles, and which I expanded up in Triangle: Human Drives on my PoseidonAwoke blog. I plan on doing a comprehensive wrap-up to this discussion in a later post, because, as usual, Curt has distilled and surpassed my muddled thinking on the subject.

Each of the Three Estates of the Realm represents a division of labor and cognition. Each living being must play to its strengths in pursuit of survival and reproduction. Humans will naturally do this, advocating using their strengths for the outcome they wish to achieve which they perceive to serve their genetic self-interests.


Curt wrote:

–Liberty/Market, Fascism/Mar, Law/Culture–

The Communist threat was enormous.

Given the asymmetric value of opportunity costs, NOT ACTING in era of change is expensive.

So taking early initiative or waiting is a question of forecast costs.

And fascism was an answer to acting early.

A condition of liberty is the consequence of the nearly universal suppression of parasitism.

But just as soldiers compete, norms compete, and markets compete: *Rock-Paper-Scissors applies*.

One cannot fight soldiers with markets:Rock-Paper-Scissors. There is no steady state in econ or out.

There is no permanent condition of liberty possible any more than is a permanent condition of war.

Rock paper scissors: Liberty/Market, Fascism/War, Law/Culture.

Simple people use simple models. But while simple people use simple models it is up to us to explain the much more complicated world.

And that most complicated world consists not of steady states,but of supply,demand,rents,and shocks.

Facism is not a model, it is a tool with which we seek the optimum state of liberty, law, peace.

Monopoly institutions are not a steady state but a means of paying for the suppression of local rent.

Rule of law is not a steady state but a tool for the suppression of innovations in parasitism.

That we have yet failed to create an institution for suppressing centralized rents is just a failure.

Anarchism cannot do this, so the alternative is market production of commons.

Because commons are necessary even for the production of property rights, rule of law and territory.

And surprisingly, it turns out that commons free of privatization, are devastatingly competitive.

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

What this game is explaining is that we have a 3-axis supply and demand between the 3 major divisions of cognition and labor. As we get an over supply of Liberty/Markets (which exceeds the ability for Law/Culture to order properly as the society rapidly changes), we create a demand for Fascism/War/Authority. As we get an oversupply of Fascism/War/Athority (which slows or destroys Liberty/Markets [commerce] and stabilizes society) we create a demand for Law/Culture which can replace arbitrary martial law. As we get an oversupply of Law/Culture (where we have a strongly ordered and stable society, with a slower moving economy), we create a demand for Liberty/Markets.

Liberty undermines Law – An increase in Liberty (voluntary organization of production, markets) increases the points at which parasitism can occur which then places a stress on Law and Culture to identify and eliminate the new modes of parasitism.

Authoritarian (fascism, Asiatic despotism) societies seek to reduce opportunities for the invention of new forms of parasitism by attempting to freeze modes of production (non-liberty)(must ask permission before acting) in order to alleviate the stress that it causes on the system of Law and Culture.

Therefore, if cultural upheaval is too great and Rule of Law is being undermined, which will eventually lead to War and smash all production (extremely high cost), then a period of fascism (authoritarianism) will solidify the Culture and Laws at the expense of reducing the efficiency and fluidity of the markets (lower short term cost outweighs future high cost).

The Trichotomy of Cognition and Labor work together, creating a balance, with oversupply of one division creating demand for the cognition and labor provided by the other corners.

There is fertile ground here for a lot analysis of many historical conditions using this framework. It is my view that the West has exhausted itself with Consumer Capitalism, that we have endured hundreds of years of rapid social change from ever expanding Liberty. Many in the West have come to the conclusion that the portfolio of capital held by the West is no longer served by further increases in Liberty, but will actually be much better served by an increase in Authority (which will curtail Liberty and slow markets) which will all for Law and Culture to recuperate and solidify. In essence, there is now a massive demand for fascism in the West.

To Do: Relationship to Social Cycle Theory., Spengler and the Cyclical View of History

Testimony of Curt’s Work

Curt Doolittle is not always difficult to understand.

He does his very best to distil otherwise very difficult, complicated, complex matters, for didacticism. And so others may possibly read, study, understand, practice, repeat, master, perfect, and use.

He is very charitable, patient, generous with his work. At huge cost to him [ time, energy, resource, reputation ] and to his health [ in times ]. And at minimal to almost no cost to readers, audience, beneficiaries. He is sacrificing a lot, to do this.

And why?

He states it this morning when one abuse him again, albeit needlessly. Primarily because this fellow failed to understand what Curt is saying.

I would try and re-state what Curt said then. So others may understand.

He said that:

There is a clearly distinctive role structure, specialisation, stratification with all men.

That the women bear and rear. Merchants, craftsmen produce. Priests are for advocacy. And the aristocracy, for judgement.

That his focus is on “the other side of the coin”: ARISTOCRACY. And not on the weak, or the ruled.

Ergo he teaches the philosophy of the strong, the best societally, and those at the peak of a given societal structure, sample, group, family, association, corporation, clan, tribe, nation – state, culture, civilisation. Who may have the capacity [ means ], ability, and will to learn, understand, practice, regularise, and enforce it repeatedly, systematically, consistently, effectively, eternally [ domestication, culling of the lower classes. Suppression and elimination of parasitism. Select group transcendence, without cost imposition on others ]

In his work, he is not overly concerned then about the weak that require guidance. Even as he loves all people that must be loved. He is about the strong that must rule. This strong and potential judges, he seeks to show HOW BEST TO RULE in maximum liberty possible.

He therefore seeks, distil to teach, to show the creation of “the privilege of liberty”. AND by which “method of rule” to best “make maximum liberty possible”.

Naturally. His philosophy is neither for the weak nor the periphery of the weak then. It is not a lower class philosophy. Or a middle class philosophy. BUT an upper class philosophy for the meritocratic individuals, assemblage, selection, available in a given location, region, geography, anywhere globally. At any period of human existence. BUT FIRST, FOR HIS PEOPLE. That now are in decline from the attained peak transcendence, civilization.

He does his work PUBLICLY. For whatever criticism there is. Which criticism [ peer review from comparative IQ that may grasp and contribute meaningfully and productively ] he welcomes, engages, and delights in.

The resultant work surviving criticism, for the intended audience that follow it all from the start to the end, or for the newcomer, is source of satisfaction pending possible strict constructions. And for use.

By doing so he is providing a complete, credible, tested, time – surviving leadership framework. Template for the aristocracy that must rule over ALL. And to rule ANY THAT REQUIRE LEADERSHIP, GUIDANCE, INSPIRATION, EMOTIONAL REWARD [ his words ]. Because this are weak, and must necessarily be ruled for the collective benefit of all. Else they over consume, overpopulate, and engage in reckless social experiments that weaken and bring us all to the brink of utter chaos, destruction, annihilation.

He says that any capable individual. Any aristocratic rule, could fall on this. And by it effectively, efficiently exploit the “boundaries” of [ his ] “power”. And obtain the reward, outcome, [ positive ] consequence. Of remaining eternally powerful.

[ In effect. He is in consonance with the Jesus philosophy. And not necessarily traditional Christian church teachings.

The explanation above, in my words, of a comment he made today in explaining his work to another that antagonised him, parallel the rendition of Revelation 20 – 22 of the Christian bible even when Curt isn’t working, using the bible.

Curt is right none the less. Given what empirical data there is, and looking at what is learnable from human history.

The saints with Jesus Christ in Revelation 20. That would and must rule, represent the meritocratic class. The saints with Christ who are to be married or be forever bonded to Christ, were to have qualified and reached the Jesus apotheosis also. They are to qualify by meritocratic standards. By character, to be the best humans harvestable [ many are called, few are chosen ] to RULE.

That aristocracy, would be millennia and then eternally relevant, glorious, and powerful according to the narratives of Revelation 20 to 22 ].

Curt’s aristocratic philosophy in other words, rhyme with the Jesus philosophy. Curt’s is by other methods: propertarianism, testimonialism.

And so science!

Curt seeks accuracy, truth, and completeness. And talk family to tribal = national love togetherness. That bond and engage others in mutually beneficial cooperation.

Or, the strict construction of any law, based on natural law. Jesus talked love, accuracy, truth, and perfection. Such is without doubt what men require for the maximisation of their individual and collective potentials. In productive, profitable, prosperous and sustainably peaceful co – existence.

How then can ANY not see the remarkable, fantastic, and yet achievable products, prognosis Curt crafts, posits, and GENEROUSLY would share with us by words on Facebook. And elsewhere for the utilisation by deserving sheriffs, prosecutors, rulers, judges?

And by extension, for the rule?

by Alexander Brown

You can follow Curt Doolittle on Facebook.

On Natural Law

Morals, ethics, and manners are objective because we can decide between sets of them in matters of conflict over them. We call this ‘natural law‘. Meaning it’s decidable across all local variations. Natural law: fully informed productive warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to externalities of the same criteria.  In other words reciprocally beneficial cooperation. All conflict can be decided by this principle.

Moral norms, ethical norms, and normative manners are objective social contracts given local circumstances, and are decidable between in-group members.

Personal moral preferences, ethical preferences, and manners preferences are expressions of what we think we can get away with while fulfilling our reproductive strategy.

Now, natural law is just what it is whether we like it or not – for the persistence of cooperation, and the benefits that come from it.

Moral, ethical norms are the group’s evolutionary strategy – successful or not.

Personal moral and ethical preferences reflect the individual’s evolutionary strategy.

SO there can exist natural LAW and the violation of it.
Legislation that enhances natural law and legislation that violates it.
Regulation that enhances natural law and regulation that violates it.
Moral norms that enhance natural law and moral norms that violate it.
Personal moral bias that enhances natural law , and that which does not.

We call everything ‘law‘ when most of it is either command or contract or regulation. There is very little ‘law‘ outside of anglo-saxon common law.

We call everything moral and ethical, but most of it is social contract, or personal strategy and tactic. There is often precious little that is moral and ethical in personal and normative manners, ethics, and morals.

This is a very useful and important lesson

by Curt Doolittle

Restoring the Patriarchy for Fun and Profit


Reprinted post from Eli Harman‘s FB page


Persuasion is of limited utility. And it is not in women’s interests to help fight to impose a patriarchy which cannot impose itself on them, though it is in their interests to submit to one which can.

The means of doing so are simple.

1) Teach the truth, principally to men.

2) Burn the academy. This already needs to be done for a variety of reasons and it will shut down the main source of feminist propaganda as well as close off a popular mean for women of seeking and obtaining status besides domestic excellence.

3) Burn the legacy media. Same as above, substituting “vector” for “source.”

4) Grind the practical administration of the welfare state to a halt. The state is the highest status husband around, but if we close his wallet, he becomes a lot less appealing. Use your imagination as to how.

5) Offer.

The combination of unrest, danger, no gibs, difficulty seeking status, and a bunch of dreamy bad boys running around doing dreamy bad boy things like hurting people and breaking stuff, should greatly magnify the leverage men naturally enjoy as the gatekeepers of commitment and material resources and the providers of violence.

Pick up artists talk about “game” and “inner game” (among others.) I call this “systemic game.” It doesn’t take as many men as you might imagine to completely alter circumstances and incentives for everyone.

To this can (must) be added…

6) Being a general nuisance and pain along the outline above, but worse, while demanding an institutional veto over all policy making – past, present, and future. Women can even keep voting, as long as we get to tell them “no.”


Note from Butch: Dreamy bad boys doing dreamy bad boy things.