The Birth of Individualism In The North Sea Peoples

(must read)(from hbd chick)

Individualism:  (book)

Northern europeans began to think of — or at least write about — themselves as individuals beginning in the eleventh century a.d. [pgs. 158, 160, and 64-67 – bolding and links inserted by me]:
“The discovery of the individual was one of the most important cultural [*ahem*] developments in the years between 1050 and 1200. It was not confined to any one group of thinkers. Its central features may be found in different circles: a concern with self-discovery; an interest in the relations between people, and in the role of the individual within society; an assessment of people by their inner intentions rather than by their external acts. These concerns were, moreover, conscious and deliberate. ‘Know yourself’ was one of the most frequently quoted injunctions. The phenomenon which we have been studying was found in some measure in every part of urbane and intelligent society.
“It remains to ask how much this movement contributed to the emergence of the distinctively Western view of the individual…. The continuous history of several art-forms and fields of study, which are particularly concerned with the individual, began at this time: auto-biography, psychology, the personal portrait, and satire were among them….
“The years between 1050 and 1200 must be seen…as a turning-point in the history of Christian devotion. There developed a new pattern of interior piety, with a growing sensitivity, marked by personal love for the crucified Lord and an easy and free-flowing meditation on the life and passion of Christ….
“The word ‘individual’ did not, in the twelfth century, have the same meaning as it does today. The nearest equivalents were *individuum*, *individualis*, and *singularis*, but these terms belonged to logic rather than to human relations….
“The age had, however, other words to express its interest in personality. We hear a great deal of ‘the self’, not expressed indeed in that abstract way, but in such terms as ‘knowing oneself’, ‘descending into oneself’, or ‘considering oneself’. Another common term was *anima*, which was used, ambiguously in our eyes, for both the spiritual identity (‘soul’) of a man and his directing intelligence (‘mind’). Yet another was ‘the inner man’, a phrase found in Otloh of Saint Emmeram and Guibert of Nogent, who spoke also of the ‘inner mystery’. Their vocabulary, while it was not the same as ours, was therefore rich in terms suited to express the ideas of self-discovery and self-exploration.
“Know Yourself
“Self-knowledge was one of the dominant themes of the age…. These writers all insisted on self-knowledge as fundamental. Thus Bernard wrote to Pope Eugenius, a fellow-Cistercian, about 1150: ‘Begin by considering yourself — no, rather, end by that….For you, you are the first; you are also the last.’ So did Aelred of Rievaulx: ‘How much does a man know, if he does not know himself?’ The Cistercian school was not the only one to attach such a value to self-knowledge. About 1108 Guibert of Nogent began his history of the Crusade with a modern-sounding reflection about the difficulty of determining motive:
“‘It is hardly surprising if we make mistakes in narrating the actions of other people, when we cannot express in words even our own thoughts and deeds; in fact, we can hardly sort them out in our own minds. It is useless to talk about intentions, which, as we know, are often so concealed as scarcely to be discernible to the understanding of the inner man.’
“Self-knowledge, then, was a generally popular ideal.”
_____
There seem to be two broad sociobiological/genocultural packages when it comes to average nepotistic vs. not-so-nepotistic altruistic behaviors in human populations — these are not binary opposites, but rather the ends of some sort of continuum of behavioral traits [click on table for LARGER view]:
Nepotistic vs. not-so-nepotistic
The common thread running through the not-so-nepotistic groups of today (primarily northwest europeans) is a long history of outbreeding (i.e. avoiding close matings, like cousin marriage). (and a long history of manorialism. yes, i WILL start my series on medieval manorialism soon!) while individualism and guilt cultures may have been present in northern europe in paleolithic or even mesolithic populations, these behavioral traits and mindsets were definitely not present in the pre-christian germanic, british, or irish populations of late antiquity. those populations were very much all about clans and kindreds, feuding and honor, shame, and group consensus. guilt/individualistic cultures (i.e. not-so-nepostic societies) can come and go depending at least partly on long-term mating patterns. human evolution can be recent as well as aeons old.
The individualistic guilt-culture of northwest (“core”) europeans today came into existence thanks to their extensive outbreeding during the medieval period (…and the manorialism). the outbreeding started in earnest in the 800s (at least in northern france) and, as we saw above, by 1050-1100 thoughts on individualis began to stir. around the same time, communes appeared in northern italy and parts of france — civic societies. violence rates begin to fall in the 1200s, especially in more outbred populations, i would argue (guess!) because the impulsive violence related to clan feuding was no longer being selected for.
By the 1300-1400s, after an additional couple hundred years of outbreeding, the renaissance was in full swing due to the “wikification” of northern european society — i.e. that nw europeans now possessed a set of behavioral traits that drove them to work cooperatively with non-relatives — to share openly knowledge and ideas and labor in reciprocally altruistic ways. the enlightenment? well, that was just the full flowering of The Outbreeding Project — an explosion of these not-so-nepotistic behavioral traits that had been selected for over the preceding 800 to 900 years. individualism? universalism? liberal democracy? tolerance? reason? skepticism? coffeehouses? the age of enlightenment IS what core europeans are all about! hurray! (^_^) the Project and its effects are ongoing today.
It could be argued that the fact that certain mating patterns seem to go together with certain societal types is just a coincidence — or that it’s the societal type that affects or dictates the mating patterns. for example, i said in my recent post on shame and guilt in ancient greece that:
“shame cultures are all tied up with honor — especially family honor. japan — with its meiwaku and seppuku — is the classic example of a shame culture, but china with its confucian filial piety is not far behind. the arabized populations are definitely shame cultures with their honor killings and all their talk of respect. even european mediterranean societies are arguably more honor-shame cultures than guilt cultures [pdf].
“if you’ve been reading this blog for any amount of time, you’ll recognize all of those shame cultures as having had long histories of inbreeding: maternal cousin marriage was traditionally very common in east asia (here’re japan and china); paternal cousin marriage is still going strong in the arabized world; and cousin marriage was prevelant in the mediterranean up until very recently (here’s italy, for example).”
Perhaps, you say, the causal direction is that nepotistic, clannish shame-cultures somehow promote close matings (cousin marriage or whatever). well, undoubtedly there are reinforcing feedback loops here, but the upshot is that both ancient greece and medieval-modern europe clearly illustrate that the mating patterns come first. (possibly ancient rome, too, but i’ll come back to that another day.) the pre-christian northern european societies were clannish shame-cultures until after the populations switched to outbreeding (avoiding cousin marriage) in the early medieval period. late archaic-early classical greek society was rather (a bit borderline) universalistic, individualistic [pg. 160+] and guilt-based until after they began to marry their cousins with greater frequency (at least in classical athens). the not-so-nepotistic guilt-culture we see now in northwest european populations is particularly resilient, i think, because the outbreeding has been carried out for a particularly long time (since at least the 800s) and thanks to the complementary selection pressures of the medieval manor system (which ancient greece lacked), but it did not exist before the early medieval period.
So, the direction of causation seems to be: (long-term) mating patterns –> societal type (nepotistic vs. not-so-nepotistic).

Evolving High Trust AND Nepotistic Culture is Not Possible. Constructing It *IS*.

So, how does one construct a high trust NEPOTISTIC, inbred culture, instead of a high trust Non-nepotistic, outbred culture?

Well, that’s very simple. Because organically evolving an institution is very different from intentionally implementing an institution.

As such, the rule of law, under propertarian property rights of property-en-toto, forces institutional development of high trust, while allowing nepotism to continue.

This is where we failed in the enlightenment. We didn’t understand….

How They Killed Us the First Time, Is How They Kill Us The Second

Justinian closed the Stoic schools, to make people easier to manipulate, and lies more effective means by which to govern.
Stoicism is an aristocratic personal religion.
Polytheism is a public religion of social rituals.
Monotheism is a political crime, a moral crime, and a crime against humanity.
Just as economic monopoly is a political crime, a moral crime, and a crime against man.
Just as majority rule is a political crime, a moral crime, and a crime against man.
Just as statism (monopoly) is a political crime, a moral crime, and a crime against man.
Just as universalism is a political crime, a moral crime, and a crime against man.
We are unequal – in our division of knowledge and labor.
That is our success, not our limitation.
Voluntary exchange is the only epistemic necessity by which the division of knowledge and labor can be accumulated, distributed, and made use of by man.
Equality is suicide.

The Purpose of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ.

The data is pretty good you know. You don’t have to be a genius. You just have to be well read. Being well read means reading the right books, not just any books – but the right books at your level of experience.

Now, the more causally accurate the argument, the less allegorical and more operationally descriptive it is. The more operationally descriptive it is, the further it is from experience. The further it is from experience the greater the detail needed to construct an analogy to experience. This is why simple narratives are easier to comprehend. They reduce complexity.

However, by reducing complexity, they obscure causality.

So that’s a hard way of stating that for about every 15 points of IQ we have entire literatures saying similar things at higher and lower orders of precision, and therefore greater and lesser degrees of content, that have higher correspondence with reality, or higher correspondence with our levels of perception and cognition.

The more literate you become, the more you grasp that there are a limited number of fundamental ideas. That those fundamental ideas are counter-intuitive. That evolution did not provide us with intrinsic means of grasping or using those fundamental ideas. 

But that to cooperate in large numbers and to understand the structure of ourselves, our actions, and the universe in which we act, we must somehow master them. Either at high operational correspondence that few of us can master, or at low operational correspondence but high intuitive correspondence that all of us can master.

LAYERS OF INCREASING COMPLEXITY:
 – Intuitive expressions <- pre rational reactions  
 – Moral arguments <- normative arguments
 – Allegorical Arguments <- abstract arguments (most people)
 – Historical Arguments <- facts (educated people)
 – Scientific (Empirical) Arguments <- specialists in causal relations
 – Economic Arguments <- specialists in emergent relations
 – Ratio-scientific Arguments <- synthesis of specialized arguments
 – Constructivist Explanations <- description of reality

It gets harder as you climb that ladder. Most of us can manage allegorical. But beginning with Historical arguments one enters the realm of empirical rather than intuitive, and that requires a lot more knowledge at each rung on the conceptual ladder.

If you cannot explain something in constructive (operational) language you do not understand it. But if you can at least explain something, then you are at least able to determine possible courses of action.

SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO READ?

You read what you can. You climb the ladder as far as you can. At some point you will get good at climbing the ladder. At some point you will realize that you can climb no further. For some of us, we learn how to add rungs to the ladder itself.

But the important thing to remember is that there are a very small number of fundamental concepts, and a very small number of intuitive falsehoods that evolution cursed us with.

At every 15 points of IQ someone is writing a book in your language. IN the level of abstraction that you can grasp.

Read the best book you can. Try the next book up the ladder. stop when you cant climb. And the truth is, that if you want to live a full life, you do not need to add to the ladder, only to climb beyond the intuitive limits that evolution left us with. At that point you will be close enough to the truth (correspondence with reality independent of human cognitive limitations) that you are no longer hindered by your mortal coil.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev

Against Lester’s Verbalism – With Lee Waaks.

An important new book by J. C. Lester, defending his own robust and ground breaking form of libertarianism – without foundations – in a critical rationalist manner: Explaining Libertarianism: Some Philosophical Arguments

Sigh,

Except his ‘groundbreaking’ argument, deducing subjective value from the colloquial use of the term ‘liberty’, is a meaningless verbalism; and worse, his abuse of critical rationalism amounts to ‘I can get away with saying this’ rather than ‘I have tried to falsify this every possible way, and can’t, and I’m going to ignore existing theory that is causally and operationally explicative rather than merely verbally metaphorical’.

He pretends to circumvent property, but it’s simply an act of creative application of the term liberty (the demand that the state also adhere to interpersonal prohibitions on parasitism). I thought it was so ridiculous that I didn’t bother refuting it. But then, the difference between meaning and action appears to be lost on most practitioners of philosophy who happily engage in empty language games. And he’s making an empty language game – even if by doing so he stumbled on the correct origins.

Humans, like all mobile creatures, are acquisitive. Emotions are expressions in changes in state of property. We defend our property. We seek opportunities for cooperation because it’s more productive than solitary efforts. But cooperation must be productive and therefore non-parasitic to be rational. So we punish free riders (aggressors) aggressively. Therefore impose no costs upon others for property en toto, else we return to violence, since cooperation is no longer valuable.

Where Lester is potentially right and the Anarchists are definitely wrong, is that his theory does not seek to justify the conclusion that several (private) physical property alone is definable as property, and enforceable as property rights, but that any cost that the individual bears is defined by the individual as property. in other words, property is subjective: that which we have invested in acquiring without parasitism upon that which others have invested in acquiring.

Cooperation also determines the scope of property rights that we are willing to enforce, despite the subjective value definition of property. So we cooperate to produce property rights as well as cooperate to produce that which we subjectively determine is property.

Liberty deserves better than empty verbalism.

Lee C Waaks <He pretends to circumvent property, but it’s simply an act of creative application of the term liberty (the demand that the state also adhere to interpersonal prohibitions on parasitism). I thought it was so ridiculous that I didn’t bother refuting it.> Apparently you thought it so ridiculous you may not have actually read his book. Lester does not equate liberty with property because he has a “pre-propertarian” theory of liberty. There is nothing wrong with eschewing a colloquial use of the word “liberty” if it helps to clarify what we mean by liberty. In his view, liberty is the absence of proactive impositions. Liberty is not equivalent to property/property rights because property rights are a solution to a problem. What is the problem? The reduction of impositions. What are impositions? A flouting of our liberty. In any event, liberty is hardly synonomous with liberty in today’s academy or popular culture.

Lee C Waaks <Where Lester is potentially right and the Anarchists are definitely wrong, is that his theory does not seek to justify the conclusion that several (private) physical property alone is definable as property, and enforceable as property rights, but that any cost that the individual bears is defined by the individual as property. in other words, property is subjective: that which we have invested in acquiring without parasitism upon that which others have invested in acquiring.> Lester does not attempt to justify any conjecture as he states repeatedly in several essays/books. His unjustified conjecture is that liberty delivers more want satisfaction and liberty. Why does he thinks this? For many of the reasons that you do.

—“Lester does not equate liberty with property because he has a “pre-propertarian” theory of liberty.”—

No. That’s just the word-game he uses. (And in doing so abuses critical rationalism on a scale that only a rationalist could.) It’s embarrassing really.

Oh wait, “People use the term liberty as such… therefore….”. OMG. Honestly?

 – We move, we remember, so we can acquire.
 – We acquire. When we acquire, costs are subjective, therefor value is subjective.
 – We developed emotions to reward us for acquisition and punish us for loss.
 – We defend what we remember having acquired (property). We developed emotions to reward us for defense, and punish us in the presence of theft or loss.
 – We cooperate (to increase production). We developed emotions that reward us for cooperation, and punish us for failure.
 – Cooperation evolved in-group (kinship), We evolved to grant priority to in-group members. (males more so than females who were portable between groups of males)
 – We prohibit free riding (to preserve the incentive to cooperate) even in kinship groups, by defending production with the same vehemence we defend our property. We developed emotions (moral intuitions) to prevent parasitism.
 – We developed moral intuitions to eliminate or control alphas (to wider distribution of mates).
 – We developed norms for more elaborate rules preventing parasitism.
 – We developed myths rituals and religions for institutionalizing them.
 – We developed laws to institutionalize them further.
 – We developed property rights as a contractual limit upon what our group of mutual insurers (those we cooperate with) are willing to act to enforce without damaging the cooperative incentive itself.
 – We developed prohibitions on parasitism via alphas, authorities, norms, rules, rituals, and institutions because it is reproductively to our advantage to control our options.

NO PRE-PROPERTY LIBERTY CAN EXIST BECAUSE PROPERTY (Defense of one’s acquisitions) EVOLVED PRIOR TO COOPERATION – MORAL RULES – AND COOPERATION PRIOR TO MORAL CONSTRAINT UPON INSTITUTIONS/AUTHORITY/ALPHAS: LIBERTY.

I don’t disagree with him that (a) value is subjective, and (b) that imposing costs upon others is a violation of the necessary physical law of cooperation, and that this law is the cause of moral intuitions, and moral facts. What I disagree with is that he abused critical rationalism, and committed the kind of rationalist word-game that I would like to see made illegal in matters of property (of all kinds), because it is precisely the vehicle that the other side uses to lie, cheat, steal, free ride AND IMPOSE COSTS upon us with.

You kept advocating his work, and I finally read it. But it’s nonsense. It’s 20th century pseudoscience.

So, it’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that he worked backward from liberty and therefore justified it rather than constructed it from first principles by causal necessity and then criticized it.

He said that I wasn’t doing philosophy, that he was doing philosophy, and that I was doing anthropology or social science. He’s right. That’s what I’m doing. Worse: I’m actively trying to outlaw what he is doing, as Hayek’s warning against 20th century mysticism.

The only reasons philosophy and science are not synonyms are (a) that prior to now, we didn’t understand that there is but one logical rule to morality – prohibition imposition of costs, or positively stated, requirement for voluntary transfer. And (b) that without operationalism (action) it is impossible to eradicate imaginary information from rational content. In other words, there isn’t any difference between philosophy and science any longer, and it’s time to put rationalism to bed along with mysticism.

Curt Doolittle

Lee C Waaks <No. That’s just the word-game he uses. (And in doing so abuses critical rationalism on a scale that only a rationalist could.) It’s embarrassing really.>

There is no word-game here. He’s simply trying to get to the meaning of liberty. It’s an exercise in clarification. Liberty — in a political sense — is about interpersonal relations. We can see (and daily experience) the myriad ways in which we can impose upon each other. Why a “pre-propertarian” theory of liberty? Because it brings into great relief the problem we are trying to solve, i.e. how to all get along; a modus vivendi. Property is a solution to that problem but property is not liberty itself.

<He said that I wasn’t doing philosophy, that he was doing philosophy, and that I was doing anthropology or social science. He’s right. That’s what I’m doing. Worse: I’m actively trying to outlaw what he is doing, as Hayek’s warning against 20th century mysticism.>

Of course, Lester incorporates sociology/anthropology (economics) into his views. It informs his conjecture that liberty will serve mankind best.

You accuse him of word-games and mysticism but all he has done is conjecture that libertarianism will best promote liberty and welfare. His writing is very lucid and practically devoid of academic jargon.

Meaning(Allegories of experiences) = “Recursive”, un-laundered of imaginary content. bias and error.
Description(Names of operations) = “True”, laundered of imaginary content, bias, and error.

You have to ask you self how silly it is to say “I am trying to find the meaning of x”. That it itself is a fascinatingly ridiculous question.

It’s a violation of existence. How does that ‘meaning’ exist? how did it come to be? Why is it possible to deduce ‘truth’ from ‘meaning’?

Liberty has a long etymological history. We can observe the content that was added and removed from it (which is how words evolve, and analogies evolve).

Sigh.

Meaning.

This is why philosophy is relegated to comparative religion. That at postmodernism.

Lee C Waaks <You have to ask you self how silly it is to say “I am trying to find the meaning of x”. That it itself is a fascinatingly ridiculous question.>

Words don’t matter too much. A definition is a tautology. But what happens when a socialist claims he is for “liberty” and a libertarian claims he is for “liberty”? We might want to clarify; try to get at something. What is liberty? Surely it relates to how we get along? And surely this has to do with not imposing on one another? Hence, his view of liberty. It’s not much of a stretch and it’s very coherent. Lester’s argument is pre-properarian, so it avoids equating liberty with property, thereby avoiding accusations from socialists of question begging. It’s also objective: whatever the moral implications, we cannot deny an imposition is real if someone says he has been imposed upon (unless he/she is lying). It would be hard for a socialist to argue that he prefers to be imposed upon! That’s where the issue of welfare comes in: Lester can argue/conjecture that libertarianism produces more welfare *in addition to minimizing impositions* by employing sociological/empirical arguments. Clearly, if libertarianism (or propertarianism…whatever) led to horrible outcomes, we would not want it, so we might have to surrender some liberty. But liberty and welfare appear to be highly compatible.

You mean, justify.
It’s ok. It’s hard to accept, but it’s an elaborate justifiation that relies upon the fact that you (and he apparently) cannot intuit or articulate the causal relations under the analogies that you (and he ) are using.

His argument is not pre-propertarian. It can’t be, because imposing costs upon others whehter yo ucall them psychic or some other point of view, is tautological with property, since all changes in state that cause decreases in satisfaction (that we know of) are changes in property (that which one bears costs to gain or lose). If we say he experiences a cost, or he feels a negative emotion, or his satisfaction is decreased, or his anticipated inventory has declined is merely verbal – tautological. In the end, it’s subjective value. The objectve change in state is the one I described.

The fact that this verbalism fools you is understandable, although it does frustrate the hell out of me, because it’s evidence of how difficult it is to require truthful speech: internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally defined, falsified, and moral (free of imposed cost/involuntary transfer).

His argument fails the requirement for operational definition. It is non-causal, but merely allegorical. The fact that the allegory overloads your rational ability is no different from the fact that you cannot anticipate the consequences of declaring a set of axioms in mathematics, despite the fact that all such consequences are deterministic.

Hoppe justified his arguments. Rothbard his. Mises his. And Lester his. It’s convenient to work from the conclusion to the premise.

The question is not whether you CAN say something, but whether having tried to defeat it, the answer remains. He didn’t falsify his argument. I did.

His argument fails the test of operational (causal) articulation. It is constructed of analogies taking advantage of the confusion of mixing the point of view of the observer and observed phenomenon.

Conversely, the operational example I gave survives scrutiny under evolutionary necessity, is operationally possible, and etymologically correspondent. Liberty means that no authority violates moral rules, and moral rules evolved in interpersonal cooperation, prohibiting free riding (the imposition of costs) and

Rationalism is the best way to lie. It works as a means of lying because it is possible to overload us by analogies, and not know it, whereas operational definitions, if they overload us, we do know it.

We can make such catastrophic errors because we WANT TO MAKE THOSE ERRORS. That’s th epurpose of justification. If we overload our reason, we can activate our intuition. Others can use suggestion on us. But we can use it on ourselves.

Childish really.

Science isn’t anything other than a set of moral rules of falsification. And falsification isn’t anything other than eliminating our abiilty to overload, intuit, bias, lie, and err.

Lee C Waaks <His argument is not pre-propertarian. It can’t be, becasue imposing costs upon others whehter yo ucall them psychic or some other point of view, is tautological with property, since all changes in state that cause decreases in satisfaction (that we know of) are changes in property (that which one bears costs to gain or lose).>

We can, conceptually speaking, think in pre-propertarian terms. Yes, costs are tautological with property in the sense that imposing a cost means imposing a cost on someone’s person (assuming self-ownership) or an external physical object one seeks to own/control. But we can easily imagine a state of affairs without clear (or no) property rights and then see the problems/impositions that exist without them and the solutions/minimization of costs that result when we implement property rights. For example, if you were marooned on a deserted island and Friday shows up, it would impose upon Friday if you were to claim the entire island and all its resources for yourself, thereby forcing Friday to starve to death (assuming he doesn’t choose to kill you). On the other hand, Friday shouldn’t take your harvested food supply as that would impose upon you. But you could both share the island’s food stuffs and even cooperatively hunt/gather. You could even create property rights in a lagoon for bathing, i.e. you bathe on Tuesday/Thur and he bathes on Mon/Wed. You seem to argue as if property rights inhere in the physical objects you have created or fenced in or are currently farming, etc.

 —“We can, conceptually speaking, think in pre-propertarian terms.”—

That’s Verbalism. (You should try to state that operationally. Meaning: existentially.) I know of no circumstances in which humans can possibly exist without property, nor can I imagine how humans would act without the existence of property. There are no conditions under which humans exist and are conscious and capable of action in which property does not exist: that which the human is willing to defend from taking or destruction or punish because of taking or destruction.

No pre-property condition exists. Emotions reflect changes in state of property.

I may have obtained property rights by your consent, and property rights cannot exist without your consent, but I can demonstrate the existence of property in all cases where human beings also exist. Humans cannot exist without it. Whether alone or in groups.

–“Yes, costs are tautological with property in the sense that imposing a cost means imposing a cost on someone’s person”—

Actually, both Jan and I agree that this is **causing someone to experience a negative sensation***, and that the negative sensation is caused by the perceived increase or decrease in one’s expended effort to obtain, or required effort to replace(whenever one discovers such an affect, if ever).

–“(assuming self-ownership) or an external physical object one seeks to own/control.”–

Self-ownership is an unnecessary, justificationary nonsense-term. Either I expended effort to obtain something, would be required to expend effort to defend something, or would be required to expend effort to replace something, or I anticipate obtaining something that now I cannot, or must bear additional costs to obtain.

My property is that which I expended effort to obtain, I choose to defend, seek restitution for, or seek to punish the taking or destruction or taking of.

–“But we can easily imagine a state of affairs without clear (or no) property rights”–

Corrected: we can imagine a state of affairs in which parties have not agreed to grant one another the promise not to impose costs upon the other of one or more kinds.

And as such we can say that we can imagine a state of affairs in which no property RIGHTS exist, because no such RIGHTS exist until an agreement (tacit or explicit) has been made between the parties.

—“and then see the problems/impositions that exist without them and the solutions/minimization of costs that result when we implement property rights.”—

Now we are talking about a contractual right not to impose costs upon others, but property demonstrably unconditionally existed prior to any such agreement. Property precedes the contractual agreement not to impose costs upon each other. This is a purely empirical statement. Almost all creatures demonstrate this to behavior. They must. It is a necessity.

—“for example, if you were marooned on a deserted island and Friday shows up, it would impose upon Friday if you were to claim the entire island and all its resources for yourself, thereby forcing Friday to starve to death (assuming he doesn’t choose to kill you).”—

His presence is an imposition, unless we come to agreement. If no such agreement is reached, then killing each other is clearly the preference. One is not better than the other per-se. Cooperation is a better alternative only if it is indeed a better alternative. Otherwise simply killing him seems to be a better idea.

—“On the other hand, Friday shouldn’t take your harvested food supply as that would impose upon you. But you could both share the island’s food stuffs and even cooperatively hunt/gather. You could even create property rights in a lagoon for bathing, i.e. you bathe on Tuesday/Thur and he bathes on Mon/Wed.”–

Well you, it may be a linguistic artifact, but you are now entering into ‘should’ territory. I don’t make should arguments. I leave that for priests. And I dont resort to intuition and emotion in order to make decisions. Logical Decidability cannot depend upon introspection. Science requires that we eliminate those contaminants from our judgements – otherwise we cannot warranty that we are speaking truthfully.

So, Friday “can or cannot, usefully can, or cannot usefully, prefers to or prefers not to.” Now, it is possibly wiser to keep the option open for cooperation since cooperation is terribly valuable, but the question of ‘should’ never enters the conversation. It is either an advantage or not.

–“You seem to argue as if property rights inhere in the physical objects you have created or fenced in or are currently farming, etc.”—“–

I say nothing of the sort. I say that man universally demonstrates that which is his property by that which he defends, as demonstrated, visible, empirical evidence of experiencing an imposed cost upon him.

A property RIGHT is obtained by entry into a contract. So, it is not, and cannot be, that I have a property RIGHT prior to the contract, it is that I have incurred costs and as such defend my property from destruction or theft.

However, property is a name for an experience, which produces an action. The right is external to the property.

CLOSING
There are no conditions under which property does not exist because human perception of negative or positive experience could not exist, because human positive and negative experience is caused by the change in the state of property, wehre property is that which the individual experiences cost in the accumulation, defense, and loss.

Curt

Lee C Waaks
Thanks for your reply Curt.
<I know of no circumstances in which humans can possibly exist without property, nor can I imagine how humans would act without the existence of property. There are no conditions under which humans exist and are conscious and capable of action in which property does not exist: that which the human is willing to defend from taking or destruction or punish because of taking or destruction.>

Of course, even the USSR had property. There has always been property, even prior to the state. And there has also been collective ownership, too. A pre-propertarian theory does not deny that physical control over resources (private, collective or mixed) is necessary for human flourishing but it does allow us to show what liberty is without making it synonymous with property or property rights. Property rights are not synonymous with liberty because property rights are what we use as a defense against impositions. For example, if I paint a picture with resources I have gathered, we could argue that I own it even in a “state of nature”. If you come along and destroy it, you have imposed upon me. This is an objective fact. Property rights are not synonymous with liberty because property rights are designed to stop impositions like e.g. you destroying my painting. “Pre-propertarian” is not referring to a world without property; it’s referring to a theory of liberty not based on property rights themselves. This theory does not deny the near timeless existence of property; it merely states what liberty is in terms of a modus vivendi in a world where property (collective and private) already exists.

PATH:

1) life->movement->memory->property->
2) intention-sympathy->cooperation->morality(anti-parasitism)->
3) normative rules->property ‘rights’->law of property rights.
4) expansion of cooperation and reduction of transaction costs and local rent seeking by centralization(monopoly) of rules->
5) political application of morality(liberty) in response to centralization.
6) expansion of norms to enforce political morality (liberty)
7) expansion of laws to enforce political morality (liberty)

That is the historical, causal, and praxiological evolution of our institutions in biological, normative, and institutional forms. That is not only what occurred, but what MUST occur since information does not exist in the prior states. Just as ‘liberty’ does not exist in prior states, because ‘liberty’ requires an organized means of imposing costs upon others. That does not exist, and cannot exist, prior to property.

There is no condition under which property in fact does not exist, because it exists prior to cognition of it, prior to cooperation, prior to society, prior to norms, prior to government, prior to state.

Property is a demonstrable, empirically observable, empirically testable, universal behavior. Property rights whether in normative or legal form, exist after the evolution of cooperation.

At this point I am talking science, and you are not.

As such, any position you take is, of necessity, for the purpose of justifying some unscientific argument or unscientific position.

Verbalisms are nonsense stories we tell ourselves in order to justify our wants.

As far as I know quod erat demonstrandum.

Lester’s work is nonsense. It isn’t evil nonsense. Since his arguments justify his presuppositions, then his justification is at least a moral one.

So I have tried multiple times now to separate existential property: that which we defend – from property rights: that which a community consents to enforcing. But this seems to be escaping you. Individuals demonstrate ‘property’ without the existence of other humans. Just as all animals do.

Demonstrated property(existentially observable) versus property rights(“promises to insure”).


William Butchman:
 
QUESTION: Curt, would you say that those steps that you list in our evolution are provable? Is this argument provable using current scientific literature? For example, “We developed emotions to reward us for acquisition and punish us for loss.” Is there science lit on this?

Maybe a better question: Does every step need to be provable in the scientific literature?

 

 

William,

This is a great question.

Science does not ask us to prove so much as attempt to disprove that which corresponds to the facts. Theories demonstrate explanatory power, and increasingly parsimonious (simple), internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible theories, are pretty good theories. The more durable they are the better.

Yes, the literature exists on evolutionary development. Most of it is listed on my web site’s reading lists. Most of it has been developed in the past thirty years. It is getting so consistent that it is hard to argue with it. (Which is good, because it contradicts postmoderns and progressives).

But we can also look to evolutionary necessity, which is an operational argument: each of these behaviors that I describe exists at different states of development in many different organisms. (See Butler Schaeffer’s book for a non technical discussion.) But each depends on a prior state of development. You have to have the prior before you can have the latter.

(There aren’t any exceptions – evolution largely increases complexity – although having that argument is not an easy one given the simplicity of a virus as a suite of parts, versus the evolution of a virus into a complex organism and then the gradual loss of increasingly unnecessary parts).

Now, next, if we take the physicist’s methodology and say what information was necessary to construct X, the information does not exist in prior states, only in later states. (I hope this is obvious, but if it isn’t then tell me).

So the argument is internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible, and it is extremely parsimonious. Extremely. It is a very simple argument: We move so that we can access more calories. We remember so that we can access them better. We collect because we can access them better and more consistently. We cooperate because it is more productive (vastly so), we evolved morality (anti-parasitism) as a warning against punishment by others for free riding upon them, and as an instinct to punish free riders. We developed language to teach offspring, to negotiate, and control by gossip. As numbers increased we developed norms, traditions, religions, and laws, and political systems to maintain the incentives to both produce and to abstain from parasitism (outside of kin).

This is an extremely simple argument. It will be very difficult to find a superior argument. Just as it is turning out that almost all of nature is far more violent than we humans are – despite our status as super-predators.

So, briefly, I am very confident that while no scientific argument is provable, scientific arguments are defendable from criticism, and can survive. A law is a theory we simply cannot discover a means of disproving. The problem for anyone with an opposing theory would be in providing a more parsimonious (simplistic) correspondent consistent, and operationally possible argument.

I am not saying that such a thing is impossible. Just that I know the literature, and no such argument exists. And I am pretty confident that any future argument that improves upon my argument will in fact, improve it, not falsify it.

Thanks as always.
Affection.
Curt

The Central Argument To The Origin Of Morality: Cost vs Scarcity

Scarcity is a universal, unknowable, marginal indifference. It is praxeologicaly non-existent. I cannot know and act on it. Cost is particular, knowable, and decidable because of marginal differences. It is praxeologicaly existential. I can know and act on it.
Scarcity is a necessary constraint between states, that need not reduce local transaction costs, but which must avoid conflict despite differences in in-group (local) rules.

Morality is important between individuals, because they must reduce transaction costs sufficiently to engage in production in a division of knowledge and labor. Morality prohibits free riding, and is determined by costs that are knowable by the actors.
Polities must form laws (rules) of cooperation, that mix the necessary rules of morality (prohibition on free riding), with the rules necessary for the production of commons, with the utilitarian allocation of privileges (norms) that assist in either parasitism or the organization of production or both.

Rothbard, as a cosmopolitan, was trying to justify separatism. Not describe necessary properties of cooperation, nor the necessary properties of rule of law, under which a group of people can cooperate without allocation of discretion to individuals with authority.

( That basic argument should put the bullet in Hoppe’s Scarcity argument forever. Just like I have put the bullet in his Argumentation forever. Just like I have put a bullet in ghetto ethics forever. Just like I have put a bullet in the NAP(IVP) forever. Just as I suspect I may have put a bullet in ‘meaning’ forever. )

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

The Cure for Propaganda – And Western Civilization

(second draft)(important piece)

Propaganda is intentionally defective product, produced for the purpose of obtaining power, delivered with intent to persuade by deception, using rhetorical devices including: conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw-men, outright lying, and dependent upon repetition as a means of creating confirmatory “evidence”, to produce an intuitive rather than rational response.

The traditional, consensus argument has been that we are all smart enough to dismiss propaganda, to learn to distrust arguments, but history says that this isn’t true. Instead, we seek to confirm our moral biases. Not only because it is in our reproductive interest, because those biases reflect our reproductive interests, but because we have invested so heavily in our biases that the cost of training our intuition – intuition that we rely upon to decrease the burden of reasoning – is simply too high. In the kaleidic universe, without prejudices (biases) decisions are not decidable. We MUST rely upon intuition – we have no other choice.

The various pseudoscientific and rationalist movements, from Marxist ‘scientific socialism’, to Freudian Psychology, to Keynesian economics, the Anthropology of Franz Boas, to the outright fabrications of the Frankfurt School, to the postmodern philosophers, to American Feminism, to today’s political correctness – all relied, and continue to rely upon, deception by the use of conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw man, outright lying and cumulate in the use of Critique: confirmation based straw men as vehicles for criticism of opposing propositions, heaping of undue praise, piling-on of opponents with false arguments, and repeated chanting of falsehoods through the media.

These groups all make use of constant repetition of false statements consisting of various uses of conflation, loading, framing, obscurantism, straw men, and marxist ‘Critique’ to stimulate our intuitions, and generate confirmation bias, via normative awareness, rather than rational persuasion by truthful means.

In other words, its a very complex and innovative form of deception using suggestion, in order to confirm our moral cognitive biases, rather than education and persuasion by reason. It is an organized, intentional, systematic war against truth, reason, and science and morality for the purpose of establishing control of our thoughts, actions, and resources, and to justify theft from us, consumption of our historic commons.

We call this war by various names: the counter-enlightenment, the postmodern movement, socialism, marxist critique, pseudoscience. But these names give neutral moral judgement on what is an objectively immoral activity: deception for the purpose of control, theft, and virtual servitude. The truthful, rational, scientific name for these movements is ‘deception’.

THE MIRACLE OF THE WEST: TRUTH TELLING  
The rise of the west is due to a single accident: we discovered truth telling. We are the only people who discovered it, and paid the high cost to establish it as a commons – as normative infrastructure – in manners, ethics, morality, law, philosophy and science. And so it is truth telling that separates the west from the rest. All western excellences are the consequential result of truth telling. The ‘killer apps’ of western civilization are the product of a single technology: truth telling.

Today, if not throughout history, we see science as physically constrained and separate from social and moral and spiritual subjects. But science is just the art of truth telling. And it is less ‘troublesome’ to speak the truth about the physical world than it is about human affairs. So science tried to constrain itself to those areas, except where brave souls like Aristotle, Livy, Machiavelli, Smith and Hume, and most importantly Darwin. The syntopical historians Toynbee, Durant, Quigley, Huntington, Mallory, Keegan, and intellectual historians Duchesne, and Hicks. The social scientists: Weber, Pareto, Michels and Duheim. And today’s cognitive scientists, and experimental psychologists: Searle, Pinker, Khanemann, and Haidt.

But these empirical souls cold not compete with the propagandists who tried to unseat them. From Freud’s attempt to obscure Nietzche using pseudoscience. To the psychologizing of the postmodernists. From Boaz’s pseudoscinece in an attempt to obscure Darwin. From Keynes’s use of psudoscience to obscure the empiricists and moral “conservative” economists, through today’s combination of Krugman, DeLong, Stiglitz and their allies who advocate ‘immoral economics’ if consumption is maintained, even if consumption could be maintain in exchange for moral reforms of immoral bureaucracies, tax evasion, and unproductive working hours.

The German Rationalists, the Jewish Cosmopolitans, the Anglo Neo-Puritans, all seek to create a new authoritarianism justifying their control of society, The Indo-Europeans, the Greeks, Romans, Germanics, Norse, and British, sought to control society with truth, property, law, and jury. The British nearly perfected the technique – evolving the common, organic, law of property rights, through trial and error, and a means of voluntary exchange between the classes by using multiple houses of government.

But the truth without authority frightens people who do not live on islands, and do not have control of their domains. How could the Germans maintain unity in the absence of church authority? How could the Jews maintain unity in the absence of dual-standard-ethics and a contravention of their separatist morality? How could the Anglo Neo-Puritans maintain status and power, and ensure they wouldn’t be outnumbered without the imposition of their ideology by force?

It is one thing to use propaganda to make the world safe for jews by advocating diversity so that they can maintain a separatist and often parasitic, dual-ethic, society inside host societies – it is a necessary strategy for them even if damaging to host societies. It is another thing for northeastern american puritans to justify their conquest of territories. It is another thing for germans to try to conflate morality, truth, and duty so that they can maintain their stoic, paternal society.

But of these the damage has been done most severely by the american use of altruistic punishment and moral justification for violence, and even more so by the jewish use of their main skill: propaganda, pseudoscience, and deceit – the germans merely armed the Jewish socialists, neocons, and libertines, and the anglo Neo-puritans. The actual damage done by the germans themselves was relatively limited. They were merely conquered and have been held from ruling Europe for two generations by American dominance – a period which is coming to an end. The damage done by the anglo ideology is currently self-correcting via post 1990 science (my generation), and the collapse of the postwar-mythos along with the rise of world consumer capitalism eliminating american military advantage. The damage done by the jewish propagandists is probably irreversible, and unless we break up the continent into smaller regional states, we face becoming another ‘brazil’, thanks to the jewish destruction of history, philosophy, truth telling, law, ethics, morality, and science by successfully manipulating the neo-puritans, and mobilizing women sufficiently to follow their socialistic reproductive strategies – at the expense of the family. (See Kevin Macdonald’s work on Critique)

We see today the perfect culmination of Anglo imperial militarism, and Jewish propaganda, in Putin’s combination of multiple strains of propaganda, each of which appeals to the same moral bias, but cumulatively is self contradictory. (Google Yale University’s Timothy Snyder).

WHAT DO WE DO?
We can restore truth quite easily. We can restore the greatest mistake in history: a right to free speech, versus a right to truthful speech. But to require truthful speech requires that we possess a logical, rational, and scientific means of determining just what constitutes truthful speech. And we have been missing this particular logical system: the logic of morality, for 2500 years. The reason why we have missed it, escapes me at present – although I am sure I will uncover it with time.

**That single bit of logic is that the only possible moral rule is the total prohibition on the imposition of costs – or conversely – the right of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality.**

Science has developed the art of speaking truthfully over centuries. However, the one truthful proposition that they have avoided is morality. The right of productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality, is sufficient for a first-principle of all political discourse. The consequence of this single rule, is that political action must be constructed out of exchanges, rather than ‘collective goods’.

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)

But, we can also add to science, the additional logical constraint, that in the social sphere, one’s argument is free of involuntary transfer (involuntarily imposed costs), by requiring that it is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of external imposed costs (externalities). As such we can add to scientific testimony the requirement:

5) Ethical and Moral.(Free of involuntary transfer)
and
2.5) Morality: the logic of Cooperation

If we add this constraint to scientific inquiry then there is no difference whatsoever between the physical and social domains of inquiry. There is no difference between science, philosophy, morality and law. The disciples are identical.

We can say that something that is “unscientific” is therefore not ‘truthful’. And we may never know if we speak the truth, but we **can** warranty that we have performed sufficient due diligence that we speak truthfully. That is the best we can do, and in practice, the best we can do is the difference between the west and the rest, so it is certainly good enough.

Therefore:
1) We can restore the greatest mistake in history by requiring all public speech to be warrantied, and granting universal standing to all citizens in court for the defense of the informational commons, and imposting restitution for accidental damage; and triple restitution as damages for intentional deception; and add triple damages for deception in court. This increasing expense is important since the production of truth is expensive, and the production of deceit is cheap. The only possible means of providing an incentive to produce truthful statements, is to raise the cost of deceit so that it is higher than the high cost of telling the truth. (Our current legal system has evolved to produce perverse incentives: to lie.)

2) We can restore the second greatest mistake in history: intentionally enforced ignorance: privatize our school systems with 100% free choice. Restore the teaching of grammar, rhetoric, manners, ethics(morality), logic, reason, the scientific method, the art of witness and testimony, rule of law under property rights and the organic evolution of law. In addition there is no reason we do not teach the counting of money, balancing checkbooks, banking and interest, basic managerial accounting, basic financial accounting and micro-economics to every student from sixth to 12th grade. It is far easier to teach than algebra, geometry and calculus, and demonstrably more important. This curriculum will teach the students truth, truth telling, and voluntary cooperation, not spend their time trying to justify the fallacy of majoritarianism and political power – justifying majority tyranny.

3) We can restore the third greatest mistake in history: the accidental construction of a state mandated religion advocating falsehoods: the university system and democratic secular socialism. This requires little other than requiring that all universities operate upon credit to students, collected from the future earnings of students as payroll levies, and then the elimination of all state-university policies, returning the university to the service of industry not the state bureaucracy. This will bankrupt departments that are demonstrably harmful and produce negative results in for graduates (mostly social work, which harms your income potential).

4) We can restore the fourth greatest mistake in history: the permission of the government to construct law, rather than to construct contract. Under the one rule of morality, the state may facilitate the negotiation of contracts for the purpose of constructing commons, but may not issue commands for other than the conduct of declared war. This leaves the courts the only possible means of constructing law, by discovering innovations in involuntary transfer, and constructing law to suppress new involuntary transfers, which then can be used as legal ‘theory’ until heard by the highest court. However, all laws are theoretical, and open to revision, at any time, if the original purpose of suppressing involuntary transfers no longer stands, and what law remains is merely an unnecessary cost to citizens. But for this system to remain logically integral, the law must state the original intent, stating the means of involuntary transfer it wishes to suppress, and then be constructed from first principles, to fulfill that intent. (The combination of positive assertion and negative prohibition, under strict construction is necessary to prevent expansion of discretion without specific declaration of the means of expansion.)

5) We can restore the fifth greatest mistake in history: that while law must be constructed for individuals, commons must be constructed for families. Consumption serves reproduction, or it serves only hedonistic purposes. Any and all civilizations who reward dysgenic reproduction of the lower classes or dysgenic consumption of the upper classes, merely consume the combined sacrifices and savings of prior generations, violating the contract with prior generations, and eliminating the incentive to produce a civilization. The west has been organized to care for the incompetent, and produce offspring of the competent. The alternative is the current trend of dysgenic reproduction and damage to the world ecosystem – our necessary means of production.

6) We can restore the sixth greatest mistake in history – one that is counter-intuitive: the civil society (individual ownership and accountability for the commons). We have at present 1 lawyer for every 300 people in the United States. I submit that this is half the required number of lawyers, that the standard of passing the bar should be raised, and truth-telling, witness, and testimony, be added to the requirements for the bar. And in addition:

  • 6.1) That we demilitarize the police: The Sheriff be elected, and have passed the bar. Local police shall be under control of the Sheriff. That the Sheriff. That all employment as a deputy is at will. And that deputies are prohibited from That any man having performed military service may serve as deputy. And that the Sheriff shall rely upon volunteers (like the volunteer fire departments do), rather than a full compliment of permanent staff. That restitution should be instituted in all cases of harm, and in cases of fines, all such fines directed to the service of the poor, not the general fund or the office of the sheriff. That all volunteers, having served at least three years, may act as deputies at any time, and use command and violence if necessary to organize all available males to stop a property crime until a sheriff or deputy arrives. This alone will restore the civic society, by making males both understand morality and law, and take ownership of society.
  • 6.2) Banking be professionalized and all those who issue credit on behalf of another (not their personal money) be required to pass the bar. And that the financial performance of any lender’s loans be measured and as readily available as any individual’s credit rating. Accounting and banking are a trivial technology compared to law and reallocation of employment will repopulate the current banking sector with superior individuals, who command higher salaries, and who, if they lose their ‘ticket’ will be irreparably harmed. 
  • 6.3) Restore accountability to all individuals in an organization, and the total loss of insulation from responsibility for any act of involuntary transfer. The requirement for all individuals who handle money to be insured, and that the insurer warrants that these individuals understand and can perform truth telling, witness and testimony when called upon. This will restore morality to business and industry within three years. 
  • 6.3) Grant universal standing for all commons, so that activist can bypass the (corrupt) state and go directly to the courts in those cases where the commons is harmed. This will require clarification of the law, and registration of each commons, and for each commons enumerating terms of “usus, fructus, macipio and abusus”. Any use of the commons must be insured, so that the insurer and the user bear the cost of enforcement. No individual in any organization is insulated from violations of the commons. This will have to be implemented over six years, since current abusers cannot rationally adapt faster than this. (Some law on the use of commons is also still not settled.)

7) Reform Keynesian economics.

  • 7.1) Bypass the financial system, because the distribution of liquidity through the banks, as if we are still in an era of hard currency, is no longer necessary. Have the treasury acquire a majority interest the (worst) credit card company, Mastercard, Issue a new card to every social security card number. Distribute all liquidity equally to all card holders, and cause business, industry, and finance to compete for it, rather than cause consumers to act as slaves to interest that is questionably ethical in the first place. If this money is distributed equally, upper bracket holders can pay down taxes with it. It will also cause increase resistance to immigration of the lower classes. The liquidity must be formulaic (“rule based”) and non-discretionary, so it is free of the political sphere. This will also mean that de-facto citizenship is participation in this credit and without it no one can obtain such services. 
  • 7.2) (Saving and retirement)
  • 7.3) (Compensation for constructing, maintaining, and policing the commons)
  • 7.X) (Not ready for discussion yet)

8) Limited Reform of Taxation:
Eliminate corporate taxation on dividends, while preserving it on capital gains, and on retained earnings. Tax all dividends as regular income at personal income rates. Accelerate depreciation of all assets to current liquidation prices.

9) Reform of Majority Rule Government: restore cooperation between the classes.

  • 9.1) Defense(military), Law(dispute resolution)(the courts), Insurance(of last resort), Commons(government). Caretaking(church) must function as independent institutions.
  • 9.1) (not ready for discussion yet)

REFORMING FUKUYAMA’S THEORY OF BUREAUCRACY

This constantly adapting “self-organizing” solution is contrary to Fukuyama’s advocacy of a ‘professional bureaucracy’ in the Chinese model as the ‘end of history’ – not the least of which is because bureaucracy always produces stagnation, predation and poverty. Instead, this solution advocates the historical western model, in which the government is in fact, a private sector institution (a wholly owned corporation) analogous to a shopping mall, and the different groups within that corporation that we call ‘the private sector’ produces constant innovation, and is constantly replaced by generations of creative destruction, requiring constant political innovation, but constant innovation that requires the state only to act as observer and judge, not director, manager, or administrator.

The reason being that the bureaucratic state is a monopoly that cannot be revised by competition – only by failure and revolution. The state as a judiciary, the monarchy as a final arbiter, the government as a producer of voluntary commons, all force constant adaptation to circumstance, and constant reorganization of the family, and the state, to reflect the technology available to the voluntary organization of production upon which our prosperity depends. Self interests among the monarchs preserves the long term concerns over short term consumptions.

The west innovated faster because there is a minimum delta between an innovation, and the prevention of parasitism in both private and public sectors that can be placed upon it. Organic common law reacts as soon as an involuntary transfer is performed. The performance of the west is largely the result of the private sector innovating faster than the government can construct rents upon it. The anglo model was the most successful at preventing rents, by creating a means of constructing trades between the classes, by class-based institutions that we call ‘houses of government’.

Fukuyama, despite his study of trust, cannot seem to imagine the importance of truth telling – a victim of genetic, cultural, and consensus bias I assume. Fukuyama errors, just as did Confucius, in failing to grasp that consensus is meaningless, management is meaningless, only truth telling and sovereignty separates the west from the rest. And that all our unique institutions, and our dramatic performance, are attributable to our having solve the problem of politics: sovereignty, truth telling, property rights, and jury. A solution neither Confucius, nor the Chinese bureaucracy – nor any other civilization – managed to solve.

The fact that the Chinese created the state first, but did not discover truth, and despite being wealthier, more isolated, and more prosperous, repeatedly failed to discover a solution to the problem of politics.

Unfortunately for the west, the French revolution reversed the gains of the English revolution and its implementation of empirical government. And it was the french rational-totalitarian model that spread across the continent, and not the english empirical.

The western empirical (truthful) government-of-exchanges was further undermined by the destruction of the American cooperation between the classes by the dissolution of senate as a representational body of state interests, by directly electing senators. And undermined yet again by the enfranchisement of non-property owners, instead of the creation of a separate house of non property owners, to replace the church’s representation of non-property owners. Combined with majority rule, this meant that instead of creating exchanges between the classes by requiring the consent of each class, the non-propertied lower classes, and in the end, it has become simply unmarried women, determine the outcome of all political decisions, creating not voluntary exchanges but involuntary impositions justified by the fact that politicians can appeal to minorities and unmarried women to parasite upon married couples who expend effort to create productive and self sufficient families.[See Pew research on the influence of women, then single mothers, on policy].

Every involuntary taking is a lost opportunity for voluntary exchange which creates a homogenous community, and instead, sets us apart. The authors of this deception are unfortunately predominantly Jewish, but their model was adopted by almost all western academic and political institutions after the second world war as a means of status seeking for neo-puritans, and advocating diversity and tolerance as a means of preserving jewish separatism by attacking western values of family, truth telling, and conformity to western norms.

At present, we we call ‘The Cathedral’, or the Academy-Media-Government complex, has replaced the martial complex of the early twentieth century, which replaced the modern (scientific) academic complex that had evolved from the enlightenment, and culminating with Darwin, Maxwell, and Einstein. So we have progressively degenerated from the Modernism (science) to militarism, to pseudoscientific-propaganda-posmodern deceit in an attack on both the martial and scientific movements.

So, Fukuyama is half right in his analysis of bureaucracy, but he merely seeks to justify his priors: his “end of history’ hypothesis. But, instead of his attempted justification of social democracy by imposing asian totalitarianism upon the west, the answer to the next generation – The Restoration – is instead to understand the failure of the enlightenment project was one of attempting to assume and advocate that local evolutionary strategies could be advocated as universal norms. And instead of trying to improve upon plato by creating professional bureaucracy somehow free of malincentives of all monopolies, to restore the institutional means of cooperation between the classes: to create moral government, now that we know what ‘moral’ means: productive, truthfully stated, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality. Where ‘truthfully stated’ requires adherence to science of truth telling: the five criteria: internal consistency, external correspondence, operational definition, exhaustively falsified, and free of negative externality.

If this is understood, it will become clear that the conservative model is correct, and reflects science: to criticize all changes until they survive, rather than impose changes by law. In other words, conservatism is the remains of earlier scientific government, when one grasps that science is not justificationary but critical. This means that any

The British did not so much as discover scientific (empirical) government,as discover that they already were practicing it. American conservatives continue the tradition of scientific government: that which is true and useful survives all criticism. If it is voluntarily adopted, then it is true. If it is not voluntarily adopted, then it is not true. The same goes for economic theory: Keynesian monetarism is in fact, ‘lying’ – disinformation. The question is instead, how do we perform the same end truthfully?

Truth is enough. Lying has become too artful, too comfortable and too pervasive. It OBSCURES both the need for and incentive for truthful conduct of economics, politics and law.

It is possible to achieve social democratic ends by truthful means.

That is the subject of my coming work on post-majority-rule government.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Rule of Law Is Sacred to Western Man

–“our prophet is sacred to us”–

Rule of law is more sacred than our lives. Rule of law requires we speak, and understand the truth, not myth.

The reason for the velocity of western advancement in all fields is that we tell the truth whether it hurts or not, whether it offends or not – a man must earn respect by speaking the truth, not myth – rather than receive respect for his folly. Western man has systematically eliminated error from man’s mind by demanding the truth in all walks of life.

As a political question then, why does a man have a right to believe false things? We cannot stop him from his beliefs in false things, but we can stop him from spreading his beliefs in false things. We can prevent it from his speech. We can prevent it from his publications. We can prevent it from his commerce, his law, and his politics.

The source of western exceptionalism is truth telling – even if it hurts.

Muslims living in the west are not given special privilege to escape our most sacred value: truth.

Mises: “Human Operationalism”, Not “Human Action”

He was that close.

I have more important things to do with my life, but if I had the time I could rewrite his tome Human Action as Human Operationalism, and instantly reform the debate from one between science and pseudoscience in which he has been outcast, to one that unified all fields, and restored his position in intellectual history.

Damn. He was SO CLOSE. So close. It’s taken me years. And in retrospect it’s tragic. Terribly tragic. He *almost* reformed economics and saved us from a century of destructive Keynesian policy.

Morality is a Problem of Cost, Not Scarcity

Scarcity and Property exist prior to cooperation. However, scarcity is an analytic concept. Humans think in terms of cost, not scarcity. Because scarcity requires knowledge we cannot possess other than through prices/costs. So we cannot know something is scarce any more than we can know something is analytically true. We can only know that it is costly. The very concept of scarcity is modern, even if the precursor existed in the late medieval period (Norman English). Prior to the modern period, everything is ‘scarce'(costly) except an oversupply of labor and an over-demand for consumption. So it is praxeologically irrational to construct operational definitions out of that which is operationally impossible. (the profundity of that statement may not be immediately obvious.)

Cooperation evolves out of the increased productive value of cooperating minus the loss of value in free riding, parasitism and predation. Humans evolved moral intuitions as pre-cognitive assessments of changes in the state of that which they had expended effort upon (paid costs for), so humans ‘feel’ changes in inventory as emotions, and ‘feel’ reactions to violations of parasitism, and react expensively to prevent future such actions – and so, humans act morally on costs, not analytically on scarcity. They must because reason is too expensive and failure prone compared with intuitive responses. We avoid one another because of potential conflict, yes. And, indeed, many of our primate relatives avoid conflict, but do not cooperate. Yet we cooperate with one another out of a desire for returns and discounts. We cooperate because we evolved the ability to empathize with intentions. We cooperate because it is more productive to cooperate than not. We are wealthier, more numerous and more powerful than our primate relatives, because we can not only prevent takings, but because we can cooperate – and they cannot.

But for cooperation to be both rational and evolutionarily survivable, it must be relatively free of parasitism (beneficial for all parties: meaning mutually productive). And that is why humans are so highly agitated that we inflict punishment on all violators of the contract against parasitism: violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, rent seeking, conspiracy, statism, conversion, invasion, and conquest. We call this sequence ‘criminal, ethical, and immoral behavior’. Or we shorten it to ‘morals’.

As such, it is impossible for an economy to form without cooperation – where there are prohibitions only on violence, but an absence of a prohibition on parasitism that make cooperation possible. It is only possible for an economy to form in the presence of morality: suppression of free riding.

The only possible solution for any organism is the sequence:

1) movement/memory/scarcity/defense(property)

2) intention, incentives, cooperation, morality (non parasitism) – cooperation on the production of normative commons.

As such the only CAUSALLY POSSIBLE origin of moral rules is the prohibition on parasitism, not scarcity.

3) Just as we had to suppress ethical and moral parasitism in order to create cooperation, we must expand our suppression to include organized parasitism (state monopolies). But that does not mean that we must abandon prohibitions on parasitism. And it does not mean that it is possible to. Transaction costs alone would force the logical restoration of the state on the one hand, and the organized genocide of low trust peoples (gypsies and jews, and now apparently, muslims) that all host cultures (except the west) always enact. The only possible means of obtaining liberty is to increase the scope of moral prohibitions (prohibitions on parasitism) to reflect innovations in parasitism of the marxist and Keynesian era.

So, for a bit of irony, the scarcity exists prior to cooperation, and therefore it is not praxeologically possible to come into existence post-cooperation.

As such human societies evolve out of an ever-expanding suppression of parasitism, largely by centralizing parasitism to pay for the suppression of local parasitism. Once centralized, the next opportunity for increasing prosperity by suppression, is to eradicate centralized parasitism, by eliminating monopolies that make parasitism possible.
Ergo, the only possible libertarian society is one of high trust, and total suppression of free riding (parasitism).
Ergo the only possible social order using the ghetto ethic is one of those imprisoned either in the ghetto, or on Crusoe’s island.

PRAXEOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS
One must question the dogmatic advocacy of operational definitions (praxeology) in the construction of any economic statement that we say is ‘true’, while at the same time constructing economic statements that are not operational, but merely rational. This is a contradiction.

Furthermore, operational (praxeological) definitions only prove that something is existentially possible, and if constructed as measures they produce reproducibility. But they do not demonstrate that they are in fact the way something occurred (truth), nor do they demonstrate the exclusive means by which something can be accomplished.
Meaning is useful, but it is rarely true – except by accident. In fact, we may view science as an effort to replace the subjectively meaningful, with the objectively truthful.

Defense of meaning is justification. Man justifies. Justification is just another means of deception of others, and satisfying confirmation bias of the self – which in itself is merely an attempt to obtain a discount. But it is psychologically understandable that one would argue desperately to defend his investments in justification, despite the universal evidence to the contrary of his arguments. It is also logical that it is so easy to use loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, conflation, and justification, to do so. But justification is merely justification – an error or a deceit.

Hoppe and Rothbard work to justify Ghetto ethics. In large part i have solved the problem that Mises came so close to, failed to, and was ostracized over. I have tried to correct hoppe’s deductive arguments by converting them to scientific arguments, and thereby abandoning the ghetto influence of Rothbard, and preserving Hoppe’s arguments against the incentives of state vs private ownership. And his use of insurance to eliminate monopoly insurer of last resort. And his use of economics to operationally and intuitionistically describe operations and construct theories of all human behavior.

It so happens that the interests between states (out group parties) are not commensurable, and therefore can only be reduced to questions of property and contract. But for in-groups to form, sufficient to hold the territory necessary to implement sufficient suppression of parasitism that it is possible to construct a condition of liberty, requires the suppression of all forms of parasitism regardless of the means by which such costs are imposed.

Man perceives and operates on property he has expended costs, even mere forgone opportunity costs, to obtain. He treats his body, mind, kin, allies, several property, corporate property, common property, normative property, and sovereignty as property that he must defend. He seeks cooperation because it is a non linear multiplier of productivity. But he cooperates *under normative conditions*, meaning that he habituates cooperation, only under conditions of total prohibition on parasitism. Those peoples that learn truth can produce trust, and trust can produce greater velocity and adaptability than lower trust societies, because transaction costs are lower than all other competing groups. To create truth and trust a minority organize and systematically apply violence to those who practice lower levels of truth and trust, to compel them to either abandon their parasitism, or to leave, or to kill them, because their parasitism forces an exported cost upon all other high trust practitioners in the local region.

Hoppeian and Rothbardian mis-application of the ethics of international trade for the purpose of avoiding military conflict, to the local polity where the purpose is reducing transaction costs so that they can cooperate in production of goods, services, commons, institutions and norms, not-withstanding. (They are making a rather stupid error in retrospect. But like all people of those eras fighting socialists, they resorted to the same tactics. Fighting dishonest marxism with dishonest libertarianism is probably a tactical necessity, but now that we are no longer so ignorant of the science we can abandon imitating the marxists and just argue the case for liberty scientifically.)

Curt Doolittle

( it will take me a few more times to get it tight, but it’s pretty close.)