A Short Introduction to Propertarianism On The Questions of Drugs and Religion

—“What’s your view of the contemporary drug war? How does the Propertarian framework handle the externality effects of drug use? Conservatives obviously seem to feel strongly about it that they license a monolithic state to fight it, and libertarians seem to adopt the opposite libertine position, at best hoping that it somehow reduces the negative externalities in the end (something something free association). Exposure to your framework has taught me that there may be an interesting, novel response, one that (as intended with your system) doesn’t lose information and fairly negotiates between interest groups.”— Josh

Great Question Josh.

Alcohol, Drugs, and Religion – and, yes I’m including religion for a good reason.

0) What one does in the mind, toilet, and home, is irrelevant if it does not externalize costs into the commons, court, or sacred places and events.

1) Prosecution of drug users has nothing to do with the users, but to the externalities caused by their drug use. In other words, the that prosecution is an act of prior restraint by the insurer of last resort on behalf of the insured.

2) Contract of any kind requires sentience, and without sentience one cannot adhere to contract.

3) Restitution is not possible since not all things are open to substitution – particularly living things like people and pets, but also art, and sacred things.

4) Restitution of information is not possible and this is a serious issue for mothers who must regulate the information available to their children in order to reduce the cost of raising competitive civic offspring.

5) Moral hazard – The problem with degenerative drug use, is that if one doesn’t take care of one’s mind and body the rest of society is put in moral hazard (just as unwed mothers put society in moral and economic hazard), by forcing us to either provide (costly) care, imprison, or kill.

6) Organizations can be held accountable for the actions of their members on behalf of the organization’s and their interests. A religion can prevent knowledge, or it can distribute knowledge. It can prevent bad civic behavior, or distribute bad civic behavior. It can use numbers to create and limit normative behavior, and create and limit economic and political behavior – even military behavior. So religions can externalize objectively good or objectively bad information, and restitution (repair) is almost impossible due to the unique method of teaching used by religion – the natural ‘drug’ ( endorphins ) provided by the submission-to-the-safety-of-the-pack response caused by gatherings of groups in ceremony, listening or chanting myths (prayers).

( Note: as you suggested, the addition of informational analysis helps us better understand these problems. )

How can one insure others against the externalities?

Well, one can engage in recreational use of drugs in the home, the home of friends, or somewhere not in the commons – admitting that it’s precisely the entertainment of the commons, and relief from the pressure of normative obedience in the commons most of us seek release from.

One can limit one’s use of these things to the non-detrimental. As far as I know alcohol pot and most non-opiates are safe in small numbers. But anything that alters brain chemistry is a serious problem for all of us.

One can engage in ‘celebrations and rituals’ with others who provide insurance when you are not able to (‘ someone who doesn’t drink – much – for example ‘).

As far as I know the most significant issues creating this problem are the tragic danger of automobiles, the moral hazard of universal health care, the externalization of un-civic behavior to the young and ‘impulsive’, the retaliation invoked by the desecration of the sacred – of which to westerners, the commons simply is a part.

Evidence is that extremely severe prosecution of violators of the commons has greater influence than prosecution of the manufacturers and distributors. So my suggestion is that one serious strike or three minor strikes get you hung. This fear will be enough to control aberrant behavior in the commons while permitting what I see as necessary release for the ‘impulsively impaired’ in the home.

Like prostitution, if manufacture and distribution are not taking place in the commons, and if use is not taking place in the commons, and if externalities are not produced in the commons, then there is no meaningful consequence.

Pot has the amazing benefit of both pacifying the underclasses and rapidly increasing male sterility, thereby reducing the rates of reproduction. The opposite is true of alcohol.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Yes. I'm Controversial. But Why?

Yeah. I’m controversial.

Although, it’s somewhat odd to me that advocating truth-telling, not-stealing, limiting public publication to truthful statements, converting to market rather than authoritarian government, and paying poor people in exchange for having just one kid, is controversial.

Slaying sacred ideological cows in every era is controversial. But then, I don’t know why advocating deceitful speech, authoritarianism, theft, and systemic parasitism isn’t more controversial than truth telling and not stealing.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


Close to the Final Word On Ethical Systems. (The "Deontological Fallacy" In Ethics)

—“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

I‘d like to give you a different suggestion.

That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions.

1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM)
2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies
3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws
4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science

But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated).
So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically.

My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle.

So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it.

So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs.

Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities).

The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality.
As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal.



Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


Intentional Abuse of Ethical Systems as a Means of Parasitism

The false use of ethics as a means of deception.

In childhood we require others to imitate: virtue ethics.

In adulthood we require general rules to apply : rule ethics.

In wisdom we require outcomes to measure : outcome ethics.

Not all can achieve outcome ethics. Some are stuck in virtue. Others in rule.
1) We forgive children who obey virtue ethics because they cannot understand rules.
2) We forgive adults who obey rule ethics because they cannot understand the outcomes.
3) We rarely forgive outcome ethics, which we see as error (when a general fails) and should have relied upon conventual wisdom or morality.

There are those who practice virtue and rule ethics in order to circumvent responsibility for outcomes.
Keynesianism and Rothbardianism are dark side ethics. They ignore the consequences in order to further current self interest.

Lies, more lies, and many more lies.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


NAP: Asserting that Out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation

NAP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation. Jewish law, culture, and religion attempt to preserve separatism so that they gain the benefits of the host’s commons production, without paying for the normative commons. Just as Gypsies do, but gypsies keep the cost low enough, and appeal to our altruism enough, that the cost of extermination is more than we are willing to pay. Jews do not limit their parasitism, and perform it largely through externality or deception, and this is why they are, over the centuries, repeatedly retaliated against: because the cost has become high enough that hosts must.

This is not unknown since jewish authors discuss this problem openly.


Rothbardians are to the Commons as Socialists are to Production

I‘ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: NAP/Rothbardian libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production under the false premise that they will continue to produce. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons under the false premise that they will continue to produce commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.***

A condition of Liberty is constructed by the common production of the suppression of parasitism in private, social, political, and out-group human action.

Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the informational commons such that it is no longer possible to engage in parasitism through deceptive (or erroneous) language.

Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the government by the demand for strict construction under the one law voluntary transfer, so that it is no longer possible to steal via the government.

Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the bureaucracy by universal standing in court, and the restoration of rule of law so that all citizens are subject the same prosecution for involuntary transfer.

And much more.

Rothbardianism is just parasitism.

If you want a world without commons try to make one. It isn’t rational that one can exist, and it isn’t empirically demonstrable that one can exist.


Propertarianism is for the Prosecution: Sheriff, Knight, Judge


It’s not belief. It’s not a religion. It’s law. A law for the prosecution of those who have engineered deceptions by which to confiscate our private and common property by appealing to our altruistic morality.

Every Man A Sheriff, Every man a Knight, Every Man A Judge.

No mercy. No forgiveness. No Tolerance.

Make parasitism impossible leaving only participation in the market for the production of commons, goods, and services, the only possible means of survival.


The Problem of Moral Intent Without the Skills of Moral Action

The moral man is skeptical. If you come at me with questions it would be the actions of a moral man.

But as a teacher of others and a philosopher myself I grasp that it is quite difficult to ask questions when you do not know what to ask.

So the only option available to one is to criticize until one knows what questions to ask.

So it is not necessarily that one intends immorality. It is that we stumble the best we can with the skills at our disposal.

As such you have moral intent but not the ability to act morally.

I often spend a generous amount of time with those of moral intent but lacking in moral skills, in order to help them discover what questions they might want to ask.

This is my contribution to the commons. Tolerance. Patience. Cost. A cost for which many people have suggested I waste my time.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


We are Coming. We are Legion.

We are coming with internet, radios, guns, molotovs, where our ancestors came with leaflets, guns, torches and nooses; and their ancestors came with letters, pitchforks, torches, and knives; and their ancestors with word of mouth, spears, torches, and knives.

We are coming. They know we are coming. But we are legion.


Drones Hovering

Drones Hovering

1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones.

2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then

3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes.

4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines.

So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.