Curt’s “WAR” Reading List

THE WAR OF STATES
Sun Tzu: The Art Of War
The History of the Peloponnesian War: Revised Edition (Penguin Classics)
Julius Ceasar: Caesar’s Commentaries: On the Gallic War And on the Civil War
Julius Ceasar: The Conquest of Gaul
Machiavelli: The Prince
Machiavelli: The Art Of War
Carl Van Clausewitz: On War (2G Second Generation Warfare)
Antoine De Jomini: The Art Of War
Moltke: The Art Of War
Mao Tse-Tung: The Art of War (4G Fourth Generation Warfare)
B. H. Liddell Hart: Strategy: Second Revised Edition (Meridian)
Michael Handel: Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought
Martin van Creveld: Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (Paperback)
Robert Leonhard: The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver Warfare Theory and Airland Battle (3G Third Generation Warfare)
John Keegan: The Price of Admiralty: The Evolution of Naval Warfare

IDEOLOGICAL GUERILLA WAR
Martin van Creveld: The Rise and Decline of the State, Transformation of War, The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century

ADDITIONAL WORKS OF GENERAL THEORY
Michael Handel: Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought
Bevin Alexander: How Wars Are Won: The 13 Rules of War from Ancient Greece to the War on Terror
Bevin Alexander: How Great Generals Win (Paperback)
John Keegan: The Mask of Command
Martin van Creveld: Command in War (everything he has written)
John Keegan: The Face of Battle: A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme
Donald Kagan: On the Origins of War: And the Preservation of Peace (everything he has written)

WORKS ON REBELLION
Étienne de La Boétie: The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude
The IRA Green Book
The Marxist Mini Manual
The Protocols Of Zion
The Ten Planks Of The Communist Manifesto
Michael Jacoby Brown: Building Powerful Community Organizations
Saul Alinsky: Rules for Radicals
Rinku Sen: Stir It Up (Lessons in Community Organizing & Advocacy)
Randy Shaw: The Activist’s Handbook
Joe Szakos and Kristin Layng Szakos: Lessons from the Field: Organizing in Rural Communities

ADDITIONAL WORKS OF HISTORY3
Donald W. Engels: Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army
The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century A.D. to the Third
John Keegan: A History of Warfare (Everything he has written.)
Archer Jones: The Art of War in Western World
Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age
Donald Kagan: (everything he has written)

ANALYTICAL METHODS
Two-Person Game Theory
Differential Games: A Mathematical Theory with Applications to Warfare and Pursuit, Control and Optimization
Numbers, prediction, and war: Using history to evaluate combat factors and predict the outcome of battles
Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in Modern War

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/CaSxk

Q&A: Answers from Ask Curt Anything (Reasonable) Day

FROM: Andy Curzon

OK here is a seasonable (old legal word for reasonable) question, what is the current shell structure to the ‘Propertarianism and Formal Institutions’ tome (my tentative title) as it sits in your mind today?

This should be a five minute one.

Also, in response to ‘finish molyneux post’ what is your Molyneux post? I am really not sure what to make of everything surrounding him, my view seems to vacillate. You said to me about two years ago he ‘was one of the children’, does this still hold and within what ambit?

Two easy one for you. smile emoticon

The Skeleton
(a) The outline is up on the site.
Menu->Propertarianism->Previous Draft
http://www.propertarianism.com/ideas/
(b) The posts by chapter are here:
Menu->Propertarianism->Posts by Chapter
http://www.propertarianism.com/propertarian-posts-by…/
(c) Introductions
a short course in propertarian morality
a short course in testimonial truth
missing: a short course in property en toto.
missing: a short course in strict construction
missing: a short course on propertarian institutions

Molyneux
Molyneux did a pretty good job of answering Jon Stewart’s supposedly tough questions for libertarians.
But I thought I would do a better job of answering those questions – and do so more aggressively.

FROM: Shaun Moss
Why isn’t Clausewitz’s On War in the Propertarian Military Canon?

Because as (a) Keegan and (b) van Creveld have pretty clearly shown, Clausewitz was wrong. So that’s why I recommend Keegan (history of warfare) and van Creveld (culture of war) instead.

FROM Kirill Alferov
When we are thinking about the world, we can and should take into account not only our own experience, but also experiences of other people (to which we do not have direct access, of course).

I continuously find that people, especially in political philosophy, love to frame everything in their personal experience and their own perspective, without doing more objective investigation.

And I am asking whether you find this a problem. This was prompted by your earlier post about Ukraine finally making you disillusioned in the ideas of anarchy.

Kirill,

1) absolutely! It’s a problem we all deal with constantly, which is why I try to reduce everything to objective differences: trust, truth, economic velocity, prosperity, competitive capacity, informational content,… The problem is FINDING those objective criteria, and then observing each culture to determine how they compare, and what substitutes they use, or what blocks them from higher prosperity. Not that prosperity alone is an objective good, but prosperity gives us choices to pursue whatever goods we choose. (The italian vs german argument for example, wherein Italians favor private investments vs germans commons investments and the consequences of them. Sure germany is wealthier, but is that level of commons production really ‘better’? It’s hard to say since we know that people don’t get much happier after a certain point in wealth and that if they are wealthier they tend to use that wealth to isolate themselves and become less happy because of it.

The most interesting change in my thinking has been the understanding that Britain was a germanic country prior to 1800, and separated from german civilization at that point due to their world trade and laissez faire, where germany remained martial, territorial and national – and better educated. So I have come to understand that the germans were correct, that my people (who I was very proud of) were not, and that anglo liberalism has been a catastrophe, even if it relied upon common law and empiricism. Meanwhile the germans relied upon restating Christianity as duty and piety and chose napoleonic law. This means that territorial incentives can survive independent of institutional choices.

I can’t really remember all the major shifts in my thinking. I know that I would love to live in south america, africa and china for a year each so that I could learn to describe their models through empathy rather than just the evidence and deducing their incentives from that evidence.

2) personal experience and anecdote are different things. All knowledge is gained by personal experience. I was, like most americans, relatively ignorant about this part of the world, and once I understood that anarchism was an appeal to recreate eastern european relations between managers and serfs, I had an existential model to compare anarchism against. I mean, the central value of private property is in creating commons through the increase in production achieved under the voluntary organization of production (capitalism). Wealth is still the product of a commons: rights. So any philosophy that suggests otherwise is merely an attempt to create tyranny by requiring others to pay for the commons (property rights) but failing to produce commons in exchange for their payments. So I see anarchism as an attempt to construct organized theft: a mafia strategy.

3) So in the end, when I think about the world I try to guess how groups organize to acquire, what they acquire, and why they acquire it. These organizations (governments, laws, and norms and myths) can be deconstructed into sets of incentives. And I try do that. Its like saying that I understand china’s fear of NOT controling the south china sea as rational. But that said, I do not thing expansion of chinese culture and philoopy is objectiely good for anyone. In fact, I am not sure that expansion of any existing culture is a very good idea. I am sure only that expansion of trust, prsoperty, and competitive advantage serve the intersts of a populace. And that my people OUr people, have been competitively succesful despite our poverty and small numbers, by truth, trust, and commons.

—“In your view, is our current social condition primarily attributable to biologic/genetic factors (e.g., nurturing, feminine dysgenic and parasitic impulses) or is bad philosophy primarily to blame (failure of rationalism, introduction of post-modernism, etc.,)…It’s most likely a combination of the two, but how much weight would you place on each factor?”—Emil Suric

I think it is the result of the ambitions of the enlightenment thinkers to motivate the populace under the myth of equality to seize power from the landed church, the landed aristocracy, and the monarchies.

I can’t view our biological factors as a problem, they are merely properties. I view our condition as the result of replacing faith in a divine entity with an equal faith in the potential of every man. (a substitution effect really)

I see a specialization of this ‘faith’ starting with Paine, and then the French revolution, then under the industrial revolution, with the cosmopolitans. This fallacy was not present in german thought.

I see the postmoderns and the progressives as having master this deception.

But if you want to state what made this POSSIBLE by political means, it was the enfranchisement of women ,and the various sacrifices of penalties that we had to accept in order to enfranchise them.

We would not have this problem otherwise.

Which is quite contrary to my expectations.

Emil Suric —Excellent. That really cleared a lot up. Thanks—

Next:

Q: —“When/why did you see your work as a total break with Rothbard’s?”—

I read Popper -> Hayek -> Hoppe -> Mises -> Rothbard, I understood Hayek and Popper because of my work in computer science: that the model for the social sciences was, like physics, “information”. What I found in Hoppe was strict construction and amoral argument by reduction to property insured as property rights under common law.

I was stunned the first time I heard Hoppe speak, and I understood immediately that he was making at least one significant error of switching between necessity and preference. And I understood his mistaken or perhaps confused positioning of popper as a positivist. And by this point I understood that apriorism was a justification. I just ignored all of his justifications because of the explanatory power of amoral argument reduced to property.

I remember flying while reading Rothbard’s For a New Liberty and (a) realizing that he had pretty much hijacked both the term libertarian and his argument structure from someone else. And (b) then I was angered if not nauseated by the suicidal immorality of his ethics.

And I understood immediately what he had done: apply the ethics of pastoralists and the bazaar to the ethics of land holders – and the absurdity of it. Including the absurdity of the Crusoe’s island analogy, where the sea functions the walls of the medieval ghetto, and where the problem of cooperation evolved instead, in the vast plain evenly distributed with people.

I don’t remember when it became obvious to me that rothbard argued as a cosmopolitan (his group evolutionary strategy and argumentative tradition) and Hoppe as a german (his group evolutionary strategy and argumentative tradition), and that I was arguing as an anglo empiricist (with my group’s evolutionary strategy and argumentative tradition.)

Q: —“Do you think that position is contradictory based the credence you still place on Hoppe?”—

Well, I don’t know what you mean by credence. I admire him for his work using the knowledge of his era. I admire him for his transformation of rothbardian cosmopolitanism in to hanseatic german. And I thank him for being the person who showed me the methodology – even if he wouldn’t personally give me the time of day.

I would really appreciate it if I could work with him while he still has faculties to show that he, rothbard and I have explained the same principle using different argumentative methods to express different group evolutionary strategies, and that the fact that we can do so is a great test of the veracity of the ideas. I think that would turn our conflict in to consequence. And it would unite the libertarian and alt right quite nicely.

So I appreciate hoppe as my teacher. Others have suggested he has done nothing original. I can’t prove that. I can’t find what he’s done anywhere else. his strict construction might by justificationary and apriorisitc. It might then be a legal rather than truthful argument. But I repaired that. And I don’t think I would have without listening to how he did it.

So that is what I take from him. And I think that’s his real contribution.

Q: —“Why do you place Rothbard as a member of the culture of critique when he presented libertarianism as part of the common law tradition, at least near the end of his career?”—

He doesn’t. He presents libertarianism as cosmopolitan law of the ghetto, using the terminology of the common law of martial peoples. What you see in Marx’s last year, what you see in mises last years, and what you see in rothbard’s last years, is that they realize that they have failed – they failed because in their early careers they relied on introspection. And like any good convert from judaism to aristotelianism, over time, you begin to understand. I think this is why most contributions of jews come from the first generation that converts to christianity/aristotelianism.

As for why do I place rothbard as a member of CofC. I don’t really. Or at least, I don’t emphasize him as a member of the frankfurt school. I present him as a cosmopolitan in the tradition of Marx, Freud, Cantor, and Mises: inventors of pseudosciences sufficiently complex and compose of half truths open to introspective substitution. Positioned as a criticism of extant society.

It took me longer (and I’m not sure I am finished) to understand how the cosmopolitans used deception, than it did for me to complete my study of truth and restate performative truth + critical rationalism + operational existentialism + voluntary exchange + division of perception as Testimonialism.

We are extremely vulnerable because of our high trust high altruism to this means of suggestion. It is not persuasion, it is suggestion. And it’s brilliant. It evolved over centuries from the first great lies (religion) to the dual ethics of the laws, to the pseudoscience of the cosmopolitans, to the outright lying of the progressives.

It’s gossip. It’s not reason. It just looks like it. smile emoticon

THANKS
thanks for smart questions
-Curt

—Q:”do you think the Republic of Venice had a decent political system by propertarian standards?”—Siri Khalsa

Well I would say that by propertarian ethics, no.

Outliers make bad general rules. But that said:
– They did not have any sense of the rule of law by our standards. They neither granted equal legal protections to their subjects, nor safeguarded their property, nor insulated them from aristocratic predation. In fact, they were parasitic as hell.
– They did not seek free trade but contractual privileges in exchange for naval and military support.
– Favors were bought and sold, privileges bought and sold, offices bought and sold.
– Rotation was not meritocratic – but still seemed to function – because of Hoppeian incentives, and a professional bureaucracy of the truly talented people in the region. But the upper classes were fixed.
– The fixed upper classes were exhausted and venice failed to transform from city state into empire. So Venice fell.
– I could give a longer analysis: that the great families eventually reach maximum rents on their holdings and then cannibalized the potential of the state.
– My position is that venice failed to evolve into an empire that protected Europe, protected citizens, and expanded domestic trade, and to restore the mediterranean, or hold back the ottomans or napoleon because of systemic corruption and rent seeking.
– Venice is an interesting example of the need to continue with the lifecycle of a civilization, which if interrupted at key points in its evolution will fail.

So I guess, that isn’t very complimentary analysis.

—-Q:”What do you think about Hitler’s economic policies? We only hear about the war, not the economy.”—-Nic Da Silva

It is hard to talk about hitler’s economic policies because he wasn’t really intent on producing an economy as we mean today, as much as borrowing by every means possible for the process of reconstruction.

For his goals, Autarky was a rational solution, and he nearly eradicated unemployment by enforcing it. He was a defender of private property in so far as it did not interfere with his goals – in other words, he meant for ordinary people. His version of socialism was that he wanted to put food on everyone’s table, a roof over their heads, and beer in their bellies not abandon private property. Otherwise it’s hard to say he had an economic policy – it’s not clear he had an interest in economics whatsoever. He ran the country like a great estate. And he wanted to continue german expansion of that estate into the soviet union. Which would have been good for the world I think.

And if he hadn’t used camps and ovens, and western Europe hadn’t declared war against him for invading Poland, I am pretty sure he would have gone down in history as a hero and savior of europe.

Hence why I take the position (like spengler and yockey) that both WW1 and WW2 were ‘my people’s fault. And that Germany was right in both the first and second world wars.

The anglos destroyed europe. Not germany.

—“Do you think that Trump is the hero we need? I know a lot of people on the alt-right, mostly ex-libertarians who still cling to that freedom trap are against his wanted revival of tariffs and trade protectionism. I think they might be necessary as a temporary measure to force some balance into our globalist market.”—-Lanselot Tartaros

Sorry I missed this.

I think Trump has changed the public discourse and exposed the republican party as nigh on traitorous. He has also demonstrated the value of wealth rather than being bought by special interests.

I don’t share fear of tariffs and protections if they are a competitive strategy rather than a means of seeking rents against the public. The same way I don’t share fear of very limited patents (grants of premium) when they are not rents, but off book private investments in goods for the commons.

Personally I love that a man who speaks reasonably bluntly and arguably truthfully is in the debate.
Curt..

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/e96X8

Capitalism, Mixed Economy, and Socialism: A Eugenic vs Dysgenic Game

RIGHT: Capitalism: the voluntary organization of production as a the result of the incentives that result from the anarchic evolution of money, prices, exchanges and contracts under the single principle, norm, regulation or law of the voluntary exchange of private property. This process is naturally meritocratic and eugenic and therefore scientific, which is the reason why the marxists despise it.

CENTER: Mixed economy: the voluntary organization of production of capitalism, combined with the involuntary confiscation and redistribution of the proceeds of production. It can be dysgenic or eugenic, meritocratic or not, depending upon the amount of confiscation and the use of confiscated proceeds. This is the least worst option in which neither lower nor upper classes can obtain better conditions. (Like marriage).

LEFT: Socialism: the involuntary organization of production and the distribution of proceeds independent of the contribution to production. It is dysgenic and non meritocratic, and provides insufficient incentives to produce enough to meet demands. But this prevents the lower classes from being ‘left behind’ which is their central intuitionistic fear.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/ftpz0

Notes on The Contents of Western Religion

(sketch)

Christianity consists of Germanic, Mediterranean, Jewish, Egyptian, and Babylonian ideas. If you were to reduce the western ethic to the jeffersonian bible, and natural law, you would have the germanic elements of it.

Indo european aristocracy is what separates the west from the rest. Christianity takes much too much credit for the success of Europe which is as much the product of aristocracy (distributed governance) and its dependence upon trade rather than direct organization of production and heavy taxation, as it was the church.

The church was weak, and that was a good thing. It provided literacy, administration, status, and licensed the conquest of unbelievers or violators of the church, in a land where the production of outputs was fairly constant, but the rulership readily changed. It is not the church per se that troubles me, but the use of levantine mysticism instead of aristotelianism and stoicism.

We mix our philosophers in every civilization:
– Chinese use Sun Tzu, Confucius, Lao Tzu, and Mao, but call themselves buddhists.
– Americans use Aristotle; Jesus, Peter and Paul; Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Hamilton and Paine, but call themselves christians.
Socialists use their false prophets: the marxists, but call themselves atheists and scientific.
– Germans use Aristotle, Kant…
– French use their authors …
– Muslims (judaism 2.0) reduce it to two books …

It’s hard to dispute the success of Christianity:
– (a) the church desperately worked to rebuild western civilization after the fall of the empire – even if it played a part in the destruction of western civilization itself.
– (b) wherever christianity goes today, wealth follows (eventually), because of the extension of kin love and trust to non-kin.
– (c) christianity somehow imbues us with idealism and this produces great thinkers.
– (d) the institutionalization of kinship love, the extension of property rights to all and to women and the prohibition on cousin marriage were profound advances.

I reduce post-medieval ‘scientific’ Christianity to a personal philosophy:
– sovereignty (non-submission: each man is the master of his fate),
– do no harm: respect property (property-en-toto), and;
– chivalry (try to help everyone you possibly can),
– paternalism (take personal responsibility for the various commons),
– piety (humility and self skepticism as a defense against hubris; the love of all life; the requirement that we create beauty; and awe at the universe great and small).

and combine that personal philosophy with a political philosophy:
– natural law (universal law, necessary for mutual prosperity)
– strict construction (not hermenuetic interpretation)
– mono-logism (one logic of ethics, and many contractual adaptations)
– universalism (if it is indeed true, then it is true for all men)
In other words, a political philosophy of cooperation.

And I view all other political models as a failure to solve the problem of politics (cooperation in the production of commons).

Everything else is merely theatre. Not that theatre is not important. Theater is ritual, and rituals bind. The more expensive the rituals, the greater the binding.

This vision of Christianity is a vision of the empowered. The vision of Christianity for the unempowered, and for the weak must be different. We can have multiple religions to achieve this, we can tell multiple narratives, or we can create multiple ‘saints’ (gods and heroes) for people with different needs to pray to, that symbolize different ends.

I prefer:
– sovereignty to submission;
– prayer as request for will and wisdom from a hero whose soul (memory) lives on in all of us;
– seasonal rituals celebrating life on earth rather than lives of prophets
– worship of life, beauty, joy and friends, to salvation from suffering;
– many gods for many different people to one god for all;
– fairies, elves, dwarves, trolls, forests to angels and deserts.
– the ancient temple to the medieval church;
because one-ness, monopoly, and authority are cancers for the human mind and spirit.

I am pretty certain of:
– Mindfulness:
– – buddhism for the feminine (defensive control of the impulsive mind)
– – stoicism for the masculine (offensive discipline in furtherance of action)
– western myths and fairy tales
– truth telling as the most important normative commons we can construct.
– grammar, rhetoric, logic, scientific method (testimonialism), economics, history, as producing higher return in current civilization than our current emphasis on abstract calculation which will soon be replaced by machinery.

And the trouble in the modern era is:
– these are masculine prophets and philosophers. Women in each civilization, not only ours, seek to restore the matrilineal order, parasitism and de-civilization, through the newfound power of the state. The only solution I can come up with is to make use of voluntary exchange between classes and to give women a house from which to negotiate those exchanges, rather than empower them through democracy to destroy civilization. Science is reversing a century and a half of feminist and socialist pseudoscience. But it is happening slowly. Whether too slowly is the open question.

(I am still working on religion. so this is just my current thinking)

Curt

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/f5wFv

Propertarianism in Twelve Words

(fun)
Guest Post from Carlos Clark

Propertarianism in twelve words.

“A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” —Cadet Honor Code, West Point

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/eWxHi

The Third Way (the end of history) Is The Truthful Society – Not Democracy

I am not sure how Fukuyama missed it, other than it seems like all throughout his career he seeks to justify his theory of monopoly bureaucracy, and his admiration of Sinic civilization.

He investigates the problems of bureaucracy under democracy – the failure to develop an independent professional bureaucracy first, and then democracy, such that patronage jobs are not given out.

But he does not demonstrate that the public intellectual class and private companies would not create problems of the Deep State’s self maximization of self interest, the parasitism of bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy’s attempt to eliminate all competition, and it’s enforced stagnation.

To create a high trust society one requires (a) a near universal militia (b) private property rights, independent judiciary (‘priesthood’) and rule of law proper (c) a natural nobility with long term interest in the territory, (d) insurers of last resort operated by professionals.

One does not require a monopoly bureaucracy. It is an admission of the failure of a people to develop and maintain rule of law.

One requires rule of law, law sufficiently articulated that it is inescapable (decidable), and universal standing such that the people can make use of it to control anyone acting in a public capacity in addition to private capacity.

If the basis of law is articulated as the total prohibition on free riding in all its forms, including: violence, theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy, invasion and conquest; and if we defend the informational commons from pollution (“Abusus”), by requiring proof of existence and morality in any claim of common good; and if we construct a market for the construction of commons between the classes; then the end of history is not as Fukuyama claims – the professional bureaucracy.

Instead, the professional bureaucracy is yet another example of the failure of a people to develop an answer to the problem of politics, ethics, economics and the social sciences.

Chinese failed first to solve the problem of politics. They created the monopoly state first, and never discovered the rule of law. And in doing so, they failed first.

The end of history – at least the end of history that we can see today – is the truthful society. And democratic polities of all stripes are yet another failure to construct rule of law applicable to every living soul.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/JBydE

Counter Intuitive Econ Solved By Operational Analysis: The Internet Increases Prices

—Economists have two standard very simple models of product competition: firms can compete on price or compete on quantity.—

—“whether firms compete on price or quantity depends more on which of these they must commit to earliest, not which is easier to change at the last minute. Knowing this, once you heard that it would be easier to change prices at the last minute for products sold on internet, you should have predicted that the internet would increase quantity competition and reduce price competition. Which it in fact has. Economics is general and robust enough to predict things like how selling products on the internet changes competition. But you have to use it right.”—
https://shar.es/17xxNn

First, I want to point out that the reason the author is able to make his argument is that he has operationally explained the phenomenon as a sequence of decisions and actions in time.  Yet intuitive economics would suggest that price competition would be increased while operational analysis (incentives) would cause competition to be decreased.   This simple example illustrates why operationalism is so important to the testing of hypothesis.

Second, the author is trying to make a different point, but I want to riff off it to show that firms compete in commodity and non-commodity spaces. And to some degree economists study commodity activity where noise and signal cancel one another out. But that isn’t how companies think about competition, it’s how distributors do.

I have taught the following means of competition by firms:

1) Price,
2) Quantity,
3) Profitability or Debt
4) Rents (firms like polities accumulate renters)
5) Adaptation Costs (innovator’s dilemma).
6) Geographic Housing Costs (salary costs)
7) Segmentation (startups start in niches and expand)

Why? Decreasing production cycles, increasing distribution of production, the increasing importance of TALENT and innovation service industries. vs capital or credit in manufacturing and distribution companies.

In a highly efficient market, one can sacrifice profits for talent while larger organizations accumulate internal rents. This is most frequently the reason

Generally speaking, higher profits incentivize more rents. And while prices are sticky, internal rents are much stickier than prices.

Generally speaking, adaptation costs vary dramatically from industry to industry: service firms trade out people and production firms trade out people and capital. The difference being that GAP regulation and tax policy obscure the tail of fixed vs human capital, largely because we can finance against the illusion of fixed capital value while we cannot finance against the obvious lack of control over human capital.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/6TUtI

The Virtue Of Hanging (Frequently)

Unfortunately, the whole expansion of the franchised ruined our excellent ancient tradition of watching your words, through liberal use of the duel.

Unfortunately, the whole expansion of the franchise ruined our excellent tradition of telling the truth, by the dilution of libel and slander.

Unfortunately the whole post-slavery thing ruined our excellent ancient tradition of genetic pacification thru liberal application of hanging.

Unfortunately mass immigration ruined our excellent tradition of genetic pacification through sheriffs, posses, and civic duty of every man to defend the commons.

Too many unfortunate things for aristocracy to tolerate.

 

—“A well hanged man rarely reoffends.”—Shaun Moss

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/CJwpM

Differences in Criminal, Ethical, and Moral Rules

(Riffing off Michael Philip)

Differences between Criminal, ethical, moral.

CRIMINAL: The criminal spectrum consists of imposition of costs by manual means.

ETHICAL: The ethical spectrum consists of imposition of costs by means of information asymmetry.

MORAL: The moral spectrum consists of costs imposed by anonymous means.

Norms may or many not be objectively moral.

Laws may or may not be objectively moral.

Under Propertarianism all law is required to be constructed by objectively moral means and everything else must be constructed as a contract for multiple exchanges the net of which must be productive, fully informed, warrantied and free of externality of the same criteria.

Curt Doolittle

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/7ELPh

Ashkenazi Colonialism: Eastern Europe Had Anarchism – And the People Suffered Under Despotism

Context: My objective is to falsify if not quash and destroy the Anglo, German, and Jewish Enlightenments, as deceptive, erroneous, and catastrophic failures to generalize group evolutionary strategies, so that I may explain the next step in our political evolution: to replace monopoly government (majority rule) with the combination of strictly constructed, objectively moral, universal, rule of law, with a political market for the voluntary production of commons wherein we replace majority assent with minority dissent only possible by legal means. Hence I attack the anglo equalitarian, german rationalist, and jewish pseudoscientific systems of thought. While science has invalidated the anglo over the past two decades, and propertarian philosophy has allowed me to invalidated the german because of the 20th century advances in the philosophy of science, it has taken me longer to understand why the jewish means of propaganda (deception) is so effective at deceiving the pathological altruism of western europeans. This post is another in the series on the origins of jewish propagandism (loading, framing, overloading and suggesting suicidal actions.)

My interest in anarchism evaporated after a few months of living in Ukraine. Because Eastern Europe is where the Cosmopolitan authors got their ideas – from practicing it.

A minority managing and preying upon society through privatization of commons produced by conqueror’s military action, but not paid for by the managers themselves.

In other words, Cosmopolitan Anarchism is a dishonest attempt to restore the predation of private ownership prosecuted by the Jews against eastern Europe under the protection of external military conquerors (austrian, lithiania, poland, muscovy).

In more accurate terms: Ashkenazi Colonialism. Wherein an administrative class is effectively hired to parasitically manage a conquered people and territory.

We see this pattern in Iraq, where the same people have formed the administrative (bureaucratic) layer for the Bathist regime. We saw this in Russia where the same people formed the ideological and administrative layer for the Soviets – and the slaughter of the people. We see this in america where the same people have formed the propaganda layer (previously the priesthood) in academy and media for the imperial and colonial american state, and the combined neo-puritain, socialist, libertine, and neo-conservative agendas.

In his book “The Fatal Embrace” author “Benjamin Ginsburg” argues that the jews must end their ongoing strategy of allying with the state as a means of oppressing the people, because in every case it results in their exclusion or extermination.

—“Thus, over the past several centuries, Jews have played important roles in the construction of absolutist, liberal, and socialist states as well as major parts in movements seeking to reform or supplant regimes to which they were unable to obtain access. Jews have traditionally offered their services to the state in exchange for the regime’s guarantee of security and opportunity. Ironically, however, precisely this relationship between Jews and the state has often sparked organized anti-Semitic attacks.”— (See: http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Embrace-Jews-State/dp/0226296652/)

Anarchism is an ode to lost predation on the serfs of Eastern Europe just like James Bond is an ode to lost empire: they’re both fictions, and late twentieth century action movies are an ode to America’s lost moral high ground.

“Voluntary-everything” is equivalent to Lawlessness. It is another great deception like Marxism and neoconservatism: a half truth preying upon the optimistic moral bias of western aristocratic egalitarians and their pathological altruism.

Liberty, meaning the ability to do as you with without imposing costs upon others, is a product of the rule of law. And the only principle means of decidability for law that can possibly produce a condition of liberty is the prohibition on the imposition of costs, which we express as property rights, and the scope of those rights evolves in parallel to the evolution of the means of imposing costs that is the product of the expansion of technologies, methods of cooperation, and the division of labor.

And we seek parasitism because it is much easier and more rewarding than production. So a few moral men rally to prohibit these parasitisms so that they and all can prosper. Those few men impose rule of law on an immoral population.

These men constitute the western aristocracy.

Rule of law. Nomocracy. The prohibition on the imposition of costs that result in free riding on the productivity of others.

Aristocracy is the only source of liberty.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/giFo0