A test, by a rational actor, of existential possibility independent of involuntary transfer by externality defeats most pretense of morality.


The Meaning of Emotions

(worth repeating)

If I am correct, and that all emotions are reflections in change in state of property en toto, then all statements of experience are objectively describable independent of statements of experience. And differences in experience are differences in evolutionary strategy. And evolutionary strategies can be decided meritocratically.

This knowledge is as dehumanizing as the insights of Darwin, Copernicus, Galileo, Machiavelli, and Aristotle. That does not mean it is not true. I am just as certain that it is, as they were of their own statements.

This does not prevent us from making compromises. It merely prevents the state from imposing involuntary compromises upon us.
The individual cares how he feels Others care how he feels We can learn how someone feels. But we cannot decide a conflict based upon how someone feels. Feelings are a gauge, but a gage of individual demand for acquisition and retention and that is all.


The High Cost of Truthfulness – But Truth Is Enough

There is a high cost to truth telling. I am entirely aware of the burden we must pay for physical defense of the realm, physical defense of life and property, normative defense of civic behavior, and defense of the informational commons. But in each case the costs produce extraordinary returns.

If we require truthfulness, invasive religions and ideologies cannot Proselytize any unscientific statements – at least using the commons. And alternative rules of law are violations of natural law and pseudoscientific encouragement of theft and fraud.

Truth is Enough. Truth and Violence allowed us to construct commons. Truth and violence are enough to restore us.

Truth. Violence. Persistence.

Lies and cowardice. Genocide.


To Eliminate The Predatory State, Eliminate Demand For The Predatory State

Eliminate demand for the state and we shall have no moral cause for the state. Law must evolve as fast as a polity. The common law can.‪‬

To eliminate the arbitrary discretion of authority, eliminate demand for arbitrary discretion by using the common law and property.

Any conflict that cannot be resolved under the common law of property rights creates demand for authority’s arbitrary discretion.‬

Polylogism, polylegalism, polyculturalism, polytheism, polytribalism: political conflict, economic conflict, undecidability of conflicts.


From Jim’s Blog: “Yes, we are at war with Islam”

And always have been.

For over a thousand years, a multitude of nations, states, peoples, cultures, religions, and empires have attempted to coexist with Islam. None have succeeded. We will not be the first.

If you have a few percent of Muslims, you have what you can pretend is a major crime problem. If you have ten to thirty percent, you have a low level civil war, which intermittently becomes a high level civil war whenever you relax or show signs of weakness. If you have thirty percent, you can have a fairly tense peace, like the not-quite-war in Mindanao if you have a large well disciplined military, guards and soldiers everywhere, and regularly and routinely deploy death squads, but you cannot afford rule of law – you can have peace only by ruthlessly and unhesitatingly applying the laws of war. With a large Muslim minority you need death squads and the routine and frequent application of torture to keep the almost-peace, the not-quite-war.

France has five or ten percent Muslims, regular car burnings, Calais has been burning for some time, and the French state has no power over substantial areas that have been successfully seized by Islam.

France has taken pretend measures – checking passports at major entry points. This is security theater. Calais continues to burn, and the French authorities avert their eyes. Muslim illegal immigrants continue to flood over the borders unopposed. Rapes by Muslims are piously ignored. Preachers continue to preach terror, and while Muslim preachers preach terror, the French authorities arrest and prosecute Marine LePen and Eric Zemmour for incitement. A Muslim that gets over the border cannot be deported.

Far from France getting serious about stopping terror, it remains a criminal offense to advocate getting serious about the problem.

Under recent international law you cannot return people unless their country of origin agrees to accept them, or at least that is how international law has recently come to be interpreted. And the countries of origin never agree. Australia and Israel have been cheerfully breaking this law, and New Zealand has been furtively breaking it. Burma has been dumping Muslims into boats and telling them that if they want to live under Islam, start sailing to a Muslim country.

When France rounds up illegals and dumps them in Africa or the Middle East, then France will be beginning to get serious. But no one can imagine such a thing, let alone propose it, for to imagine such a thing is a thought crime.

France is absolutely unserious about dealing with terrorism, and to even think seriously about dealing with terrorism is a crime no Frenchman will admit to committing.

The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim. If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he does not take his religion seriously.


Reframe Developed and Developing Nations as High Trust and Low Trust Nations.

Reframe: DEVELOPING/DEVELOPED Should be restated as High Trust vs High Corruption. This would more clearly address the cause of differences.

WORDS MATTER: “The High Trust World vs the Low Trust World.” We can implement fiat money and credit but not high trust. (ie: common law)


Peak Human and Dysgenic Policy

(good read)

Peak Human

1) The history of man is of the evolution of increasing levels of aggression, exterminating the prior family, tribe, race, species.
2) The history of western man is the incremental suppression of free riding, idleness, impulsivity and aggression by violence.
3) The success of the west in ancient and modern eras was by truthfulness, productivity, martial excellence, and aggressive eugenic suppression.
4)”Pareto is Everywhere”. A population above the median IQ of 106 is necessary for libertarian modernity. Lost via dysgenia.
5) The problem for any tribe is to raise top 20% over ~122. Economic velocity, trust, morality decrease rapidly with losses.
6) Asymmetry of property is necessary to construct the voluntary organization of production. Inequality is a necessary good.
7) Current leftist economic theory attempts to discover the minimum inequality necessary for the preservation of incentives.
8) Under the assumption that the increased risk and decreased flexibility and increased busts can be limited by fiat credit.
9) The result is r-selected dysgenia and decreasing ability in the pool (slightly offset by improvements via education in sciences) given that
10) the unemployability problem increases with the Flynn effect – meaning that even if we find additional ways of improving demonstrated human intelligence we cannot move employment further up the curve without decreasing rates of dysgenic underclass reproduction.
11) We cannot both have immigration and transfer of reproduction from our best to our worst.
12) We increase unemployability and increase inequality, and construct a dysgenic caste system on the south american and hindu model, rather than an ever-increasing-equality under the eugenic western aristocratic model.
13) We have recreated the problem of the roman conquest which is increasing productivity through trade to the point where the upper classes cannot withstand shocks because we are in insufficient numbers.
14) The limit to any right to profit is that which imposes an intertemporal cost on the genetics, commons, institutions, norms of the polity. Theft from the future may be profitable, but it is merely theft.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


CORE: The Commons: constructing discounts.

BASELINE: Laws Of Organization

1) Man acquires because he must. He organizes to acquire because the returns on cooperation disproportionately outweigh those of individual productivity. The utility of an organization (a business, a market, a society, a polity) is in the construction of commons from which we construct the abstract categories of knowledge, division of labor, market, norm, infrastructure, institutions, and territory – which in turn drastically reduce material, transaction and opportunity costs.

This voluntary organization of production assists in the voluntary organization of reproduction – which is the purpose of our existence(or we would not be here, and will not be here). ie: the intergenerational production of reproduction is competitively improved by the production of goods and services via the division of labor, which in turn is improved by the production of commons.


2) We all benefit from seizing OPPORTUNITIES created by the production of commons, since that is the purpose of producing commons: reducing material, transaction, and opportunity costs.

We tolerate competition because it consists of seizing opportunities produced by the construction of the commons – in other words, commons create incentives to produce in the form of discounted opportunities that can be seized. We do not tolerate violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, theft by externality, free riding, and conspiracy, because rather than seizing opportunity produced by the commons, one imposes costs upon that which others have acted to construct: property. That is what separates property from opportunity. It may be true that opportunities belong to the shareholders that have constructed the commons through their efforts and sacrifices, but property belongs to those who seize opportunity and thereby *compress time*.

This concept of compressing time is fundamental. The division of labor which reduces time, interest that allows us to shift production times, increases in opportunities and decreases in transaction costs that reduce time costs, are the source of our ‘wealth’. It is this compression of time with which man outwits the pace of the universe and allows him to capture energy for his own use. We are not necessarily wealthier than cave men, we have just made everything in the universe infinitely cheaper through cooperation.

One of the inventions that Rothbard (immorally) inserted into western thought was the substitution of property for productivity. In western thought,
property is the result of productivity, and we prohibit one another from imposing costs upon the results of our production. (He did this because of his background in jewish law and culture – hence his positions on usury, blackmail, lifeboats, etc. ) But western man in a high trust society with all members in the militia, led by a chosen chieftain, prohibits imposition of costs on one’s production, and uses property as evidence of production in dispute resolution. Hence the western ethic vs the ethic of the bazaar and ghetto: western man does nothing to cause retaliation. Ghetto, Bazaar, Steppe, and Desert man happily causes retaliation because he needs not other men to defend fixed assets necessary for production, and can run to his tribe’s quarter or pastoralist tent.

Most of convoluted rothbardian logic is an attempt to justify ghetto/bazaar/steppe/desert ethics of diasporic jews, rather than seek to understand the success of western aristocratic/martial/agrarian/landed/market ethics. This is normal. All enlightenment ‘tribes’ (nations) attempted to generalize their specific group evolutionary strategy as a universal good – but none of them succeeded (other than partly smith, hume, and hayek) in discovering the general rules of human cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, economics), and then identifying the variations that each group had implemented as an evolutionary strategy.

3) EXTERNALITIES: Costs or Opportunities

—“Externalities are the norm in society rather than the exception.”—

Positive externalities contribute to individuals and the commons, negative imposed costs upon individuals and commons.


—“In the presence of positive externalities, goods get underproduced from s social perspective.”—

Most people do not recognize that this is deceptive language. Stated scientifically it is: “Despite the voluntary organization of production constructed by communal construction of lower costs of production (distribution and trade), transaction costs, and opportunity costs, some goods and services cannot be produced by the voluntary organization of production since the incentives to organize to produce them cannot be constructed. In other words, individuals have no reason to act to produce a good or service that others WANT.
However we are stuck with two issues.

First: WANTING and DEMONSTRATING are very different things. Stated wants are irrelevant. For example, we know that people prefer to spend money on entertainment over health care. So do they in fact ‘want’ health care? They will not exchange other things for it, so apparently they want it less than what they currently spend it on.

Second: while a person who commits no crime and imposes no costs upon others is not harming the construction of the voluntary organization of production’s discount on production, transaction cost, and opportunity cost, that individual is not PRODUCING sufficiently to fulfill his wants by voluntary exchange. In other words, he is unable to satisfy others, and desires satisfaction despite this. Now, the balance of society (commons producers) is better off if this person is outcast like a bum from a shopping mall, as a parasite. But we insure others in case we are reduced by accident tot he same circumstance – hence why those men nearer the bottom are more concerned about insurance, and women are almost always so given their genetic necessity of sensitivity and nurture. So the question is, at what point are we insuring, and at what point are we subsidizing parasitism and dysgenia, parasitism and eventual erosion of the commons we work together to construct?

This is the central question that separates progressive r-selection from conservative k-selection: we are in competition and we cooperate, but we are in competition for the future of mankind: between r-selected consumption and dysgenia of quantity, and k-selected saving and eugenia of quality. As libertarians we are statistical outliers – mere riders on the r/k selection journey. Intellectual hermaphrodites, negotiating transactions between the two reproductive strategies.

But assuming that we want to produce goods and services for those unable produce for others sufficiently to earn them, we can ask them to trade. My suggestion has been that we trade (a) one-child limit, (b) maintenance of the commons (c) a stipend based upon % of revenues independent of whether they work or not, (d) elimination of minimum wage so that they can collect both stipend (e) elimination of immigration by other than highly skilled labor for permanent citizenship. In other words, we can conduct an exchange with them: do no harm to us through crime and reproduction and you will be insured against the vicissitudes of life. Break this deal and you will lose all and if necessary be sterilized and put in a labor prison in the desert for the rest of your life.

Assuming taxes are limited to commissions on the increased productivity of the commons (sales tax), and dispensations of taxes are not put to destructive ends (violations of property), it is in no way immoral for the shareholders of the organization (citizens) to both pay commissions (taxes) for their exchanges, and to receive dividends (commons). If we possess a court of universal standing there is no reason that you could not take the gov’t to court over an unjust fee.

(I tend to feel that in general, most taxes in america are not irrational, it is that they are put to uses we disagree with for the benefit of the advancement of the state, bureaucracy, deep state, and special interests. We also encounter the problem that the more disenfranchised individuals feel from the community the less willing to pay taxes they are. and libertarians are all too often demonstrating this behavior rather than any terribly thoughtful reason.)

I think I’ve tried to answer the bulk of your questions. The net is that we compromise in a market. No one gets his ideal, not conservative, libertarian or progressive. We are, at each point in the spectrum, specialists in the intertemporal division of reproductive labor, and each biased by the necessity of our function to perceive and judge the world according to our evolutionary strategy. It is somewhat comforting to me to know that Conservatives have broader senses and so they are more accurate, and that females and progressives the least, and libertarians a bridge. This hleps understand individual intransigence. But it tells us that epistemologically, the only way to ‘know’ anything is indeed ‘good’ for man is when all through groups are conducting voluntary exchanges without the imposition of costs upon one another. If this is true, then man works as a vast successful machine computing a future out of existential reality by millions of different interactions and every moment, and it’s a beautiful and magical thing.

I tend to deal with all of these subjects as simple legal problems.

    (a) we had the correct structure in English law, which is a house for each class that participates in the market. And that each house functions as a market for exchanges between the classes by means of contract.
    (b) upon enfranchisement of the laboring class and then women, we failed to grant them their own houses and in doing so broke the success of western man: a government as a market for exchanges between classes, and ‘legislation’ (which is not ‘law’, but treated as contract in court), a means of enforcing the contract negotiated upon all members of the corporation (polity).
    (c) a majority of women then voted systematically along with a minority of males to deconstruct the western k-selection, meritocratic, eugenic, propertarian order, and within a century destroyed western civilization by destroying the central organization of production and reproduction: the family.
    (d) that democratic assent requires monopoly allocation of resources, and that instead, contracts should be voluntarily construct-able given that no house can compose a legal argument against it – where ‘legal’ refers to an unjust exchange (which to those outside of legal industry may sound fuzzy, but the courts are exceptionally good at adjudicating these common law subjects even if they tend to place too much evidence on ‘proper procedure’ that makes it easy for them, rather than intent, incentive, and consequence.)
    (e) my proposals generally involve additional houses for the classes, selection of membership by lot, monetary-voting (distributed budgets), assent of all voluntary agreements, and dissent by adjudication prior or post issue.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(The reason is that we must balance stresses with rewards, and entertainment and food balance those, while boredom and delayed satisfaction increase them. Hence humans spend on current satisfaction at the expense of future risk.)
(I tend to say that the past century, has consisted of a war by shitty families against good families – individualism eliminates the empirical evidence that some families are better than others and should reproduce more than others, and their opposite, less.)


The Unification of the Circumpolar People

(trigger warning)

If the Russian president simply ceases his perpetual lying and propaganda, and speaks straight, and does not seek to expand the borders, then Russia will become the leader of the world. Russia is a low trust high corruption society plagued by the problem of oil wealth that must be used to bribe people into compliance with the state. But this is also an advantage: no appeal to popular female sentiment and signaling privilege from the academy.


  • American Utopian High Trust Risk (gambling) – invention
  • British Moralizing high trust (risk taking) – banking
  • German Duty high trust duty (planning) – industry
  • Eastern European low trust low risk – labor
  • Russian nihilistic very low trust – military
  • Chinese perpetual adoration of deception and face as a deliberate strategy of conflict avoidance until amassing overwhelming force. – ie: deceit.

My feeling, evolving over the past decade, is that we should unite against the muslim world which is the existential threat to the circumpolar order. Christian Africa is not a threat. The muslim world is the intellectual cancer of the lower standard deviation that threatens both authoritarian, social democratic (mediterranean and eastern european) and libertarian (hanjal-saxon-british-protestant) civilizations.

We tell people to be tolerant when we should unite to eliminate islam just as we united to eliminate babylon and marxism.

Much of islam was christian and it was undoubtably a better place as such.

(I will certainly get hammered for this one. But it’s where I’m ending up.)

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Dear Russian Friends. Americans Are Not Cunning…

Dear Russian Friends. Americans are not Cunning. They are not smart. They are not devious. They are Utopians. They all desire to be the heroic, chivalrous, sheriff or knight. They want to save the world. They work hard. They try to do the right thing. They cannot imagine an untrustworthy world any more than the low trust world can imagine a trustworthy one. The west has no designs on russia other than to unite us all. If we can get russians to speak the truth in public russia can be the army and labor of the north, germany the technology industry, Britain the bank, and america the land of invention and law.