Democracy is a Luxury Good that's the Product of Rule of Law.

The luxury of democratic redistribution is the product of the prosperity that results from the long term application of rule of law, common law, natural law, and eugenic reproduction.

Man is naturally parasitic and societies without rule of law, common law, natural law, and eugenic reproduction operate at the maximum corruption possible both at the political and personal level.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/00R0g

The Rifle Did It. Just As The Spear.

The moment the professional warrior could be countered by the rifleman the domestication of the aristocracy was doomed, because it was the soldier protecting his leaders instead of the leaders protecting their workers.

This mirrors the evolution of the spear which allowed the alpha to be controlled, reproduction to be distributed, and women to use gossip to incite the betas to contain or kill the alphas.

The development of expensive metal armor, the wheel-chariot, and the horse, restored the alpha.

The rifle restored the balance.

If we are to rule, then how are we to gain asymmetry and restore eugenic reproduction, and the meritocratic society?

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2J9wb

It Doesn't Matter Who Rules - Only That We Deny People Rule.

We always get it backwards.
It doesn’t matter who rules.
Only that we deny people the ability to rule.
We deny them through rule of law.
A king is but a judge of last resort.
A government but an insurer of last resort.
A parliament but a market for the production of commons: a market of last resort.
All else from family to production is market activity alone.

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

Modern Military Thought is Not Helpful In Revolutionary War

A friend brings up an important topic and that is that revolutionaries and soldiers, and revolution and combined arms warfare have little to do with each other.

You already hold the territory
Your objective is not to concentrate forces but to act randomly.
Your cost of territorial possession is zero.
Your timetable is long.
Your strategy is attrition.
Your preferred weapon is fire.
Your targets are all soft.
You need little command and control.
You need no supply lines.

Our military is terrible at fighting the new generation of civil warfare.

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

Render Unto Caesar ...

God / Caesar.
Pedagogy / Law.
Experience / Truth.
Creativity / Decidability.
Wisdom / Criticism
Preference / Necessity
Cooperation / Conflict
Ambition / Constraint
Literature / Science

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

What is the Next Order? (Bad News for All)

WHAT IS THE NEXT ORDER?
0 – Hunter Gatherer led to moral order (Inclusion / exclusion ) Memories.
1 – Farming led to Religious Order (access to larger cooperative-moral groups – ‘knowledge’/ left behind ) Writing.
2 – Trade led to Legal Order ( restitution / punishment / complex-diverse production) Accounting.
3 – Industry led to Credit Order ( signals / consumption / deprivation / left behind ) Computers (post manual calculation)
4 – Technology will lead to Information Order? (conformity? / opportunity / missed?) yes i think this is it. fuk. bad. (networks of informaiton capture – digital reputations )

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/0C0mk

Clarifying my Criticism of Nietzsche

Josh asks me to defend this statement:

—“he cannot escape the Christianity and moralism he works so hard to overcome”—

Refers to his method of argument, and method only.

How does one separate the western methods of argument: literary(parable), mythical(allegorical), religious(authoritarian/naturalistic), historical(allegorical), philosophical(internally consistent), scientific(empirical) and testimonial(totally objective)?

If you organize western works of intellectual history into those categories, then place Nietzsche’s it’s certainly not compatible with either machiavellie/smith/hume/pareto/weber (scientific) or Kant (internally consistent), but continues the german post-christian tradition of attempting to create inspirational scripture without reliance upon appeals to the supernatural, but the natural: shopenhauer and the other near-mystics.

I keep coming back to his statement that morality differs for different abilities and I think this is an incorrect definition of the word morality. It is that the philosophies that we rely upon for inspirational pedagogy differ between the classes while the law we rely upon to decide conflicts is invariant across the classes. And this would reflect what I have seen in all civilizations except the failures of islam and judaism: a lower, middle, and upper class philosophy.

This is as far as my criticism goes: method.

And the reason I make the criticism is that I am still struggling with the problem of the pedagogical and inspirational “positive-ying” and the decidable and critical “negative-yang”, and how to combine them, when it seems that the germans have been more successful with their ‘nonsense literature’ than we anglos have been with failed ‘attempts at science’.

I prefer however to separate them rather than conflate them. In other words, I think literature and law need not be conflated. That we can create literature and law as separate devices for separate purposes and like the riddles of lao tzu leave man to evolve in the contrast between the two.

This was my original thinking in 2006, and I have come full circle, but with a greater understanding of why my intuitions suggested we continue our ancient tradition of the ‘separatness’ of existential truth in cooperation and imaginary spirit in personal inspiration. The true, the good, the beautiful. Or as Renee Macintosh stated in the last century: have nothing that is not both functional and beautiful. This theme stays with us throughout all our excellences through our history, throughout our eras. Truth, Excellence, Beauty.

This tells me that truth is enough to restore us, but what is required to inspire us to persistent greatness regardless of our class? Especially when we NEED each class – at least each above IQ90.

I actually can’t find any other thinker that has tried to solve this problem in the same way.

So maybe instead of asian “balance” we seek excellence through the SunWheel of constant motion, between the inspirational, mythic, literary, and the decidable, legal, truth. One wheel inside the other. Turning in opposite directions.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

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

Violence is the Resource from Which Institutions of Property are Constructed.

**We must use violence to create the conceptual, normative, legal, and territorial institutions of property. If we do not possess sufficient violence then we cannot maintain the conceptual, normative, legal, and territorial institutions of property. Therefore the only institutions of property that can exist are the institutions of property we can construct and maintain by the organized application of violence. Violence is the resource from which the institutions of property are constructed.**

(Notice how I made sure I stated how everything exists. As institutions: ideas, habits, rules and processes, territory.)

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2nAlW

Religion Compatible With Natural Law is Not 'False'

We cannot claim a religion is false if it is compatible and not in conflict with natural law.

We can claim it is literature: myth. And that the literature contains truths so far as those truths consist of statements reducible to natural law.

To require literature be compatible with physical law is unnecessary in so far as it remains compatible with natural law.

In this sense the Greeks, Chinese, and Japanese developed reasonable approximations.

It was the Zoroastrian monotheists that conflated politics and religion and in doing so created the ills of religion.
Certainly the stoics, epicureans, Aristotelians, and Roman law,and pagan nature worshippers ruled.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/H9DFy

Have we made a catastrophic mistake with our democratic monopoly?

Have we made a catastrophic mistake? Why have we forced all into individualism instead of separated the individualistic from the collectivist? Why must we have either a communist or capitalist order? Must we have a monopoly social democratic order? If we arose under a mix of martial, burgher, and church orders, then why was that model a failure? It wasn’t. It wasn’t a failure. The middle class allied with the lower class against the church and nobility after the thirty years war and while deserving enfranchisement, demonstrated hubris in the displacement of church and state.

Forcing man into the absolute nuclear family, forcing man to move to capital. Forcing man into monopoly social orders. All of this force is not that of the past that made us successful.

I understand the need for a market for commons. But what shall we do with the equivalent of the manor, market, military, and monastery when the great leap of the industrial revolution has passed?

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