Definitions · Uncategorized

A Definition Of HBD Human Bio Diversity (At The Request Of HBD Chick.)


HUMAN BIO-DIVERSITY: “The study of heritable human genetic differences and the variation in distribution of those differences within human populations that show affinity for one another. And where those affinities express themselves as political, social, familial, and personal institutions, behaviors, abilities and preferences. And where those expressions of differences have economic, institutional, and normative consequences, and where those consequences cause economic and political competition and conflict. HBD is an attempt to understand the source of differences in modes and methods of human cooperation due to biological and normative differences.” – Curt Doolittle

Definitions · Uncategorized

The Complete Definition Of Property: An Excerpt from Propertarianism

[P]ropertarianism differs from Libertarianism by:

1) First, Propertarianism argues that the principle of involuntary transfer – a prohibition on not only fraud theft and violence — but also involuntary transfer in all its forms, including “cheating”, or privatization of the commons, is the boundary that determines ethical use of property, because it is how humans act in all states of development, regardless of the allocation of property they rely upon in their culture.

2) Second, Propertarianism recognizes that the institution of property is a prescription for the monopoly of use of a resource, including one’s self, but that each time a person respects someone’s property, he bears a cost by doing so. This cost in forgone opportunities is how we pay for the norm of property.

3) Third, Propertarianism extends libertarian ethics by the expansion of the definition of property to describe what people demonstrate that they believe is property, rather than what we hypothesize that it should, could, or might be the optimum definition of property. This leads us to the conclusion that all societies posssess property rights. But they are allocated in superior and inferior ways. And superior and inferior because individual property produces an economically superior outcome, and humans universally demonstrate a preference for economically superior outcomes, because those outcomes grant them greater opportunities for positive experiences.

4) Fourth, propertarianism describes principles and formal institutions that allow voluntary cooperation at scale where cheating would prohibit voluntary cooperation in the market, without those prohibitions on cheating. These principles require calculability, contracts instead of laws, and ‘houses’ whether representative or direct, that facilitate cooperation between classes who have disparate interests. This is the one and only legitimate use of government: to prohibit cheating – indirect involuntary transfer by other than theft, fraud or violence. Oddly enough, in the marketplace, we sanction the ‘cheating’ of competition, thus violating one of the natural ethical principles of human cooperation. But we sanction competition in order to provide incentives for innovation, and reduced prices. It is this pair of ethical problems that government, whether that government be a constitution and free market judges, or a vast totalitarian capitalist state.

[L]ibertarians argue that:

1) All human rights can be expressed in terms of property rights — and moreover, that the only rights possible for humans to possess are those that can be expressed as property rights.

2) That an advanced economy is not possible without property rights because humans cannot calculate and plan a better future, nor do they, nor can they, have the incentive to do.

3) Establishing Personal Property as a formal institution will lead to a peaceful social order of moral norms — meaning that norms will evolve that allow people to plan and execute actions independently without the necessity of violence, theft or fraudulent behavior. And in this peaceful environment will experience the comfort of familial relations even in the competitive marketplace.


[L]ibertarianism as a sentiment is a broad classification of political sensibilities, but what they share in common is a desire for liberty, and a preference for limited governmental interference in that liberty. In philosophical terms, libertarianism is a preference for private property as the best means of organizing a society. In other words, the best allocation of property rights is purely to individuals, rather than purely to a hierarchy, ore purely to a commons, or any mixture in between.

Libertarians and Propertarians differ on:

1. Origin: Whether “Markets Evolved” and regulation is a form of theft, or “Markets Were Made” and regulations by shareholders or their representatives are an expression of property rights. In practical terms, this is a derivation of principles 1, 2 and 3 above, since regulation is an attempt to solve the problem of involuntary transfers, fraud due to asymmetry of information, and fraud due to external involuntary transfers.

2. Justification: Whether i) we derive property rights from the practical necessity of creating a division of knowledge, labor and trade — in which sense property is utilitarian. Or ii) whether we derive property rights from an abstract moral commitment to the individual — in which case it is an ideal. Or iii) whether there is some natural or evolutionary law that we should observe. Some might argue all of the above (iiii).

3. Cause: Whether i) the system of ethics that evolves from private property begins with the Rothbardian assumption of the non-aggression principle — from which we can derive private property — as a purely moral abstraction. Or ii) whether, as I have stated, we pay for our property rights by forgoing our opportunity for using violence, theft and fraud. If the latter, then by consequence, people pay for the norm of property – and in fact, pay for ALL norms. And as such, failing to observe norms is a theft from the shareholders of those norms.

This approach to forgone opportunity costs more accurately describes the european aristocratic manorial ethic because particular norms are necessary for land holding. As I state elsewhere, the difference between the Rothbardian ethic and this ethical extension of Rothbard and Hoppe, is that the Jewish tradition is diasporic and unlanded. The Christian tradition is a landed tradition, and there are high costs to a social order for holding land. (Aryan is probably more accurate a term, since it predates Christianity, but it’s a tainted term)

4. Institutions: The preferred institutions for enforcing property rights: which political system they prefer. From the anarchic to the private monarchic government, to the classical liberal republican government. Propertarians Differ on which institutions that they prefer.

I argue that the set of institutions that each author advocates is determined by the author’s heritage, and therefore the origin of those differences lies in the a) size of te population b) the diversity of the population in ability, identity and norms, c) the need for landholding or not. And that differences between the author’s viewpoints are meaningless, other than perhaps valuable in describing the variety of societies that can be created using the institution of property.

Rothbard’s anarchism is just an instantiation of a Jewish diasporic religion. Hoppe’s private government is an instantiation of German Nationalism. And my classical liberalism is an instantiation of English imperialism. These forms of government are all possible to accomodate within the propertarian ethic: a total homogeneity of belief in a religion, a tribal homogeneity of a small territory. Or the multi-tribal demands of a federated alliance. Propertarian ethics inform us as how to structure each political order. The order itself is determined by circumstance and is constant across all human populations. But the Popertarian ethic applies equally to each.

5. Limits: On the limits of property rights (at what points one’s rights begin and end). For example, some would argue that the right to property is infinite regardless of the circumstances of others. Some would argue that property rights are a norm that is subject to limits at the extremes. So, for example, if I have gallons of water in a desert I cannot let the man before me die of thirst. Some would say I must simply give it to him. Others would argue that the man owes for the drink of water at a later date at market price, but that I cannot refuse to give it to him under this condition of duress simply because he currently lacks a means of payment. I support the latter position since it does not violate the principle of property it only presses my assets into a receivable. Otherwise I am profiting from suffering which is an involuntary transfer, not a voluntary exchange.

6. Ethics: The responsibility or lack of responsibility for symmetric knowledge in an exchange. Stated as “In any exchange the seller has an ethical obligation to mitigate fraud from the asymmetry of knowledge.” Classical liberals and Christian authors advocate symmetrical-knowledge ethics. Anarchists and Jewish authors advocate asymmetrical-knowledge ethics. Rothbard and Block are asymmetrical advocates. Most classical liberals lack the knowledge of Rothbardian/Hoppian ethics necessary to articulate their values in Propertarian terms. However, the classical liberals as well as the Hayekians, both advocate symmetrical-knowledge ethics whether they articulate the ideas effectively or not.

7. Warranty: Implied warranty is a derivation of Symmetrical Knowledge Ethics above. Expressed as: “In any exchange the seller must warrant his goods and services to prevent fraud by asymmetry of information.” Classical liberal and Christian authors imply warranty. Anarchist and Jewish authors expressly deny warranty. (I address this elsewhere as the BAZAAR EXCHANGE ETHIC vs the WARRIOR EXCHANGE ETHIC.)

8. Externalities: “No exchange, action or inaction may cause involuntary transfers from others”. Whether or not there is a prohibition against all involuntary external transfers (classical liberal and Christian authors), or a prohibition only against state conduct of involuntary transfers (anarchist and Jewish authors).

9. Exclusion (Ostracization) Whether individuals can aggregate into groups have the right of exclusion. That is, to prohibit individuals from a defined area. While all seem to agree that individuals must have the right of passage in some way, others deny groups from forming a boundary and in effect prohibiting immigration.

10. Scope: The scope of property rights. All societies select a different portfolio of Property Types to which they apply different allocations of control to the individual, the group and the political authority. We know today, that several property rights are necessary for economic calculation and to provide individuals with incentives to serve one another. But that knowledge has not always been available. Societies evolved more than chose those rights. That evolutionary process was chaotic and debilitating for some societies and enabling for others.

The scope of property includes the following questions:

  1. Community / Shareholder:While ‘community property’ violates the principle of calculability, and in an advanced, large, mobile society, is impossible to administer without involuntary transfers, and further, is subject to the tragedy of the commons, and bureaucratic appropriation, those problems are solved by issuing quantities of shares, even if they are highly restricted, for currently communal goods.Some libertarians eschew the concept of community property, because they wrongly believe that such a thing implies the existence of a bureaucratic government and/or a corporeal state. But community property can be created through shareholder agreements specific to each instance of it, and numeric shares, even if they are illiquid and subject to dilution, are calculable. And as calculable, the problem of enumerated rights and responsibilities, as well as the ability to price abuses in order to both buy-in to communities, and to enforce restitution upon abuse, is solved. General laws need not be created in such cases. The outcome is also beneficial: immigration and childbirth become solvable cost subject to pricing. And the fact that such prices would be exposed is a significant enough reason for some to advocate this strategy, and for others to fight it.
  2. Norms: Since norms require restraints from action (forgone opportunities), and property itself is a norm paid for by restraints from action (forgone opportunities), then all those who adhere to norms, ‘pay’ for them. Therefore norms within a geography are a form of shareholder property, and violations of norms are involuntary transfers (thefts) from norm-holders to norm-destroyers.
  3. Artificial Property Whether to permit Artificial Property or not. In practical terms, this is a derivation dependent upon “ORIGIN” above. Since if markets were made, then their owners have a property right to create artificial forms of property – (because different portfolios of property types are artificial norms that vary from group to group.)
  4. Types of PropertyThe anarchist libertarians have artificially narrowed the concept of property to suit their desired ends. Property exists in those forms that people ACT as if it exists. If the anarchists choose to suggest otherwise, they refute their own arguments for the Praxeological necessity for the institution of property. Humans demonstrably act as though there are four categories of property:
    I. Several (Personal) Property
    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    1. Physical Body
    2. Actions and Time
    3. Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.
    4. Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

    II. Artificial Property

    Artificial Property: “Can a group issue specific rights to members?” This topic is dependent again, upon the ORIGIN question above. If markets are made, then the shareholders of the market may create artificial property of any type that they desire. Including but not limited to:

    1. Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)
    2. Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of monopoly within a geography)
    3. Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

    III. Interpersonal (Relationship) Property

    Cooperative Property: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”

    1. Mates (access to sex/reproduction)
    2. Children (genetic reproduction)
    3. Familial Relations (security)
    4. Non-Familial Relations (utility)
    5. Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)
    6. Racial property (racial ties)
    7. Organizational ties (work)
    8. Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)
    9. Status and Class (reputation)

    IV. Institutional (Community) Property

    Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

    1. Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.
    2. Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.
    3. Land.
Fictional vs Juridical · Mathematics · Uncategorized

Mathematics vs Cinema As Tools For Explaining The Universe

‎”Cinema can still explain the whole world. Mathematicians think it’s math. I believe it’s cinema.” – Jean-Luc Godard

Mathematics can explain only what we cannot sense. That is why we have mathematics: to compensate for our limited ability to perceive the universe.

However, human concepts must at some point be reduced to those stimuli which we can experience. All language is reducible to an analogy to experience. All imagery is by definition experience. Mathematics is, at some degree of abstraction, simply a vehicle for compensating for our terribly weak short term memories by creating categories, applying quantities, and rearranging symbols while preserving ratios. The mind could do this without mathematics if we had the short term memory to do it with.

Film is, today, the most informationally rich means by which, that which we *cannot* perceive directly, can be reduced by analogy and narrative, to that which we *can* perceive directly.

At first glance, these statements are not terribly romantic.

But after we consider that human beings have invented mathematics, the narrative, and visual media so that we can rapidly sense what we could not sense directly, we can certainly wonder at the marvel of what man can accomplish in the service of his mind and his experience. And in that understanding we can appreciate that there is no material difference between mathematics and cinema. They are simply extensions of us.

And that is as romantic an experience as any.

– Curt Doolittle 😉

(Originally posted under FilmmakerIQ)


Illustrating The Meaning Of Liberty From A False Dichotomy :)

A Facebook friend asked this question.

“What is your definition of liberty? Penniless in a free world, or wealthy in a corrupt one. Those are the choices that I give you. Without deviating from those two choices, what is your response?

I dont understand the question yet….

First reply to your definition on liberty. Then reply to my questions within that context.

[H]mmmm….. Ok. Lets define liberty:

a) Sentimentally: liberty is the desire to conduct individual experimental action from which we gain stimulation, knowledge, understanding, or temporal or material gain.

b) Historically: it is an allegory to the sentiments of sovereignty in aristocratic egalitarianism.

c) Politically: Liberty is the ability to use your property, defined as your body, and your possessions obtained by free exchange and homesteading, as you see fit, as long as you force no involuntary transfers from others by doing so.

d) Praxeologically: a set of property definitions which are monopolistically bounded, absent new invention, as norms.

[W]ithin the context of that definition of liberty, I can’t address the next dichotomy. SO I will try to deduce the cause of that dichotomy from the two statements and see if I can come up with an answer.

[Y]our question might mean “would you prefer to be penniless in a free world or wealthy in a corrupt one”. The phrasing could also mean “you can only be penniless in a free world and wealthy in a corrupt one”. Which I think is illogical, so I’ll have to assume that’s not correct. Or it could mean that “is it just that there are penniless men in the free world and wealthy men in the corrupt world?”

I am going to assume that you mean the first, but might also be suggesting the third. I’ll answer them in that order.

I would rather be the wealthy person in the corrupt world of course. However, if I am a penniless man, I would prefer to be in the free world, where it is possible to change my state.

To answer the third question, the world is not just because justice requires the possession of knowledge within a limited domain that is available to individuals. ie: the family or tribe, and the family or tribal economy. However, for a division of labor to form, we must possess the knowledge that only money and prices can provide us with. And since none of that knowledge is ‘owned’ and much of it is noise, and the value to the market of scotch tape is much higher than the value of another Beethoven, then whomever ends up wealthy is a matter of the lottery effect and not much else. It’s random. Therefore there is no such thing as output-justice. We have a market precisely because it is created by a lottery effect. if the outcome were known , no one would play in the market. The market is a lottery. It is not just. The only justice is that as a byproduct of that market, goods and services are subject to constant decline in prices and increases in choices. SO the market economy is not a question of individual justice, but of aggregate justice with huge temporal variation among the individuals in the distribution we call the population. And any question of social justice is illogical – at least until you get to my next point:

The Propertarian answer to the third question is that if you respect property rights, whatever those rights might be, you have paid for those rights, for yourself, and for others, by forgoing opportunities for involuntary transfer, fraud, theft and violence. As such you are a shareholder in that market. Some might argue that respect for property is just the cost of access to the market. But the cost to the poor of those property rights is far higher than the cost to the wealthy, and as such, those rights are unequaly paid for. So, others, including myself, argue that shareholders not only have the right of access to the market, but we also have the right to whatever distributions (profits) that the market wherein those property rights are defined, produces, in compensation for that variance in costs, and unless we compensate for those variations in costs, then those with property are conducting an involuntary transfer from those who pay a very high price for respecting property. (ie: we have the right of variable redistribution if we adhere to property rights.) (Of course this would also requrie that you did not vote for privileges and redistributions.) This is undeniable praxeological reasoning. There is no alternative to it. Redistribution is warranted. And therefore you will never be a penniless man, even if you are a poor one, unless you have very poor judgement.

Propertarianism is based upon the universal human demonstrated preference for a prohibition on involuntary transfer. It is not, like libertarianism, based upon preference, natural law, or any other artificial construct.


Fixing A False Criticism: Libertarianism, Anarchy and Somalia


[T]o start with, definitions help us communicate clearly. And they both force us to be honest, and prevent others from making false arguments against us.

1) Liberty is a sentiment. It is a minority sentiment. It is a sentiment held by some percentage of the people that favors the ability to obtain new experiences without external constraint, as long as they harm no others in doing so. (see Haidt)

2) Libertarianism is a political bias. That bias favors various forms of minimal government. It eschews the concentration of power, and the loss of sovereignty. It is a sentiment that is embedded in the western tradition. That western tradition is the egalitarian union of aristocracy. That Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a social adaptation to early Indo-European battle tactics which required independent but coordinated action by self-funded warriors. This social strategy allowed a professionalized minority using advanced weapon technology to conquer or fend off conquerors with much greater numbers. (see Duchesne)

3) Libertarianism it is a philosophical framework authored by Murray Rothbard. This framework argues that all possible rights are reducible to articulated property rights. It contains errors. (Which I have discussed elsewhere). Those errors are significant in that they are morally, and therefore socially and economically regressive. However, the fundamental insight that human actions can be reduced to property rights remains valid, and the errors in Rothbard’s incomplete ethical framework are repairable.

Rothbard was unable to solve the problem of institutions, so his framework describes little more than a secular moral religion of opposition to the state. Hoppe solved the problem of cooperative institutions, but did not correct Rothbard’s (or Mises’) initial errors. He did not solve the problem of heterogeneous societies which we live in. So for these two reasons he has described small governments. (I have tried to repair Mises and Rothbard’s errors, and use Hoppe’s insights to create solutions for the problem of heterogeneous and therefore large governments consisting of voluntary institutions which preserve the aristocratic egalitarian ethical system of property rights. But my work is incomplete and not yet available for analysis and criticism.)

4) Anarchy is a) a state of disorder – an inability for humans to organize. Propertarians argue that this means little more than an absence of homogeneous property rights. b) Anarchy is a Utopian idea of an ordered society without any articulated form of order other than human instincts.

5) Property is a form of establishing order – the ability of humans to organize. It is a very simple rule that matches, with some significant variation, the human moral instinct, while allowing us to cooperate in a vast division of knowledge and labor, the result of which is lower prices and increased choices.

Since a) property can vary from the purely private to the purely common, and since b) the utility of property at any point on that spectrum is different for those with different abilities, and c) since the genetic bias of men and women has shown us a demonstrated preference for different points on that spectrum, which better suit the reproductive strategies of each gender, therefore, the preferred monopoly of property rights varies by class and gender, as well as, perhaps, race whenever a population is heterogeneous.

6) Anarchism is a philosophical research program the purpose of which is to find institutional solutions (organizations, processes and rules) that are an alternative to a monopoly power that we grant to the state, when we create a government in order to institute some set of property rights, and therefore establish order.

[callout]But in no case do Anarchists or Libertarians suggest there is no ‘governance’. A set of articulated property rights and a judiciary that resolves conflicts over property, is a government. It is just a reactive government. A government or rules. It is the rule of law. [/callout]

[S]ince our invention of politics, we cannot seem to limit the republican or democratic state to the functions that preserve our aristocratic egalitarian order: a) the defense of those property rights, and b) the concentration of capital for shared investment at the same time. And by doing so, force people to cooperate in the market, instead of by violence, or the proxy of physical violence we call politics. So, because of that failure of democratic institutions, the anarchic research program seeks to use competition for services to eliminate the corporeal state’s monopoly on power, while maintaining a monopoly on the articulated enumeration of some set of property rights within a geography.

The a) libertarian sentiment, b) Libertarian history (the classical liberal model) and c) the libertarian philosophy (all of which are different things) do not answer this problem. The anarchic research program has attempted to. And any attempt by libertarians to state that we have solved this problem is either a failure to understand the state of our intellectual development, or an intentional misrepresentation of it.

But in no case do Anarchists or Libertarians suggest there is no ‘governance’. A set of articulated property rights and a judiciary that resolves conflicts over property, is a government. It is just a reactive government. A government or rules. Judges under the common law cannot make law. They can discover it. And they can be overruled by other judges through market competition. But they cannot proactively make law. As such, there is a government under all libertarian models that have been articulated to any degree.

The problem remains only in how we first establish a set of property rights. In the west this is not as difficult as elsewhere because those property rights are native to the framework of thought that we inherited with our Aristocratic Egalitarianism. Anyone who is enfranchised (fights) has a right to property which is not abridge-able by his peers. We extended the requirement to fighting, first to those who demonstrated nobility through service of any kind (chivalry). And third to those who demonstrated nobility through exchange and trade. But the principle of property is fundamental regardless of which means one earns his enfranchisement.

When anarchists say that they advocate anarchy, it means that they eschew the concentration of power to alter the set of property rights involuntarily, since it breaks with the Aristocratic Egalitarian ethics. Ethics which allow each of us who is enfranchised to experiement and add value to ourselves and society as long as we commit no involuntary transfer from others who are enfranchised.

What anarchists and libertarians of all stripes have failed to do is describe how we create a monopoly definition of property rights without the application of force to do it. In the west, the aristocracy created it out of habitual necessity. And they did it by force. Rome in particular was a powerful machine that mandated a set of property rights and then defended them because it was simply profitable to do so.

Critics are wrong in the sense that libertarianism will not work in somalia. But they are right in that libertarians and anarchists have not provided a means by which to institute a monopoly of property rights without it first existing.

As I’ve stated above, we are less than a century into our research program at articulating our ancient system of cooperation that we call the libertarian sentiment, but which is more accurately termed the political system called Aristocratic Egalitarianism with its dependency on property rights.

While I have filled the hole in our ethics. The hole in our institutional process of implementing a monopoly of individual property rights by other than organized violence is still in need of filling.

And we should ask our critics to help us answer that problem, rather than deny we have it.


Propertarianism As The Solution To The Problem Of Ethics


[T]he aristocratic egalitarian ethic requires all able men capable of bearing arms, deny access to power, to anyone and everyone. I usually refer to this (erroneously) as the warrior ethic, since it originates with the Indo European warrior caste.

The ethic of the bazaar or ghetto (incorrectly referred to as the slave ethic), requires only that we fail to engage in trade with those who would seek power. It is a form of ostracization.

Rothbard returned to his cultural history to develop his ethics when he could not sovle the problem of institutions. And in doing so, he regressed ethics into that same ghetto by ignoring the aristocratic ethical requirements of a) symmetry of knowledge, b) warranty that provides proof of that symmetry of knowledge, and c) a prohibition on external involuntary transfer.

[callout] Propertarianism is the solution to the problem of the incompleteness of Misesian and Rothbardian praxeology, and explains the causal property of Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics, rendering it descriptive, not causal.[/callout]

All three of these ethical constraints are necessary to create the high trust society. Yet they are also insufficient.

The fourth constraint appears to require d) outbreeding by forbidding cousin-marriage. Outbreeding creates a universalist ethic, which in the west we call ‘christian love’ but which means treating all humans regardless of family origin with the same ethical constraints as you would the members of your immediate family or even tribe.

[T]his is why libertarianism under Rothbard failed to gain the same level of traction that it has gained under Ron Paul. Ron Paul is promoting Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethics (even if he does not know how to articulate such a thing) while Rothbard was promoting the ethics of the Bazzaar and ghetto (even if he did not understand his actions in this context.)

Humans are not terribly bright when it comes to rationalism. But we can sense moral patterns and status signals and ‘feel’ positives and negative moral reactions due to those patterns whether or not we can analytically separate and articulate those moral instincts and reactions.

Propertarianism allows us to articulate these moral instincts as reducible to different concpets of property rights. Propertariansm makes moral differences commensurable.

If you can grasp that idea, you may eventually understand that Propertarianism is the solution to the problem of the incompleteness of Misesian and Rothbardian praxeology, and explains the causal property of Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics, rendering it descriptive, not causal. This explanation then, in turn, provides us with the tools to solve the 2500 year old problem of politics that the greeks, and the english, and the americans failed to solve.


Our Name Change:

[F]or the past tewlve years I’ve been working on political philosophy, and for the past three years, nearly full time. And now and then, as arguments evolve, I’ve updated the site to reflect the voice I’m currently using, and the position in the market for philosophy that I’m addressing.

Over the past three years, my work at extending Hoppe and Rothbard’s ethical model to address heterogeneous societies has matured into a fairly complete philosophical system, the scope of which hasn’t really been attempted in recent memory by anyone other than Heidegger. And it’s a task that is greater than I may be talented enough to complete.

But that said, I’m still doing a yeoman’s labor, and changing the title of my public workshop to accurately reflect the my emphasis on the Propertarian system of ethics, is overdue.

This change partly driven by our work at the Propertarian Institute at, where we promote propertarian reasoning as a means of understanding and comparing the different libertarian and conservative ideological platforms, in rational rather than moral terms. And where I am but one small participant in a large research program that has been advancing since Burke was struck cold by the horrors of the French Revolution.