Speaking: The Property and Freedom Society, London Conference, December 12-16, 2013

Andy Curzon, intellectual, friend and hero, has organized a PFS Conference next month in London at the Hilton.

Yours truly will speak twice. First on the origins and causes of morality and the moral bias toward liberty, and second on the reformation of libertarian ethics to support liberty in the high trust society.

These two presentations will briefly address the first two thirds of Propertarianism: the reasons for the failure of libertarianism to reach mainstream appeal, and the reduction of all morals and rights to statements of property.

I do not know the current state of registration but I believe there are still some spaces available.


    Peter Brimelow, ‘Electing a New People in America and England’
    Gerard Casey, ‘Law in Disorder’
    Curt Doolittle,  ‘The Causes of Morality and Western Liberty’ and ‘The Ethics of Property in the High Trust Society’
    Craig Drake, ‘Why Insider Trading Can Be Good for Market Outcomes’
    Andy Duncan, ‘The Necessary Evolution and the Evangelistic Importance of the Anti-Intellectual Intellectuals’  
    Sean Gabb , ‘Europe and the New British Constitution’
    Jan Lester, ‘Intellectual Property: ‘Non-Aggressive’ Meme-Propertarianism’
    Richard Lynn, ‘The Dysgenic Problem of the European Peoples’
    Sebastian Ortiz : ‘The Anti-Science of Moral Scepticism’
    Mateusz Machaj, ‘The Missing Heroes of Economics’
    James G. Rickards , ‘Culture, Complexity and Capital Markets’
    Roman Skaskiw, ‘Introduction to Bitcoins’
    Martin van Creveld, ‘The Rise and Decline of the State’

If you want more information see the PFS London Agenda v2


(CORE)The Family Shrinks as Property and Wealth Expand


Primitive matrilineality (endogamous)
Community Family (endogamous)
Patriarchal Community Family (exogamous)
Authoritarian Family
Egalitarian Nuclear Family (~catholic)
Absolute Nuclear Family (endogamous) (Anglo Saxon)
Post-Marital Individual Family (endogamous) (Feminism)

The Anglo Saxon Absolute Nuclear Family
– no precise inheritance rules, frequent use of wills;
– no cohabitation of married children with their parents;
– no marriage between the children of brothers.

“…think of England as being like this for at least 750 years. We live in small families. We buy and sell houses. … Our parents expect us to leave home for paid work …You try to save up some money from your wages so that you can afford to get married. … You can choose your spouse … It takes a long time to build up some savings from your work and find the right person with whom to settle down, so marriage comes quite lately, possibly in your late twenties.


Ethical Intuitionism Is Correct (I Think) (via Praxeology)


But they authors just didn’t have Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe to help them. (I did.)

What Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe didn’t have, was the past twenty years of scientific research to rely upon.

And the diverse set of ethical intuitions are not diverse at all.

He he he he… It’s awesome.

“All rights are reducible to property rights.” True. “All moral and ethical intuitions are reducible to property rights” is true also. The first is a legal statement. The second is a biological one.

Libertarians figure it out. Not all of it. But they did it.

I just put the cherry on the topping.


The State Is The Enemy Of Civil, Voluntary, Society


“…a herd of timid and industrious animals of which government is the shepherd…”


“It seems that if despotism came to be established in the democratic nations of our day, it would have other characteristics: it would be more extensive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them. …

I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. …

Above these an immense … power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?

So it is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of it from each citizen. …

Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than

I have always believed that this sort of regulated, mild, and peaceful servitude, whose picture I have just painted, could be combined better than one imagines with some of the external forms of freedom, and that it would not be impossible for it to be established in the very shadow of the sovereignty of the people.”

–Alexis de Tocqueville


"Way's Of Thinking" Are Premodern Solutions. We Need Understanding of Our Failures and Institutions That Correct Them.

We dont need another way of thinking. We cant convince anyone to adopt it. We dont need a new religion or belief.

What we need is to understand why our beliefs, ways of thinking, and institutions failed to survive the extension of the franchise, and what to do about it now that they have failed.

We cannot turn back the clock. Nor is the absurdity of the progressive fantasy either possible or survivable.

It appears possible to reform our institutions by impending systemic collapse, or by outright insurrection.

But it is clear that the majority favors feudal equality over entrepreneurial freedom. Numbers tell us that they do.

So if we are to have freedom and they equality without one side conquering the other then we must sever our relations into multiple states or develop an alternative to majority monopoly rule.

Given the value of scale in an insurer of last resort, and the virtue of a multiplicity of city states. And given the economic opportunity and cultural freedom that secession creates for each state, it may be possible to design a compromise solution which serves the moral differences and financial commonalities if each given modern technology.

It would take a few years to implement but that time would permit demographic adjustment as well as the dismantlement of the federal monopoly, and the possibility if the solution would give vent to what is now leading to civil war.


The Contributions Of Computer Scientists To The Reformation In Libertarian And Conservative Political Thought.


When I went to Mises for the Austrian Scholars Conference the first time, I was struck dumb; first, by the incredible genius of the economic calculation argument, second by hoppe’s solution to the problem of institutions… But then equally by the failure to see that that BOTH Hayek and Mises were very close but wrong; the failure to grasp the importance of Popper’s contribution; the failure to grasp that no, the calculation issue was not ‘complete’.

I realized something was wrong with Rothbard fairly quickly. It took me a few years to understand what Mises had done wrong with Praxeology, and only recently how to solve it completely. Hoppe was right about just about everything, but still had both Rothbard’s and Mises’ errors. But even so, he’d managed to get it all right anyway. Which, to me, is an even greater statement of his brilliance. Although, I’m still frustrated by his fascination with Argumentation.

But it is this emphasis on experience and morality and preference instead of calculation that is everyone’s distraction. ( A topic that needs some reflection and exposition. And so I’ll return to it.)
So strange. You know, there is this strange anti-computer-science bias in academia. But since the majority of intellectual revolution has come out of Mencius’ application of Austrian thought to conservatism, and my application of Austrian thought to libertarianism, while political science is fascinated by democracy, philosophy still squandering in the artifice of metaphysical pseudo-rationality, and mainstream economics is fascinated by growth and efficiency, and the left (literature) with obscurantism, pseudo-science, equality, diversity, and central control.

And since, computer science is the only discipline that intersects between theoretical constructs and human interaction directly, I kind of think that, empirically speaking, computer science has more right than math, and certainly more right than economics. And political science and social science don’t even register signal above noise.

Economics is a process of deduction from aggregation. Computer science is atomistic by its nature. It’s not deduction. It’s calculation. And therein lies an amazing difference in perception. We do not HAVE the economic data to tell us about human behavior at the level of atomicity we do with computers that interact with people on a daily basis. This teaches you about the hubris we must avoid when interacting with human beings.

Math is platonic. Economics is idealistic. Computer science understands ‘ignorance, bias, incentives, and the limits of calculation’. Which is probably why we solved the political problem and the other groups didn’t.

Core · Uncategorized

(CORE) Propertarianism : Uniting Hoppe And Hayek

“Hayek’s work composes a system of ideas, fully as ambitious as the systems of Mill and Marx, but far less vulnerable to criticism than theirs because it is grounded on a philosophically defensible view of the scope and limits of human reason. ”

–John N. Gray, in Hayek on Liberty (1984), Preface, p. ix

I originally thought I was trying to reconcile Hayek and Mises — at least, that’s what I remember saying to Walter Block — but really, it turns out, that it’s Mises (calculation), Hoppe (institutions), Rothbard (property as calculation) and Hayek (limits of reason) that needed uniting.

If you stop for a moment, long enough to grasp that we do not need to JUSTIFY libertarianism (philosophy) as much as simply UNDERSTAND human moral behavior (science), then the question is not what we should choose to believe or prefer to believe, but only what institutions compensate for the deficiencies in our ability to cooperate because of fragmentary knowledge, AND cognitive and moral biases. The result is a libertarian bias in the formation all institutions.

The problem is not ‘what we should do’ but ‘what can we not do’ without institutions to assist us in cooperating where we cannot cooperate without them. Where cooperation means to cooperate with people we do not and cannot know on means of achieving multiplicative ends, many of which are in conflict, and all of which represent our individual reproductive strategies.

It’s common for us to discuss Capital in all its forms: Financial, Physical, Institutional, Human and Social.

But, I don’t like the term ‘social capital’ for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is that the term ‘social’ is heavily loaded. But most importantly, because for the female, collectively-biased mind, ‘social’ implies ‘agreement and consent’.

Whereas, my preferred term, “informal institutions” consisting of manners, ethics, morals, habits, traditions, rituals, myths, metaphysical biases, is a largely involuntary, non-consensual, habituated rules, reduced to intuitions, many of which we may not even be aware of – and most which we cannot distinguish from biological and genetic instinct.

It’s common for us to discuss Capital in all its forms:
1) Human Capital,
2) Informal Institutional Capital,
3) Intellectual Capital,
4) Formal institutional Capital,
5) Physical Capital,
6) Financial Capital,
7) Geographic Capital.

And to do so in that order, as a sequence from the human being, to physical space, and each dependent upon its priors.

Extending property to the full suite of categories which human beings demonstrate that they treat as property, we are able to reconcile the Austro-libertarian program and rescue it from its past errors. We can take calculation and praxeology from mises, and complete praxeology as a biologically based science of incentives, remove deduction from it, but retain praxeology’s ability to test any incentive given the similarity of our sensitivity to incentives. We can take Hayek and show that he simply did not make the connection between the various categories of property and his insights into the limits of information and knowledge.

We are able to reduce to very compact form, the theory of human cooperation, as non-arbitrary, entirely rational pursuit of our reproductive strategy in whatever organization we are members of.

To unite these thinkers into ratio-scientific form requires only the following limited steps:
0) Start with private property, and voluntary exchange
1) Add remaining categories of property
2) Add ethical requirement for symmetry and warranty
3) Add ethical requirement against transfer by externality
4) Add ethical requirement for operational language
5) Add ethical requirement for ‘calculability’ (retention of relation)
6) Add institutional government by contract not law.

The rest is a set of tactics that require only different levels of technology to achieve the same result.


People pursue their economic and reproductive interests, but only as long as there is an incentive and a means to do so. We are not equal in our reproductive value – which is obvious. Just as we are not equal in our economic value – value to each other.

The diversity of moral biases increases with the diversity of the reproductive structure. If we all exist in nuclear families in one group, and all exist in tribes in another, then the moral code that he nuclear families operate between all members of all groups, will differ from the bifurcated morally of the tribal group. Because the tribal group treats all non-family as another ‘state’ just as the nuclear families treat all individuals as belonging to their family. This creates an asymmetry of morals, since at all times, both sides attempt to keep all rewards in their families. Except that the nuclear family system keeps rewards universally, and the tribal family does not. As such the nuclear family is easy prey to the immorality of the tribal family.

Furthermore, under matrilinealism, women trade sex and affection for calories, where as under paternalism men trade calories and security for sex and care-taking using property. In each system there is a bias in reproductive control for each gender.

Under the nuclear, traditional, and extended families, our reproductive male and female strategies are politically homogenized since what is politically good for one is good for the other. But under the dissolution of the family into single parenthood, and roaming males, reproductive interests are polarized between each group.

And that is what we see in modern democracy, with the only difference that military prowess (power) gives nations a more masculine character, and lack of it gives nations are more feminine character.


As I write this I’m reminded that it does take an entire book to cover an ethical topic of this breadth. But comforted slightly that once the breadth is understood as a system, it is possible to reduce it to a compact set of rules or laws, and therefore, both fitting the criteria of explanatory power, and the requirement that society consist of very simple, basic rules, comprehensible to anyone.

And since propertarianism is the codification of instinctual biology in verbal form using property as the means of commensurability, then it is both possible for humans to universally sense, perceive, and comprehend those simple basic additions – additions which in effect, ask us to extend and warrantee all exchanges, verbal and material, to all human beings, as if they were members of our traditional family.

And as such, create a family in practice despite what are a multitude of families with different preferences, needs, means and ends.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev 2013