Definitions · Sequences · Uncategorized

Definitions: Calculable, Computational, Rational, Irrational, Arational, and “Black Box” 

(draft) (learning propertarianism)

[T]he subtle differences in terms of comparison.


CALCULATIVE (HYPOTHETICAL) vs COMPUTATIONAL(DETERMINISTIC) – A process is CALCULATIVE if human beings are required to perform it, and COMPUTATIONAL if (current) computers can perform it.

CALCULATIVE INSTITUTIONS – The set of technologies that permit human beings to extend their perception and comparison ability, and therefore their ability to understand and forecast in complexity, particularly a division of knowledge and labor, as a means of assisting in planning, forecasting, production and decision making. Specifically: numbers, counting, arithmetic, accounting, algebra, calculus, statistics, combined with money, numeric time, banking, interest, contract, rule of law, combined with narrative, history, objective truth, combined with property, exchange, trade, markets.

CALCULATION / CALCULATIVE: A calculation is a deliberate process for transforming one or more inputs into one or more results, with variable change. The term is generally used to describe a spectrum of methods of reasoning, from the very definite arithmetical calculation of using an algorithm, to the vague heuristics of calculating a strategy in a competition or calculating the chance of a successful relationship between two people.

OPERATIONAL: A recipe for a description of a series of actions that produce a result within a limit of precision. (an existence proof)

COMPUTATIONAL: A sequence of mechanically producible and repeatable operations.

LOGICAL – A sequence of operations Not entirely a synonym for rational, since logical statements should be formally testable, while rational statements nearly need not be irrational.

RATIONAL – Reasonable. Reasoned. A conclusion achieved through the process of reason. Drawing hypotheses from juxtaposing facts against each other and determining their relations. Does not imply that the answer is correct. Only that logic was reasoning was properly applied.

IRRATIONAL – Not reasonable. Not correctly reasoned. In philosophical usage, means illogical, or poor reasoning. Specifically that the reasoning applied or decision made, does not result in the desired ends.

ARATIONAL – Having no rational characteristics; having no capacity to reason. In philosophy, not within the domain of what can be understood or analyzed by reason; outside the competence of the rules of reason.

ARATIONAL BLACK BOX – I use the terms “Black Box” and “Arational” to refer to non-logical content that produces beneficial ends. The problem with all religions other than perhaps stoicism and Buddhism, is that their resulting strategy differs from their claimed mythology. Christianity for example is a set of myths and ideals the purpose of which is to encourage if not force the extension of kinship love to non-kin, and by consequence, produce a high trust society.


A List of Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Errors

(from elsewhere)

[I] consider my work as a restatement of Hoppe’s aprioristic justificationary rationalism in ratio-scientific terms.

Hoppe’s errors are natural for a German philosopher who was trained by Marxists. And while the errors are substantial by today’s standards, they are limited to errors in construction (justification), with his conclusions from his justifications surviving. This is important. From Hoppe’s earliest work onward, his deductions from incentives are correct.

– We justify moral actions within a normative system of evolved rules, and we criticize truth propositions to test whether the theories survive. We do not find truth in justification – we find permission. We find truth in survival against all known criticism. Justification translates to “I can get away with saying this so you cannot say I violated the rules of cooperation: morality or law” while truth propositions under ratio-scientific criticism translate to “I have done due diligence to determine if this argument survives all know attempts at failure, regardless of preference, morality or law.”  Hoppe confuses legal justification (excuse making), with truth (survival from all competition). As Mises discovered but failed to understand, truth propositions including human choice require the possibility of constructing a sequence of rational choices  AND the survival from categorical, logical, empirical falsification. Truth propositions survive competition.

Possession demonstrably (empirically) exists prior to cooperation, and property exist after an agreement to cooperate.  Scarcity exists prior to cooperation. But scarcity is imperceptible. Cost is perceptible. The origin of demonstrable property is in the cost to acquire. Scarcity explains why things are costly, but not the origination of possession nor the origination of property.

– Different sets of Property rights evolve in communities due to the disproportionate returns on cooperation at the given level of division of ability, knowledge and labor – and the necessity of preserving those returns by prohibiting parasitism. Property rights do not originate in scarcity of goods, they originate in the scarcity and disproportionate return on cooperation. We pay for cooperation by forgoing opportunities to use or consume that which others have already invested in using and consuming. Man like other animals retaliates against the imposition of costs upon that which he has himself born costs with the intent to inventory. The universal demonstration of altruistic punishment (disproportionately costly punishment of free riders, parasites, predators) demonstrates the evolutionary necessity and value of cooperation as the most costly and scarce good. (thus upending libertarianism’s attempt to suggest cooperation can be obtained for free, or that it is the natural bias of man or animal. instead, man and animal are rational. we cooperate when possible, parasite when possible and prey when possible, depending upon costs.)

Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction). Prior to that factm no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired.  Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary.  We live in an amoral world of  violence, theft, conspiracy and deception,  and whle we  can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns. And our choices at any time are to:
(a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it,
(b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either
(c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation
(d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same,
(e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level.
So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation.

The minimum scope of property necessary to construct a reciprocal exchange, in order to provide minimum incentives for the rational formation of a voluntary polity is property-en-toto, or what we call “demonstrated-property” (demonstrated defense of that which we have paid costs to acquire), and the minimum scope of property is not IVP: intersubjectively verifiable property – (property that is epistemologically easy to test if we transfer). Hoppe and Rothbard misapply separatist ethics between polities (between states) as sufficient for the formation of a polity. (Ghetto Ethics.)  Arguably Hoppe suggests that IVP is merely a minimum criteria and that all other properties must be arbitrarily constructed upon it.  However, this means that IVP is an insufficient criteria for a basis for law.  Whereas Property in Toto (demonstrated property) is a sufficient criteria for the basis for law. In other words, physical property is insufficient for the formation of a polity, it is merely sufficient for cooperation between states (organized polities).

The formation of a voluntary (anarchic) polity requires that local transaction costs are low enough to limit demand for authority to either prevent retaliation for violations of property in toto, and to provide sufficient incentives to join such a polity rather than say, a democratic humanist polity. The reason is we must choose between high local transaction costs with low political costs that prohibit economic velocity, and low local transaction costs that encourage economic velocity with high political costs. Humans rationally choose government over anarchy unless anarchy provides the lower transaction costs. This means that anarchy is only possible under high trust. High trust is only possible under property en toto with it’s total prohibition on deception (cheating) rather than intersubjectively verifiable property with its tolerance for deception and cheating.  A rational anarchic polity can only form under property en toto, not IVP.

– Those arguably voluntary anarchic polities that have existed, on the few occasions that they have existed, because larger states have used squatters, settlers and settlers and given away territorial rights  in borderlands in order to hold it from competitors cheaply, without having to invest heavily, but still giving them an excuse to conduct war if attempts taken against it. If those have evolved for other reasons, they  have been the target of extermination by neighbors. Because the only reason to seek a low trust polity is some variation of parasitism: gypsies on the low end, pirates in the center, and financial predators (moral hazards) on the high end.

The formation of a voluntary polity (anarchic) will only be possible under western aristocratic martial egalitarianism (a militia) and the independent common law, prohibiting all parasitism against demonstrated property (what we bore costs for and defend), whether that parasitism is by violence, theft, extortion (blackmail, racketeering), fraud, (fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission), externality, (free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses), or conspiracy (statism, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide).

– Mises was, like many of his contemporaries, trying to solve the problem of his era, and incorrectly cast operational testing by subjective analysis of rational incentives (praxeology) as a positive means of exploration sufficient for the investigation of cooperative and economic phenomenon, instead of a test of existential possibility of claims. Economics is empirical as any other of the science and only differs in that we know the first principles of cooperation (rational incentives on the positive side and non-imposition of costs – parasitism- on the negative side.) Whereas the first principles of the physical universe are as yet unknown to us. And where the first principles of declarative systems (logics) are matters of our discretion. (This is a rather difficult subject for all but those of us who specialize in epistemology.)

I could go on a bit, but Hoppe’s insights have been in the perverse incentives of bureaucracies – even under democracy, and the exposition of all moral and legal argument as reducible to property rights.

All his justificationary argument is pure Kantian,Cosmopolitan and Marxist nonsense. We do not justify truth propositions. Truth propositions survive attempts to refute them.

I love the man, honestly. But he was a product of his time and place just as I am a product of mine. Science wins. Rationalism loses. Not only because science is necessary for the provision of truth, but because PHILOSOPHY HAS LARGELY BEEN USED TO LIE.

Rothbardian libertarianism is just the extremism of the Marxist prohibition on Private Property inverted into an the extremism of a Marxist prohibition on Common Property – despite the fact that property rights can only exist as a commons, and no polity can survive competition for people and trade, and against competitors without providing commons as the multipliers necessary to do so.

I hope this is of some value to you.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)


Reformation: The Study Of Man Before and After Propertarianism

[G]iven the Spectrum of : {Neurobiology, Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Evolutionary Strategy, Politics and War}.

1) Neurobiology: how the brain works: chiefly: it’s biological limits to perception, cognition, memory, knowledge and reason.

2) Psychology: the study of the brain’s struggle to acquire and inventory, its limits, and its errors (cognitive biases) given the individual’s reproductive strategy.

3) Sociology: the study of cooperative acquisition by groups: the production of cooperative and normative commons.

4) Economics: the study of cooperative reproduction, production distribution and trade for the purposes of persistence. The productive commons.

6) Evolutionary Strategy: The suite of informal(manners, ethics, morals, myths, education), economic (production distribution and trade), and formal (law, politics ) institutions that allow the extant peoples to compete with other extant peoples. The competitive commons.

5) Politics: the study of organizational institutions for the purpose of producing competitive(group evolutionary strategy), reproductive, productive(economic), normative(institutions) and material commons.

6) War: the study of the limits of productive cooperation, and the imposition of cooperation, elimination of threats, and elimination of competition.

Man Acts To Acquire To Survive. Cooperation Is The Most Beneficial Means Action to Acquire. But only if cooperation is non-parasitic. And for cooperation to be non-parasitic it must be: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality by the same criteria.

So, the study of man is the study of man’s acquisition of all that he desires. Man acts to acquire.

While we will undoubtedly gain further insights into man, brain and mind, it is unlikely that the Propertarian principles will be falsified – only increased in precision.
1) that man acts to acquire property en toto,
2) moral bias is determined by reproductive strategy
3) specialised moral biases that reflect our reproductive strategies and voluntary cooperation allow us to produce a market for cooperation that functions as an information system making use of the entire spectrum of perceptions in the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy.
4) language evolved largely to justify actions in the context of cooperation rather than to identify truth propositions. Truth is difficult for us because it is critical. Justification is easy for us.

Instead of asking what is right or wrong (deviation from an ideal) with someone’s thinking (a totalitarian doctrine) we ask what they seek to acquire, and whether they seek to acquire it by moral or immoral means. All human behavior can be expressed as interactions between desires for acquisition, the need to negotiate, and moral constraint, and the relative value, or lack of value, of cooperation.

Instead of asking what is right or wrong (deviation from an ideal), we ask what the group seeks to acquire, and whether they seek to acquire it by moral or immoral means.

Instead of asking what is right or wrong (deviation from an idea) we ask what the group seeks ot acquire, and whether they seek to acquire it by internally and externally moral, or immoral, means.

Economics can be studied as the means by which we eliminate frictions (transaction costs) and thereby increase the ease and decrease the risk of cooperation (Austrian Economics), OR economics can bes studied as the means by which we search for extensions of rule of law such that interference in the economy is non-discretionary (Chicago Economics), OR economics can be the means by which we determining the maximum disinformation that we can insert into the economy for the purpose of increasing consumption, and by consumption, employment(Keynesian economics). But we now know that Austrian is the most moral, Chicago at least interferes under rule of law, and Keynesian (saltwater) economics is the means by which we conduct the most deceit.

Instead of asking what action is best (monopoly) we ask how individuals can organize into groups to conduct exchanges with other groups, in order to acquire what they wish to by moral or immoral means.

Instead of the empirical falsehood that war is universally bad, war is the only solution to the failure to cooperate on marginally indifferent moral terms, and war is perhaps the most productive effort man can undertake if one group increases the suppression of parasitism of another group, and especially if it creates or improves trade routes. Violence is either the means by which we enact parasitism, or the means by which we eliminate parasitism. If we eliminate, or at least reduce parasitism substantially, then war, like all prosecution of parasitism, is by definition, moral.

The study of man prior to Propertarianism and post-Propertarianism is equal to the study of man prior to the enlightenment and after the enlightenment.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)



[T]he voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, that results in networks of sustainable specialization in production distribution and trade, that in turn adapts by change prices to small changes in demand;  by reorganizing in response moderate changes; and by dissolution and eventual reformation in response to shocks and persistent changes.

People, Skill, Knowledge, Relations.


Liberty Must Be Imposed by Force


[L]iberty is the desire of those who are able.  Security the desire of those who are not. And parasitism is the desire of those who are evil.

While strict construction of agreements, and the decidability of conflicts are impossible without a monopoly of individual property rights to property-en-toto, there is no reason for a monopoly means of producing commons using those rights.

There is no reason some individuals cannot form collectives and ostracize libertarians and no reason libertarians cannot form collective and ostracize communalists.

There is no reason some cannot participate in socialist groups and others libertarian groups – as long as rule of law under property-en-toto, and the total prohibition on parasitism exists as a means of providing for strict construction of agreements, and decidability in conflicts.

We know what bad is: parasitism. But good is dependent upon your abilities.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)


It Was Hard to Convince People Competition is Moral.

[I]t was very hard to convince people that competition was not immoral. Lending was not immoral. And trading was not immoral.

That’s because it often wasn’t.

Competition functions only when credit is relatively equal to access. Lending only when not hazard-producing or predatory. And trading when not a contrived artificial scarcity.

Hence why morality (rational cooperation) requires PRODUCTIVE fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality of the same criteria.

And why BLACKMAIL is immoral, and why the NAP/IVP is immoral.