Stefan Molyneux produced a great video yesterday on the various power laws of human organization, and how these affect our social, economic, and political orders. He adds all the ‘color’ and examples I rarely do.

I’m going to repeat, add to his points here, and expand on them quite a bit, in order to take his lesson to its logical conclusion.


1. Genes, in-utero-development, biological abilities, and personality traits including iq, must coincide to produce extraordinary behavior. A lot must ‘go right’ to get an excellent individual in any field. A lot does not ‘go right’ for the vast majority. The Gaussian distribution of talents (the bell curve), exists.

2. 50% of the work, (and certainly the profit) is caused by the square root of the number of employees. Some people are 50 times, 100 times, or 1000 times smarter than others. There are more highly intelligent men than women. The classes are organized from from lower-upper class to lower-proletarian class by these distributions of desirability in physical desirability, social desirability, reproductive desirability, cooperative desirability, productive desirability, and imitative desirability.

3. Economic rewards in the free market concentrate around those who provide goods, services, (and less frequently, information) to those who serve larger and larger numbers of people sufficiently to cause them to contribute some portion of their resources to those individuals. (smartest people are not richest. richest people serve most people. most people are ‘ordinary’. Most ordinary people have ordinary wants and needs. this is not the case of extraordinary people, who have different wants and needs.

4. Because of this difference, a small percentage of people bear the weight of inventing, planning, calculating, organizing, and administering the organization of the production of order, laws, norms. manners, markets for goods services and information, and markets for the production of commons.

5. Inequality is not only going to occur but needs to occur in order to organize people into a voluntary organization of production that provides everyone with the incentive to serve one another with maximum effort that we see in modern economies, rather than MINIMUM effort that we see otherwise.

6. Unfortunately, some people in power use the state to interfere with a meritocratic distribution, and people in power obtain rents for doing so, and under democracy buy votes by doing so. This leads to increasing inequality in a population from a necessary inequality to an unnecessary inequality.

7. Middle and working and lower classes have lost ground since the end of the post-war artificial economy. (But stefan does not state why very clearly – which I’ll suggest below).


1. The priestly cast promised utopia in afterlife in return for money, power, and control. This was the open fraud of monotheism, and the presevation of ignorance in christianity by failing to teach literacy, and in islam by the limiting of ‘literacy’ to the religoius texts.

2. In the 19th century, With the decline of the church, these frauds ran to the left the pseudo-scientific cosmopolitanism of Boaz(anthropology), Marx(economics and sociology), Freud (psychology), and later the Frankfurt School(aesthetics), and from the left into the academy.

3. And in the 20th century, because of government education loans and a swelling of the students who desired to pay the academy – for ‘diplomas’: modern versions of medieval Indulgences – for courses in pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalsm, and outright fabrication. They had found a new source of income. The original academies were founded as extensions of the church, teaching extensions of theology, but in the 19th and 20th centuries, rapidly transitioned to teaching pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and outright propaganda and deceit.

4. They now sell utopia in later life, in exchange for money, power, and control.

5. So we produce inequality that is necessary, But priests, public intellectuals, and politicians produce unnecessary inequality through interference in that market.

6. The priests cannot allow us to know the truth of inequality of ability and the necessity of using it, and the necessity of markets to use it without rent seeking to provide the least unnecessary inequality while providing the sufficient inequality – because if they did, then they would lose their opportunity to get paid for their dishonesty.

So they claim unnecessary and unjust inequality – but they are the creators of unnecessary and unjust equality.

They sell you the (impossible) paradise of equality.
They sell you that the current order is corrupt and unjust.
They sell you that we are indifferent biologically.
They obtain income and power in school, academy, public intellectuals, politicians, and the bureaucratic state, and those industries large enough to seek rents from all of the above.


1. Women recognize the great difference in physical attraction, discount the vast differences in physical ability, but deny the existence of the same vast differences in intellectual ability.

2. But the underclass does so as well. For the same reasons: justifiable insecurity from lack of competitive ability, to which they attribute conspiracy.

3. (It seems inconceivable to women that (a) they are not anywhere near as loyal as men, (b) have fewer competing interests compared to men, (c) are more easily biased by ‘drama’ than men, and (d) produce far fewer competitive candidates at the margins of strength, endurance, and intelligence than men.

4. And equally, it seems to be inconceivable to the underclasses that they are bound by the limits of Dunning-Kruger, because of their necessity of action, confidence in their actions, and ability to decide which action to take, despite their limited abilities. )


0. The marginal difference in compensation necessary to organize people at different levels of ability in the possession of different skills, in a network of hierarchies. In other words, it is one thing to say that superior people are more productive, and therefore have some ‘moral’ right their income, and something else to say that people who provide marginal differences for the survival and profitability of everyone in the organization must be paid to serve the interests of the majority in that organization or they will move to work for the benefit of OTHER organizations. This applies at all levels from the political to the financial to the entrepreneurial, to the calculative, to the administrative, to the managerial, to the producers, to the laborers to those who merely clean or maintain. Everyone must be paid to serve the group or will move to another group where they are better compensated.

1. Meritocracy and private property MUST evolve under rule of law by Natural Law, but free markets, capitalism, are meaningless terms, because they describe the consequence, but not the cause, the methods, nor the limits of producing them. And like the non aggression principle and intersubjectively verifiable property leave open the many, many, many means of parasitism, while making the production of commons almost impossible. When commons are the means by which the west defeated the rest in the ancient and modern worlds.

2. We lack sufficient juridical defense, and we lack sufficient standing, to limit the actors in the market to Natural Law: productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality. The government denies us access to juridical defense under natural law by which we can prevent non-torte crimes: indirect violation of natural law. It is a common libertarian trope that the market is sufficient for the production of favorable human behavior, and that the market is sufficient for the suppression of all forms of parasitism. It is not, and that’s both empirical and logical. We require Rule of Law, Natural Law, Universal Standing in Matters of Commons in order to prohibit any government from preventing us access to juridical defense.

3. In the transitional era, when we converted from agrarianism to industrialism and the majority that subsisted upon the land, and the minority through trade, a smaller minority through administration(Church), and the tiny minority through rule (Nobility), and when one could behave and gain access to defense, produce and gain access to food and shelter, and produce extra to participate in the market to the degree with which they are able – but in the the industrial and information eras, under the current order one cannot return to subsistence existence. it’s not possible. So they obtain nothing in exchange for non-predation, non-parasitism, because they cannot engage in production, earnings, and consumption. And the question is, what compensation must we provide in exchange for their behavior if their behavior is irrational in a economy which has all but caused the elimination of subsistence existence. So given that people are costly, and paying them off is costly, we have only one choice: to kill them, evict them, imprison them, enslave them, sterilize them – or most wisely, pay them not to reproduce so that in future generations we no longer need to pay for them or their descendants.

4. That yes, exceptional people are exceptional, but they are nowhere near as important to prosperity as are the reduction of the scale of the underclasses. The west not only succeeded by developing testimonial and therefore deflationary truth (military reporting), and all the technologies of reason, rationalism, empiricism, (and now operationalism), but did so through the use of sovereignty, common law, and natural law for those who earned it, citizenry, freedom (freemen), serfdom, indentured slavery, and chattel slavery, and the incremental domestication of man through that process of incentives, as well as through the use of winter, famine, war, upward redistribution of production, manorialism limiting access to land for survival, late marriage, and private property. In other words, it is one thing to say better people are in fact better, and another thing to say that the people who lack physical, emotional, and mental ability and as a consequence, personal agency, are much WORSE for a society than each good person can compensate for.

5. The difference between Zipf, Pareto, Power, Nash and Gaussian distributions. Relying on the pareto does not provide the audience with enough information to understand the alternatives. That is perhaps a candidate for a later conversation.



My criticisms of most political discourse consist of universal failure to perform a full accounting of causes and consequences, and a tendency to advocate goods rather than offsetting bads; a tendence to suggest belief and want to obtain goods, rather than institutions that assist us in providing goods regardless of belief and want; In other words.

We are terribly happy to talk about goods (rewards) but not about anything that would counter those rewards with offsetting costs.


What you have seen is me emphasize above not the priestly, philosophical, public intellectual, and political use of the via-positiva of advocacy of goods, but the general, the full accounting by the use of via-negativa to demonstrate how we construct those goods by institutions rather than advocacy.


The weak advocate and the strong rule. And rule is performed through institutions. The fact that one advocates for values and beliefs rather than rules and necessities is merely an admission of weakness.

The fact that one advocates via positiva without also describing necessary via-negativa illustrates a lack of understanding of the actions necessary to bring about the conditions which he advocates. Or that he fears the audience will flee if made aware of the costs of the goods he sells.

So unlike the priests who sell falsehoods at real costs, we ‘libertarians’ tend to sell truths at false costs.

There is only one source of liberty for the many, and that is the use of organized violence to obtain sufficient sovereignty by which to impose rule of law by natural law resulting in nomocracy, and thereby producing middle class liberty in exchange for compensation of the sovereign, working class freedom in exchange for compensation of the sovereign, and female and lower class subsidy in exchange for those behaviors that are necessary for the formation of the markets consisting of the voluntary organization of production of association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons necessary for the group’s competitive persistence.

And there is only one means of preserving an order of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy, and that is the reciprocal insurance of all men in a militia against the violation of their hard won sovereignty.

The first asset is violence and the first virtue loyalty, and the first good sovereignty. From violence, loyalty, and sovereignty, we can create rule of law by natural law leaving no other choice for existence other than markets in everything and therefore liberty, freedom, and subsidy for all.

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law of Reciprocity
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.