How Did Propertarianism Come About?

[W]hen I started out in around 2001, my only ambition was to provide conservatives and conservative libertarians with a rational and scientific means of arguing in favor of our ancient aristocratic group evolutionary strategy (culture and civilization) against secular socialist humanists and their overwhelming production of propaganda, pseudoscience and deceit.

I was pretty sure by about 2006 that I knew the institutional solution to creating heterogeneous post-democratic polities. It didn’t take me long to solve the problem of institutions.

By 2009 I had used Haidt’s work to express all moral differences in terms of property rights.  By 2014 I’d developed testimonial truth.  And by 2015 I had developed the moral division of labor.

I sort of got stuck when I figured out that I had to make it harder for progressives to just lie, load, frame and overload through repetition and sheer numbers. And at that point, I had to understand ‘truth’ – and that took me quite a while (because it’s contentious) but I was able to solve it.  And that led me to develop Testimonialism.  And as a consequence, the Wilsonian synthesis.

What is Propertarianism?

If you want to say something reductive, Propertarianism is the science of truth telling: testimony, and the reduction of all ethical and moral questions to those of property rights.

If you want to just say something utilitarian, then Propertarianism constitutes an amoral (non-moral) formal logic for the purpose of testing (criticizing, falsifying) all ethical, moral, and political statements, and forming the basis of a universal fully-decidable common (organic) law. You can use this formal language to construct, in law, all systems of government from the most absolute to the most anarchic, in operational language free of error, bias, and deceit. 

Technically, the name “Propertarianism” refers only to the philosophical solution to ethics and politics. But since I started with that term we (all of us) use it as the name for the entirety of the philosophical framework.

That framework consists of solutions to some very important philosophical problems.

They are:

1) Testimonial truth (Existential Truth proper, rather than platonic truth, analogies to, or subsets of platonic truth).

2) Testimonialism (the completion of the scientific method and the transformation from justificationism to critical rationalism).

3) Three Additional Criticisms (Logics) to the scientific method:
…(a) Operationalism (tests of existential possibility and limits)
…(b) Full Accounting (tests against selection bias) (freedom from information loss)
…(c) Morality (tests that any statement is objectively moral);

in addition to the known criticisms:
…(d) Identity or ‘Naming’ (comparable, calculable)
…(e) Internal Consistency (logical)
…(f) Externally correspondent (empirical)
…(g) Parsimony (falsifiable/ although “limits” is more correct)

4) Propertarian Ethics (law of cooperation, non-parasitism, non-imposition against property-en-toto)

5) Propertarian Political Institutions (Rule of Law)

And solutions to problems of social science:
1) class structure by weapons of influence (gossip, violence, remuneration)
2) the inter-temporal division of reproductive perception, cognition, knowledge and labor, and the necessity of exchanges to make use of the full spectrum of knowledge.
3) The only way to eliminate the state and its bureaucracy is to *eliminate ethical demand for it*. And the only way to do that is through the common, organic, law.

And perhaps the most influential insight into western civilization:
1) That the advantage the west has had over the rest, is that we tell the truth, and we suppress ALL free riding of ALL natures, EVERYWHERE.
2) That each civilization’s concept of truth reflects its group evolutionary strategy. (sun tzu versus Aristotle versus Kant, versus say, cantor being the most obvious examples.)

Is Propertarianism a Response to Libertarianism?

[W]ell the methodology is from libertarianism. But let’s look at libertarianism: Out of the Enlightenment we got two libertarianism’s or three. Anglo, German and Jewish. The German doesn’t really exist per se for complex reasons. So we are stuck with High Trust empirical universal Anglo aristocratic classical liberalism and libertarianism under rule of law on one hand, and low-trust rationalist dual-ethic Jewish libertinism and anarchism under the rubric of libertarianism (Rothbard stole the name) on the other.

What I was able to get out of anarchism and cosmopolitan libertarianism (libertinism) was the same as what libertinism got out of Marxism: rigorous argument. If you start with Hoppe, and you’re good enough at the philosophy of science, you can launder his Marxist history and German justificationism out of his work and see that he was very very close to creating a criticism instead of a justification. So what I got out of Hoppe and libertinism, was how to construct a rigorous analytic argument using property rights as a means of articulating all moral propositions. Maybe others did it. But that’s where I got it from.

Today I can’t use any Hoppe, the same way we can’t use any Plato or Aquinas. But that doesn’t mean I could have gotten where I am without having known him. So that’s why he was important to me. (Although he thinks I am arrogant – possibly justifiably.)

I was really hard on the Rothbardians. I had to be. It’s how I tested my arguments. But now I just see them the way most people do – as well-intentioned people who are engaging in subject matter over their heads.

So libertarianism provided the argumentative innovations I needed: the method of AMORAL argument. But my purpose was always to articulate western aristocratic egalitarianism manorialism and our ancient morality in ratio-scientific language. But it’s not a reaction to Libertarianism.

Is There a Way Out of Our Current Situation? Can We Gain Control of Our Own Countries Again?

[O]f course. But… Gossip is cheap. Violence is very expensive – but very fast and effective. Preferences are demonstrated not stated.

There is no cunning solution. There is no easy answer. None. You are either going to use violence to demand change, or lose your civilization forever.

We will either agitate a small minority to raise the cost of our competitors loading, framing, overloading, engaging in pseudoscience and lying, and raise the cost of their colonization, or we will prove we are just talking not acting.

Why Doesn’t Democracy work?

[D]emocracy does work if it’s under one-family-one-vote, in a small homogeneous polity, under agrarianism, and if we have four houses of government in the Anglo Saxon model: monarchy, aristocracy, business and industry, and the church (proletarian, insurance and caretaking). Because the classes and families have enough in common to use majority rule as a means of selecting priorities for funding with scarce resources. But democracy wherein men, women, and classes possess equal votes just results in proletarian parasitic rule with every possible malincentive. We can use majority rule to select priorities among people with common interests but we cannot use majority rule to select preferences among people with disparate interests. That’s just illogical.

The data says that without women voting we would have been fine. Women expressed their reproductive strategy in politics under democracy. They undid civilization. That is a painful pill to swallow. Paternalism and property rights, the jury, and truth telling and the absolute nuclear family, and delayed reproduction under manorialism were means by which we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and controlled women’s destructive behavior – reproducing at will at random and causing the tribe to bear the consequences of her Malthusian impulses. Women select by r, not K. Civilization requires suppression of free riding of the masculine kind (aggression) as well as the female kind (reproduction).

We undid Indo-European history and the family as the central political unit, with one act. So, how do we construct compromises rather than oppressions? Different houses – whether physical and representative, or electronic and virtual, for those groups with different reproductive strategies.

How Do We Create a Revolution?

The problem with a revolution is that it‘s an expression of frustration. It doesn’t necessarily bring change. And some revolutions are far worse than their original states: French and Russia in particular. To implement change one has to have something to demand. And what one demands has to satisfy a lot of people‘s interests. Those demands have to be possible to put into operational processes that we call ‘institutions‘. They have to be possible to persist regardless of the beliefs of the participants. SO they have to create the right incentives. 

• So to create a revolution you need moral authority – something that people will willingly use violence to bring about. And as a moral imperative, and moral justification,  TRUTH IS ENOUGH. We are tired of lies, pseudoscience, and obscurant rational justifications. We are tired of our elites burning our civilization. 

The truth is enough.  Unlike gossip, guilting and shaming. And unlike pseudo-science and propaganda, the truth expensive.  Truth is the most powerful argumentative weapon ever developed. And Propertarianism teaches us how to demand truth and speak the truth.  

• After moral authority – then you need a political solution – something to demand, and in sufficient detail that it is possible to discuss rationally, and implement as formal institutions. 

• Then you need a sufficient plan of transition that a revolution isn‘t necessary, and people don‘t die by the millions to do it. 

• Then you need a rough set of goals – not a plan – for nullification, secession, revolution, and civil war – and hope you can accomplish it with incremental nullification and secession but willing to conduct a revolution or civil war if need be. And you pursue all of them at once. 

• Then you need an ‘organization‘ – a group of people who act as the general staff that answer questions, and propose ideas on how to implement, how to transition and how to raise the cost of the status quo so that the transition is preferable to the uncertainty and instability. 

• Then you need a small number of people willing to die for their people, culture, and civilization, but who have reasonable belief that their sacrifice is not in vain. 

I don’t go into tactics because that‘s unwise. But in general, I try to get across this idea: How many hours of electricity, days of water, days of food, days of ‘order‘ are in the production line every day? I mean, if bad stuff happens in Ukraine and Russia, 40% of food is produced by the people. Everyone can go back to the village to relatives and the farm. What happens in the developed world if it‘s disrupted? 

We live in the most fragile time in history. It no longer takes masses in the streets to bring about revolution. It takes a small number of people to increase the friction of daily life. It has never been easier to create a revolution. People just need a plan, moral authority, and something to demand. 

It‘s our job to give it to them. Or, mine at least. 

What’s Your Background

• My family is old, Bretton, Norman and English. And my ancestors were Puritans from central England. Early residnts or ounders of the New Haven colony, Wallingford, Middletown and rabid members of the revolution. – a long history of anti-statism.

• My father grew up a quite privileged New England protestant, and my mother was a naive French Catholic girl who was the daughter of Maine potato farmers. And while I have maintained a Catholic idealism, my intellectual sensibilities are protestant.

• I grew up in a small, idyllic, Mennonite farm town in western New York whose Victorian artistry is frozen in 1914.

• I was born on the very edge of the autistic spectrum with Asperger’s mild impediment to empathy, and a deeper case of the Autistic’s obsessive thinking – such that, put to good use, it is a benefit to me much more so than a handicap – I view it as a ‘gift’. But in childhood, I paid the usual social price of being ‘different’ (a nerd). And I have had a very difficult time ‘taming’ that obsessive gift. I try to help fellow apies understand themselves when possible.

• As a child I read encyclopedias – often multiple times. The neutral point of view appealed to my autistic sensibilities. I think scientifically because I have no other choice really. Empathy is pretty useless for me. I have to make due with loyalty.

• I did reasonably well in school, and enjoyed it, but found I operated much better if I worked at my own pace which is somewhat slower than that of my peers. Since that time I have learned that many of us in philosophy share this very ‘skeptical’ and pensive method of functioning.  The continental academy is more suitable to the autistic mind than the American which is more concerned with social integration into the empire than learning.

• I started working early, at age ten or younger. I loved working. I still love working. 14 or 18 hours a day if I can.

• My father was an intelligent but alcoholic and man and a violent tyrant who felt he’d underachieved (he had).

• I was in multiple fights – usually at the bus stop – every month for most of my childhood – they only stopped when matured early and became a little more dangerous to tangle with.  The guy who was my nemesis was killed by police after murdering a woman and her husband in the 80’s.

• I grew up feeling that I must protect myself and others – particularly women – from evil. I’m sympathetic that Alexander and Napoleon are the products of mothers under duress.

• If you know me personally, I am, like most Aspies, a rather gentle, generous, and happy hamster.

That is all the explanation that is necessary to understand me in a nutshell.   And I put it out in public to remove it from the table.

• I studied fine art, art history and art theory, a little political science, as well as some electronic engineering in college. But it’s art theory and art history that has framed my thinking about mankind.

• While I treat my art education like my soul, I feel the great mistake I made in life was in not joining the philosophy department, or the literature department, when asked. I was too concerned with making a living.

• Self study is far more effective for me than organized education.

• My goal was, since the age of 12, to make enough money to write (or art) full time.

• I have been a principle or founder of ten companies, almost all involving the use of technology to solve various business problems. I am very good at what I do. And prior to the crash in 2008 I think I had a reputation of one of the better regional CEO’s. But my inability to control my board and partners while at the same time retaining my loyalty to them harmed that reputation.

• I’ve had cancer twice and two secondary infections that almost killed me, so I tend to have a very one-day-at-a-time view of life, and I feel that I need to fulfill my philosophical goals.

• I have had all the toys (Porsches, Ferrari, Jaguar, multiple homes, world travel, etc.). And I don’t particularly care for them any longer. I just care that I can write full time.

• So in 2012 I sold everything, moved to Ukraine, and I split my time between writing and product development. And that combination I find fulfilling. Writing is too solitary for me, and business is too enjoyable.

• I work with much younger people, and I live like them, and mostly I think like them. Age is a choice. I live and work like I am 25 and I hope that never changes again.

• I started keeping a blog in the early 00s when I decided that I had to improve my writing skills.  In 2009 or so I started using FB as a sketchpad as an experiment. Partly to ensure that I didn’t write in my inner voice. It worked.

• I do my work in public like medieval a street vendor. It turns out that people like watching the progress. I find their encouragement, objections and criticisms helpful. And it makes the work less isolating.

• I wake up and write immediately without thinking of anything else. Some days are fluid and some are less so. When I am done writing (usually around noon) I go to the office and work until 7 or 8pm. Come home, eat, and then work a little – reading economics blogs and papers. I don’t really watch media any longer. But I really like crash and fail videos before bed.🙂

Q&A: “Curt, Are you sick?“ (Because of how your voice sounds?)

[I] have allergy induced asthma – mostly to pollens, preservatives and things that are fermented. So I use an inhaler. The inhaled particles that carry the steroids that reduce the inflammation in your lungs, also land on your vocal cords on the way in, and affect them.

So if I‘m tired, dehydrated and my asthma is bothering me, you can really hear it in my voice. And that‘s what you sometimes hear on the interviews. I‘m actually fine.  (If you get me really going though, I have all the passion and fury of my Puritan ancestors thumping the bible of righteousness just before they go to war. : ) )

I have had a number of very serious illnesses in the past due to overdoing it, but my health has improved dramatically after leaving America and it‘s preservatives behind.

Thanks for asking.  :)