THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON:
The Propertarian Institute
THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON:
The Propertarian Institute
Q&A: CURT, WHAT ABOUT INSPIRATION? WHERE IS VIRTUE?
[W]ell, that is deceptively complex question. The problem of my (our) era, is the accumulated damage caused by the enlightenment failures on western civilization and our subsequent conquest by primitivism and primitive peoples.
I’ve enumerated the reasons for this failure elsewhere repeatedly: the enfranchisement of women in particular, but also of the non-contributing classes, without adding a house for them, who have used their numbers under the error of majority rule to transform our culture of heavy investment in commons to one of exaggerated consumption of every kind of capital: genetic, familial, institutional, normative, historical, and cultural.
****So I am constructing a (negative) political philosophy out of necessary limits, not a (positive) personal philosophy for the exploration of possibilities****
I will however, address virtues and a virtue ethic, when I finish with aesthetics – and personal philosophy will be the last subject…
View original post 1,632 more words
In my work, I assume that very little genetic ‘evolution’ occurs at all. And that instead, humans possess an extraordinary ability to express multiple evolutionary strategies in response to changes, pressures, and shocks.
We can call upon an amazing wealth of genetic expression of ability if we need to. And it can occur rapidly by institutional and status shifts, or slowly over centuries.
So I see our genes as an inventory of expressible biases that in combinations produce very different divisions of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor. From the effeminate Ashkenazi gender reversal, to the physical immaturity of Asians, to the masculine African and Muslim, and to everything in between.
It’s not clear that we haven’t already passed ‘peak human’ and that once we stopped speciation with the development of large populations, long range trade, and cities. In other words, it’s adaptively preferable to have a large dumb aggressive, highly…
View original post 175 more words
As a general rule, roughly doubling population density gains a 15% increase in both all goods and all bads. Why? Because the opportunity cost decreases.
That should be pretty obvious.
But now, let’s take a look at what happens to Commons: normative, institutional, and physical.
They get cheaper. But they also get less valuable. Becuase the primary commons that produces returns is just density.
But what happens to commons in non-urban areas: they get expensive, and they get more important. Because what sustains a population in the production of consumption, generations (families); goods, services, and information; commons, institutions, and territory.
This explains the very great difference between cities, suburbs, and rural areas: government produces commons, under the perception of uniform cost and value to humans when the value of commons is determined by the difficulty in creating them, preserving and maintaining them, and the cost of infractions gainst them.
We have the electoral college to ensure that the large states that have such discount on commons production cannot overwhelm the smaller states with smaller budgets, or smaller populations or smaller territories.
But what we do NOT have is votes within states determined by opportunity costs: population density.
Yet we tax people by income which to some degree reflects population density, because income is determined largely by that density, because opportunities are determined by that density.
Now there is a trade-off between the ‘cheapness’ of opportunities for CONSUMPTION in the city versus the expense of opportunities for INVESTMENT in the suburban and rural areas.
I hadn’t really given this much thought in the past although it’s intuitively obvious that the electoral college is necessary to prevent the people living off cheap commons in cities to force harm to the people in lower density places with expensive commons.
But since the entire purpose of government is the production of commons then it’s only logical: we lack a means of calculating the differences in these invisible differences in opportunity costs, and that without compensating for density, we are harming the suburban and rural areas.
Now, of course, we could say that rural and suburban areas don’t matter, but the truth is that cities are dysgenic IQ sinks, cultural conflict generators, and debt increasers, as well as helpful marketplaces
And that the reason that we immigrated so many people into this country after 1803’s Louisiana Purchase was to fill up the west with people, so that we could hold the territory in case the Europeans decided to come back and take it again.
Because you only hold territory as both a resource and as a buffer against competitors if it’s full enough of people to do so.
if votes were weighted by county by population density, that would ameliorate the differences between the different opportunity costs.
Now is this going to happen? Unlikely. So the alternative is secession so that regions, states, and localities can produce with government that which government is necessary to produce: commons.
And my alternative is to convert government from a monopoly to a market for the production of commons so that groups can produce local commons that they desire without the interference of others.
May a thousand nations bloom.
The Propertarian Institute
In person i am a gentleman. But I learned a lot from Hayek’s pristine, gentlemanly, german failure with Keynes: never give the enemy an inch out of grace.
We aren’t Victorians. This is a street fight. A brawl. And I use broken bottles, brass knuckles, clubs, knives, guns, and every other weapon I can get my hands on. And so do all of us in the various New Right groups.
When the left, via Alinsky, took the battle to the streets, they broke with our ancient european tradition and adopted the techniques of the peasantry.
That’s’ all well and good for them – until they realized in this election that we gave up on our Victorianism and stooped to their level.
And the alt-right beat them to a bloody pulp at their own game.
Now I am in the process of eviscerating every bit of leftist pseudoscience written in the past 150 years. It will take me a while to build the 100 or so people that can construct propertarian arguments but at that point we are the equivalent of the anti-frankfurt school.
And so forgive me if I frequently digress from stoic analytic purity and go slumming, seeking street fights with the left’s kleptocracy of deceit.
But I’m looking for skulls to drink from.
You, the left, thought you were winning rather than that we were just biding our time, hoping you would learn. Sorry. You didn’t learn. We are failed parents and you’re the family black sheep. You’re the alcoholic, the drug user, the impulsive criminal, and the sociopath. and the social-climbing daughter. That’s all. A cult of kleptocracy.
So, We don’t want your consent, your agreement, your approval, or your opinion. We want your silence, submission, punishment, eviction, or death. Which of those we levy against you dependent upon your choice of silence, departure, or death.
You cannot meet us on the field of truth.
You cannot meet us on the field of propaganda.
You cannot meet us on the field of war.
You can only meet us in the market of voluntary exchanges. Because that is the only field we will leave you.
So we have a message for you: productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange between the classes or it is easier, and cheaper to return you to servitude, serfdom or slavery.
You are weaker. You will always be weaker.
And we know this. And so do you.
You’re done. There won’t be another election for you to win.
Because you taught us that you are not ready for adulthood, nor liberty, nor peerage.
— Curt Doolittle,
The Philosophy of Aristocracy, The Propertarian Institute
The history of philosophy can be reduced to the five struggles:
1) First, between man’s primary desire to retreat into the limits of his senses in the face of evolving complexity, and his reluctant acknowledgement that he must learn and employ the tools of reason and calculation in order to extend those limited senses, despite the discomfort these unintuitive abstract tools subject him to.
2) Second, the conflict between his preference for the material ease of the division of labor and his emotional discomfort at the consequential alienation caused by post-tribal, post familial, and increasingly individualistic commercial society.
3) Third, between the comfort of historical norms and the precious status we each achieve by adhering to them, and the opportunity of economic, technical and organizational innovation that of necessity disrupts those norms.
4) Fourth, the need to develop justification of our system of norms such that we can resist or…
View original post 1,071 more words
Trump Was Right: Productivity versus Employment & Status
On Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux references a CATO posting which in turn references a Wall Street Journal article, that criticizes Donald Trump for stating that we need more manufacturing jobs. The libertarian sentiments held by my friends at CATO and Cafe Hayek, inform them that productivity gains show that we produce just plenty of manufacturing – thank you very much. Wherein Don supports the Cato position that we do not need more manufacturing, and that any perception that we do, is a myth.
(Articles are linked below.)
But they are mistaken. A polity desires not productivity, but employment, and not simply employment, but competitive, status-enriching employment — and the lower classes in particular find their social enfranchisement in producing these ‘collective goods’ we call competitive production. They cannot achieve status through individualism, so they seek to find it in collective membership: They want to ‘do good.’
For example, a friend…
View original post 1,353 more words
Dunning Kruger Never Stops
To the idiot, the world conspires or lies.
To the average, the more powerful conspires or lies.
To the intelligent, the more intelligent conspires or lies.
Differences in knowledge and understanding that are to you unimaginable are to those with far more just normal risk assessments they would make.
I published this graphic many years ago in an attempt to explain the problem of false positive ethics and false negative ethics.
The problem is, that when you FAIL, you look unethical, whereas if you succeed your look brilliant or heroic.
I’m a more than ruthless guy. I don’t do symbolism. So I take the risk whether it will result in a false negative or not.
Why? Skin in the game.
You cannot cooperate on equal terms with unequals.
Some men must be led if greatness is to be achieved.
Sometimes we die in our attempt at…
View original post 1 more word