What is Propertarianism

Introduction to Propertarianism (Natural Law)

  1. What is Propertarianism?
    1. Description
    2. Position in Intellectual History
    3. First Complete Statement of the Philosophy of the West
  2. How Did Propertarianism Come About?
  3. Is Propertarianism a Response to Libertarianism?
  4. Why Choose The Name ‘Propertarianism’?

 

1. What is Propertarianism?

i) Description of Propertarianism

Simple Version:
Propertarianism can be described as Natural Law: the philosophy, logic, and science of cooperation.

Functional Version: 
Propertarianism constitutes an amoral (non-moral) formal logic for the purpose of comparing and judging all ethical, moral, and political statements, in all civilizations, and forming the basis of a universal, fully-decidable common (organic) law.

You can use the formal language of this law to construct all systems of government from the most absolute to the most anarchic, in operational language free of error, bias, and deceit. 

Contextual Version

  • The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”
    • Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY
      Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

      • Law of Man  (Action) (properties of man) – THE POSSIBLE
        Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

        • Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD
          Ethics, morality, law, economics

          • Law of Testimony – THE TRUE
            Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

            • Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL
              Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

This unification of science, morality and epistemology is profoundly important.

 

ii) Propertarianism’s Position in Intellectual History

Propertarianism is an answer to, refutation of, and solution to Cantor’s restoration of mathematical platonism, Marx’s pseudoscientific economics and sociology, Boaz’s pseudoscientific anthropology and sociology, Freud’s pseudoscientific psychology, and the Frankfurt School’s pseudoscientific aesthetics.

This constitutes the main actors in the Cosmopolitan (Jewish enlightenment) attack on Western Civilization.

It is the second Judaic attack on Western Civilization, and the third eastern attack on the West.

The first eastern attack was the eastern indo european invention of scripture: authoritarian mystical religion as a successor to explanatory mythology.

The first Judaic attack was the fabrication of authoritarian mysticism with the promise of utopia after death by the professionalization of lying about scripture;

The second Judaic attack is the pseudoscientific attack on Western Civilization which promised the underclasses not only an escape from evolutionary and material constraints, but a utopia of consumption and a permanently expanding technology that would end all wants – using new mass media for the industrialization of lying.

Propertarianism’s purpose is to end lying in all its elaborate forms within the commons: including the supernatural, pseudo-rational, the pseudo-mathematical, and the pseudoscientific.

iii) The First Complete Statement Of The Philosophy Of Western Civilization

  1. The Heroic Civilization. For reasons we are unsure of, the west combined bronze horse and wheel, and in doing so transformed from egalitarian earth worshippers to hierarchical sun worshippers. From submissive to heroic.
  2. Sovereignty. But because of their military strategy  – a strategy that required large personal investments and large personal risk –  they chose sovereignty: the right of the individual to act as his own legislature in his family’s affairs, as the first ‘law, rule or principle’ of their society upon which all others were to depend.
    (DEFINITION: Sovereignty)

  3. Markets in Everything. The only institutional solution to choosing the strategy of sovereignty is to resort to markets in everything: relationships, marriage, production, commons, adjudication of differences, and rule. And the only means of resolving conflicts between them is the natural, judge discovered common law. In other words the only solution to sovereignty is : the absence of discretion (choice). And the only solution to the absence of choice, is rule of natural, judge-discovered law.
  4. The Rapidity of Suppression of Parasitism. The by-product of this choice of sovereignty is the rapidity with which new methods of free riding, parasitism, predation, can be suppressed – by the first case adjudicated and recorded.  And secondly, the ease of expanding risk taking when such rapidity and lack of discretion is visible.  And third, the trust that evolves from the consistent suppression of corruption in the state, and free riding in the commons, and parasitism and fraud in commerce, and predation by any criminal means.
  5. Not First but Fastest. in summary, the choice of sovereignty allowed the west to advance FASTER than the rest by process of DISCOVERY faster than the rest. So the West was not first, it was fastest, except in the medieval world when (like now) we were defeated by the first great lie: mysticism.
  6. Class Structure. The west has always practiced tri-partism: the estates of the realm – in one way or another. Since our origins on the steppes of Ukraine and Russia. Priests, Warriors, Laborers. We have always used the class structure ‘honestly’.
  7. Testimonial Truth and Deflationism. The west has (uniquely) practiced deconflationism  (specialization) in various forms – never mixing Law, religion, and festival – and resisting the church’s usurpation of our nature worship and related festivals. We have even had in some cases, different languages for our estates of the realm: Latin, French, and German.
  8. Polytheistic (And PolyArgumentative). And so the west has always practiced polytheism of sorts: martial sovereignty, commercial rule of law, craftsman’s technology, intellectual philosophy, commoner religion, and the mythology of nature and the hearth. And each has used different forms of communication and different methods of argument.
  9. No Single ‘Book’. o because of this tripartism, this unconflated set of competing yet compatible ideas produced a very complex unwritten social order never captured in a single book in a single language using a single argument. Possibly because it could not have been until now. We simply didn’t know how. It took us hundreds of years in the ancient world, and hundreds of years in the modern to discover how to complete our single language of truthful speech: that language we call ‘science’ – a language that evolved not from our priesthood, not from our intellectuals, but from our empirical, natural, common law.
  10. The Great Lies of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Our current century and the last, and part of the previous, were victims of the same strategy that Zoroaster, Jerusalem and Mecca used against us in the ancient world: the first great lie of supernatural mysticism. We have been fighting the second great lie of pseudoscience for over a century. We are now fighting the second version of the first lie: Islam, and Islam has replaced the pseudoscience of marxists: world communism with the fundamentalist, absolutist, mysticism of religion.

 

Origins


5. How Did Propertarianism Come About?

While I had the idea in 1992, listening to the propaganda of the time, I started working hard on the problem in or around 2001. And 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. 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.

By 2015 I had developed the moral division of labor. And I spent most of 2016 on the very difficult tasks of simplification of the overall message, solving the problems of religion and literature, and refining the questions of institutions. But in reality, the past year or so has been largely an effort to simplify – to become better at speaking about these topics in a narrative voice that more people could more easily understand.

At present I’m working on the book, and a set of beginner, intermediate, and advanced courses. What these courses amount to in practice is a Certification in the Natural Law of Cooperation. And hopefully the ability to conduct arguments sufficient to reverse the century of mysticism, innumeracy, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience and deceit.

The book will consist of material similar to the courses, and I am producing them in concert. (Assuming I survive it all. 😉 )

6. 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.

7. Why Choose The Name Propertarianism?

Propertarianism refers to the reduction of all ethical questions to statements of property transfer.

When I first started out, I thought of my work as a continuation of the Locke(reason) > Rothbard(rational) > Hoppe(rationalism) > Doolittle (science) sequence. I thought I was completing the project that Locke, Rothbard, and Hoppe had begun by restating Hoppe in scientific language.  And as a group we were all operating under what was called propertarian and others called us Propertarians. It’s actually meant as an insult. Just like “Capitalism” was originally used as an insult.  Propertarian was used as a pejorative: as an accusation of ‘fundamentalism’ rather than an attempt to construct a formal logic – which is what we all thought we were doing.  And so I used it because I wanted to both make use of a descriptive term, and turn the insult into a badge of honor so to speak.

But I didn’t understand that working on propertarian ethics would result in the discovery of Testimonialism, nor in Aristocratic Egalitarianism: the transition of the discourse on liberty from middle class liberty by permission, to aristocratic sovereignty by demonstrable fact.

And it wasn’t until this year that I understood that what I’d really done is complete the Natural Law project by completing the Testimonial Law (Truth) Project.

So now we have three sets of laws: The Law of Nature (the universe) contains, 1) Physical Law – Action, 2) Natural Law – Cooperation, and 3) Testimonial Law – Speech.

So we should call Propertarianism “Natural Law” (that in itself contains Testimonial Law).  But that would be too imprecise a term since there are a lot of loose definitions of natural law floating around.

So, because there are enough people who are aware of it now, we just stick with Propertarianism, purely for convenience’s sake.