Core · Uncategorized

A Short Course In Incremental Suppression

(important concept)(propertarianism core) (worth repeating often)

Causal Chain:
Sovereignty > Natural Law > Incremental Suppression > Markets

organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding



1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost.

2) cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation.

3) cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding.

4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment). They protect the institution by severe policing of cheaters.

5) rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding).

6) prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict.

7) prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights”.

8) community member (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws.

9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important)

10) high trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival.

11) as a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for tyranny and redistribution.

Aristocracy, Egalitarianism, morality, Nomocracy, meritocracy, Science, and eugenic evolution are mutually dependent.

The chart below shows the incremental suppression of parasitism stating from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest.

Only the west succeeded in developing truth.

And without it we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law.

Truth matters above all else.

Pseudoscience is just babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes.

This emperor is naked also.

Truth is enough to rescue the west.

Core · Uncategorized

Novel Concepts in Propertarianism (by SingluarDiscourse)


For those of you that do not know anything about it, Propertarianism refers to a framework that includes Testimonialism (epistemology), Law (strict construction), Ethics (demonstrated property) and Politics (market government).


Testimonial Truth refers to existentially possible truth, which comes in the form of operationally described testimony, it differs from platonic idealized truth. Testimonialism refers to the set of criticisms that we have to apply if we intend to warrant due diligence to the truthfulness of our testimony. List of criticisms necessary for due diligence:

  • Naming Consistency – Non-conflation of identities.
  • Internal Consistency – Logical descriptions of theories.
  • External Consistency – Empirical observations of theories.
  • Existential Consistency – Operational definitions of concepts.
  • Scope Consistency – Parsimonious and Fully accounted.
  • Moral Consistency – Objectively Moral.

By applying some of those criticisms to a hypothesis, one gets a theory, once it gets exhaustively tested, one gets either a Fact (observation), Law(explanation), or Recipe (process).

By operationally describing theories (sequences of physical actions + instruments + measurements), one can achieve testability and repeatability while, at the same time, imposing a prohibitive burden on speech that contains error, biases, wishful thinking, loading, suggestion and deceit. Instruments used in operational descriptions include physical, logical and institutional instruments; where sensors, IQ tests and property serve as examples of each.

By continued testing of the theories, one eventually finds the limits of a theory (where we “falsified” it), this protects us from using a theory in an invalid scope (where it fails or lacks precision), in matters of cooperation one must add the full accountability of costs upon demonstrated property in order to avoid selection bias.

In addition to testimony by those criticisms, one may issue less reliable warranties of sympathy (understanding of a conceptual relationship), honesty (intuition free of deceits), rationality (subjected to internal consistency), empiricism (subjected to external consistency), and scientifictesting (expensive continued testing, but not testimonial).

Non-Imposition against Demonstrated Property

Propertarian ethics proposes the question of the rationality of cooperationand answers that human agents consider cooperation as a rational choice (instead of parasitism and predation) only if it does not impose costs upon that which they consider their property.

Humans, as with other organisms, need to acquire resources in order to survive and reproduce, this requirement led to the development of an instinct to acquire and inventory many types of capital (physical, monetary, territorial, normative, genetic, etc.).

Humans intuit that capital upon which they have invested, without imposing costs upon their groups, as their property, and retaliate to any attempt of imposing costs to that which they consider their property, this constitutes their demonstrated property. We can divide those into the following types of property:

  • Self-Property – Body, Time, Actions, Memory, Concepts, Status, etc.
  • Personal Property – Houses, Cars, “Things”, etc.
  • Kinship Property – Mates, Children, Family, Friends, etc.
  • Cooperative Property – Organizational and Knowledge ties.
  • Shareholder Property – Recorded and Quantified shares.
  • Common Property – Citizenship, Artificial Property.
  • Informal Institutional Property – Manners, Ethics, Morals, Myths, Rituals.
  • Formal Institutional Property – Religion, Government, Laws.

(Full list:

One can also state the principle of non-imposition as the requirement that all transactions have the following properties: productivity, symmetry of knowledge, warranty, voluntary, without externalities of the same (previous) criteria.

The principle of non-imposition in combination with demonstrated property allows a polity to construct law in a way that eliminates the need of discretionary interpretation, that means it provides decidability for all questions of law and contract.

Humans evolved most of its emotions as reactions to change in their inventory of property, but they vary in their perception of what constitutes property, with different classes of humans prioritizing different moral intuitions.

Intertemporal Division of Perception, Cognition, Knowledge, Labor, and Advocacy

Humans form a division of perception in that progressives and libertarians have specialist moral intuitions suited to their roles in the community, whereas conservatives give equal weight to the six moral dimensions of (care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, purity). These differences on moral intuitions suit individuals to different roles in a polity:

  • “Conservatives” – Voluntary Organization of Cooperation.
  • “Libertarians” – Voluntary Organization of Production.
  • “Progressives” – Voluntary Organization of Reproduction.

Humans form a division of cognition in that we can classify people with different levels of ability, from those that learn by repetition, to those that learn by imitation, to those that learn by instruction, to those that learn by reading, to those that can model machines,to those that can synthesize ideas, to those that can model abstractions.

Humans form a division of knowledge with each containing local information about their inventories of property and specialist knowledge upon which others depend. As we depend more upon the memories and actions of third parties, trust becomes necessary for complex information networks to evolve between humans.

Humans form two divisions of labor, a reproductive division of labor between the genders in the production of new generations and a productive division of labor in the production of goods and services.

Humans form a division of advocacy where conservatives advocate total constraint on consumption (saving), libertarians advocate meritocratic constraint on consumption (production), and progressives advocate consumption (nurture).

The Three Coercive Technologies

Each of the three classes, into which humans divide, specialize in one of the following three coercive technologies:

  • Moral Coercive Power – The use of “words and signals” in order to influence people to behave in a way by the threat of imposition of social costs (opportunity costs).
  • Economic Coercive Power – The use of “money and assets” in order to compel people to behave in a way by the promise of material rewards (good and services).
  • Physical Coercive Power – The use of “armies and weapons” in order to coerce people to behave in a way under the threat of physical violence (physical costs).

By combined use of the three weapons, a group can coerce quite effectively, the government can use all those weapons to keep control of its subjects, with most people being controlled by propaganda and lies (moral coercion), others being bought with a position in the bureaucracy (economic coercion) and the rest of the malcontents being suppressed by police force (physical coercion).

Strict Construction of Law and Market Government

Propertarian law evolves by incremental suppression of new forms of parasitism, where the judge discovered common law provides the least time lapse between the invention of parasitism and the construction of law prohibiting it.

Strictly constructed law follows from the first principle of non-imposition of costs against demonstrated property, we can use this method of construction to specify contracts, as long as the later (contract) does not infringe upon the former (law).

One can think of strict construction as the programming of law and of contracts, where those may refer to other documents, use libraries of operational definitions, define actionable clauses and conditions upon which the involved parties execute those clauses.

Market Government refers to the Voluntary Organization of Commons by trade between houses of government, where this trade takes place only when all houses of government agree with the terms. Each of the three classes into which humans divide form a house of market government.

Commons refer to material goods and services as well as norms of behavior to which people must comply, in contrast with private goods, humans want to preserve commons, not to consume them, in case of consumption, humans lack incentives to invest in them.

(List of commons:

Informational Commons

Humans defend commons into which they have invested resources, that follows from the definition of demonstrated property, as such, we can consider information as a commons and prohibit the “pollution” of that commons as we do with other commons such as rivers.

As such, a requirement of truthful speech (testimonialism) forms a new kind of warranty, just like warranties given to the quality of goods and services, we must now warrant any information we use in public discourse about matters of commons. This does not mean that we must prohibit conflationary and inspirational discourse in private, for pedagogical, aesthetic and hypothetical (meaningful) purposes.

Testimonialism stands as a warranty in matters of law (and contract), where the discovery of law must pass through all of the criticisms, for this reason we have both empiricism (as in the common law) and operationalism (strict construction).

Incremental Suppression of Parasitism

In order to cooperate and expand cooperation, humans require incremental suppression of impositions of cost upon their demonstrated property as relationships move from local to global and become anonymous.

At first humans organize in order to partially suppress imposition of costs (criminal), namely violence, this results in innovations on parasitism that moves to theft and fraud (ethical), as those get suppressed, we have private property, but parasitism evolves towards deception and organized forms of parasitism (moral and conspiratorial).

(List of “discounts”:

As such one can judge the moral state of a polity by comparison with the list of all forms of free-riding and those which they actually suppress by their law.

By near total suppression of imposed costs and the absolute nuclear family, we force individuals into market cooperation instead of parasitism (which limits parasitism even within the family), this results in a highly eugenic (meritocratic) civilization which suppresses lower class reproduction.

In order to create incentives for the lower classes to abide by rule of law, they’re compensated with dividends obtained in exchange for forgone opportunities of parasitism and for the policing of the commons.

The Transaction Cost Theory of Government

At first humans had to deal with small communities where the threat of ostracism almost equals a death threat, but as those groups grew in distance of relationships, so did the incentives to impose costs upon others in favor of oneself and of one’s family.

The growth of transaction costs led to a demand for an authority in order to provide dispute resolution, from this, people formed governments as a way to suppress local transaction costs and replace it with a global cost (taxation).

The opportunities for rational cooperation created by government resulted in great wealth, a lot of which went into the hands of government. Ideally, suppression of the centralized costs (bureaucratic and political parasitism) would follow, while retaining suppression of the local costs and the commons built under this suppression (particularly, the property definitions themselves).

In reality, a class warfare for the control of government went on, which led to democracy, that in practice results in redistribution of the rents to the lower classes (the majority) in a winner takes all contest. From this point on, dysgenia and demand for authority follow.

P.S.: To any propertarian that reads this, I know about other topics such as the axiomatic vs theoretical knowledge issue, group evolutionary strategies, family structures, the failure of the enlightenment, the great lies, heroism, personality (autistic vs solipsistic and other issues), demonstrated intelligence, and so on, but I do not feel confident enough on those issues to even try writing about them yet.

1.7-The Solution (Promise) · 3.6-Politics · Core

Is The Problem Really Democracy? Here Is Your Answer.

The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of:

1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities.

And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads.

3) MONOPOLY COMMONS. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce.

But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’.

So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly.

Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

1.2-Uniqueness · Core · Uncategorized

The Restoration: The Secret Of Western Civilization: Propertarianism In A Nutshell

(propertarianism core)

We can restore the west’s evolutionary trajectory as the principle source of mankind’s innovation, restore our people and our civilization, and overthrow a century and a half of pseudoscience, by restoring to the common law the organizing principle of sovereignty – and consequential markets in everything, with just one law: truthful speech by the involuntary warranty of due diligence against error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience and deceit, for the purpose of circumventing a voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to productive externalities, by the imposition of costs against property in toto: that broad spectrum of things, relationships, behaviors, and commons, which we have borne costs to inventory, without imposing costs upon the things, behaviors, and commons of others.

This warranty is achieved by proofs (demonstrations) of consistency in 1) categorical consistency, 2) internal consistency, 3) empirical consistency, 4) existential consistency, 5) moral consistency, 6) scope consistency. And while it might take a small effort to learn how to provide these warranties on all information, just as we have learned to provide warranties on products, warranties on services, and limited warranties on the reporting of basic research, we can complete the scientific method and require these proofs on all information.

In every era we invent new expansions of the method of cooperation we call the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. But in doing so we create greater asymmetries of knowledge, and therefore new opportunities to invent means of benefitting from the imposition of costs upon others that we call ‘parasitism’. And we rely upon courts, testimony, jury, judge, empirical truth, and the accumulated empirical knowledge of the common law of torts, to incrementally suppress and render illegal each innovation in parasitism as soon as the first case adjudicated is recorded for reference by other lawyers, prosecutors, and judges.

The west was not first, nor wealthiest, nor possessed of greater numbers, superior resources, superior climate. But instead, by accident of circumstance, chose Sovereignty as their principle of organization – a choice which is possible only under empirical, testimonial speech we call ‘truth’, and a market for the resolution of any negotiation, exchange, or conflict – depriving all of authority over anything other than the preservation of sovereignty. Europeans created the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men, open to any man willing and able to reciprocally insure every other against violations of his sovereignty.

This choice resulted in a civilization that calculates advancements faster than all other organizing models, and produces the least opportunity for parasitism and rents. And it is this velocity in the ancient and modern worlds that has allowed the west to defeat the red queen of corruption, and drag mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, mysticism, justificationism, conflationism, deception, hunger, poverty, physical labor, cellular decay, disease, and increasingly, the vicissitudes of nature, in an unforgiving universe hostile to life in all but the rarest of exceptions.

1.2-Uniqueness · Core · Uncategorized

Intellectual History In A Nutshell


(corrected with aristotelian reason, stoic and roman law)

(corrected with empiricism, and anglo common law)

(corrected with testimonialism, and propertarian natural law)


Core · Uncategorized

The Languages of Fraud

When you defend your use of philosophical rationalism, your presupposition is the disproportionate value of the communication of meaning(learning), under which we obtain explanatory power and opportunity for persuasion and negotiation; whereas you discount or ignore the equal value of prosecution(prevention), under which we eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.

It would be all well and good to speak only with ‘good manners’ of positive language, if all men were of manners, ethics, morals, humility, study, achievement, and intelligence. But the central problem of our age – since the industrial revolution – has not been the communication of meaning within the limits of human perception, but the elimination of error, bias, wishful thinking, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, now that our action and our institutions can reach beyond the manners and prosecution of the ill-mannered, at human scale.

So you may wish to hold to the language of the primitive technologies of reason and meaning, just as others may wish to hold to the primitive technologies of theology and mysticism. But theology consists of little other than parable (analogy) for the purpose of discourse within the limits of pre-existing authority. And Rationalism consists of little other than a subset of reason for the purpose of discourse under the assumption of good intention and good character, independent of cost, and evidence, in order to obscure the cunning and deceit used to impose one’s will upon others by the pretense of truthfulness which is little more than selection bias.

In other words, if you wish to speak truthfully, you can communicate by analogy, if and only if you equally criticize by correspondence (truth), such that both the properties necessary for communication but untrue under criticism, and the persuasions necessary for stating preference, but untrue under criticism, and the error, bias, and deceit that we frail humans rely upon in lieu of truthful argument that are untrue under criticism, are laundered and exposed.

Men do not seek to preserve religious, moral, rational, pseudoscientific, and deceitful argument because they possess good manners, good ethics, good morals, good actions, and because we have good institutions.

Men seek to preserve religious, moral, rational, pseudoscientific, and deceitful argument for the simple reason that they want what they want, by whatever argumentative means is available, and by one cunning argumentative deception or another, they hope to escape blame for their acts of fraud, under pretense of mannered, ethical, moral, and knowing argument.

If you cannot speak in operational language, categorically consistent, empirically consistent, morally consistent, with scope consistency, then either you do not know how to, do not want to pay the costs of speaking truthfully, or if you spoke truthfully your fraud would be obvious.

Religion and Philosophy have been disproportionately the source of deception, conflict, and war. Whereas law and science have been disproportionately the source of truth.

If you cannot speak in the language of law and science, we can almost without exception assume that you are speaking in the league of fraud. And it is only after we pay the high cost of translating you use of the languages of fraud into the languages of law and science that we can determine whether you engage in fraud or engage in error, or engage in linguistic habit because you simply know no better.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

Core · Uncategorized

Overview of Propertarianism’s Main Themes

Quick Note Turned into a Post.

If you watch (1) the intertemporal division of perception, (2) the intercultural division of perception (circumpolar people), and (3) listen to this podcast (civilizational strategies);

And if you catch that consistently across the personal, interpersonal, national, and civilizational strategies, that I CONSISTENTLY try to draw your attention to the three possible means of governance (coercion): religion/gossp/ostracization, trade/remuneration, and law/order/violence, you will begin to see the pattern that I work with that is VERY DIFFERENT from the idealism of ‘equality’ or even near equality.

And if you then grasp that all human intuition, mind, emotion, reason, exists for the simple purpose of acquisition. And our intuitions vary only be reproductive strategy(gender) and our desirability(class). And that our emotional reward system is nothing more than evidence of changes in the state of property.

And that we act to acquire property in toto.

And that we negotiate for acquiring what we desire to fulfill our strategy.

And that we signal by a thousand means in order to improve our negotiating position.

And if you are enough of a philosopher to grasp that I divide categories of argument into the equivalent of increasingly articulate mathematical disciplines. (see my hierarchies of argument) – and we use them to honestly, dishonestly, wishfully, foolishly, and rarely truthfully, use them to negotiate with one another.

And if you then you bring in the various dimensions by which I ask we test propositions (testimonialism’s six dimensional tests of due diligence necessary for warranty of propositions),

And that the only way we make use of information across all our perceptions, is when we cooperate (Trade) voluntarily.

And then that we can ‘calculate’ together fastest, most competitively, if we make use of (1)natural, judge-discovered, common law, jury, (2) a market for reproduction (marriage and family), (3) a market for the production of good and services in support of the market for reproduction, (4) and a market for the production of commons.

And that we have domesticated mankind through incremental suppression of parasitism thereby enforcing production. And that we have only now to expand our suppression of parasitism to counter the development of media, so that we prevent propaganda and deceit in every walk of life.

Then you have social science as I describe it in Propertarianism. (Natural Law), and the solutions to the majority of current problems.

Stop lying, stop parasitism, and stop involuntary association, and that’s what it takes.

My next series of thought will be criticisms of the attempt to preserve the monopoly of territory on the continent by the federal government.

And I will continue to work on religion while I do that.