General Advocacy · Group Evolutionary Strategy (Competition) · Uncategorized · Western Uniqueness

The Last Piece: Tying Together Markets in Everything…

Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces.

In the end, warriors make rule possible, but Judges rule. In the monopoly of soldiery officers rule, and in the market of cooperation judges rule. Judges and Officers provide the same function under positiva (military) and negativa (market) organizations.

The question is only which method judges use to rule. And there is only one scientific, logical, true, and perfectly decidable method by which judges *can* rule, and that is Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Sovereign Men.

The west has always been poly-narrative. With each class evolving its own narrative. And with each class narrative justifying its role in the natural law of sovereign men. The cult of sovereignty for the aristocracy, the cult of law for the priesthood of the aristocracy, the cult of philosophy for the middle aspirational classes, and the cult of religion for the laboring classes, and the cult of rejection, rebellion, and escape by the undesirable classes.

And in turn, there is only one method of producing Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and sufficient surplus for subsidy, and this is via the incremental suppression of parasitisms in all its forms, producing sovereign men, and eliminating parasitic men – leaving only means of survival in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, and production of polities. The monarchy provides the judge of last resort in war, the judiciary the judge of markets, and the officer corps the commander of the monopoly that is war.

And so, as long as the men willing and able to fight for sovereignty are trained in, and participate in, a local militia, a regional regimental system, and are trained by a national army, in exchange for rights of public speech, access to territorial and capital ownership, and participation in the choice of commons, then because of their arms and their numbers, no usurper can deprive them of sovereignty; and because of their investment and advantage from it, they will preserve their sovereignty, and because of their universal standing in courts of natural law, they will have incentive and peaceful and productive means of preserving their sovereignty, through the incremental suppression of all parasitism of which they are aware. Men must create a market for the suppression of parasitism, by in turn creating a market for cooperation, because of the market for violence that is the result of a large militia of diverse personal but homogenous collective, interests.

There is but one method of obtaining and preserving the sovereignty, necessary for the production of agency, necessary for the transcendence of man, and that is the organization of a franchise (corporation) of warriors of sufficient number, with sufficient incentives, and sufficient institutional means, that the only conditions that prevent conflict and preserve cooperation.

The advantage of this order is that we preserve our original innovation: maneuver (what we call today ooda-loops) because of the distribution of decision making to the lowest possible level of the organization: a market for heroism in battle.

We developed markets in everything, because markets adapt faster and innovate faster than all alternatives. And for a small population of people, the use of excellence(professionals) and technology (excellence), and markets (maneuver) is simply *faster* in all dimensions than all larger and slower alternatives.

He who adapts fastest and best has the advantage. Because the first and last enemy of all is TIME.

Economics · Government (Insurer of Last Resort) · Group Evolutionary Strategy (Competition) · Uncategorized

What Kind of Anti-Market are You? (You’re some kind, I promise)


What kind of anti-market activity do you prefer?

Fascism: anti-market for politics, commons, norms, and limited market for goods, services, and information
Libertarianism: anti-market for commons, politics, but market for norms, goods, services, information.
Libertinism: anti-market for norms,politics, but market for goods, services and information.
Classical Liberalism: markets for good services and information, with limited-market for commons.
Aristocracy: markets for everything except law and politics.
– Democratic socialism: minimum markets for politics, commons, and private property.
Socialism: anti market for goods, services, and information
Communism: anti market for politics, commons, norms, goods, services, and information.

CONSERVATIVE (MALE) Social Conservatives limit the market for goods, services, information, norms, commons, politics, to that which is EVIDENTIARY, and imposes no costs, requiring individuals develop agency and discipline – however they do so in archaic moral (childlike) language with a touch of economics thrown in.

PROGRESSIVE (FEMALE) Social Progressives limit the market for goods services, information, norms, commons, and politics to that which is HYPOTHETICAL, and imposes any possible costs, therefore NOT requiring individuals to develop agency and discipline – however they do so in modern moral and pseudoscientific language.

The Frankfurt School modernized female discourse, but we have had no aristocratic school equivalent (until now) to modernize male language. Why? Uncomfortable Truths that ask us to pay the costs of discipline in pursuit of agency is harder (more expensive in the short term) than Comforting Lies that tell us to forgo the costs of discipline and agency in the short term in favor of consumption (indiscipline) in the short term.

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