Joel Davis · Uncategorized

Dishonorable Free Markets vs Honorable Natural Law Markets

By Joel Davis

The difference is between free markets and honourable markets.

Free Markets allow fraudulence and the externalization of cost for economic actions (see Rothbard).

Honourable markets disallow fraudulence and the externalization of cost for economic actions.

We don’t merely seek competition (and thus permit frankly Jewish-style parasitism), we seek honourable competition.

Why? Because we want to set the rules of the game to reward those who play by our rules (reciprocity), so those like us win the game, and thus reciprocity may be perpetuated, as this is justice to us (natural law) and game theory, evolutionary biology, and non-pseudoscientific economics demonstrate this reality.

Joel Davis · Uncategorized

Joel Davis on Deflationary Government

By Joel Davis

The enforcers (sovereigns) produce law, and as a consequence, markets. The taxpayers (subjects) use the markets, under the law, as consumers of market goods, services, and information.

I would advocate a constitution as a contract of mutually enforced recipriocity (justice) between enforcers.

I would advocate the enforcers appoint a supreme justice (or supreme court of justices) as supreme authorities on the application of the constitution.

I would advocate the enforcers appoint a governor-general (president) as supreme commander (chief executive) of the enforcers.

And, I would advocate a senate to represent them in negotiations with other sovereigns (foreign policy), and with their customers (taxpayers) who I would advocate have their own house of representatives they elect to negotiate on their behalf with the enforcer elected senate (economic policy).

Joel Davis

Rational Self Interest

Apr 09, 2017 6:01am
by Joel Davis
Assuming self-interest is rational, by punishing all non-reciprocating choices via law, acting in group interest becomes rational.

I don’t care if you reciprocate by rational self-interest or as a result of high prosociality, as long as you reciprocate.

Assuming the maximization of group fitness has higher potential yields to individual fitness than any other factor, and assuming the maximization of individual fitness is desired, this is rational self-interest.

Joel Davis · Uncategorized

The Origins of Civilization: Militia, Property, Marriage

by Joel Davis

Civilization emerges from 3 fundamental institutions:

1) Militia (how to compete in the violence market),
2) Property (how to compete in the production market) and
3) Marriage (how to compete in the reproduction market).

The polity fails or succeeds in competition by the functionality of three institutions. Through success in the violence market, the polity may establish and regulate it’s production and reproduction markets (via property and marriage). The polity regulates these institutions by LAW.

Women were given the power to influence law, they weren’t also given the responsibility to defend societies institutions in the violence market, without this responsibility they lack signals of threats in the violence market required to inform their decisions.

As their interests extended most significantly into the production and reproduction markets, they have voted to progressively destroy the institutions of property and marriage to transfer improved competitiveness to themselves (a logical exercise of self-interest, considering the signaling they’re exposed to).

Without allegiance to the polity established through ‘skin’ in the violence market, allegiance to property and marriage (as institutions of group competitive advantage) naturally lacks also.

We have three options:

– Determine a method of signaling to Women which brings them into allegiance with the group in the violence market (stable husbands and children seem to do this to conservative women).

– Remove enfranchisement from female classes due to the inherent risks to the group in the violence market their collective actions cause.

– Or, potentially a third option.. Find a method of limiting female franchise to women who have a form of “skin” in the violence market (wives/mothers/daughters of men with “skin in the game”)


Joel Davis

Against Platonic Forms

by Joel Davis and Curt Doolittle

As I understand it, adherents to belief in Platonic Forms believe they literally exist, in some form or another, as if there’s some extra portion of reality beyond verifiable observation in which they exist.

[ Moreover they are unable to articulate their ideas by reference to existential reality, such as when we refer to the invisible forces of the universe, then to the constant relations between them; or when we refer to a unicorn as a mythical character consisting of a conflation of horse, eagle, and antlers; or when we say that the numbers refer to positional names. ]

I see Empiricism as a practical method – it gives us a process of verification and testing to follow which we can demonstrate via its’ success at informing successfully predictive conceptions of the operation of the reality which we mutually observe.

I don’t believe empiricism describes some truth about the universe, I don’t claim our mutually verifiable observations are necessarily objective truth, I merely claim that we seem to have psychological motivations to pursue/avoid specific consequences from our interaction with the sensation of our mutually verifiable observations, and that methods which enable us to conceptualize it with less ignorance, error, and bias improve our capacity for developing successful strategies in pursuing consequences we desire.

So in this sense, when discussing the “reality” of our mutually verifiable observations, empiricism has demonstrated it’s superior capacity to extract useful “truth” from our perception, whereas platonic forms have no verifiable basis in observations, they can have no observable source but imagination, so essentially they’re just people guessing, and even if they are correct, they would be correct by accident.

I don’t find it ridiculous for someone to make a conceptual claim about my experience, then demonstrate the success of the concept in predicting my observations of transformations of states.

But, I do find it ridiculous when people attempt to pass off our imaginary constructs as “truth” without demonstrated evidence. Why?

0) imaginary constructs may in some senses be testable for internal consistency.
1) And in some cases, one might demonstrate external correspondence.
2) One simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of CAUSALITY.
3) And lacking observability, one cannot testify to CAUSALITY.
4) Ergo we can convey MEANING between constant relations by speaking platonically, just as we convey MEANING between inconstant relations by literature. But we cannot convey causality, and therefore cannot warranty causality, and as we are unable to warranty causality, we are unable to warranty to the truthfulness of our statements.

This is why mathematicians can ‘get away with’ speaking platonically: they test only for internal consistency, not causality. And that lack of understanding of causality – is why there is such confusion and ignorance over the foundations of mathematics.

When one talks about math in platonic terms he demonstrates he does not understand its construction, and cannot testify to it. Therefore he never claims truth full correspondence but proof – mere internal consistency.

Why is this important? Not because mathematicians do not understand the very simple technique that they employ by specializing in tests of internal consistency of constant relations. They don’t. They understand its success in describing the physical world.

The success of mathematics in the physical sciences (and failure in social sciences) is caused by the fact that the universe consists of constant relations, and we do not know yet their first causes. So internal consistency and external correspondence assist us in describing with increasing precision those constant relations until such point as we can guess those first causes.

However in human actions, we do not possess constant relations, only constant patterns (symmetries) of relations. And In human thought, we do not possess many boundaries at all – or rather, we lack the means of testing those boundaries of imagination. So the problem is much harder than mathematics is able to solve by tests of constant relations – math can only assist us in taking measurements whereby we attempt to identify constant intermediary patterns, despite the kaleidic distributions of our outcomes.

What we seek is causality. Because we seek to permit man to act to take advantage of the current state of the universe, and acting such that we outwit the current deterministic path of some part of it and capture the energy for our use.

Moreover, since actions are expensive, and humans engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we must conserve our energy as well as evade parasitism by others, and to do so requires we test enough dimensions of reality against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, to preserve our accumulated interceptions of changes in state of reality.

Joel Davis · Uncategorized

Reproductive Strategies and Markets

by Joel Davis
A polity can only generate the sovereign power necessary to establish and defend itself via competitiveness in the violence market.

Production (Brotherly) and Reproduction (Motherly) Strategies obviously require cultivation to successfully compete fundamentally in intergroup Violence (Fatherly).

Without production you lack weapons technology and food and shelter for your soldiers, without reproduction you lack soldiers.

However, through the institutions of property and marriage, individuals compete individually within the polity with one another for individual success.

In the institution of military, individuals must cooperate for the good of the group, they sacrifice their individual potential cost to accrue benefits to group fitness.

Fundamentally, participation in intergroup violence brings the individual’s interests in allignment with the group’s interests.

Individuals who merely compete in the markets for production and reproduction lack this grounding, they compete with the other members of their polity on behalf of themselves, not each other, hence they require regulation through the institutions of property and marriage to limit negative externalities from their behaviour. If given power, these people will rationally vote in their self-interest to transfer wealth to themselves, not the collective interest to transfer wealth to their group.

Eli Harman · Joel Davis · Violence

The Economics and Ethics of Violence

by Joel Davis and Eli Harman 

(eds: this is an example of how propertarian argument is done.)

Joel Davis
So essentially, the maximum possible taxation that we can levy without diminishing the incentive to voluntarily organise production, we should levy, so that we may construct the most powerful military possible and to maximize the likelihood of supremacy?

Following on from this reasoning, shouldn’t we seek to utilize this military advantage to establish as large an empire as possible, so as we can expand taxation and further expand our military capability whilst neutralizing all threats further expanding our margin of supremacy?

Eli Harman
There are diminishing marginal economies of scale. At some point, they always become diseconomies.

Joel Davis
So, then the argument becomes, we must expand empire to the limit of profitability?

How may we determine when we have reached this limit?

Eli Harman
When the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit.

Joel Davis
So, we have to pass the limit to identify it?

Therefore, we must expand empire in all possible directions limited only by the observed limits of marginal profitability.

Potential marginal profitability rises with the efficiency of force expenditure. Therefore, surely the polity would seek to expand its’ efficiency in the application of violence, and in doing so, expand its’ capacity to extract marginal profitability from the application of violence?

Joel Davis
If we accept the rational incentive to utilize violence and exchange for maximum marginal profitability.

Why not gossip/rallying/shaming?

Eli Harman
Because the feminine means of coercion are not correlated to any productive measures, whereas the masculine means of coercion depend on economic production, truth, rule of law, etc… Weak and parasitic, vs. strong and productive.

Joel Davis
I was under the impression that feminine means of coercion correlate to reproductive measures.

Surely we could take this form of analysis to Reproductive Markets?

In a polity which prohibits rape, females regulate reproductive access.

Therefore, there must be marginal profitability in reproduction. I wouldn’t consider this parasitic.

How else can the establishment of monogamous sexual morality occur but by gossip?

Eli Harman
In a polity which prohibits rape, males can still regulate reproductive access by controlling property. And monogamy can be enforced by law (violence) among men to facilitate assortative mating according to, on the male side, relative wealth and status, and on the female side, relative youth, beauty and fertility. Gossip is not strictly necessary.

Joel Davis
Hmm interesting.

So, it seems we have Three interrelated markets of exchange.

Three Markets:

  1. Market for Violence,
  2. Market for Production and the
  3. Market for Reproduction.


  • The rational incentive to engage in violence exists where the potential marginal profitability of violence exists.
  • As the capacity for violence increases so does the capacity to generate profit. The Market for Violence (Conflict) establishes the appropriation of energy (profits).
  • This incentivizes individuals to confederate for the purposes of mutually expanding their capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of confederacy.
  • This also incentivizes cooperation for the production of resources and technology which expand the capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of production.
  • These observations incentivize the formation by the violent confederacy of a realm in which to establish a Market for Production (a Polity), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for violence from its’ production.
  • In order for the Polity to maintain maximum productivity and violent capacity (and therefore the maximum potential marginal profitability on violence) long-term, it requires as much reproduction as possible, which functions as eugenically as possible, to the limit of marginal profitability.
  • Therefore, the polity establishes a Market for Reproduction (Marriage), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for production and violence.
  • The violent confederacy must prohibit all actions by individuals within the polity which diminish the capacity for these markets to function to their maximum efficiency to maintain maximum profitability on their investment in establishing the polity.
  • Therefore, the violent confederacy must limit action to perfect recipriocity of marginal costs and benefits between members of the polity, so as to incentivize productive actions which contribute to the competitiveness of the polity.

(Therefore a prohibition of any form of gossip which diminishes the capacity for these markets to function to maximum efficiency must exist… Thus a requirement for what Curt’s proposed limits to lawful speech)