1.6-The Pattern of History · 3.5-Testimony

The Answer To The Peterson Harris Debate

(philosophy)(science)(truth)(decidability)(western uniqueness)

The current debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris over the constitution of truth propositions and whether or not they can be used as a means of decidability between frames of reference has raised the most important issue of our time to a discourse between public intellectuals who the citizenry might learn something substantial from.  However, both Peterson and Harris lack the vocabulary and arguments with which to resolve their conflict. In this short article, I’ve provided the terminology, argument, and judgement for both of their positions.



1 – For the most ancient of reasons, by accident of geography, and accident of technology, the West alone relies on Sovereignty as its organizing principle (means decidability of last resort – or on archaic parlance: metaphysical value judgment.).

2 – Choosing Sovereignty requires natural law (perfect reciprocity) to resolve disputes (via-negativa).

3 – And conversely choosing Sovereignty requires markets in everything to organize cooperation. (via-positiva) (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategies)

4 – Markets allow for cooperation on means despite different ends, given different abilities, different resources, and different specializations.

5 – The combination of Sovereignty, Natural Common Law, Markets in Everything, and the universal indoctrination of men into ‘reporting‘ testimony in militia service, allowed the west to adapt and evolve faster than the rest.

We (the West)  are not always first, but we are fastest at defeating the red queen. This is the origin of western man. Not Hegelian Literary ‘Spirit’ but a group evolutionary strategy for those who combined horse, bronze, and wheel to create a social, economic, and political order we call aristocracy on the Eurasian Plain, where agrarian production was widely distributed and difficult (prohibitively expensive) to organize into a central administration as did the flood river valleys. And where nothing – not language, not literature and law, not religion, or not class, not power, was conflated.


1 – Philosophies allow for the production of argument and decidability within a domain.

2 – The search for Truth seeks the production of argument and decidability regardless of domain.

3 – Deflationary truth allows us to construct truthful arguments regardless of domain.

4 – Deflationary, operational, and promissory (truthful) arguments can be warrantied for due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – as well as demand productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality. Using this form of truth, it is extremely difficult for false argument to survive due diligence against all dimensions of the human ability to reason.

5 – Science is not a positive, but a negative research program: the means by which we warranty that we have eliminated ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit from our speech.

6 – Ergo science when applied to both categorically deterministic (physical) and categorically dynamic (heuristic social / cognitive) disciplines functions as the means of decidability regardless of domain. i.e.: the discipline of science when sufficient in scope of due diligence, produces truth candidates regardless of a division of inter-temporal perception, experience, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. i.e.: where in a society of markets (choice) in everything.


1 – In each era of transformation the “truthful” eugenic aristocracy has been opposed by the dysgenic practitioners of deceit:

a) The Bronze Age Origin of heroism/paternalism/Aristocracy – the invention of oral authoritarian religion.

b) The Iron Age Origin of Reason – the invention of written, conflationary, authoritarian – scriptural religion as law, distributed by organize religion.

c) The Steel Age of Empiricism (bacon/locke/smith/hume/jefferson,) – was opposed by the invention of printed, argumentative rebellion: (Rousseau/Moral, Kant/Rational, Mendelssohn/Legal.)

d) The Age of Automation and the reformation of the social sciences ( Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Menger, Durkheim/Pareto/Weber, Nietzche, and the Romanticists ) Was opposed by the invention of pseudosciences (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt School, Mises, Keynes, Rand/Rothbard, Strauss and The host of Postmoderns, and Macro Economists.)

2 – In each era, despite the fact that humanity is transformed by the aristocratic (martial), order, the opposition generally seems to ‘win’ through numbers. This causes anything from a stagnation to a dark age.

3 – The challenge of our time is the industrialization of lying made possibly by automation and media in the pseudoscientific era. Combined with the failure of the west to advance ‘science’ (Truthfulness) sufficiently to suppress the (desirable) lies.

4 – The solution to the industrialization of lying is the demand for warranty of due diligence in law, economics, and politics in the  information we bring to market – just as we require warranty of due diligence in the products and services we submit to the market (a commons).

5 – The returns on the suppression of the industrialization of lying by operationalism will be greater than the returns on the returns on the suppression of mysticism by empiricism. every lie or falsehood produces a friction against human reason, just as every atomic rule created a greater friction than was produced by the transformation to general rules (science).

6 – Definition of PSEUDOSCIENCE: Followers know that I use a rigorous definition of what constitutes scientific speech and therefore truthful speech. My use of the term ‘pseudoscience’ refers to the addition of or subtraction of information that must be complete but unloaded in order to render decidability across contexts. Scientific speech requires due diligence against subtraction(cherry picking) and addition (loading, framing, overloading). To perform due diligence of truthfulness requires we test each possible dimension of speech.

1 – categorical consistency – Identity – non-conflation
2 – logical consistency – internal consistency, non-contradiction.
3 – empirical consistency – external correspondence – falsification
4 – existential consistency – operational language – consistency.
5 – reciprocity-consistency – moral reciprocity of Property in Toto.
6 – scope consistency – full accounting and specified limits.

These questions are easily testable in a court of law. Any essay, article, paper, contract, or constitution may be written in these terms. The intuitionist/operationalist movements failed (unfortunately) because they were discovered in categorically static math, logic, and physical science, where they are of less utility, but neither discovered nor applied in heuristic and therefore categorically dynamic sciences, where they are necessary: law, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy.

What I have tried to briefly suggest here is that grammar and terminology alone are nearly sufficient to reverse the industrialization of lying in law, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy. (See research on EPrime for example).  And that extension of the involuntary warranty of due diligence that we currently apply to products and services can be extended to all market, commons, and political speech.  We are saturated with lies and falsehoods, and they are cheap to produce and expensive to defeat. This is the reason for the success of the era of pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism, and outright lying.


1 – In the second great transformation (the ancient world) we developed three attempts at decidability with different appeals to coercive decidability: Supernatural (religious) Mythic and Theological, Ideal/Supernormal(Platonic) Literary, and Demonstrated(existential) Historical. The Supernatural attempts to solve the problem of authority by appeal to a superhuman deity. The supernormal by appeal to ideals or utopias. The historical, by appeal to demonstrated existence: survival from competition. It is the sovereign, existential, that survives competition that comprises the uniqueness of western thought: we preserve the right to choose: sovereignty – for there is no authority among sovereigns.

2 – Peterson’s conflation in the literary (Platonic) tradition is anti western and unnecessary. It is the competition between conflationary narrative analogy, and deflationary operational criticism that assists us in identifying truth candidates. All civilizations that practice conflation stagnate. Literature is sufficient for the loading and framing and experiential without resorting to truth claims. Conflation of the good, true, and beautiful is a literary technique, and is helpful if not necessary for the immature or unable mind. But only if the mind is also taught how to truth test conflationary statements such that the true, the good, and the beautiful can be tested, so that the citizenry can distinguish between truth and lie, good and bad, beautiful and ugly. It is through this method of conflation that the culture wars were conducted.

3 – Harris‘ cherry-picks in the pseudoscientific tradition, fails to account for changes in state of the full scope of capital, and the lost opportunities for productive voluntary exchange. (This will take some explaining – outside of the scope of this paper.) Most frequently he gives parasitic action a pass if he agrees with it. Humans accumulate capital, and humans cooperate to accumulate capital more readily. And humans evolve cooperative social orders to accumulate capital even more rapidly – by the production of commons. Harris’ presumed ‘goods’ are cosmopolitan, destroy accumulated intergenerational capital, and produce eugenic outcomes that over time destroy the possibility of not only choice, and prosperity, but of transcendence (evolution). Reality is not kind. There are no free rides. And that is an uncomfortable, scientific, truth. We must continue to defeat the red queen.

Science (truth) rarely tells us what we desire, it merely gives us power to choose that which is desirable in fact over that which is desirable in pretense, or that which is a mere deception.

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

(BTW: One or two years ago Harris issued a challenge as to whether morality could be scientifically expressed. I lacked the time (or inclination) to do so, but it can be (easily and thoroughly and irrefutably). And it is just as dehumanizing as the work of Darwin and Copernicus.)

3.6-Politics · Uncategorized

¿Es la democracia el problema?

El problema no es la democracia (entendida como la elección para el liderazgo), el problema recae en una combinación de factores.

  1. EL GOBIERNO DISCRECIONAL, en donde los líderes pueden legislar, girar instrucciones y dar órdenes al público que se los permita- Es por ello que existe el imperio de le ley, bajo un conjunto de leyes naturales, son capaces de construir contratos legales entre miembros de una sociedad. La legislación excesiva no es objetivamente legal en su sentido estricto porque viola las leyes naturales: La conservación de los incentivos para cooperar por requerimiento de los intercambios productivos, debidamente informados, garantizados, voluntarios y limitados.
  2. EL APODERAMIENTO UNIVERSAL: El apoderamiento universal es la consecuencia de preferir la democracia, en nuestra filosofía, el apoderamiento debe ser ganado, obtenido. Pero a diferencia de Platón y Sócrates que recomiendan la educación como forma de apoderamiento, nosotros pensamos que no es a por medio de la educación que se demuestra la sabiduría sino por los logros que se alcanzan en la vida. ¿Por que? Pues porque en democracia el imperio de la ley pasa a ser inexistente, y somos víctimas del gobierno discrecional, como consecuencia de la falla terrible que la (((academia))) ha llevado adelante al enseñar métodos y teorías pseudocientíticas durante 140 años.
    Asi que, ¿Cómo haríamos para poder discernir si estamos siendo educados en vez de engañados?
    No soy el primer filósofo que sugiere que el siglo XX será recordado como una era de pseudociencias y de refutación de la democracia como sistema, gracias a los fracasos de la academia. Asi que la razón por la cual nuestros ancestros requirieron de tener probidad (entendida esta como habilidades demostrables) y servicio miliar (entendido este como garantía de valía), fue que juntos demostraron conocimiento y capacidad de inversión, algo que no imagniarían que fuese posible, porque tenían educación o se “imaginaron” que los individuos eran capaces de poder ser morales. – Para ello querían evidencia empírica demostrable. Para revisar una crítica del sistema universitario sugerimos leer la obra de Sowell sobre la educación y los intelectuales. O revisar los trabajos de Kaplan sobre la falacia del votante racional, y sus escritos sobre las universidades: Allí hay muy poca evidencia de que las universidades hacen algo más que filtrar la sobrecarga de trabajo.
  3. Bienes monopólicos: Todos los monopolios son “malos2 porque prohiben la innovación, y permiten la violación de las leyes naturales de la cooperación entre los hombres. Aunque las democracias mayoritarias producen monopolios, no hay razón alguna por la que Seattle deba elegir entre tener un Monoriel o un Tren cuando pueden elegir tener los dos y que la mejor solución sea la que triunfe. La excusa es la “eficiencia”. Pero esto es un engaño. En vez de ello, la competencia forzaráa los votantes a pagar por aquello que es más proclive a tener éxito, algo que no siempre es lo que los votantes quieren, saben o desean y que generalmente, es solicitado a expensas de otra persona.
    El propósito de una democracia mayoritaria es legitimar la autoridad. Ponerle un sello de aprobación a las decisiones de las oligarquías.
    La democracia mayoritaria es útil para seleccionar prioridades entre personas con intereses comunes (granjeros, por ejemplo), donde los recursos son escasos.

    Pero en los mercados amplios, como las sociedades mercantiles, los contratos son la solucion para que las partes que conforman una sociedad puedan resolver sus diferencias y llegar a acuerdos en los cuales sus intereses compiten, en donde los gastos de los recursos son amplios, los contratos le ponen un coto a la expansión de la deuda. Así que en vez dxe tener una democracia mayoritaria de una sóla camara, nuestros ancestros crearon cámaras de representantes para cada clase, para que las clases pudieran crear intercambios en vez de gobernar una encima de la otra. Las castas y clases crearon mercados para la construcción de bienes entre las calses, de la misma manera que crearon un mercado para el consumo de bienes y servicios: Las Ciudaddes.
    De la misma manera crearon un mercado para el liderazgo al idear el voto. De igual forma crearon un mercado para resolver las disputas, y a eso le pusieron el nombre de sistema judicial o imperio de la ley.

    Como podrán ver, la democracia sólo puede funcionar como un mercado y sólo si restauramos las instituciones de los mercados, en vez de crear instituciones que destruyen a los mercados.
    Casas de gobierno múltiples (familias, negocios, territorios, monarquías con poder de veto sobre las leyes) pueden crear y sostenter una democracia, de otra forma, la democracia es un medio por el cual fraudulentamente podemos legitimizar la formación de tiranías monopólicas.

¿Por que es tan difícil de entender? Porque las (((academias))) han enseñado pseudociencias en vez de ciencias sociales.

Curt Doolitlle
La Filosofía de la Aristocracia.
El Instituto Propietarista.
Kiev, Ucrania.

Traducido al Castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.


3.1-Introduction · Anti-Philosophy · Languages (Precision) · Law · Sequences · Uncategorized

Correcting Aristotle’s Categories of Philosophy

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 (properties of man) (Action) – 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

–Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

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

1.6-The Pattern of History · 2.8-Evolution · 3.7-Evolutionary Strategy · Uncategorized

The Future Is A Choice: Choose to Rule


We could take a very different perspective: “They are our minorities. They are our Africans, our Jews, our Caribbeans, our Mestizos. We have paid a high price for them. Under the right circumstances they make excellent wage labor. All we must do is return to our ancient industry of Ruling the Lesser Peoples. It is an industry we excel at and have profited from for thousands of years – much to the benefit of not only the ruled but all mankind. To rule for profit is just a choice. But to make that choice we must admit that our ancestors the aristocracy were right and we were wrong.”

You see, the future is just a choice. Rule and profit. Or be rule parasitically.

3.6-Politics · and Inequality · P04-Law

None Of Us Is Equal

We are unequal. We grant each other the pretense of equality in order to discover the truth, through discourse and debate, that is free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. We grant each other equality under the law to assist one another in cooperating productively and without conflict and retaliation across our various stations and abilities. We grant each other equal access to the market, by the equality of money and prices, because we all buy entry into the market by forgoing opportunities for violence, theft, and fraud, despite our differences in wealth. It is through these three equalities of opportunity that we cooperate despite our inequalities of interest, ability, value to one another, and wealth. But we are in no way equal.

3.6-Politics · 5.1.2-Markets in Everything (and Market 'fascism') · Uncategorized

More on Market Fascism

What’s the difference between MARKET FASCISM and the Status Quo?

There are two differences:

1) Since markets regulated by natural law are the only POSSIBLE means of preserving sovereignty, and voluntary cooperation free of parasitism, then any attempt to perpetuate an alternative is an act of attempted fraud.

So the difference is that under Market Fascism, there is no tolerance for criticism of the sovereign market order just as no tolerance for cannibalism, murder, theft, fraud, and conspiracy. Becuase tolerance for such crimes itself a crime. You may only propose exchanges.

You can use the court to pursue an involuntary imposition of costs that violates natural law. But you may not propose an imposition of costs that violates natural law.

In other words, you must constrain yourself to function within the markets in word and deed.

2) Since you must fully account for the consequences of any action, the externalities produced by your action must not privatize the commons or socialize your losses. This means that you must be more careful in profiting from the ignorance of your fellow citizen shareholders.

In other words your opportunity to profit from arbitrage is limited.

These are simple, but far reaching demands.