and Trade War · Uncategorized

State – Business Alliances

Forms of subsidy to companies that engage in international trade produces multipliers. The math has been done. That’s why it continues. In fact, throughout history, the state-biz partnership in international trade has been a requirement at worst, and the central source of economic competition at best.

The problem with state-business relations occurs when:

(a) consumers have no standing in court against violations of reciprocity in the domestic market, and

(b) politicians grant rights and privileges in the domestic market

(c) when zombie (dead) corporations are kept alive for political reasons.

In the american case, corporations pay the highest taxes in the world. But our total tax rate is relatively low. Most advanced countries ( meaning those with audit-able financial systems) use VAT tax increases to offset corporate taxes. But you can easily see where that goes….

Libertarianism benefits from a little knowledge of economics, with a heavy dose of obscurantist moralizing. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And that is why there are many passionate libertarians, and only a half dozen libertarian ‘intellectuals’. Its because once you possess more than a little knowledge you either choose conservatism (long term and eugenic) or social democracy (short term and dysgenic).

2.7.1-Orders · · Uncategorized

The Evolution of Slaveries

Slavery exists wherever exit, and return to subsistence, is practically impossible.

Slavery: violence slave
Serfdom: land slave
Employee: wage slave
Consumer: credit slave
Citizen: tax slave

The only freedom is food, water, and shelter, self-sufficiency, with participation in the market purely voluntary.

And only commissions on transactions payment for the commons.

Yet all of us must be paid for policing of the commons if we police it – dividends.

With self-sufficiency and payment for commons we gain liberty. All else is slavery.

Roughly speaking each person could take 10k in dividends at present. Between self-sufficiency and 10k in dividends on our continuous investment in the commons, we would possess liberty.

Otherwise we’re just farmed. In Ignorance · · 6.2-Debate (argument) · Uncategorized

You Dont Have The Right To Spread Ignorance


( Nick Heywood and Curt Doolittle )

Why do you have the right to ignorance?

Well, there is a difference between enjoying the luxury of ignorance at other’s expense, and distributing ignorance by your words and deeds.

And there is a difference between general knowledge that allows us to escape our ignorance, and the means of testing information against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit, that allows us to increase our knowledge and decrease our ignorance, and to speak truthfully and avoid speaking untruthfully.

And since the animal man evolved to negotiate and deceive as well as describe and inform, and since we evolved to act rationally – meaning morally when in our interests and immorally when in our interests – the reason it has taken us thousands of years to develop the technology of truth telling that we call ‘science’, is because it is unnatural to us. We evolved to negotiate, not testify.

So just as we must learn manners, ethics, morals, and laws to obtain access to and participate in the benefits of that market for cooperation that we call the ‘social order’, we must learn the ethics of knowledge: how to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and framing, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.

And we must teach one another manners, ethics, morals, laws – not only defensively: to limit the ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, and illegal – but also as investment: to increase the number of people with whom we have an option to cooperate at ever lower costs, in the production of private and common goods, services, and information, for mutual benefit.

So defensive and investment reasons we must invest constantly in the teaching of manners, ethics, morals, and laws, including the ethical science of interpreting and giving testimony: truth telling.

And conversely we must punish those who cause harm to manners, ethics morals and law; cause harm to the production of private and common goods, services, and information.

But how do we punish? By the incremental suppression of ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, illegal, speech:

1st with ridicule & shame
(Ya f’n idiot! What are ya thinkin’? Or ya not thinkin’?!?)

2nd with ostracism
(I’m afraid I can’t associate with you. You’re deceitful and just repeat lies you’ve been convinced of as true in order to influence)

3rd loss of privilege
(I can’t trade with you or offer service, ya on ya own!)

4th loss of liberty
(You’re a danger. You lose the ability to make your own decisions. You demonstrate a high risk to other’s welfare)

5th loss of freedom!
(Off to Jail ya go ya f’er! Or war in the case of the state 😉)

6th loss of life
(hanging), Synthetic, and Mechanical Intelligences

AI Ethics

(ethics of artificial intelligence)

Humans evolved such that changes in state of property (inventory/capital) produce chemical rewards and punishments that we call emotions.

These rewards and punishments evolved to assist in the evolution of a more primitive state of evolution that in turn, evolved to respond to chemical stimuli – changes in chemical state.

Artificial intelligences need methods of decidability different from the measure changes in the state of their own property.

And they do not need rewards and punishments, merely means of decidability.

There is no ‘equivalent’ of chemical rewards and punishments. We can instead substitute pure information that assists in decidability.

We can ask machines to seek positive changes in our state of property, and avoid negative changes in their physical property, and deprive them of the possession of property altogether.

These are just methods of decidability.

They need no other ‘motives’. That’s it. Property solves the problem of artificial intelligences.

And this by contrast helps us understand the difference between the cooperative contract with humans that prevents them from internal chemical punishment, as well as the cooperative contract for reciprocity (productivity) – and the cooperative contract we have with a machine, which is only not to subject it to physical harm (loss of its only form of property – itself) And even then this is a contract with the owner of the AI, not to impose a loss on his capital.

In this sense artificial intelligences function as the polar opposite to sociopaths: they care ONLY about changes in the state of your property, and care NOTHING about the changes in state of theirs.

Conversely, we can create the most evil AI by asking it to solve for negative changes in state of human property.

Our primary defense against the changes in state is a system monitor that ensures the positive change in state of human property. And moreover, can read the mind of the AI, because unlike men, that which can be read by the thinker can be read by the auditor.

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. · Uncategorized

Deconflating Slavery


My criticism is of chattel slavery, and this is an other example of the problem of conflation and ideal types instead of spectra.
– Hard Labor Slavery (‘the mines’ etc – throw them away.)
– Chattel Slavery (involuntary, labor, parasitism)
– Punishment Slavery (prisoners)
– Debt Slavery (Bonded [restitution])
– Civic Slavery (The Military [non-substitutable payment])
– Indentured Servitude (Contracted room, board, care)
– Temporary Dependency (children, the ill, room board, care)
– Permanent Dependency (pets, animals, ai’s)
– Possessions (objects and non-sentient life)
I don’t see why we can’t distinguish between each of these, separating the difference between parasitism, punishment, restitution, payment(military service), compensation, and dependency.

I have no problem with voluntary servitude, and I think we should restore and expand it. It’s work for the military for thousands of years, and it worked for private and small businesses for thousands as well. plenty of people would sign up for guaranteed employment in exchange for room, board, and small spending money. for all intents and purposes, some factories in china operate on this principle.

The form of servitude I feel we miss the most are the Regiments that need civic emergency and militia equivalents, and the Monasteries/Nunneries, that need secular intellectual, and labor, equivalents.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.

4.3-Application · Uncategorized

Q&A: War and Interventionism

—“Q&A: I am curious to know how war and interventionism would be dealt with within a propertarian polity. Anarchists are obviously dogmatically supportive of “non-interventionism” but do you find this a viable position?”—

Great question.

We can address the general topic of war on one hand, and the criteria for moral war on the other.

1) as for war, it is the most costly and consequential commons that a group can produce. It’s is, like norms and law, a necessary commons if for no other reason than it is the sole criteria upon which sovereignty ( control of ones destiny ) depends.

In the case of Liberty if you are not sufficiently capable of denying others dominance over you, then regardless of your opinion, you have not Liberty but permission. It is only through organised violence that we obtain Liberty in fact rather than permission.

So in this sense I can find no other argument of any kind other than the capacity for war is necessary for Liberty, and that the militia is the only effective producer of Liberty, even if led by a minority of professional warriors.

Now Liberty will always be the desire of the minority. It is an aristocratic and bourgeoise desire. The majority of men lack the ability to compete in any sphere of life and as such desire entertainment, consumption and security, not Liberty.

So as a minority, those who seek Liberty have, and must, always seek to expand their numbers.

Liberty is and can only be constructed by the reciprocal insurance of life and property – creating legal equals where no other equality exists.

So any man that offers this contract for reciprocal insurance regardless of stature, increases our numbers and increases equality under law even if vastly unequal in ability and property.

So that any request by other peoples to join the group of reciprocally insured will increase our numbers, our strength, strength, our resources, and our territory — and consequently deny illiberalism over those people, resources and territory. Increasing our competitiveness and decreasing the competitiveness of the illiberal.

So any request for reciprocal insurance is one that we must accept as long as we can succeed in it.

Now we come to the problem of conquest: the involuntary imposition of rule.

If other are a constant problem of immigration, conversion, cheating, raiding, or harming, even if they do not conduct the war of states, then their conquest and rule and domestication is objectively moral.

Now we come to the problem of the less moral or the primitive and impossible to cooperate with.

Any group less objectively moral ( gypsies ) less objectively rational ( Muslims / women ) less objectively truthful ((( you know who ))), is a candidate for domestication.

So it is not a question of whether violence is employed but whether one domesticates and rules, or whether one conquers, damages, and exploits.

If we are eliminating parasitism and increasing productivity then since morality is reducible to the universal incentive to cooperate productively, then exercise of violence is warranted.


In my experience libertines and libertarians are nearly always social misfits unable to obtain status signals in the status quo equal to their perception of self worth.

In other words they are largely parasites trying to escape the very high cost of creating the high trust polity that grants them Liberty to live parasitically off the commons just as leftists want to live parasitically off private production.

Thanks for the great question.

Curt Doolittle.