(introduction to propertarianism)
Note: this is a sketch of propertarian reasoning I’ve put together to satisfy some of your requests. If you follow me you will recognize the technique as the application of the scientific method and amoral economic language to questions of social science.
[P]RINCIPLES
1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost.
2) We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy.
3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien.
4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axis of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites.
5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production.
6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.
7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production.
8) We seek discounts in our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation.
9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new, or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria.
10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean.
11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting).
12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments.
13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society.
14) In all political matters ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the christian mythos) was let loose by the middle class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo european genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability.
[L]IST OF PROPERTY-EN-TOTO: THAT WHICH WE ACT TO AQUIRE (DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY)
http://www.propertarianism.com/demonstrated-property/
[T]HE SIMPLE METHOD: INCENTIVES AS ACQUSITION
1) take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else.
2) identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.)
3) identify the property-en-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire.
4) determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism).
5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange.
6) State the user’s request in amoral propertarian terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading.
[A]DVANCED: AN EXAMPLE OF EMPLOYING THE PROPERTARIAN METHOD ON ADVANCED CONCEPTS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-propertarian-methodol…/
This example addresses the term ‘evil’ in propertarian terms, and provides an example of how highly loaded terms from antiquity can be converted into scientific (propertarian) terms.
TERMINOLOGY
Demonstrated Property / Property en Toto
Exchange / Transfer / Voluntary Transfer / Involuntary Transfer
Parasitism / Free Riding / Imposed Costs
Productive / Unproductive
Fully Informed / Asymmetric Information
Warrantied / Un-warrantied
Discount / Premium
Coercion / Influence
Voluntary Organization of Production
Incremental Suppression of free riding
Truth / Truthfulness / Honesty
Moral / Amoral / Immoral
Morality / Cooperation / Retaliation
11 responses to “A Short Course in Propertarian Reasoning”
[…] tools provided by Curt Doolittle’s Propertarianism. This Fall, Curt provided a neat little Short Course on Propertarian Reasoning. I’ll pull out a few points which apply directly to this topic (emphasis […]
“1) … at additional cost.”
Additional to what?
“3) … The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage …”
Are you sure? It seems that plenty of men will breed impulsively regardless of whether or not his lineage could be harmed. An alpha male with unlimited opportunities can afford to be choosy, but many sub-alphas will jump nearly anything, and avoiding paternal responsibility is a common behavior. Thus, how does this empirical sub-alpha reproductive strategy differ from the female strategy?
“4) … We can identify at least three horizontal ax[e]s of class division … .”
In a multivariate realm the term “horizontal” is meaningless. My preferred mode of “viewing” multidimensionality is by means of principle components analysis, wherein each axis is perpendicular to and uncorrelated with every other. However, I suspect there is significant positive correlation among biological, social, and economical desireabilities; thus, a PCA of data in this 3-dimensional universe could likely be adequately characterized by fewer than three dimensions, perhaps even one.
“5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force[ ](conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip[ ](progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism/neutral masculine).”
I see coercion by remuneration as neuter, not masculine or even neutral masculine. The predominant mode of remuneration may differ by sex. For example, men typically remunerate with money, but women can remunerate by offering food, care, or sex. Many a man has taken the position, “Do as I wish or I will thump you!” Many a woman has taken the position, “Do as I wish or I will say bad things about you!” With respect to coersion by remuneration, a man is most likely to be in a position to say, “Do as I wish or I won’t pay you!” while a woman is more likely to say, “Do as I wish or sleep on the couch!” Whether or not the latter falls into the realm of libertarianism I don’t know. Voluntary offer of reproduction?
8) Can you provide examples of moral and immoral ways of seeking discounts?
9) Could you expand on this a bit?
“12) … Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives.”
Actually, can’t these conflicts be resolved by weaponizing a given strategy and applying it in an overwhelming manner? There is certainly no shortage of people trying to do just this. Perhaps use of science and moral law is the only moral, sustainable way to obtain resolution?
Examples. Violence can crush dissent and impose a resolution, but the resulting population will include women, some of whom will eventually push to have their strategy expressed. Constant suppression of women is an option (as seen in Islam), but is costly. Similarly, gossip can bring dissent to heel and impose a resolution, but the resulting population will contain men, some of whom will eventually push to have their strategy expressed. Constant suppression of masculinity is an option (as seen in modern progressive America), but is costly.
Resolving conflicts with science and law is not without cost. So, why is this approach better? Empirically I think you can point to the Anglosphere as being the pinnacle of civilization, the one many risk their fortunes and lives to invade, and no one wants to escape (although plenty want to transform it). That still begs the question of why Anglospheric culture is perceived as superior by so many other cultures.
“13) … [N]one of these strategies by any given group is fully moral … .”
Because … ? Presumably due to each, under the control of immoral people, can and has been used to impose costs on others. But what if each strategem was in the hands of moral people?
Seems to me that the female strategy is inherently immoral, because it is defined as intending to impose the cost of child rearing onto society. But, is it possible to implement the males strategy without resorting to immoral violence? Would it not be moral to inflict violence only unpon an infraction of moral law? I see nothing immoral about that. Am I blinded by my testicles? And, would it also not be possible to implement the neuter stratgey within a moral framework?
14) Does this point not require one to conclude that the female reproductive strategy is inherently immoral?
[…] A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING https://propertarianism.com/2015/09/26/a-short-course-in-propertarian-reasoning/ […]