Novel Concepts in Propertarianism

A List of The Core Concepts


[T]erminology is the most difficult part of Propertarianism. Once you understand the epistemology you will also understand why we use the terms we do, the sentence structures we do, and the wordiness we do.

Here is some help with those terms.


The Philosophy: Significant Topics

[W]hile propertarianism serves as an anti-philosophy system of thought, we rely upon the traditional hierarchy of categories:

Physics:……………………Physics: evolutionary computation of negative entropy.
Metaphysics:…………….Vitruvianism: Man is the measure of all things man (cog. sci.)
Psychology: ……………..Acquisitionism: Man acquires and defends.
Ethics and Morality:…..Propertarianism. (Reciprocity) The Ethics of Non Imposition, production, and investment.
Epistemology: ………….Testimonialism. The competition between imaginary associations and existential measurements in all dimensions of actionable reality.
Law: ………………………..Algorithmic Natural Law.  The Natural Law of Reciprocity. Strictly constructed from the test of reciprocity.
Sociology: ………………..Compatibilism: Intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy wherein we combine information and calculate compatible means to the achievement of different ends through voluntary conflict, competition, cooperation, and boycott.
Politics: ……………………Markets in Everything. (Which I call “Market Fascism”  with tongue in cheek.)
Strategy:………………… Agency: Maximization of agency through Transcendence, Sovereignty, and Heroism
Spirituality:………………Transcendence: Masculine Stoicism, Feminine Epicureanism, Ritual Familialism, Feast Naturalism,…….Festival Nationalism.
Aesthetics:……………….,Truth(Testimonial), Excellence(Density), Goodness(Morality[‘the commons’]) and Beauty(Bounty).

Constitution …………….A Second American Constitution

Revolution………………..The Course and Conduct of a Revolution

. . .



[M]an is the measure of all things to man. Meaning that man’s categories of cognition are determined by his brain structure and his brain structure is evolved and organized for humans to act at human scale.


[O]ur first resource is time. our development of action, sentience, intelligence, cooperation, division of labor, writing, narrative, numbers, money, accounting, reason, law and science serves to produce increasing returns on time. When we increase our numbers in physical space we decrease opportunity costs (time). When we increase incremental suppression of parasitism and free riding, we decrease transaction costs (time). trades, money, savings, store time – time to trade with others.



[A]ll behavior is reducible to the incentive to acquire interests. We can enumerate those categories of interests we seek to acquire. we remember those things we have invested in as costs, and defend those costs. (our complex interests some of which are our possessions )

We provide a list of categories that explain the sum total of what people seek to acquire an ‘interest’ in.


A Short Course in Acquisitionism (psychology)



[W]e increase the precision of the term ‘true’ by asking whether a question is decidable, presumptively good as a general rule, personally preferable,  useful, possible, undecidable, or unknowable.

|Decidability| decidable < presumptively good as a general rule < personally preferable < useful < possible <undecidable, < or unknowable


A Very Short Course in Decidability


[G]iven the series:

|TRUTH| Tautological < Analytic < Ideal < Truthfulness < Reasonableness < Honesty.

  1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
  2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
  3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
  4. Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
  5. Reasonableness: that testimony (description) you give, as justification for your reporting of your belief, justification, preference, coice, or actions with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
  6. Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

Truthfulness, or, the only existentially possible truth claim is:

Testimony that Satisfies Increasing Demand for Infallibility”

In The Context Of The Series:

  1. Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
  2. Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
  3. Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
  4. Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
  5. Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
  6. Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values.
  7. Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (True)
  8. Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity
  9. Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

Where the Speech Consists Of:

  1. Complete Sentences
  2. In promissory form
  3. In testimonial form
  4. In operational vocabulary (as actions)
  5. absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…)
  6. including all changes in state
  7. including all consequences of change in state
  8. from an observer’s point of view
  9. producing a series of testable transactions.

Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is:

Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:

  1. Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
    Internally Consistent (Logical)
  2. Externally Correspondent (Empirical)
  3. Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
  4. Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
  5. Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
  6. Within  Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)
  7. Warrantied
    … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
    … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
    … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.


[T]estimonial Truth refers to existentially possible truth, which comes in the form of operationally described testimony, it differs from platonic idealized truth. Testimonialism refers to the set of criticisms that we have to apply if we intend to warrant due diligence to the truthfulness of our testimony. List of criticisms necessary for due diligence:

  • Naming Consistency – Non-conflation of identities.
  • Internal Consistency – Logical descriptions of theories.
  • External Consistency – Empirical observations of theories.
  • Existential Consistency – Operational definitions of concepts.
  • Scope Consistency – Parsimonious and Fully accounted.
  • Moral Consistency – Objectively Moral.


  • By applying some of those criticisms to a hypothesis, one gets a theory, once it gets exhaustively tested, one gets either a Fact (observation), Law(explanation), or Recipe (process).
  • By operationally describing theories (sequences of physical actions + instruments + measurements), one can achieve testability and repeatability while, at the same time, imposing a prohibitive burden on speech that contains error, biases, wishful thinking, loading, suggestion and deceit. Instruments used in operational descriptions include physical, logical and institutional instruments; where sensors, IQ tests and property serve as examples of each.
  • By continued testing of the theories, one eventually finds the limits of a theory (where we “falsified” it), this protects us from using a theory in an invalid scope (where it fails or lacks precision), in matters of cooperation one must add the full accountability of costs upon demonstrated property in order to avoid selection bias.

In addition to testimony by those criticisms, one may issue less reliable warranties of sympathy (understanding of a conceptual relationship), honesty (intuition free of deceits), rationality (subjected to internal consistency), empiricism (subjected to external consistency), and scientific testing (expensive continued testing, but not testimonial).

[H]umans evolved to negotiate. Negotiate given three options: avoidance, conflict, or cooperation. We did not evolve to speak truthfully, but pragmatically.

However, we can learn to speak truthfully just as we can learn to read using symbols, write using symbols, grammar, and vocabulary, do arithmetic and mathematics answer logical questions, and write computer software.

The reason being, that just as there are only so many existential dimensions to the universe (point, line, space, geometry, change (time/space)), there there are only so many actionable dimensions to the universe (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, moral, and scope-completeness).

Just as we can use different levels of mathematics to test our theories (count, arithmetic, accounting, ratios (‘math’), geometry and trigonometry, calculus, and algebraic geometry), we can we can test each of those actionable dimensions of reality.

Just as it is very difficult for a statement of constant relations in mathematics to be false if it meets all the necessary dimensional criteria, it is very difficult for a statement of truth in ordinary language to be false if it meets all the necessary dimensions of criteria.

As such, while it is almost impossible to know if we speak truth proper – meaning, the most informationally parsimonious description possible – we can however warranty we have done all available due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and lies. (WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE)

So while it does take some practice to meet these criteria, the only novel dimension is the ‘operational’, which requires a very limited grammar.

But if we use this grammar it is literally almost impossible to err, just as it is nearly impossible to write a program that will run and not err.

Just as it is nearly impossible to construct certain proofs and still err.

To a significant degree it is possible to construct a language, vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of truthful speech: Testimonialism.


A Short Course in Testimonial Truth

The Due Diligence Necessary for A Warranty of Truthfulness


“Systems of measurement.”

Grammar: “Rules of continuous disambiguation, limited to some set of dimensions, where those dimensions function as measurements, where those measurements consist of constant relations, between analogies to perception, experience, intuition, reason, or action; producing a well formed statement, functioning as a series of transactions, in a contract for meaning.”

[W]e reorganize the constitution of language into

  • The Grammatical Capacity of the human mind to produce a serialized stream of symbols.
    • The Dimensions of reality that man can include in his set of semantic references.
      • The Necessary Grammar (Rules of continuous disambiguation, calculation, and transaction ) for each set of Dimensions.
        • The Variations in Ordinary Language (Languages)
          • The Vocabulary (Semantics) within that Dimensional Grammar
          • The Phonetics of that ordinary vocabulary
          • Morphology of the vocabulary
          • The Pragmatics (rules within the variations of ordinary language.

These dimensions include the grammars of:

|GRAMMARS| Identity,  Logic, Mathematics, Accounting, Algorithms, Recipes Processes and  Protocols,  science proper(operational), Law, Testimony,  description, ordinary language, storytelling, fiction, fictionalisms: The Sophisms, Magic and Pseudoscience, Supernaturalism and Occult.


a PDF of the Gramamars (It’s a Poster. You’ll need to zoom-in to read it.)

A Short Course in the Grammars


Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”).

The three sets of common fictionalisms appeal to the three human faculties: Imaginary, Verbal, and Physical

  • Occult->Supernaturalism -> Theology (Imaginary)
  • Sophistry->Idealism->Philosophical Rationalism (Verbal)
  • Magic->Pseudoscience (and pseudomathematics) (Physical)


[T]o cause others to believe something that is false, typically in order to gain some personal advantage.

Where people Deceive:

  1. To advance an interest
  2. To obtain an interest
  3. To preserve an interest

And where the Spectrum of Lying consists of:

  1. Intent to deceive.
  2. Failure of due diligence against lying
  3. Carrier of and distributor of lies
  4. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies.
  5. A genetic predisposition to lie.


  1. White Lie: Preservation or construction of an emotional (status, relationship) debt or credit.
  2. Grey Lie: Protecting interests from liability due to an accidental harm to others’ interests.
  3. Black Lie: Gaining an interest by intentional destruction or transfer of another’s interests.
  4. Evil Lie: Causing harm to others interest for the purpose of causing harm rather than gaining interest for the self.

Where Lying consists in:

Failure of due diligence against:

  1. ignorance, error, bias, and wishful thinking,

And making use of:

  1. Loading, Framing, Obscuring, Suggestion;
  2. Ridiculing, Shaming, Moralizing, Psychologizing, Gossiping, Propagandizing Reputation Destruction;
  3. Sophisms (Overloading), (Appealing to cognitive biases);
  4. Straw Manning via Negativa, and Heaping of Undue Praise via Positiva;
  5. Fictionalisms of Idealism, Innumeracy, Pseudoscience, Supernaturalism;
  6. Fictions (Deceit)
  7. Denialism

On Lying

On GSRRM (Gossiping, Shaming, Ridicule, Rallying, Moralizing….)  

On False Promise Baiting Into Hazard via Unwarrantable Speech

On Abrahamism (False Promise, Pilpul, Critique, Undermining)


[O]perationalism means speaking in operations or actions, like a recipe or a computer program. Science is operational because a proper, non-pseudoscientific, science paper is basically like a recipe. “Set up this experiment in this way and conduct it just so and you should observe these results.” If someone follows the recipe and observes different results, the conclusion will have to be revisited.

People frequently do NOT speak operationally. They speak in metaphors, analogies, meanings, or existence claims, instead of actions and operations. When you do not speak operationally it is easy to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, conflation, fraud, or deception.

Consider the phrase “I love you.” There is a lot of moral and emotional content in that short but highly meaningful utterance and I’d wager most people who use it, most times, aren’t thinking about all of that or its many weighty and subtle implications. “I love you” is frequently not an honest statement, either for reasons of willful duplicity or out of simple ignorance. But if we break it down in operational terms we can gain a more precise understanding of its meaning and benefit from employing it more correctly and conscientiously.

I think that “love” (noun) refers to the condition in which one’s happiness depends on another’s.

Therefore “to love” (verb) must mean to act in a manner consistent with this condition prevailing.

So we can put “I love you” in operational terms and say that it means “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that my happiness depends on your own against my actions, you will not find it untrue”.


[W]e make use of language from math, logic, computer science, accounting, finance, economics, law, and physical sciences.

Economic language like darwinian logic that gave birth to it, is a profound innovation in human thought, that replaces justification (excuse making) with competition (survival).

So we make use of each layer of logic, but the greatest difference for those not trained in economics  or the philosophy of science is this continuously recursive equilibration and disequilibration: calculation by the competition between hypothesis and falsification.

[W]e make use of Full Accounting of Capital, including Human Capital, Social Capital (informal institutions), Institutional Capital (formal Institutions), Territorial Capital, Commons Capital, Trust (most importantly), and Knowledge Capital. And we use Beckerian (Gary Stanley Becker’s) description of human behavior in economic terms.

We also use Ostrom’s (Elenor Ostrom’s) logic of commons.

In general we use BOTH Balance Sheet and Income Statement where the mainstream economists use partial accounting and income statements  – which is how they ignore the destruction of western civlization.


[I]magine two sculptors, one building up his work with clay by hand, and one removing from stone with a chisel. The sculptor with clay works by adding clay – uses the positive – or the via positiva- by Justification.  And the sculptor carving away stone by subtracting – uses the negative – or the via negativa: by Falsification.

The two must match, or one, the other, or both is false. In other words, just as the only test of reciprocity is a voluntary exchange, the only test of truth is survival in the market for competition. Or, truth by competition.

Law/Science (falsification) > Philosophy (justification) > Theology (justificationary fictionalism).

We learn by the competition between imagining, thinking, arguing, discussing with the via positiva, versus discussing, arguing, acting, observing, comparing the consequences with the via negativa. 

The inner world builds with clay of imagination, and the outer world carves away at it with experience of existence.

Our brains evolved to detect constant relations, contingent relations, and inconstant or non relations between states – were states consist in the range of sensations, perceptions, experiences, states, episodes, models, and simulations.

This ability to detect constant, contingent, inconstant, and non-relations is what we refer to as the logical facility of human beings.  All human consciousness, cognition, imagination, thought, reason, calculation, and computation, is dependent upon vast numbers of groups of neurons detecting the degree of relation.

So our brains work by creating a model of the world, imagining a future state of it, testing it mentally, verbally, physically, and that competition between imagination and test is mediated by our logical facility.

The physical universe doesn’t have this choice. Only we have choice. The universe cannot imagine or predict, it only seizes the first local opportunity to advance entropy by dissipating energy.

Humans have choice. Because we have memory, and because we can predict using that memory, we can envision futures so that we can choose, and choose to maximize the seizure of opportunities to CONCENTRATE energy. Life exists because it takes advantage of entropy to defeat entropy.

Via-Positiva Moral Justification, via Positiva Legal Justification, and Via-Negativa Testimonialism

We learn to Justify to (a) explain, (b) demonstrate permission, (c) excuse our actions. Since our primary functions are explaining to others, illustrating that we have permission or at least, are not impermissive in our actions, or we are explaing why despite impermissive actions we intended good. When we falsify we prosecute a claim to determine if it is false.  Since most human speech is not prosecutorial but cooperative or moral, we habituate justification (permission) as if it is the same as claiming something is testifiable and not false.  So, justification (defense), and falsification (offense).

The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing.

The Transformation of Apriorism to Scientific Terms

A Priori: Or, “independent of observation.”

There are three dimensions to claims of an a priori truth claim:

      1. i) A priori vs. A posteriori,
      2. ii) Analytic vs. Synthetic, and
      3. iii) Necessity vs. Contingency

Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.

(a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: “2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.”
(b) Synthetic A Priori : “Increasing money increases inflation.”
(c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: “Childless women will have no grandchildren.”
(d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”

This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:

(a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori
(b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori
(c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori
(d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori

Which corresponds to the testable dimensions of numbers (ideals)

(a) identity (numbers)
(b) logical (sets)
(c) empirical (ratios)
(d) existential (constructible)

Which corresponds to dimensions of physical reality

(a) point
(b) line
(c) shape
(d) object
(e) time (change)
(f) relative change

Which corresponds to a subset of the dimensions of actionable reality , the full set of which we express in fully express in Testimonialism as:

(a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point)
(b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line)
(c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape)
(d) Existential: (operational consistency)
(e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)(time)
(f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between actors) (relative change)

Which together account for the totality of actionable reality (by man) that we currently know of (and its quite hard to imagine anything else is possible).

The test of speech then consists of dimensional deflation and spoken conflation into parsimonious testimony:

1 – Identity tests categories – differences (deflation)
2 – Logic tests internal consistency – membership (deflation)
3 – Empirical actions test correspondence – measurement (deflation)
4 – Operational Language tests existential possibility (deflation)
5 – Rational action tests incentives – rational choice consistency (deflation)
6 – Reciprocity tests moral – rational exchange consistency (deflation)
7 – Full accounting and limits test scope consistency. (deflation)
8 – Narrative by analogy to perception describes reality – coherence (total consistency) (conflation)

Reality is explained by narrative, and the narrative survives falsification by identity, logic, action, reason, reciprocity, and scope.

We test statements about the world by deflating each dimension and testing each for consistency.

Each sub dimension can only be tested by use of the next dimension.

The only native skill we possess is the test of “differences”. Because our brains use samples of inputs in combination with memory to predict results and alert us through new stimulation to the differences.

Our brains sample senses, provide certain services, the hierarchical (distilled) result of which are combined (conflated) through memory and backward propagation into ‘experience’.

It turns out that except in rare cases we ‘experience’ a fairly accurate model of the physical world – but an absurdly inaccurate model of the social world, and completely nonsensical model of our personal value to that world. All of which are precisely what is necessary to survive as sentient (feeling of changes in state) and conscious (self aware) life form when possessed of uncomfortable knowledge in a universe of consistent risk.

This is a simple way of explaining Hume, Kant, and the Phenomenologists



[M]an is rational. He engages in predation when it suits him, parasitism when it is possible, cooperation when it is preferable, and flight when it is necessary.

Man is not good or bad, he is rational in his choice of cooperation, parasitism, or predation. We must provide him the incentive to choose cooperation. We must not pretend he does not need the incentive.

Thankfully, through organizing our efforts into myth, ritual, habit, norm, and law, we can raise the cost of predation and parasitism high enough so that man chooses cooperation or flight more often than parasitism or predation.

Our deprivation of his opportunity for parasitism and predation do not change the nature of man – because man is rational. We simply eliminate those less able to cooperate and produce, and provide disincentives to those that remain, thereby creating an imbalance of incentives and proclivity for cooperation and production.


[I]n propertarianism, we don’t start with morality. We start with needing an incentive not to engage in parasitism and predation which for the strong is the preferable state of affairs. The only incentive possible is reciprocity because of the long term gains of scale. Everyone else starts with the presumption that cooperation at any cost is a good. We start with the presumption that only reciprocity is a good. We are right and they are parasites.


System G (genes),
System 0 (property),
System 1 (intuition/search/continuous recursion),
System 2 (steering, reason, calculation, computing)

The ‘puppeteer’ (returns search results constantly)
The mind handles exceptions (or disparate choices)
Negotiation (morality) is an exception handler.

I disagree with Chomsky, and I am fairly sure that Jeff Hawkins, and Kahnemann and his references, are correct: we just constantly search and re-search memory, and we pre-load any sequence of actions that have high value and then we become aware of the predicted outcome, and we choose to accept the proposition of our search, or we reject it, or we weigh it (research it, and reason with it).

I like the “Systems” metaphors because they’re abstract. It is easier to understand the “Elephant and Rider” metaphor. And the ‘puppeteer’ metaphor is probably attributing too much agency to our intuition when it is just an acquisition machine.

We act on behalf of our genes. The conscious mind (system 2: reasoning search) rides on the elephant of intuition (system 1: intuitionistic search), which is informed by our desire to acquire, inventory, and defend, which is biased by our reproductive strategy, which is biased by our genes.


[W]e intuit that people – we and others – have agency. That the rider dominates the elephant. That is very hard to demonstrate, when it appears the opposite.

Developing Agency depends on the biological ability to do so, the market demand to do so, and the discipline to do so. So the elephant is a very simple machine, and the rider (consciousness) but a tool with which the elephant identifies opportunities, negotiates cooperation and executes conflict.

In other words all we think and do as JUSTIFYING the commands of the elephant. And that very, very few of us are fully human and able to transcend the elephant. And that propertarianism is a means, like stoicism, like mathematics, of transcending the elephant – or rather COMPLETING THE TRANSCENDENCE OF MAN.

All learning is continuous recursion. Epistemology and neurology are the same subject.


[T]here is no conspiracy among peoples with genetic and cultural homogeneity, any more than there is a conspiracy between women against men, or predators against prey, or competent against incompetent.

We demonstrate differing degrees of neoteny, different moral intuitions, differing brain distributions, different endorphin distributions, and different morphology distributions for ancestral reasons.

We all participate in the unconscious persistence of genetic, class, cultural, mythological, and institutional strategies. We can enumerate the properties of different group strategies, right down to the grammar of the speech and the methods of arguments, and the distributions of cognitive biases people and peoples use (which is one of the research programs what I work on).

All of these properties and in group differences are both measurable at the individual and observable at the collective. One does not blame a dog for dragging it’s backside on the carpet. It’s a dog. One simply teaches the dog not to do so. One does not blame women for feminine cognitive biases and life preferences – they were an evolutionary necessity. One does not blame a competing group for pursuing it’s genetic interest at others expense – one simply creates norms, traditions, laws, institutions, and knowledge to prevent murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy, rent seeking, producing pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, propaganda, systemic lying, advocating or practicing moral and ethical irreciprocity, attempts at conversion, at institutional erosion, asymmetric reproduction, invasion, conquest, war, and genocide in either short term or long term means.

Either a group can defend itself against destructive, parasitic and predatory competitors or it can’t. Groups compete. They compete by the means available to them. And groups learn to exploit every possible niche, from the most high trust, innovative, and productive, to the most low trust, parasitic, and destructive. But we cannot blame others for their immorality (free riding, parasitism and predation). We can only seek to defend ourselves against the immoral. There are no conspiracies. All our talk is just smoke and negotiation and deception on behalf of our genes. We are under the illusion that the rider drives the elephant, but the rider (our consciousness) is just a passenger on the elephant of our genes. Genes don’t conspire. They can’t.


[S]peech provides the illusion that the rider controls the elephant, when in fact, there are very, very, few of us whose elephants correspond to reality, and as a consequence so do our riders. There is a reason that the animals do not argue rationally – because they lack agency, and because they lack agency, they are not in fact humans


[W]e can empathize with intent and therefore cooperate. We can remember, so we can exchange cooperation over time, as well as forgo cooperation if it’s irreciprocal. Cooperation is so much more productive than individual action that it is an un-substitutable good. So preservation of incentive to cooperate requires profitable(productive) reciprocity.

That which we have borne costs to obtain an interest without imposing costs on the interests of others does not violate reciprocity. All non-criminal/criminal, unethical/ethical, and moral/immoral behaviour can be reduced to statements of reciprocity.

We reduce most questions to “at this moment, what is a person attempting to acquire?” And then “how reciprocal(moral) or ir-reciprocal(immoral) is his action?


[P]ropertarian ethics proposes the question of the rationality of cooperation and answers that human agents consider cooperation as a rational choice (instead of parasitism and predation) only if it does not impose costs upon that which they consider their property.

Humans, as with other organisms, need to acquire resources in order to survive and reproduce, this requirement led to the development of an instinct to acquire and inventory many types of capital (physical, monetary, territorial, normative, genetic, etc.).

Humans intuit that capital upon which they have invested, without imposing costs upon their groups, as their property, and retaliate to any attempt of imposing costs to that which they consider their property, this constitutes their demonstrated property. We can divide those into the following types of property:

  • Self-Property – Body, Time, Actions, Memory, Concepts, Status, etc.
  • Personal Property – Houses, Cars, “Things”, etc.
  • Kinship Property – Mates, Children, Family, Friends, etc.
  • Cooperative Property – Organizational and Knowledge ties.
  • Shareholder Property – Recorded and Quantified shares. Citizenship.
  • Common Property – Territorial and capital interests, Artificial Property.
  • Informal Institutional Property – Manners, Ethics, Morals, Myths, Rituals.
  • Formal Institutional Property – Religion, Government, Laws.

(Full list at :

One can also state the principle of non-imposition as the requirement that all transactions have the following properties:

  • Productivity,
  • Symmetry of knowledge,
  • Warranty,
  • Volition,
  • Without externalities of the same (previous) criteria.

The principle of non-imposition in combination with demonstrated property allows a polity to construct law in a way that eliminates the need of discretionary interpretation, that means it provides decidability for all questions of law and contract.

Humans evolved most of its emotions as reactions to change in their inventory of property, but they vary in their perception of what constitutes property, with different classes of humans prioritizing different moral intuitions.






[T]here is only one law of universal morality, and that is the law of reciprocity. It is possible to construct all laws as derivations of this one law of reciprocity, using the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimonial speech, producing strictly constructed original intent and textualism. If all law is written as such it is closed to interpretation on one hand, and false, dishonest, immoral, insufficient, and incomplete laws can be identified and sunset by competitive argument.

This ends judicial activism and circumvention of the law on one hand, and limits the construction of legislation (contracts of the commons) to that which does not violate reciprocity.

Conversely, it is possible for judges to discover new applications of the natural law of reciprocity – whether they start from the history of judgements (common law) or they start from pre-calculated judgements (canon law), or a combination of the two (common law of judgements on top of canon law).

And for this reason, innovations in free riding, parasitism, and predation can be eradicated and added to the legal canon as soon as the first case is adjudicated.

Moreover, the legislation can be falsified and removed, court findings can be falsified and removed.


A Short Course in Natural Law


[I]n order to cooperate and expand cooperation, humans require incremental suppression of impositions of cost upon their demonstrated property as relationships move from local to global and become anonymous.

At first humans organize in order to partially suppress imposition of costs (criminal), namely violence, this results in innovations on parasitism that moves to theft and fraud (ethical), as those get suppressed, we have private property, but parasitism evolves towards deception and organized forms of parasitism (moral and conspiratorial).

(List of “discounts”:

As such one can judge the moral state of a polity by comparison with the list of all forms of free-riding and those which they actually suppress by their law.

By near total suppression of imposed costs and the absolute nuclear family, we force individuals into market cooperation instead of parasitism (which limits parasitism even within the family), this results in a highly eugenic (meritocratic) civilization which suppresses lower class reproduction.

In order to create incentives for the lower classes to abide by rule of law, they’re compensated with dividends obtained in exchange for forgone opportunities of parasitism and for the policing of the commons.


The Evolution of Suppression via Common Law


[H]umans defend commons into which they have invested resources, that follows from the definition of demonstrated property, as such, we can consider information as a commons and prohibit the “pollution” of that commons as we do with other commons such as rivers.

As such, a requirement of truthful speech (testimonialism) forms a new kind of warranty, just like warranties given to the quality of goods and services, we must now warrant any information we use in public discourse about matters of commons. This does not mean that we must prohibit conflationary and inspirational discourse in private, for pedagogical, aesthetic and hypothetical (meaningful) purposes.

Testimonialism stands as a warranty in matters of law (and contract), where the discovery of law must pass through all of the criticisms, for this reason we have both empiricism (as in the common law) and operationalism (strict construction).

[W]hile we protect the life, and property,  the contract of marriage, the physical commons (land, water, air, infrastructure), our institutional commons (govts, laws, even traditions), and even fine arts and monuments; and while we protect the market of products and the market for services, one thing we do not protect is the market for information. We can extend the demand for due diligence that we require in the markets for goods and services to the market for information. But that requires a test of truthful speech: a warranty of due diligence.


[O]nce we can test for due diligence in truthful speech, we can counter-act the media revolution’s industrialization of lying (academy, state, and media-advertising), by extending the demand for warranty of due diligence in products and services to a demand for warranty of due diligence in public speech, and grant universal standing to all citizens in defense of the ‘informational commons’.

This means that anyone will be able to sue anyone for speech that fails the tests of due diligence. While this will not need to apply to private speech, it means that business, finance, media, academy, and state can no longer use the power of mass communications to lie and deceive the people. (This may sound strange until you have some experience with it, but it works.

Now, if you have some idea of the difference in mankind caused by the scientific revolution in the physical sciences, you might be able to imagine the vast improvement in our lives by the scientific revolution in the social and information sciences.

Imagine if no organization could use media to lie to you. Imagine how consumer protections would evolve. Imagine how politicians and professors would have to speak to us.

We cannot know what is true, but we can know what is false.

And that is enough.


[O]nce we rely on natural law for the resolution of differences, then our only means of cooperation is in markets – markets in everything. Including association, cooperation, reproduction, production of goods, services and information, production of commons, production of polities, and production of group evolutionary strategies.



[I]ntertemporal Division of Perception, Cognition, Knowledge, Labor, and Advocacy
Humans form a division of perception in that progressives and libertarians have specialist moral intuitions suited to their roles in the community, whereas conservatives give equal weight to the six moral dimensions of (care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, purity). These differences on moral intuitions suit individuals to different roles in a polity:

  • “Conservatives” – Voluntary Organization of Cooperation.
  • “Libertarians” – Voluntary Organization of Production.
  • “Progressives” – Voluntary Organization of Reproduction.

Humans form a division of cognition in that we can classify people with different levels of ability, from those that learn by repetition, to those that learn by imitation, to those that learn by instruction, to those that learn by reading, to those that can model machines, to those that can synthesize ideas, to those that can model abstractions.

Humans form a division of knowledge with each containing local information about their inventories of property and specialist knowledge upon which others depend. As we depend more upon the memories and actions of third parties, trust becomes necessary for complex information networks to evolve between humans.

Humans form multiple divisions of labor, a reproductive division of labor between the genders in the production of new generations and a productive division of labor in the production of goods and services, as well as the production of commons.

Humans form a division of advocacy where conservatives advocate total constraint on consumption (saving), libertarians advocate meritocratic constraint on consumption (production), and progressives advocate consumption (nurture).


[E]ach of the three classes, into which humans divide, specialize in one of the following three coercive technologies:

  • Moral Coercive Power – The use of “words and signals” in order to influence people to behave in a way by the threat of imposition of social costs (opportunity costs).
  • Economic Coercive Power – The use of “money and assets” in order to compel people to behave in a way by the promise of material rewards (good and services).
  • Physical Coercive Power – The use of “armies and weapons” in order to coerce people to behave in a way under the threat of physical violence (physical costs).

By combined use of the three weapons, a group can coerce quite effectively, the government can use all those weapons to keep control of its subjects, with most people being controlled by propaganda and lies (moral coercion), others being bought with a position in the bureaucracy (economic coercion) and the rest of the malcontents being suppressed by police force (physical coercion).

[I]ntertemporal Division of Reproductive Perception Knowledge Labor and Advocacy: The difference between the feminine (short term), libertarian (medium term) and conservative (long term) moral biases constitutes an intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.

The way we ‘calculate’ what is ‘good’ is through voluntary exchanges: cooperation. So the fact that we have different biases provides necessary and advantageous specializations, and our principal problem then is providing ‘markets’ by which we can cooperate and ‘calculate’ group needs through constant exchanges.

By choice of individual sovereignty, we limit ourselves to natural law. By the choice of natural law we limit ourselves to markets in everything. By limiting ourselves to markets in everything we produce markets for association, cooperation, mating and reproduction, production commerce and trade, the production of commons (government), and the production of polities (Armies and Territories and Rule).


[I]nstead of one class hierarchy there are three. Societies are dominated by some arrangement of these three methods of coercion (Military and law, finance and commerce, priesthood and public intellectuals). Each fights for power, with the core of the population shifting under who best serves them, while at the same time protecting them from outside competition.

Within those classes we see genetic, social, and economic classes. Genetic roughly reflecting reproductive desirability. Social roughly reflecting manners, norms, and education, and economic/political reflecting achievements.


[F]or all intents and purposes, with wide individual variation, physical attractiveness (which yes, is a universal), fitness, IQ, and personality, serve as a rough indicator of class.

For all intents and purposes, intelligence serves as a personality trait – and perhaps the dominant personality trait.

For all intents and purposes, personality and physique require exercise in order to produce individual fitness. (This being the primary failure of the 20th century – personality training. )





Our ancestors combined horse wheel and bronze.
They evolved entrepreneurial warfare – for profit.
Entrepreneurial warfare for profit is voluntary, and risky.
Men must be recruited for voluntary warfare (raiding).
And profits must be distributed meritocratically – or one cannot recruit men.
One must give an oath insuring his fellows.
One must hold formation or plan regardless of risk.
One may not defect (show cowardice).
And one must report (testify) truthfully – or all may die
So from this entrepreneurial, contractual, warfare, and one’s control over the proceeds, We developed contractualism: meritocracy, sovereignty, and rule of law of reciprocity

Sovereignty Is Only Possible Under Natural Law.
Natural Law is Only Possible Under Market Law.
Market Law is only Possible Under Common Law.
Common Law is only possible under Testimonial Law.
Testimonial Law is only Possible Under Testimonial Truth.
Testimonial Truth is only Possible Under Physical Law.
Physical Law is Possible only under Determinism.
Determinism is Possible only if the universe demonstrates Regularity.
Regularity is possible to know only if we possess Memory and Reason.
Memory creates the possibility of acting to alter the course of regular events.
Reason creates the possibility of inventing increasingly complex means of acting.
Acting allows us to obtain the difference between our expenditure and capture of energy.
Capturing energy allows us to defeat the dark forces of ignorance, entropy. and time.

Western civilization is not the first, but it is the fastest. In the prehistoric, ancient, and modern worlds, sovereignty expands human ability most rapidly for the simple reason that market rule, limited by natural law, creates both the most incentive to innovate and change, and the least resistance to innovation and change, that are possible at any given moment.

Sovereignty: Sovereignty in exchange for reciprocity.
Via Negativa: limit display word and deed to the reciprocal
Via Positiva: reciprocal insurance of other’s sovereignty

Mindfulness (Harmony): Professional military aristocracy, a Militia of every able bodied man, creates full time military: All men in military earn respect and are given respect for doing their duty; all duty is necessary and valuable for the success of the group in a high risk venture; rank is by demonstrated ability and merit (although often of families), leadership (captains, generals, kings) are chosen by the men who choose who to follow. In other words, every man gets a share of honor, and buys the franchise. This is the source of western harmony, and it is the strongest source of harmony available to man. (And is different from all other peoples).

Social Harmony: Corporatism, or, rather, the ability to create high trust commons, and to specialize in an activity on behalf of the village or town. Westerners didn’t need to invent the corporation – we practiced it as our default social order.

Advantage: Continuous rapid maneuver, innovation, adaptation, of the entire polity; the suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses.

Weakness: Rally Together Only Under Threat.

Vulnerability: Extremely vulnerable to soft threats (immigration, conversion, undermining, commercial overextension consuming commons, military overextension under martial entrepreneurship. ie: too tolerant).

Result: Excellent in military matters but weak in defense against religious cultural and informational harms.


[A]t first humans had to deal with small communities where the threat of ostracism almost equals a death threat, but as those groups grew in distance of relationships, so did the incentives to impose costs upon others in favor of oneself and of one’s family.

The growth of transaction costs led to a demand for an authority in order to provide dispute resolution, from this, people formed governments as a way to suppress local transaction costs and replace it with a global cost (taxation).

The opportunities for rational cooperation created by government resulted in great wealth, a lot of which went into the hands of government. Ideally, suppression of the centralized costs (bureaucratic and political parasitism) would follow, while retaining suppression of the local costs and the commons built under this suppression (particularly, the property definitions themselves).

In reality, a class warfare for the control of government went on, which led to democracy, that in practice results in redistribution of the rents to the lower classes (the majority) in a winner takes all contest. From this point on, dysgenia and demand for authority follow.

P.S.: To any propertarian that reads this, I know about other topics such as the axiomatic vs theoretical knowledge issue, group evolutionary strategies, family structures, the failure of the enlightenment, the great lies, heroism, personality (autistic vs solipsistic and other issues), demonstrated intelligence, and so on, but I do not feel confident enough on those issues to even try writing about them yet.


The Transaction Cost Theory of Government


[P]ropertarian law evolves by incremental suppression of new forms of parasitism, where the judge discovered common law provides the least time lapse between the invention of parasitism and the construction of law prohibiting it.

Strictly constructed law follows from the first principle of non-imposition of costs against demonstrated property, we can use this method of construction to specify contracts, as long as the later (contract) does not infringe upon the former (law).

One can think of strict construction as the programming of law and of contracts, where those may refer to other documents, use libraries of operational definitions, define actionable clauses and conditions upon which the involved parties execute those clauses.


[M]arket Government refers to the Voluntary Organization of Commons by trade between houses of government, where this trade takes place only when all houses of government agree with the terms. Each of the three classes into which humans divide form a house of market government.

Commons refer to material goods and services as well as norms of behavior to which people must comply, in contrast with private goods, humans want to preserve commons, not to consume them, in case of consumption, humans lack incentives to invest in them.


(List of commons:

[T]here is no reason for monopoly (majoritarianism) in the production of commons: once all legislation must satisfy the natural law of reciprocity, written testimonially, and therefore truthfully, we can construct trades between the interests (classes), and all ‘legislation’ can ascend as long as it survives the tests of natural law of reciprocity that is constructed testimonially. Likewise we can agree upon norms without imposing norms. So we can ascend agreements without ascending disagreements. As such we can change from monopoly allocation of proceeds of the commons (profits/taxes) to equidistributed allocation of proceeds (everyone votes their share of the pot), or progressive allocation of proceeds (everyone votes their contribution to the pot), and eliminate representatives.

This makes it extremely difficult to engage in corruption since the possibility of lobbying a politician is eliminated, and the cost of lobbying the population is prohibitive, plus the requirement for truthful speech and strict construction places heavy burdens political proposals.

Ending monopoly means that people can produce the commons they choose to fund rather than produce those commons that they don’t choose to fund.

This eliminates the ability of politicians to subvert the population as has been done during the 20th century.

Meanwhile it makes it almost impossible for groups of citizens to circumvent the natural law.

– Majority rule is a sufficient means of decision making for small homogenous groups who must select priorities to achieve using limited resources. Majority rule is insufficient means of decision making for large heterogeneous groups with conflicting preferences. In heterogeneous groups monopoly rule by majority rule, is merely a vehicle for justifying thefts. Homogenous groups may need to select priorities among desirable ends, but because heterogeneous groups have incompatible ends, heterogeneous groups need means of cooperation on means despite incompatible ends: agreements by which difference can be mitigated through mutually beneficial exchanges. As such the purpose of government is the construction of commons by creating a market for the contractual production of commons.

 – Moral, and therefore non-parasitic, agreements between parties that are productive, fully informed, voluntary, and warrantied need no assent (approval) from third parties. Instead, all such agreements need only refrain from externalities: the imposition of costs on the property-en-toto of third parties. As such, in any market for the production of commons, assent is not necessary for the construction of exhanges between classes with differing interests. Instead such contracts must only survive criticism: adjudication. As such anyone can sue to invalidate a contract. But no one’s approval is necessary for such contracts. As such the construction of commons requires not ascent. Instead, the prevention of a contract requires dissent that survives adjudication.

 – Division of houses by cognitive labor —

 ( … ) (undone)

 –  (summary: dissent and adjudication not assent and confirmation)

( … )


A Short Course in Market Government (“Perfect Government”, “Markets in Everything”, and sarcastically: “Market Fascism”)


The Anarchism(impossible) to Capitalism(rule of law universalism) to classical liberalism(rule of law nationalism ) to National Socialism to communism (impossible, universalism) is another bit of sophistry sold by the abrahamic left: whereas the difference is one of rule of law vs rule by discretion.

So, as usual in the abrahamic method of deceit, the public is presented with a false dichotomy, between two economic models where all economies are and must be mixed economies, and where the debate is only over the rule of law that forces cooperative solutions , and rule of man, which forces uncooperative solutions.

The Romans solved this problem by preserving the senate (aristocracy), and the middle classes (plebeians) during times of market cooperation, and dictators (generals) in time of war. As far as I know there is no better system than authority in war, houses in peace, and redistribution of windfalls. And all of that is possible only when the law is empirical and sacred, and men will willingly kill usurpers at every opportunity.

Natural Law Capitalism (markets in everything, limited by externality) must emerge under rule of law since no other option is available. The only externality is black markets (crime) to profit by imposition of costs by externalities. All other forms of circumventing rule of law by rule of discretion will simply breed special interests, monopolies, rents, and corruption – as well as black markets

One of the great intellectual scams of the 19th and 20th centuries is to sell the replacement of rule of law, with arbitrary rule – by selling capitalism (unlimited free trade capitalism that tolerates externalities), versus socialism (discretionary rule socialism that manufactures externalities in volume).

There is no alternative to a mixed economy. The alternative is between rule of law mixed economy (dividends to shareholder-citizens), and arbitrary rule mixed economy (dividends to the political class and their enablers).

FASCISM (intolerant state capitalist nationalism) WON THE BATTLE OF THE 20th CENTURY

1. Fascism (colloquially) refers to intolerant totalitarian nationalism, or in general, intolerance and mandatory CONFORMITY.

2. Fascism (scientifically) as far as I know, is a label for (a) totalitarian (conformist), (b) nationalism (c) bordering on economic autarky, (c) with heavy use of proceeds from major industries for socialist (meaning ‘commons’) purposes.

So in the colloquial sense it is correct.

Understanding Fascism in Context

Nat’l Fascism was expansion of Napoleon’s Pre-Industrial State and Military Total War, to post-industrial State, Military, Economic, Culture, and informational Total War against International Political, Economic, Cultural and informational extra-state total war of Jewish Communism.

Like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Communism promised a universal government of the underclasses. The French invented pre-communist European state socialism, Italians post-communist intolerant State socialism in Fascism. Via the French, we forced the Germans into ACTING on it.

... Total War........... Total War..............Total War
... ..Pre-industrial.....Post-Industrial........Post Ind.
... ..State................State..................Extra-State
... ..Military.............Military...............Revolutionary
... .......................Economic...............Economic
... ... .....................Cultural...............Cultural
... ... .....................Informational..........Informational
... ... .....................Political..............Political
... External Offense.....Internal Defense......Internal Revolt.

VARIABLE GOVERNMENT: Fascism – Liberalism – Social Democracy…

( … ) (undone)

Division of Sexual Labor and a Division of Temporal Labor

Socialist – Equalitarian – Female – (herd)
Strategy: Consumption – Short Term – N on-Property
Offer: Care, Affection, Sex.
Weapon: Undermining, Disloyalty.

… 1) Care/Harm: Redistributive Property
(Welfare, Charity, Land reform)

… 2) Fairness/Cheating: Proportionality. Cooperative Property (Sharing,
Antitrust laws, Sport rules)

Libertarian – Egalitarian – Ascendent Male – (solitary Hunter)
Strategy: Production – Medium Term -Private Property – Exchange
Offer: Exchange.
Weapon: Boycott (deprivation)

… 3) Liberty/Oppression: Personal Property
(freedom, liberty, self determination, opportunity seeking)

… 4) Truth/Face: reciprocity information Property
(truth before face:M vs face before truth)

Aristocracy – Hierarchy – Dominant Male – (pack)
Strategy: Capitalization – Long Term – Common Property
Offer: Defense.
Weapon: Violence (Harm)

… 5) Sanctity/ Degradation: Disgust: Normative Property
(Norms, Manners, Ethics)

… 6) Loyalty/Betrayal: Interpersonal Property
(Kinship, Ethnicity, Nationhood)

… 7) Authority/Subversion: Institutional Property
(Religion, Hierarchy, Law)



( … ) (undone)

CIRCUMPOLAR CIVILIZATION (division of trust / truth)

( … ) (undone)


[R]ace and Group differences are attributable almost entirely to the local ability to engage in Neotonic reproduction thereby reducing the depth of physical maturity and effectively preserving youthfulness – and therefore aggression and impulsivity PLUS the ability to cull the lower classes. Europeans aggressively culled the lower classes for almost 1000 years, as did the Chinese and Japanese, both through manorialism and aggressive hanging. Between Neotonic reproduction and culling of the underclasses some groups are ‘more evolved’ than others. However, this means that almost all groups can ‘domesticate their populations and develop advanced societies if they are able to use policy to reduce underclass rates of reproduction below the replacement level.


[G]enetic Reservoir: because we can adapt very rapidly by reproductive selection for different environments, different political hierarchies, and different gender traits, humans can adapt to nearly any circumstance within a few generations by modifying little more than status associated with particular traits. So our current gene pools provide a deep reservoir of reproductive adaptability.


[E]thnocentricity and homogenous polities under rule of law by natural law and market government will provide the optimum returns for any and every people. There is no comparison whatsoever. The only problem is reversing asymmetric reproduction between the classes which forces us into continuous devolution by regression to the mean.



A Short Course in The Western (aristocratic) Group Evolutionary Strategy
( … )

A Short Course in Group Evolutionary Strategy (cooperation/competition/war)
( … )



What is excellence? Excellence is Art.

Dimensions of Measurement
There are three dimensions of art criticism:
– Craftsmanship (includes materials)
– Design (the play of order(composition) and bounty(beauty) and perception)
– Content (the content and values of that content)
All art can be judged by triangulation (comparison) along these three axis. There is no possible cardinality to art but ordinality can be achieved by recursive triangulation.

1. Craftsmanship (Craft) (Physical)
… Materials
… Technology
… Skill

2. Design (Design) (Sensory)
… Pattern (Sensory Aesthetics, Order)
… Depth (Complexity, Hand of man)
… Beauty (The Presence of Resources)

3. Content (Art) (Meaningful) Signal Value
… Capturing
… … Utility vs
… … the Experience, vs
… … the Moment or Era (good and bad) vs
… … the Culture or Civilization, (good and bad) vs
… … the Eternal Condition of Mankind

… Intention to Make Art
… Hand (Time) of Man, Degree of Investment (Scarcity)
… Fulfills its Promise (honest)
… Innovation (Mastery)
… Uniqueness (Novelty)
… Scale (decoration to monument)

… Measurement by Triangulation
… Competitiveness (by triangulation)

Sums To
… Culminates in Excellence

You. You and your experiences. Like reading text, the content you experience is a combination of your memories, with the art. ( Opera is an acquired taste. )

All human action can be tested by this method. All of it. Everything humans do.

Like many things our ‘taste’ consists of personal associations (subjective) to objective measures. We can measure the quality of art. “Your taste is a measure of you, not art.” So like vocabulary, or manners, or style, or other opinion, we retain some constant values, but learn to improve our taste: a skill.

“Beauty is the presence of resources”
“Excellence is the presence of Human Investment”
“Human investment is the evidence of time invested”
“The evidence of human mind and hand”

Children > Amature > Student > Practitioner > Craftsman > Master Craftsman > Artist > Representative of Movement > Peak of Movement > Peak Across Movements

All Art Begins with Monumental Architecture and Devolves to Decoration and Handcrafts
– Monumental Architecture is self selecting due to cost.
– Monumental Sculpture is self selecting due to cost.
– Monumental Painting is self selecting due to cost.
– Life Size Representationalism (not photorealism) in painting is self selecting due to cost (hours).

– Painting, Print, and Photography are not self selecting.
They are middle, working, and lower class substitutes for monuments.
– Even for the upper middle and upper class, and out-of-sight class, the few pieces of quality art that are canon (mentioned in art magazines and books, and references, or which had popular press) are inaccessible. Demand is just too high. So given the high signal value of art (yes it is an extreme expression of dominance), the market has had to experiment with novelty in order to satisfy demand.
Much of what ordinary people rail against is the same as railing against fashion: for those in the fashion industries (of which display art is a member) novelty has to function as a substitute for scarcity of craftsmanship quality (note my particular distaste for the so called ‘art glass’ industry).

– Monumental works convey ideas (allegiances, heroics, beauty)
– The demand for low cost high production ‘decoration’
(a) may form an icon or ‘remembrance’.
(b) may decorate the environment.
(c) may reflect the monumental, life sized, and representational, is misplaced in non monumental size (which is what most of us intuit as great work).

– Monumental work is misplaced in most homes and offices in market (business) and is generally reserved for the political and institutional and aristocratic.
– Most homes cannot support monumental work and require only design (decoration).
– Most people are actually not capable of design, or capable of acquiring the monumental.
– As such the colorful, abstract, the impressionistic, are to homes as type design and color pallet are to print and display advertising.

– when people purchase relatively well made ‘design’ (abstract, gestural, impressionistic) of architectural size (to fill a wall) they are practicing good aesthetics (not acting on pretense).
– when people pay homage to the monumental in private spaces, they are practicing good aesthetics. (small engineering drawings, paintings of flowers, well constructed prints)
– when people pay homage to the monumental in architectural spaces (your living room, hallway, or dining room, or office) you are (a) alienating others, and (b)  … ( … ) …


Artworks, whether craft, decoration, design, or art, need only fulfill their promise. This is why student and amature art fails. In order to fulfill the minimum promise the work must not make false promise. We can appreciate good craft, decoration, design, and art. We can appreciate all the arts by the same criteria: craft, decoration, design, and art.

Japanese ritualistic behavior in food preparation, cooking carpentry, and the crafts is the best example of institutionalized excellence. Italian design has never been equalled. Gothic architecture never equalled. German music never equalled. Russian literature never equalled.

—“Are you saying there is a formula to produce beautiful architecture, paintings, movies, music, statues etc”–Carl Persson

A formula is via positiva.
Science is via negativa.
So Reverse that.
Knowledge is not closed.
Language is not closed.
Symbolism is not closed.
We can know bad art.
We must discover good art.




[W]e restate religion as the demand for mindfulness, and then analyze how the different civilizations have used different methods and different ‘religions’ to provide that mindfulness – with emphasis on the external and long term consequences of the means of providing ‘opiates to the masses’.

Our conclusion is that a more modern version of Stoicism, Reformed Education, Reformed ‘Worship’ consisting of Ancestors and Heroes, Nature and the Universe, and the development of agency to produce the Transcendence of Man into the gods we imagine  will serve the function optimally.

Religion was, and remains, the ‘hard problem’ of social science simply because it functions by precognitive training and is understood  pre-cognitively (felt) rather than thought. And as such it is difficult for us to discuss with any degree of reason, despite the fact that it is as understandable as the need for math, money, maps, and law.

The Constitution of Religion
(tying it all together)(blow your mind) (core)

Religion provides us with personal, social, and political rituals to train us to into mindfulness(tolerance), forgiveness, and cooperation at increasing scales. It serves as the institutionalization of harmony so that We Can Tolerate Anonymity, Lack of Reinforcement, Expansion of Hierarchy, Loss of Agency, in Markets, in The Division of Labor in Exchange for the Dramatic Lowering of Costs From That Division of Labor.

If you understand this then you will understand the purpose of religion, where it evolved, and when and why it evolved, and how and why a religion or any given aspect of a religion succeeds or is good, or fails or is bad. Religion trains the intuition, reason trains us in understanding, negotiation and planning, and skills train us in production in that division of sensation, perception, cognition, memory, advocacy, negotiation, and labor.

With Religion we scale the hunt. Which in turn consists of the phases of the prey drive. Which is the eternal cycle of our lives. To search, to hunt or gather, to come together, to feast, to celebrate, to reproduce, to rest, to care, to want or need, and to begin again. Religion is a celebration of the cycle of life from the reptilian, mamilial, and human brain. We can never fully leave the animal behind, we can only satisfy it’s needs so that we can be human and take advantage of the returns on the division of labor.

Where worship means demonstration of appreciation for inheritance: debt.
– Nature worship (debt)
– Kin and Ancestor worship (debt)
– Gods, demigods, heroes and saints worship (debt)

And training in mindfulness:
– Action: heroism – achievement – contribution and competition (cost)
– Reason: stoicism – self authoring – tolerance and cooperation (cost)
– Experience: epicureanism – peace and security (cost)

And the Ritual of the Feast – building community.
– The Gathering, The Fire, The Call (reward)
– The Parable, The Oath, the Testimony (reward)
– The Sacrifice, The Feast, The Thanks (reward)
– The Celebration (festival), The Sport (competition), The Dispersal ( sex, rest, care) (reward)

And there are three sets of laws evident in the structure of the universe whether those laws were made by structural consequence, the design of divinity, or the hand of god.
– The laws of nature. (physical limits)
– The natural law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity (personal limits), with the christian via positiva law of love improving upon the via negativa natural law.
– The evolutionary law of transcendence of man into gods. (political limits)

This constitutes the law of religion.


Everything You Need to Understand About Religion in Less Than 1500 Words.

Religion is a Poor Substitute for the Hunt – But A Necessary One.

The Strategies of the Abrahamic Monotheistic Religions

Truth is The Most Intolerant Religion of All

What is The Basis of Civilization?

. . .


Revolution and Reformation

DE-DISCRETIONISM (restoration of rule of law/courts)

( … ) ( undone )


( … )

( .. ) definition of alienation, prevention ofalienation, illegality of propsing alienation.

( … ) (restoration of universal standing in matters of the commons) (undone)


( … ) (power via the state)

( … ) ( restoration of the jury )


( … )

DE-PROPAGADISM (copyright / testimony)

[P]ropaganda is intentionally defective product, produced for the purpose of obtaining power, delivered with intent to persuade by deception, using rhetorical devices including: conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw-men, outright lying, and dependent upon repetition as a means of creating confirmatory “evidence”, to produce an intuitive rather than rational response.

The traditional, consensus argument has been that we are all smart enough to dismiss propaganda, to learn to distrust arguments, but history says that this isn’t true. Instead, we seek to confirm our moral biases. Not only because it is in our reproductive interest, because those biases reflect our reproductive interests, but because we have invested so heavily in our biases that the cost of training our intuition – intuition that we rely upon to decrease the burden of reasoning – is simply too high. In the kaleidic universe, without prejudices (biases) decisions are not decidable. We MUST rely upon intuition – we have no other choice.

The various pseudoscientific and rationalist movements, from Marxist ‘scientific socialism’, to Freudian Psychology, to Keynesian economics, the Anthropology of Franz Boas, to the outright fabrications of the Frankfurt School, to the postmodern philosophers, to American Feminism, to today’s political correctness – all relied, and continue to rely upon, deception by the use of conflation, loading, framing, overloading, obscurantism, straw man, outright lying and cumulate in the use of Critique: confirmation based straw men as vehicles for criticism of opposing propositions, heaping of undue praise, piling-on of opponents with false arguments, and repeated chanting of falsehoods through the media.

These groups all make use of constant repetition of false statements consisting of various uses of conflation, loading, framing, obscurantism, straw men, and Marxist ‘Critique’ to stimulate our intuitions, and generate confirmation bias, via normative awareness, rather than rational persuasion by truthful means.

In other words, its a very complex and innovative form of deception using suggestion, in order to confirm our moral cognitive biases, rather than education and persuasion by reason. It is an organized, intentional, systematic war against truth, reason, and science and morality for the purpose of establishing control of our thoughts, actions, and resources, and to justify theft from us, consumption of our historic commons.

We call this war by various names: the counter-enlightenment, the postmodern movement, socialism, Marxist critique, pseudoscience. But these names give neutral moral judgment on what is an objectively immoral activity: deception for the purpose of control, theft, and virtual servitude. The truthful, rational, scientific name for these movements is ‘deception’.

The Media (undone) ( … )

The Academy (undone) ( … )

The Arts (undone) ( … )

Advertising and Marketing (undone) ( … )

Religion (undone) ( … )


[D]efinancialization of the Financial System. There is no reason we pay interest on consumer loans (and every reason we pay it on business and industrial loans).

By nationalizing Mastercard, and issuing one every LEGAL AND FULLY INTEGRATED citizen, we can distribute liquidity (increase the money supply) by direct redistribution to the citizenry (in which case our homes would all be paid for because of the last recession), and consumer loans can be provided directly from the treasury.

Furthermore, by professionalizing ‘banking’ (basically requiring series 7 for issuing loans via the treasury, and licensing as we do CPA’s), we can eliminate consumer interest, and cut payment periods in half or to one third. Additionally we make universities carry the zero interest loans on behalf of any student, and to obtain payment as a payroll deduction over a period of no more than ten years.

This combination will mean that after about 15 years, the first time home owner will own his home free and clear, and the universities will no longer be able to offer junk degrees. I won’t go into the various extraordinary (wonderful) other consequences but this will restore the american people’s way of life and destroy the predatory financial, academic, and government sectors. There will be no other way to profit than the Silicon Valley (monarchy) model of investment in research, development, and industry.

Financialism will be destroyed forever.


( … ) ( undone )


( … ) ( undone )

. . .

A New Constitution

A New Constitution of Natural Law

[A] constitution of natural law that completes the anglo law tradition and the Jeffersonian/Adams experiment by providing means of constructing and preserving natural law and market government.


The Second American Constitution (Many Parts)

The Course and Conduct of A Revolution
To Restore the Constitution


(undone) ( … )
[W]e will save strategy and tactics for when events demand them.

. . .

. . .

Was this page helpful?

Leave a Reply

. . .