Man – Organization – Sortition – Horizontal Class


For 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. )

(profound) (complete decidability) (objective morality) 

[S]ocial class refers a rough division of humans into a distribution by their reproductive value. There is a competition between the classes, as there is a competition between all living organisms – and there must be for evolution continue and the species to persist. The competition between the classes is dysgenic at the bottom and eugenic at the top. In other words, classes are the result of evolution in action. And the question of whether an action is eugenic or dysgenic provides us with complete moral decidability in the broadest possible ethical and moral questions facing mankind. There are no moral dilemmas.  There are no morally undecidable questions.

It’s just anti-monotheistic, anti-democratic, anti-dysgenic to say so.

But then, I don’t get to say nice things. My job is true things.

Or isn’t that the function of philosophy?

Propertarian Horizontal Class Theory


(a) Ignorance – none
(b) Awareness – speech
(c) Influence – speech
(d) Incentive – exchange
(e) Coercion – violence
(f) Enslavement – perpetual violence

Incentives are factors that motivate and influence the actions of individuals. Something that an influencer can use to provide a motive for a person to choose a particular course of action.

Organized cooperative activities in a social setting — such as cooperation for the purpose of economic production — depends upon each of the participants having some sort of incentive to behave in the required cooperative fashion.

Different societies (and even different organizations within the same society) vary considerably in the nature of the incentive systems upon which they characteristically rely to organize their common projects. — from Johnson (with edits)

Incentives may be classified according to a number of different schemes, but one of the more useful classifications subdivides incentives into three general types: MORAL INCENTIVES, COERCIVE INCENTIVES and REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVES.

A person has a COERCIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions.

A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation.

A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange.

All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives.

The Three Coercive Technologies.

Tool: Physical Coercion
Benefit: Avoidance Benefit
Strategic use: Rapid but expensive.
“Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.”

Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion
Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit
Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive.
“Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.”

3) EXCHANGE: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit –
Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources.

Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES.

Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling.

There are only three forms of power possible:

1) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals)


2) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges and Politicians)


3) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation).

It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.

Using Horizontal and Vertical Classes

—“Curt, I’d like to ask about your break down of class. It seems based on IQ and income level is that a correct assessment?”—

Um… well, I use genetic, social, occupational, and economic classes – even though they overlap a great deal as horizontal classes.

And I use the three specializations in means of coercion as vertical classes.

But since there is such a high correlation between genetic classes and all other horizontal classes, unless I say otherwise, I am generally referring to genetic classes.

And genetic class refers to a portfolio of fitnesses that include IQ as well as personality, morphology, and health.

So with that qualification, I think I would say that just as IQ a high predictor in life, it is not the only predictor. But for purpose of general argument it is as good a rule of thumb as any other.


Physics and Econometrics (applied mathematics) (ORGANIZATION OF ENTROPY)

Chemistry, Biology, Medicine,

computer science (language), electronic engineering ( fields ), mechanical engineering (power), public engineering (mass, scale and distance), structural engineering (forces of nature)

Law, Finance, Accounting,

Business and Marketing
Criminal Justice
Primary Education.

(best learned by doing)

(best learned by doing)

—“What defines the middle class according to you? I go by the British definition” — Dawid Wella

The common definition is:
—“the social group between the upper(not working) and working (laboring) classes, including professional and business workers and their families(managerial).”—

I would use:

***”People who calculate, organize, manage, production, distribution, and trade.”***

Because I think it is the best book yet available, I tend to use Paul Fussel’s book “Class”, and most people who read it are forever changed by it.

The British system, which is more economically descriptive, if expanded, would be superior to the American which is politically descriptive.

We have simply had ‘diversity’ longer, so we have ‘softer’ categories in order to eliminate the ‘uncomfortable’ truth that we’re racially stratified as well as occupationally stratified.

The British and American Class Models

British ???? – American Upper Out of Sight Class (the 80 major money families in the states)

British ???? – American Upper Class (live on money)
For example, our tech people are hardly classifiable as elites, other than perhaps the Gates’ who have made the transition from commercial to entirely humanitarian occupation.

British Elite – American Upper Middle Class
(in America, we refer to elites as people who have political power, not economic power, and who hold utopian visions of the future.)
Members of the elite class are the top 6% of British society with very high economic capital (particularly savings), high social capital, and very ‘highbrow’ cultural capital. Occupations such as chief executive officers, IT and telecommunications directors, marketing and sales directors; functional managers and directors, barristers and judges, financial managers, higher education teachers,[24] dentists, doctors and advertising and public relations directors were strongly represented.[25] However, those in the established and ‘acceptable’ professions, such as academia, law and medicine are more traditional upper middle class identifiers with IT and sales being the preserve of the economic if not social middle class.

British Established middle class – American Middle Class
Members of the established middle class, about 25% of British society, reported high economic capital, high status of mean social contacts, and both high highbrow and high emerging cultural capital. Well-represented occupations included electrical engineers, occupational therapists, midwives, environmental professionals, police officers, quality assurance and regulatory professionals, town planning officials, and special needs teaching professionals.[26]

British Technical middle class – American Lower Middle Class
The technical middle class, about 6% of British society, shows high economic capital, very high status of social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported, and moderate cultural capital. Occupations represented include medical radiographers, aircraft pilots, pharmacists, natural and social science professionals and physical scientists, and business, research, and administrative positions.[27]

British New affluent workers – American Upper Working Class
New affluent workers, about 15% of British society, show moderately good economic capital, relatively poor status of social contacts, though highly varied, and moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capital. Occupations include electricians and electrical fitters; postal workers; retail cashiers and checkout operatives; plumbers and heating and ventilation engineers; sales and retail assistants; housing officers; kitchen and catering assistants; quality assurance technicians.[27]

British Traditional working class – American Middle Working Class
The traditional working class, about 15% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but some housing assets, few social contacts, and low highbrow and emerging cultural capital. Typical occupations include electrical and electronics technicians; care workers; cleaners; van drivers; electricians; residential, day, and domiciliary care [27]

British Emergent service sector – American lower working class
The emergent service sector, about 19% of British society, shows relatively poor economic capital, but reasonable household income, moderate social contacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capital. Typical occupations include bar staff, chefs, nursing auxiliaries and assistants, assemblers and routine operatives, care workers, elementary storage occupations, customer service occupations, musicians.[27]

British Precariat – American upper proletarian class
The precariat, about 15% of British society, shows poor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterion. Typical occupations include cleaners, van drivers, care workers, carpenters and joiners, caretakers, leisure and travel service occupations, shopkeepers and proprietors, and retail cashiers.

British ???? – American Lower proletarian class
British ???? – American out-of-sight lower class.


However, in Propertarianism I do not create a single hierarchy, but three overlapping ‘cones’, where our upper classes specialize in one or more of the three methods of coercion:
1) The Priesthood: talk/gossip/rallying/shaming, Academy, Politics.
2) The Judiciary: violence, order, law, war
3) The Burghers: trade, enterpreneurship, finance, treasury.

The Four Middle Classes Criteria

1) Genetic Middle Class (reproductive, associative, economic value – ie: reproductively desirable)

2) Social Middle Class (bourgeoise manners, ethics, morals, traditions)

3) Occupational Middle Class (managerial or small business)

4) Economic Middle Class (free capital for consumption and signaling – ie: home-owner)

To some degree these overlap considerably. But there is quite a bit of rotation in and out of the middle, even if there very little rotation out of the upper middle (professional class), lots of rotation out of the lower upper class (financiers and politicals) and upper-class (families who maintain excellence over many generations).

So I use all four circles, and I tend to suggest that it’s all genetics, and it’s whether you succeed socially, occupationally, and economically that can change the appearance of what class you’re in.

American culture is still fairly favorable for anyone in the middle class to move up socially, economically, and occupationally, and by offspring, some small chance, if you marry well, genetically.

the middle class contains those people in the four middle class criteria, and divided by specialization into the people who persuade, people who trade, and people who defend limits.


–“If genetics dominates, then the persistence rate should be the same at the top and at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Moreover, endogamous social groups—groups whose members do not marry outside the group—will be completely persistent in their status, high or low. Groups that are on average high or low on the social scale will not succeed or fail socially because of any distinctive culture that they adopted. Instead their success or failure will be the result purely of their positive or negative selection from a larger population. The more distinctive they are now in social status, the smaller a share they will be of the descendants of their parent population.”–


–“Only if genetics is the main element in determining economic success, if nature trumps nurture, is there a built-in mechanism that explains the observed regression. That mechanism is the intermarriage of the children of rich and educated lineages with successful, upwardly mobile children of poor and uneducated lineages. Even though there is strong assortative mating—because this is based on the social phenotype created in part
by luck—those of higher-than-average innate talent tend to mate with those of lesser ability and regress to the mean. Similarly, those of lower-than-average innate talent tend to marry unlucky offspring of higher average innate talent.”–


1) First, it means the world is a much fairer place than we intuit. Innate talent, not inherited privilege, is the main source of economic success.

2) Second, it suggests that the large investment made by the upper classes in the care and raising of their children is of no avail in preventing long-run downward mobility: the wealthy Manhattan attorneys who hire coaches for their toddlers to ensure placement in elite kindergartens cannot prevent the eventual regression of their descendants to the mean.

3) Third, government interventions to increase social mobility are unlikely to have much impact unless they affect the rate of intermarriage between levels of the social hierarchy and between ethnic groups.

4) Fourth, emphasis on racial, ethnic, and religious differences allows persistent social strati?cation through the barriers they create to this intermarriage. In order for a society to increase social mobility over the long run, it must achieve the cultural homogeneity that maximizes intermarriage rates between social groups.

Justification. Dunning Kreuger. Envy. Reproductive Strategy. All guarantee that despite the fact his is true, it is in the lower majority’s interests to deny it. Unless we pay them well to have but one child, and punish them severely for having more. Personally I think that’s a pretty good deal. I’d have just one child if someone would pay me 10-20K a year for it, and would take it away if I had more.

I don’t advocate redistribution for the purpose of equality. I advocate it for the purpose of suppressing breeding, and paying people to assist in the construction of property rights and the commons that facilitates the voluntary organization of production.

Elite – Extremely desirable
Upper – Desirable throughout life.
Middle – Desirable through fertility,
Upper Lower – Desirable during peak fertility.
Lower – Desirable only as ‘settling’ (last resort)
Lowest – Undesirable

Class Liberties

So, as far as I know, you are always a slave as long as you are dependent upon other people’s efforts to survive.

1 – Undomesticated animal
2 – Slave (no rights)
3 – Serf (rights to some of the proceeds of labor)
4 – Employee/Freeman (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons) – Rule of Law
5 – Manager ( rights to property, rights to proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons, responsibility for the organization of others in their production )
6 – Investor (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons, responsibility to determine the utilization of scarce resources among various managers )
7 – Ruler (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons,responsibility to create some combination of voluntary or involuntary organizations of defense, production, distribution, and trade, that make investment, management, employment, serfdom, slavery possible.


—“Could you elaborate on the concept of different economies for different classes? Does this mean laws can be enforced differently on different classes?”—John Zebley

No it just means that the working and middle class and upper middle class market of voluntarily organized production does not account for the various commons produced by the people who make possible the voluntary organization of production (the market) by NOT engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – and paying a high cost of doing so. Nor does the middle class market account for the vast extractions performed by the upper and elite class market which appears almost entirely extractive, and of trivial if any value. The working and laboring classes and the underclass contribute mostly by consuming (creating demand), policing each other, policing the commons, and serving in various hazardous capacities. But this is costly for them. And if they have access to consumption but not access to production then the market is ‘failing’ to pay them for what the market needs of them: behaving in the interest of the market. The same is true for the upper and elite classes most of whom benefit from tax revenues of questionable if not negative value, and the financial classes who benefit from our archaic liquidity distribution system in which they actually provide zero if not negative value.(really).

SO that may be a lot to grasp. But the classical liberal economic system – as well as the keynesian and new keyensian, fails to account for externalities paid for by the underclasses, and rents privatized by the upper classes.

The point is not so much that we need markets, but that by cherry picking what we measure, we legitimize the positive externalities of the middle class market, but fail to compensate the lower class market, and unjustly compensate the upper class market.

So it’s not a matter of different law. It’s a matter of insufficiently accounting for the very different inputs and outputs of the different classes.

I mean the whole world knows the middle classes generate prosperity. That’s settled science. But that doesn’t mean the middle class market and profit and loss account for the full inputs and outputs that make the middle class economy possible.

Was this page helpful?

Leave a Reply

. . .