Having watched Matty’s interview, done a revision of Propertarianism, and spent time in thought and reflection, I can say with honesty that I am ultimately willing to change my mind because I am not married to my opinions. But I still wrestle against my initial impression: What’s the point? Propertarian logic may conform to some of my ideals but I am not going to accept it wholesale just because it ‘sounds’ like it will benefit me in a few ways. Even after more inspection of the issue, I am really not satisfied with it, and here is why: What I dislike is that it does not leave much of a mark as it is a restatement of what everyone already knows, and if they do not know it, they never will care enough to learn about it. Let me reframe that so you may better understand: I am not given any new ideas by it. It’s pointless. The argument of many who disagree with me is that I am not supposed to be given new ideas by it, as that’s not the point. Ok, so it’s a convolution of language, like I’ve already stated, but I’ll get back to that. Consider: 10% of the population is all it takes to change the fortune of the whole. Do you want to be part of a hand-wringing vanguard of lawyers?
I stand by my initial thesis: What is the point of it – to police a post-crisis, newly formed society? Is that it? Note that I never once made a claim that anything within Propertarianism’s milieu was false, merely that it is redundant. I am sure there are arguments to defend everything and it’s very watertight. I maintain that the cords will take a few centuries to come loose, because all of them do. Mathematics took thousands of years to consider numbers below zero anything other than absurd, but people still understood what debt was without them. Even Newton’s theory of gravity was found to be lacking. Surely, I dislike Propertarianism’s more supercilious proponents, many of them act like domesticated monkeys gladly gulping down their ration from on high claiming to be enlightened, meanwhile us simple free men wishing only to water at the mountain streams like their forefathers look on in confusion. So what if these revenants of intellectualism can justify their feed? They still look like servile cultists, “Master told me that water is better absorbed by the body when drunk at room temperature, precisely 23 degrees, because blah blah blah” I DO NOT CARE, I drink cold mountain water, because it works. And if uncertainty arises? “We must wait for master to give us more wisdom and instruction.” I acknowledge that this is a stupid analogy but it serves its purpose. If you violate the law to my detriment I will not quote the law at you to make you stop. That doesn’t work on anyone. So who’s it for?
Recall the main thrust of Propertarianism, the purpose of which is thus: “we all know we must state natural law, but let’s do so in a system-perfect manner”. Who is supposed to be affected by this? I can state natural law in a manner understandable by ordinary people, that they will then accept or reject, or I can put it into a language that only lawyers and mathematicians will understand. So who cares if it’s written in perfect legal language if the only people who accept it are all on the same side anyway? The ancient Romans knew that one must speak in rhetoric to assuage the masses. Oftentimes the masses do not know what is best for them and must be persuaded, which means lying. Read Cicero and Machiavelli for a proper philosophical and moral discussion of this. As much as I dislike that, it is a fact, and under Propertarianism that would indeed be legally suspect, and you would probably need a lawyer to look over your speech before you give it. That’s not a society I want to live in. That sounds petty and, frankly, extremely gay (score 1 to Matty there, I definitely have an aesthetic distate for the whole thing). If I am acting in the interest of my people and some petulant little lawyer pipes up and says “A-ha! You’re lying! That’s not a P-conformative statement!” I will not argue with him, I will ignore him. What a worm! What a vile serpent! Do not try to tell me that nobody will ever do this, because they have and they will continue to do so under different guises throughout the centuries to come. Onerous fuckwits always exist, always ready to quote the law and shut others down. Observe the Pharisees in the Gospels for examples. Sadly in some ways we need them to exist because they represent an expression of genetic diversity.
My initial thesis is correct, Propertarianism won’t save you. In fact, it won’t really do anything until the saving’s been done by someone else. It is Ron Paul strategy versus the Donald Trump strategy. One plays a polite, noble game of politics by the book, and the other wins. I don’t even need to say more than that because it is so painfully obvious which strategy wins. In the doing, I will not appeal to a thoughtmachine to police the actions of myself or my family, for my opponents will not respect it. So really that’s what it is, it’s a system of policing a people who have already proven they only need the minimal amount of policing! Perhaps the only real change in opinion I’ve had is that Curt Doolittle seems like a nice fellow, perhaps he is not a charlatan and he means well. But you know what Propertarianism will be in its final form? A piece of paper. When the language is forgotten, the reality it tries to reframe will still exist – the question really lies in the result of a cost-benefit analysis that you, the reader, must make for yourself. And no, I don’t need to refute something according to its own tenets, that’s a losing game – imagine saying you could only refute flat earthers by fully understanding flat eartherism. Nobody respects the internet skeptic who dedicates hours to talking down every point of such an argument, and that is why I make this my last post on Propertarianism. Others can defend or attack it from now on and that’s their right, I will make sure to read with an open mind. But I am done discussing it, because I don’t gain anything from it whether it exists or not.
ADDENDUM: I actually wrote this not long after finishing my first article, because I knew what the response would be, but unfortunately I found it barely needed to be altered at all. I suppose I expected more, but my point is not to argue with people who are already convinced of Propertarianism’s perfection.
So how can I summarise this better for those who are yet to decide?
1. Propertarianism is at most a thought system, it is at least a linguistic convolution, and one might even quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “ideology” to call it “a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture” or “visionary theorizing” as Matty so kindly linked us to in his article. I acknowledge, as I always have, that it is internally consistent, at least in its current form. But it is a knot, and like all knots it will come apart by time or by force.
2. I am not going to doxx myself by putting up a list of my details and achievements. That is totally out of touch with the reality of our current political climate. In nationalist circles it is highly suspect when somebody does this, and when they go further and suggest you do the same it’s usually cause to exclude them. I have no reason to believe Curt or Matty are feds trying to honeypot us, but the alternative isn’t that bright either. Curt’s put his info out there, he’s a self-made millionaire, but with all that money he’s not become the right’s George Soros nor does he seem to have spearheaded any helpful infrastructure or institutions. He sits around writing about and pushing Propertarianism. That is a pretty good qualifier to be a do-nothing, but perhaps that was a cruel way of putting it.
3. What’s my alternative? I already posited one in the first article. One doesn’t need to be a chef to know that the milk smells off. But I suppose a more rigorous alternative is demanded nevertheless; that’s fair, but we haven’t even begun to reclaim the West. In reality, how can we posit an alternative system of rule right now that isn’t itself a fantasy? We are then caught up arguing over fiddles while Rome burns. Looking ahead to strategise is sensible, but committing ourselves to a system of law and governance before the hard work is even begun is folly, because the battle has not yet played out and we don’t have all the information necessary to make such decisions. This is why I will not write more on this subject; I believe our energy is better spent elsewhere right now.
4. Christianity is to follow Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It can survive criticism, it can even outlast heretics and subverters. Can Propertarianism say the same? This line about my first article really sums up the answer to that: “It is full of GSRRM, false promise, and lies by omission; thus, Propertarianism finds it is a violation of reciprocity.” I have written an honest and well-received article (and now this second one) criticising this system, its progenitor, and its proponents. If we had this constitution, I would probably be prosecuted merely for criticism and ridicule, both valid and ancient parts of human discourse. With a Propertarian constitution, some greasy lawyer would be jumping at the opportunity to take me to court. Is that a society you want to live in?