THE END OF LIBERTARIANISM AS AN INTELLECTUALLY HONEST AND VIABLE MOVEMENT – PERI

THE END OF LIBERTARIANISM AS AN INTELLECTUALLY HONEST AND VIABLE MOVEMENT – PERIOD

(Note: ongoing debate with Rik Storey, who is working very hard and I assume honestly to defend the possibility of libertarianism or a libertarian or anarchic order.)

I am assuming that you’re clueless or frustrated rather than dishonest so I’ll go thru it again.

1) I move posts to my main feed to (a) insure they cannot be deleted, (b) insure I do not ‘lose’ them in the comments when posting to my web site for future reference, and (c) to increase the number of viewers for the purpose of education of those viewers.

I have practiced this workflow for years. I have confidence in my arguments so I do not hide them, and I often wonder why people are afraid of exposure. After all, I admitted that you were right about the cause I proposed for libertarian moral intuitions, and I said so, and then given your criticism, I proposed an alternative that I think is even more logical. So I admit my errors with intellectually honest opponents.

2) I DID rebut your rebuttal by saying ‘Ok, let’s assume autism is an exaggerated masculine brain development but that because it lacks loyalty and hierarchy and possibly purity(Idea) that it is just – as I argued – an underdevelopment, as is all pedomorphic evolution.’

One could argue that such paedomorphic development is an evolutionary attempt at continued pedomorphism, but that it’s a failure since there is no method of survival except by parasitism (free riding.) In other words, forced adoption of the feminine strategy given insufficient masculine alliances (loyalty/hierarchy).

(Note that the purity(idea) and disgust(aesthetic) are each masculine and feminine biases to the openness trait. So I am not sure I am conceding the disgust argument, it’s just unnecessary.)

3) I DID rebut your claims of northern european examples for a number of reasons – although I do admit I left deduction to the audience when I should have laid out the table for the audience:

(a) borderlands are the only possible conditions under which any form of anarchism can survive

(b) anarchism unsustainable against ‘state’ (larger) neighbors.

(c) even german princedoms were a ‘protectorate’ that the church and france and italy agreed upon in order to preserve a wall against the east, or they would not have survived.

(d) there exist no remaining borderlands that serve as a discounted homesteading operation on behalf of regional nations or empires.

(e) there exist no incentives by which to produce such a polity in the current order, nor can one survive competition in the current order, except by specialization in warfare using either a universal militia (cheapest possible military) and low taxation, or a specialized warrior caste (monarchy/nobility) and high taxation.

(f) To construct a survivable polity today requires the production of commons (multipliers).

(g) To produce multipliers requires empirical not voluntary or preferential production of commons.

(h) That empirical commons do not require democracy only calculation of that which is necessary to survive competition for territory, polities, institutions,

(i) That as competition between polities increases into increasing niches the abstractness of property will continue, just as it has from life to property, from property, to commons, from commons to institutional interests, and now from institutional interests to informational interests.

(j) That a polity does can only choose a strategy that will allow it to survive competition, and as such while sovereignty, rule of law, natural law, universal standing, may serve as the basis for a social order, the production of commons necessary to compete in the market for polities wherein we POSSESS the choice, is determined by competitors in our market (earth), not our choice. So that we choose fascism (generalship), Republicanism (expansion), Classical Liberalism (optimization), and social democracy (hyper-consumption) based upon the competitive needs of the polity.

(k) that the middle class expansion under the formation of what evolved into the Hansa was possible precisely because (as I stated) that it was so costly to unite territories (produce Merovingian or Frankish homogeneity of law) on the european plain because it was simply too costly to transit, defend, and rule them. Which is why manorialism persisted after the fall of roman order, since it was the only way by which territories could be defended given the limited productivity of the land and the high cost of transportation across it. And the difficulty for rome was that unlike the mediterranean where one only has to protect ships, sea lanes, ports, and markets (Marines), but shipment was cheap (boats), because seas are harder to access and cheaper to defend than is land. But when rome tried to create a land empire she had to carry the burden the inverse: easy access to land by predators but high cost of policing against the high cost of land transport.

CLOSING

So, I *DID* refute your arguments: but you either willfully or naturally didn’t grasp them in the level of detail I provided for you (which I will accept is my fault).

(a) as far as I know, while sovereignty is an evolutionary accelerator, libertarianism like homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end.

(b) as far as I know the only ‘liberty’ that ever existed were at the permission of sovereigns, not the choice of ‘libertarians’.

(c) as far as I know a libertarian polity is not and cannot form, persist, compete because of the combination of insufficient incentives, insufficient suppression of parasitism, and insufficient ability to compete for territorial and institutional monopoly.

And as far as I know the matter is closed.

Although I suspect it will take a few more years before the die hards are de-programmed from the marxist-libertarian (jewish separatist) propaganda put into place by french anarchists, jewish anarchists, mises failed attempt, and rothbard’s failed attempt, and Hoppe’s incomplete attempt to preserve the fallacies through various forms of pilpul (overloading the frail minds of high trust peoples.)

If you still have any possible method of refuting the argument please try since you DO try, and it is through good attempts at trying, my argument improves in clarity, and we educate the well intentioned fools who think their choice of institutions that through ‘sovereignty’ in fact for the warriors class, will produce some semblance of ‘liberty’ for the tax payers in the merchant classes, and freedom for the tax payers in the working classes, and the occasional insurance for the kin of sovereign, libertarian, freeman, and our dependents.

The only source of liberty is sovereignty. We can successfully argue that liberty does not exist, except as permission from sovereigns. And any attempt to undermine the sovereigns is in fact (as I argue) simply either pubescent free riding, or adult traitorship.

And that as I remind people daily, we all negotiate on behalf of our reproductive strategies without cognition that we do so. And as such we negotiate for dead end reproductive strategies (homosexuality, and libertarianism) or destructive underclass strategies (feminine, socialism, communism), and we negotiate for them either with deflationary truth(aristocracy-pagan), half truth(bourgeoise-christian), or fictionalism(priesthood/public-intellectual/socialist-jewish).

And these are simply statements that are derived from the structure of arguments. We cannot escape our genes(reproductive strategy), class(truth content), or culture(method of argument).

Sovereignty truth, bourgeois half-truth, and priestly lies (fictionalism).

It is what it is man. Sorry. But I killed libertarianism forever. There is only sovereignty – and ‘liberty’ by purchase or permission (grace). Just as one possesses freedom, serfdom, or slavery by the choice of those more sovereign.

– Curt Doolittle