EASTERN EUROPE AS GHETTO: PERMISSION NOT LIBERTY (from elsewhere) I like Tucker

EASTERN EUROPE AS GHETTO: PERMISSION NOT LIBERTY

(from elsewhere)

I like Tucker Personally. But (a) these guys are not exactly serious intellectuals – libertarians tend not to be. And (b) he is trying to find an income stream and that’s difficult in libertarianism other than selling complaints (not solutions). I have a hard time understanding why Lew moves so slowly when the science and the evidence (and my arguments) have pretty much eliminated the Cosmopolitan libertinism of the diasporic people being applied to land holding capital creating warrior aristocracy that DOES produce liberty.

I mean, I live here in Eastern Europe where their ideology comes from. And it’s just like the Icelandic or Wild West fallacies: you have freedom only because there are no near competitors AND your territory is ruled and owed by a major power that merely wants some tribute for defending it.

In most cases, government is lax in frontiers for the simple reason that they want you to bear all the costs of living there, and if you’re there it gives them moral authority to stop others from conquering and possessing the territory without a fight.

Eastern Europe was a ghetto. Just a very big, very poor one. A polish, a lithuanian, an austrian, and a russian ghetto. That’s all it ever was.

Ergo ghetto ethics only apply in the ghetto.

You might notice that the Crusoe’s Island arguments use the sea as the walls of the ghetto.

But in real life, in reality, ghettos exist by permission. Ergo. One does not have liberty in a ghetto one merely has permission. Crusoe lives at the will of the sea just as ghettos live at the will of the ruling state.

ROTHBARDIANISM IS DEAD

There is only one source of liberty: the point of a knife, the tip of a spear, the shaft of an arrow, the barrel of a rifle, the shells of a gun, the velocity of a bomb.

Liberty is constructed through violence and violence alone. All else is but permission.