BUT CURT. CANT I HAVE POLY-LOGICAL LAW? DOESN’T LIBERTARIANISM HAVE SOME EXCUSE

BUT CURT. CANT I HAVE POLY-LOGICAL LAW? DOESN’T LIBERTARIANISM HAVE SOME EXCUSE TO SURVIVE? (NO)

I think that the decidability of sovereignty forces natural law, which in turn forces markets for rule (monarchy), and markets for commons (government), and markets for goods and services (economies), and markets for reproduction (marriage), and markets for consumption (voluntary exchange).

i think that if you have sovereignty then liberty and freedom and subsidy are possible, so long as you limit the scale of those who need subsidy to that which does not impeded competitive productivity among competing polities.

i think if you are stating a preference for poly logical law then that is no sovereignty, nor liberty, nor subside, but discretionary rule.

I think if you construct a polity out of contracts for exchanges within the limits of sovereign natural law, then you can do whatever you wish that allows you to survive competition with other polities for members — and for tolerating your existence.

I think that if you do not produce competitive commons than no such polity can create sovereignty, liberty, freedom and subsidy, and I think that no such polity can survive competition for people, and the record would indicate no such polity can survive tolerance from competitors because of the people that prefer such a polity (pirates and free riders), and I think that the only evidence of such polities is as outposts under strong empires who grant greater free riding in exchange for holding claims on the territory in the empire’s name, thereby giving excuse to that empire to war with others if they seek to obtain futures on the resources there.

As far as I know that set of paragraphs is the end of libertarianism except as cheap option-buying of resources by empires and states of sufficient military power to ensure them.

Just as I am sure that all Jewish colonies are merely options on using them as tax collectors, money changers, and loan sharks without subjecting the nobility to the risk of disapproval that is a necessary byproduct of taking advantage of consumers by means of interest.

There is no value in consumer interest on consumption. There is only value in interest on experiment that might lead to cheaper and more varied consumption.

That again, is an end to yet another mythos.