The Mises Institute would survive if and only if it transforms from advocacy of the pseudoscientific Ashkenazi enlightenment of Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Frankfurt, and Keynes, Mises and Rothbard, to the Scientific enlightenment of Hayek, Popper, Einstein, Darwin, Spencer, Pareto, Durkheim, and myself.
It is one thing to say “all these men failed, and each brought a piece of the puzzle to the intellectual table, but none was able to assemble it.”
it is another to say Mises and Rothbard were ‘Austrians” of the empirical enlightenment seeking to restate german ethics from rationalism to social science, rather Ukrainians/Russians/Poles of the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific enlightenment seeking to restate eastern European ethics in an evolution of Jewish law. ie: not science. It’s fairly clear that Mises didn’t even understand what the term meant.
Otherwise we must seek to constantly publish that their advocacy of libertinism and low trust ethics is merely an attempt to perpetuate the landless libertine ethics of eastern European borderlands, and European ghettos, as a competitor to the landed high trust aristocratic ethics of the martial peoples of Europe and their ancestors.
There is no libertine liberty of permission, nor can one possess a condition of liberty when one cannot retaliate for unproductive exchanges. The only existentially possible condition of liberty one can possess is that of the high trust produced by the universal, incremental, suppression of parasitism, and the limitation of man to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same.
There is room in the intellectual space for restoration of the Austrian program of empirical social science of non-interference (voluntaryism). We already have honest schools of discretionary economic rule (mainstream Keynesian), non-discretionary economic rule of law (Chicago), but we have lost school of the non-discretionary, non-interference, where were seek only to improve the information provided by institutions not alter it deceptively for any reason. There may, in fact, be room in economic science and political policy for each of these schools because they range from the short term (fiscal-discretionary) to the medium term (monetary0-rule of law), to the long-term (institutional non-interference). But without the existence of all three there exists insufficient intellectual competition for each to be limited to its boundaries.
Currently, our think tanks appear to follow the academic rule that thought only reforms with the death of its proponents. So we are stuck with romantic historicism of Heritage, the Moral Contractualism of Cato, the various smaller groups still hanging on economics rather than all of social science, and the Mises institute still dragging the limp body of failed eastern European libertinism into which they’ve overinvested their life’s works like the Ashkenazi enlightenment has dragged its peers on »»> ‘s chain: marxism/socialism and neoconservatism. All are nonsense that deny mankind’s demonstrated behaviors in an attempt – like its religious forbearer – to produce a psychic alternate reality that brings nothing but dark ages.
I am not an advocate of any institution, but of liberty itself. And the only existentially possible liberty is that where we use the promise of organized violence to prevent the alternatives. Because liberty is unnatural to man. It requires productivity that is hard, unforgiving, genetically bound, prone to risk, and entirely meritocratic.
That liberty is produced by a militia, a book of Natural Law, an independent judiciary treating the common natural law as sacred, and the total suppression of parasitism by every possible means, interpersonal, economic, and political.
Hayek was correct in that the common law of natural law and property is the source of liberty. Mises discovered operationalism in economics, at the inspiration of weber and spencer. Popper discovered that darwin;s survival applied to knowledge, and that Hum’s criticism of induction was correct. Rothbard discovered that all ethics, morality and law could be represented as property rights. Hoppe discovered that representatives (agents) cannot possess beneficial incentives, and further explained that all political institutions could be converted into constructions of property rights – providing universal decidability. Haidt discovered that we all vote our reproductive interests, and I discovered that these interests can also be expressed as property rights. My meager contribution has been to unite these thinkers, providing the Wilsonian synthesis, and to extend the division of labor into the division of perception and advocacy on behalf of our reproductive strategies.
This is the future of liberty. Truth and the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by the judical application and common law discovery of natural law: the law of property
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine