Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

MORE ON VINDICATING THE BORDERLAND ARGUMENT

Well you’re just redefining libertarianism to suit yourself, without first eradicating abrahamic, rothbardian, libertarianism.

Why do you throw this nonsense around?

Free imperial cities were given special privilege to report directly to the empire rather than the local prince/whatever.

That’s all it meant. Escaping REGIONAL law, so that one was subject only to IMPERIAL(National) law. Why was this useful? Well, princes could not defend cities alone, cities COULD defend themselves, and the tax revenue was better collected by the central government.

Now I could go into WHY all these things are natural occurrences of the geography and rates of production, but I doubt that’s necessary.

In other words, europe was under constant settlement and resettlement after the romans destroyed celtic civilization and opened the land for germanic invasion from the north. but after the fall of rome we ended up with nothing constant raids by muslims in the south, and nothing but a borderland in the north, and the process of accumulating production, capital, trade, markets, evolved until three events: the The Hansa, the HRE, and their interruption by the Atlantic Trade. Then their restoration as what we see as ww1/2, and the defeat of the germanic civilization by the jewish/russian and christian/anglo

There are no borderlands. Those who desire liberty or sovereignty are vastly outnumbered, just as our warrior ancestors were outnumbered versus the much more developed and populous east.

How can you create a condition of liberty except thru sovereignty? And how can you create a condition of sovereignty in fact? You cannot do it without the multipliers of high trust commons. You cannot do it without some scale – by federation sure – but scale. You cannot do it without maintaining a population base larger than those who desire liberty and sovereignty. It’s not possible.

Ergo, the only way I can find to create a condition of liberty for those who are not in fact sovereign, despite our small numbers, is to TAKE territory, and HOLD it. And produce PRODUCTION that makes it possible to hold it.

Hunter gathering died. Farming has died. We are in an era of markets. The first market is the polity. And polities are like any business they must survive competition. And they must survive competition by providing a product that is productive enough to stay alive.

Liberty exists by permission. Sovereignty exists in fact. Sovereignty is the product of VIOLENCE. Liberty is the product of LAW made possible by Sovereignty, and the mandate of the sovereigns under threat of VIOLENCE.

There can exist no liberty movement that is not subervient to an aristocracy movement. Women and jews and gypsies can just continue their low level parasitism under any ruler. But if you want liberty you must have a sovereign to obtain it from. If you choose to be that sovereign, then you choose to rule. And to rule you must possess the violence necessary to preserve that rule.