Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

wow. no one ever called us marxists before. lol Fascists, yes. Marxists no.

1) you will find that the OP is historically correct.

you are projecting your ideology into an historical statement.

while the law recognizes property, it also recognizes commons.

the expansion of private property as a right rather than as a privilege (Freemen vs Slaves) evolved as the OP suggests.

2) Pure jewish bullshit: that society self organizes into peaceful cooperation. When society self organizes into peaceful cooperation in an equilibrium with aggression in all forms: criminal, unethical, and immoral. And that the common law and religion both evolved for the single purpose of suppressing retaliation cycles by providing the neutrality of a third party insurer that proxied enforcement, as populations increased, and familial and tribal differences needed to be neutralized.

3) –“I wouldn’t require a large group”–

(a) you are irrelevant. Given that the high trust society is unique to west, and particularly to the north west (because of heavy crime enforcement, manorialism, earlier selection pressures), the evidence is that large enough groups cannot form reliably enough to suppress criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. In fact it appears that the participation of nearly the entire community is required. but without both law and specialized enforcement, no condition of subsidy, freedom, or liberty can be constructed (logically and empirically). (b)You cannot reliably self-report such a thing. If you hold the positions you do it’s implied you would be lest trustworthy in matters of risk, and more likely to free ride upon commons (which is really what you’re advocating, because that is what jewish libertinism advocates: separatism as a means of free riding upon the commons.)

4) —“sovereign group”—

This is a grammatical error you are nitpicking. But yes, a group of soverigns is possible while a sovereign group is logically impossible. However, this grammatical error aside the rest of the argument stands. A group of sovereigns in the west were responsible for the formation of polities that led to high trust polities.

5) –“hierarchies”–

Only a liar or a fool conflates the demonstrably universally existential hierarchy of classes and the individuals within classes with the rule of law (equality under the law). In all aspects of life: genetic, associative, reproductive (mating), productive (business), social, and political, these hierarchies are demonstrated without exception – and there is precious little rotation in and out of underclass, working class, and middle class, with most of the upper classes rotating in and out of the middle class as exceptions. Those families that maintain aristocracy over many generations do so through reproductive selection as a means of preservation of assets.

6) —“These are actions and not necessarily designated groups.”—

Now you are just moving from grammatical nits to outright lies. Coups are possible by police and military, and resistance to revolution and coup is not possible without the assistance of police and military. Ergo, police and military rule. They, and we, profit most from the promise of rapid and thorough action, without having to ever act.

7) —“violence”—

Violence in and of itself is a neutral asset. That asset can be put to moral or immoral ends. Just as wealth is a neutral asset. It can be put to moral or immoral ends. Just as knowledge is a neutral asset, it can be put to moral or immoral ends. For example, if we are successful in defending the informational commons just as we have been successful in the suppression of murder, harm, theft, fraud, and conspiracy, then we would greatly reduce the number of (stupid, immoral) bad ideas that are commonly propagated – like marxist socialism, straussian neoconservatism, and rothbardian libertinism.

The rest of your responses above is just more dishonesty. Which is what we expect from dishonest people. We know now that some groups are predisposed to lying the same way that women are predisposed to lying ‘in their way’, and for the same reason: they have, through group selection, inverted the reproductive strategies of the genders.

Cheers