Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

At this point in my work, I feel that others’ efforts at going after Hoppe, Woods, and Molyneux is frustrating. To some degree the same for Tucker. First, you probably don’t understand Hoppe. Even if you do the only criticism are technical and beyond you. I am not always sure Hoppe understands Hoppe. Woods is a saint in every capacity both personal and public. Tucker is a pure soul who is unfortunately overly optimistic and perhaps too late for the last generation and too early for this one. Any criticism of Molyneux is due to be technical and out-shadowed by the vast good that he has done and continues to do. As far as I can tell these are all good christian men doing moral duty.

I care mostly that we don’t project pseudo-science or pseudo-morality. That we escape the misesian economic, rothbardian ethical, kantian rationalist fallacies. Other than that, moral advocacy of liberty is a good thing no matter how imperfectly it is done.

I would like us to understand that anarcho capitalism is as illogical and as impossible as communism – the incentives don’t work out. And and I would like to eliminate many other of the remaining absurdities of rothbardianism, such as competing legal systems rather than a single logical law of non-parasitism, and the sufficiency of the NAP under physical property.

On the conservative side thinkers generally are terrible. Even Kirk is a joke. He tries in english to do what the germans excel at: creating a secular christianity. Only Buchannan’s pretty much been right all along and he’s the only social scientist I’ve seen in conservatism.

Everyone else of note is in the sciences.

Myself, I write in the language of philosophy but for all intents and purposes I am writing the social scientific basis of law. (Which was about as far from my intentions as I can imagine.)

I would like us to unify the NEW RIGHT with the Classical Libertarian under rule of law. And what I do not wish to preserve is the jewish attempt to create a separate system inside our system (libertarianism) as we have universalizing their system (communism), an making the world safe for their system (neo-conservatism).

There is only one moral objective for western man: domestication of man and universe so that we produce an eden(paradise) of it. We do this by one act: the total suppression of involuntary transfer between men, and between man and nature. If we eliminate all involuntary transfers between men, and between man and nature, then all that will remain are voluntary transfers between man and nature, and that is what eden looks like.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine