Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

Regarding: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/david-hathaway/are-you-talking-to-a-agent-provocateur/ ( I Thought about this for a day before commenting, and I won’t tear the author of the post apart for his use of technique of Marxist Critique, despite it being a classic example of the method. Libertarians spent too much time with marxists and not enough time with scientists.) [I] am trying to reform libertine, rothbardian ‘ghetto’ libertarianism for the good of liberty seekers everywhere, and am absolutely, by deliberate choice, using provocation. There is no other means of attacking dogma than to force dogmatists to defend against it by direct confrontation. (Marxist Critiques or no) 1) Thick / Humanist / Psychological / Left libertarianism is a luxury good, and it is neither scientifically or rationally formulated, remaining true to the psychological tradition of classical liberalism. We CAN form a polity under Thick libertarianism, as long as luxuries are voluntarily constructed, requiring voluntary participation, rather than mandated. 2) Aristocratic Egalitarian / Scientific libertarianism is necessary and sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state. It is both rationally and scientifically formulated. We CAN form a polity under aristocratic egalitarianism. 3) Thin / Ghetto / libertine / Brutalist libertarianism is necessary but INSUFFICIENT for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state. It is rationally but not scientifically formulated. And furthermore, would be the target of conquest and oppression by all nearby polities. We CANNOT form a polity under rothbardian, ghetto, libertinism. So this particular provocateur is doing his moral duty in the pursuit of a state of liberty. I do not care whether we choose luxuries or not. But we have no option to choose a libertine / Ghetto / Thin polity. It is irrational to construct one on transaction costs alone. It is unsurvivable given external hostility to all groups who have demonstrated ghetto ethics: (Gypsies and pre-modern Jews the most common examples). Cheers. An admitted Provocateur. PS: The revolution in Ukraine would not have been possible if it were not for the risks taken by the Right Sector. Most people (like rothbardians) are free riders. They won’t participate until there isn’t any risk.

Regarding: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/david-hathaway/are-you-talking-to-a-agent-provocateur/ ( I Thought about this for a day before commenting, and I won’t tear the author of the post apart for his use of technique of Marxist Critique, despite it being a classic example of the method. Libertarians spent too much time with marxists and not enough time with scientists.) [I] am trying to reform libertine, rothbardian ‘ghetto’ libertarianism for the good of liberty seekers everywhere, and am absolutely, by deliberate choice, using provocation. There is no other means of attacking dogma than to force dogmatists to defend against it by direct confrontation. (Marxist Critiques or no) 1) Thick / Humanist / Psychological / Left libertarianism is a luxury good, and it is neither scientifically or rationally formulated, remaining true to the psychological tradition of classical liberalism. We CAN form a polity under Thick libertarianism, as long as luxuries are voluntarily constructed, requiring voluntary participation, rather than mandated. 2) Aristocratic Egalitarian / Scientific libertarianism is necessary and sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state. It is both rationally and scientifically formulated. We CAN form a polity under aristocratic egalitarianism. 3) Thin / Ghetto / libertine / Brutalist libertarianism is necessary but INSUFFICIENT for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state. It is rationally but not scientifically formulated. And furthermore, would be the target of conquest and oppression by all nearby polities. We CANNOT form a polity under rothbardian, ghetto, libertinism. So this particular provocateur is doing his moral duty in the pursuit of a state of liberty. I do not care whether we choose luxuries or not. But we have no option to choose a libertine / Ghetto / Thin polity. It is irrational to construct one on transaction costs alone. It is unsurvivable given external hostility to all groups who have demonstrated ghetto ethics: (Gypsies and pre-modern Jews the most common examples). Cheers. An admitted Provocateur. PS: The revolution in Ukraine would not have been possible if it were not for the risks taken by the Right Sector. Most people (like rothbardians) are free riders. They won’t participate until there isn’t any risk.