http://www.traditionalbritain.org/content/role-heredity-politics
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-28 05:48:00 UTC
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
DEFINING THICK HUMANITARIAN, ARISTOCRATIC SCIENTIFIC, AND THIN PARASITIC LIBERTA
DEFINING THICK HUMANITARIAN, ARISTOCRATIC SCIENTIFIC, AND THIN PARASITIC LIBERTARIANISM AS A SPECTRUM.
“Thick and Luxurious , Scientific and Sufficient, and Thin and insufficient.”
I haven’t really spent much time attacking the BHL/Humanitarian/Left libertarians because their arguments are moral, emotional, and aspirational, but not rational, propertarian, and empirical. There really isn’t anything substantive to attack other than their lack of rational, propertarian, and empirical arguments in favor of their moral intuitions. I can’t attack sentiments. Right now, they are simply saying that luxuries are nice to have. They say nothing about how to select when we may or may not have them without creating negative externalities.
I’m actually kind of impressed at how well Tucker is framing his argument. I originally found it weak but he’s honed it a bit and it’s getting there. Like all the left libertarians, he has no rational, propertarian, or empirical argument. But he, like most left libertarians, does have a criticism of ‘brutalists’ as ‘insufficient’. Now, he doesn’t say ‘insufficient for what’. But I agree with the left libertarians that rothbardian ghetto ethics are insufficient. I just argue that they are insufficient for the formation of a polity reliant upon the common law for dispute resolution in the absence of a state. ANd moreover, that sufficiency for formation of such a polity is less than the luxuries that left libertarians demand.
This is the key difference between rothbardians, my ‘middle ground’, and the BHL left libertarianism. That is, that there are necessary and sufficient institutions for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state. But that BHL is advocating luxuries that are not necessary. As such, one can only institutionalize formally, in the common law, that which is both necessary and sufficient. But BHL’s luxuries REQUIRE A GOVERNMENT, a body that negotiates contracts for the commons, bound by rules of ‘calculability, volition, and operationalism’ as well as the law.
And, now that I’ve attacked the rothbardian “Brutalist” position for six months as an antagonist, I’ve been able to produce pretty damning criticisms and solutions that the BHL’s have not.
So I can move away from critic and into solution provider. it’s time to start rolling out the positioning of the different libertarian arguments in Propertarian terms. :
1) Necessary and insufficient (Thin, Rothbardian – Ghetto Libertarianism – Brutalists)
2) Necessary and sufficient (Scientific, Aristocratic Liberty – Aristocratic Egalitarians – Propertarians.)
3) Necessary, sufficient, and preferential. (Thick, Left/Classical Liberalism – BHL’s – Humanitarians.)
It took me a lot longer to synthesize the argument than I thought it would. It’s really only been in the past month that I’ve understood how to really unite the movement with an analytical argument that’s practicable (implementable).
1) “Thin” Rothbardianism may be necessary but it’s insufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity.
2) Aristocratic egalitarianism is both necessary and sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity under the rule of law. I say nothing about preferences. Only about that which is necessary for the formation of a polity in the absence of the state.
3) “Thick” Humanitarian Libertarianism is a preference for luxuries that require a government if not a state – and some formal argument to constrain it from the classical liberal fallacies.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-28 04:51:00 UTC
-
NEW PRESIDENT HAS MANDATE WITH NEAR SUPERMAJORITY (Immoral Liber-tard arguments
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukrainians-abroad-show-preference-for-poroshenko-with-6231-percent-of-votes-349642.htmlUKRAINE’S NEW PRESIDENT HAS MANDATE WITH NEAR SUPERMAJORITY
(Immoral Liber-tard arguments to the contrary.)
American presidents are lucky to win by 4%.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-27 08:32:00 UTC
-
A Journal Of Aristocratic Government – Of Voluntary Exchanges
A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT [W]e learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art. I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming. But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people. The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia. As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums. [S]o what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.) However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies. However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine
-
A Journal Of Aristocratic Government – Of Voluntary Exchanges
A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT [W]e learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art. I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming. But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people. The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia. As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums. [S]o what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.) However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies. However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine
-
THAT PUTIN REALIZES HE’S WHITE, MAYBE HE CAN START ACTING LIKE IT. (Asia for Asi
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21602695-vladimir-putin-pivots-eastward-should-america-be-worried-best-frenemiesNOW THAT PUTIN REALIZES HE’S WHITE, MAYBE HE CAN START ACTING LIKE IT.
(Asia for Asians. India for Indians. Africa for Africans. Europa for Europeans. And the deserts for muslims. Sorry Vald. You have bad, egoistic, ignorant, advisors. You don’t get to play both sides when you have 140M people and 11 time zones to defend, and the Chinese Empire is on your doorstep.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-26 07:06:00 UTC
-
A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT We learned art criticism in college. We lea
A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT
We learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art.
I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming.
But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people.
The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia.
As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums.
So what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.)
However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies.
However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies.
Liberty in our lifetimes.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-26 05:33:00 UTC
-
A MONTH OF BRIBES: UKRAINE So we paid a bribe friday to a policeman. Saturday to
A MONTH OF BRIBES: UKRAINE
So we paid a bribe friday to a policeman. Saturday to a policeman. Today to an immigration officer. And a month ago to a customs officer. The policemen were men. The other two were women. The women cost $400 each and the policemen $20 each. To arrange the bribes took another $400.
Mind you. In immigration, we bribed people to simply do their jobs. In the other cases we bribed them to do their jobs rationally. But none of these bribes are to evade crime. They are bribes to minimize corruption.
If the common law and universal standing were in place, we could sue these people. But there is no rule of law in Ukraine or russia.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-26 04:37:00 UTC
-
Aristocractic Government : A Conference and a Journal
A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT [W]e learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art. I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming. But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people. The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia. As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums. [S]o what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.) However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies. However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine
-
Aristocractic Government : A Conference and a Journal
A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT [W]e learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art. I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming. But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people. The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia. As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums. [S]o what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.) However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies. However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine