THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON TO DESIRE POWER
That is, to prevent anyone else from using it. 🙂
Nuclear Family
Common Law
Property Rights
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-12 09:48:00 UTC
WHY THE RELIGION OF THE STATE: POSTMODERNISM?
Family structure + literacy + godlessness = political ideology
1) Family systems and agrarian systems
2) Modernization phases (literacy, industrialization, dechristianization, contraception)
3) Ideology (nationalism, socialism, religious conservatism)
-Emmanuel Todd (France)
The state suppresses christianity in order to replace it with postmodernism (state socialism). That is why it is OK to criticize christianity, and white people, but no one else. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-12 09:30:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/Did-liberalism-socialism-anarchism-and-post-colonialism-fail
https://www.quora.com/Did-liberalism-socialism-anarchism-and-post-colonialism-fail
Capitalism is necessary. That does not mean it is sufficient. And sufficient does not mean preferable. And preferences are not universal.
My political argument is that human beings are generous to kin. And that states must be small enough to function as kin even if kinship is merely cultural.
Redistribution without dicatorship requires multiple competing societies. Because in-group diversity of normative preference is a bad thing for any group. Because it causes people to restrict their domain of kinship trust.
I am against a redistributive society wherin we are forced into conflict oner norms rather than voluntarily join a society with the norms we prefer.
And a society i agree with i will sacrifice for. And kinship is the society we evolved to sacrifice for.
The only value of large states is cultural, economic and military conquest of those who differ both in and out if its boundaries.
Its Not complicated.
Small is good.
Family is good.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-07 11:34:00 UTC
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/08/libertarianism_3.htmlLIBERTARIANISM AS MORAL SPECIALIZATION.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-06 13:21:00 UTC
LIBERTY IS LIKE SEX. IT’S ALWAYS GOOD. SOME SEX IS BETTER THAN OTHER SEX, BUT IF ITS SEX IT’S GOOD. SAME GOES FOR LIBERTY.
(cross posted)
Hoppe’s argument is only accessible to X% of people. And that X% is very small. Molyneux’s argument is accessible to far more. Rand’s even more because its in novel form. Not everyone can climb all the way to ratio-scientific argument. And not everyone needs to. I’d argue that Molyneux tried and can’t. his book is … well, terrible. I can also argue as others have that there are plenty of holes in Hoppe’s criticism of others, if not holes in the brilliant solution he gave us. So anyone who advances liberty is good enough for me. If someone wants to argue that some statement is true or false then that’s a question for us to answer. And I’ll take all comers. And I’m pretty sure that there aren’t’ any I can’t defeat. But that’s different from saying that any argument in favor of liberty that also advances liberty (it isn’t so flawed that it produces negative results) is ‘good’.
There are arguments against liberty. Arguments for liberty that cause people to reject liberty. Arguments for liberty that are weak or flawed that cause people to desire liberty. Arguments that are strong that cause people to desire liberty.
And the natural differences in our intelligence and means of understanding require a diversity of arguments in favor of libertarianism, whether they are sentimental, analogical, moral, historical, empirical, and ratio-scientific. WIth the first item in that list requiring nothing but passion, and the last requiring mastery of multiple domains.
Liberty is like sex. It’s always good. Some sex is better than other sex. But if its sex it’s good. Same goes for liberty.
Voluntary exchange applying to sex as well. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 07:16:00 UTC
http://bloom.bg/15z0hMPTHANK YOU VLADIMIR
Even if was for purely domestic political reasons, It’s still a good thing.
Put the USA back in its box. So that the american government can give higher priority to citizens than the empire.
And perhaps, break into parts, rather than continue the tyranny.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-02 04:05:00 UTC
Call me an absolutist, but if you are a soldier you’re altogether different from a contractor.
We have ancient traditions for objecting to policy. You resign in protest. You bear the burden. And then you do or say whatever you want.
But if you stay in your post you are a spy, an agent, and by consequence a threat to all others you serve with, by virtue of nothing more than spreading distrust.
There is nothing unique about Manning. There have been thousands of him. What is rare is that he was not an officer and a gentleman, nor a man of honor to the men with him in service.
I am sorry he was too stupid to do the right thing the right way. But it is hard to understand how one can be in the service and not understand its moral code.
I’m as glad as everyone else to see the usa embarrassed. And anyone who reads my chatter knows that i want to reduce the scope of the military and state.
But i cant support one immorality over another. Especially when what he exposed was trivially embarrassing and little more.
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-30 13:21:00 UTC
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pete-king-rand-paul/2013/07/28/id/517416Ideological principles are no substitute for strategy and policy except to obscure the fact that you have no strategy or policy.
Demographics are set. Libertarians have a strategy, conservatives have a strategy. But the republican party does not.
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-29 11:17:00 UTC