Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 11:07:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 11:07:00 UTC
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2015/12/running-libertarianism-into-ground.htmlRUNNING LIBERTINISM INTO THE GROUND…
Um…
Rothbard “appropriated” the term “libertarianism” and instead gave us anarcho capitalism as the reinterpretation of cosmopolitan ethics of the eastern european borderlands, under Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish rule. It is the ethic of the ghetto. Of the people who do not produce commons or defense.
There is nothing ‘libertarian’ in Rothbarianism, and nothing moral in his or Block’s attempt to construct moral and legal rules.
The word “is” remains extremely confusing for english speakers, since it refers both to “exists as”, and can be used as a shortcut for AVOIDING or CONFLATING, or DECEIVING the method by which something exists.
So I prefer to state libertarianism as the reciprocal insurance of all individuals in a polity against the undesired imposition of costs upon that which has been transformed at the cost of individual actions or inactions – whether that cost be imposed by an individual(violence, theft, fraud, externality) a group of individuals (conspiracy), or an organization devoted to the construction of commons (government).
Liberty can only be constructed by this means: mutual insurance against the involuntary imposition of costs.
There is no free lunch. And arguments in favor of ‘belief’ in liberty, or belief that we should leave one another alone, are merely fraudulent attempts to obtain the experience of liberty without paying the very high cost of both insuring one another against impositions of costs, and the high cost of refraining from imposing costs upon others, and the high cost of creating commons that produce disproportionate returns, including the commons of Liberty itself.
And as empirical evidence we should note that the cosmopolitans lost eastern Europe just as their ancestors lost Spain and Jerusalem.
There are no free rides.
Liberty is rare because it is expensive.
And because only a militia of warriors possesses the incentive to construct it.
But the returns on the high trust society warrant it.
Because dragged man out of ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds because of it.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
SOURCE
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2015/12/running-libertarianism-into-ground.html?
AND
ORIGINAL POST
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/07/politics/why-im-no-longer-libertarian/
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 10:22:00 UTC
REPEAT AFTER ME
“I am liberty. I am the insurer of last resort.”
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 10:09:00 UTC
Alexander
I am fairly certain that it is possible if not necessary to construct a finished constitutional basis for rule of law.
It may be impossible to imagine the means of production of commons that we call government within that rule of law.
Because the basis of the rule of law appears to be a universal logical necessity.
Yet the basis of government production of commons under rule of law is a mere technology that must adapt to innovations in knowledge.
Just as the common law must constantly innovate in order to prohibit newly found means of imposing costs upon others against their will.
So from this perspective the hierarch of law is:
1) Rule of law and Logic of contract (fixed)
2) Resolutions of disputes. ( juridically expandable)
3) Construction of commons. (Constitutionally modifiable)
Which is a bottom up construction of a constitutional order.
Curt Doolittle.
The Propertarian Institute.
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 06:16:00 UTC
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00U58Y4EA/ref=pe_2240100_159469240_em_1p_1_imSlowly but surely we convert from religious to military-political to economic, to political economy as the vehicle for understanding history.
About time.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 05:27:00 UTC
Winters here I wear a Lagerfeld wool baseball cap, Lagerfeld scarf, and usually my Cardin wool car coat. ( pea coat style).
But I have a parka for when it’s cold and I want a big fuzzy Russian hat. And I can’t find where people buy them.
I thin I would look perfectly ridiculous. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 04:49:00 UTC
Three lattes with caramel.
Two chocolate muffins.
Two banana nut muffins
Six dollars.
How can I live anywhere else after this.
Full course Dinner and drinks for two at the best restaurant in town?
Eighteen dollars.
Damn.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 04:32:00 UTC
AND FWIW, “IN THE LONG RUN THE ECONOMY IS THE DEMOGRAPHY, STUPID.”
Demography – > Institutions -> Economy -> “Will”
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 04:16:00 UTC
FINANCIAL TIMES: TRUMP IS AMERICA’S PUTIN?
Vladimir Putin offers Donald Trump fans a glimpse of the possible
The Russian leader offers a glimpse of a president unstymied by Congress, writes Courtney Weaver
Vladimir Putin…Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting on fuel and energy industries in the Kremlin, in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2015.
On a blustery evening, a crowd of thousands gather at a political rally, many eager to explain to me why their country needs a strong leader, is right to take a more aggressive stance on the world stage and should be respected and feared by other nations.
It’s a scene not unlike those I have covered over the past five years as a correspondent for the FT in Russia. Only this time I have not come to see the adoring fans of Vladimir Putin. I am in Macon, Georgia, and the man we are waiting for is Donald Trump.
One month into a new job covering the US presidential campaign, I am starting to find that the Trump phenomenon is more understandable when viewed through the lens of a Putin-Trump Venn diagram — or, rather, the Venn diagram of their supporters.
Two weeks ago in Macon at a stadium full of diehard Trump supporters, I met Tal Wollschlaeger, a law student, who declared apropos of nothing and with no knowledge of my background that he wanted to see a US president more like . . . Mr Putin.
“I think Putin is brilliant!” the twenty-something Mr Wollschlaeger told me as two of his friends nodded in agreement. “He’s taking care of business the way he has to. His country loves him. He’s done well for them. He does what he says and he gets the job done.”
He continued: “We just have to reassert ourselves. We’ve got to the point where Britain and France can’t look to us for advice because we can’t make the first move any more, because really we’re too weak. We need to get our seat back at the table.”
At first it seemed like a one-off, a random Putin fan sprouting up like a unicorn in a southern US city nicknamed the Heart of Georgia. But I don’t think Mr Wollschlaeger is an outlier.
In Dubuque, Iowa, a crucial primary state, the Associated Press recently spoke to Duane Ernster, a local Trump supporter who also offered the Putin comparison. “Maybe we need a warrior instead of a politician,” he said. “People compare Mr Trump to Putin. There’s something to be said about the man who takes care of the Russian people.”
In a Gallup survey last year — a period marked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the war in Ukraine and western sanctions — Mr Putin ranked as the 10th most admired man in America, beating among others vice-president Joe Biden, the Dalai Lama and the actor George Clooney.
To Mr Putin’s admirers in the US, he offers a tantalising view of what it might be like to have a president stymied by neither Congress nor two-term limits — and one who treats the delicate art of diplomacy more like judo than chess. To many of these people, Mr Trump represents the quixotic tsar who will rid Washington of its gridlock, reverse failed foreign policies and end years of perceived economic decline. If he is Trump the Terrible, so much the better.
In his campaign, Mr Trump appears to be taking chapters out of Mr Putin’s handbook. There is the creation of a perceived external threat (in Mr Putin’s case, the US and its encroachment into Russia’s sphere of influence; in Mr Trump’s, it is Muslims and illegal immigrants); the salty language; and the stranglehold on national television. Both men are credited with being spontaneous, unpredictable and counter-intuitive, qualities that make it difficult for opponents to out manoeuvre them.
The two men’s ratings appear to defy logic. Mr Putin’s remains strong despite a worsening economy on the back of western sanctions, lower oil prices and the plunging rouble. Mr Trump’s support improves the more offensive or outlandish his comments become.
The comparisons to Mr Putin seem to suit Mr Trump just fine, perhaps because he knows they suit part of his base. In the past few months, Mr Trump has declared that he would “get along” with Mr Putin in a way that President Barack Obama has not, and he has been one of the few candidates to express his approval of Moscow’s military campaign in Syria. Mr Trump likes to joke that he and the Russian president are “stablemates” because they both appeared (separately) on the same episode of the US news programme 60 Minutes.
As for Mr Putin’s impression of Mr Trump? He has yet to comment.
courtney.weaver@ft.com
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 03:56:00 UTC
DEAR VOVA, JUST BE TRUTHFUL. HELP US ALL.
If it’s walks like a Tsar, talks like a Tsar, and acts like a Tsar, it’s a Tsar.
Create a dynasty.
Restore Nation and Family.
Abandon the Corporate State.
Restore Parliamentary Monarchy.
Help restore monarchy to our peoples.
The enemy is corporatism, and our restoration is in nationalism.
(BTW: As a fellow short person. I won’t hold your height against you.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 03:47:00 UTC