Source: Facebook

ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTARIANISM VS GHETTO LIBERTINISM

You know, you can put a sign over your head and call yourself a libertarian: an advocate for a condition of liberty, but that doesn’t make you a libertarian. Any more than calling someone an Austrian Economist in the Cosmopolitan wing makes you an Austrian Economist in the German Wing. What makes you an Austrian economist is seeking to improve institutions of cooperation so that we reduce all possible friction (transaction costs). And what makes you a libertarian is to seek to improve cooperation by opposing all institutional means of free riding, so that we reduce all friction (transaction costs).

So if you want a libertarian movement, you are kind of stuck with Aristocratic Libertarianism, because ONLY aristocratic libertarianism (and not ghetto libertinism) can produce sufficient elimination of transaction costs that it is rational to join an anarchic, and by anarchic I mean NOMOCRATIC, polity.

I want to unite libertarians and conservatives. But to do that I have to demonstrate the propaganda of the Rothbardians as not only insufficient, but an obscurantist deception on the same scale as neo-conservatism, marxism, socialism, and monotheism.

So we now know Rothbardianism is another cosmopolitan deception – just like socialism – by means of loading, framing, and overloading.

And we also know that the conservatives have failed to produce a ratio-scientific and institutional solution to the problem of the destruction of western civilization through lying, pseudoscience, propaganda, using the academy and media.

So knowing that classical liberal conservatism and rothbardian libertinism have failed, and why they have failed (which I have elaborated upon repeatedly elsewhere) we can abandon hope that either classical liberal conservatism or rothbardian libertinism will restore western civilization to a condition of liberty.

And then we can look at the institutional solution provided by Propertarianism, and create a post-classical liberal political system that does not require majority rule, and allows groups to conduct political exchanges in a market for the construction of commons, rather than impose their will upon minorities.

We do not need to approve such contracts. We need only demonstrate that they are objectively ethical and moral. And if all such contracts like all commons are open to criticism under universal standing, then we need no assent. Our proposals instead, need to survive criticism.

And by that structural change we turn politics into a branch of science.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.