—“Q: I’m unsure of why Curt Doolittle grouped Rothbard and Mises with Marx, unless they were actually faux anti-Marxists?”– Matthew Genack Answer by Eli Harman They weren’t faux anti-marxists. They were sincere anti-Marxists. But what they offered in its place was justificationary pseudoscience, same as Marxism, differing in the details and conclusions, but not fundamentally in the methods.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Why Include Rothbard and Mises with Marx and Marxists?
—“Q: I’m unsure of why Curt Doolittle grouped Rothbard and Mises with Marx, unless they were actually faux anti-Marxists?”– Matthew Genack Answer by Eli Harman They weren’t faux anti-marxists. They were sincere anti-Marxists. But what they offered in its place was justificationary pseudoscience, same as Marxism, differing in the details and conclusions, but not fundamentally in the methods.
-
Not Radical Individualism, but Individual Sovereignty and Intolerant Familialism
—“And I’ll be the first to concede that radical individualism is indeed problematic when you’re faced with collectivists who want you gone, but I do think that individualism is ideal after the threat has been adequately dealt with, and is in keeping with the general ethos of the West.”–Matthew Genack Radical individualism is just an attack on the very commons that made western civilization competitive. Individual Sovereignty, and Radical Familialism is a better strategy.
-
Not Radical Individualism, but Individual Sovereignty and Intolerant Familialism
—“And I’ll be the first to concede that radical individualism is indeed problematic when you’re faced with collectivists who want you gone, but I do think that individualism is ideal after the threat has been adequately dealt with, and is in keeping with the general ethos of the West.”–Matthew Genack Radical individualism is just an attack on the very commons that made western civilization competitive. Individual Sovereignty, and Radical Familialism is a better strategy.
-
Natural Law vs Social Construct
by John Mark “Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.” Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement. As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.
-
Natural Law vs Social Construct
by John Mark “Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.” Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement. As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.
-
“Curt: What About Slavs?”
—“Hey, Curt! I saw Propertarianism.org lists the faults of various groups (Germanic/Anglo/French). I notice an absence of Slavs in this analysis. Is that coming soon? -Aleksa”— Um. I can’t do Slavs as a group, I can do western (poles and west ukrainians) and eastern (Russian) and southern (Old Europeans). For western slavs, I mean, there is literally nothing to criticize. We can only ask them to continue to form west slavic civilization by uniting slavic countries separately from germanic and mediterranean and russian. My research says that poland in particular should be right behind germany with time. Since RUSSIANS USED LITERATURE and did not engage in ‘philosophy’ or ‘new theology’ or ‘pseudoscience’, and because russian literature represents the ultimate literature of Christendom, it is actually quite hard to criticize Russians on argumentative grounds. (I do have to mention however the strange Russian preoccupation with magic, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theory). The problem with Russians is not that they want to restore orthodoxy and restore Byzantium to christian hands, but that they invaded eastern europe, have not developed a middle class, the resulting high trust peoples, and resulting high trust bureaucracy and the resulting court system that defends the people from oligarchs, the state, and each other. This is in progress and will require a generation or two assumng no further setbacks. In particular russian resistance to democracy and their success at exiting jewish influence has put Russia on a path superior to the west. But like Eastern Europe she just needs time. Southern slavs in old europe (byzantium) are rather odd for reasons I am still struggling to understand.
-
“Curt: What About Slavs?”
—“Hey, Curt! I saw Propertarianism.org lists the faults of various groups (Germanic/Anglo/French). I notice an absence of Slavs in this analysis. Is that coming soon? -Aleksa”— Um. I can’t do Slavs as a group, I can do western (poles and west ukrainians) and eastern (Russian) and southern (Old Europeans). For western slavs, I mean, there is literally nothing to criticize. We can only ask them to continue to form west slavic civilization by uniting slavic countries separately from germanic and mediterranean and russian. My research says that poland in particular should be right behind germany with time. Since RUSSIANS USED LITERATURE and did not engage in ‘philosophy’ or ‘new theology’ or ‘pseudoscience’, and because russian literature represents the ultimate literature of Christendom, it is actually quite hard to criticize Russians on argumentative grounds. (I do have to mention however the strange Russian preoccupation with magic, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theory). The problem with Russians is not that they want to restore orthodoxy and restore Byzantium to christian hands, but that they invaded eastern europe, have not developed a middle class, the resulting high trust peoples, and resulting high trust bureaucracy and the resulting court system that defends the people from oligarchs, the state, and each other. This is in progress and will require a generation or two assumng no further setbacks. In particular russian resistance to democracy and their success at exiting jewish influence has put Russia on a path superior to the west. But like Eastern Europe she just needs time. Southern slavs in old europe (byzantium) are rather odd for reasons I am still struggling to understand.
-
The Problem with Opposition to Propertarianism
The progress of our understanding from optimism and ignorance to pessimism and certainty.
|Evolution| Social Democracy -> Classical liberalism -> Libertarianism -> Anarcho Capitalism -> Neo-Reaction -> Propertarianism -> Fascism The problem with Propertarianism for other groups is that it’s law not literature, and as law it is unforgiving (intolerant) of falsehood, pretenses of knowledge or goodness whereas almost every other method of argument makes use of pretenses of truth, knowledge, and good in order to achieve an end that does NOT require truth, knowledge, and reciprocity. Why? Because we rally around (politically and socially) discounts that are obtained by use of falsehoods, pretenses, and irreciprocity. So the question is always and everywhere, why one would pursue one’s ends (power) by means of discounting using falsehood, pretense, and irreciprocity (fraud), rather than pursue them honestly and restitutionally (restitution) by violence, or honestly and predatorily (predation) by violence – other than (a) one has no chance of achieving other by coercion or violence. In other words, why pursue a failure other than to avoid action in pursuit of a success? All we ask in propertarianism is to impose reciprocity by violence as a means of restitution.
-
The Problem with Opposition to Propertarianism
The progress of our understanding from optimism and ignorance to pessimism and certainty.
|Evolution| Social Democracy -> Classical liberalism -> Libertarianism -> Anarcho Capitalism -> Neo-Reaction -> Propertarianism -> Fascism The problem with Propertarianism for other groups is that it’s law not literature, and as law it is unforgiving (intolerant) of falsehood, pretenses of knowledge or goodness whereas almost every other method of argument makes use of pretenses of truth, knowledge, and good in order to achieve an end that does NOT require truth, knowledge, and reciprocity. Why? Because we rally around (politically and socially) discounts that are obtained by use of falsehoods, pretenses, and irreciprocity. So the question is always and everywhere, why one would pursue one’s ends (power) by means of discounting using falsehood, pretense, and irreciprocity (fraud), rather than pursue them honestly and restitutionally (restitution) by violence, or honestly and predatorily (predation) by violence – other than (a) one has no chance of achieving other by coercion or violence. In other words, why pursue a failure other than to avoid action in pursuit of a success? All we ask in propertarianism is to impose reciprocity by violence as a means of restitution.