Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Untitled

    http://www.quora.com/Human-Rights/Why-have-no-western-countries-singed-the-international-convention-on-the-rights-of-migrant-workers-and-their-families-CMW/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-13 13:16:00 UTC

  • Capitalism: Cronyism Or Collectivism?

    I’M GOING TO PROVIDE AN INTERESTING AND POSSIBLY NOVEL ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

    Neither Capitalism (the voluntary organization of production, and distributed control of property) nor Socialism (the involuntary organization of production, and the centralized control of property) is possible.   Both systems result in totalitarian oligarchies.  Economic operation under socialism is impossible.  Economic concentration under capitalism is undesirable (by the masses).  The general argument is that capitalist oligarchies destroy each other in a constant process of creative destruction, and that socialist oligarchies do not.  This appears to be fairly obvious from both the logic and the evidence.

    Given the impossibility of either, the open question is the following:

    1) HOW DO WE MAINTAIN SYMMETRY OF COSTS OF THE SOCIAL ORDER NECESSARY FOR THE VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION GIVEN THE ASYMMETRY OF ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY OF INDIVIDUALS
    Under agrarianism, when we developed political universalism, we were equally able to contribute to the economy, because human physical effort and human mental discipline were the only determinants of relative productivity.  However, increasingly, the ability to work with abstract ideas has evolved to become competitively advantageous, while labor and learning by observation and imitation have lost all value in the economy.  As such, some individuals are highly productive and others are not. And there is no evidence of this difference in productivity.

    Capitalism is the name we use for the distribution of property to individuals where they may voluntarily organize and participate in production, and where they possess the incentive to participate in production, even if their only property is their body, time, and effort.

    When we respect property: private, shareholder and commons, and when we respect norms : manners, ethics, morals, myths, traditions and rituals, we pay for access to society and the market, and the system of production.  Unfortunately,

    Conversely, respect for law, order, manners, ethics, morals, traditions and norms – all of which ask us to forego opportunities for gratification, fall increasingly on the unproductive classes.  So if the lower classes must both observe laws, order, property, manners, ethics, morals, traditions and rituals, while at the same time they are unable to participate in the economy, then it is no longer logical for them to continue to forgo all these opportunities and pay the high cost of deprivation, when they obtain only access to the market for good and services, but not the ability to participate in the voluntary organization of production that forgoing opportunities for gratification makes possible. 

    2) WHY MONOPOLY FORM OF GOVERNMENT?
    Then second question is whether a society, under an homogenous government, practicing homogenous manners, ethics, morals, rituals, and myths,  really needs to exist as it has in the past.  Why for example, cannot the upper classes make use of a libertarian government, while the lower classes make use of a socialist government?  There is no reason really.  Most of western history relied upon state (nobility) and church (laity), or aristocracy (farmers) and labor (slaves – in the old world not new world sense).  The idea that we must possess a single economic and political system for people with different needs was an artifice of the enlightenment and most of our wars, and in fact, the war that nearly ended western civilization (ww1+ww2) was largely caused by the attempt to create an ideology justifying a monopoly form of government over people with dissimilar economic and political interests. 

    For economic cooperation to be possible one must possess uniform individual property rights, or economic cooperation and calculation is not possible.

    However, individuals can choose to collectivize their property, and others to atomize it, as suits their interests, and then the lower classes can negotiate with the upper classes for access to the lower classes as a market, the way states with different economies conduct trade policy with states with higher or lower standards of living and therefore costs.

    The reason we are in conflict is artificial.  We do not need to choose between socialism and capitalism.  We do not need to blend the two.  We can make use of both as we desire. Monopoly is just another word for tyranny, if our interests are sufficiently dissimilar, because our abilities to engage in productivity are sufficiently dissimilar.

    https://www.quora.com/Capitalism-CRONYISM-OR-COLLECTIVISM

  • Capitalism: Cronyism Or Collectivism?

    I’M GOING TO PROVIDE AN INTERESTING AND POSSIBLY NOVEL ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

    Neither Capitalism (the voluntary organization of production, and distributed control of property) nor Socialism (the involuntary organization of production, and the centralized control of property) is possible.   Both systems result in totalitarian oligarchies.  Economic operation under socialism is impossible.  Economic concentration under capitalism is undesirable (by the masses).  The general argument is that capitalist oligarchies destroy each other in a constant process of creative destruction, and that socialist oligarchies do not.  This appears to be fairly obvious from both the logic and the evidence.

    Given the impossibility of either, the open question is the following:

    1) HOW DO WE MAINTAIN SYMMETRY OF COSTS OF THE SOCIAL ORDER NECESSARY FOR THE VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION GIVEN THE ASYMMETRY OF ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY OF INDIVIDUALS
    Under agrarianism, when we developed political universalism, we were equally able to contribute to the economy, because human physical effort and human mental discipline were the only determinants of relative productivity.  However, increasingly, the ability to work with abstract ideas has evolved to become competitively advantageous, while labor and learning by observation and imitation have lost all value in the economy.  As such, some individuals are highly productive and others are not. And there is no evidence of this difference in productivity.

    Capitalism is the name we use for the distribution of property to individuals where they may voluntarily organize and participate in production, and where they possess the incentive to participate in production, even if their only property is their body, time, and effort.

    When we respect property: private, shareholder and commons, and when we respect norms : manners, ethics, morals, myths, traditions and rituals, we pay for access to society and the market, and the system of production.  Unfortunately,

    Conversely, respect for law, order, manners, ethics, morals, traditions and norms – all of which ask us to forego opportunities for gratification, fall increasingly on the unproductive classes.  So if the lower classes must both observe laws, order, property, manners, ethics, morals, traditions and rituals, while at the same time they are unable to participate in the economy, then it is no longer logical for them to continue to forgo all these opportunities and pay the high cost of deprivation, when they obtain only access to the market for good and services, but not the ability to participate in the voluntary organization of production that forgoing opportunities for gratification makes possible. 

    2) WHY MONOPOLY FORM OF GOVERNMENT?
    Then second question is whether a society, under an homogenous government, practicing homogenous manners, ethics, morals, rituals, and myths,  really needs to exist as it has in the past.  Why for example, cannot the upper classes make use of a libertarian government, while the lower classes make use of a socialist government?  There is no reason really.  Most of western history relied upon state (nobility) and church (laity), or aristocracy (farmers) and labor (slaves – in the old world not new world sense).  The idea that we must possess a single economic and political system for people with different needs was an artifice of the enlightenment and most of our wars, and in fact, the war that nearly ended western civilization (ww1+ww2) was largely caused by the attempt to create an ideology justifying a monopoly form of government over people with dissimilar economic and political interests. 

    For economic cooperation to be possible one must possess uniform individual property rights, or economic cooperation and calculation is not possible.

    However, individuals can choose to collectivize their property, and others to atomize it, as suits their interests, and then the lower classes can negotiate with the upper classes for access to the lower classes as a market, the way states with different economies conduct trade policy with states with higher or lower standards of living and therefore costs.

    The reason we are in conflict is artificial.  We do not need to choose between socialism and capitalism.  We do not need to blend the two.  We can make use of both as we desire. Monopoly is just another word for tyranny, if our interests are sufficiently dissimilar, because our abilities to engage in productivity are sufficiently dissimilar.

    https://www.quora.com/Capitalism-CRONYISM-OR-COLLECTIVISM

  • (They are stealing from the commons. If the common law does not provide a means

    (They are stealing from the commons. If the common law does not provide a means of preventing them from stealing from commons, then we have no other alternative but violence. On never has a right to steal from the commons. Ever.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-10 10:14:00 UTC

  • Ivan, First, I want to thank you for an intelligent and lucid argument that demo

    Ivan,

    First, I want to thank you for an intelligent and lucid argument that demonstrates thorough knowledge of the Austro (misesian) libertarian (rothbardian) cosmopolitan reactionary wing’s arguments. Cogent arguments are unfortunately, rare. It was a joy to hear it.

    We are just trying our first videos, and I suspect that we will stumble a bit, until we get more comfortable. But at least we will experiment and learn what works and doesn’t. Personally, I think despite roman’s attempts to control me, I still managed to put too much depth into the arguments, and not enough simplicity. But we will see. I tend to be able to compress complex ideas with time, and so it will take time.

    Regarding your comments, I think there are two points that I want to get across:

    1) That it is irrelevant what authors mean, or intend. We are not interpreting scripture and divining the mind of god. We are not trying to understand what those authors believe. Or what we should believe. That is the purpose of religions, not sciences. The question instead, is, if we desire a polity living a state of liberty, then what informal and formal institutions are necessary to form and perpetuate such a polity? What actions are necessary? And, as such, how successfully can an author’s ideas be implemented as informal and formal institutions? Intention and justification are not properties of consequence. Consequences are produced by actions independent of intention or justification.

    2) That I am confident understand these authors quite clearly, and that the strategic purpose of the A-L program as cosmopolitan and continental reactionary literature is identical in proposition and structure to Marxism as a verbal pseudoscience, Freudianism as a verbal pseudoscience, Cantorial sets as a verbal pseudoscience, and Postmodern and Frankfurt school arguments as verbal pseudosciences. Just why these authors all created similar pseudosciences by the saturation of the intellectual economy with elaborate nonsense that is very time consuming to defeat, is hard to judge. However, it works, and the technique is the same in each case: loading and framing, purposeful misuse of terms terminology by casting it platonically, followed by overloading the argumentative ecology.

    For example, operationalists never argue that we cannot know anything other than empirically and neither do empiricists. It is that we cannot tell the difference between the imaginary and observed content of a theory if it is not expressed operationally. In fact, don’t you find it kind of curious why a philosophy of human action would not be argued operationally, since after all, all human actions whether physically demonstrated or rationally cognitive are in fact, open to description, and reproduction? Furthermore, if you relay operational definitions of your actions and observations then I can reproduce them without the addition of external content (loading, or imagining, or error). Operationalism doesn’t tell me that that your theory is true. It tells me that your testimony regarding your actions and observations are true. It tells me you speak honestly and truthfully, and that you have not conducted deception of yourself or others.

    Marx built an elaborate philosophy based upon the false attribution of value – the consequence of which was included in the assumption.Mises built an elaborate philosophical framework whose conclusions are contained in his assumptions of individual action rather than cooperation. It is a work of justification – persuasion, not a work of description. Rothbard built an elaborate philosophy against the use of violence – the consequence of which are included in the assumption – a justification of non violence and the license of deception. But value is not determined by contribution, and instead, is determined by exchange. Polities must first establish cooperation to evolve an economy, And human cooperation is not determined by violence but by a prohibition on free riding (or the imposition of costs) which is necessary for all species who cooperate. Morality – positive assertions – de facto, of necessity, independent of judgement, must and do, enumerate rules that perpetuate a prohibition on free riding – the negative given the family structure common in the polity. Adorno filtered his data to produce his preferred conclusions – he lied. Freud created an elaborate system of projection out of psychologizing, which itself originated in hermeneutic interpretation of scriptures. He wanted a conclusion and he justified it. Humans are easily victimized by Overloading – that is why religions ‘work’, and why the Flynn effect appears – environmental saturation. If you get enough people around you who say the same thing it becomes believable to the many, no matter how ridiculous it is. All of these authors created elaborate pseudosciences ‘lies’ to justify their preferred conclusions.

    I don’t believe I misinterpret either Mises or Rothbard. Just the opposite. I see them not as honest proponents of facts, but as less than honest advocates desperately trying to produce ideological compositions to defeat their opponents on one hand and advance their interests the other. Mises attempts to destroy our ability to construct commons – which is the reason that the west has advanced more rapidly than competing civilizations. Socialism is in fact an approach to the commons, but it will not work for reasons Mises articulated. However, destroying the commons to destroy Socialism is merely suicidal. Rothbard attempts to destroy our emphasis on truth telling by advocating against violence – truth and trust are the reason that we can produce the complex commons that leave europa as a vast open air museum. Rothbard wants to preserve deception as reconcilable by market forces – by which it demonstrably is not reconcilable. So you may see these two authors as positive advocates, but they aren’t. They are no different from the socialists (or the neo-cons for that matter). “They try to do a little good by doing a great deal of bad.”

    And I think I am more than gracious when I say that Mises merely failed to produce operationalism, and had he, much of his argument would have been morally persuasive. When I could just as easily make the case, that he was just another verbose proponent of another pseudoscience producing propaganda to overload vulnerable audiences. The reason being that economic science if we call it that, does in fact, require empirical measures because there are phenomenon we have discovered, that we can observe in the data that were not deducible from rational choice theory. However, once we identify that data, if we cannot explain that observation as the result of a sequence of human actions, we cannot claim to have determined its cause. The physical sciences are not bound by the same limits as economics, because we do not believe we can know (perhaps ever) first causes in physical science. However, in human actions, we can know first causes because we can understand each others marginally indifferent incentives. As such, while we can describe all economic phenomenon as human actions, we can also describe all physical science as the actions and instruments necessary to make truthful observations.

    You seem like a bright fellow, so it may take a bit of work to grok all of this, but at some point it will become obvious that understanding Rothbard or Mises and their intentions is irrelevant. It is whether their statesmen are true or not, and whether they correspond with reality when expressed as human actions. And whether the EXTERNALITIES PRODUCED BY THEIR ARGUMENTS are beneficial or harmful. Because that is, after all, the question we are asking: how do we obtain liberty.

    Instead, I think what you might find, as I was surprised to, that their intentions have little to do with their statements whatsoever. And instead, are merely elaborate empty verbal justifications to perpetuate existing preferences – just as the postmoderns have done. Nothing more. Pedantic in intent, if elaborate in execution.

    Hayek was right. The 20th century will be remembered as a new era mysticism created by empty verbal pseudoscientists. And Mises and ROthbard, while adding a little good content to the argument, are members of the pseudoscientific movement.

    Now, criticizing something is not the same as constructing an alternative.

    And I have spent my time constructing the alternative – which it turns out, westerners have been doing for millennia. But that is another matter for another time.

    Thanks again for your cogent thoughts.

    Curt Doolittle

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-09 14:48:00 UTC

  • “Darwin will surely punish us for using violence injudiciously. But he is punish

    —“Darwin will surely punish us for using violence injudiciously. But he is punishing us right now for failing to use it judiciously.”— Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-07 15:39:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT AND LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT ONLY WRONG BUT ***STUPID AND DA

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/the-new-normal-109616.html#ixzz39bR1AUm1WHY CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT AND LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT ONLY WRONG BUT ***STUPID AND DANGEROUS***

    In an article on July 25, the Nobel Laureate economist Michael Spence put it this way:

    —“[A]t this moment in history, the main threats to prosperity … are the huge uncontained negative spillover effects of regional tensions, conflict, and competing claims to spheres of influence. The most powerful impediment to growth and recovery is not this or that economic imbalance; it is a loss of confidence in the systems that made rising global interdependence possible.”—-

    FIRST ENGLAND, THEN USA, CREATED GLOBAL STABILITY THAT MAKES CREDIT POSSIBLE.

    And by abandoning that role, we have sent the world into the international equivalent of lawlessness. Americans cannot ‘save’ by decreasing the military. That is the argument I have been now making for the better part of a decade.

    Libertarian’s and progressives aren’t only wrong, they aren’t only ignorant, they aren’t only stupid – they’re catastrophically dangerous.

    The world order is artificial. The mistake is in not separating aristocratic military services from national boundaries. IN stead, we have the US government functioning as BOTH global guarantor of property rights, AND oppressor of domestic peoples.

    Worse, instead of splitting off the empire into a corporeal police body, under the law of property rights, we construct a socialist organization (the UN) whose entire purpose is to DISMANTLE property rights and FIGHT AGAINST the imposition of the aristocratic order of property rights that has forced the entire world to modernize – leaving behind its ignorance mysticism and poverty.

    Might is not a bad. Violence is a good. It is a product. It’s a valuable product. The question is only whether the violence is used to construct property rights or used violate property rights.

    The moral use of violence is in the construction and maintenance of property rights.

    COMMUNISTS WERE THE WORLDS GREATEST MASS MURDERERS. PROGRESSIVES AND LIBERTARIANS WILL BE SHORTLY SHOWN TO BE THE NEXT PEOPLE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOST MURDER AND SUFFERING.

    Property rights are unnatural. They are an unnatural institution. They are our most difficult and expensive commons. And to construct that commons we must construct testimonial truth. And to do that we require violence to insure it.

    The Cosmopolitan revolution that created the 20th century has been the worst ideological movement since the creation of abrahamic monotheism.

    MURDER BY WORDS

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-06 05:41:00 UTC

  • Fortunately, I’ve been inoculated against the debilitating western mental diseas

    Fortunately, I’ve been inoculated against the debilitating western mental disease called Altruistic Punishment. #libertarian

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-04 07:28:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/496195873593114626

  • READ IT. LEARN IT. USE IT. –“Fortunately, I’ve been inoculated against the debi

    READ IT. LEARN IT. USE IT.

    –“Fortunately, I’ve been inoculated against the debilitating western mental disease called Altruistic Punishment.”—

    Read it. Learn it. Use it. Aristocratic Egalitarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-04 03:26:00 UTC

  • EVISCERATION OF ROTHBARD AND MISES FROM THE DALY BELL (Continued Debate) OPPONEN

    http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35519/Wendy-McElroy-Relationship-of-Politics-to-Morality/#comment-1516520727MORE EVISCERATION OF ROTHBARD AND MISES

    FROM THE DALY BELL

    (Continued Debate)

    http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35519/Wendy-McElroy-Relationship-of-Politics-to-Morality/

    OPPONENT’S POSITION

    ————————————–

    —“” I don’t know Rothbardian ethics, but I do know Rothbardian economics as an extension of Miseian economics. Ratiocination is the process by which a conscious animal, known as a human, attempts to substitute his present circumstances for better future circumstances. It is a means. Subjective valuation is what determines the ultimate judgments of value, the ends for which means are selected; so, any institution which purports to push people into or away from certain behaviors relies on a necessarily arbitrary application of force.

    We can ask, for instance, why a Christian takes the time to go to church on Sunday, which is time that could be better used producing the material factors of wealth or by relaxing, to which the Christian can only respond that the ends satisfied is not an earthly one. This is not irrational and in fact, based on the premise that a Christian god rewards his followers who worship him in the afterlife, is quite a small opportunity cost for such an eternal payoff.

    The problem is epistemological. The universe is filled with an infinite amount of data of which the human senses can only filter a tiny portion. Given this limitation for humans as to knowing the ultimate ends sought by nature, he must substitute his own and rely on his experience to give him feedback about its efficacy and whether it was desirable.

    Thus, when you say, “it is rational,” or “it is not rational,” what you mean is that based on your premise about desirable ends, the means taken would be ineffective.

    I believe Rothbard merely made his ethics an extension of subjective value theory. Given the unknowability of the ends of nature, and given that any consciously derived ends must be individual and that any application of force is thus made arbitrary, the question becomes, when is force acceptable among peaceable human beings?

    Granted that anarcho-capitalism would not be a utopia; but, given the oft-proved aspect of human nature that power corrupts and bureaucracies create crazy incentives to be a parasite, it would certainly seem a clever alternative to the ever failing institutions of top-down hierarchy.””—

    ———–

    CURT’S RESPONSE (Devastating as it is)

    —“I don’t know Rothbardian ethics,”—

    NAP where property is defined as IVP. It is pretty hard NOT to know them since one of the reasons “Libertinism” is attractive is its simplicity. However it’s simplicity is seductive since we europeans are cognitively biased to altruism, which while increasing trust and economic velocity also makes us vulnerable to everything from pseudoscience to ideological conversion. Rothbardian ethics originated in the ancient Levant, and were reinforced in the ghettos. Crusoe ethics ironically, are an analogy to the ghetto, where the sea performs the function of the wall, and non-aggression is imposed by the people outside the wall (the authorities).

    –church—

    People go to church so that the feel the pack submission response – its a reward. All congregational religions are based upon this human preference. Islam is the best example because it places the most emphasis on repetition. The longest surviving cults require the greatest behavioral investments from their members, in exchange they obtain psychic benefit of pack response. Or as marx would say, security from “alientation”.

    –the problem is epistemological– AND –economics– AND –rational–

    All of misesian economics and praxeology is constrained to the materialist in scope and recognizes only that which is open to intersubjective testing – as a means of ignoring subjective values (because they are invisible to other parties). That doesn’t mean only material things have value, it means that only material things exchanged are visible to analysis.

    However the existence of the praxeological hypotheses depends without exception, on the marginal indifference of human choice in the aggregate: that we are extremely similar, and can sympathize with (meaning *understand* one another’s choices if they are explained to us). Without this a praxeology would be impossible.

    It is non-rational for individuals to choose to live in a low trust polity,and humans demonstrate preference for moving to high trust polities, OR to authoritarian polities that use violence to create order where high trust is impossible,

    The “economic way of thinking” requires that for every proposition you supply the equilibrating limits that govern it, not treat it as an ideal without limit. This is a superior definition to that of considering a chain of opportunity costs alone. It is true that we must consider not only opportunity costs, but that those opportunity costs cause accumulation of opposite opportunities that equilibrate against the initial action. Just as locals oppose the Free State Project, once it has any impact whatsoever.

    –utopia–

    Fallacious argument. It does not matter whether it would be a utopia. The question is whether it would be possible or whether it would be preferable. And all the evidence from all possible sources overwhelmingly demonstrates that rothbardian ethics are not reducible to a law sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity that would be preferable for all but criminal fringe, and even for that criminal fringe, such a polity would be persecuted and prosecuted, Furthermore, that since governments hold other governments accountable for the actions of peoples over which they have no control, that polity would rapidly be rendered impoverished as other than a financial center. and as a financial center it would only survive in the service of black markets.

    So Rothbard, like all the monotheistic philosophers before him, creates little more than a distracting cult narrative with the promise of salvation. But like the gnostics who argued the malfeasance of Jehova, Rothbardianism is in reality, seducing one into economic, social, political, and even genetic suicide.

    The conservatives, who lack a rational language for their antiquarian social order, cannot articulate why they are repulsed by rothbardiansm, but because they have been acclimated to mental models that extrapolate individual actions into social consequences, they correctly see rothbardian ‘libertinism’ as unethical, immoral, and destructive.

    The only ‘liberty’ that has gained an traction has been classical liberal constitutionalism which constrains the government. Rothbardianism has been a 40 year record of failure. A disaster. A self congratulatory cult where members gain a sense of solace and superiority in empty verbalisms. Rothbardianism has harmed the brand of “liberty’ so seriously that every institution other than “the fruitcake fringe” has tried to distance itself from the term ‘Austrian’, and has attempted to liberate ‘libertarianism’ from its association with the fruitcake fringe – something which we should crown Tucker with laurels for. And Likewise, Misesian economics, and praxeology as currently constructed are pseudosciences, conflating axiomatic and consistent statements with scientific and correspondent statements to seduce those who understand the meaning of neither. (Something which I have written about extensively.)

    –I believe rothbard–

    Rothbard was a member of the cosmopolitan enlightenment and his purpose, as was the purpose of all members of that philosophical movement, was to advance cosmopolitan (jewish enlightenment) inbreeding tribal philosophy of the ghetto to a majoritarian universal philosophy, just as the germans beginning with Kant proposed their inland nuclear family cultural philosophy as a majoritarian universalist philosophy, and just as the French proposed their inland traditional family cultural philosophy as a majoritarian universalist philosophy – all of them in reaction to the anglo enlightenment which was an attempt to seize political power from the landed aristocracy in both its church and private government forms, by creating a corporation controllable by the emergent middle class of bankers, traders and manufacturers.

    (in other words, try not to imagine too much, and to read more widely. Rothbardians are similar to marxists and cults in that they read within the cult literature and hypothesize themselves, despite their pervasive ignorance rather than study economics, philosophy and history.)

    Conservatives understand as much about morality as we understand about economics. We are wrong. Rothbard was wrong. Mises was wrong. Hoppe is wrong.

    The only liberty that is possible is the the one the protestants and their ancestors invented: the suppression of criminal(thefts) AND ethical(deception) and immoral(externalities) actions under the the common law. This is the only possible means of reducing demand for the state. And the only means of obtaining ethical and moral property rights under the law, is ethical and moral homogeneity.

    Under polycentric law, we may construct different **contractual rights**, because of the complex risks involved in the mitigation of disputes in different patterns of sustainable specialization and trade (PSST) but we cannot construct polycentric ethical and moral standards, since this merely increases the demand for authority.

    So no, rothbardian and misesian attempts to preserve dualist ethics, and dualist culture, are just another example of the attempt of a group – in this case the cosmopolitans – just like the french and the germans, to assert their preferred evolutionary strategy, that is a bias in favor of their reproductive strategy, over that of other groups just as surely as colonization and war are attempts to do the same. And given the lack of success of the cosmopolitan strategy prior to the enlightenment era, and that in the enlightenment era that cosmopolitanism has produced not only “Rothbardian libertinism”, but Straussian neoconservatism and Marxist socialism, and Frankfurt school’s postmodernism and progressivism, are reflections of that attempt to preserve poly-moral and poly-cultural, and poly-legal rules, and has produced the equivalent of colonization or warfare by a destructive philosophy not seen since the invention of monotheism. Rothbardian Libertinism is just another excuse to create multi-culturalism, and turn the west into a factionalized Levantine polity. And we know how badly that turns out. These are bad ideas.

    That we should reverse the corporeal state and return to the common law as our anarchic form of government. That we should re-institute local regiments or militias for defense in an era where we possess small arms capable of defeating an aggressor. That we should privatize public services. That we should replace a monopoly legal regulation with competing insurance organizations. That we we should return to small homogenous nations with different preferences. These are all true. They reflect our aristocratic egalitarian heritage – the heritage that gave us and maintained our freedom.

    That we should construct poly-moral multi-cultural society is nothing more than an attempt to devolve us into levantine primitivism. And it is contrary to the theory that we can reduce all rights to property rights, since we PAY FOR NORMS every time we do not take an opportunity to lie, cheat, harm or steal or make choices that force others to pay our costs.

    So Rothbardianism must be discarded as another product of cosmopolitanism that has conducted yet another destructive ideological war from progressive, libertarian and conservative to reduce us to primitivism.

    Return to the liberty of aristocracy. The only liberty, and the only anarchy, that is, was or ever will be, possible.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-01 03:19:00 UTC