Theme: Constitutional Order

–“CURT, I’D LIKE TO DEBATE YOU ON LIBERTARIAN….”— A Friend. Let me arm you a bit so that you’re prepared for such a debate: First, we have to define ‘state’. As far as I know the term state refers to one or more of the following (a) a territorial corporation with individual or group management, preserving a monopoly of final decidability – usually a figurehead, a military, (b) an individual or group that negotiates with third parties on behalf of a territorial population in matters of opportunity(trade) and conflict (war) in order to prevent defectors from acting against the interests of other members. Conversely, as far as I know a government consists of an individual or group that provides decidability in the production of commons of all sorts. Second, my central argument with you or any anti-state/anti-government libertarian will be whether the formation and survival of such a polity is possible in the market for territory and polities. And I will attempt to demonstrate that libertarians are just trying to obtain liberty by permission of superior forces, instead of sovereignty in fact because of their merits. And I sincerely doubt that it is possible for any anarchic (meaning pastoral or diasporic or borderland political order – parasitic order) to compete with an agrarian or industrial order that directs its energies to the production of commons – a productive order). And I will, as always, expose libertarianism as an attempt to live parasitically off existing markets without paying the cost of maintenance of those markets. I use operational language (most science) to defeat ‘idealism’ (most philosophy). Using operational language rapidly exposes Rothbardian anarcho capitalism (jewish diasporic group evolutionary strategy) as different from Anglo Rule of Natural Law (anglo saxon group evolutionary strategy) from which an ethical capitalism is an outcome, not an ambition. The weak and unable seek socialism (subsidy of consumption and commons). The weak but able seek libertarianism(accumulation of capital, subsidy of commons). The strong and able seek aristocracy(constraint of consumption and accumulation of capital in the commons ). This sequence roughly corresponds to the three levels of maturity and power: female, young male, adult male. And this is what the genetic, biological, social, economic, and voting data show us. Looking forward to the discourse.

–“CURT, I’D LIKE TO DEBATE YOU ON LIBERTARIAN….”— A Friend. Let me arm you a bit so that you’re prepared for such a debate: First, we have to define ‘state’. As far as I know the term state refers to one or more of the following (a) a territorial corporation with individual or group management, preserving a monopoly of final decidability – usually a figurehead, a military, (b) an individual or group that negotiates with third parties on behalf of a territorial population in matters of opportunity(trade) and conflict (war) in order to prevent defectors from acting against the interests of other members. Conversely, as far as I know a government consists of an individual or group that provides decidability in the production of commons of all sorts. Second, my central argument with you or any anti-state/anti-government libertarian will be whether the formation and survival of such a polity is possible in the market for territory and polities. And I will attempt to demonstrate that libertarians are just trying to obtain liberty by permission of superior forces, instead of sovereignty in fact because of their merits. And I sincerely doubt that it is possible for any anarchic (meaning pastoral or diasporic or borderland political order – parasitic order) to compete with an agrarian or industrial order that directs its energies to the production of commons – a productive order). And I will, as always, expose libertarianism as an attempt to live parasitically off existing markets without paying the cost of maintenance of those markets. I use operational language (most science) to defeat ‘idealism’ (most philosophy). Using operational language rapidly exposes Rothbardian anarcho capitalism (jewish diasporic group evolutionary strategy) as different from Anglo Rule of Natural Law (anglo saxon group evolutionary strategy) from which an ethical capitalism is an outcome, not an ambition. The weak and unable seek socialism (subsidy of consumption and commons). The weak but able seek libertarianism(accumulation of capital, subsidy of commons). The strong and able seek aristocracy(constraint of consumption and accumulation of capital in the commons ). This sequence roughly corresponds to the three levels of maturity and power: female, young male, adult male. And this is what the genetic, biological, social, economic, and voting data show us. Looking forward to the discourse.