Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • QUESTIONING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE SCALE OF THE STATE. (profound) (worth rea

    QUESTIONING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE SCALE OF THE STATE.

    (profound) (worth reading)

    (And an additional hypothesis)

    by Peter Boettke

    –“States capacity is required for tax collection, but the emergence of property rights and their enforcement predate both the formal state and the establishment of a taxing authority. Tyler gives a nod to Franz Oppenheimer in his link — Oppenheimer’s The State was a classic discussion of the conquest origins of formal government. The state is violence, the state is war. At least that is one way to put it. But does that conquest theory of the origins of the state undermine or support the state as essential for modern economic growth hypothesis?

    An alternative hypothesis is that rules that enable individuals and groups to realize the gains from social cooperation under the division of labor can arise outside of the formal apparatus of the state, and be supported through a diversity of institutional arrangements. I already linked to my close colleague Dragos Paul Aligica’s new book on Institutional Diversity and Political Economy, but today I was pointed to (ht: Angel Martin) to a new project among younger scholars in Europe focusing on the question of institutional design and institutional diversity influenced by Douglass North, Avner Greif, and Elinor Ostrom.”–

    by Mark Lutter:

    — “I don’t think state capacity and competition between states are mutually exclusive. During the middle ages there existed growth inhibiting organizations and institutions other than the state, guilds for example. State capacity essentially ensured sufficient power to stop local barriers to trade.

    Another aspect in which state capacity could lead to economic growth requires thinking about optimal tax theory. Certain types of taxation inhibit growth more than others. Increasing state capacity allowed the state to collect taxes using distortionary mechanisms.”—

    by Curt Doolittle

    I’ll offer a fourth hypothesis: centralization of free riding and rent seeking forces the decentralized citizenry to enter the market.

    The way to articulate and therefore understand these abstract processes is to refer to their causes not effects: free-riding and rent seeking.

    The statement “State capacity essentially ensured sufficient power to stop local barriers to trade” is correct, but would be causally articulated as the state forced the centralization of rent seeking.

    This is the same purpose that the federal governments provides: negotiation of terms for access to markets.

    In other words, they force market prices to be free of rent seeking. The question is whether the multiplier from central rent seeking or the multiplier from distributed rent seeking is superior. I think that’s very hard to prove.

    In fact, all we can prove is that the state centralizes rent seeking. I don’t think we can prove that there is much benefit to the centralization of rent seeking. It appears only that stability in rent seeking is superior to volatility in rent seeking, because stability in rent seeking forces all individuals to compete in the market now that the capacity to seek rents is put at a distance.

    Conversely, the concentration of rents creates a rental economy that generates rent-based wealth. (Washington DC). But there isn’t any evidence that rent based wealth has an particular value to a society other than generating wealthy consumers that are concentrated in the local rent-economy.

    The entire problem remains the same: how to force out rent seeking and free riding such that all individuals are participating in the market for goods and services.

    This is the necessary foundation for any economy, and the necessary foundation of property rights: property rights are a prohibition on rents and free riding, forced from the family to the individual, as rents and free riding are forced upward into the state at the expense of the family.

    If you grasp that this is what is being done, then you will grasp the causal nature, not the descriptive nature, of the process of developing states: the centralization of rent seeking and free riding, and in doing so, forcing individuals to compete in the market for goods and services.

    I am not convinced that this organized monopoly on rents and free riding is more influential to the economy than whatever ‘investments’ are made by the state. One can argue that the business of rent seeking and free riding is extremely profitable. That’s possible to argue.

    But in any human population, driving the maximum number of individuals to compete in the market for goods and services is what increases productivity under the division of knowledge and labor.

    Like all human cognitive processes, we identify what is visible as causal, rather than what is invisible.

    The scale of the state and the provision of taxes are meaningless. They are a MEANS but not the good provided. The good provided, and the benefits to any society, are created by the universal prohibition on the visible crimes of violence, fraud and theft, and the invisible crimes of rents and free riding. We accomplish these prohibitions by forming an institution that enforces those prohibitions and provides insurance against them.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-27 05:58:00 UTC

  • Almost Everything You Need To Know About American Elections

    THE WAR AGAINST WHITE MARRIED PEOPLE Add gender and marital status, and thats all you need to understand. “93% of blacks, 70% of Latinos, 60% of those under 30, and 62% of single people, voted for Obama. And white married couples over 30 years of age voted for Romney. Not much else matters.”  –Dick Morris

    1238827_10151886634012264_780533805_n

  • Almost Everything You Need To Know About American Elections

    THE WAR AGAINST WHITE MARRIED PEOPLE Add gender and marital status, and thats all you need to understand. “93% of blacks, 70% of Latinos, 60% of those under 30, and 62% of single people, voted for Obama. And white married couples over 30 years of age voted for Romney. Not much else matters.”  –Dick Morris

    1238827_10151886634012264_780533805_n

  • ENOUGH LYING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. This is just, getting, well, … frankly it

    http://freebeacon.com/iran-white-house-lying-about-details-of-nuke-deal/C’MON. ENOUGH LYING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

    This is just, getting, well, … frankly it’s gone all the way down to absurdly comical.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-27 01:06:00 UTC

  • The Melting Pot That Isn’t

      Data is data. Turns out that what we melt is purely scientific, legal, and commercial; and what doesn’t melt is family, morality, metaphysics, and therefore politics. Or, what I would describe in Propertarian terms, as “explicitly calculable” implicit knowledge vs “inexplicitly calculable” tacit knowledge. We can structure formal institutions only for a subset of knowledge. Myth, tradition, ritual, family, morals, ethics, and manners are something that can also be institutionalized. And that us the conservative vision: formal institutions are not enough.

  • (CORE) On Race And Diversity In Libertarianism

    (cross posted for reference) (insights) (important) METHODS Methods of justification for libertarianism (or any other political and moral bias) 1) Sentimental (I like it) 2) Moral (it’s better) 3) Historical (it works) 4) Empirical (direct experimentation) 5) Economic (indirect experimentation) 6) Ratio-scientific (cumulative evidence and theory) TWO SOURCES OF LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT 1) Conservative and Classical Liberal Land holders (christian) 2) Anarchic and religious non-land holders (jewish/gypsies) FOUR SOCIAL STRUCTURES 1) German (Kant/hierarchical/duty/nuclear family) 2) French ( Rousseau/equalitarian/care/traditional family) 3) British (smith-hume+ / aristocratic egalitarian / empirical/ absolute nuclear family) 4) Jewish (ricardo-mises-rothbard/tribalism) FOUR AMBITIONS 1) The british saw free trade as an international means of achieving peace and prosperity for all europeans. 2) The germans were trying to resist british consumerism’s disruption of ‘social order’ implicit in german ‘duty’. 3) The french were trying to extend the family to all of society, and demonstrate their nobility having failed to conquer Europe. (The failures of the world wars and transformation from demonstrated material achievement, to the use of generosity and diversity to maintain status, explain current european behavior.) 4) The jews were and are, trying to justify their participation in a host society without integrating. THE ANSWER There are two basic reasons for ‘tolerance’ in the libertarian movement. 1) Jewish authors justifying right to inclusion but denial of the necessity of payment into the commons. 2) christian authors arguing for payment only into non monopolistic commons, while retaining a homogenous moral commons. 3) feminist and postmodernist influences. DOMINANCE OF JEWISH THOUGHT I think that Rothbard brought his heritage to the table (just as Hayek stated of Mises) and he conflated the two ambitions. This is actually, the reason why rothbard failed to give us a morally tolerable libertarianism. And it is why libertarianism fails to gain traction. Humans are tribal. Immigration is a political problem. And human seek political power. So it is better to have a homogenous, liberty seeking people, for whom no seizure of power is of any group benefit, because the group is already in power. And there is no incentive for status achievement, because in a homogenous society, there is no status value to trying to gain power. HOPPE’S CORRECTION Hoppe, through admittedly interesting logic, has shown that rothbard was wrong. I have I think, with rather scientific rather than purely rational terms, demonstrated that Rothbard was wrong. CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT There is a very great difference between ‘we will not fight despite our differences if we trade’ and ‘we are all equal and can politically cohabitate without conflict’. Politics is a family matter. Trade is a cross-family matter. We can easily trade, but we cannot be politically diverse without replacing conflict over trade with conflict over politics. ROTHBARD WAS WRONG. THE STATUS ECONOMY RULES. We don’t ‘need’ much as human beings, except to hold onto our status, improve our status, and prevent loss of status. Loss aversion is more applicable to status than any other human trait except perhaps life and limb. We accumulate status, and desperately hold onto it.

  • (CORE) On Race And Diversity In Libertarianism

    (cross posted for reference) (insights) (important) METHODS Methods of justification for libertarianism (or any other political and moral bias) 1) Sentimental (I like it) 2) Moral (it’s better) 3) Historical (it works) 4) Empirical (direct experimentation) 5) Economic (indirect experimentation) 6) Ratio-scientific (cumulative evidence and theory) TWO SOURCES OF LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT 1) Conservative and Classical Liberal Land holders (christian) 2) Anarchic and religious non-land holders (jewish/gypsies) FOUR SOCIAL STRUCTURES 1) German (Kant/hierarchical/duty/nuclear family) 2) French ( Rousseau/equalitarian/care/traditional family) 3) British (smith-hume+ / aristocratic egalitarian / empirical/ absolute nuclear family) 4) Jewish (ricardo-mises-rothbard/tribalism) FOUR AMBITIONS 1) The british saw free trade as an international means of achieving peace and prosperity for all europeans. 2) The germans were trying to resist british consumerism’s disruption of ‘social order’ implicit in german ‘duty’. 3) The french were trying to extend the family to all of society, and demonstrate their nobility having failed to conquer Europe. (The failures of the world wars and transformation from demonstrated material achievement, to the use of generosity and diversity to maintain status, explain current european behavior.) 4) The jews were and are, trying to justify their participation in a host society without integrating. THE ANSWER There are two basic reasons for ‘tolerance’ in the libertarian movement. 1) Jewish authors justifying right to inclusion but denial of the necessity of payment into the commons. 2) christian authors arguing for payment only into non monopolistic commons, while retaining a homogenous moral commons. 3) feminist and postmodernist influences. DOMINANCE OF JEWISH THOUGHT I think that Rothbard brought his heritage to the table (just as Hayek stated of Mises) and he conflated the two ambitions. This is actually, the reason why rothbard failed to give us a morally tolerable libertarianism. And it is why libertarianism fails to gain traction. Humans are tribal. Immigration is a political problem. And human seek political power. So it is better to have a homogenous, liberty seeking people, for whom no seizure of power is of any group benefit, because the group is already in power. And there is no incentive for status achievement, because in a homogenous society, there is no status value to trying to gain power. HOPPE’S CORRECTION Hoppe, through admittedly interesting logic, has shown that rothbard was wrong. I have I think, with rather scientific rather than purely rational terms, demonstrated that Rothbard was wrong. CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT There is a very great difference between ‘we will not fight despite our differences if we trade’ and ‘we are all equal and can politically cohabitate without conflict’. Politics is a family matter. Trade is a cross-family matter. We can easily trade, but we cannot be politically diverse without replacing conflict over trade with conflict over politics. ROTHBARD WAS WRONG. THE STATUS ECONOMY RULES. We don’t ‘need’ much as human beings, except to hold onto our status, improve our status, and prevent loss of status. Loss aversion is more applicable to status than any other human trait except perhaps life and limb. We accumulate status, and desperately hold onto it.

  • (CORE) On The Utopianism Of Libertarianism

    TO TOM : ON THE UTOPIANISM OF LIBERTARIANISM (all) (worth reading) (insight) Rothbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community. The MI group (Lew) then took this ideology and used the internet to propagate that ideology the way the marxists used inexpensive pamphlets, newspapers, books and universities. But, Rothbard’s libertarianism is an ideology (religion) not politics (formal institutions of cooperation). That Rothbard used the rebellious ethics of the jewish ghetto rather than the the high trust ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian society (protestant christianity) is just because it was familiar to him. Hoppe by contrast, repaired a great deal of Rothbard’s errors, but in doing so left us with not necessarily utopian, but certainly a system of ethics dependent upon equality of ethical and moral action, under the nation states with absolute nuclear families, and therefore fully homogenized property rights. This system cannot tolerate diversity. However, by adding monarchies, and strict property rights, hoppe’s argument is such that it is possible to have DIVERSE COMMUNITIES each of which uses its own norms and status signals, but which trades and exchanges according to private property rights. And this is possible because under monarchy and property rights, individuals are denied access to coercive political power. So, in Hoppeian terms, groups may continue to act as extended families. What I have tried to do is empirically demonstrate that both genetics of gender, and family structure (the structure of reproduction) determine moral codes. And that the Absolute Nuclear Family is the ultimate compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. But that the evolution of democracy combined with feminism,and the destruction of the nuclear family by feminists in alliance with socialists, has led to a circumstance where women can now ‘marry the state’ for financial support and obtain support from males without exchange of care and sex. This is not unnatural. Humans are naturally serially monogamous and women in history seize both the best male fertility, and the best male support in exchange for sex, that they can – but not from the same person, from many men. Property is not natural. It allowed men to control reproduction, and women resent this because it places a greater burden on them to make a choice of husband, and they are stuck with what they get. And they can no longer control group behavior by trading sex and affection. It is this choice, plus the need to create a home and property to support a family that created the compromise that was the protestant ANF. For this reason, both Rothbard and Hoppe make the mistake that was made by classical liberals: once included in the voting and work pool, women have sought to restore control over their reproduction and independence from the compromise with males. If you want to understand the drive to socialism, there are two axis of cause. This is the first, the second is that small homogenous groups that are out-bred are in fact, family members and as such socialism (in the nordic model) makes sense. There is no ‘belief’ system here. it is all justificationary language. The fact is that the structure of production at any given time can be optimized by a particular structure of reproduction (the family). And that freedom (liberty) is only possible in small, homogenous, out-bred, groups formally forbidden to intermarry as a means of obtaining insurance, and instead, forced to outbreed, and therefore seek insurance from ‘the tribe’ with the state as the insurance broker. This situation cannot change, because it is against the reproductive interests of humans to change. It is suicide to change. Small homogenous outbred families are in fact, highly redistributive, healthy organizations that eliminate near proximity competition and force all competition into the market for goods and services – there is no outlet left. NONE. That is why it works. The ANF, is the genetic institution that creates a compromise. It is, in fact, SOCIALISM. (Let that sink in a bit and it will alter your world.) THIS IS, IN NO SMALL PART, THE FIRST SECTION OF MY BOOK. It explains the diversity and immutability of moral codes, and therefore the political expression of morality informal institutions, as relationships between the structure of production and the structure of the family; And it is illogical to expect humans to act otherwise – against their reproductive and experiential interests. It is NOT PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL to ask people to act against their interests. SO ROTHBARD, HOPPE, AND …. 1) Rothbard (tribal religion of non-landholders) 2) Hoppe (private nation state of land holders) 3) Doolittle (private federation of states of land holders) With these three models we complete libertarianism in all its possible forms. This is the corpus of solutions from the most ideological and religious (rothbard) to the most practical and moral (hoppe) to the ratio-scientific (doolittle). All of which are founded on property rights – although I have used DESCRIPTIVE property rights across ALL family structures where hoppe and rothbard have use PRESCRIPTIVE property rights and ASSUMED the nuclear family as the unit of reproduction. (That’s what I’m up to. ‘Completing’ libertarianism. ) UTOPIAN? Rothbard’s fantasy is clearly utopian. It hasn’t worked very well for the jews, that’s for sure. Except for the postwar period, the entire world has been killing them by the hundreds, thousands and millions for millennia. Comparisons to India’s Gypsies is pretty common, except that gypsies are anti-intellectual at the bottom and jews hyper intellectual at the top. But, what rothbard DID, was reduce all rights to property rights, and give us the answer to human cooperation in doing so. Hoppe’s solution is ABSOLUTE GENIUS and so deeply engrained in political discourse by now that everyone’s forgotten it’s his idea already. While Argumentation is an analogy, not a cause, (and so I’m critical of it), he used it to deduce the solution to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy and the state by reducing the state to a contract on property rights, and using insurance companies, which is the states’s actual function, to form a competitive bureaucracy. His solution is not empirically derived, it is rationally derived, and he still makes (unfortunately) moral arguments in the rothbardian model, but in fact, he DID SOLVE THE PROBLEM that has been the ‘problem of politics’ for 5000 years. And as far as I know, no other thinker has done this – based on (ack) argumentation or not. I won’t go into why argumentation worked despite the fact that it’s a bit silly. That would take me too long. But it allowed Hoppe to deduce the correct answers in almost all cases. IN particular, to immigration. Which again, the migratory, non-property owning, progressive jewish wing of libertarians find understandably uncomfortable. END RESULT : A RESEARCH There is nothing utopian about a RESEARCH PROGRAM, which is what I see hoppe, rothbard and Hayek pursuing. Hayek did not have information theory. Hoppe did not have the empirical evidence we have today. Rothbard either didn’t understand or din’t want to understand his moral code’s implications. Mises got praxeology backwards. But it was all there. It was all there. We just needed a little more time. And as far as I can tell it is the most valuable political research program since the enlightenment and not matched in creativity since athens. Calculation is necessary. Reproduction is necessary. Cooperation is necessary. Everything else is preference.

  • (CORE) On The Utopianism Of Libertarianism

    TO TOM : ON THE UTOPIANISM OF LIBERTARIANISM (all) (worth reading) (insight) Rothbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community. The MI group (Lew) then took this ideology and used the internet to propagate that ideology the way the marxists used inexpensive pamphlets, newspapers, books and universities. But, Rothbard’s libertarianism is an ideology (religion) not politics (formal institutions of cooperation). That Rothbard used the rebellious ethics of the jewish ghetto rather than the the high trust ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian society (protestant christianity) is just because it was familiar to him. Hoppe by contrast, repaired a great deal of Rothbard’s errors, but in doing so left us with not necessarily utopian, but certainly a system of ethics dependent upon equality of ethical and moral action, under the nation states with absolute nuclear families, and therefore fully homogenized property rights. This system cannot tolerate diversity. However, by adding monarchies, and strict property rights, hoppe’s argument is such that it is possible to have DIVERSE COMMUNITIES each of which uses its own norms and status signals, but which trades and exchanges according to private property rights. And this is possible because under monarchy and property rights, individuals are denied access to coercive political power. So, in Hoppeian terms, groups may continue to act as extended families. What I have tried to do is empirically demonstrate that both genetics of gender, and family structure (the structure of reproduction) determine moral codes. And that the Absolute Nuclear Family is the ultimate compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. But that the evolution of democracy combined with feminism,and the destruction of the nuclear family by feminists in alliance with socialists, has led to a circumstance where women can now ‘marry the state’ for financial support and obtain support from males without exchange of care and sex. This is not unnatural. Humans are naturally serially monogamous and women in history seize both the best male fertility, and the best male support in exchange for sex, that they can – but not from the same person, from many men. Property is not natural. It allowed men to control reproduction, and women resent this because it places a greater burden on them to make a choice of husband, and they are stuck with what they get. And they can no longer control group behavior by trading sex and affection. It is this choice, plus the need to create a home and property to support a family that created the compromise that was the protestant ANF. For this reason, both Rothbard and Hoppe make the mistake that was made by classical liberals: once included in the voting and work pool, women have sought to restore control over their reproduction and independence from the compromise with males. If you want to understand the drive to socialism, there are two axis of cause. This is the first, the second is that small homogenous groups that are out-bred are in fact, family members and as such socialism (in the nordic model) makes sense. There is no ‘belief’ system here. it is all justificationary language. The fact is that the structure of production at any given time can be optimized by a particular structure of reproduction (the family). And that freedom (liberty) is only possible in small, homogenous, out-bred, groups formally forbidden to intermarry as a means of obtaining insurance, and instead, forced to outbreed, and therefore seek insurance from ‘the tribe’ with the state as the insurance broker. This situation cannot change, because it is against the reproductive interests of humans to change. It is suicide to change. Small homogenous outbred families are in fact, highly redistributive, healthy organizations that eliminate near proximity competition and force all competition into the market for goods and services – there is no outlet left. NONE. That is why it works. The ANF, is the genetic institution that creates a compromise. It is, in fact, SOCIALISM. (Let that sink in a bit and it will alter your world.) THIS IS, IN NO SMALL PART, THE FIRST SECTION OF MY BOOK. It explains the diversity and immutability of moral codes, and therefore the political expression of morality informal institutions, as relationships between the structure of production and the structure of the family; And it is illogical to expect humans to act otherwise – against their reproductive and experiential interests. It is NOT PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL to ask people to act against their interests. SO ROTHBARD, HOPPE, AND …. 1) Rothbard (tribal religion of non-landholders) 2) Hoppe (private nation state of land holders) 3) Doolittle (private federation of states of land holders) With these three models we complete libertarianism in all its possible forms. This is the corpus of solutions from the most ideological and religious (rothbard) to the most practical and moral (hoppe) to the ratio-scientific (doolittle). All of which are founded on property rights – although I have used DESCRIPTIVE property rights across ALL family structures where hoppe and rothbard have use PRESCRIPTIVE property rights and ASSUMED the nuclear family as the unit of reproduction. (That’s what I’m up to. ‘Completing’ libertarianism. ) UTOPIAN? Rothbard’s fantasy is clearly utopian. It hasn’t worked very well for the jews, that’s for sure. Except for the postwar period, the entire world has been killing them by the hundreds, thousands and millions for millennia. Comparisons to India’s Gypsies is pretty common, except that gypsies are anti-intellectual at the bottom and jews hyper intellectual at the top. But, what rothbard DID, was reduce all rights to property rights, and give us the answer to human cooperation in doing so. Hoppe’s solution is ABSOLUTE GENIUS and so deeply engrained in political discourse by now that everyone’s forgotten it’s his idea already. While Argumentation is an analogy, not a cause, (and so I’m critical of it), he used it to deduce the solution to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy and the state by reducing the state to a contract on property rights, and using insurance companies, which is the states’s actual function, to form a competitive bureaucracy. His solution is not empirically derived, it is rationally derived, and he still makes (unfortunately) moral arguments in the rothbardian model, but in fact, he DID SOLVE THE PROBLEM that has been the ‘problem of politics’ for 5000 years. And as far as I know, no other thinker has done this – based on (ack) argumentation or not. I won’t go into why argumentation worked despite the fact that it’s a bit silly. That would take me too long. But it allowed Hoppe to deduce the correct answers in almost all cases. IN particular, to immigration. Which again, the migratory, non-property owning, progressive jewish wing of libertarians find understandably uncomfortable. END RESULT : A RESEARCH There is nothing utopian about a RESEARCH PROGRAM, which is what I see hoppe, rothbard and Hayek pursuing. Hayek did not have information theory. Hoppe did not have the empirical evidence we have today. Rothbard either didn’t understand or din’t want to understand his moral code’s implications. Mises got praxeology backwards. But it was all there. It was all there. We just needed a little more time. And as far as I can tell it is the most valuable political research program since the enlightenment and not matched in creativity since athens. Calculation is necessary. Reproduction is necessary. Cooperation is necessary. Everything else is preference.

  • Dont Throw Out The Libertarian Baby With The Progressive Bathwater

    LIBERTARIAN != ROTHBARDIAN ANARCHO CAPITALIST. Classical liberals are also ‘libertarians’. Rothbardians via the Mises institute adopted the tactics of the marxists, but this time, using the internet – so they’re ‘everywhere’. Anarcho capitalism was structured like the marxist IDEOLOGY. It is a MORAL, not scientific argument, for ideological rather than political purposes. The anarcho capitalist program DID give us: a) the incentives of a bureaucracy are worse than the incentives of a monarchy. b) the critique that democracy was simply a slow road to communism, c) propertarian ethics that make all moral codes commensurable and d) the use of competing insurance companies to replace monopoly bureaucracy. e) the sufficiency of the common law, and the necessity for it. f) the state as the cause of ‘evil corporations’. g) the required prohibition on law-making, and the constraint of government to contract negotiation between groups. What it did not give us is: a) means of investments in commons (government) b) means of preventing free riding, fraud by omission, theft via externality, privatization of gains and socialization of losses. c) a means of accommodating the collectivism of women in their effort to restore the sex economy in favor of the productive economy (but that’s too long a discussion.) Thankfully others have given us: a) lottocratic representation b) direct democracy And hopefully I’m trying to fix that. I think I have. But I’m not sure. http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-dark-enlightenment-critique-of-libertarianism.html