Theme: Reform

  • Credit unions still have SOME value. Consumer bans not so much, and post offices

    Credit unions still have SOME value. Consumer bans not so much, and post offices can add functionality (helping us retain the limited value of post offices by transforming them into money outlets.) I have another recommendation that’s elegant and radical, but don’t want to say.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-30 17:08:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200823881612906497

    Reply addressees: @ClownBa73413423

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200820262586986496


    IN REPLY TO:

    @FullAccountant

    @curtdoolittle How much of the financial sector will disappear as a result of the elimination of the Fed and consumer loans? Will banks still be needed for day to day life? Will they still issue commercial loans?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200820262586986496

  • The world war was a continuation of the cycles of european civilizational balanc

    The world war was a continuation of the cycles of european civilizational balances, which occur regularly, with thirty year or so periods of war, followed by reformations. AT present we are about to enter into another period of reformation. Outcome is uncertain.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-29 18:22:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200480047120953345

    Reply addressees: @ArturBooth @KillerkattArt @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200479300836823040


    IN REPLY TO:

    @ArturBooth

    @curtdoolittle @KillerkattArt @DegenRolf 1) I claim that World Wars are consequences of industrial revolution. I try not to play the “blame game” by invoking “great” personalities of the 20th century. Empiricism: Who is to blame?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200479300836823040

  • In other words. With a different legal structure with greater liability, this wo

    In other words. With a different legal structure with greater liability, this would rapidly disappear.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-25 18:43:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1199035886270320641

    Reply addressees: @Steve_Sailer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1199035217337413640


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Steve_Sailer Steve: Any data by occupation? Because it certainly appears that they favor occupations that “Bait into Hazard, with Unwarrantable Services”. IOW: White Civ is wealthy partly because of what we DON’T do. But we are vulnerable to those that exploit what we don’t do. (True in USA)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1199035217337413640


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Steve_Sailer Steve: Any data by occupation? Because it certainly appears that they favor occupations that “Bait into Hazard, with Unwarrantable Services”. IOW: White Civ is wealthy partly because of what we DON’T do. But we are vulnerable to those that exploit what we don’t do. (True in USA)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1199035217337413640

  • (NOTES) CONTEXT Context of this, the Aristotelian(scale) and enlightenment (scal

    (NOTES)

    CONTEXT

    Context of this, the Aristotelian(scale) and enlightenment (scale), and how the work contains the same degree of reformation.

    Because each time we run into the problems of scale – scaling ARISTOCRACY as fast a we scale MARKETS made possible by aristocracy.

    And we have this problem of scale because we don’t know why we have been successful – we just do it.

    So I explain why we were what we did what we do and now you won’t have to just intuit it as moral or not. You can explain it.

    PREFACE FOR CRITICS

    This is an adult conversation about the most important topic of our century. If you need to work to understand it, that’s simply true. John can help you. John and others will teach.

    Do you really understand the declaration, constitution, bill of rights, supreme court rulings, and federal code? or do you morally intuit them. I can test that theory if you’d like and I bet you won’t like the results.

    So try to imagine how stupid you sound when you say you want something simple. There is nothing simple. If it was simple we wouldn’t have had the social conflict of the 20th and 21st century.

    I have the patience for questions. I dont have the patience for the intellectually dishonest, overconfident ignorant or immoral – I work too hard every day to spend time on that.

    SO WHAT DOES A CONSTITUTION NEED TO COVER?

    What is the current problem – we can’t solve it if we can’t define it and most current confusion is over failure to define it.

    Why are we in this condition

    How can we fix this problem.

    What benefits do we gain from fixing the problem.

    What are the costs and consequences of fixing it.

    And… what are the costs if we just go to civil war.

    SECTIONS

    There are roughly four sections.

    1 – The Indictment, is an overall explanation of the success of the european peoples and why we are in this problem today.

    2 – The Law is a technical description of the Natural Law. It’s sort of like learning programming language. Because its very much like one.

    3 – The Prosecution and Crimes

    4 – The Judgement and Enforcement.

    FUTURE ORIENTED GRAND STRATEGY

    (last video)

    CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES

    Whereas our original constitution was an experiment in governing under the common natural law, this constitution repairs weaknesses in that constitution, and common law.

    Common law differs from continental law in that….

    We obsess over government, but we this constitution obsesses on law and rule of law. We tend to focus on governments because our laws are weak. when if we have better laws, the method of governing matters far less.

    CORRECT OUR BIGGEST ERRORS

    Repeating the Error of Monarchy MONOPOLY:

    Conflating rule and governance has been one of our three largest errors:

    1) conflating rule and governance

    2) not expanding houses for the classes.

    3) repeating the roman error of the unearned franchise.

    4) majority monopoly rather than market.

    5) Monarchy. Better to think of monarchies as intergenerational custodians. It is clearly better to have intergenerational families make profits or loss from rule (arts and limits) and a rotating middle class for governance (commons).

    PRIMARY DIFFERENCES

    1. The primary improvement in the constitution is to increase the ability of the law to criminalize the saturation of the people with disinformation misinformation and lies in order to profit from manipulating them and fostering conflicts between them for profit. The 20th was largely an era of pseudoscience, lies, sophism and economic and financial innumeracy (a kind of pseudoscience) that created our current crisis.

    2. The second is to restore the constitution to its original intent, and a continuation of the european civilizational project, which is a continental military, judicial, and trade union, as we had in Europe throughout most of our history – even though we don’t think of the church as a weak political judiciary that was largely it’s political function. So a restoration of he constitution to a constitution of the european peoples in the european tradition.

    3. The third is controversial, which is solving the failure of integration the failure of multiculturalism, and the failure of the marxist-feminist-postmodern program to produce other than illusory improvements at the cost of destruction of the family and rates of reproduction. And that is a set of choices – I only recommend a set of them – of escalating unpleasantness. This is where we will find conflict.

    4. The fourth doesn’t really consist of much policy so much as a set of restitutions to compensate for the crimes of the 20th and 21st century, so that we restore our civilization and our families, and the benefits of our ‘third way’ of civilizational order. There won’t be a lot of conflict here. And it’s what most people want from our government anyway.

    OFFEND EVERYONE

    There is something to offend everyone. Your offense is part of the cost of any solution.

    Naming the enemy and the enemies and explaining their strategy in detail is not something I’ve treated gently – just the opposite. And that’s what will start the escalation in both directions.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Introduction – summary of the case

    Declaration – to mirror the original in content

    Preamble – how this modifies the existing constitution

    Article I – Man – Definitions

    Article II – The Law – What it is and how to write it.

    Article III – Rights and Obligations – everyone has under the law

    so notice that the law is before and higher than the state or the government.

    Article IV – The Court

    Article V – The State

    Article V Section I – The State

    Article V Section II – The Military, Regiments, and Militia

    Article V Section III – The Treasury

    Article V Section IV – The Insurer of Last Resort

    Article VI – The Government of the State

    Article VII – The Governments of the Several States

    Article VIII – The People

    Article IX – The Economy

    Article X – The Commons

    Article XI – Commerce and Cooperation

    Article XII – Marriage, Family, Children

    Article XIII – Training: Religion, Fitness, Education, Training,

    Article XIV – The Territories, Monuments, Arts, and Letters

    Article XV – Articles of Devolution

    Article XVI – Restitutions and Punishments

    Addenda

    Threats, Charges, and Duties (“The Black Pages”)

    Letters of Marque

    ====

    PICK YOUR GOVERNMENT

    Think about that question for a moment.

    What protection did our founders intend?

    What protection do we have now?

    What is the ultimate protection that we CAN have?

    Globalism

    or

    Nationalism

    … Ethnocentrism

    … … Homogeneity

    … … … Conformity

    … … … … Subject of Law

    … … … … … individual

    … … … … … or;

    … … … … … individual and collective

    … … … … Subject of Policy

    … … … … … Extended Intergenerational Family

    … … … … … or;

    … … … … … Nuclear Intergenerational Family;

    … … … … … or;

    … … … … … Individual

    … … … … Subject of Polity

    … … … … … Consumption (dysgenia)

    … … … … … or;

    … … … … … Capitalization (eugenia)

    and (Limits)

    Rule by Priesthood (tradition? wisdom?) (Islam)

    … Rule by Justification (Supernatural)

    or

    Rule by Politicians (discretion)(europe)

    … Rule by Discretion (Sophistry)

    or

    Rule of Law (non-discretion)(old-usa)

    …Rule of Law (Technology)

    and Judiciary (Resolution of Disputes)

    … Constitution

    … … Supreme Court

    … … … Courts of Appeals

    … … … … Regional Courts

    … … … … … Specialty Courts

    … … … … … … Professional Judiciary (judges)

    … … … … … … … Professional Officers of Court (law)

    … … … … … … … … Prof.l Property Finance, Banking (title)

    … … … … … … … … … Prof Insurers

    and (Production of Commons)

    Government (Closure: final decision maker)

    … Dictator

    … or

    … Monarchy

    … or

    … President

    … or

    … Prime Minister

    and (selection of commons)

    … … … cabinet

    … … or

    … … … Jury (veto) of appropriations

    … … or (representation)

    … … … Senate-lords

    … … … or

    … … … Parliament and senate-lords

    … … … or

    … … … Lower house(families),

    … … … Middle house(parliament/business), and

    … … … … Upper house (senate-lords/territories)

    … … or (direct participation)

    … … … direct proportional democracy

    … … … or

    … … … direct economic democracy (by who pays)

    and Services (Assets)

    … … Military

    … … … Standing

    … … … … Warfighters

    … … … … Professional Technical

    … … … … Logistics and Supply

    … … … … Medical and Care

    … … … Regiments (Local Part time)

    … … … Reserves( those who have served )

    … … … Militia (every able bodied citizen)

    … … Infrastructure (assets)

    … … Insurer (emergency, disasters, etc)

    … … Treasury

    and Administration (Operations)

    … … … Bureaucracy

    … … … or

    … … … Bureaucracy – Private Partnership

    … … … or

    … … … Competing Private Contractors

    … … … or

    … … … Private Mandatory Public Service

    and Participation (participation)

    … … … … Maximally Earned Franchise

    … … … … Minimally Earned Franchise

    … … … … Citizenship Franchise

    … … … … Resident Franchise

    … … … … Genetic Franchise


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 17:37:00 UTC

  • I didn’t realize there were any others out there. There are bits of sophism,mora

    I didn’t realize there were any others out there. There are bits of sophism,moralizing, philosophizing,and ideology, but are there any reformations of the law itself that would permit the operation of a government at scale with the humans we have rather than those we wish we had?


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-20 15:21:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197173023280967682

    Reply addressees: @SpaceMan2120 @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197161870177624065


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197161870177624065

  • I have figured out what’s wrong with the online right – now I have to figure out

    I have figured out what’s wrong with the online right – now I have to figure out if it can be fixed. Same problem with the religious right. Can they be called out if ‘their sin is named’?

    Normally I achieve my ends by working like water on a rock. And maybe this is one of those things that going to take time – a year or more.

    But we don’t have a year.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-18 19:17:00 UTC

  • PICK YOUR GOVERNMENT Think about that question for a moment. What protection did

    PICK YOUR GOVERNMENT

    Think about that question for a moment.

    What protection did our founders intend?

    What protection do we have now?

    What is the ultimate protection that we CAN have?

    Globalism

    or

    Nationalism

    … Ethnocentrism

    … … Homogeneity

    … … … Conformity

    … … … … Subject of Law

    … … … … … individual

    … … … … … or;

    … … … … … individual and collective

    … … … … Subject of Policy

    … … … … … Extended Intergenerational Family

    … … … … … or;

    … … … … … Nuclear Intergenerational Family;

    … … … … … or;

    … … … … … Individual

    … … … … Subject of Polity

    … … … … … Consumption (dysgenia)

    … … … … … or;

    … … … … … Capitalization (eugenia)

    and (Limits)

    Rule by Priesthood (tradition? wisdom?) (Islam)

    … Rule by Justification (Supernatural)

    or

    Rule by Politicians (discretion)(europe)

    … Rule by Discretion (Sophistry)

    or

    Rule of Law (non-discretion)(old-usa)

    …Rule of Law (Technology)

    and Judiciary (Resolution of Disputes)

    … Constitution

    … … Supreme Court

    … … … Courts of Appeals

    … … … … Regional Courts

    … … … … … Specialty Courts

    … … … … … … Professional Judiciary (judges)

    … … … … … … … Professional Officers of Court (law)

    … … … … … … … … Prof.l Property Finance, Banking (title)

    … … … … … … … … … Prof Insurers

    and (Production of Commons)

    Government (Closure: final decision maker)

    … Dictator

    … or

    … Monarchy

    … or

    … President

    … or

    … Prime Minister

    and (selection of commons)

    … … … cabinet

    … … or

    … … … Jury (veto) of appropriations

    … … or (representation)

    … … … Senate-lords

    … … … or

    … … … Parliament and senate-lords

    … … … or

    … … … Lower house(families),

    … … … Middle house(parliament/business), and

    … … … … Upper house (senate-lords/territories)

    … … or (direct participation)

    … … … direct proportional democracy

    … … … or

    … … … direct economic democracy (by who pays)

    and Services (Assets)

    … … Military

    … … … Standing

    … … … … Warfighters

    … … … … Professional Technical

    … … … … Logistics and Supply

    … … … … Medical and Care

    … … … Regiments (Local Part time)

    … … … Reserves( those who have served )

    … … … Militia (every able bodied citizen)

    … … Infrastructure (assets)

    … … Insurer (emergency, disasters, etc)

    … … Treasury

    and Administration (Operations)

    … … … Bureaucracy

    … … … or

    … … … Bureaucracy – Private Partnership

    … … … or

    … … … Competing Private Contractors

    … … … or

    … … … Private Mandatory Public Service

    and Participation (participation)

    … … … … Maximally Earned Franchise

    … … … … Minimally Earned Franchise

    … … … … Citizenship Franchise

    … … … … Resident Franchise

    … … … … Genetic Franchise


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-17 19:25:00 UTC

  • FIVE QUESTIONS ON CONVERTING FROM PRESIDENCY TO PRIME MINISTER AND MONARCH AS JU

    FIVE QUESTIONS ON CONVERTING FROM PRESIDENCY TO PRIME MINISTER AND MONARCH AS JUDGE OF LAST RESORT

    1) –“Hey, I’ve got some concerns. Why does Mr. Doolittle want to return the US under British Imperial rule with a monarch? “—

    I just have a broader understanding of the strategic future than other americans – I’m thinking on the same scale as the enemy.

    it’s (a) that a monarch is superior in incentives to a president or prime minister or dictator, or any other individual, as a judge of last resort. (b) it’s the least different culture with a monarchy, (c) it would assist in creating the military-trade-culture block of USA, CA, AU, NZ and that gets us enough people enough trade, to maintain funding of a global military which they others cannot do without us (d) it becomes much easier to restore nationalism and monarchies to the rest of european civilization as defense against “the enemy”.

    2) —“I understand the monarch is still bound by the rules of reciprocity, but that goes against balance if powers the Founding Fathers put in place.”—

    That doesn’t make sense. The president has a veto. But even his veto wasn’t enough to protect the Natural Law, the Constitution, and our Civilization.

    I don’t understand why a prime minister and a monarchy with judge of last resort isn’t superior to a president, when (at least for those of us who study these thing) it’s record is fantastic and ours is terrible – and ours is only less visibly terrible because of the wealth we have from selling off a continent.

    3) —“Does the monarch having the power to over through Supreme Court rulings?”—

    The monarch has the power to veto findings of the court (rulings) that are in violation of the spirit of the constitution and the people, so that such things as abortion and gay marriage would not be possible to make law of the land, only local laws. (this isn’t that hard really)

    4) —“What about congress? Also, will there be a balance of political perspectives in this new government?”—

    The federal government is devolved almost entirely to the states with the senate surviving only as the sitting governors of the states, and their powers limited to voluntary contracts between the states – as in old europe – with majority rule limited to collective trade policy, treaty, and war. And all contracts survive only as long as those who enacted them.

    5) —“Balance in all levels of government is extremely important and thus having balanced perspectives is vital–that is as long as both sides are speaking the truth.”—

    This only partly true. We spent far too much time on government, little of which maters at all, when it’s the law that matters – and that was hayek’s insight – and the failure of the twentieth century intellectual caste.

    All that matters is the law. The production of commons within the law like the production of all other market goods, within the law, is served via-negativa, by prosecution for failure, within which any possible good is a good.

    Political orders are not a defense against the bad. Just the opposite. It’s LAW, EDUCATION, and MILITIA that provide defense against the abuse of power – by denying power to all.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-17 18:39:00 UTC

  • Appendix – Three Generations to Our Success

    THREE GENERATIONS: OUR SUCCESS

    THE SUCCESS OF THE LIBERTARIAN RESEARCH PROGRAM

    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 to resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community. The Mises Institute group (Lew Rockwell) 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).othbard’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. That Rothbard used the rebellious ethics of the Jewish ghetto rather than the high trust ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian society (protestant Christianity) is just because it was familiar to him. Hoppe by contrast, repaired many Rothbard’s errors, but in doing so left us with not necessarily utopian, but certainly a system of ethics dependent upon the 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 the 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 axes 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.) 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. SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN THREE GENERATIONS ACROSS THREE CIVILIZATIONS: ROTHBARD-Jewish, HOPPE-German, AND DOOLITTLE-Anglo 1) Rothbard (tribal religion of non-landholders) 2) Hoppe (private nation-state of landholders) 3) Doolittle (private federation of states of landholders) 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 used PRESCRIPTIVE property rights and ASSUMED the nuclear family as the unit of reproduction. (That’s what I’m up to. ‘Completing’ libertarianism by restoring it to its european origins as rule of law of sovereign men: sovereignty. ) 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’ 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 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 PROGRAM 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 didn’t want to understand his moral code’s implications. Mises got Praxeology backward. 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.

  • Appendix – Three Generations to Our Success

    THREE GENERATIONS: OUR SUCCESS

    THE SUCCESS OF THE LIBERTARIAN RESEARCH PROGRAM

    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 to resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community. The Mises Institute group (Lew Rockwell) 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).othbard’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. That Rothbard used the rebellious ethics of the Jewish ghetto rather than the high trust ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian society (protestant Christianity) is just because it was familiar to him. Hoppe by contrast, repaired many Rothbard’s errors, but in doing so left us with not necessarily utopian, but certainly a system of ethics dependent upon the 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 the 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 axes 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.) 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. SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN THREE GENERATIONS ACROSS THREE CIVILIZATIONS: ROTHBARD-Jewish, HOPPE-German, AND DOOLITTLE-Anglo 1) Rothbard (tribal religion of non-landholders) 2) Hoppe (private nation-state of landholders) 3) Doolittle (private federation of states of landholders) 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 used PRESCRIPTIVE property rights and ASSUMED the nuclear family as the unit of reproduction. (That’s what I’m up to. ‘Completing’ libertarianism by restoring it to its european origins as rule of law of sovereign men: sovereignty. ) 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’ 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 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 PROGRAM 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 didn’t want to understand his moral code’s implications. Mises got Praxeology backward. 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.