Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • THE ONLY WAY TO REFORM ISLAM: BAN COUSIN MARRIAGE OUT TO SIX GENERATIONS. It’s n

    THE ONLY WAY TO REFORM ISLAM: BAN COUSIN MARRIAGE OUT TO SIX GENERATIONS.

    It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-29 09:01:00 UTC

  • 1) On The Purpose Of Scriptural Versus Rational And Ratio-scientific Ideologies. 2) On The Source Of Property Rights And Liberty.

    (good read) (Quotable) “I don’t like package deals. That’s mainly the reason I don’t identify with a particular political position. If I end up looking like a libertarian, it’s only because they happen to be where I’m going anyway. I reserve the right to do my own thinking.” – Kenneth Allen Hopf COMMENT Ideologies can be as rigid as scripture to which you must adhere (totalitarianism), or mere boundary conditions that describe similar sentiments (freedom). They are both means of obtaining political power. The first is a means of coercion into dogma by threat of ostracization. The second a means of affiliation by promise of opportunity. However, both scriptural threat and sentimental promise, are predicated on the absence of ratio-scientific knowledge. In the face of evidence of what man REALLY DOES with democracy, what he does with his economy, with his social order, with his freedom, with his laws, then we no longer are faced with an era of IDEOLOGY. We are faced with the outcome of the era of ideology. And the outcome of that era is that the SUCCESS of rich democratic countries had nothing to do with their democracy. Democracy is a luxury good that was ALSO made possible wealth. THE SOURCE OF THE WEST’S WEALTH AND PROSPERITY But that wealth had nothing to do with democracy. It had to do with: 1) The aristocratic egalitarian ethics of cattle raiding, land holders, bronze, the horse, the wheel, and chariot, who used inferior numbers, and voluntary, organized, cavalry tactics that required high personal and familial investment, as well as voluntary cooperation in tactics for shared risk and gain. The tendency to adopt disruption in the form of new technology, new members, and new leaders – because enfranchisement meant rights to private property and elected leaders rather than community property and static leaders. 2) Small homogenous countries – first Pagan, but the more protestant and german the better, operating as extended families, with the high trust of extended families. 3) The prohibition on cousin-marriage out to six or ten generations, and the Absolute Nuclear Family (ANF) as the organizational unit of production AND reproduction. 4) Common law, individual property rights, and rule of law. money, accounting, interest, credit and banking. 5) The manorial system that suppressed the fertility of the underclasses, and created the ‘protestant ethic’ in all of society, by requiring conformity to good practice in order to obtain access to rented land, and reproduction. 6) The evolution of credit backed by ‘the extended family’ represented by the state. 7) Plagues that suppressed and reversed the fertility of the underclasses, and which forced the upper classes to spread into the work force. An ’empirical bias’: a preferential bias toward, and continuous development of, technical, scientific, practical solutions. We cannot tell if this bias genetic or not yet but in part, it is beginning to look like a) minority status, b) competitive value of technology to compensate for small numbers, c) balance between verbal and spatial intelligence d) habituation. 9) The discovery and conquest of the New World and the subsequent trade, at a time when a plague had wiped out vast portions of north american indians. 10) The weakness of the Ottoman empire, Indian continent and the Chinese empire, from institutional decay. (In China, the failure to develop institutions of ‘calculation’ at scale and reliance on moral rather than empirical arguments. In Arabia, the persistent problem of ignorance, tribalism, low IQ, and inbreeding.) The weakness of the colonies, and the relative disparity in technological, calculative, and social development of the rest of the world meant the easy imposition of trade. And the re-adoption of ratio-scientism as a competitive advantage in the west while the other states had either fought it off intentionally (Islamic Civilization, Chinese Civilization), or who could not for a variety of reasons make use of it (Hindu civilization). ON CALCULATION The importance of calculation was I think, discovered or at least elucidated by Weber. But calculation is important, because it is NECESSARY. Without means of calculation, as the society becomes increasingly complex, SCALE AND DYNAMISM – ADAPTATION – EVOLUTION The state is often credited with the origin of calculative technologies. But this is to overstate the ‘state’ in its primitive origins in the fertile crescent. However, these small city states had all the properties of western city states, but earlier. THey created their innovation when they were small. They LOST their innovation when they became states and empires. THE STATE CALCIFIES – EVERYTHING. PRIVATE PROPERTY DOES THE OPPOSITE. IT MAKES EVERYTHING DYNAMIC, ITERATIVE, ADAPTIVE.

  • 1) On The Purpose Of Scriptural Versus Rational And Ratio-scientific Ideologies. 2) On The Source Of Property Rights And Liberty.

    (good read) (Quotable) “I don’t like package deals. That’s mainly the reason I don’t identify with a particular political position. If I end up looking like a libertarian, it’s only because they happen to be where I’m going anyway. I reserve the right to do my own thinking.” – Kenneth Allen Hopf COMMENT Ideologies can be as rigid as scripture to which you must adhere (totalitarianism), or mere boundary conditions that describe similar sentiments (freedom). They are both means of obtaining political power. The first is a means of coercion into dogma by threat of ostracization. The second a means of affiliation by promise of opportunity. However, both scriptural threat and sentimental promise, are predicated on the absence of ratio-scientific knowledge. In the face of evidence of what man REALLY DOES with democracy, what he does with his economy, with his social order, with his freedom, with his laws, then we no longer are faced with an era of IDEOLOGY. We are faced with the outcome of the era of ideology. And the outcome of that era is that the SUCCESS of rich democratic countries had nothing to do with their democracy. Democracy is a luxury good that was ALSO made possible wealth. THE SOURCE OF THE WEST’S WEALTH AND PROSPERITY But that wealth had nothing to do with democracy. It had to do with: 1) The aristocratic egalitarian ethics of cattle raiding, land holders, bronze, the horse, the wheel, and chariot, who used inferior numbers, and voluntary, organized, cavalry tactics that required high personal and familial investment, as well as voluntary cooperation in tactics for shared risk and gain. The tendency to adopt disruption in the form of new technology, new members, and new leaders – because enfranchisement meant rights to private property and elected leaders rather than community property and static leaders. 2) Small homogenous countries – first Pagan, but the more protestant and german the better, operating as extended families, with the high trust of extended families. 3) The prohibition on cousin-marriage out to six or ten generations, and the Absolute Nuclear Family (ANF) as the organizational unit of production AND reproduction. 4) Common law, individual property rights, and rule of law. money, accounting, interest, credit and banking. 5) The manorial system that suppressed the fertility of the underclasses, and created the ‘protestant ethic’ in all of society, by requiring conformity to good practice in order to obtain access to rented land, and reproduction. 6) The evolution of credit backed by ‘the extended family’ represented by the state. 7) Plagues that suppressed and reversed the fertility of the underclasses, and which forced the upper classes to spread into the work force. An ’empirical bias’: a preferential bias toward, and continuous development of, technical, scientific, practical solutions. We cannot tell if this bias genetic or not yet but in part, it is beginning to look like a) minority status, b) competitive value of technology to compensate for small numbers, c) balance between verbal and spatial intelligence d) habituation. 9) The discovery and conquest of the New World and the subsequent trade, at a time when a plague had wiped out vast portions of north american indians. 10) The weakness of the Ottoman empire, Indian continent and the Chinese empire, from institutional decay. (In China, the failure to develop institutions of ‘calculation’ at scale and reliance on moral rather than empirical arguments. In Arabia, the persistent problem of ignorance, tribalism, low IQ, and inbreeding.) The weakness of the colonies, and the relative disparity in technological, calculative, and social development of the rest of the world meant the easy imposition of trade. And the re-adoption of ratio-scientism as a competitive advantage in the west while the other states had either fought it off intentionally (Islamic Civilization, Chinese Civilization), or who could not for a variety of reasons make use of it (Hindu civilization). ON CALCULATION The importance of calculation was I think, discovered or at least elucidated by Weber. But calculation is important, because it is NECESSARY. Without means of calculation, as the society becomes increasingly complex, SCALE AND DYNAMISM – ADAPTATION – EVOLUTION The state is often credited with the origin of calculative technologies. But this is to overstate the ‘state’ in its primitive origins in the fertile crescent. However, these small city states had all the properties of western city states, but earlier. THey created their innovation when they were small. They LOST their innovation when they became states and empires. THE STATE CALCIFIES – EVERYTHING. PRIVATE PROPERTY DOES THE OPPOSITE. IT MAKES EVERYTHING DYNAMIC, ITERATIVE, ADAPTIVE.

  • (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.

  • The Mythology Of The Enlightenment

      The enlightenment mythos was almost as damaging was christianity. The greatest tragedy in human history may have been the christianization of Europe. The empirical side of the enlightenment was desperately needed to escape jewish mysticism that held us in ignorance for a millennia. Equality under the law, was important for the spread of commerce. But, just as moving people from christianity’s mysticism via Darwin was, let’s say … incomplete, it is very hard to move people from equality of property rights, equality under the law, and the equality of family interests, to what the socialists accomplished, which was equality of opportunity, material equality, inequality under the law, eradication of the common law by legislative law, and the destruction of the nuclear and absolute nuclear family in pursuit of ‘individualism’. We have a very hard time overturning this mythos. This mythos is even rampant in libertarianism. Libertarians are just as enamored of the fallacy of equality as are socialists. Libertarians want to retain meritocracy, sure. But most of us assume the same naive belief that if others ‘only understood’ they would adopt our system of values. But that’s just demonstrably false, both logically, praxeologically, and empirically. The majority of the world detests property rights and individualism.

  • The Mythology Of The Enlightenment

      The enlightenment mythos was almost as damaging was christianity. The greatest tragedy in human history may have been the christianization of Europe. The empirical side of the enlightenment was desperately needed to escape jewish mysticism that held us in ignorance for a millennia. Equality under the law, was important for the spread of commerce. But, just as moving people from christianity’s mysticism via Darwin was, let’s say … incomplete, it is very hard to move people from equality of property rights, equality under the law, and the equality of family interests, to what the socialists accomplished, which was equality of opportunity, material equality, inequality under the law, eradication of the common law by legislative law, and the destruction of the nuclear and absolute nuclear family in pursuit of ‘individualism’. We have a very hard time overturning this mythos. This mythos is even rampant in libertarianism. Libertarians are just as enamored of the fallacy of equality as are socialists. Libertarians want to retain meritocracy, sure. But most of us assume the same naive belief that if others ‘only understood’ they would adopt our system of values. But that’s just demonstrably false, both logically, praxeologically, and empirically. The majority of the world detests property rights and individualism.

  • BANS ISLAM

    http://www.africanglobe.net/africa/african-state-angola-bans-islam-mosques-destroyed/ANGOLA BANS ISLAM

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-25 09:17:00 UTC

  • SAVED BY CHURCH AND GOD. SAVED BY ACADEMIA AND STATE. There isn’t any difference

    SAVED BY CHURCH AND GOD. SAVED BY ACADEMIA AND STATE.

    There isn’t any difference you know.

    Universities were extensions of the church, and with the decline of the church, the university has replaced the church as the source of civic religion, and the promise of prosperity.

    But, going to college doesn’t, it turns out, teach you much. It just sorts us into how much hard work we can adapt to in any given period of time.

    And it turns out that the church didn’t save you, and academia didn’t save you.

    We rebelled against the little slips of paper the church gave out. We are rebelling against the little slips of paper academia has given out.

    Why is it that the church doesn’t warranty your access to heaven, or academia your access to prosperity?

    If you could take them to court like any other merchant, what would change in both church (premodern religion) and academia (the modern and postmodern religion)?

    If someone will not warrant their goods, what does that say about them and their goods?

    Fraud is fraud.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-25 04:37:00 UTC

  • THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT The enlightenment mythos was almost as damagi

    THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT

    The enlightenment mythos was almost as damaging was christianity. The greatest tragedy in human history may have been the christianization of Europe. The empirical side of the enlightenment was desperately needed to escape jewish mysticism that held us in ignorance for a millennia. Equality under the law, was important for the spread of commerce.

    But, just as moving people from christianity’s mysticism via Darwin was, let’s say … incomplete, it is very hard to move people from equality of property rights, equality under the law, and the equality of family interests, to what the socialists accomplished, which was equality of opportunity, material equality, inequality under the law, eradication of the common law by legislative law, and the destruction of the nuclear and absolute nuclear family in pursuit of ‘individualism’.

    We have a very hard time overturning this mythos. This mythos is even rampant in libertarianism. Libertarians are just as enamored of the fallacy of equality as are socialists. Libertarians want to retain meritocracy, sure. But most of us assume the same naive belief that if others ‘only understood’ they would adopt our system of values.

    But that’s just demonstrably false, both logically, praxeologically, and empirically. The majority of the world detests property rights and individualism.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-15 04:03:00 UTC