HE WHO BREEDS WINS, HE WHO FIGHTS RULES
—“Can you show us where Hoppe says you don’t need sovereignty for liberty?”— Rik Storey
That depends upon whether you mean Sovereignty in Fact, or LEGAL sovereignty in court – sovereignty by permission. Hoppe means the latter. Same for kinsella. And it depends upon whether you wish to imagine you possess a condition of sovereignty, or whether you possess a condition of sovereignty in fact.
I don’t engage in special pleading. When I say “Sovereignty” I mean “In Fact”, not in legal pretense.
I haven’t criticized hoppe for his judgement of the morality or right-ness of outcomes (immigration etc) but for his kantian justificationism.
One cant rely on argumentation ethics until AFTER property is already established since the choices are always fight/prey, flee/non-cooperation, and cooperate. The opposition if stronger does not give you the option he assumes.
Hoppe’s “Liberty by Commune” strategy is as impossible as communes by both incentive and economic possibility. The opposition is too strong.
Hoppe’s intersubjectively verifiable property is impossible as both incentive and economic possibility. the opposition is too strong.
The scope of property is determined by the complexity of invsetment possible, and all sorts of ‘interests’ can be constructed – the institutional production of property rights themselves being an abstract interest we construct.
What you are doing is simply taking the reverse-appropriation game as did Rothbard. You are redefining sovereignty as libertarianism when libertarianism (communism of the commons) was developed in opposition to sovereignty.
Libertarianism and Sovereignty Differ substantially, in that libertarians make a positive claim to the limits of property (and engage in fraudulent prose), and Sovereignty
I mean, until you answer the questions
1 – “What limits to property are necessary for the survival of a polity in competition with other polities” (none)
2 – “What is the reason for poly logical law NOT compatible with natural law of reciprocity OTHER than to conduct parasitism?” (none)
3 – “Can a libertarian polity without mandatory commons survive competition and not simply host parasites and criminals if with the available incentives and the small number of people with libertarian sentiments.” (no.)
4 – “What is the method of producing those necessary commons?”
5 – “What is the method of suppressing disincentive to produce commons?”
The problem is scale of polity and scale of competitors, in other words the problem is population density in relation to geographic productivity.
Private government (monarchy), with markets for commons (parliaments) under direct democracy(equal interest), multi-house direct democracy(categorical/class interest) or economic democracy (unequal interest), with a professional warrior class and a universal militia (army) provide the means necessary for the formation of commons. But we must produce humans that will serve in that context through training. Whether you name that system of producing women and children “church” or “academy” is merely whether you advocate the deception of abrahamists or the honesty of education. And in that education whether you advocate the deception of the abrahamic conflationary scripture (fictionalism), or the honesty of pagan deflationary myth, literature, and history. As far as I an tell a professional priestly caste seeking compensation for deception(parasitism) is always and everywhere detrimental compared to a professional class that is taught rituals and pays for them himself (sacrifice).
The church was designed purposefully to disempower the aristocracy so that the western empire could be controlled from the east. There is no liberty in the church. It is all slavery. which is why those areas longest with the church are the lowest trust, and those longest with the aristocracy are the highest.
You have nowhere to go. I know your feelings tell you something. I know you want to protect those feelings and those investments. I certainly did not expect to end up in the intellectual position I’m in. But I can’t avoid it. Because I want a condition of sovereignty. And the only method possible in modernity and in an ever increasing world,
You can’t un-invent gunpowder. You can’t uninvent nuclear weapons. The french revolution, napoleon, rothschild’ credit, and marxism/postmodernism destroyed europe. Because the princedoms could not militarily resist napoleon. Only the USA could afford to invent the atom bomb.
SO what can we do today given density and power to construct a condition of sovereignty such that ordinary people can experience a condition of liberty?
Small homogenous monarchic (semi-private) nation-states, natural law, market government, militia, and nuclear weapons, intertemporal borrowing and lending between the generations, a reformed (de-abrahamic) academy, and reciprocal insurance. Such states are impossible to defeat but lack the resources to expand.
NO WORD GAMES
I fight against all sorts of word games. Even well intentioned ones. “Libertarianism” evolved like marxism and postmodernism out of french libertinism and jewish separatism, in whch the normative and physical commons were rejected, and only private property and self protected. In other words, parasitism upon the commons. It’s an immaturity. a childhood. a continuing parasitism upon others. a failure to ‘pay one’s way’.
Puritanism does NOT reject the commons, but instead, expands and enforces it.
Americans imported this libertine technique particularly after the civil war. In the 50’s and 60’s H——-? (name is escaping me) started using ‘libertarian’. Rothbard took it from him and expanded upon it. Rothbardians then ‘claimed’ the term (appropriated it.). And they cast libertarianism = Rothbardianism.
But again it’s another catholic > french > Jewish vector just like marxism, postmodernism, neo-conservatism.
The european common law, the rights of anglo-saxons, the rights of englishmen, the rights of the american constitution always include the Thing (group, polity) in justice and politics, and the monarchy (chieftain) in war. There is no such ‘anti-social’ anything in european history.
Had hayek not been so fascinated with the term liberty (freedom from), and correctly understood the term sovereignty (freedom to) then he might have prevented the current conflict over terminology.
But in order to deny free riders on the commons any moral standing, I’m going to keep on message: the test is the scope of property and how you produce commons necessary for the creation and survival of a polity.
And I’m going to stay on message that given the absence of borderlands, that the only way to obtain a condition of sovereignty is through the organized application of violence. And that those who do not commit to the organized application of violence are just free riding parasites upon those that do. And as such whatever rights they may obtain, will be rights by permission only.
He who breeds wins. He who fights Rules.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 08:44:00 UTC