Theme: Sovereignty

https://t.co/TlhDQTLWsxQ&A: WHY THE USA FASCINATION WITH EXPORTING DEMOCRACY

—“Why does the US government insist on making other countries be democratic?”—

THE COMPLETE ANSWER

The world wars dramatically changed western civilization to which we said ‘never again’. This has driven American policy since world war one. American treats Europe as a set of petulant client states that are incapable of self-rule. This is not new. Americans have believed this of Europeans since the founding of the country.

THE POSTWAR POLICY

1) We cannot allow countries to attempt to use border expansion to increase wealth.

2) We will force all countries to focus on internal development of consumer capitalism, human rights, because this will eliminate any need for inter-state conflict, and it will generate economic ties that will make conflict undesirable and expensive.

3) All people will rationally choose consumer capitalism if given the ability to choose their own government, because everyone wants to consume, and all people wish to be free.

4) Therefore we will support the will of all people to establish a democratic, consumer,capitalist society.

AND THE BIG, UNSTATED, “HOWEVER”

5) if people choose poorly and institute a government that violates these ambitions we will punish that government and those people until they make the correct, peaceful choice.

SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM

1) is a good idea

2) is a good idea

3) is absolutely false, and incomprehensibly ignorant. consumer capitalism and democracy are very, very, limited goods, after which both are destructive to family, culture, and civilization.

4) is what the states does because it is wrong about 3.

5) is the consequence of doing 4, while still under the illusion of 3.

THE USA IS A GOOD INSURER. BUT A BAD DIRECTOR.

https://t.co/ii1OPkLzes—“How would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”—

(a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.

(b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.

(c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.

(d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).

(e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.

The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.

There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.

Curt