Religions Establish The Terms By Which The Population Consents To Be Ruled
In practical terms, Religions establish the terms by which the population consents to be ruled.
Religions differ from systems of ethics, in that they are far harder to alter in response to fashion – ethical systems have a predictable and known life cycle that ends in skepticism and abandonment of the necessary self sacrifice that allows societies to exist as economic entities.
Religions seem to persist on a much longer life cycle. THey can be altered, such as the Germanicization, or the enlightenment of christianity.
I’ll write more on this topic over the next few years. It’s a core theme of my work.
Religions do not need a magical component. Nor do they need a divinity. THey can be constructed without either.
But I have come to believe that religions, as political constructs, are a necessary property of any civilization – of any people, of any government.
I had previously thought that they were simply exceptional pedagogical tools, given the limitations of human youth and the diversity of human age and ability.
But I’m convinced otherwise.
We need a new religion. Because we need a new means of persisting the terms by which we consent to be ruled — governed.
The west is unique and it was superior, because of ONE BELIEF: THat in all things, we should maintain the balance of power.
Christianity can only evaluated as one element of the balance of power. It provided a means by which the collapsing mercantile and bureaucratic south to maintain it’s influence over the militaristic and tribal north. It functioned as a judiciary among the competing european monarchical states. It provided a balance between the state and the individual by establishing the terms by which they would consent to be ruled. It provided a political and military means of balancing the poorer and fragmented west against the wealthier and totalitarian east.
We have all but abandoned christendom in our quest for world dominance – we have done this consciously as cross-civilization traders and conquerors who establish a new ethics based upon the necessities of economics — the ethics of trade and trade alone.
We have all but abandoned christianity as our pseudo-rational basis of ethics, and the underlying system of ethical pedagogy in an effort to build an international empire, and a domestic multi-cultural society, based upon the economics of trade and trade alone.
But we are abandoning the one thing that made the west successful despite it’s weakness, despite it’s poverty, despite it’s small size: the balance of powers.
And a balance of powers is only possible among people with a similar framework of ethics.
To the rest of the world, a balance of power is antithetical.
And a balance of power cannot be enshrined purely in a constitution. The destruction of our constitution by way of the commerce clause, and the conversion of our supreme court from protestant ethical judgements to jewish and catholic judgements is proof enough.
The proletarianization of the political mythology into totalitarian democracy and away from noble or upper-class balance-of-powers, and in particular, the balance of powers between social classes is the cause of our loss of western identity.
We need a reformation.
That reformation needs to specifically state the underlying ethics of the balance of power – where private property for the individual, and the separation of powers, which requires consent of the social classes, is our ethic.
Everything else isn’t progressive. It’s regressive. Regressive into those systems which are used elsewhere but led nowhere.
The industrial revolution happened twice. Once in greece. Once in England. Both times under rule by the middle class under a balance of power.
About

Curt Doolittle
Seattle, WA, United States
I am an independent theorist of Political Economy in the Conservative Libertarian tradition. And as a methodological Propertarian I attempt to complete the work of Rothbard and Hoppe by suggesting post-democratic political solutions for heterogeneous polities.Purpose
"De Philosophia Aristocratia"
Anglo Conservatism is the remnant of the European Aristocratic Manorial system and the Classical Liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment, combined with our ancient tribal instincts for group persistence and land-holding. It currently consists as a set of sentiments rather than as an articulated rational philosophy. And without that rational articulation, conservatives lack the ability to create and promote a plan that is a positive and rhetorically defensible alternative to the hazards of accidental bureaucracy and purposeful socialism.This lack of an articulated philosophy leaves conservatives vulnerable in the public debate with Schumpeterian public intellectuals whose advantage in both volume of production, and simplicity of argument poses a nearly insurmountable challenge.
Libertarianism by contrast, is a rational philosophy of an articulate but permanent minority. It is based upon a solid, rational and critical methodology, even if it is flawed in its initial assumption: the principle of non-violence.
Unfortunately the Rothbardian Anarchist movement has appropriated the term "Libertarian", and left Classical Liberals and Conservatives alienated from the only system of thought with which they need to articulate their political sentiments in rational and empirical rather than moralistic and sentimental form.
By repairing the flaws in Libertarian philosophy we can use its methodology to provide a rhetorical solution for conservatives - a language which in turn may become an articulated philosophical body of argument and advocacy for the frustrated conservative majority.
Connect with:
Recent Posts
-
Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.
68 days ago -
Liberty Isn't Inherent. It's unnatural. We create it with Organized Violence.
72 days ago -
Propertarian Definition: REVOLUTION
72 days ago -
Giving Rorty Another Try
72 days ago -
An Skeleton Argument In Defense Of Rorty From Hoppe
72 days ago -
A Propertarian Definition of Ruthless
72 days ago -
The Self Deception Of The Enlightenment View Of Man
72 days ago -
On Rent Seeking
72 days ago
-
Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.