Why Do We Conduct Ideological Warfare? Democracy. That’s why.
Because, under Democratic Republicanism, and under Social Democracy, we conceive of government as majority right to establish laws under which we all must conform to a singular perception of the means and ends by which we create the common good, rather than a process by which we can negotiate contracts consisting of exchanges with one another despite our different preferences for means and definitions of the common good.
Laws evolve, and are discovered not made. Contracts are made with the intention of mutual benefit. The problem with ‘laws’ is that the next legislator can break the contract between groups willfully, and bad laws do not expire with the tenure of the people who wrote them.
Government as we have constructed it is destroying our society.
Yes we need a new civic religion. But democratic government that makes laws, rather than contracts within the one law of voluntary exchange, should be left behind on the dustbin of history with the magical gods and treated as a superstition equal to them.
via Curt Doolittle.
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.
66 days ago -
Liberty Isn't Inherent. It's unnatural. We create it with Organized Violence.
70 days ago -
Propertarian Definition: REVOLUTION
70 days ago -
Giving Rorty Another Try
70 days ago -
An Skeleton Argument In Defense Of Rorty From Hoppe
70 days ago -
A Propertarian Definition of Ruthless
70 days ago -
The Self Deception Of The Enlightenment View Of Man
70 days ago -
On Rent Seeking
70 days ago
-
Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.