We Need A Very Different Government
While we use it as such, Government is not a synonym for a bureaucracy that wields law with which it coerces others by the threat of violence. It is not government itself that people disagree with. It is government whose actions they disagree with. And those actions are only possible because we believe government must consist of a bureaucracy. Everything we disdain about government is a criticism of bureaucracy, and the iron law of oligarchy that is the unavoidable consequence of bureaucracy. We don’t need a bureaucracy. We dont need majority rule. We need a government where groups and classes can exchange with one another. We need something entirely different from what we have.
2 Responses to We Need A Very Different Government
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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.
71 days ago -
Liberty Isn't Inherent. It's unnatural. We create it with Organized Violence.
75 days ago -
Propertarian Definition: REVOLUTION
75 days ago -
Giving Rorty Another Try
75 days ago -
An Skeleton Argument In Defense Of Rorty From Hoppe
75 days ago -
A Propertarian Definition of Ruthless
75 days ago -
The Self Deception Of The Enlightenment View Of Man
75 days ago -
On Rent Seeking
75 days ago
-
Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.
Productivity differences between classes without redistribution does seem to lead to popular revolt in history. This can only be “voluntary” in the sense that the wealthy who did not patronize the poor could expect to be targeted and thus act out of fear.
Of course a negative income tax a la Freeman is vastly preferable to the current state of affairs, but it precludes the upper classes from imposing their values on the poor as a means to signal to other upper class people how good they are and is thus unpopular.
Agreed.