I think your focus on trust is correct: civilization is basically a lagging indicator of trust.

Someone makes a solid go at articulating reactionary thought:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/

A serious engagement with the NIC (still the only politically viable path from here to there I am aware of, with there being the post industrial economy)
http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/44789487956/guaranteed-income-auction-the-unemployed

The main problem is that he presumes that reputation is a solved problem. It is not, but the bitcoin protocol could make for a viable reputation system that is cryptographically secure, and immune to centralized meddling.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts

The emotional reactions of conservatives are the point? (possibly)
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html

Related:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt_show_up.html

a) Money is distributed through government from the productive to the unproductive, and the unproductive don’t care about efficiency. Since it’s a transfer, it’s already infinitely efficient for THEM. Your argumentn rests on the assumption of equality of perspective, and interest – and that equality of interest doesn’t exist. The government and the recipients actually have every possible incentive to act inefficiently. So just the opposite interest.

b) Many things in our word are ‘commons’ that we break into different forms of private property so that the market will constantly invent solutions, instead of requiring us to rely on wisdom intelligence, interest and non-corruption in some hired person or bureaucrat. But these things are indeed ‘commons’. Private property is a commons. It is paid for by everyone who respects it, in forgone opportunities for gratification. We all pay for the institutions of private property. So the institution of private property itself is a commons. Property is means of forcing competition by violence, fraud and theft, into the arena of the market, so that everyone benefits by increased risk taking, increased choice, and decreasing prices.

c) So the answer is that the people who provide must demand that they receive value for their expense, and government is poor value. The question is the matter of demand. And what percent of these people who demand better, are actually net producers and contributors. These people represent a minority of the population. A demogratic government requires commonality of interest – which farmers possess, and merchants who transport farm goods possess. But if instead voters consist of takers and makers, and the takers are a minority, then democracy is just a means by which takers siphon from makers, and the government bureaucracies suck life and risk out of the producers.

d) Since democracy will not work outside of a small polity – evidence suggests 5-10M people – the question is how to create a system of government for people WITHOUT a commonality of interest. That is qutie the opposite of what has beeen in the past, other than perhaps rome.

1) I have started a new business, and this is distracting me from my writing quite a bit. Also, am doing more the sketches of my ideas on FB, then posting them here afterward. So, my ‘project’ (Propertarianism) will continue, and I’ll get the site and the book done. But a business opportunity that continues to fund my writing is something that I need to take advantage of. I seem to make the best progress if I work intensely for about two to three months, then work at something else for a bit. So it’s beneficial. And If I look at Rothbard, Hayek, or god forbid, even Spinoza, these ideas take a very long time to develop. Rawls circumvented the most important problem, so his task was easier.

2) Thanks for putting your comment here. :) I think your insight, which you should articulate clearly and repeat frequently, is point (3): a) that liberals confuse parties with political preferences, when the number of parties is two, and the number of preferences is very high — this is illogical. b) liberals PREFER to think in terms of parties, because they over-weigh consensus, because they get their information and values about the world from the consensus view (the feminine view), because they over-weigh empathy – conservatives instead look at all forms of capital over long periods of time. Libertarians understand taht the market will solve most problems if we prohibit involuntary transfers. Effectively, this is the same strategy as conservatives, except conservaties have a more negative view of human nature, as well as the limits of the market to train people without supporting institutions. It is possible (and probable) that they are right. c) that libertarians are not republicans. d) that both conservatives and republicans make use of libertarian ideas – because we actually have ideas, and because we speak in economic and philosophical language, not moral metaphor and historical allegory. THe conservative problem is that their language is old, as is their moral code and they have not found a way to express those ancient ideas in economic language. Even if it’s possible. (I can do it. So can they.)

I hope it’s OK for me to speak in a forward manner. If it isn’t I apologize in advance. That said: You have a good ‘message’ within your writing. But you haven’t reduced it to statements of necessity yet, or empirical statements. You’re still making arguments to preferences without articulating those preferences as preferences for outcomes (which are public and therefore objective) instead of preferences (which are personal and therefore subjective). The libertarian dogma is currently argued as preferences, both personal and moral, because earlier theorists failed to solve the problem of finishing what Rothbard and Mises started. Hayek tried very hard but he got stuck in psychology. Popper in idealism. Rothbard in the Ghetto ethic. Hoppe in german nationalism. But our ideas are not a preference FOR A MINORITY – all other things being equal. They are a necessity. Even the keynesians know that there is a maxiumum amount of profit taking that the government can reap without extraordinary consequences. And they are know learning that there are limits to the power of credit money in a heterogeneous population.

I commented on the post as well, but in case it doesn’t get through the moderation (sigh) here is how I replied to the same piece:

“So the take home that I got from this was as follows:

1. A crisis occurs (what could be thought of as the 9/11 of school shootings) and many lawmakers attempt to exploit it to pass new laws that restrict what the author of this post should know well Libertarians are in support of.

2. The Libertarian friends – whoever they are – object to this. Much in the same way they would object to any other non-Libertarian policies (interventionist wars for instance).

3. You then conclude that they must be republicans in disguise because (GOD FORBID!) they take a the Libertarian position on this SPECIFIC issue.

I mean, it’s fine if you’re offended by the fact that we react to calls for a “national conversation” in the same way we react to calls for a “war on terror” or whatnot, but how does that support the conclusion you pass off as true in your post?

I guess what offends liberals about Libertarians (and I really do refer to the big “L” ones and not the wannabes who like the label) is the fact that all those criticisms about being some kind of bigoted homophobic privacy-hating over-moralizing warmongering neocons just doesn’t apply to us.

Maybe the difficulty in addressing the arguments means that not having the convenience of the usual dismissals you have for those on the right makes dealing with us a lot harder.”

When all of the functions of government have private equivalents, offering more value, at a lower price, the public could possibly be persuaded of the argument that the state is not necessary for these programs, because the people themselves have found workarounds to achieve the same goals, without the centralized monopolies’ authorization. When Yelp and daily “mystery shopper” reviews become more valued than the semi-annual restaurant inspection grade, that’s one instance. When driverless cars render the need for highway patrolmen obsolete, that’s another. When police brutality exceeds the benefit of protection they offer, that’s another. Among black communities, this is already the case, where they tolerate crime amongst themselves because the state’s protection solution involves higher risk of injustice (primarily the drug war and their perception of racial injustice) than justice.

The technology is converging to render non-consensual government obsolete… and perhaps they know this, so I worry about the possibility of war to reset the people back to a more fragile psychological state that would embrace dependency.

While I’ve known about “The Bell Curve” for years, I never really got around to getting a copy until I noticed you recommended it. A real shame that many have a false idea of what the book tries to communicate.

Looks like I’ll have to get a copy of “Human Accomplishment” soon. Sometime I think it would be great if you would do either a post or series of posts on where you agree and disagree with “What it Means to be a Libertarian.”

Have yet to read it myself, but I’m pretty intrigued with your spin on Libertarian thought and I think plenty others would get an idea of where you come ideologically (with Propertarianism) if there was something more familiar people could compare it to.

Affections.

Curt

Keep it up and keep boosting the living standards of all who pay for your goods and services!

Existence itself creates the circumstances that lead to violence in that the preservation of property is instinctual.

In a linear way, I’m not sure there is anything that comes before property. It is true that the existence of some life necessarily threatens another so I can see the arguement that violence is a precondition of life itself. I’d still argue that for the violence to follow there would need to be property first.

I agree that violence is a form of wealth and that it is being traded for something.

Certainly religion plays on our understanding of existence and would have folks surrender property to it. If it happens to do so by using the human condition as a framing device to garner trust by providing a creation myth that doesn’t mean that the way they framed reality is wholly wrong.