You know, I don’t really pay much attention to philosophers outside of economics and politics any longer. But I have to give Rorty another go. Just to see if I’m missing something of value. Every time I re-read a great author I get something new. I can re-read a work by Mises or Hayek a half-dozen times before I feel that I’m not getting something new from it.

My work with Propertarianism assumes that Rorty is right. But I don’t really care to further justify why he’s right (that the discipline of philosophy – epistemology – has been a failure.) It’s pretty obvious that science has solved the problem and will continue to do so. It’s pretty obvious that academic philosophy has become immaterial to society.

This is somewhat odd, because, at least until recently, philosophy has effectively been the religion of our upper classes since ancient greece. (Which is why its in the religion section of the book store. :)

But the art of philosophy: which is to reorganize and reorder our perceptions of causal relations, and the values that we should attach to those causal relations, is still a worthy discipline. We are too reliant on norms and flights of fantasy about ourselves not to have philosophy at our disposal.

And really, it is far better to conduct our political warfare in philosophical debates than it is to in religious conflict, or open war and revolution.

What I do care about, is that **the mind is a property engine**. Saying it’s a “difference engine” is kind of cute, and politically correct. But the differences it calculates are differences in property. If property is to be understood in it’s full scope: as humans actually use it. Rather than the narrow legal or philosophical variants of private property.

Curt, what are your comments on Hoppe’s criticism of Rorty?

http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE3_1_16.pdf – Skye Steward

Thanks for the pointer to this paper. Its the second paper that you have sent me to that would provide a good skeleton to tie propertarianism to.

So first i’d have to explain why Hoppe is invested in rationalism as he means it. Second I’d have to explain Rorty’s argument in propertarian terms. Third explain why Hoppe is wrong. And lastly why Rorty, in general, is right. And from that position i could then illustrate that Hoppe’s argumentation is incomplete, that praxeology is incomplete, and that rothbardian ethics are incomplete. And as such, hoppe’s claims proven incomplete and his motivations would be proven unnecessary. And as incomplete they cannot be subject to the certain as he states.

However, that does not mean Hoppe’s insights are not correct. As I have stated elsewhere, his solution is incomplete because it does not account for heterogeneity of interests.

And where our ancestors lacked empirical evidence and had to rely on universal assumptions, we now have empirical evidence proving heterogeneity of interests.

Rorty’s central tenets are not in conflict with libertarian thought. Hoppe is fighting the wrong war. I have accommodated Rorty. But then i read him with propertarian eyes.

In context Hoppe’s generation was fighting agains a dragon now dead. Having slain that dragon, and faced with a broader polity, we now need to build a camelot. Rothbards ghetto liberty is insufficient and intolerable. Hoppe’s solution is for homogenous tribes. I THINK I may have found one possible alternative in “contractual government” and aristocratic ethics. But i could of course be wrong.

I am having breakfast in a cafe and typing with my thumb. Which is doing an injustice to this debate. So i hope you forgive me for brevity and obscurity. Although i think you probably understand most of what i mean here – typos and all.

Net is Hoppe is half right, but his criticism of Rorty is not the half he is right about.

On the other hand i don’t like criticizing Hoppe. I’d rather produce solutions to the problems of institutions in a heterogeneous polity.

Because a critic wastes air. We need solutions not criticisms.

 

So first i’d have to explain why Hoppe is invested in rationalism as he means it. Second I’d have to explain Rorty’s argument in propertarian terms. Third explain why Hoppe is wrong. And lastly why Rorty, in general, is right. And from that position i could then illustrate that Hoppe’s argumentation is incomplete, that praxeology is incomplete, and that rothbardian ethics are incomplete. And as such, hoppe’s claims proven incomplete and his motivations would be proven unnecessary. And as incomplete they cannot be subject to the certain as he states.

However that does not mean Hoppe’s insights are not correct. As I have stated elsewhere, his solution is incomplete because it does not account for heterogeneity of interests.

And where our ancestors lacked empirical evidence and had to rely on universal assumptions, we now have empirical evidence proving heterogeneity of interests.

Rorty’s central tenets are not in conflict with libertarian thought. Hoppe is fighting the wrong war. I have accommodated Rorty. But then i read him with propertarian eyes.

In context Hoppe’s generation was fighting against a dragon now dead. Having slain that dragon, and faced with a broader polity, we now need to build a Camelot. Rothbards ghetto liberty is insufficient and intolerable. Hoppe’s solution is for homogenous tribes. I THINK I may have found one possible alternative in “contractual government” and aristocratic ethics. But i could of course be wrong.

I am having breakfast in a cafe and typing with my thumb. Which is doing an injustice to this debate. So i hope you forgive me for brevity and obscurity. Although i think you probably understand most of what i mean here – typos and all.

Net is Hoppe is half right, but his criticism of Rorty is not the half he is right about.

On the other hand i don’t like criticizing Hoppe. I’d rather produce solutions to the problems of institutions in a heterogeneous polity.

Because a critic wastes air. We need solutions not criticisms. ;)

 

“ruth·less /ˈro͞oTHləs/

Adjective
Having or showing no pity or compassion for others. feeling or showing no mercy;

Synonyms
merciless – pitiless – unmerciful – remorseless

Propertarian translation: disregard for externalities. Different from ‘cruel’ which is to intentionally cause externalities.”

 

The so called enlightenment is a mental self deception for the purpose of obtaining signals at a discount and nothing more.

The enlightenment view of man was a myth invented to justify the taking if power from the landed nobility. It was that aristocracy that created western excellencies that made us unique in the world, and that we now spend for signaling discounts.

Enlightenment principles are genocidal. And we see that in the reproductive data. Liberals don’t breed.

 

RENT SEEKING

In its original sense, rent seeking is the act of gaining partial ownership of land in order to gain control of a part of its production.

In government it is the act of gaining privileges, redistribution or partial monopolies.

In its broadest sense it is the act of obtaining some sort if claim on the productivity of others rather than producing something ones self, or through voluntary exchange.

We all seek rents. We all seek opportunity for benefitting from either the actions of our organizations, the actions of others, or the grant of state state monopolies. Women seek mates as monetary rents and men to ease the burden of childrearing. We all seek rents. We could argue that rent seeking is the primary incentive for cooperation. Because so few of us are productive enough through direct exchange of our efforts.

The only rent thats totally moral is interest. Interest is free of involuntary transfer.

Interest, in the sense that we rent money to others, contrary to our superstitions, is moral.

Now, It is possible to seek rents via interest. Either through usury or through leveraging the state’s fiat money.

One can collect interest on production. On can collect interest on consumption. Neither of these things is necessary. Both are voluntary. Neither produce negative externalities. They create whole sequences of positive externalities.

But collecting interest on externalities is immoral if it creates externalities that produce involuntary transfers.

Rothbards ghetto ethics actually encourage involuntary transfers. Under the false presumption that the market will solve the problem through competition. But Since all things being equal, profit from externalities is greater than the same loan without externalities, just the opposite is true. The market will encourage externalities.

Also, ghetto ethics assume that judges will not hold people accountable for those externalities and require restitution of them. But they have and will. Because it is consistent with the ethics of property to do so.

 

To Ethan Walters:
Re: http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

Welcome to the Uncomfortable Enlightenment (or the Dark Enlightenment).

History, Economics and Anthropology have addressed this issue for decades:
RICHARD DUCHESENE: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization
MARIjA GIMBUTAS: (Everything she has written)
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON: Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress.
KAREN ARMSTRONG: The Great Transformation
(Or See the reading list at: propertarianism.com/menu/reading-list/)

We’ve learned that our enlightenment view of humanity is flawed. The purpose of that vision was to justify the taking of political power from the landed aristocracy and the church, by the emerging middle class of northern european merchants.

That political change may have been necessary in order to create the industrial society that we live in. However, the aristocratic view of man and mankind was accurate. And our ‘enlightened’ view of the perfect natural man if only ‘set free’ is simply an error. Man is an animal that must be trained to participate in one society of another.

Our ‘progressive’ view of humanity is flawed as well. The purpose of that vision was to justify the taking of political power by women and the working classes. The ‘progressive view’ was put forth by Marx and Freud.

But as Friedrich Hayek said, the trend in 20th century political ideology, which was the product of Marx and Freud, will eventually be seen as a new era of mysticism – with no basis in fact. In fact, counter-to-fact.

And that will mirror the warnings of most of the great historians: Toynbee, Gibbon, Braudel, Spengler, Quigley, Durant, Burnham, McNeil, Keegan. That we are unique and unique for circumstantial reasons, and that all of science and reason are the product of our uniqueness.

It has only been since the progressive ideology has become received wisdom due to the ‘revisionist history’ put forth by the last generation of academics, and then followed by the collapse of western economic uniqueness, that we have begun to see scientists, and a new generation of academics begin to undermine that ideological view of man.

Welcome to the “Dark Enlightenment”: We are unequal and Western Civ is Unique and impossible to replicate.

Western civ is the product of individualistic aristocratic egalitarianism caused by indo european battle tactics learned as pastoral radiers. Objectivity, debate and science, and the unique western solution to the problems of politics and market are the product of the need to obtain consent from other peers, rather than obey a chosen leader.

Then, the church created individual property rights, and created the universalism which led to the high trust society when it tried to break up the noble families, outlawed cousin marriage, and gave women property rights. Western high trust is a produced within the Hanjal line and the Lotharingian kingdom at the bottom, and the english and scandinavians at the top.

Manorialism: or the ownership of land, and the need for men to demonstrate their conformity and reliability, as well as participate in military when needed, in order to gain access to land, created the protestant ethic. It encourage the working classes to adopt the ethics of the nobility.

Chivalry provided a means for men regardless of land-holding to demonstrate their socials status through service -which is a unique means of status achievement we thing of as ‘heroism’ that no other society has in such abstract, non-familial terms.

The need to ‘keep the east at bay’ using the germans, and therefore preserving german militarism was a intentional choice of the catholic countries. The western high trust society is the product of this aristocratic egalitarian individualism.

Culture is a set of property definitions, property rights, relying upon myths, traditions and rituals to propagate those rights. It is a set of rules for sending status signals. Status signals are those things that we imitate because they give us better access to mates and opportunities. Property definitions vary from the individual to the commons on one axis, and administration of it from the individual to the state on the other. Cultures matter. Our culture matters most. Cultures are not equal, and ours was (not is) unique.

Northern European (protestant) Americans (at least to some degree) carry this ancient aristocratic tradition with them today. It isn’t well understood that the anglo-celtic and german populations were about equal in america until the progressive strategy to take over ‘white’ america through immigration was put in place in the 60′s. (But that’s why American english speech is flatter than UK english – it’s merged with the flatter german tonal structure.)

Americans did not have an ‘aristocracy’ or a landed church to rebel against. There was no opportunity like in europe to create a popular “US vs Them”. We retained our distaste for government, where the europeans saw themselves as taking over the government from the aristocracy and church. Instead, it became feminists and the lower classes against white protestant male culture. This is one of the reasons why other cultures think our male-female relations are ‘businesslike’ rather than intimate and affectionate.

And quite contrary to the revisionist progressive historians, it was not luck that made we westerners successful in our ‘great divergence’. The west was a poorer, less numerous people on the edge of the bronze age who used technology, cooperation, speed and strategy to give their inferior numbers the advantage against an east that was always more brutal, totalitarian, numerous and wealthy.

Americans have the lock on the world’s speculative capital, because we are the people least likely to abuse it through various schemes of privatization. In abstract terms, we own the stock market. and the Brits own the Bond market. The brits lend and the americans risk. You can trust an english speaker or one of the varieties of german speaker with your money. But you pretty much can’t trust anyone else in the world. And that is a cultural value that runs back 4500 years.

We westerners apologize for our conquest and colonialism, but we have spent the past five hundred years dragging humanity out of ignorance, mysticism, totalitarianism and dirt-scratching crushing poverty, hunger and disease. We should not feel guilty for it. We should instead, require others thank us for it. For while we did it sloppily at times, we did it none the less.

(In essence, that’s the Dark Enlightenment philosophy.)

 

COMMENT ON HEIDEGGER
You are teaching me about these nutty people, and it’s…. it’s awful.

Its, well….. it’s like talking to a woman that’s trying to get you to engage with her emotionally so that she can manipulate you with those emotions. Like Huck Finn trying to gut us to a paint the fence. Just with more elaborate language.

This is quite separate from the agreement to engage in argument for the pursuit of true statements – understanding the quality of an argument.

Which is quite separate from the agreement to engage in argument for the purpose of cooperation: consent on property (action).

You cannot read this nonsense without FIRST agreeing to the value judgements that he makes about experience. If man seeks to escape the sentimental and rise to the rational, whether the origins of those sentiments be biological, or normative, or uncommon events, he can give himself the option to experience what he wishes, and in doing so may train himself to wish what is good for him. But I can find no circumstance where feminine perspective is of value for other than circular argument. The feminine perspective exists only to forbid outliers (alphas) from gaining too much control and depriving them of choice of mates and survival of offspring. It’s not rational, it’s not a ‘good’ for rational creatures, and in an industrialized society it does nothing except promote dysgenia and overconsumption of the world’s resources.

You can say that a thing is possible, and that it’s possible to gain pleasure from it. But that’s different from saying its a ‘good’ independent of our primitive senses.

I mean we can all seek physical pleasures. We can seek it in liesure, in sex, in food, in acquisition of things, in acquisition of experiences, in conversation, in artificially induced states via drugs, in artificially induced states by repetition of experiences (most eastern tactics), or in artificially induced states by repetition of reason (the western model.) These states can all be achieved.

We are happy to say that many drugs that give us great pleasure damage our bodies. We are happy to say that many sexual experiences give us pleasure at the cost of being ostracized from much of society. We can say that contravening norms gives us pleasure, at the cost of ostracization, and economic hardship. We can say that repetitive internal reflection minimizes the necessity of problem solving through cooperation with others, and therefore the minimization of rejection stimuli. WE can say that repetitive internal reflection can train us to habituate any number of our more primitive, and therefore ‘cheaper’ stimuli such as the feeling of euphoria from pack membership, or the ‘undiscovered valley’ of resource richness.

But each of these actions has a short term cost and a longer term consequence for the individual and for the group. The feeling of using certain drugs is unreachable by any other experience but the body degrades quickly. On the opposite end of the spectrum, excessive training that allows us to obtain cheap internal pleasure has led all societies that operate by that mechanism to ignorance and poverty.

The profit from learning to interact with the physical world so that we may transform it, and how to interact with others to cooperate in transforming it, has few consequences.

So perhaps I do not understand the logic here. Other than from my perspective, like a manipulative woman, Heidegger attempts to seduce us into a form of consent before we know the terms and consequences of doing so.

In other words, Heidegger us using deceptive language as a the intellectual equivalent of a date rape drug.

-Curt

(PS: Kinda doubt you’ll find that comment elsewhere.) lol

 

One is articulate if one speaks articulately. Most definitions say ‘speaks clearly’. However, the term “clearly” itself is subjectively inarticulate. To speak articulately is to express concepts as a unified set of causal relations. The problem with any unified set of causal relations is that the set of causal relations a) must be expressed as a series of actions (to avoid the platonic or subjective errors), b) must bridge the gap between different audiences with greater and lesser knowledge. c) and the steps in those causal relations must be short enough that the audience can follow them.

Net is to articulate something well requiers we understand it well. and understand others well enough to calculate how we can bridge the gap between those states of understanding.

 

WHY ARE MOST SELF DESCRIBED LIBERTARIANS UNABLE TO ARTICULATELY DESCRIBE LIBERTARIANISM?

There is a reason that the term ‘libertarian’ often cannot be explained by advocates, and it’s the reason social democrats cannot explain marxist theory (which is extremely elaborate.) Libertarianism can refer to:

1) A sentiment (the preference for liberty above all other moral ambitions).
2) A moral conviction that liberty produces ‘goods’.
3) A political preference – which is the minimization or elimination of bureaucracy because all bureaucracy becomes self serving. It can refer to an economic model that suggests liberty will provide the most competitive and wealthiest economy for all.
4) It can refer to a political model, such as Classical Liberalism, Private government or Anarcho Capitalism.
5) It can refer to a specific and rigid philosophical doctrine that states that all exchanges must be voluntary and devoid of fraud theft or violence. And in the classical liberal model, additionally, that transactions may not cause externalities (external involuntary transfers), and that norms and the commons are forms of property we must pay for through forgone opportunities for self gratification. Libertarianism is, aside from marxism, the most analytically rigorous political theory that exists. But whether anarchic or classical liberal, or anything in between, the guiding principle is that all statements about rights can be reduced to statements about property rights, and the only ‘rights’ we can possess are those that are reducible to statements about property rights.

So a person who refers to himself as a libertarian, may be correct in that he prefers less government and more personal liberty, for anything from a sentimental desire, to a fully and rationally articulated philosophical, economic and political model.

And if someone doesn’t know how to explain what ‘libertarianism is” that’s because you’re talking to people with sentimental attraction rather than something more rationally chosen. Or you’re talking to a set of people who express their sentiment in a broad spectrum from intuitively emotive, to fully rationally articulated. And you’re unable to identify the similarities.

 

From Politicus USA “Real Liberal Politics” http://www.politicususa.com/seriously-libertarians-wtf.html

WHY CAN’T LIBERTARIANS EXPLAIN THEIR IDEOLOGY?

There is a reason that the term ‘libertarian’ cannot be explained, the same way social democrats cannot explain marxist theory (which is extremely elaborate. Like leftism, Libertarianism can refer to a sentiment (the preference for liberty above all other moral ambitions). It can refer to a moral conviction that liberty produces ‘goods’. It can refer to a political preference – which is the minimization or elimination of bureaucracy because all bureaucracy becomes self serving. It can refer to an economic model that suggests liberty will provide the most competitive and wealthiest economy for all. It can refer to a political model, such as Classical Liberalism, Private government or Anarcho Capitalism. It can refer to a specific and rigid philosophical doctrine that states that all exchanges must be voluntary and devoid of fraud theft or violence. And in the classical liberal model, additionally, that transactions may not cause externalities (external involuntary transfers), and that norms and the commons are forms of property we must pay for through forgone opportunities for self gratification. But whether anarchic or classical liberal, or anything in between, the guiding principle is that all rights can be reduced to property rights, and the only ‘rights’ we can possess are those that are reducible to property rights. Libertarianism is, aside from marxism, the most analytically rigorous political theory that exists.

So a person who refers to himself as a libertarian, may be correct in that he prefers less government and more personal liberty, for anything from a sentimental desire, to a fully and rationally articulated philosophical, economic and political model.

So if someone doesn’t know how to explain what ‘libertarianism is” that’s because you’re talking to people with sentimental attraction rather than something more rationally chosen.

Of course, the right answer, is that it’s easy to advocate for a moral preference, about which you hold a genetic, habituated, and reinforced position. It’s much harder to objectively articulate every perspective on the political spectrum and compare those choices.

Explaining the libertarian perspective.

I.
Libertarians are not idealists about human nature.
1) they believe that weapons should be in their hands in case the government overreaches. The cost of government abuse is higher in the aggregate than even war. There is no higher ‘good’ that preserving liberty.
2) They believe that the data shows that disarming people increases crime.
3) They believe that the only way to protect children is to either arm teachers or put armed guards, armed parents, or armed policemen in the schools.

II.
1) The woman who complained was a conservative not a libertarian.

III.
1) The west developed the high trust society out of indo european aristocratic egalitarianism. (evolving to aristocratic manorialism). I won’t bore you with the full set of historical details. Conservatives are the remnants of this manorial system and the reason that we have the high trust society that the rest of the world can only marvel at. Necessary components of the high trust society are forced outbreeding (forbidding cousin-marriage) and property rights. This breaks normal familial and tribal bonds and fools humans into acting as if all people in a society are family members. (Something that only westerners think.)

Libertarians in the founding fathers sense, are a product of the rise of anglo commercial society during the enlightenment. They are STILL ARISTOCRATIC, in that they are both meritocratic, and fully embrace universalism. HOwever they havec dropped the militarism since it’s unprofitable under trade, even though it was highly profitable under manorialism, and the only source of profit under indo european pastoralism.

In more practical terms, just as liberals are the thought leadership for social democrats, libertarians are the thought leadership for the conservatives. Conservatives speak in metaphorical and allegorical and historical language. Classical Liberal Libertarians speak in philosophical language, and Anarchic Libertarians and Private Government libertarians speak in economic language and use analytical philosophy.

Cheers

PS: I found this post through google alerts that I have set up for any blog that posts about libertarianism.

WHAT IS MY ROLE IN THIS NONSENSE?

Thank you for the kind words. I try very hard. The truth is that in the past, I intentionally tried the antagonistic approach for a year (because it draws a lot of attention) and realized that it was’t helping me understand anyone, or any one understand me, and it was drawing negative attention. So I changed my approach, and have tried to be objectively informative. The work by Jonathan Haidt helped me understand the progressive and liberal perspective and supplied enough quantitative data to support all perspectives, that I ceased attributing negative intent to most political argument regardless of spectrum.

As for my work in Libertarian and conservative theory, I’m one of the only active post-analytic libertarian philosophers. My original intent was to assist conservatives in speaking in rational language rather than metaphorical language. My thoughts on that have changed over the past few years. Now my work is an attempt to find a solution to post-democratic government, and the problem of conflict in large polities under majority rule.

Rorty has put forth that the metaphysical program has been a failure and that ‘truth’ is effectively consent. “whatever people agree upon”. This is what separates analytic from post analytic philosophy: that we abandon the program of justifying philosophy as a science, and that we fully incorporate science, and attempt to interpret, understand and incorporate it.

Rothbard reduced all rights to property rights and voluntary exchange – effectively making the same argument as Rorty. (Although that’s a difficult statement for some to swallow.)

Rothbard attempted to create an anarchic system, but like most reformists he failed because his ethical program was insufficiently complete to satisfy the moral and reproductive requirements of other than a narrow minority.

Hoppe, following Rothbard, extended propertarian reasoning and solved the problem of a monopolistic bureaucracy with competing insurance companies. Which is largely (at least in terms of budgetary activity) what the US Government and most western governments do today. Very little is spent on what we supposedly justify government with : infrastructure. This solution satisfies the needs for small homogenous polities. Partly because small homogenous polities are highly redistributive because they function as an extended family. And in turn, this is because increasing diversity does incrase status signal rewards for people at the bottom of society for a time, but it has the consequence of eroding trust and exchange.

The problem is, that small homogenous polities a) have less ability to insure, b) have less ability to negotiate import export terms. And so large polities are more economically competitive, but have much higher internal friction and resistance to redistribution. I am trying to solve this problem. I think I have. But time will tell.

Cheers.

ARE LIBERTARIANS INFORMED OR NOT?

Actually, every piece of data that we have confirms that libertarians are both the best informed and the most economically knowledgeable. (And almost entirely male.)

Economic conservatives who state they are libertarian are not incorrect, since libertarianism is simply a commercial offshoot of conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism.)

Social conservatives do not generally state that they are libertarian, because they place higher emphasis on norms, and are, most of teh time, representing the middle, lower middle, and upper proletarian classes. Upper middle class conservatives tend to self identify either as classical liberal libertarians. And that pure ‘geeks’ as libertarians entirely. This difference has to do with the perceived value of the opinions of others, and roughly maps to 15points of periodicity in the IQ curve, and therefore to social class. This is because ‘others’ are an advantage to more average people because they provide information and ideas, and less of an informed source to more intellectually and financially independent people. There is no mystery to this. It isn’t the 19th century. We have a lot of polling data that goes back to the second world war now. And we have fair economic data back into the 1700′s.

Political preferences generally are a) genetic in origin and b) reflect our different reproductive strategies – at least in the aggregate. That is why people’s preferences don’t change, other than that they tend to become more conservative as they age, and gain a deeper understanding of human nature.

This is just how it is. Political argument is specious because no one is ever convinced of anything. They just reinforce their existing opinions because their existing opinions are necessary for their reproductive strategy. Liberals for example (less than 20% of the population) are not breeding. Conservatives are breeding. And immigrants are outbreeding them both. The only material shift in the polity has come from the increases in single mothers, who would have swung conservative but as single mothers swing left to gain support from the state that they cannot get from a husband and family. And the constant shift of white nuclear family voters to the republican party, which is, at present, becoming the ‘white’ party, at least numerically.

Parties are arbitrary devices. They don’t mean much other than that the party structure in different countries causes more or less diversity of interest, while power still consists of coalitions built ether in the populace directly as here in the states, or in the government’s multi-party system as in much of Europe.

This, in turn, is caused by the use of majority rule as a deciding factor in political action. Versus the multiple-winners and losers in markets.

Cheers

CONSERVATIVE SUPPORT OF THE BANKING AND FINANCE SECTOR

QUOTE: The currently popular teabagger version of Libertarianism is “carpetbagger Libertarianism,” at best. A hyper-wealthy elite (think Koch brothers) pump out the accepted memes through their wholly-owned consortium of “advocacy groups”

ANSWER: Actually, conservatives made an intentional decision to abandon the popular press as a vehicle, because the combination of left bias in the media, and in the school system required an alternative means of advocacy.

This led to a focus on think tanks, magazines, inexpensive AM radio, and governorships.

These think tanks have produced a series of strategies and ideologies.

One of them was that we ally with the capitalists (big money) to compete with the state, that was dependent upon these companies for revenue to support their left leaning programs.

Another strategy was to try to drive the government into bankruptcy before it could bankrupt and corporatize the private sector, and therefore illustrate the failure of the Keynesian debt model and inter-temporal redistribution that the social democratic state’s ponzi-financing was built upon. And then return to a savings and interest state that was less fragile. This strategy is what you see being played out in washington today. Forcing the government into insolvency in order to undermine the state’s legitimacy.

THe problem was, that while conservatives were able to understand that the left would use immigration and the destruction of the nuclear family to win a majority, they believed that they could morally appeal to the majority of the american public that leans conservative. And it worked. They changed the debate.

What they did not count on was the rapidity of immigration from the third world, the drop in reproductive rates, and the loss of american economic advantage once the rest of the world adopted capitalism. The general conservative thinking was that we could outlast the communist movement worldwide, and protect our empire inherited from the British empire. They did not count on the attempt of the muslim world to organize and undermine the world system of oil production that the USA used to finance it’s military operations by selling petrodollars, then inflating them away. THis is how we pay for the 1/3 of our budget that we cannot pay for out of tax production. It is also how Europe affords its services: they don’t pay for the stabilization of oil prices either with policy or military expenditure like we do.

I know this history because I was there. I was a bit player. But I have been involved in this thinking since high school. What changed my mind is the realization that the constitution failed to protect our individual rights. And that by introducing women into the voting pool, we forever changed the classical liberal and aristocratic models, because women have a genetic interest that is the polar opposite of that of men.

So some of us are trying to figure out what we do next.

Cheers.

 
Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.