". . . a republic, if you can keep it."
“A study of 1,162 Han Chinese found differences between rice-farming and wheat-farming regions on three psychological measures: cultural thought, implicit individualism, and loyalty/nepotism.”
evoandproud.blogspot.com/2014/05/rice-farming-and-gene-culture-co.html
“Egalitarianism leads to democracy; democracy leads to socialism; socialism leads to economic destruction; and democratic socialism in multicultural societies leads to death and democide. This, in shocking detail, is what Ilana Mercer illustrates superbly in her case study of post-apartheid South Africa. America’s political and intellectual ‘elites’ will ignore this book, because it is politically ‘incorrect.’ We can only do so at our own peril.” – HANS-HERMANN HOPPE
www.amazon.com/Into-Cannibals-Pot-Lessons-Post-Apartheid-ebook/dp/B00564TFM4/
WHAT LIBERTARIANS HAVE RIGHT AND WRONG
WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT
1) Property + Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of negative externality.
2) Contract + Common Law + Universal Standing
3) Competing Insurance Companies for the purpose of Regulation.
4) Economics: Voluntary organization of Production + Incentives + Competition
WHAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE RIGHT (AND WE HAVE WRONG)
1) Morality (‘Durkheimian Man’) requires many institutional means of coercion into respect for, and observation of, and enforcement of, property rights.
2) The Nuclear and Absolute Nuclear Family as the minimum organizational unit of any social order.
WHAT THE PROGRESSIVES HAVE RIGHT (AND WE HAVE WRONG)
1) Observance and enforcement of the property rights necessary for the voluntary organization of production, when one is not ABLE to participate in it, requires compensation for the effort of observance and enforcement. (Although they would never articulate it in this manner. The right of exclusion must be respected, but respecting it is a cost.)
Asking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation (if they’re strong) is asking them to bear a substantial opportunity cost. They will only do so if someone stands ready to impose a higher actual cost for choosing to engage in them.
This is what Curt Doolittle means when he says “liberty must be manufactured by violence.”
Libertarians love to sing liberty’s praises, and there is much to be said in its favor. But it does not follow from this that liberty is always in everyone’s best interests. There are many people who stand to lose more from liberty than they would stand to gain. (And not just because they misperceive the situation.) There are still more people for whom the uncertainty over what they would stand to gain or lose would make desiring liberty irrational.
The incentives that favor liberty do not exist by default, they must be proactively created. And in order for this to happen there must be people likely to benefit from liberty, strong people, capable people, wise people, intelligent people, responsible people, farsighted people; in short, aristocrats. And they must organize to impose liberty on the remainder by force, and in many cases, to their detriment, or to their enduring resentment.
If liberty is thus to be manufactured, the problem of free-riding must also be overcome by institutional forms that deny the benefits of liberty to those unwilling to participate in its manufacture, and that preserves the benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of those so willing.
THE FALLACY OF STARTING WITH THE ASSUMPTION YOU HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS RATHER THAN NEEDING TO CONSTRUCT THEM
If you have no property rights, but only permission from the state, to use its property in certain fashion, then the state cannot aggress against your property – nor can anyone else, except to the extent determined by the state.
To defend against this argument you must counter that natural rights exist like a soul, or are merely an allegory to contract rights, envisioned out of necessity for flourishing – or some other magical concept. Despite the fact that, contradictory to universal claims, nowhere on earth do private property rights exist. They are profoundly unnatural.
All that is necessary for cooperation is the institution of property. The scope of property is not defined by the means of transgression against property. We can only possibly hold a right that we have obtained in contract. The contract for property rights in the absence of a state can only be constructed by individuals exchanging the promise of defense in response to transgression, and the means of aggressively constructing those rights . The only means of preventing the universally extant violations of those rights obtained in such a contract, and reciprocally insured via that contract, is the organized application of violence against the state.
So it is an erroneous assumption, and a convenient one, that you start from a position of liberty, rather than start from a position of needing to construct liberty.
Intersubjectively verifiable property is a fallacy. Aggression is a fallacy. Natural rights are a fallacy. Crusoe’s Island is a fallacy. Man evolved from consanguineous bands by suppressing free riding, thereby pressing all into participation in production. Property is the natural result of suppressing free riding. At all points and at all times property is constructed by resisting free riding. Property results from the suppression of free riding. The origin of private property as we understand it occurred when Indo European cattle raiders were able to concentrate extraordinary wealth under pastoralism, by way of organized violence and they kept what they obtained in those raids. This is the origin of property: the organized application of violence against free riding.
People who are unwilling to enter the contract for organized violence in order to construct property rights both in contract and in daily practice (as a norm), are merely free riders (thieves) from those who are willing to act to construct property rights in contract and in daily practice (as a norm).
In other words, by claiming you have ‘natural rights’ you’re not only demonstrably wrong, but just trying to obtain property rights at a discount by free riding on the efforts of those who do construct property rights.
So, you’re not only wrong, but a dishonest, free riding thief, like statists you condemn are.
As far as I know this argument is bulletproof.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Kiev Ukraine
www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Inheritance-Genes-Human-History/dp/1594204462
In this book Nicholas Wade advances two simple premises: firstly, that we should stop looking only toward culture as a determinant of differences between populations and individuals, and secondly, that those who claim that any biological basis for race is fiction are ignoring increasingly important findings from modern genetics and science. The guiding thread throughout the book is that “human evolution is recent, copious and regional” and that this has led to the genesis of distinct differences and classifications between human groups. What we do with this evidence should always be up for social debate, but the evidence itself cannot be ignored.
That is basically the gist of the book. It’s worth noting at the outset that at no point does Wade downplay the effects of culture and environment in dictating social, cognitive or behavioral differences – in fact he mentions culture as an important factor at least ten times by my count – but all he is saying is that, based on a variety of scientific studies enabled by the explosive recent growth of genomics and sequencing, we need to now recognize a strong genetic component to these differences.
The book can be roughly divided into three parts. The first part details the many horrific and unseemly uses that the concept of race has been put to by loathsome racists and elitists ranging from Social Darwinists to National Socialists. Wade reminds us that while these perpetrators had a fundamentally misguided, crackpot definition of race, that does not mean race does not exist in a modern incarnation. This part also clearly serves to delineate the difference between a scientific fact and what we as human beings decide to do with it, and it tells us that an idea should not be taboo just because murderous tyrants might have warped its definition and used it to enslave and decimate their fellow humans.
A child’s education baseline should be fun and trial-and-error exploration, not imposed standards and fear.
