I view the current state of western society as having been wrapped in so many layers of bullshit that only a complete destruction of the current order will offer any opportunity for the return to free market exchange. Managerial liberalism has succeeded in creating such a comfort zone around victim hood that there is little hope of escape for the materially incompetent masses.
This made me laugh when discussing oppressors because so many Puerto Ricans don’t identify with their Spaniard heritage even though many of us are predominantly Spaniard. It’s like it’s gauche to identify with that side and it’s only acceptable to identify with the Native or Slave ancestry.
“To risk your own skin and be proven right is to be worthy of recognition”
And I daresay the vote for any force should be restricted to those who risk their lives. Until the 20th century the vote was in exchange for military service or equivalent, the madness of the 19th led us to now... for 24 centuries only soldiers voted from Athens forward. Even the Bolsheviks only won the soldiers by offering the vote.
The vote for the power of the purse to net taxpayers, this is balance and at least 1000 years old (the Anglo Saxon invention of private property).
"...property can either belong to individuals or the collective..." Yes, the 'free markets versus socialism' dichotomy seems to come down to private versus public property ownership. But the issue seems to always be confused and clouded by both the right and the left, for example by conflating two different meanings of "property".
1. Property is a thing that can be possessed by a person.
2. Property is the right of a person to possess a thing.
Those are two different things, but look how Rothbard conflates them in "Power and Market", where he writes:
"The Law Code of the purely free society would simply enshrine the libertarian axiom: prohibition of any violence against the person or property of another (except in defense of someone's person or property), property to be defined as self-ownership…"
His first use of "property" is with meaning 1. But then he defines "property" as meaning 2. And so his thinking on property ownership of individuals in society becomes completely muddled, because he ad hoc uses the same word to mean two different things. It’s the kind of conflation that socialist use to confuse issues.
I view the current state of western society as having been wrapped in so many layers of bullshit that only a complete destruction of the current order will offer any opportunity for the return to free market exchange. Managerial liberalism has succeeded in creating such a comfort zone around victim hood that there is little hope of escape for the materially incompetent masses.
This made me laugh when discussing oppressors because so many Puerto Ricans don’t identify with their Spaniard heritage even though many of us are predominantly Spaniard. It’s like it’s gauche to identify with that side and it’s only acceptable to identify with the Native or Slave ancestry.
Fun read. You are correct on a lot, as usual.
“To risk your own skin and be proven right is to be worthy of recognition”
And I daresay the vote for any force should be restricted to those who risk their lives. Until the 20th century the vote was in exchange for military service or equivalent, the madness of the 19th led us to now... for 24 centuries only soldiers voted from Athens forward. Even the Bolsheviks only won the soldiers by offering the vote.
The vote for the power of the purse to net taxpayers, this is balance and at least 1000 years old (the Anglo Saxon invention of private property).
Very thought-provoking essay, as usual!
"...property can either belong to individuals or the collective..." Yes, the 'free markets versus socialism' dichotomy seems to come down to private versus public property ownership. But the issue seems to always be confused and clouded by both the right and the left, for example by conflating two different meanings of "property".
1. Property is a thing that can be possessed by a person.
2. Property is the right of a person to possess a thing.
Those are two different things, but look how Rothbard conflates them in "Power and Market", where he writes:
"The Law Code of the purely free society would simply enshrine the libertarian axiom: prohibition of any violence against the person or property of another (except in defense of someone's person or property), property to be defined as self-ownership…"
His first use of "property" is with meaning 1. But then he defines "property" as meaning 2. And so his thinking on property ownership of individuals in society becomes completely muddled, because he ad hoc uses the same word to mean two different things. It’s the kind of conflation that socialist use to confuse issues.
This is your best writing and explanation of this matter.
Sir 🫡