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.
I agree... the current social order along with it's governmental hierarchy is well into its death throes as we speak.. It's a cause and effect relationship.
"To answer on truth; the survivors will have some hard truths."
We can hope.
But the people who ended the delusion of monarchy and survived the French revolution installed new delusions, put Napoleon in power and began the Napoleonic wars.
Absolutely! As the Enlightenment threatened the institution of monarchy, in 1651 Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan to propose totalitarian rule in a new guise, and so invented modern leftism. And Hobbesian statism is now finally triumphing over the values of freedom that emerged in the Enlightenment.
Yes, it's true that the Napoleonic wars could be seen as another episode of the war wherein the Seven Years / French and Indian War was an earlier episode.
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.
Thanks brother! I love me some Rothbard... this kind of seems like a limitation of English language. I've heard English is good for business, German for philosophy. Multiple meanings of words is certainly something leveraged either intentionally or not always to my chagrin.
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.
Well you're in luck !
Because it's happening.
The Delusions will probably only die with the literal death of the Deluded.
#GazaRave
I agree... the current social order along with it's governmental hierarchy is well into its death throes as we speak.. It's a cause and effect relationship.
"The Delusions will probably only die with the literal death of the Deluded."
Yes, I think that's what Thomas Kuhn said about bad theories in science.
But in the context of our society, if the delusions die, will they be replaced by truth, or by more delusions?
They’ll die.
Eventually their ideas die with them, and the event part happens fast.
See Gaza Rave + Israeli gun control.
Sorry to be blunt.
Middle Eastern gun control is a new level of madness.
To answer on truth; the survivors will have some hard truths.
"To answer on truth; the survivors will have some hard truths."
We can hope.
But the people who ended the delusion of monarchy and survived the French revolution installed new delusions, put Napoleon in power and began the Napoleonic wars.
A return to monarchy, i.e., global monarchy is the is the entire focus of that which is occurring now. In short, that is the planned end game.
"In short, that is the planned end game."
Absolutely! As the Enlightenment threatened the institution of monarchy, in 1651 Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan to propose totalitarian rule in a new guise, and so invented modern leftism. And Hobbesian statism is now finally triumphing over the values of freedom that emerged in the Enlightenment.
To be fair to Napoleon he basically inherited those wars.
He can be accused of not quitting when he was ahead.
Even Metternich wanted to keep him there as balance against Russia, just not as powerful.
Metternich is an excellent read and certainly a realist.
Yes, it's true that the Napoleonic wars could be seen as another episode of the war wherein the Seven Years / French and Indian War was an earlier episode.
The Deluded people Die.
Dead. ☠️
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).
If the state doesn't have the authority to broadly violate the negative freedoms of citizens then I don't think this is an unreasonable proposition.
Grant... uh... the state exists to... uh... yeah
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.
Thanks brother! I love me some Rothbard... this kind of seems like a limitation of English language. I've heard English is good for business, German for philosophy. Multiple meanings of words is certainly something leveraged either intentionally or not always to my chagrin.
This is your best writing and explanation of this matter.
Sir 🫡
That is very good to hear! I think I probably always have explaining my position to you in mind at some level.
You don’t owe me or anyone an explanation but thank you.
You did however explain it clearly and morally and concisely.
That’s difficult for Libertarianism.
They should give you an award, and follow your example.