… advocates of a parasitic, immoral, unethical ideology, rejected by all but a dysfunctional minority; and by their profligate advocacy of an unethical, immoral, parasitic, regressive, and therefore politically impossible criteria for a voluntary social order, have impeded and harmed the preservation and expansion of our liberty.
[W]e cannot look to the ghetto – a state within a state – for institutional, legal, and moral insight. We must look to Aristocracy, the militia, the common law, the absolute nuclear family, and the total suppression of free riding, in all its forms, for our moral, legal and institutional insight. Because only Aristocratic Egalitarians of european history have produced liberty in any form.
The vast majority of humans do not want liberty. But all wish to enjoy the prosperity that results from the aristocracy’s suppression of free riding, and the increased velocity of production and trade that results from that undesired suppression of free riding.
[T]he use of organized violence to eliminate free riding by a willing and committed minority, the admission into enfranchisement of those who demonstrate such a commitment, and the desire of, and incentive for, the unenfranchised to participate in the wealth of the market produced by the violent suppression of free riding, is the only means of obtaining liberty. Everything else is merely the pretense of liberty by permission of others, and the free riding upon those who fight to preserve liberty against the pervasive human preference to free ride whenever possible.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
[W]e are the only people to have done it. Because we are the only people who out-bred, and broke the extended family, creating universalism. The problem is that once we abandon nationalism, our out-bred high trust universalism rapidly became a weakness that has led to our conquest by older more primitive societies.
Return To Aristocracy To Save Our People, and Our Uniqueness.
On The Uniqueness Of The North Sea Peoples
[T]he cure to libertarian illiteracy is to keep up on research, rely on science, and not empty verbalism of continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. (See Axelrod – Cooperation. See Fukuyama – Trust. See Todd ‘Explanation of Ideology; The Invention of Europe. See Hannan – The Invention of Liberty. See Kahnemann. See RIdley. See Pinker. See Haidt: Moral Foundations; The Righteous Mind. Here is the bibliography that points to the relevant research. http://www.propertarianism.com/jonathan-haidts-bibliography/
The libertarian spectrum is less ignorant of economics, but libertarian scientific illiteracy, moral blindness, and ideological zeal is nearly universal.
Human moral instincts are objective and universal if we account for differences in reproductive strategies: they are prohibitions on free riding. Cultures may randomly invent different moral CODES that incorporate more or less prohibition on free riding, and accommodate the use of property in relation to family size. But the cause of moral instinct is universal: the prohibition on free riding and the requirement for contribution to production.
That’s just science. Deal with it.
WE LOST ‘LIBERAL’ TO THE SOCIALISTS. WE LOST ‘LIBERTARIAN’ TO ROTHBARDIAN GHETTO IMMORALITY.
I chose Propertarianism, registered the names, and trademarked it for my own use. Ironic really.
The term wasn’t used much. And only as ‘propertarian’ – a categorical pejorative on libertarians.
[R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states.
However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary.
I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral.
Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government.
The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality.
**Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?**
The Philosophy Of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute.
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you.
b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other.
c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding.
d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions.
e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism.
ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
–“First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.”–
[A]ristocratic Egalitarianism requires that one fight for the liberty of those who would also have it. Proficiency at war, both verbal and physical, is a requirement for membership.
Only Aristocratic Egalitarians are free. Everyone else is merely given freedom by permission, or a free-riding parasite on that aristocracy.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute