Lost Republic

Archive for the 'Lost Republic Original' Category

Strong men more likely to have right-wing views, study reveals

Posted in Austrian School / Libertarian Theory, Egalitarianism / Culture Wars, Lost Republic Original on May 17th, 2013


I believe the “Propertarian” view is that most leftist policies can be considered an attempt by women to control the strongest men, and by weaker men to dethrone them. Libertarianism is an aristocratic philosophy which allows for peaceful competition and voluntary exchange to determine who is most successful. The institution of property is a gentleman’s agreement to compete according to civilized rules: you don’t steal from me, and I won’t steal from you.

These rules happen to benefit everyone else too — every single layer of society, without exception — but many people would rather watch the world burn than allow such competition, because a free market might reveal the unbearable — that no one really values the eight years you spent crafting crappy prose about the extent of feminist views of some obscure historic figure.

Is this more-or-less it, Curt?

WOW! Financial headline embedded in genesis block of Bitcoin’s blockchain

Posted in Lost Republic Original, Sound Money on May 17th, 2013

For Bitcoin newbies, imagine Bitcoin as a gigantic ledger. Every bitcoin wallet has a copy of this ledger. So if I was running a standard Bitcoin wallet on this computer — then this computer would have on it a copy of all Bitcoin transactions, ever. Yes, ALL of them.

Decentralization is important because there’s nothing for Bitcoin’s enemies to shut down.

When you make a bitcoin transaction, you can add a little text to it, like a memo on the check you write.

When the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto, who invested Bitcoin, made the first entries in the ledger, he wrote that newspaper headline:

January 3, 2009, Times of London; “Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”.

I get chills thinking about this.


Posted in Intellectual Property, Lost Republic Original, Science / Environment, Sound Money on April 23rd, 2013

I’m embarrassed by how little I remember from my “Intro to Crypto” class at Stanford. This video really helped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXB-V_Keiu8.

It talks a little about the history of encryption — until the 1970’s symmetric key encryption was used. Public key encryption was quite the breakthrough. And get this — when it was first discovered (invented?) the THE GOVERNMENT INSTANTLY CLASSIFIED THE RESEARCH!!! It was later re-discovered.

Anyway, for laypeople, I’d suggest watching this video to the point of understanding that it’s really, really hard to factor the product of two big prime numbers.

Trying to understand the Modular function which stands on top of this fact is difficult.

Final note: Though it isn’t in the video, my understanding is that Bitcoins don’t actually encrypt anything, but they use these crypto algorithms to verify that transactions match account numbers. Digital signatures, in other words.

So, if you post your bitcoin account number on a website to accept donations, everyone who uses bitcoins can see what transfers were made to that account. Of course, the beauty of bitcoins is that you can make as many accounts as you want and transfer bitcoins between them.

Bitcoins are a jailbreak!

Posted in Lost Republic Original, Sound Money on April 12th, 2013

My take on bitcoins:

open quoteNot only are the advantages of Bitcoin over gold accentuated by the restrictions which entrench the world’s fiat systems, it is likely that Bitcoin’s emergence is a reaction to those restrictions.

It is hard to imagine their development in a completely free market where successful banking is based on service and competition instead of the political privilege which licenses select institutions to counterfeit, where regulatory burdens would be very low and tending toward increased efficiency, where, rather than restricting the flow of commerce across borders, major institutions would be dedicated to enabling it, where we could instantly transfer fractions of a commodity money to anyone in the world.

In such a free market, there would simply be no need for a crypto-currency without a commodity backing.

So what is Bitcoin’s value? It is a means of escaping the enforcement of the world’s currency monopolies, a jailbreak. It is a service, like Western Union, only cheaper, easier and faster. Bitcoin is a vehicle. Bitcoin HAS an intrinsic value as a wealth delivery service with the peculiar feature that wealth needs to transform into Bitcoin before it can be exchanged.

In an environment of extreme Bitcoin skepticism, a transaction would look as follows: wealth transforms into Bitcoin, zips instantly to anyone in the world (or beyond, so long as they have internet access), and then transforms out of Bitcoin.

People would be willing to thus transform their wealth so long as they are saving money, time or convenience over rival money transfer systems like conventional bank-wires, credit card purchases, or Western Union.

In the skeptical environment, the amount of wealth people leave in the form of Bitcoin would reflect the fees associated with changing wealth into and out of Bitcoin (for example, the fees charged by btc-e.com or mtgox.com).close quote (Read more)

Bitcoin fever!

Posted in Lost Republic Original, Sound Money on April 8th, 2013

Bitcoin fever!!! I was paid about 8.7 bitcoins a couple years ago for articles I wrote for dailyanarchist.com. Their total value was about $70. Today, the value of each bitcoin is $195. My 8.7 bitcoins are worth $1700.

We may be seeing the emergence of a new money. Think of the advantages — no transaction costs. Setting up an account takes a few seconds and no paperwork whatsoever. Mastercard and Visa take 3% from merchants. Imagine bitcoin merchants passing this savings onto consumers.

There were some libertarians who went into bitcoins very early and very big. If bitcoins emerge as money they will become Rothchild rich. We have yet to see major attacks from governments. Surely, they will come. But how can they possibly succeed? There’s nothing for them to effectively strike.

It is much easier for government to stop gold than to stop bitcoins. This may be why there is already a developed bitcoin market, while there’s no such dynamically growing market for gold.

Bitcoins will tear down the fiat system. Gold may replace bitcoins in the distant future after the fiat system is long dead and buried.

Why Would Putin Condemn Cyprus Bankster Theft?

Posted in European Union, Lost Republic Original, Money/Economy/Taxes, Russia on March 18th, 2013

The story:

Russia condemns ‘unfair’ Cyprus bank levy as bailout fears grow

On one hand, the economy of a government is their “sphere of exploitation” (to use Hoppe’s term from Austrian vs. Marxist Class Analysis). So why would Putin not welcome this action, which punishes those who dare escape his sphere of exploitation, and will likely discourage others from escaping?

Two reason:

1) Russia wants to improve itself by attraction rich, capable entrepreneurs from the west, like the Frenchman Depardieu.

2) In the twisted, counter intuitive world of post-Soviet economies, the exploiters are often trying to escape their own prison. I suspect most politicians of post-Soviet countries had money in Cyprus.

Interview with former Minister of Employment in Sweden, Sven Otto Littorin

Posted in European Union, Lost Republic Original, Money/Economy/Taxes on March 3rd, 2013


I make the argument against Sweden as a socialist paradise quite often. It usually goes like this:

4 Arguments against Sweden as an example of socialist success

1) Sweden’s wealth can be attributed to the fact that it has been peaceful longer than any other country in Europe, including Switzerland. It used to have a radically free economy. Completely free trade. It even had competing currencies until 1903.

2) Sweden’s welfare state ballooned in the 50s and 60s. Since then, Sweden’s economy has slowed considerably. In one albeit controversial study published in the Swedish Economics Association’s journal Ekonomisk Debatt in 2009, Ratio Institute economists Bjuggren and Johansson found that there has been NO JOB CREATION AT ALL in the private sector from 1950 to 2005.

3) Sweden is still has some economic freedom. Their corporate tax rate is considerably lower than the US’s. They rate extremely well on Heritage’s scale (18th).

4) Even if you think these argument are BS (which they aren’t), you have to ask yourself why the Swedish people elect politicians who call themselves conservative and cut taxes. In 2010, they re-elected politicians who cut taxes on everybody, including the super rich.


Side note: My libertarian friends in Sweden are outraged that the reforms in Sweden which pass for free-market reforms are thinly veiled corporatism and other corruption.

Environmentalists don’t understand incentives

Posted in Lost Republic Original, Science / Environment on February 5th, 2013

Here’s a Ted talk from 2010 about paying people NOT to kill wildlife. I sympathize (somewhat) with the goal of conservation, but environmentalists know nothing about economic incentive.

Greg Stone talks about ANTI-fishing licenses:

Well, their is now evidence of what you might determine rationally. Paying people not to do something is a recipe for disaster:

open quote A renegade band of Solomon Islanders is responsible for the slaughter this week of about 900 bottlenose dolphins, says a group that was paying for the killing to stop.

Fanalei villagers on Malaita said the American Earth Island Institute had promised last April to pay them S$2.4 million (NZ$400,000) over two years not to kill dolphins, but villagers claim they had only received 700,000.

The Solomon Star said the killing was in retaliation for the underpayment. close quote (Read more)

US officially recognises Somalia’s government

Posted in Africa, Hidden History, Lost Republic Original, Secret Wars on February 1st, 2013

Hillaryopen quoteSecretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the news on Thursday at a meeting in Washington with Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud.

He took office in 2012 after the first vote of its kind since dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was ousted in 1991.

“Today is a milestone, it is not the end of the journey, but it is an important milestone towards that end,” Mrs Clinton said after talks with Mr Mohamud.close quote (Read more)


Somalia was better off stateless:

Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse

Stateless in Somaliaopen quotePeter Leeson drawing on statistical data from the United Nations Development Project, World Bank, CIA, and World Health Organization. Comparing the last five years under the central government (1985–1990) with the most recent five years of anarchy (2000–2005), Leeson finds these welfare changes:

* Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse?
* Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.
* Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4.
* Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none.
* Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.
* Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.
* Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.
* Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8.
* Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2.
* Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5.
* Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9.
* TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7.
* Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.close quote


Despite this, the US wreaked death and destruction upon the country in an attempt to establish a favorable state:

Blowback in Somalia open quotein many cases they were chopping their head off and taking the head to the Americans or whoever. And telling them, ‘We killed this guy.’”close quote

US extends drone strikes to Somalia

U.S. played central role in disastrous 2006 Ethiopian invasion of Somalia

U.S. Expanding Secret Military Activities

US AFRICOM Launches Large-Scale Offensive In Somalia

I’m proud to now own a weapon that is illegal in NY State

Posted in Gun Ownership, Lost Republic Original on January 27th, 2013


Germany Wants their Gold

Posted in End the Fed, European Union, Lost Republic Original, Sound Money on January 19th, 2013

It Begins: Bundesbank To Commence Repatriating Gold From New York Fed

Bundesbank Official Statement On Gold Repatriation

This is a VERY big deal.

Some context for foreign Gold storage: Nixon cut the dollars last ties to gold in 1971 when the French wanted gold for the money they lent us during the Vietnam war. He basically said, screw you, you’re only getting paper. This is a little appreciated source of Franco-American animosity. The situation with Germany is different. Because of the Soviet military threat, many European countries kept much of their gold reserves in the US.

The Concern: Many people believe the Fed doesn’t actually have Germany’s gold. People say this from varying depths of the rabbit hole of conspiracy. What’s clear is that the Fed has steadfastly resisted any audit of its gold.

Possible Outcomes: If the Fed continues to refused, as they’ve done with previous requests of the Bundesbank, it will cause a huge loss of confidence in the US Fed. (For some stupid reason, people still have confidence in the US gov’t.)

If those Germans continue to insist on their gold, as they should, then a gigantic house of cards might come tumbling down. The likely effects are a huge loss of confidence and a soaring gold price.

I think the more likely outcome at this point is that the media will being calling the Budesbank Nazis and they’ll retreat with their tail between their legs — but that will only work for so long.

Feminism examined

Posted in Egalitarianism / Culture Wars, Lost Republic Original on January 17th, 2013

Who says universities don’t teach valuable job skills? They teach thousands of students how to be professional victims. For example, you’ll never hear feminists applauding the 85% drop in rapes since the 1970s, which occurred despite many expansions of the definition of rape. Instead, we encounter the increasing prominence of the term “Rape Culture” in the feminist lexicon.

I’ve found myself increasingly interested in Cultural Marxism, including its feminist branch. Did you know there’s an emerging Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) which actively refutes feminist claims, at least in the freedom of internet communications? Some university feminist groups consider the MRM to be hate and resort to violence to suppress them.

Below is a collection of wonderful videos which I recently watched, plus a few articles. You can also check out the archives of my relatively new category Egalitarianism/Culture Wars.


The core of feminism refuted: Men have had harder lives than women, and the relationship between men and women is not adversarial.


On Blaming Men for Not Marrying:

open quoteAll the of approved paths to a positive male identity . . . are gone . . . men have always been willing to work and sacrifice and sweat and bleed if they were rewarded with the means through which to see themselves as worthy of respect, but when every single role
society wants to cram you into is not longer a way to respect yourself or have the respect of others, then its time to throw those roles away. One thing [feminists & fellow travelers] . . . will never realize is that using shame to coerce men into doing what’s expected of them isn’t going to work this time, because while it’s possible to shame a man into giving his life for his country, if there’s a promise of respect in it, it’s impossible to shame someone into working his ass off and risking his future just for the joy of looking in the mirror and seeing Homer Simpson . . . looking back.close quote


open quoteThe White Feather Campaign began with the creation of the white feather as a symbol of cowardice and unfulfilled civic duty. With the war effort and the recruitment campaign in full swing, the women of the White Feather would present any healthy young Englishman in civilian dress with this token, in order to symbolize their scorn for him and his failure to be man. Upon receipt of a white feather, these men were being told that they weren’t “real men” and that the women around them looked upon this apparent lack of masculinity with disgust.close quote http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/151/the-white-feather-campaign-a-struggle-with-masculinity-during-world-war-i


sperm donor forced to pay child support to lesbian couple


There’s no such thing as rape culture in the Western World.


Rebutting Patriarchy Theory.


The ridiculous dating discussion of feminists.


Feminism is (mostly) socialism with panties. When choosing between women and the state, most feminists will choose the state and shun women like Ayn Rand, Margaret Thatcher, etc.


Evolution and the train of men to help women.


In my view, as the state replaces the father, women are increasingly resorting to tribal mating patterns. Perhaps this is a cause of the widely observed moral decline which RamzPaul satires here:

McChrystal says ‘serious action’ needed on gun control

Posted in Gun Ownership, Lost Republic Original on January 13th, 2013

I met General McChrystal once. He came to Fort Benning when I was in Infantry Officer’s Basic Course to meet the new infantry officers. He met us for PT and led a run of a few miles.

I now consider him a traitor.

open quoteSpeaking on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Tuesday, Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said some weapons should be carried only by soldiers, not civilians.

“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16, and later an M4 carbine,” he said. “And an M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. And that’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

The general added, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look. I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want, but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”close quote (Read more)

Platinum Coin Idiocy

Posted in Big Media, Dollar's Demise / Hyper-Inflation, Lost Republic Original, Sound Money on January 11th, 2013

Characteristically, Nobel Laureate Krugman takes the idiotic “Platinum coin option” proposition seriously and uses it to bash the Republicans mere compliance (as opposed to enthusiasm) for spending the economy into oblivion.

The left treats Republicans as Bolsheviks treated Mensheviks. The Republicans are (for now) the radical saboteurs solely responsible for the failure of the otherwise glorious plans of our commissars.

Socialism requires endless enemies on which to blame the failures of central planning. Think of Orwell’s image of the future: a jackboot stomping on a face, forever.

open quoteThe platinum coin discussion has moved with startling speed, from an idea nobody took seriously (and which, as I’ve mentioned, senior officials were unaware of just last month), to assertions that it’s ridiculous and illegal, to grudging acknowledgment that it’s almost surely legal coupled with strained attempts to dismiss it as an option nonetheless.

Ezra Klein has now opened up a new front, which I would consider a sort of progressive version of the shock doctrine: we shouldn’t invoke the coin option, he says, precisely because it would work too well, and therefore let us sidestep the real issues. . . .

This isn’t a stupid argument. We really do need to come to grips with Republican extremism. The question is whether refusing to use this escape hatch is the place and time to do that.

My own view is that I was willing to go over the brink on the fiscal cliff, but not here, for three reasons.close quote (Read more)


Here’s Robert Murphy’s take:

open quoteJack Balkin — a professor of constitutional law at Yale — outlined strategies that the White House could use to evade the pesky borrowing ceiling imposed by a fickle Congress:

Are there other ways for the president to raise money besides borrowing?

Sovereign governments such as the United States can print new money. However, there’s a statutory limit to the amount of paper currency that can be in circulation at any one time.

Ironically, there’s no similar limit on the amount of coinage. A little-known statute gives the secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue platinum coins in any denomination. So some commentators have suggested that the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds.

The government can also raise money through sales: For example, it could sell the Federal Reserve an option to purchase government property for $2 trillion. The Fed would then credit the proceeds to the government’s checking account. Once Congress lifts the debt ceiling, the president could buy back the option for a dollar, or the option could simply expire in 90 days. And there are probably other ways that the Fed could achieve a similar result, by analogy to its actions during the 2008 financial crisis, when it made huge loans and purchases to bail out the financial sector.

The “jumbo coin” and “exploding option” strategies work because modern central banks don’t have to print bills or float debt to create new money; they just add money to their customers’ checking accounts.

These suggestions should horrify anyone who understands the importance of sound money. Not only are the proposals themselves preposterous, but the mere fact that they are being discussed is a symptom of the cultural decadence wrought by the government and the Fed’s responses to the 2008 financial crisis.
Money for Nothing

When critics of the Fed assert that Bernanke creates money “out of thin air,” they mean the following: The Federal Reserve has the power to buy whatever assets it wants at whatever price it wants. In principle, Treasury Secretary Geithner could sell a paperclip to the Fed for $2 trillion. The Fed would simply write a check made out to the Treasury, drawn on the Fed itself.

When the Treasury deposited this check with its own bank — which just so happens to be the Fed — then its own “checking account” balance would go up by $2 trillion. This money wouldn’t come from anywhere in the sense that some other account would need to be debited $2 trillion. On the contrary, the system’s total reserves (and what is called the “monetary base”) would have swelled by $2 trillion. The Treasury would be free to start paying bills by writing checks on the $2 trillion in its account.

The only kink in the plan would be the state of the Fed’s balance sheet. Initially it could value the paperclip at $2 trillion — what the Fed paid for it — and list the paperclip among its other assets such as Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities.
“These suggestions should horrify anyone who understands the importance of sound money.”

Of course, people in the financial markets would cry foul. They would know that if the Fed’s books were “marked to market,” the paperclip would be worthless and the Fed would suddenly be insolvent according to regular accounting rules. (Its liabilities, in part consisting of bank reserves — which are dollar-denominated claims on the Fed — would have risen by $2 trillion, while its assets didn’t budge.) But this would merely be an embarrassment rather than a legal obstacle because the Fed has put into place Orwellian rule changes that allow it to shield its shareholder equity from capital losses.

The difference between my absurd paperclip scheme and the two proposals discussed by Balkin is one of degree and not of kind. As of this writing, platinum is trading for a little less than $1,800 per ounce. Thus, $2 trillion in platinum would weigh about 35,000 tonsclose quote (Read more)

David Friedman vs Murray Rothbard

Posted in Austrian School / Libertarian Theory, Lost Republic Original on December 26th, 2012

The comments on my earlier post of the Reason TV’s interview may or may not have actually been written by David Friedman. If they were, I’m flattered to have him here.

I am particularly interested in the disagreements between intellectuals because disagreement often inspires rigor. Perhaps this casts people as rivals despite their overwhelming agreement on what a better future might look like.

However, the difference between utilitarian and moral approach has huge implications. This debate is worth exploring and resolving.

Rothbard on David Friedman:
open quoteLet us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty [by Murry Rothbard] and David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedman’s amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too.

. . . such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of “Our Enemy, the State” (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

. . . Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous “abolitionism” vs. “gradualism” debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes “conservatism”), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the “intellectual cowardice” of failing to set forth “feasible” methods of getting “from here to there.” Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principlesclose quote (Read more)

David Friedman on Rothbard:
open quoteRothbard’s basic point is correct. I do not regard support for government as an act of willful evil but as an intellectual mistake; my arguments (and his) could be wrong, and some sort of government might be the least bad alternative among available human institutions. And even if we are correct, it is not unreasonable for other people to think we are not, as lots of intelligent people I know do.

The flip side of that is that I think one consequence of his attitude was to make him willing to be deliberately dishonest in his arguments—all being fair in war. That included being dishonest in the arguments he made to fellow libertarians.

. . . .

I’ve written at some length online in the past on what I consider Rothbard’s dishonesty with regard to economic history, in particular his misrepresentation of Smith (unfavorable) and his French contemporaries (favorable); see this old post for examples and further links. And there have been other examples. Murray was bright, articulate, and could be charming, but I don’t think he could be trusted.close quote (Read more)


An intellectually honest pursuit of the truth can make rivals out of men who are 95% in agreement.

In my view, the criticism made by David Friedman — that Rothbard was wrong on Reagen and Adam Smith — grasps at minutia given the enormous breadth and depth of the hyper-prolific Rothbard.

Rothbard’s criticism of Adam Smith alluded to in this essay seems sound to me, but I’ll admit to having read no deeper that that into Murray’s comparison of Smith and his contemporaries.

I am very sympathetic to David Friedman’s comment “I do not regard support for government as an act of willful evil but as an intellectual mistake.” In fact, Albert Jay Nock, who Rothbard cites in criticizing Friedman, writes extensively about how the state may simply be the best that homo-sapiens are intellectually capable of. This is very similar to Friedman’s view of an “intellectual mistake.”

However “willful evil” is not an expression Rothbard used, so its a bit of a straw man. I don’t think either AJ Nock or Rothbard would regard support of the government as “willful evil,” but as an evil none the less — an intellectual mistake AND an evil.

Perhaps the closest I personally come to David Friedman’s view is that to say that Rothbard focused mostly on criticism. Institutions and norms are required for the existence of property and civilization. I could, with many disclaimers and asterisks make a statement like the following: “The modern state is an approximation of the institutions and norms required for civilization.”

Murray’s student and colleague, Hans Hermann Hoppe, worked in that directions, imagining and explaining how those institutions might emerge in a free society.

Page Generation: 0.485 secondstop political sites tool