[I] am trying to steer some of libertarian criticism away from socialism onto Postmodernism. And that’s partly why I spend so much time on the “Dark Enlightenment” and their attempt to dethrone universalism. The question is, if we dethrone universalism and admit our differences, then moral ends and therefore moral statements will be likewise different. And as such we would need institutions that did not depend upon moral or ideological homogeneity, but that still assisted us in cooperating on means, even if we possess different ends.
All current political models were developed under ‘national’ homogeneity. Or like Chinese, forcible homogeneity in order to simply allow their political system to function. yet, we evolved the market to assist us in cooperating on means, even if we have complex or opposing ends.
Given that the market functions by forcing all undesirable involuntary transfers (violence, theft, fraud, and free riding) be converted into desirable involuntary transfers via competition. And given that the investment in and development of commons cannot possibly be constructed via competition in the market because competition is an undesirable involuntary transfer in the context of a commons, then government is necessary in order to assist us in producing commons.
However, how do we create government that cooperates as does the market, without involuntary transfer via competition? The European princedom model was in fact, little more than corporatist city states – because city states were in fact, private corporations. Thats where they came from. But acknowledging this fact casts doubt on the legitimacy of liberty. So we avoid it.
I think I have solved this problem.
If I HAVE done it, then for all intents and purposes, the Anarchic Research Program started by Rothbard will be complete:
1) Rothbards rule of the homogenous by homogenous morals (anarchic religion)
2) Hoppe’s rule of the homogenous by competing institutions (anarchic nation state)
3) My rule by of the heterogeneous by heterogeneous institutions (anarchic federation)
There is no other combination that we yet know of that cannot be satisfied by these three solutions.