The Assumptions of 'Liberalism' (And Libertarianism)

“Libertarianism is applied autism.” – Steve Sailer

For some reason this phrase affected me pretty deeply.

Libertarianism, as I practice it, and as I believe Mises and Hayek practiced their ‘liberalism’ (universal enfranchisement), is the scientific pursuit of political theory using the system of measurement we call economics, and the objective of material prosperity. Which was of course, the great achievement of the innovations of capitalism, empiricism (of which capitalism is a member) and the harnessing fossil fuels.

Or rather, These philosophers were engaged in an attempt to define scientific political theory under the ASSUMPTION of universal enfranchisement.

I still practice my philosophical inquiry under that same assumption of universal enfranchisement – the prohibition on the deprivation of the choice of “cooperation or boycott” from others.

But once you assume some justification for not depriving others of choice, (a) we run into the problem of diverse interests and desires so that we now need a means of choosing between preferences, and the DEMONSTRATED preference of everyone is greater prosperity, for the simple reason that prosperity increases everyone’s choices and greatly reduces the cost of ANY choice.

So, the second assumption of “liberalism” is the priority of economic good. That is, that cooperation facilitates production of prosperity.

The third assumption of “liberalism” is natural rotation (Meritocracy). But like prices and contracts, humans do not willingly rotate downward if there is any impact upon their status. In fact, people place higher value on their status than almost any other asset that they have.

The fourth assumption of ‘liberalism’ is that humans desire liberty, rather than that they desire choice and consumption. When in fact, only libertarians and conservatives demonstrate a preference for liberty, and almost all other humans on the planet do not. They demonstrate ONLY a preference for consumption.

0) Libertarianism (full enfranchisement, with meritocratic rotation)
1) Select enfranchisement (Pre-enlightenment European, and early American with selective rotation)
2) Totalitarian humanism (Chinese Corporatism and European Corporatist models ceremonial enfranchisement )
3) Totalitarianism (pre-communist Chinese and most empire and state models)

Libertarians are unique. Conservatives are unique. Most of the world does not want to engage in trial and error. They can’t. It’s too hard for them.

Then again, why does universal enfranchisement imply monopoly?

Why can’t we construct many small states some of which practice communal property and others that practice private property and everything in between? Because the statists could not profit from us?

Because that is how humans MUST function precisely because we are not equal in ability whatsoever.

A large organization has only so many people at the top. In many small organizations there are only so may people at the top, but there are many more organizations for people to reach the top of.

Just as companies and economies have spread out into multiple flexible organizations, so must governments.

That is the obvious conclusion: size allows you to conduct war and that is all. As such, if someone attempts to construct a scale empire, they have no other reason than warfare to do so.

Our goal then should be to destroy large states so that war is nearly impossible to conduct.

Leave a Reply