Liberalism vs Absolutism

October 9th, 2018 9:19 AM


As usual, the study of Philosophy is almost always used as simply a reformation of the study of Theology. In that sense, it’s a sophism of the pre-scientific period, or a pseudoscience in the present.

1 – Morality (rules of good (non-retaliatory), and bad (retaliatory) display word and deed)

(a) morality can refer to objective (reciprocal) as in international conflict and law, (b) traditional (contextual) as in civilizational/national/political rules in favor of group evolutionary strategy, (c)normative (contextual) as in class, locality, and disciplinary in favor of social political and commercial cooperation, (d) conflated with legal (which is common). In all cases, from intuition, to norm, to law, all moral rules reflect the incentives and rewards necessary in the given competitive order.

2 – Liberalism (european), Classical Liberalism(american), Conservatism(Anglo) (center-right) vs Anarchism(jewish), Libertinism(Jewish), Libertarianism(anglo/continental) (center-Left),

(a) the purpose of tolerating liberalism is to generate increasing revenues because those revenues increase the state (authoritarian) power, just as the purpose of tolerating theology is to decrease costs and increased revenue through discounts on the cost of suppression.

(b) the problem with authoritarian regimes is that the bureaucracy not the authority ends up ruling, maximizing rents, and consuming the profits that make externalization of power possible.

(c) the problem

(…) 50 more examples here I won’t waste my time on.


Liberalism (market society) isn’t beneficial because it is moral, or because it’s ‘legitimate’ in someone’s mind, but because it is the cheapest means of producing COMPETITIVE POWER at the lowest administrative cost, with the greatest opportunity to suppress rents, providing the rulers with the greatest opportunity to exert power.

Democracy is rather ridiculous and certainly a failed experiment outside of producing a constantly rotating senate (oligarchy), and monarchy is clearly superior at the conduct of war and the production of durable commons. But liberalism is simply a scheme for reaping the highest returns from the population given that money, prices, and markets allow the population to be self governing, and corruption limited and inexpensive.

The problem with absolutism is that it’s highly error prone at the expense of easy replacement by Regicide – usually by the Regent’s own family. The problem with non-kin absolutism (corporatism), is that it sorts for the most malincentivized leadership.

The optimum government is one that, like the roman, concentrates power for war, and redistributes power for normal times, and redistributes income from windfalls.

The search for monopoly is merely the naive and not very bright youthful mind searching for that which it can comprehend.

Leave a Reply