No. “Libertarians” Do NOT Use Reciprocity

October 30th, 2018 9:29 AM


Reciprocity as I use it, also includes a definition of reciprocity as productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests (investments) of others. And where those demonstrated interests include forgone opportunities as well as seized opportunities to obtain an interest in that which others may (commons) have, or have not yet done so (private), or have obtained by the same reciprocal means.

There is absolutely no one in the libertarian community who uses a definition of this precision and scope, and the reason they don’t is their use of Pilpul to create demand for substitution by the listener (audience) thereby creating a pretense of agreement on terms, when terms are not stated, but imagined. (This is the reason libertarianism is another abrahamic deception by suggestion and substitution.)

This is why libertarianism relies on principles (vagueness and incompleteness demanding substitution ) rather than decidability (precision and completeness prohibiting substitution). And it is why libertarianism has branches, and why libertarianism failed to maintain an intellectual vanguard other than a few MI mediocre thinkers.

A polity must survive competition for territory, trade routes, human capital, population, and productivity, by generating not only private returns but commons sufficient to permit those private returns, commons sufficient to provide multiples on those returns, a means of deciding which private is tolerable an dnot, and which commons are to produced, while defending it from others (competitors and predators) with competing interests.

Libertarianism doesn’t do that. It’s the philosophy (ethics) of (((diasporic))) separatists concentrating capital by avoiding the payment of all possible local costs, and specializing in generating moral hazard, profiting from seizing opportunity generated by that moral hazard, concentrating the proceeds in methods of rent seeking, and by that combination preying upon the host until they are ostracized, deported, or prosecuted for their criminality.

The only people that would end up in a libertarian community are the same people that would found such a thing: Pirates (europeans), Raiders (muslims), Rent Seekers (jews), Petty thieves (gypsies), a dependent class (underclasses), and an authoritarian leadership. None of which produce local goods, services, and information, but exist to avoid the costs of participation in a polity and its commons, while profiting from it by criminality.

This is why each of these people from pirates on down has been ostracized, persecuted, prosecuted, and warred against – and as such why there are no libertarian (parasite or free rider) communities. The only vaguely libertarian communities are parasites or free riders that hold a territory with military protection of a powerful state, but no governance, infrastructure, support of maintenance. In other words the only ‘libertarians’ have been outposts claiming territory as an opportunity for future gain on behalf of a state or empire that cannot afford to colonize it by it’s own resources.

That’s what ‘libertarianism’ means. Period. End of argument.

Sovereigntarianism (what I do), instead says we organize into an army (militia) as investors, and conquer (take) territory, and construct commons and the many returns on commons, including markets, because markets produce the returns necessary to pay for the defense and institutions and infrastructure necessary to preserve our investment in the polity.

In other words, libertarians are parasites, and sovereigntarians are producers.

Leave a Reply