- 31 Aug 2018 01:14
#14943537
This is what I relish, this kind of debate and dialogue:-).
Victoribus Spolia my friend, in regards to my question concerning transition phases leading to Anarcho-Capitalist existence, and whether in your view (or other Anarcho-Capitalists on this forum) the State inherently leads to Socialism/Communism, you said;
If I may, I'd like to ask you to expand upon this answer, because i'm of the opinion even when I was Socialistic, that ''Welfarism'' is not ''Socialism'', although I am well aware that the belief that this is so is very much an American political phenomena on the American Right. I do believe you are right, regarding what happens to liberal social contract states, but to me it doesn't necessarily follow that this is their path to Socialism.
Could it not be the case that if everything belongs by right to the Emperor, for example, than the Emperor could dispose of his land exactly as he pleases, even setting up a Socialistic type arrangement with the people of his land? Could you define what manner of ''liability'' it would be to him, if by his sovereignty he was above any legal arrangement whatsoever, as per legal thinkers like Carl Schmidtt?
Well, the money is the people's, really, so it is for the people to be vigilant in placing people into positions of public trust for the common good of all. This too is why every post-modern and pre-modern State has had some kind of private Sovereignty over and beyond the machinery of government, that could step in and fix things as needed, making the actual State in every case a mere vestigial remnant.
Yes, this is his and other members of the ''conservative revolutionaries'' (from which I drew much inspiration at one time, actually) call the ''Prussian'' or ''Right-Wing'' Socialism. Marxist Leninists say that there is no such real thing, but there it is, the root of 20th century Fascism.
Depends on definitions, as by most accounts this collapse lasted centuries, and in the East, went on another 1000 years or more.
I don't doubt that this is likely in some areas of the world.
If it is, I'd like to know where this is the case. It may also be that my own ideas regarding Idealism have been expressed ambiguously and lack a certain clarity.
Well, it isn't Pantheism, if that is your concern, and it primarily involves Creation, and not the Creator.
I don't know if I can say that I ''brag'' about them, Tertullian and Milton, as that my thinking in this instance is close to theirs.
An unfortunate lapse, but he was no Origen, and there is no ''Tertullianism'' as such out there. What is there among his extant writings is theological opinion, and that's as far as my own ideas go, opinion. Like elbows, everybody's got two, usually
But in this particular instance, materiality, I would venture to guess that most Christians alive in his time and before believed with John Milton that even the things and beings that are ordinarily invisible to us still possess a measure of corporeality, of divisibility and extension in three dimensions. He also inclined, as did they, to pre-Copernican ideas on Cosmology as well. He threw quite a bit of the baby out with the bathwater, but not all.
I use these two men as examples also, because I cannot find much of an instance of Christian material monism after the 1600's in the history of thought. But read the Fathers; at how much of a distance are they from this view? If they have I have not noticed it.
Thank you, looking forward to your answers.
Victoribus Spolia my friend, in regards to my question concerning transition phases leading to Anarcho-Capitalist existence, and whether in your view (or other Anarcho-Capitalists on this forum) the State inherently leads to Socialism/Communism, you said;
Certain states trend towards communism by praxeological necessity as an inevitable end (unless they crash or are conquered prior to their fulfillment). These states are social contracts; usually starting as liberal democracies like the U.S. and many others, but they will continue to expand public ownership, the welfare state, demographic enfranchisement, the military, and spending. They must, its inevitable.
If I may, I'd like to ask you to expand upon this answer, because i'm of the opinion even when I was Socialistic, that ''Welfarism'' is not ''Socialism'', although I am well aware that the belief that this is so is very much an American political phenomena on the American Right. I do believe you are right, regarding what happens to liberal social contract states, but to me it doesn't necessarily follow that this is their path to Socialism.
This same praxeological constraint is not the same with monarchies because they are privately owned and if a private family is liable for its debts and has a reign that is predicated on some concept of property rights, a king is not going to expand his government arbitrarily, it would be too much of a liability to his own family and wealth.
Could it not be the case that if everything belongs by right to the Emperor, for example, than the Emperor could dispose of his land exactly as he pleases, even setting up a Socialistic type arrangement with the people of his land? Could you define what manner of ''liability'' it would be to him, if by his sovereignty he was above any legal arrangement whatsoever, as per legal thinkers like Carl Schmidtt?
Representatives in a republic don't give a shit because the money they are spending is not theirs.
Well, the money is the people's, really, so it is for the people to be vigilant in placing people into positions of public trust for the common good of all. This too is why every post-modern and pre-modern State has had some kind of private Sovereignty over and beyond the machinery of government, that could step in and fix things as needed, making the actual State in every case a mere vestigial remnant.
The fall of the state will come when insolvency, conflict, popular resentment, and some other resource crisis meet at a head. If Spengler is correct, demographic change and decadence would be major contributors as well and some sort of Caesar figure may take the reigns of the state before it can turn to communism. The Caesar will implement a conservative government, a fascist-esque imperial dictatorship over a super-state; however, such a state will still become insolvent and the traditionalism enforced will be artificial and temporary, Spengler admits this.
Yes, this is his and other members of the ''conservative revolutionaries'' (from which I drew much inspiration at one time, actually) call the ''Prussian'' or ''Right-Wing'' Socialism. Marxist Leninists say that there is no such real thing, but there it is, the root of 20th century Fascism.
Caesarism is the last stage and it collapses.
Depends on definitions, as by most accounts this collapse lasted centuries, and in the East, went on another 1000 years or more.
Whats comes out of this is a new order which is basically feudalism or anarcho-capitalism just as Europe was post-Roman collapse.
I don't doubt that this is likely in some areas of the world.
I would also like to point out that you understanding of idealism is grossly misrepresentative
If it is, I'd like to know where this is the case. It may also be that my own ideas regarding Idealism have been expressed ambiguously and lack a certain clarity.
and I think your materialistic monism is concerning.
Well, it isn't Pantheism, if that is your concern, and it primarily involves Creation, and not the Creator.
I know you appeal to Tertullian and Milton, but neither of them are examples I would brag about either in theological circles.
I don't know if I can say that I ''brag'' about them, Tertullian and Milton, as that my thinking in this instance is close to theirs.
Tertullian was never canonized because of his ties to Montanism
An unfortunate lapse, but he was no Origen, and there is no ''Tertullianism'' as such out there. What is there among his extant writings is theological opinion, and that's as far as my own ideas go, opinion. Like elbows, everybody's got two, usually
and Milton was of the broad puritan tradition which had many of its own problems as I am sure you would agree.
But in this particular instance, materiality, I would venture to guess that most Christians alive in his time and before believed with John Milton that even the things and beings that are ordinarily invisible to us still possess a measure of corporeality, of divisibility and extension in three dimensions. He also inclined, as did they, to pre-Copernican ideas on Cosmology as well. He threw quite a bit of the baby out with the bathwater, but not all.
I use these two men as examples also, because I cannot find much of an instance of Christian material monism after the 1600's in the history of thought. But read the Fathers; at how much of a distance are they from this view? If they have I have not noticed it.
Thank you, looking forward to your answers.