Discrimination criteria

Sebastian Ortiz

If we are as libertarians to accept the historical reality of the state and still maintained a principled position regarding the world in which we actually live, then it strikes me as obvious what the limitations on our suggestions about the general culture by the theory of libertarian justice should be: namely the breakdown of nations.

Let me be precise and to distinguish my statement from a reference to Leopold Kohr’s seminal work by saying that I am not arguing like he is for the breakdown of states as political units with my previous statement although I agree with it. The prince of Liechtenstein has for example modified the constitution of his country as to grant the right for any municipality to secede de jure.
No, what I am suggesting is that akin to the international Catholicism of the middle ages with its normative humanism, the criteria for social discrimination in a world with states must be limited greatly beyond the individual sovereignty and freedom to discriminate on any basis that would be commonplace in a condition of freedom.Such that if there will be social exclusion and inclusion, integration and segregation of the citizenry within the current political units or countries, the criteria to be promoted from a libertarian standpoint must be narrowed to whether a person is a tax beneficiary or state dependent or a taxpayer, followed by a second tier of criteria on the basis of whether someone is ideologically a statist or a libertarian, followed by whether exceptional case individuals (e.g. a state dependent but ideologically libertarian) are felons for acts that would be considered aggressive under libertarian law.

This necessarily implies the breakdown of nations before a breakdown of nation-states can via secession can be brought about.  This implies a repudiation of nativity (natio) over affiliation (from the Latin ad filiare, from filius son, to adopt) on the basis of a ontologically realist, epistemology and theory of justice.Thus a principled position is fostered on matters of policy that makes reference not to any kind of utilitarian thinking whether it be grounded on the insights of praxaeological economic theory or actuarial science; where the pure theory of libertarian law theory is given preeminence and which can serve as a permanent policy platform for political parties for anarcholibertarian transition at an international level.

These could argue for the need for parallel constitutions and competing jurisdictions within every country whereby  effective secession would be allowed through the segregation of those signing themselves up to a constitution enshrining original appropriation, non-aggression principle and due process for torts (proportionality, etc.) in exchange for individuals resigning state subsidies, tax-funded political representation and any other acquired state privileges.

This would mark the beginning of principled libertarian legalism towards transition (to ideological pan-secessionism) and the abandonment of  the sensationalist, controversial, populist tactics that amount little more than short term reactions to electoral politics of the intellectually defunct paleolibertarianism.

This of course would require the abandonment of local (ethnic, linguistic, traditional, historical) allegiances for the acceptance of a Metaphysics (epistemologically realist, rational ontology) as the basis of the rule of natural law, common and binding to all humans.  Therefore anyone who can abide libertarian law, renounce state privileges shall be recognized as a citizen of the international, libertarian, confederate realms.
This has been largely inspired by the first six minutes of this lecture by Dr. Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance: https://youtu.be/g1Opchp_7Co

2 thoughts on “Discrimination criteria

  1. The learned gentleman clearly has a doctorate in something as it is so far above my head – but, at least I have gathered that it is something to do with liberty.
    Since his thoughts were inspired by those of Dr Gabb may i return the favour to Dr.Gabb who has stated that he will probably vote to leave the EU for the feeble reason that so many of his friends want to leave. Since, unusually for him, he seems to be lacking in inspiration himself may I ride to the rescue?
    Most establishment politicians seem to regard the EU Referendum issue as a matter of whether the best economic conditions can be obtained inside our out of the EU. However, a few others, including Frederick Forsyth and Torquil Dick-Erikson correctly state that it is all to do with our liberty.
    It is a battle between our Common Law system, our liberties under Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, presumption of innocence, trial by our peers etc versus the Napoleonic inquisitorial system where you can be locked up with out charge while an enquiring magistrate, at his convenience and as his buy schedule permits, sees if he can build a case against you. In other words the continental legal system is the lethal opposite of our Common Law system where you may do as you wish provided it is not prohibited. Therefore, as Robert Oulds pointed out in his book “Everything you wanted to know about the EU” if you know your Common Law principles you have a fair chance that the decisions you make will not fall foul of the law, without having to rush to an expensive lawyer on every occasion. Contrast that, as Godfrey Bloom so eloquently pointed out at a recent meeting, where the State, from the top down, issues a stream of laws which you cannot even know exist since they have originated in a bureaucratic mind ( as has the EU) any one of which you could fall foul. He cites the rapidity with which the European Parliament is required to pass laws by means of an electronic button and the case where the size of a tractor seat was discussed for hours. He kidded us not!!

    It is not as if we have so far got scot free of the legal incursion. We now have the European arrest warrant so that a judge in any other EU country may issue a warrant against Mr Gabb because he notionally belongs to a political a party the judge does not like. As Julian Assange found out, the arrest warrant does NOT permit a hearing under Common Law principles before the extradition to establish a prime facie case and so he has had to seek sanctuary in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Clearly the Americans found an obliging Swedish judge to issue the warrant on trumped up sexual charges which may not be tested in our courts before Mr Assange’s is extradited first to Sweden and then to the USA for his crimes against the State,

    At least 9 other European countries have signed up to the EPP or European Public Prosecutor idea so that in any direction this EPP can order the issue of a warrant. Since the UK has opted out of that system and a UK judge would not issue a warrant for the EPP it does not mean that a judge in another country acting on the orders of the EPP cannot do it and Mr Gabb would therefore be arrested quand meme by an early morning visit from British police, without a hearing under Common Law principles before he was carted off to Brussels for crimes against the State – in that he had entertained libertarian thoughts and expressed them publicly contrary to law!!

    This brings me to our police. Has it not occurred to those who are tempted to vote to Remain that in addition to the EAW a further incursion has already diminishd our liberties under Magna Charta and Common Law in that we can now be arrested by police on suspicion of something, shall we say the allegation of an irate neighbour, taken in hand cuffs to the police station, have our DNA and finger prints taken and then bailed while the police THEN investigate the allegation at their administrative convenience, the only difference being that you are not banged up in a cell while the investigation takes place as you would be in Europe. In other words, the presumption of innocence has been discarded and for months this affair casts a deep shadow over the head of the accused..
    If you still don’t quite get it, that nice Mr Gorbachev General Sec of the Soviet Communist Party (’85-91) has said: “The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to recreate the Soviet Union in Western Europe”!!

    What is frightening is that so many of our politicians and senior public figures like the Bishops seem totally unaware of all this.

  2. So, this fellow’s strategy is to abandon “local (ethnic, linguistic, traditional, historical) allegiances” in favour of whatever metaphysical system he has cooked up this week.

    If these allegiances were mere philosophical positions, this might make sense. But they’re not so it doesn’t.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s