Black panthers intimidating white voters Teen sex webcam chat
Where the progressive enlightenment sees political ideals, the dark enlightenment sees appetites.
It accepts that governments are made out of people, and that they will eat well.
There were ages of darkness, and then enlightenment came.
Clearly, advance has demonstrated itself, offering not only improvement, but also a model.
Increasingly, however, libertarians have ceased to care whether anyone is ‘pay[ing them] attention’ – they have been looking for something else entirely: an exit.
Anything they neglect to steal – or ‘leave on the table’ – is likely to be inherited by political successors who are not only unconnected, but actually opposed, and who can therefore be expected to utilize all available resources to the detriment of their foes.
Since winning elections is overwhelmingly a matter of vote buying, and society’s informational organs (education and media) are no more resistant to bribery than the electorate, a thrifty politician is simply an incompetent politician, and the democratic variant of Darwinism quickly eliminates such misfits from the gene pool.
This is a reality that the left applauds, the establishment right grumpily accepts, and the libertarian right has ineffectively railed against.
It consistently finds democratic ‘solutions’ to this problem risible, at best.
Hoppe advocates an anarcho-capitalist ‘private law society’, but between monarchy and democracy he does not hesitate (and his argument is strictly Hobbesian): As a hereditary monopolist, a king regards the territory and the people under his rule as his personal property and engages in the monopolistic exploitation of this “property.” Under democracy, monopoly and monopolistic exploitation do not disappear.