Discussion about this post

User's avatar
meika loofs samorzewski's avatar

"For example, today we might ask whether the better question than whether indigenous peoples had souls and there was an obligation to covert them to Christianity"

Imagine asking if they would be better off being converted to libertarian nationalism.

In Australia, a couple of hundred years later, colonisation couldn't have care less about souls, and moral agency, but simply said the natives had no [sovereignty/ownership] because they did not use the land (with a nod to Locke) like what real people do. Moral agency was unimportant. Until 1967, when I was 2 years old, the population of Australian Aboriginals was counted under fauna, and not in any census of the monarch's subjects. Kangaroos can't own land either it would seem. I had more rights as a 2yo subject of the crown.

Given that libertarians like Thiel think many noyaux, like the stock market are an impediment to true capitalism's true future in oligarchy (I presume he thinks a stockmarket for trading capital is some weird evil socialist invention), here ownership and control are not even the same thing Marxists would have you believe they are. Libertarian impulses are recreating feudalism as an option, the least individualistic of all the options. The very antithesis of that atmosphere where the city air makes one free.

A place, where loyalty trumps any morality/polity/reality, and using other peoples' money to boost one's brand successfully raises a Musky smell in Moscovite parlours. Credit where credit is stolen I guess. They own nothing but crest the waves of bankruptcies, surfing the noyaux and accreting power in the minds of the credulous. The new slave is an individual of no agency, but all complaint, wearing a hi-vis vest of nationalism or religion, where some 'action' is still required by the urge to world, vestiges of an instinct to live, not merely survive. Who do we complain about today boss? Oceania? the elite? the deplorables?

Expand full comment

No posts