6 Comments

I'm confused by the notion of an "economically self-supporting" governing institution, and not simply because we can't yet fully free ourselves from liberal terminology which believes in a discrete "economic" or "private" sphere. Maybe I am simply confusing the transitional process of instituting a political party or data/arbitrating institution from the hypothetical governing ends of the victorious party.

I don't think any king was ever not reliant on loans or taxes for the simple reason that if he relied on his land rents or the feudal obligations of his peasantry he was in a sense taxing and engaging in gift exchange with a sizeable population if not the whole kingdom. So what is involved in the centralizing transition of assets into data, working for the party or data/arbitrating institute, and becoming indebted to a juridical centre giving one the security of knowing that he can do without fungible assets (even as many have not yet given them up?), a juridical centre that will insure from each according to his means to each according to his needs? (e.g. how might, very hypothetically, the data figure for things like dating/marrying with hypergamic women who really "need" tokens of their status or virtues, like better houses - how do we escape our current anglosphere trap where so much of our capital is sunk into unproductive housing, even as the house in turn is debt or capital for someone, just often not, it seems to me, the potentially productive classes, or am i confusing the locus of initiative here...?) The party/data/arbitrating institute is providing a service that sustains itself, draws in and distributes resources, by its obviously desirable juridical and intelligence powers that lead people to convert their assets... (Maybe it should also begin as a church which shapes terms for marriage and divorce?) We will be engaged in some kind of data exchange with the centre but how is it not still a continuation of gift exchange and all the "elements of deferral" associated with it that we have forgotten somewhere in the feudal or tribal past, which will always risk being formalized or "devolved" as loans or taxes?

Expand full comment
author

It seems to me you're answering your own question towards the end here. By self-supporting I do mean providing services that are part of an exchange, whch could be likened to a gift exchange. So, I'm distinguishing that from overt taxation, which is justified on the basis of the provision of a kind of service, but taxation is necessary insofar as the service couldn;t really be represented as an exchange. It's similar to the libertarian notion of government as a business--the consistent libertarians, like Hoppe, end up as monarchists anyway--but there's no reason to work our way up to monarchy from free individuals when we can work with the implicit monarchy contained within any existing government. (I don't know about beginning as a Church sanctifying marriage and arbitrating divorce but that would certainly be a very critical service to provide.)

Expand full comment

revivifying all the elements of deferral that old world had forgotten.

What in your opinion are some examples?

Expand full comment
author

Chiefs and sacred kings; kinship networks, abhorence of regicide, scribal traditions, perhps some version of the jubilee year, for starters.

Expand full comment

Can you point me to where in your work I may find old references of deferral as an explanation?

Expand full comment
author

This is basic GA--perhaps I take it too much for granted. The originary hypothesis, from which everything I write follows, posits that the origin of language lies in the deferral of (mimetic) violence. All meaning is deferral.

Expand full comment