Mark Tully writes that, "The Spanish philosopher Donoso Cortes wrote that monarchy was destroyed by freedom of speech just as democracy will be destroyed by bankruptcy." Cortes sounds like a smart guy.
Evo and proud has thoughts on African fertility rates.
Here’s Vladimir on an uncomfortable possibility.
I posted a link to a video of a dude getting beaten up by a girl on the DC metro a while back. The girl has been arrested. She’s 15.
Congrats to Bruce Charlton – maybe he should publish a short ebook.
Foseti 
Re: Vladimir.
Original post: Stupid. Paternalistic Pascalian freshman philosophy twaddle. Henceforth to be known as The Argument To Comparative Incompetence. “You let the government run things even though it is demonstrably incompetent. Therefore you should believe in God and surrender to His authority because He is even more demonstrably incompetent!”
Vladimir’s comment: Stupid AND indicative that he has no idea what Moldbug is trying to get at when he is talking about renunciation. If one were to take the same path Moldbug is advising with respect to God, it would equate to saying, “Ok, God, I acknowledge that I am powerless against your incompetent and arbitrary power, so I will not oppose you and will comply with your directives to the extent necessary to get you to leave me alone, while taking every opportunity to explain to everyone I meet that I am doing so because your idiot followers have not got the brains or the spirit to resist you in any way.” I grew up in a pretty religious family and, though it’s been a while since I went to church, I don’t recall this being the framework of the arrangement.
I suppose, to be fair, that it would be asking a lot to ask someone who believed in an omnipotent being to resist it (if not actively paradoxical) but a great deal of the reason most people who aren’t active collaborators with the government don’t do much about it is because ey have roughly the same belief about it. So I stand by my analogy.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
Mr Sardonic, “I disagree” would have been enough.
But you forget that renunciation isn’t protest. If your form of passivism depends on having a bad government and cause to complain about it, then “ur doing it wrong,” as they say.
Renunciation persists across the Moldbuggian(?) reboot. You are only submitting to the “incompetent and arbitrary power” of the government on *this* side of the reboot. On the other side, you are submitting to the competent and effective power of a better government. And yet you are still a passivist, I assume. You still renounce power. You do not try to replace the new Structure with the old.
I didn’t forget anything. The two have nothing to do with each other. After the reboot we are still quite willing and able to discuss the potential shortcomings of our overlords: more so, in fact, in some ways. (Less so, obviously, in others. People who confuse “looting and barbarism” with “political speech” in Steveifornia will be taught the distinction in reeducation camps in between their shifts in the brushed aluminum mines.) A true sovereign does not try to control what its subjects say or think because it does not care what they say or think, only what they do and then only insofar as what they do specifically conflicts with what it requires that they do. This is in no way analogous to the alleged preferences and requirements of the deities of most religions.
Ok, I see your point now.
The two are different. You are right.
I think each helps me to think about the other, linked as they are by common themes of acceptance of authority. And if you can accept authority in one place, maybe you can accept it somewhere else.
OT, but in your 2009 review of Democracy: The God that Failed” you note than Hoppe considers family-owned states (monarchies) and publicly-owned states (democracies) then you ask “Why not consider the most successful type of private ownership, joint-stock companies?”
Well, in <a href="http://mises.org/daily/5042/The-Rationale-for-Total-Privatization"this recent article The Rationale for Total Privatization, Hoppe does consider the case of a road owned publicly and one owned privately “as in a joint-stock company” with saleable shares.
He also sketches out a way to privatize the state that is decidedly un-formalist, seemingly drawing from and expanding on Murray Rothbard and Walter Block’s thoughts on the matter.
Thanks for the link!