Ascending The Tower – Episode VIII – “A Monopoly Service Provider”

This week, we’re joined by Clark Hat for a discussion on law enforcement and the similarities/differences between anarcho-capitalism and neoreaction.

Brought to you by Surviving Babel and Nick B. Steves, Ascending the Tower is a podcast distributed by Social Matter and represents the latest project of the Hestia Society. Please leave feedback in the comments, and if you’d like to get in touch with Surviving Babel, you can find him at: survivingbabel@gmail.com

Notes:
4:09 – Introducing ClarkHat
9:10 – Holiness spirals
16:36 – The connotations of “Dindu Nuffin”
25:34 – Evolution of American law enforcement
31:35 – What came before the po-po?
36:28 – Theories of law enforcement
46:03 – The relationship between crime rate and policing
52:43 – Broad similarities between An-Cap and NRx
1:02:52 – Out of Left Field – Endgame of GamerGate

Related Show Links:

Music:
Opening Music – “Anarchy” by Auquid (Excerpt)
https://www.jamendo.com/en/list/a149616/anarchy

Closing Music – “Banish misfortune” by Brigan
https://www.jamendo.com/en/track/637240/banish-misfortune

ClarkHat’s blog
http://popehat.com/author/clark/

Hillsdale College
https://www.hillsdale.edu/

Polycentric Law
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/what-is-polycentric-law

Sponsorship: 

If you are interested in sponsoring Ascending the Tower, e-mail me at Surviving Babel at gmail dot com. Sponsorships start at $10 an episode, and all proceeds will either go back into the podcast or provide some compensation for your most grateful host. You can purchase a mention or short message, or you can choose to sponsor the Out of Left Field question or even an entire episode.

Subscribe to

Ascending the Tower

Or subscribe with your favorite app by using the address below

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

7 Comments

    1. I’m pretty sure he was talking about “racism and homophobia as the final sins” from a progressive worldview, not that those are his own personal beliefs.

  1. The push for “competition” in protection services or “geographically overlapping sovereignty” ignores the fact that law enforcement is a natural monopoly, because what “competition in protection services” means is simply war.

    Discussion claiming that war/violence never makes economic sense is only true when viewing things from a global perspective and assuming the possibility of perfect cooperation. It’s akin to saying that defecting never makes sense in the prisoner’s dilemma, because obviously everybody’s better off when both player’s cooperate. Total autistic ignorance of the incentives involved.

    1. A couple things to consider:

      In Clark’s model, there are no “victimless crimes” defined by a government being enforced over a geographical area. All law enforcement would be reactive to direct aggression.

      Already in North America there are far more private security employees than public law enforcement. They aren’t getting into gun battles while fighting for customers.

      Protective services would investigate and protect against direct harm to their subscribers, rather than stopping non-violent people from doing drugs. Neighbors could subscribe to different companies that respond to calls for help without starting a war.

    1. Not the GamerGate part. Refers to the complaint about power imbalances between the state and criminal defendants.

  2. Racism in the broadest sense of the word (if that is even possible anymore) is just the result of a natural preference for one’s own kind.

    Anti-racism has to be taught in a drilling fashion. It does not come naturally. Put a group of white kids and black kids in a playground together, the blacks will play with the blacks, and the whites will play with the whites…. and the white parents will no doubt think their children need to see a psychiatrist to check if something is wrong with their pretty little heads.

    Racial supremacy also is something that has to be taught (see: Hitler Youth).

    But racial supremacy stands apart from mere racism. Naturally, we will prefer our own race. We will prefer to marry someone within it, make friends within it, do our business dealings within it, and ultimately live in a state where it has either some definable boundary for its own culture and lineage without holding power (i.e – Cossacks in Russia after 1775) or to hold outright power for their own national-spiritual mission in the form of ethnocracy, the forming of the loose ethnostate.

    Christianity teaches us indeed to be charitable, and this includes to the members of other races, especially if they share our faith, to which they have an equal access. However, we can still justly discriminate against them in the arena of politics and social systems because this is how man has existed, organically, since Babel. It wishes no ill will, just separateness .
    This kind of racism only becomes a hostile point of contention when the races are forced together, and a crisis of slow replacement/ethnocide occurs. I do not wish any such thing on any persons of this planet. I would like to see no race perish from the earth, but for this to be ensured, we must embrace that racism is actually an indispensable tool in preventing bloody racial warfare, for it keeps us divided with our own boundaries that, while not totally impermeable, are a membrane inside which we may safely lay down each of our proud lineages without feeling overtly threatened by those who are not our kin.

    Come to think of it, I may have to write a piece on this very subject.

Comments are closed.