Wojciech Machulski admitted to me that he was the 1 who introduced the name Koneczny to the fresh New Hope thought declaration. And he wrote the full declaration with Krzysztof Rzonca. I, as a libertarian, have expressed my respect for this. The point of the first declaration is great, very crucial and Wojtek made it very nicely. I full agree. Here's my more accurate analysis.
My constant attentive readers know very well that I have been promoting the synthesis of the Austrian School of Economics with Polish Republican tradition for years, which I call Sarmatolibertarianism. In the entry about the Drift of fresh Hope to the center, I showed that classical libertarianism of Rothbardowski was replaced by a smooth, centre-right pragmatism, from which, among another things, absolute property or the postulate of base gold gold was evaporated.
However, in order to give justice, we must thin over the first point of this fresh declaration. It sounds like I wrote it myself!
This item is entitled "Rebuilding Latin Civilization". The organization explicitly declares to be based on the Greek love of truth, Roman law and Christian ethics. Moreover, a full set of concepts from Felix Koneczne enters there: personalism, the rule of subsidiarity (subsidiarity) and the superiority of morality over the law established.
Because Conne is pure paleolibertarianism! From this perspective, this passage is an absolute masterpiece. I always say that Koneczny's theories about Latin civilization are a natural foundation for freedomists.
The evidence that "legal standards are shaped on the basis of Christian ethics, and the law has a superior function over political power" is the essence of what Murray Rothbard or Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote about. In Latin civilization, the state (i.e. the apparatus of oppression with monopoly on force in a given territory) is not the creator of the law. The natural law (which is in fact the law of civilization!) stands above the Prime Minister, Minister, associate and Democratic majority. If morality says 'don't steal', then the Sejm can't pass a law legalising theft, calling it a trick-or-treating income tax.
The next thing is personalism. The declaration rightly notes that this "unit is the basic building block of social life". In Latin civilization, as Koneczny powerfully emphasized, public associations are only real erstwhile they are voluntary. This means the eventual rejection of collectiveism. There is no specified thing as the higher "good of the nation" or "social interest" to which the individual must offer a sacrifice from his property or freedom.
Finally, the rule of subsidiarity, or subsidiarity. Paint Sarmatolibertarianism! The decisions are made as low as possible — an individual, a family, a voluntary municipality. We Poles do not request a centralised bureaucratic monster. In the past we have managed in the highly decentralised First Republic without ministries of education, wellness or economy.
So point 1 is great. But they're inactive gnashing. Felix Koneczny makes a fig leaf here for the center drift.
The First Rabble: The fetish of a strong state
In the preamble we read that the intent of the organization is to build a "strong, arrogant and rich Polish state". From the point of view of Sarmatolibertarianism, this is simply a category error! The nation (as a cultural community) with the state (a device of coercion) has small in common. Sarmatians were even afraid of a strong state and absolutism. We request a rich and strong nation, functioning in a minimum country.
The second grievance: a concession for socialism in the name of "strategic sectors"
The largest gap in this Latin boat of Mentzen and Machulski is point VII. On the 1 hand, fresh Hope proclaims Roman principles of law and praise for the free market, and on the another hand it explicitly allows state economical activity in circumstantial strategical sectors. From the position of Mises' praxeology and Christian ethics, that's absurd. The State holding piers (State Treasury Companies) always distorts the marketplace and steals from citizens. Letting you into the economy through the back door under the motto of strategy is denying everything that point I says. It's just a gateway to future coalitions with mainstream and filling state companies.
Game Three: Lost Negative Freedom
Although in point IV the organization has retained volenti non fit inniuria, it presents a mass of conservative reservations about responsibility. Somewhere, this rothbardish uncompromisingness has fled. The Latin rule of ownership was castrated from the word "absolute".
In conclusion, I bow before the author of Point I of the fresh declaration, due to the fact that he did a lesson from Felix Koneczny and dressed it in an excellent framework akin to Sarmatolibertarianism. Unfortunately, in political practice, this beautiful perfect monolith present serves only as a traditionalist screen. There is simply a organization behind him, who, on his way to power and broadening the electorate, decided to compromise with statism. In theory, we have Latin civilization, in practice — the doors of state companies and statolatria being lifted.
I would like that the ideological declaration be uncompromising, that it set a course towards a full free market. And average slogans, compromises with centrists, can be included in a circumstantial electoral programme, which is mostly temporary. The thought declaration is simply a program on the day after next day and it must be full of freedom in the libertarian concept. And separate programs should be created for present and tomorrow. And here you can press etatism and statolatry for a minute to convince the dark people and coalitions.
Grzegorz GPS Swiderski
]]>t.me/CanalBlogeraGPS]]>
]]>Twitter.com/gps65]]>
