** Introduction **
I have introduced a treatise here, before the Mises Community, and am seeking support in the formation of a Political Action Committe to exact the implementation of a Public Private Trust.
There are nuances of the Public Private Trust that were not included in the initial address that eventually need to be specified.
The following is another treatise to convey a warning that the size of the Public Private Trust should not exceed the mean of (*i) individualism in overall ownership.
** Advocate to Abandon Civic Ignorance **
Firstly, the “left wing liberalism” versus “right wing conservatism”, paradigm as ascribed to the Nolan Chart, is corupting public understanding.
Liberalism is rooted in the term libertarianism; however the vernacular of liberalism implies civil libertarianism and economic authoritarianism, which is a corruption of implicit terminology.
Conservatism is rooted in authorianism; however, the vernacular of conservatism implies civil authoritarianism and economic libertarianism, which is a corruption of implicit terminology.
Left and right are sufficient, even though religious pretences of chirality and handedness purport that left handedness is sinisterial (sinister, reproof) while the right handedness is dextral (dexterity, blessing).
** Parameters and Dimension of A Policy Spectrum **
Verily, an analysis of any particular political position should be described in degrees of libertarianism or authoritarianism with the golden mean theorem as a reference for underlying reason.
An extrapolation of the golden mean theorem implies that given the extremes of (I) individualism and (C) collectivism, there are means *i and *c, where libertarian policy establishes individualism, and authoritarian policy establishes collectivism.
Whence, the original premise is emphasized by prima facia.
** Extensive Explanation and, Emphasis of Natural Freedoms **
There can be no distinction between a supposed creator and the nature of its creation.
As predators overwhelm prey, each has a different subjective realization, whence the basis of nature is morally relative - see perspectivism as it is numerical, inchoate, and indifferent, although it provisions introspection through sophistication and projection.
Mammon may exercise “natural freedoms” to preserve its introspection through genetic continuance that is subject to providence of fate, within the contexts of nature’s morally relative opportunity.
Faced with the anarchy, to improve its odds of survival, or to improve its conditions, mammon surrenders its natural freedoms in exchange for protected (reprised) wrights under the social contract of a constitution as a citizen of a state which acts as a greater individual.
Wrights only exist because there is an entity (a state) capable of reprising the violations of their conditions; whence, inalienable wrights are pretentious assertions that necessarily depend upon an illusion for an “eternal soul that is cognitively subject to a drama of final judgement”.
The notion of inalienable wrights should simply be a conjecture for optimal or utopian ideals, similar to positing a desire or expected outcome for a chemical reaction based upon a particular subjective need, however with a realization that the substance underlying nature is categorically indifferent to the outcome.
The contemporary terms of natural laws and of natural rights have sacrificed the obvious indications of nature’s laws and, hence, fail to explain natural freedoms.
** Finalizing the Premise **
The exteremes of libertarianism establish the extreme of (I) individualism without a social contract of government, within which there may be anarchy and monopoly.
The extremes of authoritarianism establish the extreme of (C) collectivism through a social contract of government, within which there may be stagnation and monopoly,
Whence, at the extremes of libertarianism and authoritarianism, the serpent ouroborous succumbs to moebius inversion and swallows its own tail.
Now the origin of introspection and unbridled freedom for the individual exists prior to the formation of the collective at the extreme of “I” (individualism) according to the golden mean theorem.
In summary, a Public Private Trust of the collective should not exceed the mean of (*i) individualism for overall ownership, so that its pundits do not disavow a value for the natural freedom of the individual, and quash the individual’s opportunity to overcome the stagnation of the collective.
In general, rational libertarianism posits that the aim of law in social and economic policies is for the mean *i of individualism.
Verily, the epistles of paul stipulate that the perfection of mammon exists without the necessity of law, whence the objective of mammon is to remove all laws and be a law unto itself!