 Okay, I already indicated on the first day that you will be in for some torture tonight, the day because you have to listen to a lengthy presentation and from my own experience as member of audiences, I know that I always hated it when they are speaking for such a long time, but you have to endure it, otherwise there will be anathema. So it is no secret that I'm not a Haryekian. Still, I consider Haryek a great economist, not in the same league as Mises, but few, if any, economists are in the same league. Haryek's fame in the public mind, however, has less to do with his economic writings, but stems largely from his writings in political theory, and it is in this area where I consider Haryek as mostly deficient. Not even his system of definitions in this area is internally consistent. His extracursions into the field of epistemology, I consider to be much better, quite ingenious, but even there he falls short of the achievements of his teacher Ludwig von Mises. Nonetheless, owing to his wide-ranging interdisciplinary over and the interdisciplinary nature of it, which contains a treasure trove of keen insights into many issues, I consider Haryek one of the second 20th century outstanding intellectuals writing in the area of the social sciences that might console the Haryekians a little bit. As a reflection of this esteem, Haryek was also quoted in the programmatic statement of the PFS, and I quote, we must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal utopia, a program which seems neither a mere defense of things as they are, nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty, which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as political possible. We need intellectual leaders who are prepared to resist the blandishments of power and influence and who are willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realization. They must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realization, however remote, unless we can make the philosophical foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds. The prospects of freedom are indeed dark, but if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas, which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost. Now, Haryek of course did not follow his own advice, but ended up in his political philosophy with a mishmash full of internally inconsistent compromises. Yet, this does not mean that his plea for an uncompromising intellectual radicalism, which has been the purpose and become the hallmark of the PFS, is not worthwhile or correct, but this shall not be my topic here. Rather, I want to speak about another important, if you will, complimentary insight of Haryek's that can be found in the introduction he wrote for the collection of essays gathered in the book Capitalism and the Historians. Here, Haryek makes the point that while uncompromising intellectual radicalism is necessary as a source of energy and inspiration for the leaders of a liberal libertarian movement, this is not sufficient to make for public appeal, because the general public is not used to or incapable of abstract reasoning. High theory and intellectual consistency, but forms its political views and convictions on the basis of historical narratives, that is of prevailing interpretations of past events. And hence, it is upon those who want to change things for a better liberal libertarian future to challenge and correct such interpretations and propose and promote alternative revisionist historical narratives. Let me quote Haryek to this effect. While the events of the past are the source of the experience of the human race, their opinions are determined not by objective facts, but by the records and interpretations to which they have access. Historical myths have perhaps played nearly as great a role in shaping opinion as historical facts. The influence which the writers of history thus exercise on public opinion is probably more immediate and extensive than that of political theorist who launch new ideas. It seems as though even such new ideas reach wider circles, usually not in their abstract form, but as the interpretations of particular events. The historian is in this respect at least one step closer to the general public and has more direct power over public opinion than the theorist. Most people, when being told that their political convictions have been affected by particular views of economic history, will answer that they have never read and been interested in economic theory at all. They have never read a history, economic history book. Nonetheless, even if they have never read a book on the subject, this does not mean that they do not with all the rest of the people, regard as established facts, many of the legends which at one time or another have been given currency by writers on economic history. The central theme of the mentioned book edited by Hayek is the revision of the still popular myth that it was the system of free market capitalism at the time of the beginning of the so-called industrial revolution around 1800, which has been responsible for the economic misery that caused even little children having to work for 16 hours or more under atrocious conditions in minds or similarly uncomfortable work conditions. And that it was only due to the pressure of labor unions and government intervention into the economy by so called social policy means and measures that this inhumane system of capitalist exploitation was gradually overcome and improved. Now, when we first hear this sad story, one would think that the immediate question coming to mind should be why would any parent subject his child to such a treatment and hand it over to some evil capitalist exploiter? Did these people have a jolly good time before strolling around in meadows and fields, healthy and with red cheeks, picking flowers, eating apples from apple trees, fishing and swimming in creeks, rivers and lakes, playing with their toys and attentively listening to their grandparents' tales? In that case, what horrible people must these parents have been? Merely asking this question should be sufficient to realize that this story cannot be true. And in fact, as Hayek and his collaborators demonstrated, it is just about the opposite of the truth. Until the Industrial Revolution, England and the rest of the world for thousands of years had lived under Malthusian conditions. That is, the supply of consumer goods provided either by nature or by human production through means of production was not sufficient to ensure the survival of a growing population. Population growth exceeded the growth of production and any increases in productivity. And hence, not only in England but everywhere, an excess of population regularly had to die of due to malnutrition, ill health and ultimately starvation. It was only with and since the Industrial Revolution that this situation fundamentally changed and the Malthusian trap was successfully overcome. First in England, then in continental Europe and the European overseas dependencies and finally to a large extent also in the rest of the world so as to allow not only for a steadily growing population but an increasing population with continuously rising material standards of living. And this momentous achievement was a result of free market capitalism or more precisely a combination and interplay of three factors. First, the general security of private property. Second, the low time preference. That is the ability and willingness of a growing number of people to delay immediate gratification. That is a low time preference, the ability and willingness of a growing number of people to delay gratification so as to save for the future and accumulate an ever larger stock of capital goods. And third, the intelligence and ingenuity of a sufficient number of people to invent and engineer a steady stream of ever new productivity enhancing tools and machines. The parents of the poor children who handed them over to the evil capitalist at the time of the Industrial Revolution were not bad parents then. But like most parents everywhere who want the best for their children, they chose to do so because they preferred their children alive even it was a miserable life rather than death. Contrary to still popular myths in leftist circles then, capitalism did not cause misery but it literally saved the lives of countless millions of people from death by starvation and gradually lifted them up from their previous state of abject poverty and labor unions and governments and their so-called social policies did not help in this regard but hampered and retarded this process of gradual economic improvement and were and still are responsible for countless numbers of unnecessary death. Now there are many other related equally or even more absurd myths propagated by to use Nicholas Taleb's label intellectuals yet idiots and which are widely believed by the general public. For instance that you can legislate greater economic prosperity by simply passing minimum wage laws. But why then not legislate hourly wages, wage rates of hundred dollars or thousand dollars and why then is India for instance still a poor country? Are the ruling elites in India for instance so stupid that they don't recognize that they have a magic formula to make the country rich? Or else another myth that economic misery can be overcome by simply increasing monetary spending but why then since everywhere nowadays governments can easily increase the quantity of paper money in practically unlimited amounts why then is there still any poor person in the world around? Nor are such faulty historical narratives restricted only to economic history. Rather much of what we have learned as established truth from our standard history books about World War I and World War II about the American and the French Revolution about Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Napoleon and on and on and on also turns out faulty history that is facts mixed in whether intentional or unintentional with hefty doses of fiction and fact and fake. Now important as a revision of all these myths are is however whether economic or otherwise the greatest challenge for libertarians is to develop a grand historical narrative that is to counter and correct the so-called Whig theory of history that all ruling elites everywhere and at all times have tried to sell to the public. That is a view that we live in the best of all times and that they our rulers are the ones that guarantee that this stays so and that the grand sweep of history not withstanding some ups and downs has been one of more or less steady progress. This Whig theory of history despite some setbacks motivated in particular by the experiences of the two disastrous World Wars during the first half of the 20th century has again regained a predominant position in the public mind as indicated by the success of such books as Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Men or still more recently by Stephen Pinkers the better angels of our nature and also his book Enlightenment now and I'll come back to that later on. According to the proponents of this theory what makes the present age so great and qualifies it as the best of all times is a combination of two factors. For one never before in human history have technology and the natural sciences reached as high a level of development and have the average material living standards been as high as today which appears essentially correct and which fact without doubt has much contributed to the public appeal and acceptance of the Whig theory and secondly never before in history have people supposedly experienced as much freedom as today with a development of liberal democracy or democratic capitalism which claim despite its widespread popularity I consider as historical myth and since the degree of freedom and of economic and technological development are indeed positively correlated leads me to the conclusion that average material living standards would have been even higher than they are presently if history only had taken a different course but before offering an alternative grand revisionist historical narrative and indicating where Pinker and his ilk go off the rails with their Wiggish world history a brief remark on the history of science is in order until a relatively recently the belief in a steady growth of science if nothing else has never been much in doubt until the early 1960s with a historian of science Thomas Kuhn and his book the structure of scientific revolutions Kuhn in contrast to the orthodox Wiggish view on the matter portrayed the development of science not so much as a continuous march upward and into the light but rather as a sequence of paradigm shifts that follow each other much like directionless one lady fashion follows another the book became a huge success and for quite some time Kuhn's views became itself a widespread fashion in philosophical circles Kuhn not withstanding however I still regard the traditional view concerning the development of science as essentially correct the central error of Kuhn's as well as of many philosophers of science and revealingly also expressed again and again for instance by Sheldon Cooper the super science nerd theoretical physicist character of the hugely popular TV series the Big Bang theory their fundamental error lies in a misconception regarding the interrelationship between science on the one hand and engineering and technology on the other this is the popular misconception of regarding science as coming before having priority and assuming a higher rank and dignity vis-a-vis engineering and technology as only secondary and inferior intellectual enterprises is as mere applied science in fact however matters are exactly the other way around what comes methodologically first and what makes science as we know it at all possible and at the same time provides the ultimate foundation is human engineering and construction put plainly and bluntly without such purposefully designed and constructed instruments such as measuring rods clocks planes rectangles scales counters lenses microscopes telescopes audio meters thermometers spectrometers x-ray machines and ultrasound machines particle accelerators and so on and on no empirical and experimental science as we know it would be possible or to put it in the word of the great late German philosopher scientist Peter Janich Handwerk that is handy work comes before and provides the stable foundation and groundwork of Mundwerk just talking whatever controversies or quibbles scientists may have then they are always controversies and quibbles within a stable operational framework and reference system defined by a given state of technology and in the field of human engineering no one would ever throw out or falsify a working instrument until and unless he had another better working instrument available hence it is engineering and advances in engineering that makes science and scientific progress possible and at the same time prevent that from happening which called poppers falsificationist philosophy of science that currently dominates intellectual public opinion must always as admit as always possible not only scientific regression but even the complete breakdown of our entire system of knowledge due to the supposedly always possible falsification of even its seemingly most basic hypothesis what prevents this nightmare from happening and what exposes both Coon's relativism and poppers related falsificationism as revolving an elementary methodological error is the existence of Handwerk hand work and its method methodical priority and primacy over the mere Mundwerk of science now is this out of the way I can now turn to the fake part of the wick theory of history namely concerning social history while it is comparatively easy to diagnose technological and along with this also scientific progress namely progress occurs whenever we learn how to successfully accomplish some additional more and or quicker or better result in our purposeful dealings with the non-human world of material objects plants and animals while this is comparatively easy it is significantly more difficult to define and diagnose social progress that is progress in inter-personal dealings are man-to- man interactions to do this it is first necessary to define a model of social perfection that is in accordance with human nature that is of men as they really are which then can serve as a reference system to diagnose the relative proximity or distance of various historical events periods and developments to and from this ideal and this definition of social perfection and social progress must be strictly separate independent and analytically distinct from the definition of technological and scientific growth and perfection even if both progress and growth dimensions are empirically positively correlated conceptually that is it must be allowed that there can be societies that are near perfect socially but technologically backward as well as societies that are technologically highly advanced and yet socially backward for the libertarian the ideal of social perfection is peace that is the normally and typically tranquil and frictionless person-to-person interaction and the peaceful resolution of occasional conflict within the stable framework of private or several mutually exclusive property and property rights I do not want to appear with this only to libertarians however but a potentially universal or Catholic audience because the same ideal of social perfection is essentially also the one prescribed by the ten biblical commandments here we are again Sunday as you're setting as setting the four the first four commandments aside which refer to our relation to God as the one and only ultimate moral authority and final judge of our earthly conduct and the proper celebration of the Sabbath the rest referring to worldly affairs display a deep and profoundly libertarian spirit the fifth commandment honor your father and your mother as a Lord our God has commanded you and that you and your days may be long and that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you number six you shall not murder number seven you shall not commit adultery number eight you shall not steal number nine you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor and number ten you shall not covet your neighbor's wife and you shall not desire your neighbor's house his field his male servant his female servant his ox his donkey or anything that is your neighbors now some libertarians may argue that not all of these commandments have the same rank or status they might point out for instance that the fifth and the seventh commandment are not on a par and of the same dignity as the commandments six eight and ten that this may also be the case with commandment nine prohibiting libel or that desiring another's wife or servant is not on a par with coveting his house or field however the ten commandments do not say anything about the severity and suitable punishment of violations of its various commands they proscribe all mentioned activities and desires but they leave open the question of how severely any of them deserves to be punished in this the biblical commandments go above and beyond what many libertarians regard as sufficient for the establishment of a peaceful social order namely the mere strict adherence to the commandments six eight and ten yet this difference between strict and a strict and rigid libertarianism and the ten biblical commandments does not imply any incompatibility of the two both are in complete harmony if only a distinction is made between legal prohibitions on the one hand expressed in the commandments six eight and ten violations of which may be punished by the exercise of physical violence and on the other hand extra legal or moral prohibitions on the other hand expressed in the commandments five seven and nine violations of which may be punished only by means below the threshold of physical violence such as social disapproval discrimination exclusion or ostracism instead or indeed if we interpret things in this way the full six mentioned commandments can be recognized as even an improvement over the strict and rigid libertarianism given the common shared goal of social perfection of a stable just and peaceful social order for surely any society of people who habitually disrespect their parents and routinely mock the idea of natural ranks and hierarchies of social authority which underlies the institution of the family who poo poo the institution of marriage and cavalierly regard adultery as inconsequential faultless or even liberating acts or who habitually scoff at the idea of personal honor and honesty and routinely or even gleefully engage in libeling their neighbors that is practicing bearing false witness against your neighbor any such society will quickly disintegrate into a group of people ceaselessly disturbed by social strife and conflict rather than enjoying enduring and lasting peace now taking these biblical libertarian ideal of social perfection as a benchmark then the next step in our argument must be the diagnosis that is the comparative evaluation and ranking of various historical periods and developments regarding their relative proximity or distance to this ultimate ideal goal now in this regard immediately a first diagnosis concerning the contemporary world impresses itself even if we may grant that the dominant western model of liberal democracy or democratic capitalism comes closer to the ideal than the models of social organization presently followed elsewhere outside the so-called western world even then it still fails glaringly short of the ideal indeed it explicitly and unequivocally contradicts and violates the catholic biblical commandments and the proponents and promoters of this model then manifestly even if not admittedly so deny and oppose God's will and turn out advocates of the devil instead for one even with the greatest intellectual contortions it is impossible to derive the institution of a state from these commandments if no one may steal murder or desire another person's property then no institution that may steal murder or desire another person's property can ever be permitted to come into existence yet as all other societies today all present western societies to our societies with states which may routinely steal that is tax may routinely murder they go to war and routinely covered other people's property through legislation moreover in western democratic state societies in particular the moral sin of desiring another man's property is not only not strictly and universally outlawed but routinely practiced but under democracy this sin is actually promoted and cultivated to its utmost devilish extreme with democracy with democratic elections installed as a centerpiece of social life everyone is liberated from God's commandment and made free to desire whatever he wants of the property of others and to express his immoral desires through regular anonymous elections and votes surely this liberal democratic model of social organization cannot be the end of history neither for a libertarian nor anyone taking the biblical commandments to heart indeed fuku yamas claim to the contrary borders on the blasphemous regardless of how distasteful or disastrous the diagnosis of the contemporary world turns out to be however it might be the case that the present state of affairs represents some sort of progress it might not be the end of history but it might be a closer approximation to the goal of social perfection than anything historically preceding it to refute the wick theory of history in its entirety then it is further necessary to identify some earlier and thus naturally technologically less advanced society that adhered more closely to the biblical commandments and came nearer to social perfection and so as to carry any weight in public debate that is in the battle of rival historical narratives the counter example in question should be a big one that is it should not be some teeny place for only a short time span but a large scale and a long lasting historical phenomenon and for the same reason of potential popular appeal the example should be connected both geographically and genealogically as a historical predecessor to the contemporary western model of democratic state societies and it should not be too far in the dark history in a distant past now in my own attempts at offering a revisionist account of western history in particular in my two books democracies the God that failed and a short history of men I have identified the European middle ages well what sometimes and also better refer to as Latin Christendom as that is the roughly thousand year period from the fall of Rome until the late 16th or early 17th century as such an example not perfect in many ways but closer to the ideal of social perfection than anything that followed it and in particular the present democratic order not surprisingly this is also the very period in Western history that our current godless democratic rulers and their court historians have chosen to portray in the darkest of terms in Greek and Roman history they can see some good and valuable even it is supposed positively lags far behind the level of social advancement reached with the contemporary democratic social order but as for the middle ages they are routinely portrayed as dark cruel and filled with superstition best to be forgotten and ignored in all of standard history and historical narrative now why is this most unfavorable treatment in particular of the middle ages because as many historians old and contemporary have of course noticed to the middle ages represent a large scale and long lasting historical example of a stateless society as required by the commandments and as such represent the polar opposite of the present status social orders indeed the middle ages not withstanding its many imperfections can be identified as a god pleasing or a goth gefellige social order whereas the present democratic order not withstanding its numeral achievements stands in constant violation of God's commandments and must be identified as a satanic order and to answer the question then Satan and his earthly followers will of course go all out to make us ignore and forget about God and belittle be smirged and denigrate everything and anything that shows God's hand the more reason than for any libertarian and God pleasing Catholic to study and draw inspiration from the historical period of the European middle ages something incidentally made much easier nowadays and likely to encounter little opposition from the powers that be and they're increasingly rigorously and forced speech code of political correctness because any such study has long since been relegated to the status of a nerdy quaint and exotic interest far distant in time from the present and without any contemporary relevance in standard orthodox history we are told as a quasi axiomatic truth that the institution of a state and that is the systematic violation of biblical commandments is necessary and indispensable for the maintenance of social peace the study of the middle ages and Latin Christendom shows that this is untrue and historical myth and how for a lengthy historical period peace was successfully maintained without a state and thus without open renunciation of libertarian and biblical precepts while many libertarians fancy and anarchic social order as a largely horizontal order without hierarchies and different ranks of authority as some sort of entire authoritarian paradise the medieval example of a stateless society teaches otherwise peace was not maintained by the absence of hierarchies and ranks of authority but by the absence of anything but social authority and social ranks of of authority indeed in contrast to the present order which essentially recognizes only one authority that of the state the middle ages were characterized by a great multitude of competing cooperating and hierarchically ordered social hierarchies and ranks of authority there was the authority that there was the authority of the heads of family households and of various kinship groups there were patrons lords overlords and feudal kings with their various estates and then their vassals and the vassals of vassals there were countless different and separate communities and towns and a huge variety of religious artistic professional and social orders councils assemblies guilds associations and clubs each with their own rules hierarchies and rank orders in addition and of utmost importance there were the authorities of the local priest the more distant bishop and of the pope in Rome but no authority was absolute and no one or no group of people held a monopoly on its position or rank of authority the hierarchical feudal lord vessel relationship for instance was not indissoluble it could be broken if either side violated the provisions of the failed to us they both had sworn to uphold nor was a relationship between lord and vessel a transitive one that is the lord of vessel was not on account of his lordship also the lord of all the vassals vassals indeed such vessels could be tied as vessels to a different lord or they could elsewhere and regarding other things be a lord themselves that precluded any involvement in the affairs of the very lord in question it was just near impossible for anyone to exercise any straight top-down authority and hence made also immensely difficult in particular to raise and maintain a large standing army and engage in large-scale or even continent-wide war that is the phenomenon which we have come to regard as perfectly normal today that a command is given from the top on down that is directly binding on all of society from its highest ranks down to the lowliest was completely absent in the Middle Ages authority was widely dispersed and any one person who a position of authority was constrained and kept in check by another even feudal kings bishops and indeed even the pope himself could be called upon and brought to justice by other competing authorities feudal law reflected this hierarchic anarchic social structure of the Middle Ages all of law was essentially private law that is law applying to persons and person to person interactions all litigation was between a personal defendant and the personal plaintiff and punishment typically involved the payment of some specified material compensation by the offender to the victim or his lawful successor however this central characteristic of the Middle Ages and especially the earlier Middle Ages as a historical model of a private law society did not mean that feudal law was some sort of unitary coherent and consistent legal system to the contrary feudal law allowed for a great variety of locally and regionally different laws and customs and the difference in the treatment of similar offenses in different localities could be quite drastic yet at the same time with the Catholic Church and the scholastic teachings of the natural law there was an overarching institutional framework and moral reference system in place to serve as a morally unifying force constraining and moderating the range of variation between the laws of different localities needless to say there were many imperfections that future historians up to this day would focus on and highlight so as to discredit the entire period during the Middle Ages under the influence of the Catholic Church the institution of slavery which had been a dominant feature of Greek and Roman society had been increasingly discredited and pushed back to near extinction but it had not entirely disappeared as well the institution of serve them from a moral point of view better than slavery but still not without moral blemish was still a widespread social phenomenon moreover plenty of small scale wars and feuds took place during the entire period and as we are never allowed to forget the punishments dished out in various law courts for various offenses here or there were sometimes at least for modern sensibilities extreme harsh and cruel a murderer might be hung or be headed quartered burned boiled or drowned a thief might have his fingers or hand cut off a false witness might his tongue torn out an adulterous might be stoned a rapist castrated and the witch burnt it is these features in particular that we are told in standard history to associate with the Middle Ages so as to arouse our moral indignation and feel elated about our own enlightened present even if all true however any such exclusive concentration on these features as a distinct distinctive characteristic of the Middle Ages is to miss the mark or the wood for the trees it takes accidents for nature and what is natural and normal that is it ignores whether deliberately or not the central characteristic of the entire period namely the fact that it was a stateless social order with widely dispersed hierarchically ordered and rivaling centers of authority it then conveniently closes the eyes to the fact that the excesses of the middle ages actually pale in comparison to those of the present democratic state order for surely slavery and serfdom have not disappeared in the democratic world rather some increasingly rare private slavery and serfdom have been replaced by a near universal system of public tax slavery and serfdom as well wars have not disappeared but only become of a larger scale and as for the excessive punishments and witch hunts they have not gone away either to the contrary they have multiplied enemies of the state are tortured in the same old gruesome or even technically a refined ways as in the old days moreover countless people who are not a murderer not a thief not a libel not an adulterer not a rapist that is people who live in complete accordance with the ten commandments and once would have been left alone are nonetheless routinely punished today up to the level of lengthy incarceration or the loss of all of their property witches are no longer called that way but with just one single authority in place the identification of anyone as a suspect of evil doing or a troublemaker is greatly facilitated and the number of people so identified has accordingly multiplied and while such suspects are no longer burned at the stake they are routinely punished by up to lifelong economic deprivation unemployment poverty or even starvation and while once during the middle ages the primary purpose of punishment was restitution that is the offender had to compensate the victim the primary purpose of punishment today is submission that is the offender must compensate and satisfy first of all not the victim but the state thus being victimized twice with this i can state the first conclusion the present democratic order may be the technologically most advanced civilization but it most certainly is not the socially most advanced society as measured by biblical libertarian standards of social perfection it falls far behind the middle ages indeed as measured by these standards the transition in european history from the anarchic medieval to the modern statist world is nothing less than the transition from a god pleasing to a godless social order at various places in the most condensed form in my essay from aristocracy to monarchy to democracy i have analyzed and tried to reconstruct this process of de-civilization which has by now been going on for half a millennium and to explain the calamitous and deleterious consequences and ramifications that is had had for the development of law and economics i shall not repeat or recapitulate any of this here rather i only want to shed some light on the principal strategy that all statists from the late middle ages on until today have pursued to reach their status ends so as to also gain if only indirectly some insight into any possible counter strategy that could lead us out of the current predicament not back to the middle ages of course because too many permanent and irreversible changes have taken place since both in regard to our mental and our material conditions and capacities but to a new society that takes the cues from the study of the middle ages and understands and knows of the principal reason for its demise the strategy was dictated by the quasi quasi libertarian stateless medieval starting point and it suggested itself naturally first and foremost to the top ranks of social authority that is in particular to feudal kings in a nutshell it boils down to this rule instead of remaining a mere primus in da paris you must become the solos primus and to do this you must undermine weaken and ultimately eliminate all competing social authorities and hierarchies of authority beginning at the highest level of authority with your most immediate competitors from there on down ultimately to the most elementary and decentralized level of social authority invested in the heads of individual family households you every status must use your own initial authority to undermine each and every rival authority and strip away its right to independently judge discriminate sentence and punish within its own territorial limited realm of authority kings other than you must no longer be allowed to freely determine who is another or the next king who is to be included or excluded from the rank of kings or who may or may not become before them for justice and assistance and likewise for all other levels of social authority for noble lords and vassals as well as all separate local communities orders associations and ultimately all individual family households no one of them must be free to autonomously determine its own rules of admission in exclusion that is to determine who is in or who is out what conducts to expect of those who are in and what to remain in good standing and what membership conduct instead results in various sanctions ranging from disapproval censure and fines to expulsion and corporal punishment and how to accomplish this and centralize and consolidate all authority in the hands of a single territorial monopolist first an absolute monarch and subsequently a democratic state answer by enlisting the support of everyone resentful of not having been included or promoted in some particular community association or social rank or for being expelled from them and unfairly punished against this unfair discrimination you the state or would be state promise the excluded victim to get them in and help them get a fair and non-discriminating treatment in return for their binding commitment and affiliation with you on every level of social authority whenever and wherever the opportunity arises you encourage and promote deviant behavior and deviance and enlist their help and support in order to expand and strengthen your own authority at the expense of all others accordingly then the principal counter strategy of re-civilization then must be a return to normality by means of decentralization the process of territorial expansion that went hand in hand with the centralization of all authority in one monopolistic hand must be reversed each and every secessionist tendency and movement then should be supported and promoted because with every territorial separation from the central state is simultaneously another separate and rival center of authority and eudication created and the same tendency should be promoted within the framework of any newly created separate and independent territory and center of authority that is any voluntary membership organization association order club or even household within the new territory should be free to independently determine its own house rules that is the rules of inclusion of sanctions and of exclusion so as to successfully replace the current status system of forced territorial and legal integration and uniformation with a natural quasi-organic social order of voluntarily of voluntary territorial and legal customary association and disassociation