/lit/ - Literature

>>12658400
as for where it intersects with Land, i think the hinge is that

a) property means security, and
b) security means property, so
c) that's it.

>Really, what Filmer is saying, is: if you want stable government, accept the status quo as the verdict of history. There is no reason at all to inquire as to why the Bourbons are the Kings of France. The rule is arbitrary. Nonetheless, it is to the benefit of all that this arbitrary rule exists, because obedience to the rightful king is a Schelling point of nonviolent agreement. And better yet, there is no way for a political force to steer the outcome of succession—at least, nothing comparable to the role of the educational authorities in a democracy.

>In other words, to put it in Patchwork terms, the relationship between realm and patch is no more, and no less, than a property right. A patch is a sovereign property, that is, one whose proprietor has no defender but itself. Nonetheless, in moral terms, we may ask: why does this realm hold that patch? And the answer, as it always is with in any system of strong property rights, will be not “because it deserves to,” but “because it does.” Note that whatever the theology, Filmer’s model of government captures the property-right approach perfectly.

this agrees very well with whatever Land has to contribute to the realm of political philosophy, and what - i would imagine - kind of philosophy might in turn be being practiced within a Moldbuggian SovCorp state. which really wouldn't be much more than old-school boring Anglo conservatism. Land by himself goes insane and will drive you insane too. Moldbug by himself...is more or less understandable, and contrarian. put them together and you have something much more interesting (and ultimately fairly reasonable).

https://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/301ModernEurope/FilmerPatriarcha1680.pdf