Beyond the Siege

The Roots and Opportunities of Libertarianism

Thomas Kolbe

This article examines the historical evolution and contemporary relevance of libertarian philosophy, particularly focusing on its intersection with technological advancement and individual sovereignty. Through analysis of classical philosophical texts and modern theoretical frameworks, it explores how libertarian principles adapt to address emerging challenges in the digital age. The research traces libertarian thought from ancient Greek philosophers through medieval natural law theory to modern economic theorists, highlighting the consistent emphasis on individual autonomy and human dignity. Key findings demonstrate the tension between individual liberty and collective pressure, especially as technological systems create new forms of both empowerment and constraint. The study concludes that libertarian principles remain vital for navigating contemporary challenges, particularly regarding digital rights, privacy, and economic freedom. This research contributes to understanding how classical libertarian concepts can be reinterpreted to address modern technological and social complexities while maintaining their core emphasis on human dignity and individual sovereignty.

Introduction

In the twilight of our post-modern epoch, humanity finds itself at a profound crossroads where the quest for personal sovereignty collides with unprecedented technological capabilities and growing government overreach. This philosophical investigation seeks to illuminate the complex interplay between individual liberty and collective existence, particularly as we navigate the digital transformation of human consciousness and society. The fundamental question before us is not merely how to preserve freedom in an increasingly interconnected world, but how to reconceptualize the very notion of personal sovereignty within social networks that can hardly been overlooked by the individual in an environment that is putting us in increasing horizontal stress situations (social competition) as we adapt the new technology more rapidly. The evolutionary pressure to adapt to ever more rapidly changing systems and design formats only seems to be increasing in the face of artificial intelligence and robotics, which raises the question of the extent to which we can even be able to maintain our claim to individual freedom. Could a return to the roots of libertarian thinking, to the very foundation of autonomous sovereignty, be a bridge that we should courageously cross?

As our lives become increasingly mediated through digital networks and algorithmic systems, a complex psycho-dynamic black box we hardly understand or actively navigate, we must grapple with novel forms of both empowerment and constraint which arises off the deeps of technological complexity and indirectly socially forced engagement. We are literally sucked into the process of digital communication because there is virtually no way around the ubiquitous communication platforms and social media integrated into our communication devices. Participation shapes public discourse, opinions and opens up the individual absorption of memes, moods and opinions into our existing mindset. The digital revolution has not merely added new dimensions to old debates such as the debate about social justice or metaphysical questions of our existence; it has fundamentally altered the terrain upon which questions of personal sovereignty must be considered. This investigation traverses multiple philosophical traditions, drawing from ancient wisdom while engaging with these growing contemporary challenges. We examine how the classical libertarian emphasis on individual rights and personal autonomy must evolve to address the subtle forms of control and manipulation of the individual by centralized powers enabled by modern technology.

Our time demands to develop frameworks that acknowledge both the expanded possibilities for human expression on the level of free accessible social platforms and the novel mechanisms of control that characterize our era and that rise with the dominance of algorithmic control of visibility. This necessitates a careful examination of how traditional concepts of freedom, dignity, and self-determination can be meaningfully translated into a world where the boundaries between individual and collective, physical and digital, continue to blur.

The following analysis unfolds through several interconnected dimensions: the historical evolution of libertarian thought, the metaphysical foundations of human freedom, the psychological landscape of individual sovereignty, and the practical challenges of maintaining personal autonomy in an age of digital transformation. As we shall see, the quest for personal sovereignty demands both theoretical sophistication and practical wisdom, as we seek to chart a course between the Scylla of technological determinism and the Charybdis of social coercion.

The Whisper of Freedom in a Time of Transformation

In the intricate tapestry of human experience, freedom emerges not as a simple condition of absence, but as a dynamic, generative force that perpetually reshapes the boundaries of human potential. Our contemporary epoch stands at a critical juncture where technological infrastructure and systemic mechanisms of control increasingly challenge the very notion of individual autonomy. This is not merely a political or economic challenge, but a profound philosophical crisis that demands a radical reimagining of human agency as the new tech is conquering our daily lives, our attention, redefining our ways of communication and the world of labor. It threatens to fall into the realm of control of centralized powers like the state and its bureaucracy, cutting deep into the fragile immune system of the individual or privately organized communities and family structures ignoring the principles of a necessary balance of power to avoid the abyss of absolute dominance. We can witness this process in ever growing state interventionism, taxation and the rise of the welfare state as the dominant threshold of governmental absolute control and power.

The „Game“ Has Changed

The modern landscape of control is far more sophisticated than historical mechanisms of oppression. Unlike previous systems of domination that relied on overt physical constraints, contemporary networks of power operate through subtler, more insidious means. Algorithmic prediction, data surveillance, psychological profiling, and systemic nudging create invisible architectures of constraint, implemented by state controlled and big media platforms that shape human behavior at levels previously unimaginable. These mechanisms do not simply restrict movement or speech; they intervene at the level of desire, aspiration, and self-conception as they force the individual into its given scheme of values and someting I would call the „overtone window of what is socially acceptable.“

Consider the intricate ways technological systems mediate human experience. Social media algorithms curate our informational ecosystems, creating personalized echo chambers that subtly narrow our perceptual and cognitive horizons. Economic platforms track and predict our behaviors, transforming human complexity into predictable data points. Educational systems increasingly standardize not just knowledge, but the very modes of thinking and questioning. Each of these systems represents a form of soft power that constrains human potential through seemingly neutral, even beneficial mechanisms. In the hand of the state and its volunteer collaborators of power and nebulous agents these instruments of power multiply their decomposing effect on the individual by pushing him into a fog of helpless uncertainty.

Libertarianism Offers An Answer

Yet, the libertarian philosophical tradition offers a powerful counternarrative to this systemic encroachment. It posits that human potential is fundamentally unbounded, that individual agency represents a creative and transformative force capable of transcending and reimagining existing structures of power by counteracting and adapting the existing technological design, transforming its principles into decentralized networks as we know them from rising forms of independent cooperation like „Bitcoin“ or the communication platform „Nostr“. This is not a naive celebration of individual will, but a sophisticated understanding of human capacity as inherently dynamic, contextual, and generative, it follows the nature of the human being that naturally stretches itself to improve its own circumstances of living which demand growing spaces of freedom.

The philosophical foundations of this perspective draw from multiple intellectual traditions that emphasize human agency and self-determination. They reject deterministic models that reduce human experience to biological, economic, or technological parameters. Instead, they conceptualize human beings as complex, self-reflexive entities capable of continuous self-creation and radical reinterpretation of their circumstances. This perspective demands a profound epistemological shift. Knowledge is not something passively received but actively constructed through continuous negotiation between individual experience and broader systemic contexts. Learning becomes a transformative process where individuals do not simply accumulate information but continuously reconstruct their understanding of themselves and their world. This process of absorbing information, adopting and transforming it on the basis of the individual fundament of intellectual competence and experience can be seen as the personal genesis that keeps the necessity of being connected to the surrounding world on the one hand and the desire of being an individual on the other hand in a oscillating equilibrium. This complex psycho-dynamic process of intellectual change is what really makes us a human being with permeable membranes that are swinging in the rhythm of the environment into which we are thrown.

Accepting The Challange

The implications of this philosophical stance extend far beyond individual psychology. They challenge basic assumptions about social organization, suggesting that human institutions should be designed to maximize individual creative potential rather than constraining it. Education, economic systems, technological design, and political frameworks should be evaluated based on their capacity to expand rather than limit human agency whereas we are aiming for maximizing the space of individual action, based on an ethical framework that pushes its rootswork into the soil of human cooperation and voluntary action. Moreover, this understanding of freedom is inherently relational. Individual autonomy is not achieved through isolation or absolute independence, but through complex networks of voluntary association and mutual recognition. Freedom is not a state to be achieved but a continuous process of negotiation, creation, and transformation. It requires active engagement, critical reflection, and the courage to challenge existing narratives and structures.

In practical terms, this means developing capacities for critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and adaptive creativity. It involves cultivating inner resilience that can withstand external pressures, maintaining the ability to question dominant narratives, and developing the intellectual and emotional flexibility to reimagine one’s possibilities continuously. The greek philosopher and founder of the garden (kepos), Epicurus, developed his thinking around the idea of finding „ataraxia“, inner calm and the state of luck by changing the dominant narrative that was built around the god-like importance of the city state (polis) by promoting the importance of the individual point of view:

“The greatest fruit of self-sufficiency is freedom.”^[1]

It is obvious: a not insignificant number of ancient philosophers were firmly convinced, along with Epikuros and his spirit rector Demokritos and his school of thinking, that it was up to the free spirit to withdraw from the masses from time to time,, in order to allow the flow of thought to flow freely to entrust the silence away from time in one’s self-chosen retirement. This conception of freedom is not about the absence of constraints but the active cultivation of inner resilience and creative potential. It suggests that true liberation occurs through the development of philosophical understanding, emotional intelligence, and the capacity to maintain sovereignty of consciousness regardless of external conditions. Taking up this line of argueing Friedrich Nietzsche radicalizes this perspective, viewing freedom as a continuous process of self-creation:

“Freedom is the will to self-responsibility, the will to stand on one’s own feet, the will to create one’s own existence and meaning in a fundamentally meaningless universe.”^[2]

Turning our eyes back on our time we have to admit that the technological ecosystem of contemporary society presents both unprecedented challenges and opportunities for this understanding of individual freedom which corresponds, as we can witness in our daily lives with the growing duty of taking responsibility of our own actions. Embedded in a new, fastly thriving environment of technological change and presence of artificial human extensions (man as the god of prosthesis) fast growing and attention absorbing digital networks create complex landscapes of potential and constraint simultaneously. They offer tools for global communication, access to vast repositories of knowledge, and platforms for creative expression. Yet they also introduce sophisticated mechanisms of surveillance, manipulation, and psychological control.

This requires a nuanced approach to technological engagement, with the aim of making use of technology, subjecting it to the individual’s own reflection and will. Freedom in the digital age is not about complete rejection of technological systems but about developing critical capacities for navigation, understanding, and creative reappropriation. Individuals must become sophisticated interpreters of technological infrastructures, capable of understanding their underlying logics and potential modes of resistance. In a way we find ourselves in a corresponding black box of power like the old thinkers when they started defending the ground of the individual against the overreach of the masses and the absorbing impact on one´s soul when they realized that growing up and living in a community with strong values can be described as a continueing process of copying and repeiting the ruling code of morals, which can be seen as the core part of education if we understand the continuity of society as the process of programming the next generation with the set of ruling and successfully tested values and morals.

A New Educational Framework Appears

The philosophical tradition of individual freedom also demands a radical reconceptualization of human potential. Traditional educational and social frameworks often function as normalization mechanisms, attempting to transform individuals into predictable, manageable units within larger systemic structures. A truly liberatory approach would instead focus on cultivating individual creativity, critical thinking, and the capacity for radical reimagination. This perspective challenges important assumptions about human development. Learning becomes not a process of accumulation but of continuous transformation. Knowledge is not a fixed set of information to be internalized but a dynamic field of potential to be actively engaged and reconstructed. Education should function as a process of expanding consciousness, developing critical capacities, and nurturing the unique creative potential of each individual what would lead into a type of an open society which establishes the ability of adapting fitting rules and morals when the surrounding world is changing.

Economic systems, too, must be reconceptualized through this lens. Rather than viewing economic activity as a mechanism of resource extraction and distribution, it becomes a terrain of individual creative potential. Work transforms from alienated labor to a potential space of self-expression, innovation, and meaningful contribution which, in a system of free market economy and absence of state coercion, follows the rules of merits . If we look at the rapid progress in the technological core of our time, the machine of the economic steamer, robotics or artificial intelligence, it becomes clear what is meant: we are faced with the task of no longer having to carry out repetitive tasks ourselves but gaining an immense pool of freely available time. We either become conquerors of these new spaces or their victims and succumb to Heideggerian boredom in a maximum existential crisis that threatens to rob us of our routines and usual distractions.

The philosophical understanding of individual freedom is on a basic level an ethical stance. It represents a commitment to human dignity, to the inherent worth and creative potential of each individual consciousness. It suggests that social, technological, and economic systems should be evaluated based on their capacity to expand rather than constrain human potential.

This is not a naive celebration of absolute individual autonomy. Human beings are fundamentally relational creatures, deeply embedded in complex networks of social, technological, and ecological relationships. Freedom, in this sophisticated conception, is not about isolation but about developing the capacity to navigate these complex relationships with critical awareness. Ultimately, individual freedom represents humanity’s most profound creative capacity — the ability to continuously reimagine ourselves and our world, to stand as active creators of meaning in a fundamentally uncertain universe. It is a continuous process of becoming, a dynamic engagement with the complex possibilities of human existence. Thought it that way the free individual, controlled by his will and his preference structure, continuously feeds his energy into the complex social field of tension of interaction and thus fertilizes the process of civilizational evolution.

The Human Condition: Freedom Between Potential and Limitation

Our mortal existence is fundamentally defined by a complex web of interconnected limitations. We are beings acutely aware of our finite nature, suspended between the boundless potential of human imagination and the inescapable constraints of physical and social reality. These constraints are not merely external impositions but deeply internalized structures that shape our perception, behavior, and potential for self-realization. Philosophers have long grappled with this existential paradox. Jean-Paul Sartre’s provocative declaration that “we are condemned to be free” captures the profound tension at the heart of human existence. Freedom, in this perspective, is not a comfortable state of liberation but a perpetual challenge of self-creation and meaning-making. This existential burden of freedom compels us to continually choose our path, our identity, and our moral stance in a world that offers no inherent meaning or purpose.^[3]

The human condition represents a profound philosophical landscape of tension and possibility, where individual consciousness navigates the intricate boundaries between determinism and radical potential. We are simultaneously constrained and unbounded, embedded in complex systems of biological, psychological, and social parameters while possessing the unique capacity for self-reflection and transformative action. That is exactly the black box where libertarian philosophy is trying to brighten the darkness one degree at a time becoming a compass for individual maneuvering in rough and mostly unknown waters. Beyond the immediate constraints of our physical and social environments lies a more profound metaphysical terrain of human experience—a dynamic realm where consciousness perpetually negotiates its own boundaries of existence. Albert Camus, in his seminal work “The Myth of Sisyphus,” illuminates this existential struggle by portraying human existence as a continual confrontation with the absurd—a state where our desire for meaning collides with the universe’s fundamental indifference.^[4]

Expanded Meditation on Human Consciousness and Limitation

The philosophical exploration of human limitation reveals an even more nuanced understanding of our existential condition. Our fundamental relationship with the world is not defined by our capacity to control or understand, but by our infinite responsibility to the Other (altruism). This radical reframing transforms limitation from a mere constraint into an ethical imperative—a call to transcend our individual boundaries through profound inter-subjective engagement.

Consider the intricate phenomenology of human perception. Our sensory experience is not a transparent window onto reality, but a complex interpretative process that constantly mediates between our internal cognitive structures and the external world. Perception can be seen as an embodied, dynamic act of meaning-creation, where our lived body becomes the primary site of our engagement with existence. We do not simply observe the world; we actively constitute it through our perceptual and embodied interactions. This understanding challenges the Cartesian dualism that historically separated mind from body, revealing instead a more profound unity of human experience. Our consciousness emerges not as a disembodied rational faculty, but as an intricate, dynamic process deeply embedded in our biological, cultural, and historical contexts. Each moment of perception becomes a complex negotiation between our inherited structures of understanding and the perpetually shifting landscape of experience.

The contemporary philosopher Donna Haraway extends this perspective through her concept of “situated knowledges”—a radical reconceptualization of how we generate understanding. Our knowledge is never a view from nowhere, a pure objective stance, but always deeply contextualized, emerging from specific embodied and cultural perspectives.^[5] It reveals the profound limitations of universal claims and celebrates the rich multiplicity of human understanding. It was a greek thinker that put a spotlight onto our condition humaine by sending us a message over the aeons of time that pointed at the fluid character we really are. Heraclitus, the ancient Greek philosopher from Milet, provided this penetrating insight into this existential complexity when he wrote, at least it was interpreted that way over and over again by generations of philologists:

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”^[6]

This fragment encapsulates the dynamic nature of human existence — a perpetual state of becoming where neither the individual nor the surrounding context remains static. Our limitations are not fixed boundaries but fluid conditions that we continuously negotiate and reimagine. Friedrich Nietzsche radicalizes this perspective, challenging the very notion of limitation as a fundamental constraint:

“Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that. The German, the Jew, the Frenchman, the Italian are more profound. They strive for something higher.”^[7]

 Nietzsche suggests that human potential transcends mere survival or comfort, pointing to a more profound drive for self-transformation and meaning-creation. Our limitations become not obstacles but the very terrain through which we generate our most authentic expressions of being.

The Dialectic of Constraint and Creativity

The philosophical investigation of human limitation reveals an even more profound dialectic between constraint and creativity. Where previous philosophical traditions often viewed limitations as purely restrictive, contemporary thought increasingly recognizes them as generative conditions of human experience. Limitations are not merely external impediments but constitute the very ground of human creativity. Our cognitive frameworks, cultural inheritances, and bodily conditions are not chains that bind us, but the essential medium through which consciousness articulates itself. Hannah Arendt’s concept of “natality” provides a remarkable counterpoint to deterministic models of human experience. For Arendt, human freedom is fundamentally rooted in our capacity for beginning—our ability to introduce something radically new into the world through action.^[8]

The contemporary philosophical landscape must also contend with the profound transformations introduced by technological mediation. Our traditional understanding of human limitation is increasingly challenged by emerging technologies that extend and reshape human capabilities. Modern philosophers argue that technologies are not merely external tools but active mediators that fundamentally reconfigure our perceptual and cognitive landscapes. Consider the cybernetic extension of human consciousness through digital networks. Our traditional conception of individual autonomy becomes problematized when human perception and cognition are increasingly distributed across technological ecosystems. The boundary between Self and environment, between biological limitation and technological potential, becomes increasingly fluid and permeable. Philosophical reflection on human limitation must also engage its profound ethical implications. Our limitations are not merely epistemological conditions but ethical provocations—calls to transcend our individual boundaries through profound inter-subjective engagement. This ethical perspective challenges individualistic models of human potential. Our freedom is not an abstract capacity for self-determination but a concrete responsibility toward the Other which could be seen as the ethics of human altruism. Limitation becomes not a constraint to be overcome, but an invitation to radical empathy and ethical engagement.

At this point in the discussion we put aside the fact that we are burdened with the mortgage of finitude and know of its existence, but not without emphatically emphasizing its fundamental importance for the human condition of homo sapiens.

Historical Evolution of Libertarian Thought

The intellectual journey of libertarianism spans across centuries, embodying the human quest for autonomy in both thought and action. This narrative is not a simple timeline but a rich, evolving tapestry where the individual has been reconceptualized as a cognitive, spiritual, and political entity.

The Ancients

The ancient world laid foundational stones for libertarian thought, offering insights into individual autonomy long before the term “libertarian” was coined. In ancient Greece, pre-Socratic philosophers like Democritus and Heraclitus introduced ideas that resonate with libertarian principles. This revolutionary thinking developed evolutionary from the great wars of liberation of the Greeks against Persia and Rome’s movement for independence from Etruscan rule in the early 5th century B.C.E. Its psychodynamic consequence was the emergence of a polis consciousness, which assigned the individual a higher rank in the social structure of the respective community, created a bourgeois middle class and finally led to the first rudiments of an individual ethic of thought and responsibility.

Democritus’s atomism suggested a cosmos where individual entities (atoms) interact based on inherent laws rather than external dictates, a metaphor for human agency and self-governance.^[9] His philosophy posited that individuals, like atoms, should operate freely within a natural order, emphasizing personal responsibility over collective coercion. Heraclitus, as we analyzed before, with his doctrine of flux, championed the idea that change is the only constant, and individuals must navigate through this perpetual motion, advocating for adaptability and personal initiative.^[10] His philosophy suggests that the individual’s ability to adapt and make choices is central to the harmony of the universe. Furthermore, Socratian philosophy, through their method of questioning (maieutics), highlighted the importance of individual thought and moral autonomy, laying early groundwork for the libertarian emphasis on personal ethics and self-definition.

If we follow the evolution of the Greeks, the works of Plato further explored concepts of justice, virtue, and the role of the individual in society in the 4th century B.C.^[11] While Plato’s vision in “The Republic” often leaned towards a more collectivist state, his dialogues also delve into the education of the soul and the pursuit of personal excellence, which aligns with libertarian ideals of self-actualization. Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” focuses on eudaimonia (happiness or flourishing) as the highest good, achievable through virtuous actions that are, importantly, chosen by the individual, thus placing personal agency and moral freedom at the heart of human life.

In the East, similar concepts of individual freedom were explored. In ancient India, the Hindu philosophy of dharma was not just about cosmic order but also about individual duty and moral autonomy. Dharma suggested that each person has a unique path that aligns with its nature, advocating for a form of self-governance where one’s actions are guided by personal ethics rather than external mandates.^[12] This idea of individual moral responsibility parallels libertarian views on self-determination. Moreover, in Chinese philosophy, Taoism’s emphasis on living in accordance with the Tao speaks to a libertarian ethos of natural order. Lao Tzu’s teachings in the Tao Te Ching encourage individuals to find their way through life by following the natural flow of existence, eschewing artificial constructs and embracing simplicity and freedom from imposed control.^[13] This philosophy inherently critiques structures that constrain individual liberty, promoting a life of non-interference and self-realization.

These ancient philosophies, while not explicitly libertarian, laid down the intellectual groundwork for later thinkers by questioning authority, promoting self-reliance, and valuing the individual’s role in the cosmos. They provided a philosophical basis for the concepts of natural rights, individual sovereignty, and the critique of centralized power, all of which are central to libertarian thought.

Medieval Analysis

The medieval period saw these seeds begin to sprout within theological frameworks. Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas argued for natural law, suggesting humans possess inherent rights from their creator, subtly challenging the absolute control of church and state.^[14] Aquinas’s Summa Theologica posited that human laws should reflect divine law, which inherently recognizes the dignity and autonomy of the individual. This idea was revolutionary, as it began to frame individual freedoms as a divine endowment rather than a concession from earthly rulers. The concept of jus naturale (natural law) suggested that there were moral truths and rights that no human authority could legitimately override, setting the stage for later arguments about inalienable rights.

However, the medieval era was also marked by the tension between individual autonomy and the overwhelming power of the church and monarchy. The feudal system, with its hierarchies and obligations, often contradicted the emerging ideas of personal liberty. Yet, within this tension, scholastic thinkers began to advocate for a form of government where secular authority was derived from the people rather than divine right, furthering the discourse on individual consent and political autonomy. This period saw the gradual integration of libertarian-like thoughts into the fabric of legal and moral philosophy, often cloaked in religious rhetoric to navigate the stringent control of the time. The Scholastic debates on free will versus divine predestination, for example, while primarily theological, had political implications, subtly promoting the idea of personal responsibility and choice, which are key to libertarian thought.

“Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain.”^[15]

The Modern Epoch: Economic Analysis and the Individual

Now we do a little step forward in time. The economic theories of the Enlightenment, particularly those of Adam Smith, brought the individual to the forefront of economic analysis. Smith’s seminal work, “The Wealth of Nations,” introduced the concept of the invisible hand, where individual self-interest leads to societal benefits through the mechanism of free markets. Smith argued that individuals pursuing their own economic gain would, through competition and exchange, naturally create wealth for society as a whole, thus placing the individual’s freedom to act economically at the center of economic prosperity.^[16] His philosophy emphasized the sovereignty of the consumer, where individuals choose what to produce or consume based on their own desires and needs, rather than state directives. This was a radical shift from mercantilist policies where the state controlled economic activities for national gain. Smith’s notion of the market as a self-regulating system where individual actions lead to collective good without central planning is a cornerstone of libertarian economic thought. Following Smith, Frédéric Bastiat with his advocacy for economic freedom and limited government intervention, further developed this focus on individual economic agency. Bastiat, in particular, argued through his “The Law” that the state should protect individual rights, including property rights, and should not infringe upon them in pursuit of what might be deemed ‘public good’ by a minority or elite.^[17]

This economic perspective, where individuals are seen as rational actors best suited to make decisions for themselves, underpins the libertarian critique of government overreach in economic affairs. It posits that when individuals are free to pursue their economic interests, they not only enhance their own lives but also contribute to a dynamic, efficient, and prosperous society. This line of thought has been influential in shaping modern libertarianism’s advocacy for free markets, minimal state intervention, and the sanctity of personal property and economic freedom. The Renaissance and Enlightenment periods were pivotal, with the humanist movement elevating the individual as the center of intellectual and moral life. Philosophy began arguing for natural rights—life, liberty, and property—underpinning the idea that government should be by consent, not divine right or feudal obligation – a pivotal moment accured introducing the era of the uprise of a powerful middle class as the new societal and customs defining machine.

The 19th century marked a significant expansion and radicalization of libertarian thought. This period saw the emergence of classical liberalism, which, while not identical to modern libertarianism, laid important groundwork by advocating for limited government, free markets, and individual rights. However, it was within this context that libertarianism began to distinctly take shape, particularly through the works of philosophers like John Locke, David Hume or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon meanwhile the german author Max Stirner, whose The Ego and Its Own pushed the envelope with his extreme individualism or egoism. Stirner’s philosophy rejected all forms of external authority, arguing that the only legitimate authority was one’s own self, an idea that resonates deeply with libertarianism’s emphasis on self-ownership and autonomy.^[18]

This era also witnessed the rise of anarchism, which, in its various forms, shared libertarianism’s skepticism of state power, though with different applications and outcomes in mind. Anarchists like William Godwin and later, Lysander Spooner, contributed to the libertarian narrative by questioning the moral legitimacy of government and advocating for voluntary associations.

The industrial revolution, while often leading to oppressive conditions, paradoxically fueled libertarian thought by highlighting the stark contrast between the potential for individual prosperity and the reality of state and corporate tyranny, thus setting the stage for the more formalized libertarian movements of the 20th century.

In the 20th century, the Austrian School of economics, particularly through Mises and Hayek, articulated how economic freedom is intrinsic to personal liberty. They critiqued central planning after the experience of the Hitler and Stalin regimes, viewing it as an infringement on the natural order where individuals should freely interact in markets. The modern era has seen libertarianism adapt and evolve with the digital revolution and globalization. The advent of the internet has provided a new arena for libertarian ideals, particularly in the areas of privacy, free speech, and decentralized organization. The rise of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin has been celebrated by libertarians for its potential to bypass traditional financial systems and state control, embodying the principle of voluntary exchange free from government interference. Moreover, the digital age has facilitated the spread of libertarian ideas, enabling like-minded individuals to connect, organize, and influence policy without the need for traditional political structures. This has led to movements advocating for data sovereignty, net neutrality, and the reduction of internet censorship. The global nature of modern issues like international migration, has also prompted libertarians to address how individual freedoms can coexist with collective responsibilities in a globalized world. This includes debates on open borders, environmental stewardship through property rights, and the role of international law versus national sovereignty.

Additionally, the rise of surveillance states and the erosion of privacy have pushed libertarians to forefront discussions on civil liberties, with an emphasis on protecting individual rights from technological overreach. This era has seen a resurgence of interest in classical liberal ideas, now reframed for a world where the digital and physical realms increasingly intersect. We conclude that each era has added depth to the narrative of individual freedom, advocating for a society where personal autonomy is both the means and the end of societal advancement. We are getting closer to the understanding that there is an evolutionary force pushing humanity, not without setbacks in the form of collectivism in any possible color, towards libertarian principles.

Natural Law and the Dynamics of Human Rights

The conceptualization of natural law emerges from a profound metaphysical understanding of human consciousness as inherently oriented toward freedom and self-determination. This orientation manifests not merely as a political or social preference, but as an ontological condition of human existence itself. The philosophical foundations of natural law theory suggest that human beings possess an innate capacity for rational discernment of moral truth, transcending mere cultural or historical contingencies. This capacity for moral discernment operates through complex interplays of intuitive understanding and rational analysis, suggesting a sophisticated moral epistemology that bridges the gap between abstract principles and concrete human experience.

Within this framework, natural rights emerge not as arbitrary social constructions but as necessary corollaries of human nature which implies a general feeling of self-confidence from which the will to assert oneself derives. The epistemological basis for this understanding draws from both rationalist and empiricist traditions, suggesting that human beings can apprehend moral truth through both reason and experience. This dual epistemological foundation strengthens the case for natural rights by grounding them in both logical necessity and observable human nature as we described. Human dignity is fundamentally anchored in this principle. The synthesis of rational deduction and empirical observation creates a robust philosophical framework that resists both pure rationalist abstraction and mere empirical relativism.

Murray Rothbard articulates this perspective with particular clarity:

“Natural law theory rests on the insight that we live in a world of more than one—in fact, a vast number—of entities, and that each entity has distinct and specific properties, a distinct ‘nature,’ which can be investigated by man’s reason, by his sense perception and mental faculties.”^[19]

The phenomenology of natural rights reveals itself through careful analysis of human action and interaction. Each voluntary human action presupposes certain conditions of agency—self-ownership, purposive behavior, and the capacity for rational choice. These prerequisites of human action constitute the philosophical bedrock of natural rights theory. The manifestation of these rights in human consciousness occurs through a complex dialectic between individual awareness and social recognition, suggesting that while natural rights are ontologically prior to social convention, their practical realization requires sophisticated social understanding.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe extends this understanding:

“The ethics of private property can be justified as the prerequisite of argumentation, and no other ethic can be justified argumentatively, as arguing in favor of any other ethic would implicitly recognize the validity of the former.”^[20]

The contemporary relevance of natural law theory has been heightened by the emergence of complex technological systems that challenge traditional conceptions of human rights. Digital networks, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology create novel contexts for understanding and applying natural rights principles. These technological developments don’t negate natural law but rather demand its sophisticated reapplication in new domains. The intersection of natural rights with technological innovation creates a dynamic field of philosophical inquiry where traditional principles must be carefully reconstructed to address unprecedented challenges.

Defining Intrinsic Human Rights

At its core, natural law argues for fundamental rights intrinsic to human nature: life, liberty, personal property, and self-determination. These are not privileges granted by external authorities but fundamental aspects of human existence, emerging from our capacity for rational thought, moral agency, and autonomous action. The philosophical depth of this understanding extends beyond mere political theory into fundamental questions of human nature and consciousness. The evolution of civilizations can be understood as a continuous negotiation between these natural rights and emerging social, technological, and political structures. From early tribal societies to complex modern legal systems, natural law has been a persistent philosophical counterpoint to arbitrary power. This historical dialectic reveals not just the persistence of natural law principles but their capacity for sophisticated adaptation to evolving social contexts while maintaining their essential character.

Contemporary technological networks present unprecedented tests for natural law principles. Global digital networks, environmental crises, and complex forms of transnational interaction demand a radical reimagining of how individual rights manifest in increasingly interconnected systems. The challenge lies not in abandoning natural law principles but in understanding their sophisticated application in novel contexts, particularly as human agency extends into digital and virtual domains. The emergence of digital rights, privacy concerns, and questions of intellectual property in the information age demonstrates the enduring relevance of natural law theory. These contemporary issues can be understood through the lens of natural rights, suggesting that human dignity and autonomy remain central considerations even as the technological context evolves. The philosophical challenge lies in maintaining the coherence of natural rights principles while adapting their application to increasingly complex socio-technological systems.

Moreover, the intersection of natural law with emerging technologies raises profound questions about the boundaries of human agency and the nature of rights in virtual spaces. The concept of self-ownership, fundamental to natural law theory, must now be understood in contexts where individual identity extends across physical and digital domains. This extension of human agency into virtual spaces does not diminish the validity of natural rights but rather demands their sophisticated reinterpretation on the fundament of our desire for self-responsability and the desire of freedom that defines a sovereign individual. As Ludwig von Mises presciently observed:

“The idea of freedom has become so ingrained in all of us that even the most determined and shameless enemies of liberty have to pay lip service to it.”^[21]

This observation becomes particularly relevant in an era where technological capabilities often outpace ethical frameworks, requiring a careful balance between innovation and the preservation of fundamental human rights. The future trajectory of natural law theory must navigate the complex interplay between individual sovereignty and collective technological infrastructure. The challenge lies not merely in preserving traditional rights but in articulating how these rights manifest in novel contexts while maintaining their essential character as expressions of human nature and dignity.

Individual Versus Collective: The Eternal Tension

Human existence is a battleground of tensions, where the individual’s cry for freedom clashes with the collective’s demand for conformity. This tension is not solely external; it’s a psychological, social, and economic dance where each step towards individuality must be weighed against the steps of societal harmony.

Psychologically, this tension manifests as the battle between self-expression and societal expectation, leading to both the innovation that pushes society forward and the alienation that can result from non-conformity. The individual becomes simultaneously the agent of change and the potential disruptor of social stability. This psychological struggle intensifies in moments of societal transformation, where individual intuition often precedes collective understanding. The visionary individual must bear the weight of perception that transcends current social paradigms, often facing resistance from established collective mechanisms that seek to maintain existing patterns of thought and behavior. The psychological toll can be significant, with individuals grappling with isolation or misunderstanding as they push boundaries or challenge norms.

The Driver of Progress

Yet, this very struggle is what leads to breakthroughs in art, science, and culture, driving societal evolution. Moreover, this internal conflict often results in a nuanced self-identity, where one’s sense of self is shaped in dialogue with collective norms and expectations, leading to a dynamic, ever-evolving personal narrative. This ongoing negotiation can lead to existential crises or, conversely, to profound self-realization, as individuals reconcile their unique essence with the roles they play within their communities.

Imagine the emergence of Dadaism, to choose an eminent example, as a maximum point of conflict between traditional cultural codes and the desire for something new, which, in the opinion of Hugo Ball’s entourage, had to be preceded by the maximum destruction of forms and symbolic languages. This pattern repeats itself throughout the evolution of Homo sapiens, whether through internal conflict (in this case the rejection of the ongoing bellicism following the collapse of monarchies) or through external shocks. Consider the eruption of the Thera volcano, which marked the end of the Minoan culture and its thalassocracy.

Cultural ruptures can also foster resilience, as individuals learn to navigate or even thrive amidst tension, developing a deeper understanding of both self and society. Additionally, the constant tension between individual desires and societal norms can cultivate a deeper empathy, as one learns to appreciate the complexities of human identity and the shared human experience. The struggle for personal authenticity can also lead to a heightened form of self-awareness, where individuals not only question societal norms but also their own motives and desires, fostering a life of introspection and growth. This introspection can sometimes lead to a sense of authenticity that is both liberating and isolating, as one stands apart from the collective norm, navigating the fine line between solitude and loneliness.

Contemporary technological networks have transformed this tension, creating new spaces of individual expression while simultaneously generating unprecedented mechanisms of collective control. Social media platforms offer remarkable individual broadcasting capabilities while creating elaborate systems of data collection and algorithmic manipulation. The digital sphere becomes a complex battleground where authentic individual expression confronts sophisticated systems of social engineering and behavioral modification, creating new forms of psychological tension that previous generations could hardly imagine. The individual’s digital footprint is now an arena where personal freedom is constantly negotiated with privacy and surveillance, where one’s identity can be both celebrated and commodified which contains more that just the danger of losing personal “immunity” against fraud and theft – it has the potential of reshaping our informational and communication behaviour in general towrds a society of distrust in last consequence.

This digital landscape has also birthed new forms of activism and community building, where individuals can rally for collective causes or create echo chambers that reinforce personal biases, further complicating the interplay between individual and collective identities. Additionally, the rise of virtual reality and AI companions presents a new frontier where individuals can explore selfhood in environments detached from physical social constraints, yet these same technologies might also diminish the value of real-world human connections, presenting novel ethical and psychological dilemmas. This digital era magnifies issues around mental health, as the constant connectivity can lead to burnout, anxiety, and a pervasive sense of FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out), challenging individuals to find balance and authenticity in an increasingly virtual world. Furthermore, the digital age has ushered in concerns about digital identity theft and the erosion of privacy, pushing individuals to find new ways to protect their autonomy while participating in the global digital community.

Tech – The Double-Edged Sword

The internet, while a tool for liberation, can be seen as a servant or mechanism for surveillance, where the libertarian ideal of “freedom from government interference” often clashes with the reality of corporate surveillance. This dichotomy has led to a new form of digital citizenship where individuals must constantly negotiate their online presence with their real-world identity, often leading to a fragmented sense of self. It was Martin Heidegger, forward looking and in a way a prophet of his time, that profoundly observed:

“The individual stands at the crossroads between authentic selfhood and the anonymous mass of das Man, forever negotiating the delicate balance between personal truth and collective absorption.“^[22]

This philosophical tension extends into the economic sphere, where individual entrepreneurship and creativity confront standardized market mechanisms and regulatory frameworks. The market itself becomes a complex arena where individual initiative must navigate collective constraints. Each innovation, each new business venture, represents a unique expression of individual vision seeking to carve its space within the collective economic consciousness. Yet, the market’s invisible hand often pushes back, demanding conformity to economic norms and practices for the sake of stability and predictability. This tension is particularly evident in the gig economy, where individual workers seek autonomy and flexibility, but often at the cost of traditional collective benefits like job security and health insurance, highlighting a new dimension of this age-old struggle where personal freedom intersects with economic vulnerability.

Here, the economic landscape mirrors the broader societal tension, where the pursuit of personal fulfillment through work must be balanced against the collective economic stability and the welfare of the community. Moreover, this economic tension is reflected in debates over capitalism versus socialism, where the individual’s right to profit and personal enterprise is juxtaposed with the collective’s unethical desire for equitable distribution of resources and opportunities, illustrating the ongoing negotiation between personal ambition and communal well-being (institutionalized theft). This dynamic also brings to light the ethical considerations around wealth accumulation and the moral implications of individual success in a world where resources are limited and shared. As libertarians argue that the right to property is the foundation of all rights, highlighting the tension between personal economic freedom and collective welfare. The balance here is delicate, as economic freedom can foster innovation but also lead to inequality. It is a sign of higher civilization if we are capable of establishing a meritocratic mindset which would help mitigating artificial provocated social tensions and the uprise of cultivated resentment.

Addendum: Dignity, Freedom, and the Digital Landscape

The quest for freedom is, at its core, a quest for dignity. It is a fight any individual is fighting, willingly or not, conscious or not. Dignity is not something bestowed upon us by others; it is earned through our struggles, through our resistance to the oppressions of our time. Whether it’s the fight against governmental overreach, societal norms that stifle individuality, or personal demons that limit our potential, dignity comes from that battle. It transcends the mere avoidance of oppression; it involves an active pursuit of self-determination and the affirmation of one’s intrinsic worth. To claim dignity is to assert one’s humanity in a world that often seeks to define us by our utility or compliance.

To give some examples: In our contemporary world, this struggle manifests in battles for digital privacy, freedom of speech (which is directly linked to it), economic self-determination, and the right to live according to one’s own values. Each of these fights is a step towards a declaration that one’s life is one’s own, that one’s voice matters, that one’s labor is sacred. The fight for digital privacy, for instance, is not just about keeping personal information secure; it’s a battle to maintain personal sovereignty in an era where data is currency and personal lives are commodities. Similarly, economic self-determination is about crafting a life where one’s work reflects personal values and aspirations, rather than merely serving economic or societal expectations.

The Impact Of Accelerating Tech Adoption

It is nearly a platitude as it is omnipresent but we need to stress it (again) that the digital age presents unprecedented challenges and opportunities in this struggle. Technological platforms offer new arenas for individual expression while simultaneously creating novel forms of collective and clandestine power. The libertarian vision must continually adapt, understanding freedom as a dynamic, evolving principle. It’s a landscape where personal autonomy must be asserted through digital literacy, understanding how technology can both empower and enslave. The psychological resilience required to navigate this terrain is immense, as individuals must constantly balance the benefits of connectivity with the risks of exposure. Envolvement and education are our vectors where we as sovereign individuals build our defense and finally strike back after having understood that our technological landscape opens the window towards decentralised platforms wide and wider. Thinking of Nostr or Bitcoin as the decentralised answer on cartels of power we witness in the financial and media world shades light on our future or for some of us present battle fields.

The psychological landscape of this struggle is complex. The tension between self-actualization and societal expectation often leads to a profound psychological conflict. Individuals must navigate through this terrain, finding ways to assert their uniqueness while still engaging with broader societal structures. This negotiation is not just about external freedom but about internal liberation from self-doubt, fear of judgment, and the conformity that can stifle creativity and personal growth. The journey towards personal freedom and dignity, therefore, involves an internal revolution, where one must cultivate a sense of self-worth that is not contingent upon external validation. This process often involves confronting and redefining one’s identity, values, and aspirations in the face of societal pressures that might seek to standardize or suppress them.

Contributing To The Common Goal

Moreover, the pursuit of freedom is inherently communal. Each individual’s fight for liberty contributes to a collective tapestry of human dignity. The struggle for liberty becomes a struggle for the very soul of human existence — a continuous process of becoming, of striving towards a state where freedom and dignity are not just ideals but lived experiences. Each step towards personal liberation also paves the way for others, fostering a culture where individual rights are respected, leading to a society where freedom is not just a personal achievement but a collective reality. The intersection of technology and consciousness presents another crucial dimension in this struggle. As artificial intelligence and digital systems become more sophisticated, they challenge our traditional concepts of autonomy and self-determination. The individual must now navigate not just social and political pressures, but also algorithmic influences that shape perception and decision-making. This technological mediation of consciousness requires a new understanding of freedom – one that acknowledges the subtle ways in which our thoughts and choices are influenced by digital architecture. The commodification of human attention and consciousness presents an even more insidious challenge to personal dignity. In an economy built on engagement metrics and behavioral manipulation, the very essence of human thought and decision-making becomes a battleground. This commodification extends beyond mere data collection into the realm of psychological manipulation, where sophisticated algorithms and interface designs are engineered to capture and direct human attention. The fight for dignity in this context requires developing a keen awareness of these manipulation mechanisms and cultivating mental practices that maintain autonomous thought patterns despite persistent external pressures.

The concept of temporal sovereignty emerges as a crucial aspect of personal freedom in our hyperconnected age. The ability to control one’s time and attention – to choose when to engage and when to disconnect – becomes a fundamental expression of dignity. This sovereignty extends to the right to maintain different rhythms of life and work that align with individual needs rather than conforming to the always-on demands of digital capitalism. The psychological toll of constant connectivity and the expectation of immediate response creates a new form of temporal oppression that must be actively resisted. The relationship between physical embodiment and digital existence adds another layer to the struggle for dignity. As virtual spaces become increasingly dominant in human interaction, maintaining a connection to physical reality and embodied experience becomes an act of resistance. This physical-digital tension requires individuals to consciously cultivate practices that ground them in their bodily existence while navigating digital spaces. The preservation of embodied wisdom and intuitive knowledge becomes crucial in maintaining authentic selfhood against the disembodied nature of digital interaction.

Integrating Algos Into The Freedom Fight

Furthermore, the concept of dignity in the digital age extends beyond personal privacy to encompass data sovereignty and algorithmic autonomy. Individuals must assert their right not just to privacy, but to algorithmic transparency and fair digital representation. This includes the freedom to understand and influence how one’s digital identity is constructed and utilized by various systems and platforms. The battle for dignity now includes fighting against digital determinism – the notion that our futures can be predicted and controlled through data analysis and algorithmic processing. Maintaining authenticity and sovereignty in this increasingly artificial world adds another layer to the struggle for freedom. Individuals must develop new forms of psychological resilience to withstand the constant pressure of digital conformity and the erosion of genuine human connection. This resistance requires not just intellectual understanding but emotional intelligence and spiritual fortitude to maintain one’s sense of self in a world of shifting realities.

Moreover, the evolution of social relationships in the new reality presents new challenges to maintaining authentic human connections. The mediation of relationships through digital platforms can lead to a flattening of human interaction, where genuine emotional depth is sacrificed for convenience and surface-level engagement. Preserving the capacity for deep, meaningful human connection becomes a crucial aspect of maintaining dignity in an increasingly digitized world. This requires developing new social competencies that allow for authentic expression and connection across both physical and digital domains. The psychological resilience required for this ongoing struggle must be understood as both an individual and collective resource. Communities of resistance emerge as crucial support structures, providing spaces where alternative values and ways of being can be explored and maintained. These communities serve as incubators for new opportunities of freedom, where individuals can find solidarity in their struggle against various forms of oppression while developing practical strategies for maintaining autonomy in an increasingly controlled world. We are witnessing and participating in the next chapter of human civilization, fighting the old fight for our natural law of being a sovereign self against the technology-related rising head of centralized power.

References

Aquinas, T. (1265-1274/1947). Summa theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Benziger Bros. (See Vol. 1, p. 416 and I-II, Q. 91, A. 2 for natural law; I-II, Q. 94, A. 2 for inherent rights).

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press. (See pp. 9, 177-178 for discussions on natality).

Bailey, C. (1928). The Greek Atomists and Epicurus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bastiat, F.: The Law (1850), trans. by Dean Russell (1950).

Camus, A. (1942/1955). The myth of Sisyphus and other essays (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Knopf. (See p. 21, “An Absurd Reasoning”).

Epicurus, Letters, Principal Doctrines, and Vatican Sayings, übersetzt von Russel M. Geer, Bobbs-Merrill, 1964, S. 66, Vatican Saying 77.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599. (See p. 581).

Heidegger, M.. (1927). Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson, Harper & Row, 1962, pp. 126-129, 266-273.

Heraclitus. “Fragment B12.” The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary, translated by Charles H. Kahn, Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 53.

Hoppe, H.-H. (1988). A theory of socialism and capitalism: Economics, politics, and ethics. Kluwer Academic Publishers. (See p. 133).

Kahn’s, Charles K. Edition (1979) – The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary (See p.53).

Mises, L. von (1944/1962). Omnipotent government: The rise of the total state and total war. Yale University Press. (See p. 55).

Nietzsche, F. (1961). Thus spoke Zarathustra: A book for all and none (R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1883-1885). (See p. 99, Part One, “On the Way of the Creator.”).

Nietzsche, F. (1888/1998). Twilight of the idols, or, How to philosophize with a hammer (D. Large, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (See p. 49, “Maxims and Arrows”, §12).

Plato. (1961). The collected dialogues of Plato: Including the letters (E. Hamilton & H. Cairns, Eds.). Princeton University Press.

Rothbard, M. N. (1973/2002). For a new liberty: The libertarian manifesto (Rev. ed.). Ludwig von Mises Institute. (See p. 20).

Sartre, J.-P. (1943/1956). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). Gallimard/Philosophical Library. (See p. 439, Part Four, Chapter 1, “The Origin of Negation”).

Smith, A.: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Book IV, Chapter II, “Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries of such Goods as can be produced at Home”.

Stirner, M.: The Ego and Its Own (1844), trans. by Steven T. Byington (1907).

Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 16, 25, 48, 57, and 64, trans. by D.C. Lau (1963).

The Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 18, Verse 47, trans. by S. Radhakrishnan; Manusmriti, Chapter 1, Verses 85-100, trans. by G. Buhler (1886); Yajnavalkya Smriti, 1.8, trans. by M.N. Dvivedi (1889).

Footnotes

1. Epicurus, Letters, Principal Doctrines, and Vatican Sayings (1964): 66 ↑

2. Nietzsche, F. (1961): 99 ↑

3. Sartre, J.-P. (1943): 439 ↑

4. Camus, A. (1942/ 1955): 21 ↑

5. Haraway, D. (1988): 581 ↑

6. The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary (1979): 53 ↑

7. Nietzsche, F. (188): 49 ↑

8. Arendt, H. (1958): 177-178 ↑

9. Bailey, C. (1928) ↑

10. Charles H. Kahn’s Edition (1979): 53 ↑

11. E. Hamilton & H. Cairns, Eds. (1961) ↑

12. Buhler, G. (1886) ↑

13. Lau, D.C. (1963) ↑

14. Aquinas, T. (1265-1274/1947) ↑

15. Aquinas, T. (1265-1274/1947): 416 ↑

16. Smith, A. (1776) ↑

17. Bastiat, F. (1850) ↑

18. Stirner, M. (1844) ↑

19. Rothbard, M. N. (1973/2002): 20 ↑

20. Hoppe, H.-H. (1988): 133 ↑

21. Mises, L. Von (1944): 55 ↑

22. Heidegger, M. (1927): 126-129, 266-273 ↑

---

Cover/header image by Ulrich Gehmann