Monday, June 18, 2018

Far Cry


It’s a far cry from the world we thought we’d inherit
It’s a far cry from the way we thought we’d share it

-        Far Cry, Rush

What happened to the promise of classical liberalism, passing from its birth through its golden age and to its dramatic and violent death in little more than one century?  Exploring the topics of culture, tradition, and liberty inherently involves an exploration of this question.

One day I feel I’m on top of the world
And the next it’s falling in on me

The question is tackled by Robert Nisbet in his book The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom.

It is impossible to understand the massive concentrations of political power in the twentieth century, appearing so paradoxically, as it has seemed, right after a century and a half of individualism in economics and morals, unless we see clearly the close relationship that prevailed all through the nineteenth century between individualism and State power and between both of these together and the general weakening of the area of association that lies intermediate to man and the State.

It was the flowering of individualism – an outcome of Enlightenment thought – that made possible the power of the State.

It is worth noting that some see a difference in classical liberalism as it developed in Britain as opposed to its development in France.  Friedrich Hayek was one of these; another was Francis Lieber:

In 1848, Francis Lieber distinguished between what he called "Anglican and Gallican Liberty". Lieber asserted that "independence in the highest degree, compatible with safety and broad national guarantees of liberty, is the great aim of Anglican liberty, and self-reliance is the chief source from which it draws its strength". On the other hand, Gallican liberty "is sought in government...the French look for the highest degree of political civilization in organizational, that is, in the highest degree of interference by public power".

While the differences must be appreciated, it seems to me that Nisbet is working through the commonalities.  From the Anglican: “independence in the highest degree,” “broad national guarantees of liberty.” From the Gallican: “highest degree of interference by public power.”

This was a two-fold emancipation:

[First, emancipation] of the individual from his traditional associative chains; and, second, of the State itself from the mass of feudal customs, which, everywhere, limited its real efficacy.

Atomized independence both necessitating a powerful State and guaranteed by the State; it is common to both threads and it is the argument presented by Nisbet.  It should be no wonder, it seems, why classical liberalism ushered in the most comprehensive State apparatus, quickly moving from the relative peace of the nineteenth century to the bloodiest wars and political philosophies of the twentieth century.

This affinity between social individualism and political power is, I believe, the most fateful fact of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Political power was camouflaged with the rhetoric of liberty and invested with the essence of religious community.  Salvation by State, with all the necessary power and authority to deliver:

Rousseau had written that it is the force of the State that achieves the liberty of its members….the liberty of the individual became the prime justification for the powerful legislative attacks upon old values, old idea systems, and old associations.

We can rail all we like about the fact that this isn’t what we wanted; this wasn’t the philosophy behind true classical liberalism, we can do better next time, whatever.  Revolutionaries rarely get to direct the ends of the revolution.  We can learn what must be rebuilt by paying attention to what was torn down:

Hence the early destruction of the guilds.  Hence the prohibition of all new forms of economic association….Charitable societies were declared illegal…. Literary, cultural, and educational societies were also banned…. We observe also the profound changes made in the structure and functions of the family.  In this way, too, was the Church dealt with.  Profession, class, the historic commune, the universities, and provinces, all alike came under the atomizing consideration of the legislators of the Revolution.

In France this was done via the guillotine.  Elsewhere in the West, it came more gradually.  But the root cause, the underlying philosophy, was the same.


Something or someone will provide governance.  I have yet to find or read a worthwhile refutation of this.  If not reasonably voluntary, decentralized governance institutions (family, church, guild, etc.), then only one possibility remains – and it cannot be denied that facts have made clear that it will be, and is the State.

The State becomes powerful not by virtue of what it takes from the individual but by virtue of what it takes from the spiritual and social associations which compete with it for men’s devotions. (Emphasis added.)

The individual alone stands naked before the state.  The “spiritual and social associations” separate the individual from an all-powerful State; these associations, in fact, are what stand in the way of a monopoly State from forming.  I see no way around this. 

As the Jacobins held:

…every increase in governmental authority, every increase of political – at the expense of religious, economic, and kinship – authority, is ex hypothesi an increase in real freedom for the people.

Some call this freedom.  Or, as Robespierre declared:

…the “government of the Revolution is but the despotism of freedom against tyranny.”

Look, I understand this is kind of the opposite of the NAP.  My point is simple: absent intermediating governance institutions, we get the State.  It isn’t more complicated than this.

This is the point that is crucial.  The modern State and the whole ideology of the political community have become significant and influential not through the worship of naked power but because of the promise which seemed to lie in political power for the salvation of man – for the attainment of moral goals that had eluded mankind for thousands of years.

Conclusion

I return to the question that began this post: What happened to the promise of classical liberalism, passing from its birth through its golden age and to its dramatic and violent death in barely more than one century?

The nineteenth century has been called the Century of Great Hope.  Innumerable historians have characterized its dominant qualities in the words of progress, democracy, freedom and the liberation of reason from the shackles of superstition and ignorance.

The nineteenth century was all of these.  It was also something more…or something less:

It was the century of the emergence of the political masses, masses created in widening areas by the processes of social destruction bound up with the increasing penetration of political power into all areas of society….

It has always struck me as confusing to find that the greatest tyranny fell upon a people shortly after the king (or whoever) truly began some form of liberalizing efforts – in other words, steps taken to break the old bonds and the old forms.  The examples that come most immediately to mind are pre-revolutionary France and pre-revolutionary Russia.  Perhaps Nisbet is helping me to understand why.

Epilogue

The necessity of such intermediating institutions and the character of the people necessary to rebuild these perhaps might be incorporated into libertarian thought if liberty is desired.  Or we can just keep debating the irrelevant and obscure corners of libertarian law, fighting to the death to defend the virgin and innocent purity of the non-aggression principle. 

Perhaps instead of defending the vices that should not be illegal, we might spend time describing and developing the virtues necessary to advance freedom.

33 comments:

  1. "The necessity of such intermediating institutions and the character of the people necessary to rebuild these perhaps might be incorporated into libertarian thought if liberty is desired. Or we can just keep debating the irrelevant and obscure corners of libertarian law, fighting to the death to defend the virgin and innocent purity of the non-aggression principle. "

    Here I can 100% agree with you. Great article. To the extent that you may think of me as one who does the latter, in my defense, let me just say that it is always (or very nearly so) in response to someone else using these "obscure corners" as an attack on the validity of the NAP as whole: for instance, Matt Zwolinski using pollution erroneously as one of his silver bullets against the NAP.

    "The State becomes powerful not by virtue of what it takes from the individual but by virtue of what it takes from the spiritual and social associations which compete with it for men’s devotions"

    Nisbet's scholarship is so important in recognizing the importance of the old and good associations. Thank you for drawing more attention to his work!

    This is why I believe a confederation of decentralized and autonomous regions or associations with numerous competing and coincident centers of authority is crucial to the maintenance of liberty. Federalism approximates this to some degree and I believe that this is why it has been one of the most successful forms of government in promoting liberty. Private law societies, I believe, are the fullest expression of this and therefore should be the end goal of those who care about liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "...we might spend time describing and developing the virtues necessary to advance freedom."

    I think 'manners' will be key here, and not manners as simply etiquette, but manners as "a person’s habitual behaviour or conduct, esp. in reference to its moral aspect, moral character."

    https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/what-makes-southern-manners-peculiar/

    "The Greek word ethe and the Latin word mores join behaviour, character, and morals into a general notion. This general notion is the source for the concept expressed in the English word manners" - Ward S Allen

    Maybe a modern sense of manners based on the four cardinal virtues of the ancients (wisdom, fortitude, temperance, and justice) and the three theological virtues of St. Paul (faith, hope, and charity) would be a good start?

    I've been trying develop a set of virtues, principles, and manners to act as a sort of guide or manifesto for my family. For the virtues I've chosen the 4 cardinals, the 3 Godly virtues (though I combine faith and hope), and fidelity, not only to one's wife, but as a general tendency to fulfill one's obligations to others (those kith and kin alive, dead, or yet to come) honestly and ardently. Faith for me is similar to fidelity but towards God instead of Man.

    I'd be very interested to know which virtues you hold paramount.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) Always do what I commit
      2) My reputation is more valuable to me than my money (you can therefore imagine how much I cringe at the idea that I don't "own" my reputation)
      3) Keep in mind the world I could have grown up in, and the cost that was paid to keep me from growing up thus.

      So, I don't know if these can purely be labeled "virtues," but there you have it.

      Delete
    2. I would say 1. and 2. are well encapsulated by fidelity or the Roman fides. Also the old motto of the London Stock Exchange, Dictum Meum Pactum (my word is my bond) fits with both.

      3 is perhaps piety or the Roman pietas, as in a reverence for those who came before you and their traditions, depending on exactly what you mean.

      I didn't list piety as one of my family's virtues because I feel it is part of wisdom and fidelity. In other words, it is wise to revere the past, and we have duties not only to those we know and love in our time, but to those who came before us and those yet to come.

      Thanks for sharing.

      Delete
    3. ATL, I thought about the list after I commented - more, I thought about how I described my "virtues."

      I see a parallel between my list and my thinking about libertarianism (and pretty much all that I do): virtues are abstract concepts; I offered mine in concrete actions. As you have pointed out, underlying these concrete actions are abstract virtues.

      I write about libertarianism in a similar way, I think. Turning abstract into concrete: not libertarianism in theory but in a world of humans with all the frailties we carry.

      For 3, I am not far removed from growing up in places that ranged somewhere between difficult and hell. Perhaps results in humility, generosity, gratefulness...

      Delete
    4. "I see a parallel between my list and my thinking about libertarianism (and pretty much all that I do):"

      I think both modes of thought (the abstract and the concrete) are vital.

      Delete
  3. Are you suggesting that the intermediating institutions you mention are necessarily incompatible with the principle of non-aggression?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I am suggesting that such intermediating institutions are incompatible with a state.

      Delete
  4. I think this is one of my favorite articles since I started reading and I agree with the conclusion very much.

    ReplyDelete
  5. > What happened to the promise of classical liberalism, passing from its birth through its golden age and to its dramatic and violent death in little more than one century?

    An entirely different approach: What if classical liberalism (CL) never was a motivating force but a result of biology and economics? What if CL was just a post-hoc rationalization?

    We build a culture that gave prosperity to all, this affected our biology and ensured that we behaved in line with what we now call CL. The error was then to believe that CL was an actual philosophy that drove changes.

    History is full of examples of societies that rise and fall. What if this is just plain old biology? A species that grows up in safety, plenty and luxury is not a species that can build -nor continue creating- the same. (But that species can devise philosophies like liberalism and libertarianism)

    I am too dark here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What if this is just plain old biology?"

      I think that in making that argument, you'd be denying free will. I think there are deterministic forces in human affairs, but there is also, undeniably, the force of free will. We have a choice to deny immediate incentives and desires in favor of deferred incentives and higher values.

      "What if CL was just a post-hoc rationalization?"

      I think there is some truth to this.

      Delete
    2. ATL, I don't care about free wil, it's irrelevant to me.

      But if biology really is the driver then there is still a individual leash that allows movement to "the other side". However in toto, averaged over the entire population, no, then there is no avoiding what is happening. Not without a mass-awareness of the underlying principles.

      Delete
    3. Hi Rien,

      "We build a culture that gave prosperity to all, this affected our biology and ensured that we behaved in line with what we now call CL."

      Sounds rather "Lamarckian" to me, which makes it interesting. Care to elaborate at bit? How (by what mechanism) did prosperity affect our "biology," and what did the resulting change look like in your view?

      -Sag.

      Delete
    4. Sag, think Amygdala and ACC (Anterior Cingularis Cortex).

      In a society that is just managing to hold on the amygdala is highly developed and the ACC is comparatively subdued. Resulting in a behaviour is is mostly associated with long term strategies.

      When people are raised in highly affluent societies the amygdala is underdeveloped and the ACC is highly active. Resulting in behaviour that is pleasure seeking, short term oriented.

      Just speculating, but what if CL is a combination of both an active amygdala and an active ACC? This would presumably occur when a society switches from long-term planning to short-term pleasure seeking. Creating a relatively short window where a higher percentage of people chase CL.

      Btw the connection between underdeveloped amygdala and leftist politics has been proven in a couple of experiments.

      Delete
    5. Rien,

      "Not without a mass-awareness of the underlying principles."

      There's that pesky "irrelevant" free will. ;)

      "when a society switches from long-term planning to short-term pleasure seeking"

      There's no doubt that hardship is the forge of integrity; this is partly why competition on the open market yields better results when compared to the protected privilege of state managed or funded provision of goods. But what level of hardship is appropriate or ethical to impose on society in order to stem the tide from long term virtue planning to short term pleasure seeking?

      It brings to mind the plot of the "Constantine" movie wherein the Archangel Gabriel tries to introduce the son of Satan into the world in order to bring about Hell on Earth to make the human race more noble through hellish tribulation. Perhaps that is going too far? But then again, who am I to judge the actions of an archangel?

      I think freedom provides the necessary balance of competition/cooperation, hardship/leisure and security/insecurity to keep pleasure seeking from getting out of hand. Under the modern democratic nanny state, most of us suffer under the delusion that the state has taken care of all the dangers and insecurities of life, so all we need to care about is having fun. Even though this umbrella is full of holes when you look closely, it still encourages most under it to disregard the things a freeman would have to remain vigilant of (mainly because they either refuse to inspect or are incapable of inspecting the umbrella).

      A freeman worries about his reputation, his lifestyle, and his conduct, whereas a state subject doesn't worry too much because he's aware of equal opportunity and nondiscrimination laws and the relative lack of (or less importance of) intermediate institutions like church and guild. A freeman worries about invasion from abroad; a state subject relegates this worry to the state military. A freeman worries about domestic invasions; a state subject leaves this to the state police. A freeman worries about the integrity of legal decisions; a state subject blindly trusts the state court system. And on and on...

      Delete
    6. "Sounds rather 'Lamarckian' to me, which makes it interesting. Care to elaborate at bit? How (by what mechanism) did prosperity affect our "biology..."

      Epigenetics
      the study of changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself.

      E. g. r/K Selection

      Delete
    7. Sag and Rien,

      More specifically, see transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.

      Delete
    8. All,

      Claims to biology suggesting some deeper, more profound explanation for social phenomena have the benefit of sounding scientific. Oftentimes however, the claims are either heavily reductionist or they amount to a tautological truism. Sometimes the interpretation of scientific research serves an obvious political agenda: like this one here, pushing the progressivist meme of "scared conservatives with large amygdala, victims of authoritarian parenting".

      Before you know it, you're on a pretty slippery slope with these kind of "scientific" rationalizations to suit a certain narrative.

      Brain imaging techniques showing altered morphology in response to differing social networks are testimony to the obvious fact that brains reflect (and thus adapt to) surroundings. Social surroundings in particular for a social being. Fascinating stuff for sure, but really nothing special as far as societal implications go. Introduce developing brains to social networks of differing complexity and on average, the amygdala will reflect the difference. Yes, and? It explains very little besides the obvious. Society is reasonably well off >> people will come up with views, theories even, reflecting/explaining the prosperity.

      That's it, really. No need to point out adapted brain structures to suggest some deeper understanding, for these adaptations are assumed. Altered social structures logically imply adapted brains. That's what brains do. What matters in human affairs is the choices people make and that is where human consciousness and, indeed, free will trump neurobiology.

      I'll leave it here. Thank you @Rien for your answer.

      -Sag.

      Delete
    9. EMP, yes this is a case of epigenetics.

      Actually it is a marvellous invention., this shifting between long term and short term orientation. Long term provides the basis, then when things go well, the long term planning causes an abundance. Short term takes over and explodes the population, parts of the population leave the habitat to look for new pastures. Then the abundance ends and society switches back to long term planning.

      It's truly beautiful how nature makes use of this switching back and forward to drive optimum spread of a species.


      ATL: I am hoping that in the next swing to long term planning (which is underway imo) we can put more effort in researching this effect and so make it part of general education. Maybe that way it won't be necessary to plan the level of hardship from the top down.

      Delete
    10. Whatever modifications are or aren't going on in the brain that may or may not affect the balance between long term and short term thinking, as ATL suggests: less state and more freedom has a way of focusing man's attention on maintaining the balance necessary.

      What may or may not happen in the brain thereafter...above my pay grade.

      Delete
  6. Like to second what RMB said about the conclusion to this fine article.

    Speaking of vices and virtues.. in the back of my mind there's always this particular gem by Chesterton about vices and secularized religious virtues.

    Taken from Orthodoxy, Ch.3: "The Suicide of Thought":

    "..When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage.
    But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad.."


    -Sag.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chesterton is so dang quotable! That is a great one. Here is one of my many favorites:

      "It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect."

      Delete
    2. "..the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect."

      Some context for those not yet familiar with Chesterton's work, the "wild truth" refers to the Church.

      So as I said earlier, after the great Heresy here's to anticipating BM's Orthodoxy article. Can't wait.. ;)

      -Sag.

      Delete
    3. I was thinking that it was interesting that Chesterton was Catholic and not Anglican, so I went searching for a reason, and I found this essay he wrote.

      https://www.chesterton.org/why-i-am-a-catholic/

      "Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes. The Catholic Church has for one of her chief duties that of preventing people from making those old mistakes..."

      "There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years."

      "The Church does often set herself against the fashion of this world that passes away; and she has experience enough to know how very rapidly it does pass away."

      If only this last one were still true. I think it is pretty clear the Catholic Church has been overrun by those enthralled with the modern fashion of the world (i.e. democratic socialist wealth redistribution and regulation of trade)

      Delete
    4. Sag, what orthodoxy article are you waiting for?

      Delete
    5. ATL

      "If only this last one were still true. I think it is pretty clear the Catholic Church has been overrun by those enthralled with the modern fashion of the world (i.e. democratic socialist wealth redistribution and regulation of trade)"

      True. No need to go into details here of the how and why, but so very true.

      BM

      Well, I don't know to be honest. As a pun, and also a logical complementary to Heresy, I sort of imagined a delightful double treat after you referenced Belloc in your article.

      An orthodoxy article as a follow-up could take many directions. Could be a rather ironical one about "sola NAP" orthodoxy, but that's probably not you. Could also be a light-hearted one in Chestertonian fashion about libertarian orthodoxy beyond the NAP, which would be a continuation in line with the points made by FvD. Could even be one about the (unintended) consequences of global idealism re: the NAP, though I myself would file that under heresy.

      It might also be that the article has already been written here at your blog. Many things to read, so little time.

      -Sag.

      Delete
    6. Sag

      If I understand your meaning, I will offer the following: the “Libertarians and Culture” tab at the top of this page documents my journey through the intersection and overlaps of the topics libertarianism and culture. I will not suggest that you read perhaps a couple of hundred posts; I will summarize this journey and then perhaps offer an easier way for you to proceed (if you choose).

      The first link in the tab is here:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/05/bleeding-heart-thick-milquetoast-left.html

      I introduce this post thusly:

      “This post offers links to dozens of posts I have written in rebuttal to prominent libertarians and Austrians who I believe have distorted or destroyed the philosophy. I am often not kind.”

      You need not read dozens of posts: I offer a few introductory words for each post – you will get enough from these – if any intrigue you to click, so be it.

      Many of these are attacks on left-libertarians. So, one day I was challenged: why don’t you take on Hoppe the same way you take on the left? I had, of course, by then already read Hoppe – but not in the systematic way that I subsequently developed. So, much of the continuation in the “Libertarians and Culture” tab is a continuation of this dialogue – which also was greatly influenced by my understanding of medieval law, first introduced to me by Fritz Kern (and a dialogue to which you now contribute). Again, each of the posts is summarized, so you need not click any of these.

      So that’s about it. I have been encouraged to turn all of this into a book or at least to better organize the topics. I really struggle with doing anything “organized” with this blog; whenever I try, I find it is nowhere near as enjoyable as writing new posts and discussing with feedbackers.

      Delete
  7. Was the concept of individualism really devised and deployed by the political class as a ruse to multiply and extend their power ? Or has political power itself not steadily inserted itself at ever more fine grained levels in its evolution from the control of territory in the medieval era to the control of populations in the era of the modern state ? Take Robert Peel's Metropolitan Police established in 1829. Peel's idea was to so multiply the number of 'watchmen', the number of police, that police could carry out their surveillance down to the level of the individual. The police would know every individual in the town, maintain records on them, and act deliberately to cultivate civility among individuals. Peel's police now monitoring society at its most fine grained level replaced the Statute of Winchester devised in 1285 and which required individuals witnessing a crime to raise a 'hue and cry' - the reason being that watchman were so few as to permit only course surveillance and needed the collective hue and cry to guide them toward the crime.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with much that this article has to offer. I have an issue, though. What about technological progress? There has been more of that in the past 200 years than in all the previous centuries combined and the reason must be sought in the conditions of the times. In a society where people can break away from tradition (such as taking up the same trade as their father) dreams and ideas can be imagined and capital sought to bring such ideas into reality. We should also trace the current high costs and lack of progress in the sciences to changes in those conditions.

    It may be that, so long as men seek the easy way out, that a culture of liberty cannot be sustained. Perhaps both tolerance and intolerance, progress and stasis, liberty and tyranny can be used to destroy mankind.

    Maybe Rein is partially right. I would suggest that there is a cycle and that it stems less from biology and more from natural desires. All good parents want 2 opposing things for their children: first, that their children have an easier life than they did and second, that their children turn out better than they did. These are opposing because most people do not realize that it's the opposition in all things that make people better and an easier life will most likely turn out lesser men - and lesser men put comfort and ease first. And there's your cycle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What about technological progress?"

      Woody, I touched on this (barely) here, and have noted it before - and I agree with the view that it is not an insignificant point.

      The economic and technological gains did not happen in earlier times, perhaps due to the reasons as you note. These gains may have made the destruction of intermediating institutions inevitable, which then made the growth of the State inevitable.

      It is a significant topic to consider: had medieval law and Christendom continued, would this necessarily have precluded the technological advances?

      There were advances during the Middle Ages, and science was not as inflexible as stereotyped:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-industrial-revolution-of-middle-ages.html

      In any case, as man was freed from the old institutions, industry grew; as industry grew, man was further freed from the old institutions.

      Is there a reasonable "marriage" between these seemingly different strings? Big question.

      Delete
    2. I also appreciate the insight of the two opposing things that parents want.

      Delete
  9. "It was the flowering of individualism – an outcome of Enlightenment thought – that made possible the power of the State." - BM

    I came across a wonderful quote this morning which summarizes my views exactly on individualism and collectivism and the confusion over which is the friend or enemy of liberty. (I know we've discussed this at length in the past, but I could not find those discussions to post this as an addendum to them)

    “The customary terminology misrepresents these things entirely. The philosophy commonly called individualism is a philosophy of social cooperation and the progressive intensification of the social nexus. On the other hand the application of the basic ideas of collectivism cannot result in anything but social disintegration and the perpetuation of armed conflict.” – Mises, Human Action, p152

    It seems to me that Misesian individualism was perfectly compatible with Nisbetian collectivism. This is my view as well. You could make the case that most individualists of the time in question were not of the Misesian type but rather those which Nisbet disparages, and you might be right for all I know, but I'm not here to debate the specific occurrences of history. I'm here rather to debate the universal truths to be found within them. The truth that I think I can see in this discussion is that Nisbetian individualism (atomism) leads to the advance of the State and the retreat of society, while Misesian individualism leads to the retreat of the State and the advance of society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe Salerno wrote a great piece on Mises' views on immigration and nation, that I think also correspond to the point of your comment:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/03/mises-on-immigration-and-nation.html

      I certainly see this strain in the Misesian / Rothbardian side of liberalism / libertarianism (evident at LvMI). Unfortunately, as we have discussed before, it strikes me that the universalist strain of libertarians (represented by Reason, Cato, even FEE I believe) make up a larger part of the population.

      Delete