tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post1762330798824635250..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Libertarian Open Borders: Oxymoron in Theory and Practicebionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-51158002476363775542016-05-31T17:02:14.043-07:002016-05-31T17:02:14.043-07:00@Mark Davis,
─ A mini-statist lecturing a princip...@Mark Davis,<br /><br />─ A mini-statist lecturing a principled anarchist ─<br /><br />Are you talking about Hornberger? Have you read anything he has written? Have you listened to his lectures? He and Bionic Mosquito may disagree on the issue of Open Borders but that is not cause to call him a "mini-statist".<br /><br />─ [...] conflating opposition to state policies promoting and subsidizing immigration contrary to the wishes of the local population as “opposing open borders” as his anchor [...] ─<br /><br />What Hornberger is addressing is BM's own conflation of Open Borders with state-action as if both are concomitant when they're not. BM relies on sophistry to conclude that Open Borders has to mean the violation of people's property rights because all what immigrants do is homestead (i.e. invade and displace.)<br /><br />─ "[...] "Bionic also asserts that it's impossible to reconcile limited government with the libertarian non-aggression principle. Really?" Yea, really; the state is institutionalized socialism. ─<br /><br />But you're missing the point. Hornberger is arguing that the idea that Open Borders would necessarily mean the growth of government is absurd in its face, since Open Borders - by definition - would entail LESS government intervention, not more. Open Borders ─ the real concept ─ would necessary entail LESS government, not more.<br /><br />Let me explain: You seem not to realize that the time the U.S. government was much more limited in size was also the time the country enjoyed the most open immigration which coincided with the greatest level of economic growth this side of the Atlantic. That was the XIX Century. And you seem to forget that it wasn't until the government grew in size that prohibitions on immigration were put in place. The idea that Open Borders has to mean a growth in government is an unsubstantiated myth.<br /><br />─ So, he believes that the state is necessary because “we” need an army to protect “us” from the proverbial warlords? ─<br /><br />What you ask and what you yourself quoted from him are completely contradictory.<br /><br />─ [...] how can he justify supporting a policy where his supposedly necessary military does nothing as waves of foreigners invade [sic] ─<br /><br />Invade, Mark? 'Waves of foreigners'? You can't be serious. These are individual human beings of will, pursuing their self-interest just like you, or me. An invader is a person who would seek to do harm to people in a different country, like for instance an American soldier in Iraq.<br /><br />─ which part of the state do we seek to eliminate first [:] 1) state subsidized immigration/welfare for foreigners ─<br /><br />Where do you get the idea that immigration is "subsidized"? <br /><br />─ If you eliminate No. 1, then most of the problems from No. 2 [managed borders] go away ─<br /><br />Depends on what you think 'managed borders' mean. For instance, BM makes the point of comparing the political borders imposed by the State, those that are like the territories crime families divide among them, with property boundaries, in order to argue that 'managed borders' is like having gates and fences. Maybe unwittingly, but he gives the state legitimacy by giving it a role to play through this comparison. <br /><br />'Managed borders' in practice means having tax-fed thugs question your reasons for entering the country while asking you for your papers, never mind the liberty you were born with.<br /><br /><br />─ If you eliminate No. 2 first, then the problems associated with No. 1 get bigger. ─<br /><br />This is the argument that you need to explain, the question-begging notwithstanding (by assuming that immigration is *subsidized* which is an incredibly clumsy lie, not unlike the lie the Marxians peddle about fossil fuels being "subsidized.") How is it possible that NOT spending untold billions on keeping tax-fed leeches you may call (with a very sick sense of humor) "Border Patrol Agents," and their union bosses, happy and well-fed, is somehow conducive to bigger government. How does that work?OldMexicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16111465436836633221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-22664510752279258672016-05-31T11:24:55.034-07:002016-05-31T11:24:55.034-07:00A mini-statist lecturing a principled anarchist on...A mini-statist lecturing a principled anarchist on the evils of central planning, socialism, government control and interference and the non-aggression principle, much less the virtues of being consistent in the application of one’s political philosophy, is just, well, too comical.<br />Besides using the tired tactic of conflating opposition to state policies promoting and subsidizing immigration contrary to the wishes of the local population as “opposing open borders” as his anchor, he is just all over the place trying to explain his internal contradictions.<br />First Hornberger states: “Government-controlled borders constitute socialist central planning in action. As libertarians, we know what socialism produces — chaos — or as Ludwig von Mises put it, planned chaos. It never works. It will never work. Socialism is an inherently defective paradigm.” <br />And “The only thing that works is free markets and free enterprise, meaning markets and economic enterprise that are entirely free from government control and interference.”<br />Yet in the end he reveals himself “Finally, Bionic takes me to task for being a limited-government libertarian rather than a libertarian anarchist. He says that one of his beefs with limited government is that it can’t stay limited.” – Yea, show me one that has. <br />And “Bionic also asserts that it’s impossible to reconcile limited government with the libertarian non-aggression principle. Really?” Yea, really; the state is institutionalized socialism.<br />Further, he states that “First of all, the crisis is a direct consequence of the U.S. national-security state’s death machine in the Middle East, which has been killing people and destroying people’s homes and businesses for at least 25 years.” So, he believes that the state is necessary because “we” need an army to protect “us” from the proverbial warlords? Then how can he justify supporting a policy where his supposedly necessary military does nothing as waves of foreigners invade with the excuse to stand down being that this same military was profoundly immoral and incompetent in conducting its most recent assignments? <br />I don’t know how Hornberger can get through the day with all this cognitive dissonance in his head.<br />I see this as a “chicken or egg” style question as to what brings us closer to the desired outcome of a stateless society – which part of the state do we seek to eliminate first (assuming the whole thing can’t be eliminated all at once and I also assume that most agree on eliminating war before all else)<br />1) state subsidized immigration/welfare for foreigners or <br />2) managed borders. <br /><br />If you eliminate No. 1, then most of the problems from No. 2 go away. If you eliminate No. 2 first, then the problems associated with No. 1 get bigger. So, duh! A simple opportunity cost analysis would seem to suggest the best option is to manage borders; at least until the incentives to abuse them have been eliminated.Mark Davisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-44120274014508407452016-05-20T14:27:17.543-07:002016-05-20T14:27:17.543-07:00Wow. Hornberger has gone full George Soros. I wo...Wow. Hornberger has gone full George Soros. I would invite Jefferey Tucker and him to spend a week living in a third world ghetto for a dose of much needed cultural enrichment.UnhappyConservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03120041008604859202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-48503876753387043542016-05-20T08:08:31.930-07:002016-05-20T08:08:31.930-07:00I saw it. He failed. I will respond.
I saw it. He failed. I will respond.<br /><br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-39636669128814765542016-05-20T08:06:02.027-07:002016-05-20T08:06:02.027-07:00Here's something for you to chew on:
http://f...Here's something for you to chew on:<br /><br />http://fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/<br /><br />Jacob Hornberger slices and dices you to bits, without ever mentioning your name. Would love to see you try to respond.adaptunenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-22724144285598064212016-05-18T08:54:38.416-07:002016-05-18T08:54:38.416-07:00Francisco
See here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogsp...Francisco<br /><br />See here:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/05/my-condescending-reply-to-francisco.html bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-23006622189524727822016-05-18T08:17:33.645-07:002016-05-18T08:17:33.645-07:00Sonja, see here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.c...Sonja, see here:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/05/touching-red-sonja.html bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-75541555372718891982016-05-18T07:48:15.498-07:002016-05-18T07:48:15.498-07:00Not lame - there is no point to discuss open borde...Not lame - there is no point to discuss open border in a world where states control borders - even to implement open borders, it will be the state that decides and interprets.<br /><br />"the principle of liberty to move"<br /><br />There is no such thing. There is the liberty to leave, there is no liberty to enter.<br /><br />"...does in fact have the authority and the obligation to keep foreigners out."<br /><br />I don't ask for the state to do anything, yet this doesn't stop them from doing it. So, how would you have the state manage its borders, because they will be managed by the state.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-2571371734605048702016-05-18T07:41:11.391-07:002016-05-18T07:41:11.391-07:00UC, a metaphysical / spiritual element that could ...UC, a metaphysical / spiritual element that could be the foundation of a free society is belief in liberty, free enterprise, voluntary exchange, free speech, rejection of progressivism and multiculturalism.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71138321648066985742016-05-18T07:12:57.363-07:002016-05-18T07:12:57.363-07:00Matt, what about the common cultural elements I no...Matt, what about the common cultural elements I noted above? Military officers who attended West Point in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s did share a common culture insofar as (1) the English language; (2) the white race; (3) their forefathers were European and white; (4) currency; (5) birth of their nation / nation-state and (6) belief that their white race was superior to the Negro and the Native American.<br /><br />Are you asserting that they did not share those things in common? If you are, you are demonstrating that you are prepared to ignore facts and history in furtherance of your narrative.<br /><br />BM and UC, I note that neither of you contested my point regarding how a profoundly common culture shared by military officers who attended West Point in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s could not prevent a dispute from turning into a bloodbath.<br /><br />Note, I am not arguing that there was an absence of cultural differences between such military officers - there were. Yet, the type of shared common cultural components that both of you, particularly UC, cite as being indispensable for peace and liberty and lack of a desire to turn to a monopolistic purveyor of violence, i.e., race, language, etc, failed spectacularly to prevent conflict and violence.<br /><br />Once again, the cultural elements of race, language, currency, common ancestry, did not hold things together.<br /><br />If you are arguing in good faith, you have to acknowledge, that yes, notwithstanding all of our contentions to the contrary, having a common culture of race, language, currency, ancestry, birthright, and a belief that one race was superior to others, did not carry the day as far as minimizing or preventing conflict and violence.<br /><br />American society in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s was dominated by whites who spoke the same language and shared the same ancestry and birthright and society overwhelmingly agreed that English should be the dominant language, that white people were superior intellectually and that without white people, the world would be very little, if any, civilization and that there would be incessant violence and warfare.<br /><br />UC, truly thin libertarians, like me, would never support reparations for Afro-Americans or Irish-Americans or transgendered-Americans.<br /><br />Truly thin libertarians, like me, would never support affirmative action.<br /><br />Truly thin libertarians, like me, would never support gay marriage.<br /><br />In fact, I think that I am more of a thin libertarian than BM.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-78279206859558548562016-05-18T07:07:16.877-07:002016-05-18T07:07:16.877-07:00@Bionic Mosquito,
─ You have a lot of catching up...@Bionic Mosquito,<br /><br />─ You have a lot of catching up to do before I take your yelling seriously. ─<br /><br />I've been reading your columns whenever they're posted by Lew Rockwell or Robert Wenzel, FOR YEARS. I think I have all the 'catching up' I need to do, thank you very much. Besides, that's not much of an answer. I am judging the arguments you posited ABOVE.<br /><br />For instance, this:" Libertarian theory does not recognize open borders when it comes to property."<br /><br />This is conflating property boundaries with the political borders placed by the State. In essence, you're *conceding* the legitimacy of the State itself for some unfathomable reason because it was the State who placed those lines on the map. I certainly didn't. Did you? <br /><br />─ Property is private and exclusionary. ─<br /><br />Of course it is. That is NOT what you're talking about. If *I* want to RENT, EMPLOY or MARRY a foreigner, who are YOU to tell me I *CAN'T*? Why should I accept your argument that immigrants should only homestead barren expanses? Because that is what you're saying: "... immigrants aren’t moving to the top of the Alps[.]" This is arguing that the only good immigrants are those who homestead completely unclaimed land. That is astounding in its face because, in practice, it would mean NO ONE would be able to move anywhere!<br /><br />─ Is your property open to anyone who wants to come on it? ─<br /><br />The difference, Bionic Mosquito, is that I don't pretend to PROJECT my property boundaries to the whole area encompassing a NATION only because I happen to find foreigners icky. I certainly don't open my home to anyone, but a NATION ain't my home, and I certainly have NO right to tell my neighbors who can or cannot visit them, or to whom they can let their homes or who they can employ or marry or simply invite over. What makes you think you have that right? What is so NAP about precluding others from pursuing their own happiness?<br /><br />─ After you do that, reply as if you understand the conversation. ─<br /><br />I'll leave aside the condescending nature of your recommendation and will say that instead of convincingly arguing why *I* should be precluded from renting, employing or marrying whoever I want outside these imaginary 'borders' set up by Leviathan. And don't even TRY telling me that this is not what your're arguing or that I am misconstruing your argument, because THIS: "An immigrant moving to the deserts or the mountaintops carving out an independent life in the new world can be OK in libertarian theory; it doesn’t happen in practice" sounds PRETTY CATEGORICAL. In essence, you're arguing an immigrant is OK as long as he or she moves to the gawd-damned MOON.<br /><br />You keep conflating the importation of refugees by the German government with the concept of free immigration. Once you get to it, your basic argument can be reduced to this: Government should not open the borders, because government exists. Here:<br /><br />"Germany's government expects to spend around 93.6 billion euros by the end of 2020 on costs related to the refugee crisis" and "No, there is nothing libertarian about open borders in practice."<br /><br />What is one supposed to take from this? That it is the actions by the State that defines what libertarianism is? Is the existence of the State the deal breaker when it comes to defining freedom of movement? "No! No open borders! Why? Because the State exists! So, nope! Can't have that!"<br /><br />Please.OldMexicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16111465436836633221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-51290020075314155382016-05-18T07:05:57.386-07:002016-05-18T07:05:57.386-07:00This is lame.
What is happening in Germany has not...This is lame.<br />What is happening in Germany has nothing to do with the open borders idea. If there was absolute liberty for people to move from anywhere in the world to Germany, then many people with a much better economic productivity profile than those Syrian refugees would choose to move to Germany and enjoy the life there, which would cause the cost of life to rise, thus forcing low productivity Germans to move out to another country with a cost of life they could afford, while keeping out poor, unproductive foreigners. <br /><br />You are conflating the principle of liberty to move with current events in a very antilibertarian society.<br /><br />We free-marketeers say that moneys and mercancies should flow freely, unhindered, without Government or State intervention, throughout the world, through every society. How can any advocate of the free-market make an exception with regards to the movement of people, who are the most important part of the market, because we know that money, products and ideas do not exist by themselves and have no objective value at all.<br /><br />How can any person claim that the same State who has no right whatsoever to determine the education of the people does in fact have the authority and the obligation to keep foreigners out. If you give just one power to the State, then you are in effect giving all power to the State. Thread carefully.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-4190374502704945402016-05-18T02:00:55.645-07:002016-05-18T02:00:55.645-07:00Heath, "white supremacists" these days j...Heath, "white supremacists" these days just want to end anti-white discrimination like affirmative action, discriminatory legal codes, anti-white harassment in education and the media, etc. In my country libertarians that don't hate white people are called fascists. Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-19397980092913466112016-05-18T01:58:18.788-07:002016-05-18T01:58:18.788-07:00Calling the police on a criminal is a violation of...Calling the police on a criminal is a violation of the NAP according to autistic libertarians. Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-7925215721260128052016-05-18T01:56:40.918-07:002016-05-18T01:56:40.918-07:00Anonymous - you alluded to the civil war by saying...Anonymous - you alluded to the civil war by saying that the people that attended West Point had aa "common culture". Not true! The deep cultural divide between North and South was an important factor in making the civil war possible. You have inadvertently argued against your own position. Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-30740192538472915802016-05-17T21:49:09.567-07:002016-05-17T21:49:09.567-07:00Anon,
I do not know what you support, I am trying...Anon,<br /><br />I do not know what you support, I am trying to understand where you are coming from. On the three questions you listed there is no agreement among libertarians as far as I can tell. In fact, at this point I would be hard pressed to think of a single position supported by all libertarians.<br /><br />"What I do argue is that a nation, as conceived by Rothbard, you, or BM, is not a necessary pre-condition for liberty to flourish."<br /><br />What you believe those conditions to be:<br /><br />"The element most important for folks to have in common is love of NAP, free exchange of ideas, free trade, free enterprise and the primacy of the individual. These are the cultural conditions that matter"<br /><br />I would argue that those cultural conditions cannot exist outside the framework of a Nation, or a self-identifying tribe. Even if the tribe is libertarians. There has to be an understanding of in-group and out-group relations. In the case of libertarians the in-group would be those who accept the ideas you listed.<br /><br />However, I am skeptical that a nation can be based on ideas alone. I believe there needs to be a blood and soil element, as well as a metaphysical/religious component.<br /><br />How would you describe your position Anon? Ancap? Libertarian?<br /><br />UnhappyConservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03120041008604859202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-52796670518917587052016-05-17T16:50:38.597-07:002016-05-17T16:50:38.597-07:00Anon, I know your comment was to UC, but I cannot ...Anon, I know your comment was to UC, but I cannot help but point out that you have offered the answer. To each of your questions (reparations, gay marriage, and affirmative action), it doesn't matter what you support or what libertarians support.<br /><br />If society is in general agreement on these things, there is less chance of conflict, less chance of those who feel disadvantaged to turn to (or create) the monopolist of violence to do something about it. Simple.<br /><br />Thank you for clarifying your confusion.<br /><br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-47127696947933832462016-05-17T16:39:53.054-07:002016-05-17T16:39:53.054-07:00UC, I have already informed you that I am a race r...UC, I have already informed you that I am a race realist and that I am a fan of Derbyshire and that I loathe National Review, in part, because of its decision to fire the Derb.<br /><br />Therefore, I do not argue that there is no relationship between race and culture. I also do not argue that a shared, common culture would be a hindrance in developing and sustaining my type of Libertopia.<br /><br />What I do argue is that a nation, as conceived by Rothbard, you, or BM, is not a necessary pre-condition for liberty to flourish.<br /><br />Yes, I do believe that ancapistan is more likely to emerge in a white dominated society than in a black or brown society.<br /><br />But the common language, borders, and common ancestry construct has not exactly delivered the goods and one is not an enemy to liberty just for making the point.<br /><br />Do you think that most self-identifying libertarians / anarchists support reparations for Afro-Americans? If so, upon what basis do you so think?<br /><br />Do you think that most along the libertarian / anarchist spectrum support gay marriage? If so, what is the basis of why you so think?<br /><br />Do you think that most libertarians support affirmative action? If so, upon what basis do you so think?<br /><br />Do you think that I support those things?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-80175214055599025882016-05-17T16:32:51.800-07:002016-05-17T16:32:51.800-07:00It ain't so.
You have a lot of catching up to...It ain't so.<br /><br />You have a lot of catching up to do before I take your yelling seriously.<br /><br />Start here:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/04/open-borders-and-culture-reading-list.html <br /><br />Read every link in the above.<br /><br />Then here:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-moral-foundations-of-modem-social.html <br /><br />After you do that, reply as if you understand the conversation.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-10783182784641748092016-05-17T16:29:27.427-07:002016-05-17T16:29:27.427-07:00Culture - for good or bad - has held infinitely mo...Culture - for good or bad - has held infinitely more people together than the NAP. Culture - for good or bad - is a more powerful force than the NAP. <br /><br />A reasonably healthy and respected common culture will do more to reduce violence than spouting "NAP" like an automaton.<br /><br />Movie actors or random historical events not withstanding.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-82772909286869125922016-05-17T16:16:01.823-07:002016-05-17T16:16:01.823-07:00Re: Matt@Occidentalism.org,
─ Of course one of th...Re: Matt@Occidentalism.org,<br /><br />─ Of course one of the reasons that most libertarians demand open borders is because they refuse to accept that the cascade of NAP violations that results from the open borders are in fact NAP violations. ─<br /><br />Of course, the reason most people support having kids is because they refuse to accept that the cascade of NAP violations that results from having kids are in fact NAP violations.<br /><br />─ There is a difference between the nation and the state ─<br /><br />True. One is a construct made up by jingoistic chauvinists and the other is the system populated by bureaucrats who wet-dream about 'borders'.<br /><br />─ although the cultural Marxist libertarians conflate the two just like the statists. ─<br /><br />That sentence lets known in no uncertain terms that you have NO clue what libertarianism is about or what Cultural Marxism is about. Talk about conflating two concepts anathema to each other.OldMexicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16111465436836633221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-86129953566050841132016-05-17T16:05:57.615-07:002016-05-17T16:05:57.615-07:00@Bionic Mosquito,
─ Angela Merkel's open bord...@Bionic Mosquito,<br /><br />─ Angela Merkel's open borders policy continues to pay dividends in the destruction of open borders as a libertarian concept. ─<br /><br />Angela Merkel is NOT putting in place a policy of Open Borders. You're confusing not having borders imposed by the State with importing refugees.<br /><br />─ There is no “state” in libertarian theory. The only “borders” are the borders that divide private property, one privately-owned parcel from another. ─<br /><br />Then who sets these borders you seem to miss so much? Angels? They are certainly NOT placed there by private property owners.<br /><br />─ Sounds good in theory. What about practice? ─<br /><br />So instead of arguing the soundness of of a proposal, you're going to judge it on its UTILITARIAN merits???<br /><br />─ Access to property is managed. ─<br /><br />Yes. For instance, *YOU* don't get to tell *ME* who I can or can't contract to work at *MY* factory or who I can let into *MY* house, be it a foreigner or NOT. <br /><br />What YOU propose is the TOTAL and CERTAIN ABOLITION of the FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE, THE FREEDOM TO CONTRACT AND THE FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCE. By virtue of God-knows-what... Maybe 'Protecting our precious bodily culture, Mandrake', like Hoppe argues (unconvincingly, in my view)?<br /><br />Tell me it ain't so.OldMexicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16111465436836633221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-33854759701581647742016-05-17T15:28:03.123-07:002016-05-17T15:28:03.123-07:00BM, upon what basis do you believe that I am an en...BM, upon what basis do you believe that I am an enemy of libertarianism?<br /><br />Like you, I acknowledge that human beings have all sinned and have fallen far short of the glory of god. <br /><br />Like you, per your recent blog post, I believe that libertarian theory has been held to a much higher standard than others.<br /><br />Like you, I do not support the creation of a new man, Soviet or otherwise.<br /><br />Like you, I acknowledge that human nature is human nature. <br /><br />Ah, but there may lie the rub. Human nature is manifested in many ways, including the fact that those who do not share a common nation culture may nevertheless live freely and peacefully amongst themselves.<br /><br />As Jose Wales told Ten Bears, "I ain't promising you nothing extra. I'm just giving you life and you're giving me life. And I'm saying that men can live together without butchering one another."<br /><br />Ten Bears, chief of the Comanche, and Jose Wales, renegade Confederate fugitive, did not share what you or Rothbard might conceive of as a "generally accepted common culture", right? Yet, they were able to forge an understanding, a different form of common culture, if you will, in order to live without butchering one another.<br /><br />The foundation of their understanding? I would argue it was, at bottom, the NAP.<br /><br />Before you criticize my allusion to a great cinematic tour de force as just fiction, keep in mind that there were many such examples in the history of the American West, like William Bent and the Cheyenne.<br /><br />By contrast, look at the common culture shared by so many military officers who attended West Point in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s and who later took up arms against each other and allowed disagreements to culminate in the most nasty forms of violence ever witnessed on earth.<br /><br />You might argue that the common culture shared by such military officers was not so common given their various geographical origins. Fair enough, but they did share a common language, a common racial identity, a common currency, a common birth of their nation-state, a common ancestry (white and European) and a common belief that they were superior to Negros and native Americans.<br /><br />I would submit that when viewed through your prism and that of Rothbard and UC, these men shared far more in common with each other than that which divided them.<br /><br />The thrust of my point is that those who are not praying at the altar of common culture is an absolute pre-condition for the emergence and functioning of freer societies are not enemies of libertarianism.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-25950713697683714922016-05-17T15:23:35.180-07:002016-05-17T15:23:35.180-07:00+1 m8
+1 m8<br />UnhappyConservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03120041008604859202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-32885618077126113012016-05-17T15:13:33.187-07:002016-05-17T15:13:33.187-07:00"The element most important for folks to have..."The element most important for folks to have in common is love of NAP, free exchange of ideas, free trade, free enterprise and the primacy of the individual. These are the cultural conditions that matter - not race, not language, and not ethnicity."<br /><br />So are you arguing that there is no relationship between race and culture?<br /><br />The idea that everyone needs to accept the NAP is a bizarre to me. It seems that what you are really saying is everyone needs to think like you. Most people don't consider taxation aggression. You basically need everyone re-educated in libertarian doctrine, but even libertarians can't agree on what constitutes aggression and what appropriate responses to aggression are.<br /><br />What if the "primacy of the individual" conflicts with the rest of society?UnhappyConservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03120041008604859202noreply@blogger.com