A few more comments on this topic.
First, a couple of comments from the original
post:
Alec April 5, 2016 at
11:20 AM
Only white countries are supposed
to be open borders. But everyone else doesn't have to. How convenient. [Jews]
have WAY too much influence here out of all proportion to their numbers.
“WAY” is not a very scientific term, although I agree that
relative to the numbers Jews do have significant influence “here.”
What should be done about this? Is “influence” a crime? Is there some share of influence that becomes
too much influence?
Mark Belk April 5,
2016 at 1:53 PM
The NAACP was a Jewish project
whose presidents were jews all the way up until 1978. Remember, jews invented
communism, (Marx and Engles), and the communists said they would destroy us
from within.
Engels was not Jewish, unless I am missing something. As an aside, Engels was not an afterthought
to Marx, but a
significant contributor and financier:
In 1848 he co-authored The
Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx, though he also authored and co-authored
(primarily with Marx) many other works, and later he supported Marx financially
to do research and write Das Kapital. After Marx's death, Engels edited the
second and third volumes. Additionally, Engels organised Marx's notes on the
"Theories of Surplus Value," which he later published as the
"fourth volume" of Capital.
In any case, these are ideas. Ideas require human beings for implementation. Who is doing the implementation?
Now to comments from the more recent
post:
UnhappyConservative
April 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM
The mistake I believe you gents are
making is this: you are unwilling to get into the weeds of the reality of human
behavior and are stuck on an idealized view of human behavior (rational man).
Not me. Just looking
to a different source for the majority (or plurality) of the problem.
If we know a priori what to expect
from certain classes of people then we are much better equipped to understand
what is going on around us.
This is a loaded sentence.
What do you suggest we do with this understanding? What shall be done with these “certain
classes”? How certain can we be a priori? What action should be taken to counter what
is essentially a very effective organizational campaign?
This presupposes an unfettered
freewill and doesn't take into account arguments from biological determinism.
I presuppose no such thing.
No human has an “unfettered freewill.”
No one. We all are born with baggage
and we gain more daily. The question is:
what do you suggest we do with those whose fettered and biologically determined
will is not to your liking?
UnhappyConservative
April 4, 2016 at 3:43 PM
However, without Marx there would
be no Mao.
I haven’t studied this enough to say, but it seems to me a
strongman can always find a way in any society that is not generally favorable
to individual liberty.
If I could summarize my view
crudely, it is this: the West had AIDS and the Jews are a bad cold.
Now we are getting somewhere – hence the modification in the
title to this post. Only I might modify your
statement somewhat…actually, I won’t because every way I try to write it is even
more crude. Let’s just say the WASP politicians
and power brokers of the West can’t keep it in their pants; Jews or Zionists
are not the only object of their affections.
Most important to my viewpoint: just keep in mind whose “it”
it is, and whose pants “it” doesn’t stay in.
Matt@Occidentalism.org
April 4, 2016 at 8:08 PM
I don't know how to question or
deal with it. You made a very broad assertion involving wonkish geo-political
strategy, in two very short paragraphs.
Matt, you are a very astute and intelligent commenter. My point cannot be missed on you. “Israel” or
“Jews” does not explain virtually every war of the West for the last 100
years. The answer lies elsewhere, I
conclude. I draw on Mackinder, and have
written a few posts about this; this theory holds together better than any
other (Jews, oil, natural resources, democracy, communism, terrorism, dominoes falling,
whatever).
Almost all US foreign policy
results from domestic considerations, not geopolitical strategy, in my opinion.
I am curious as to what you mean by this.
UnhappyConservative
April 5, 2016 at 11:49 AM
…is [Zionism] bad for the U.S and
Europe?
Yes, like unprotected sex with a partner of well-earned
disrepute. The problem is that many
powerful WASPs in the US cannot keep it in their pants. It is the WASPs choosing this lifestyle and
taking actions to advance it.
…I am sure you have some awareness
of a how taboo this subject is.
Certainly. Yet, per
my earlier reply to you, I am inherently cautious to write in terms of
“groups,” for personal reasons perhaps more than libertarian / individualistic
reasons (or maybe one reason supports the other).
I've been a very casual observers of these threads- just actually skimming on this whole topic and not really thinking about it much for a variety of reasons.
ReplyDeleteI watched the title go from "Joos"(I'm assuming in a somewhat mocking manner to those harboring some degree of suspicion or animus to them) to now "Jews", which I'm not ostensibly figuring to mean "Let's a get a little more serious on the topic."
As a very casual reflection on the broad swaths of topic discussed in re, I can only say that a cursory understanding of Jewish impact on history in general actually really doesn't seem to impact the path of those wanting more liberty in the future IMO.
Jews have influenced the world in a myriad of ways, both good and bad and in the context of written history probably disproportionately...but none of that matters IMO in terms of charting a path of liberty for the world in the future.
Whether you want to vilify Jews for their disproportionate impact in history or applaud them, it doesn't matter as far as that goal of "liberty".
So what if there's merit to the notion a Jew furthered communist thought? What about a counter balance in Jews furthering classically liberal thought? (Mises, Rothbard, etc.)
It's an intellectual war regardless of the races involved. WASP's occupy both side of the intellectual war and have their circle of power & influences as well obviously.
When I spent some time as a traveling salesman & distributor manager, I used to do some direct sales in Manhattan and I can tell you that Hasidic Jew's are a drastically different people than Orthodox Jews who are drastically different from non-believing Jews.
For a variety of reasons, probably due to some shared experience in racism- my father's side of the family(my Grandfather was 1st gen Sicilian) had a lot of Jewish friends- the spectrum of what a "Jew" is, is wide/varied.
I'm not sure any of it matters as far as the future of liberty is concerned- yet I've a feeling that for some, "Jews" will remain the proverbial boogeyman that is working against the freedom of men- I can only answer in return "What about Rothbard, Mises, etc?"
It's important to remember that the "influence" of anyone, a particular group or person in a truly free society would be based solely on their ability to please a customer if not for government, & even with government and the various groups influencing it(including AIPAC, the Jews, etc.) that doesn't change the goal- nor will blaming Jews for the problem of government "fix" things.
The world would be a much poorer place without Jewish businessmen and thinkers- and that goes for WASP's too obviously.
Getting rid of government is the goal- I find the discussion of "The Joos" in the context of the problem of government to be little more than a distraction from the real solutions.
History is important to understand context and I enjoy it, it also gives us insight and possibly strategy, but does it change the "goal"? Nope.
If some people actually had their wish and were able to somehow magically remove all influence of "The Joos" from history and governments around the world the last 100 years, they would still be unpleasantly surprised to find that problems of government itself(war, oppression, confiscation, etc.) would not have been solved one iota. Those problems would have simply unfolded in a different way, historically speaking(different players/races & regions).
The problem is government more so than even those that influence it(or even run it for that matter, assuming they keep it intact!).
Nick
DeleteThank you for the extensive reply. I offer a couple of thoughts:
“Joos” to “Jews” reflects finding a comment from Unhappy that I felt offered an intersection of views between him and me – there was finally some common ground on which to build.
“As a very casual reflection on the broad swaths of topic discussed in re, I can only say that a cursory understanding of Jewish impact on history in general actually really doesn't seem to impact the path of those wanting more liberty in the future IMO.”
It seems to me yes and no. The “yes” case you have spelled out well. Let me offer the “no” case (and you also touch on this later in your comment). It is a distraction in the sense that “It’s the Jews” draws attention away from the more fundamental issues and culprits. It is a convenient and (for me at least) too simplistic explanation. So energy is spent on the wrong target.
“It's an intellectual war regardless of the races involved.”
Amen.
"Thank you for the extensive reply. "
Deletelol...my weakness: Brevity
I fear I will battle it for the rest of my life.
You know I meant it - you write well are are well-reasoned.
DeleteThank you for the compliment.
DeleteBtw, I can't go back and edit here, but there's one word I added above that should not have been there:
"which I'm ostensibly figuring" (lose the "not" for those reading)
Nick,
DeleteYou should have done more than skimmed since both Matt and I addressed your point about Rothbard and Mises being Jews.
When you say "getting rid of government is the goal," or "liberty" what country are you referring to? I have pointed this out to other commenters on BM's site, but that kind of talk really sounds like pinko utopian BS. We need specific goals for specific people.
One thing the Jews understand that apparently alot of libertarians fail to grasp is the difference between ones own people and others. There are other things a society needs beyond just a free-market: a sense of identity, tradition, and history are essential. At least the Jews have that.
"There are other things a society needs beyond just a free-market: a sense of identity, tradition, and history are essential."
DeleteI know you are writing to Nick, but my two cents: I agree fully. I have written extensively on this and also have something coming out tomorrow on same.
But...and there is always a but.... I will address the "but" in my replies to you below.
"When you say "getting rid of government is the goal," or "liberty" what country are you referring to?"
DeleteWhat does it matter? Do some countries "deserve" government?
As to the rest of your comment, I addressed it in my reply to Matt.
What does "pinko" mean? Wikipedia says it means "communist sympathizer", is that how you mean to use it?
"What does it matter? Do some countries "deserve" government?"
DeleteNot every people are capable of self-government.
I would just like you to be specific. It obviously does matter because not all countries are the same and not all people are the same. You can't just switch them out for one another like nuts and bolts.
When I say pinko I am of course being a bit tongue in cheek but the truth is not far off. Are you just a citizen of the world and all of humanity are your brothers? Are you an egalitarian? If yes to these questions then you prove the Anthony Gregory view that libertarians are actually leftists.
"...libertarians are actually leftists."
DeleteThere are many that call themselves "left-libertarians," and there is one root of libertarian history that also supports the communist tree.
It is interesting that two completely opposite political theories have some common philosophical history.
"When I say pinko I am of course being a bit tongue in cheek but the truth is not far off."
DeleteSo what in my writing has you lead you to believe I'm "not far off" in my communist sympathies?
Just one example of something I've written is sufficient.
We'll proceed with the rest of your statement after I get an answer as to how you deduced that I'm a possible communist sympathizer.
Is there a way to use the quotation indent within the comments?
ReplyDelete"Matt, you are a very astute and intelligent commenter. My point cannot be missed on you. “Israel” or “Jews” does not explain virtually every war of the West for the last 100 years. "
I can't hold a discussion on that basis. You are the one with the total hypothesis for every war for the last 100 years, while I make no such assertions. I don't think Israel or Jews are responsible for every war in existence. I don't think that you are intentionally strawmanning me but effectively this is what is happening.
"Almost all US foreign policy results from domestic considerations, not geopolitical strategy, in my opinion."
As for that, it is exactly what it looks like it is. I don't think that there is a grand strategy that the US is following. US policy is largely reactive, sometimes the US does dumb things like provide arms to Al-Qaeda in Syria or to Islamic State, but this is largely to satisfy domestic actors. Since we are talking Israel, Israel is a good enough example. Plenty of Arabs states would have made better allies or vassal states than Israel would, and objectively strategic aims could have better been achieved by allying with these states over Israel. However, it is only because of domestic considerations that the US is "allied" with Israel - there no virtually no upside to the relationship with Israel at all, and all the propaganda about Israel being a liberal democracy with shared values is false.
That's one example, there are others. No need to belabor the point, though.
Matt
Delete“Is there a way to use the quotation indent within the comments?”
I have seen comments with italics and bold, there might be a way to indent. I haven’t spent any time trying to learn if or how on any of it.
“I don't think Israel or Jews are responsible for every war in existence. I don't think that you are intentionally strawmanning me but effectively this is what is happening.”
I am not intentionally strawmanning you. My point is simply that there is too much violence, war, and manipulation in this world that “Jews” cannot explain. So I look for a different explanation that captures a wider set of events.
“I don't think that there is a grand strategy that the US is following.”
I see different factions within the US government that are each working agendas – some contrary to others. But virtually all can be described as “more.” More territory, more control, more global domination.
“US policy is largely reactive…”
I don’t see it this way. I don’t say it is totally pro-active, but “largely” pro-active.
“Plenty of Arabs states would have made better allies or vassal states than Israel would, and objectively strategic aims could have better been achieved by allying with these states over Israel.”
“Better” is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe your definition of “better” isn’t theirs. “Strategic aims” is also in the eye of the beholder – maybe they have different strategic aims than what you are considering.
“However, it is only because of domestic considerations that the US is "allied" with Israel…”
The propaganda machine can make a friend or enemy out of anyone or any group it chooses. They have millions of hours of research on how to manipulate the masses into bloodlust and war; they can also turn an enemy to a friend and vice versa if they desire it.
“No need to belabor the point, though.”
Agree.
"I've been a very casual observers of these threads- just actually skimming on this whole topic and not really thinking about it much for a variety of reasons."
ReplyDeleteNick, you really should read the threads in their entirety. Rothbard has been mentioned several times, for example, even mentioned as an anti-semite.
See, that's the thing though- my point is that I don't care who does or doesn't like the Jews and the "why"(so long as they aren't violating the NAP that is)- My eye is on the ball(or at least the one I want to hit)- how do we reduce and eventually get rid of the state?
DeleteI don't view "The Joos/Jews" as the issue or even an important piece as to how to address the "state".
To me it is a distraction- the point highlighted in my original rant and echoed by BM in his response to me.
"What do you suggest we do with this understanding? What shall be done with these “certain classes”? How certain can we be a priori?
ReplyDeleteIt is not completely unlike economics. In economics we know that if you place price controls on a product you are going to get less of it, but we don't know how much less because of mitigating circumstances, imperfect knowledge, and a world that is fluid.
Similarly if you move a bunch of Arabs and North Africans into Europe you are going to get rape, we just don't know how much rape.
Statistics tells us a lot about populations. We can know the mean IQ or the crime rates for given demographic. That doesn't mean we know apriori what an individual will do because they may be an outlier for their population.
It is not hard to predict the race of the 100 Meter Dash winner at the Olympics. (http://www.unz.com/isteve/noticing-videos-of-the-last-8-olympic-100-meter-dash-finals-show-64-out-of-64-blacks/)
As to what should be done with such knowledge- all sorts of things. If you are a cab driver you may not want to pick up blacks in certain neighborhoods. If you are landlord you may not want to rent to certain groups. If you are a sovereign community you may not want certain groups to live there. If you are a libertarian you should ask: "what groups are most compatible with free markets and property rights?"
"What action should be taken to counter what is essentially a very effective organizational campaign?"
I assume you are referring to Zionism and Jewish nepotism in law, banking, and media. A starter would be no dual-citizenship and the banning of AIPAC. Next would be the criminalization of anti-white speech in the media. However, these things are completely impossible in the present climate.
“As to what should be done with such knowledge- all sorts of things. If you are a cab driver you may not want to pick up blacks in certain neighborhoods. If you are landlord you may not want to rent to certain groups. If you are a sovereign community you may not want certain groups to live there.”
DeleteI agree with all of this, and it is perfectly compatible with respect for property rights – a fundamental in a libertarian society. But the question is: what is to be done today? Individuals are not free to exercise their property rights today. Further, if the world went libertarian tomorrow, on what basis do you banish those from another group if they otherwise respect the NAP and property rights?
Respect for property rights solves so many issues of today. This is why I focus on this and not on some of the other stuff.
“If you are a libertarian you should ask: "what groups are most compatible with free markets and property rights?"”
It will not surprise if I say I take a different view. A libertarian has no right or means to tell another individual what to do with his property. A property owner has the right to allow whomever he chooses onto his property. If he has voluntarily conditioned this right in some manner – for instance, by joining a sovereign community that chooses to exclude certain groups – then, of course, he is bound by this conditionality.
With this said, I find it equally frustrating when some libertarians completely ignore or even deride the value of culture in maintaining a libertarian order. Their statements demonstrate complete ignorance regarding human nature.
“A starter would be no dual-citizenship and the banning of AIPAC. Next would be the criminalization of anti-white speech in the media.”
Again, it won’t surprise you if we come out different on this. Dual-citizenship is an effective means to diversify from a government monopoly over one’s being; banning AIPAC and banning anti-white speech are dangerous tools – easily turned against you.
Good ideas will win or they won’t. If they can only win via the force of law against another idea, we lose by passing the law.
When I said this: "what groups are most compatible with free markets and property rights?" I meant that Libertarians should genuinely ask themselves this question. The answer is Europeans generally, and Anglo's specifically. Sean Gabb's view is that libertarianism should be viewed in the context of Anglo society and should not be assumed to apply to other societies.
DeleteWhat we are getting into is Metapolitics. Which is very good, because that is where we need to go. Metapolitics deals with what comes before politics or what is necessary for certain political goals to be achieved. If we want a property rights based legal/economic order in the U.S we need to:
1. End non-European immigration. Deport immigrants. End H1B1.
2. Re-segregate schools. End HUD and Section 8 in white neighborhoods.
3. Implement Eugenics in the form of sterilization of welfare dependents.
4. Encourage White Americans to breed- stop taxing them to pay for Jamal's ten kids.
We can't go from Empire to PPS overnight. It is absolutely necessary that we do everything we can in the present environment to set the stage for the creation of decentralized sovereign communities.
Rather than condemning all state action we should be supporting the state action that better serves our long term goals. This is why I think using an NAP framework with the current order is a losing game. Our enemies will not reciprocate it.
“The answer is Europeans generally, and Anglo's specifically.”
DeleteYou are really getting personal. If I felt your ideas had merit, I might get very upset.
“Deport immigrants.”
Punishment comes only after a violation of the NAP.
“Implement Eugenics in the form of sterilization of welfare dependents.”
Count me out.
“Rather than condemning all state action we should be supporting the state action that better serves our long term goals.”
If these are the steps for which you demand state action and these steps are also necessary to achieve our goals, we are certain to never achieve our goals. A state powerful enough to take the steps you suggest will never be taken over by advocates of the NAP. Never. They will always be more violent and more devious. They will sterilize you because of your libertarian leanings; after this they will deport you. Trust me.
If this is the alternative, I will take the state we currently have.
"You are really getting personal. If I felt your ideas had merit, I might get very upset."
DeleteI have no desire to offend you. I am merely being honest. The argument is not one that can be dismissed offhand. Sean Gabb has argued very clearly for the fact that libertarianism is in many ways an extension of the rights of Englishmen. You certainly don't deny that classical liberalism and property rights (as we understand them) are things that came from European peoples (specifically Anglo). Just like the right to bear arms is not a universal right but a specific right created by specific peoples for their posterity.
"Punishment comes only after a violation of the NAP"
Firstly I don't even see it as punishment. Second, if I rephrased it, deport all welfare recipient foreigners, would you at least agree to that?
"If these are the steps for which you demand state action and these steps are also necessary to achieve our goals, we are certain to never achieve our goals. A state powerful enough to take the steps you suggest will never be taken over by advocates of the NAP. Never."
This is the absolute essence of the argument. Do you seriously think that it is possible to argue your enemies into defeat? Do you think the left will ever accept this? We are up against Democracy and Empire. What do you propose we do to fight it?
I am from California. This place is headed for a hybrid of Rio and South Africa. Whites are a minority here already and the opportunity to take back the state from socialist third worlders and leftists has disappeared. It probably wont be long before they disarm us completely and we are left to our inevitable fate. Extinction.
“What do you propose we do to fight it?”
DeleteYou first.
It is one thing to advocate that government stop doing stupid things from today forward. It is quite another to advocate for the government to do the things you recommend.
Walk me through how your plan will work in California. Step by step: how will you get sufficient numbers to join your cause? How will you enforce your rules? How will you ensure such power stays in the hands of the converted? Once you succeed in California, how will you handle the pressure from the Federal government?
What if non-Anglos buy-in to the NAP? Will they be allowed to stay? Who will decide? How will this loyalty be policed? How much power and privacy intrusion will be necessary to properly police this loyalty?
What if a husband swears allegiance but not his wife? What if a loyal property owner is willing to allow his non-believing relatives to live on his property? Will you advocate violating his property rights?
How much violence will be involved, realistically, to export the undesirables? Who will decide who the undesirable is? What if they don’t go peacefully?
Describe the state power necessary to achieve these necessary preconditions. Provide examples in history when such state power was used for good. You regularly seem to avoid this aspect of my comments.
You are describing the most tremendous civil war in history. Describe situations in history when such violence led to better ends. Explain how the cost was worth that price.
I see a different way; it may not be successful, but it is the only way that offers a chance. In any case, this way is making progress – it is visible all around us. It is visible globally. Of course, this path is also subject to failure – even catastrophe – but it is the only possible path to achieve success.
But this is for another time. You first.
"Walk me through how your plan will work in California"
DeleteCalifornia is doomed unless we got a Trump type president who would deport the South Americans and Mexicans. It wont happen on a State level. Once that is achieved I would suggest breaking CA up into multiple states, 3 or more. This may actually be possible since I have heard leftists in NorCal talk about it. Once that happens we would need a concerted effort to move our people (right-wing, libertarian leaning) into one of the newly created states and take over the government of that State. These people don't even need to be from California.
I believe the Free State project actually had the right idea. I think demographic warfare is the best way to fight in America. Therefore you want to oppose demographic trends that work against you and support those that work for you.
As for handling the pressure from the Feds: the trick is to get similar things going elsewhere, particularly the South, the NW, Texas, and Montana. We would then form a federation with these other regions and begin a pan-secessionist struggle against D.C.
"What if non-Anglos buy-in to the NAP? Will they be allowed to stay? Who will decide? How will this loyalty be policed? How much power and privacy intrusion will be necessary to properly police this loyalty?"
Yes they will be allowed to stay. It will be decided by the sovereign acting on behalf of the community as a whole. How that person(s) comes to the position of decision maker is technical and it will vary between different societies.
The amount of force and intrusion will depend on scale. Obviously a community of 50 people is easier to police in this regard than one of 500,000.
"
What if a husband swears allegiance but not his wife? What if a loyal property owner is willing to allow his non-believing relatives to live on his property? Will you advocate violating his property rights?"
Yes. I don't think its a violation because what would be occurring is that his importing of people is a threat to other members of the community. It is unlikely that a few people would pose a problem, but the danger is in the precedent. Next thing you know a corporation is building a village for foreigners to work in their factory. One way to deal with this would be to hold the sponsors completely responsible for what their people do. If one of these people commits rape or murder against a citizen then the sponsor should be executed.
"How much violence will be involved, realistically, to export the undesirables? Who will decide who the undesirable is? What if they don’t go peacefully?"
As much force as necessary. Minimal force is recommended but if they resist lethal force would be warranted. There are many forms of undesirables, and this is why you would create categorical rules like no Africans or no Arabs. It would be the same thing with crime and punishment in the natural population. You need certain red-lines that determine when you would be physically removed.
These are things that can be worked out in a given society. I have no desire to impose my model on everyone, but these are the types of question that any sovereign community would have to ask. Maybe they will accept anyone who makes a certain amount of money or who scores above some bar on an IQ test, or who are Christian.
"Describe the state power necessary to achieve these necessary preconditions. Provide examples in history when such state power was used for good. You regularly seem to avoid this aspect of my comments."
DeleteI am not sure what I am avoiding. Do you mean I avoid providing examples of State power being used for good? I don't see myself as an advocate for State power, but an advocate for emergency measures and sovereignty in a pluralistic sense.
An obvious example would be the expulsion of Muslims from Europe by Charles Martel or aspects of the Crusades. Another topical example would be the conquest of Palestine by the Israeli's (good for Israelis, bad for us and non-jews in Palestine).
History is full of conquest and ethnic cleansing. Usually its bad for one side and good for another.
The Israeli state certainly does a good job of looking out for the interests of their people. So does the American state (in relation to Israeli interests).
Once again, back to HHH. In Democracy the God that Failed Hoppe argued the superiority of Monarchy over Democracy. Part of the reason Monarchies were good was that it was possible to look after the common interests by defending the capital value of the kingdom. If you want to take a raw economic view, a state is good if it does that. Therefore any State action that improves the lot of its people then this is good. Obviously we don't need a State in the modern sense for that but you do need a State-like entity that is capable of long term planning for the benefit of a community.
The state power that is necessary is simply sovereignty, which Carl Schmitt would define as "he who makes the exception." Ideally this would be a rare occurrence used only to deal with threats that cannot be solved on an individual basis. In this case it would the use of armed forces to restrict entry or physically remove people deemed by the sovereign to be bad. Any heuristic could be used to make this decision. Perhaps midgets are a threat to the social order. Remove midgets.
My view of the State is that it is historically contingent. Different states have in fact been necessary for their time periods, and I do actually believe the West can have a quasi-stateless order in the distant future, but only after all threats to that order have been significantly suppressed.
Thank you.
DeleteCount me out. Your plan will get millions killed and end in tyranny. This is certain.
You expect violent revolution will succeed, and this in perhaps the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Not a chance.
I do not wish you luck as I do not have a death wish - neither for me or my neighbors and friends.
How does a pan-secessionist revolt end in tyranny? Is it because you believe it is doomed to fail? Obviously if it succeeded that would mean victory.
DeleteWhile I disagree with your assessment that this means violent revolution, I am willing to admit that is a possible outcome. I don't see a 100% non-violent solution as possible. I certainly do not have a death wish but I am willing to fight and die if need be.
If you have a plan to peacefully dismantle the empire and restore sovereignty to local communities I am all ears.
“How does a pan-secessionist revolt end in tyranny?”
DeleteThe overwhelming police state necessary to pull off what you suggest will not be contained toward your ends. Any movement toward secession by the means you advocate will result in violent reaction by the overwhelmingly more powerful state and federal authorities. But I have said this too many times, so we are talking past each other.
“If you have a plan to peacefully dismantle the empire and restore sovereignty to local communities I am all ears.”
No plan. An expectation…or hope.
Depending on when you want to start the clock, there is more freedom today than in any recent time. It is certainly true in China and the former Soviet Republics. It is true in the USA: no draft, no major wars, nothing like FDR’s economy. I much prefer this to life during anytime from 1914 – 1975. These are not small things.
The state is failing. Examples are all around us. Decentralization is increasing. Examples are all around us. Alternative political movements are expanding. Examples are all around us. Larger states are breaking up into smaller states. Examples are all around us. The ability to get at the truth is available and being utilized by many; the ability to expose the lies and expose these to many is increasing. Examples are all around us.
The state’s promises are being exposed as lies. Faith in the state will correspondingly decrease.
In the meantime, we are in a battle of ideas. People are looking for answers, and more will do so as the state’s failures increase. If enough – not even a majority – accept some semblance of the NAP, we can move toward a better condition. Not a libertarian utopia, but a better condition.
That’s my expectation…or hope. In the meantime, if I can educate those around me – those whom I care about – then this is sufficient. If I can help educate a few who read this blog, even better.
"The question is: what do you suggest we do with those whose fettered and biologically determined will is not to your liking?"
ReplyDeleteWe do as Hans Herman Hoppe would suggest: physically remove them from our societies.
If HHH advocates removing individuals who are not violating the NAP, then I guess he and I part ways.
DeleteIt isn't hard to argue from a NAP framework for the physical removal of hostile groups. I personally don't care about the universalist NAP even though I believe that ultimately what I want is defensible from a NAP perspective. If that is your perspective I am perfectly willing to argue within that framework for the time being.
DeleteIt is a 100% defensive measure in essence. Furthermore I would expect to see alot of covenant communities in a PPS, and therefore there is no aggression involved in excluding people from a society, and removing them if they need to be removed.
If you haven't watched the videos from the past 3 PFS gatherings I highly recommend them. HHH talks about right-wing counter-culture in one. Apparently HHH calls himself an Anarcho-fascist. I like this term and would apply it to myself.
“It isn't hard to argue from a NAP framework for the physical removal of hostile groups.”
DeleteAs you state “physical removal” it is clear you are not speaking of covenants beforehand but actions after the fact.
There is no NAP framework to deal with hostile groups. There is an NAP framework to deal with hostile individuals; there is an NAP framework to deal with hostile individuals who act together as a group; there is no NAP framework to deal with individuals who live by the NAP who also happen to be part of an “unwanted” group.
If the only way libertarians win is to follow this path, we will lose – we will have lost before we start.
There are other ways to achieve similar ends; the market will find ways to make unwanted behaviors very expensive. This, combined with covenants will shape communities to the liking of the locals.
In any case, no need to argue about it with me within this or any other framework. I won’t spend time on this argument.
"There is no NAP framework to deal with hostile groups"
ReplyDeleteIf a group is by definition hostile to property rights, for example Communists or Muslim Theocrats, then it is perfectly reasonable to say that if you are a member of this group you are not welcome. If I can demonstrate the same thing about non-ideological categories then it is a valid claim.
"If the only way libertarians win is to follow this path, we will lose – we will have lost before we start."
It is the only way and winning is not losing.
"There are other ways to achieve similar ends; the market will find ways to make unwanted behaviors very expensive. This, combined with covenants will shape communities to the liking of the locals."
I agree that in the long run this is probably all that will be required. But we have to achieve the proper pre-conditions for that long run.
"In any case, no need to argue about it with me within this or any other framework. I won’t spend time on this argument."
This argument is essential because it deal with the existential requirements of the society you want to achieve. The reason HHH is my favorite libertarian is that he seems to actually be interested in winning and is willing to wade into these troubled waters.
I don't wish to deny living space to other peoples I just want to be able to have a society that isn't open to others. I would also like that society to be more or less libertarian.
"There is no NAP framework to deal with hostile groups"
ReplyDeleteThis is correct. Nor is there any NAP framework to deal with hostile states, either. A fully anarchist libertarian society gets defeated by hostile groups or hostile states 10 times out of 10. This fact argues against the possibility of the existence of such a society, relying as it does on the goodwill of others.
The fact is that the some states have put certain nations in precarious situations. For example, the unnatural monstrosity that is the state of Belgium has forced two nations into an unwanted union, those nations being the Flemish and Walloons. While keeping these two nations captive they have brought in, very deliberately, Middle Eastern and North African muslims. A showdown is coming between these peoples.
I don't see any situation in which the NAP could resolve this issue. Therefore the NAP is an insufficient condition for liberty for the 'Belgians'.
At some point a state is going to decide the National Question for the Walloons, Flemish, and Muslims in Belgium, and it may entail separation (Flemish and Walloon), conquest (by the muslims), or removal (of the muslims). In any event the NAP isn't going to play a role and can't play a role when you have mortar rockets falling all around you.
To me there is no moral question here.
“Therefore the NAP is an insufficient condition for liberty for the 'Belgians'.”
DeleteAs we (I believe it was with you) have discussed, the NAP is not sufficient even for a reasonably functional community. Culture matters.
“At some point a state is going to decide the National Question…”
The state will likely decide, no doubt. But the state will reflect what the people desire or at least what they will tolerate. Unfortunately, the people in Belgium (and much of Western Europe) can’t even decide to stop the flow of immigrants at even this point (although the rise of alternative parties should not be discounted) – which can be done perfectly consistently with the NAP. Without deciding this, there is little chance to avoid the likely outcome – significant violence and potentially war.
“To me there is no moral question here.”
When it comes to war, there is always a moral question. Unfortunately the political leaders have made decisions that make war within Europe more likely, not less.
If we were to construct political spectrum bell curves for various ethnic groups with one end being a totalitarian police state and the other a NAP libertarian society, perhaps we would discover that Jews are over represented at both ends. True, statism seems to attract lots of Jewish activists and advocates, but where would the libertarian movement be without its many influential Jewish intellectuals?
ReplyDeleteFor whatever reasons different ethnic, racial and religious groups are over represented in all kinds of trades and occupations. Some examples which come to mind: Germans are over represented in classical music composition; French in structural engineering accomplishments; Nordics in modern architecture; Italians in all sorts of flamboyant product design; Irish in the written word; Greeks in the food service industry; Mexicans in landscaping services and the drywall industry; Blacks in athletics; Koreans in dry cleaning and Indians in franchises and software code writing. Likewise, perhaps modern political and economic theory of all sorts is a magnet for Jewish minds.
"This is correct. Nor is there any NAP framework to deal with hostile states, either. "
ReplyDeleteMatt, I agree with this but I was trying to adapt Carl Schmitt to Hans Herman Hoppe in a way that might be palpable to libertarians. I think it can be done.
What are your views on possible solutions?
In an anarcho-capitalist framework? None. I don't even think that anarcho-capitalism is possible without a one world government, which makes it self contradictory. Anarcho-capitalism is only possible in a vacuum, not the real world.
DeleteSometimes you will see anarcho-capitalists claim that there can be 'private security agencies', which are just state stand-in statist entities - ie, a rhetorical bait and switch. Libya under Ghaddafi was one such 'stateless' society.
I agree with Carl Schmitt that ultimately someone is going to be sovereign, and facing this reality that someone will be sovereign the question then becomes 'who' will be sovereign, and for the benefit of 'whom'.
I don't think you necessarily have to reconcile libertarianism with these other ideas since the vast majority of libertarians are not so ideological anyway. A big part of this stems from the recent rise of libertarianism, especially since the 2008 presidential campaign of Ron Paul.
Why the sudden rise in libertarianism worldwide? I believe it is because many regular people have seen the state act against the interests of its native people, and in the favor of foreigners or minority peoples. The state has granted various privileges, benefits, funds and money, to foreigners and minorities, and enacted laws that discriminate against white people, passed laws criminalizing speech by white people, and so on. Seeing the state doing this they have decided that the state itself is the problem, and thus became libertarians. Of course this only applies to white, European derived countries. I have been all over the world, even North Korea, and only the European derived states behave in this way, so the problem isn't essential to the nature of the state. These types of libertarians you will have no trouble convincing.
We can only go forward, not backwards. Free speech is a dead letter. Its gone. Freedom minded people can't have their speech criminalized while defending the 'free speech' of vitriolic advocacy of genocide by their opponents. That's a losing strategy.
Since they demand hate speech laws (they already have it in my country), then lets give it to them in spades. Criminalize anti-white hate speech. Criminalize speech like "Oscars too white", or "too many white firemen". Criminalize denigration of the nation's history. Bring charges of genocide on anyone that spreads 'white privilege' propaganda.
Something like this is going or happen, OR there won't be a western civilization in 50 years. People are going to have to decide whether they are willing to take their own side or not.
"Since they demand hate speech laws (they already have it in my country), then lets give it to them in spades. Criminalize anti-white hate speech. Criminalize speech like "Oscars too white", or "too many white firemen". Criminalize denigration of the nation's history. Bring charges of genocide on anyone that spreads 'white privilege' propaganda."
DeleteThat's a lot of misery in the name of hoped for long term "improvement".
"Sometimes you will see anarcho-capitalists claim that there can be 'private security agencies', which are just state stand-in statist entities - ie, a rhetorical bait and switch."
Look, no doubt that "defense"/security is a huge issue within libertarian thought/logic. I can fully understand why you and others have doubt as to whether a private form of security can successfully supplant what has been a government function for some time.
The fact remains though that even the Founders understood the danger of "standing armies", you have the Swiss that have employed a somewhat successful model for some time(though still compulsory) that is different from most of the world- the models proposed by Block et al are just that, "proposals"- we don't how such thing could develop in a power "vacuum" as you put it.
That is all not withstanding the constant march of technology that continues to make personal defense even more effective as time goes on.
So while I understand your concerns and the majority that hold them, it doesn't detract from the constant loop of failure on a long time line that is government. Logically, in a vacuum, living by the NAP and without a non-voluntary government seems the only way to logically speaking to stop the failure, avoid the suffering, etc.
That you have concerns about it's application in the "real world" is understandable, but it doesn't address any championing for the failed notion of government not operating on the basis of the NAP.(whether such a thing could ever exist to start is debatable, but let us refer to HOA's to start as an example- or in essence a "contract society" that doesn't presuppose your agreement to said contract and where said contract is actually enforceable)
Also, this is not a "rhetorical bait and switch" as you put it- because a private defense force would be voluntary funded and operating significantly differently than the current traditional/widespread model of funding by involuntary methods(taxation) and the according lack of control/accountability.
"Libya under Ghaddafi was one such 'stateless' society."
I'm confused by this statement, in a brief look back at Libya "under Ghaddafi" via Wikipedia, I can find no time under which there wasn't a functioning government. Can you explain to me when you think this statelessness existed?
"Criminalize anti-white hate speech"
ReplyDeleteI suggested this above. I believe we are on the same page here man.
Nick, the private security agencies won't work. They break down the instant you start to consider the issue of free-riding. Even then they will just be pseudo state agencies. The only difference will be their alleged private nature.
ReplyDeleteLibya was similar in that it was officially a government-less direct democracy.
Matt
DeleteExplain the issue of "free-riding." Compare and contrast this concern in a private security world to a) today's world, and b) your ideal world.
Thanks
Bionic, no problem with free-riding in security since everyone is either forced to pay for it, put their life on the line for it, or both.
DeleteIn an anarcho-capitalist society no one could be forced to pay, and free-riding becomes trivially easy to do. The whole thing will break down and the "private security agencies" will eventually force people to pay, essentially becoming a state entity.
The best option is to have a minimal state. Security is a pre-requisite for private property since private property is a social construct.
Matt
DeleteYou don't comment on free-riding in today's environment - which is widespread. And you don't comment on the likelihood (certainty) of free-riding in your minimalist state.
This is my only point: there will always be free-riding. While I believe there will be less of it in an anarcho environment, this is secondary to my point.
My first paragraph refers to the current situation. The state and tax you or out you on the front line. That's not free riding. An anarcho—capitalist situation can't force you to do either and most probably will not contribute.
DeleteMatt, I am not sure I understand: "The state and tax you or out you on the front line." I am guessing there is a type or two, or the meaning is way above my head.
Delete"The only difference will be their alleged private nature."
DeleteI don't understand this- if someone or some group of people voluntarily contract with a private security agency, how can it be "alleged"?
I'll leave BM to explore your free rider argument.
"Libya was similar in that it was officially a government-less direct democracy."
That doesn't seem to reflect the history as written in wiki:
"The General People's Congress of Libya was the national legislature of Muammar Gaddafi's Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya governance structure. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_People's_Congress_%28Libya%29
You see the word "governance" in there? I could buy your argument is said governance was voluntary(direct democracy doesn't make it so) or in accordance to the NAP.
In fact, this "statelessness" you claim for Libya appears to feature a ton of ministers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_People's_Committee
I really can't buy your argument that Libya was "stateless" Matt. If you've a link or something a bit more compelling I'm open to it.
Dude,I'm not saying that Libya was without government or really stateless, I am saying that is what the Libyan government was claiming. Read "The Green Book", which describes the ideology of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. What I am saying is that your anarcho-capitalist private agencies would be as fake as the so called non-government in Libya.
ReplyDeleteApologies, BM. The state can tax you or send you to the front line to fight. That's the opposite of free riding (forced riding).
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
In a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society no one could prevent you from benefiting, for free, from the collective defense of other members of the society. Ultimately the free riders will be forced to pay (thus ending anarcho-capitalism).
There are free riders even in this state. There are free riders today. Even if the state "can" tax or "send" you, there are free riders.
DeleteThere will always be free riders in any system. I believe there will be fewer the more market driven are the choices, but no need to debate this.
There will always be free riders. There are today.
BM, you are changing the definition of free riding to something other than the accepted definition. If you want to say there are people out there that don't pay taxes or whatever, that's true but irrelevant. Unless we can stay on the same page in terms of definitions then we can't communicate.
DeleteMatt
DeleteI thought about giving up on this conversation many comments ago. The post is about Jews, and you have turned it into something else entirely.
Your comment here has convinced me it is time to move on.
https://mises.org/library/free-rider-basis-government-intervention-0
The "free rider problem," arising from the fact that an individual may be able to obtain the benefits of a good without contributing to the cost….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
In economics, the free rider problem occurs when those who benefit from resources, goods, or services do not pay for them….
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/#ExpColAct
…if n is very large and you do not contribute to our collective effort, the rest of us might still benefit from providing our collective good, so that you benefit without contributing. You are then a free rider on the efforts of the rest of us.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/free_rider_problem.asp
The free rider problem, in economics, refers to a situation where some individuals in a population either consume more than their fair share of a common resource, or pay less than their fair share of the cost of a common resource.