Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Do You Hate the State and If So Why?



So asks Unhappy Conservative (2.0), in a comment thread begun at September 3, 2017 at 1:43 PM.  Like a couple of other replies, I must admit I do not grasp the meaning fully of where UC is headed in his comments that began the dialogue.  In order to bring focus to the discussion, UC then asked the question that appears as the title of this post.  It is through this question that I intend to work here.

I believe it is clear that UC is not looking for an abstract reason for hating the state; in fact, he basically says so:

“…you cannot really hate an abstraction unless you are on levels of autism that shouldn't be possible.”

His use of the word “autism” is no accident.  He uses this term to describe libertarians who are unable to reason beyond the chanting of “NAP, NAP, NAP.”  In other words, autistic libertarians.  I have come to both understand and accept his view – there are some libertarians, very prominent, that cannot think beyond this when it comes to applying this political theory to real humans.  So, they chant.

“What you should hate is the actual state, not the idea of a state.”

So, I will give this a go.

Hate: to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest.

As Hans Herman Hoppe would say, the state is a producer of bads.  It is easy to say I hate everything that the state does because it does it all via coercion: I must pay whatever the state demands and only it decides the services (for lack of a better term) it will provide and the quality of those services.

But this isn’t quite right, at least not for me.  Detest?  Allow me to stumble through an explanation. 

I can place state actions into three buckets: first, those which I would never pay for voluntarily no matter the level of or quality of service; second, those I would pay for voluntarily, but not for the type of service that is provided by the state; third, those that I would pay for voluntarily in any case.

Remember, we don’t get utopia in a world of humans.  If I expected utopia, I would pretty much spend every waking moment hating everything about everyone.

The services in the first category, I hate.  The services in the second category, I hate – but a little less because they at least are in the neighborhood of a product I would voluntarily pay for.  The services in the third category, I can live with – even if performed by an entity that can force me to pay.

Not pure NAP, I know.  But not all violations by the state are created equal.

Forgive me now, as the gray between these categories may be as wide as each category.  I will only offer simple examples.

The third category is easiest: protect my life and property.  If a state does this well, I would not only not hate the state, I would welcome the state (I can see Walter cringing now).  I would pay for this protection and not complain that some new Grace Commission found that $2.73 could be saved if such services were privatized. 

(As we know, in too many ways the state does precisely the opposite of protecting my life and property – but more on that later.)

Streets and libraries.  I would pay for both of these; I do not “hate” the state for being the monopoly provider of these.  While I believe each can be done more efficiently if left fully to the market…let’s just say, I have overpaid for bad quality and poor service more than once in my life.  I can live without “hate” in such circumstances.

The second category: how about police?  I would pay voluntarily for some form of security and investigative service.  For example, I would pay for the monopoly provider Andy Griffith of Mayberry; in no way shape or form would I pay for the militarized police state of today.

Education?  It is a dastardly reality: “the state will educate your children,” which really means that the state will “indoctrinate” your children.  Yet, at least in the United States (and several other countries), one is free to pursue alternative means of education for their children (private schools, homeschools).  So, if I have any hate here, perhaps it should be aimed at the parents who allow their children to be indoctrinated by the state such that they become my future enemies.

How about money and credit?  I certainly hate that the state control of money and credit gives it almost unlimited means to pursue items in the next (being first) category, but it is the items in the next category that I hate the most. 

Why do I not totally hate this monopoly?  Having a common medium of exchange is valuable – of course, I would prefer the market to determine this, but this doesn’t eliminate the value of a common medium of exchange.


The first category?  I will tell you what I hate, unequivocally: I hate that the state leaves me no privacy; every aspect of my life is known to the state or can be known if desired, every single one.  I hate that the state goes overseas and destroys the lives of millions of people annually. 

I hate that the state has the ability to destroy life on the planet before the time it takes you to read this post.  I hate that the state, instead of protecting my life and property, considers my life and property its own.  I hate that the state plays both prosecutor and judge.

Now, as a reminder, these lists should not be considered exhaustive; I merely use these to give some concrete form to the question “why do I hate the state?”

And with this, I look forward to UC’s response and further clarification.

Bonus Discussion

UC goes on, with a statement that I would have considered blasphemous ten years ago…maybe even five years ago:

My question for these people [he means libertarians of a certain type, I believe] is what specifically do you oppose about the empire? You say you are antiwar but you affirm the ideological premises on which the empire is built!

True opposition to the empire must strike at the root and this empire is built on the premises of liberalism.

Many libertarians would cringe at this statement; I used to, but not anymore. 

If I were to pick the one sentence that best describes liberalism, it would be: “all men are created equal.”  There was a time that these words would move me emotionally to tears.  There is a utopian idea in this phrase that is very attractive.  No more.

If one wants to discuss this idea of men being created equal in Christian, Biblical terms, have at it.  But these words were written in a political document, and these words certainly aren’t interpreted today with the Bible as the underlying foundation to the political order.

In other words, liberalism – just like libertarianism, its more complete extension – must be grounded in something; there must be some underlying foundation.  I have argued that it is pointless and even dangerous to advocate for such things absent a strong cultural foundation.  The traditional, patriarchal, western, Christian foundation is a good place to start.

So…absent such a foundation… “All men created equal,” in the political world, inherently must result in democracy with universal suffrage – if you disagree, please explain why.  Democracy with universal suffrage results in my life and property being left to the whims of everyone else’s vote.  In other words, precisely what the United States is today – and today’s United States is the best case.

Take a look at this list of countries with the word “democratic” in the name: authoritarian, almost to the last.  For example, North Korea, Laos, and Congo.  No longer on the list, but how about the German Democratic Republic?

There was a time, one hundred years ago, when serious political philosophers understood that democracy equals communism; two hundred years ago, the word democracy – certainly among America’s founding generation – was associated with tyranny.  Democracy in France in 1789 certainly was tyrannical.

In the political arena, I have come to learn how “all men are created equal” is the doorway to international, one-world government; destruction of property and life.  In other words, the doorway to communism and tyranny.  Nice political sentiments are one thing; putting nice political sentiments into human action rarely results in utopia.

But, those are my words.  I have done my part.  I would like to read UC’s expansion of his statements.

78 comments:

  1. modern man’s commitment to the messianic state
    begins with his commitment to war, not socialism.


    taxes and entitlements begin with militarism
    centralization of power too
    welfare for the war veterans too
    What is the longest-running socialist experiment in america? reservations.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/08/gary-north/antiwar-conservative/

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/04/gary-north/robert-nisbet-on-conservatism/


    THE QUEST FOR COMMUNITY
    Nisbet’s book was an explanation of the rise of totalitarian political movements.  

    The evidence is strong that the typical convert to communism is a person for whom the processes of ordinary existence are morally empty and spiritually insupportable.

     He went on to describe the emotional impact of war.
     
    He went on to say that socialism is promoted during wartime.

     Nisbet was arguing clearly that the impulse toward modern warfare is inherently anti-conservative.
    No nation in history has ever managed permanent war and a permanent military Leviathan at its heart and been able to maintain a truly representative character. The transformation of the Roman Republic into the dictatorial empire was accomplished solely through war and the military.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/05/gary-north/war-and-the-messianic-state/


    Back in 1953, conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet wrote a book on the origins of European totalitarianism. It was titled The Quest for Community. He attributed the rise of totalitarianism to a similar loss of a sense of community that took place in Western Europe in the first half of the 20th century. He attributed this to the ideology of statism, which defines human existence in terms of citizenship rather that the traditional associations that had built Western civilization: family, churches, charitable societies, social clubs, and brotherhoods — what he called intermediary institutions. He traced this back to Rousseau’s concept of the general will, which is exclusively political. He traced it back to the French Revolution, in which people referred to each other as “citizen.” He ultimately traced it back to Plato.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/07/gary-north/liberals-cry-despair/

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/02/gary-north/libertys-greatest-enemy/

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/10962.cfm

    https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/neoconservatism-vs-christian-reconstruction


    Gary North + Ludwig von Mises

    max

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seven Gary North cites in one comment - this really is a micro-aggression against me!

      :-)

      Delete
  2. "even if performed by an entity that can force me to pay."

    That's it, isn't it? Forced to pay. The use of force with impunity is why government grows from those services you like into others you detest. Which is why the option of acceptable government services should be avoided in the first place.

    "You say you are antiwar but you affirm the ideological premises on which the empire is built! True opposition to the empire must strike at the root and this empire is built on the premises of liberalism."

    I'm not anti-war. I am pro peace. Defensive wars are sometimes inevitable and justifiable. I would pick up a gun and defend if necessary.

    Are we talking modern or classic U.S. liberalism? Which "equal", the positive or negative rights version?

    It seems like the latter in both cases, so with that in mind, and given my understanding of the accompanying tenets at the founding of the liberal system in the states, how do we get empire from it? Negative rights liberalism even precluded taxation at first (tariffs only), with the warning that we'd be fine unless or until we voted ourselves the treasury's largess. We had a Republic if we could keep it. We didn't. We gradually strayed into mercantilism and then onto various forms of socialism - both more than capable of buying off a country's freedoms and growing empire. Simply print money.

    But does freedom require a strong cultural foundation - along the lines of a Christian patriarchal system - to exist, or does it provide an environment for that culture's creation and/or survival? Thomas Davidson wrote, “That which is not free is not responsible, and that which is not responsible is not moral. In other words, freedom is the condition of morality.”

    I’m not entirely sure. I believe that Christianity was essential in creating the juxtaposition of powers necessary for the advent of classical liberal thought. However, I believe that non-Christian, non-patriarchal systems could also function within an environment of freedom.

    As we've exchanged freedom for safety and security, we've altered the environment that foments the proper culture, allowing for a cultural shift. It could simply be that most humans never truly wanted the attendant responsibilities to begin with. As Jefferson wrote, “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.”

    Or maybe this one: “Most people ... aren't just ignorant or stupid: they genuinely prefer government control of their own and their neighbors' lives. We can hand out flyers for the rest of our lives, publish as many books as we like, make speeches until we're blue in the face, and most of them aren't going to change their minds. While they disagree among themselves about the details, authoritarians of one sort or another constitute an overwhelming majority.” – Max Orhai

    Well, up to and until their livelihood becomes so reprehensible that they would die to change their circumstances. As Hayek wrote, “… there is reason to fear that unlimited power in the hands of the people will grow farther and be even more pernicious in its effects than power exercised by few." At some point, things could deteriorate to a degree that we may wish to end democracy.


    Ugh, sure would like to clean some of this post up. Too busy. Time to start lessons with my home-schoolers. I’m not sure I made any case, really, but I’m not exactly sure that Unhappy or Bionic did either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really like your comment.

      I'm not really sure what to do with BM's post, I need days to digest it- but I will drop one small comment based on what popped into my head as I read it:

      If we say a libertarian based society could yield an outcome where people voluntarily choose to live in a communist society in some areas, we must also accept the notion that other forms of polity would also appear in other areas.

      But, what is the key ingredient that theoretically would separate these potential forms from what exists around the world today?

      Voluntaryism (if they are libertarian/NAP respecting)

      It is the reason I keep going back like a broken record to the notion of an HOA. The biggest flaw despite the numerous smaller ones of the Constitution is it's assumption that we all agree with the "Social Contract".

      Who in their right mind agree with a contract that in essence would provide no remedy for those breaking it?

      Even if we grant the Constitution had such remedies, hasn't it been clearly abrogated? If that's the case, then the "contract" we are assumed to agree to isn't valid anyway.

      Here's the problem,in handing over our "freedom" to such an entity we've also handed them the knives with which they slit our throats.(using our own money)

      Speaking from a utilitarian perspective(let the boos/hisses commence)-the only counterbalance to this I can see if a competitive(free?) market in sovereigns/states. The whole vote with your feet thing- though most totalitarian states seem to eventually resort to keeping their people/cattle "in".(or simply take your stuff before you leave)

      To some extent, I suspect it's why Lew Rockwell used to refer to the superiority of the Articles of the Confederation(decentralization/localization) from time to time in concept and practice. (it's been a while since he's done so)

      So while at this time I'm not going to agree or disagree with BM's statement as I need more time to digest it, I do know for a fact that any system of polity not incorporating an ACTUAL contract(operating charter?) on a voluntary basis(that includes viable remedies for breakage) is going to most likely move towards totalitarianism over time.

      Delete
    2. Nick, I mostly agree with you, but the flaw of an HOA/contract/operating charter is the same as the constitution - it's just a piece of paper. No amount of ink can create a liberty-minded polity. Even if Americans had to sign the constitution as a legally binding contract, it would make no difference. Government officials swear to uphold the constitution all the time, which may as well be a signature.

      I don't accept that "a libertarian based society could yield an outcome where people voluntarily choose to live in a communist society." That is, I accept it might happen, but I believe that type of community would always and quickly violate the broader contract and become a rogue despotic nation hell-bent on infiltrating neighboring communities. There's a reason Hoppe calls for the seemingly NAP-violating expulsion of leftists in his ideal society.

      The Swiss federalist system, for instance, has worked and been upheld for so long not because Swiss citizens sign a contract or pledge an oath, but because localism is deeply ingrained in their customs/norms. It started off as a cultural value, not a political declaration or contract.

      Delete
    3. All

      It is clear that this topic will require at least one follow-up post; given the value of the feedback so far, and I suspect still to come, I don’t want to shortchange the conversation with brief responses. I want to let the comments run for a while and go from there.

      With this said, there are few points I would like to address now:

      Brutus: “That's it, isn't it? Forced to pay.”

      BM: I don’t think so. I don’t hate the state (detest) because I am forced to pay for the library. Do I like being forced to pay for the library? No, but this isn’t why I hate the state.

      Another example: from what I understand of the decentralization in Switzerland, I would find little to hate (detest) regarding the state. so much control is local. Yet, even within my canton, I could be outvoted by the majority. But at least I know my neighbors….

      Brutus: “Time to start lessons with my home-schoolers.”

      BM: a far more important mission…

      Brutus: “I’m not sure I made any case, really, but I’m not exactly sure that Unhappy or Bionic did either.”

      Nick: “I'm not really sure what to do with BM's post…”

      BM: Brutus, I won’t speak for UC; I am sure I haven’t made my case. Nick, nor am I.

      UC has a way of asking some uncomfortable questions; this certainly is one. This was first asked three days ago; as it wasn’t asked of me, I felt I could ignore dealing with it and stay hidden in my shell. Eventually I decided that if I wanted to understand myself better, I had to write it out and get feedback.

      Anyway, I am going to let this run for a bit; I may offer minor comments here and there but as mentioned, it seems to me that I must work through another post – based on the feedback – in order to sort out my thoughts. So, maybe in a day or two.

      Delete
    4. @ Stayton

      "Even if Americans had to sign the constitution as a legally binding contract, it would make no difference. "

      Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that was the case.

      I am suggesting though, that a contract that is better written per my notes above has a better chance of succeeding.

      In fact, I think we are very close to each other in outlook because the Swiss Confederacy has codified it's cultural norms via it's own constitution- obviously to more success by Western metrics than the US Constitution.

      Delete
    5. @ Nick

      "Here's the problem,in handing over our "freedom" to such an entity we've also handed them the knives with which they slit our throats.(using our own money)"

      So true, and it almost seems that most wouldn't care if others get their throats slit, so long as they get their government goodies.

      "the only counterbalance to this I can see if a competitive(free?) market in sovereigns/states"

      I agree. This is why I mentioned the juxtaposition of powers. They must compete. It is why a one-world government seems suspect to me.

      @ C. Stayton

      "it's just a piece of paper"

      And it's been interpreted to favor that very entity that it brought into being: the government.

      "because localism is deeply ingrained in their customs/norms. It started off as a cultural value, not a political declaration or contract."

      Makes you wonder why other places with a strong dose of localism didn't hold to it. Maybe the fact that the Swiss had all those machine guns, nobody could enter in and change the culture?

      Delete
    6. @ Bionic

      " I don’t think so. I don’t hate the state (detest) because I am forced to pay for the library. Do I like being forced to pay for the library? No, but this isn’t why I hate the state.

      Another example: from what I understand of the decentralization in Switzerland, I would find little to hate (detest) regarding the state. so much control is local. Yet, even within my canton, I could be outvoted by the majority. But at least I know my neighbors…."

      My broader point in that volley was not that some state services aren't too bad (they pick up my garbage every week, for example), but that inherent ability to force money from my pocket allows the state the ability to grow and become something that, over time, could become detrimental to civilization itself. Local state conveniences are the gateway drugs to tyranny. :D

      Swiss cantons are pretty neat, imo... for a form of government organization. Still, even Switzerland has shown some cracks lately, mostly due to outside pressures threatening to take away trade. That's another can of worms: maintaining a free society while the pressures of a socialist world bear down on your island.

      "a far more important mission"

      Damn straight. I come here for the history used in my classes; an inestimable resource. I stay for the theoretical sport.

      Delete
    7. "BM: Brutus, I won’t speak for UC; I am sure I haven’t made my case..."

      This is what I was thinking as well.

      I agreed with everything UC wrote when I first read his post, especially the part about the empire having its roots in liberalism. I agreed with what you wrote as well, BM, but I don't see how it counters what UC wrote.

      It makes me think it's a good thing the eventual fall of the empire won't spawn a new/great society of libertarians. What a mess we could make! I would prefer going straight to some ultra authoritarian system, so everyone will know what to hate right away.

      I'm not sure the question of what to hate about the state is even meaningful. I don't necessarily hate the state any more than I hate hurricanes. They're both big and destructive and impossible to control, and they are apparently the natural order of things.

      So hating hurricanes is wasted effort. Instead, one looks to minimize their impact: gain knowledge of their movements and power, protection from their effects, and when all else fails escape from their path. Is it really any different with states?



      Delete
    8. Brutus,

      I have a long post coming but wanted to address something briefly because I was going to mention it but decided to leave it out for clarity.....but then you mentioned it.

      >Are we talking modern or classic U.S. liberalism? Which "equal", the positive or negative rights version?

      One begets the other. There is no denying that liberalism is based in negation. Negation of the group, affirmation of the individual. Negation of the old order (the true state), affirmation of rule by individuals, etc. Positive liberty and negative liberty are based on the same premise: the individual is entitled to political rights by having been born. All that is needed for negative rights to become defacto positive rights is to apply a double negative, and lo behold that is exactly what happened.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

      Also look at the civil rights "movement." It essentially boils down to "freedom from discrimination." See what they did there?

      As for the question of how the republic became an empire, my opinion is that it was baked into the pie for two reasons.

      1. Liberal universalism sees no geographical or ethnic boundaries.

      2. The liberal state is weak and controlled by money-power. This is how it becomes mercantile. The merchants/bankers control the state.

      I expect number 2 to be the more controversial and intend to expand in my longer post, but allow me a brief digression.

      I was always fascinated by the brief relationship between the Rothbardians and Gabriel Kolko after his book Triumph of Conservatism, which argued that it was the merchants who were responsible for the laws that cartelized large sections of the American economy in the early "progressive era." Kolko saw this an argument for a stronger and more socialistic state while the Rothbadians saw it as an argument against the State. Pretty funny.

      From my perspective it is better to have a Absolute State that is stronger than the merchant class than to have a society run by merchants.

      It is the merchants, particularly the jewish banking families, that were the most powerful force in the 20th century. Their fingerprints are all over the world wars and the "Russian" Revolution. Rothbard demonstrated very clearly in my favorite of his works- Wall Street, Banks, and Foreign Policy- that US foreign policy was not serving the interests of the State but the interests of its owners: the international financiers.

      Delete
    9. Brutus, I agree with your broader point. I am chewing on what this means toward my view on the question: why – concretely – do I hate the state?

      Jeff, I don’t believe my post was an attempt to counter what UC wrote. I was making an admittedly crude attempt at answering the uncomfortable question. Of course, it is possible I misunderstood the meaning behind his question….

      “Is it really any different with states?”

      To the extent our battle involves ideas, then yes, I believe hating a state is different than hating a hurricane.

      Delete
    10. "To the extent our battle involves ideas, then yes, I believe hating a state is different than hating a hurricane."

      I think I worded that post poorly, but as UC noted in his original posts, libertarians don't appear to be engaged in any battles against the state at all. It was what I meant by countering what UC wrote.

      Libertarians are engaged in endless debate, but most aren't really doing much to limit the power of the empire. The ones that do tend to go through the system and end up either minimalized or corrupted into supporting non-libertarian political motives. The ones who take up arms, literally or figuratively, are never remotely libertarian. The closest thing we had to an exception is a Constitutionalist who voted to invade Afghanistan.

      So UC's first point IMO was, how can you claim to hate the state, if you aren't doing anything about it? I was initially going to post something about taking the long view, but it was such a weak argument I deleted it before hitting publish : )

      Delete
    11. "as UC noted in his original posts, libertarians don't appear to be engaged in any battles against the state at all. "

      Many libertarians fly under the radar and strategically speaking it makes sense to be the Swamp Fox in the face of a much more powerful adversary.

      I can't elucidate on this for various reasons.

      Delete
    12. "Many libertarians fly under the radar and strategically speaking it makes sense to be the Swamp Fox in the face of a much more powerful adversary."

      It wouldn't surprise me that they are out there, but not being among them I see almost no evidence of effective resistance or recruitment.

      Delete
    13. "In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them."- Bastiat

      :)

      Delete
    14. "In the economic sphere..."- Bastiat

      I dunno, I've been watching the world most of my life. Not sure I have ever witnessed the secondary effects of government spawn combative libertarians before. Anarchists, yes, but not the kind that believe in private property!

      Delete
    15. "Not sure I have ever witnessed the secondary effects of government spawn combative libertarians before"

      My/Bastiat's statement still stands- there's very little economics doesn't touch.

      Delete
  3. Yep, if government were merely the park across the government street from me and the library down the government road, and the library had a little Rothbard on its shelves, I'd be less concerned. Also, if the students at the government school only pledged allegiance to their God, family, and local neighbors, rather than Sodom-on-the-Potomac, it wouldn't be too bad.

    Eric Morris

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brutus: “That's it, isn't it? Forced to pay.”

    As matter of fact, that is it. If the State can force me to pay for good goods--e.g., national defense, life-and-property-protecting cops, and dispute resolution--what's to prevent it from forcing me to pay for bads? Ask the World Improvers, globocops, mass-immigration enthusiasts, drug warriors, FDA bureaucrats, and surveillance fiends whether they feel guilty about forcing fellow citizens to pay for their bads. They'll insist the bads are all good. It's in the national interest that everybody be taxed to pay for it!

    ReplyDelete
  5. how to achieve ethical/ideological unity ?

    is it possible ?

    Who should have the right to vote?

    “The problems we face today are there because the people who “work” for a living are outnumbered by those who “vote” for a living”.

    Who should have the right to vote?

    What voting rights do shares have?
    Under the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the voting rights attached to any particular shares depend on the articles of the company and any terms of issue imposed when the shares were created. The vast majority of shares are ordinary shares which carry a right to one vote per share. There may, however, be different classes of shares which may have no voting rights or restricted rights (e.g. can only vote in certain circumstances) or may have additional voting rights (e.g. 10 votes per share) or enhanced voting rights in particular circumstances.

    max

    ReplyDelete
  6. BM,

    Got a new computer with a new OS and was unsure if my large post (in two parts) made it through. I may have also posted 2 "test" (they just say "test") posts because when I tried to preview it just posted. I am writing this from my old device.

    If my post did not go through could you please respond to this and I'll email it over to myself (it's saved) and post it from here.

    If it did make it though (with my UC account) could you please ignore this and I apologize for the trouble.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No apology necessary. Nothing came through; there is nothing in the pending or spam folders.

      I look forward to your thoughts.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  7. I understand my initial post was unclear. I was mostly just brainstorming and working out some thoughts. I will try to be as clear as possible in what follows.

    My current interest with respect to libertarianism is to understand the genesis of the divide between “left” libertarians and “right” libertarians (which is part of a further interest I have in exploring liberalism as a whole). This has been something we have discussed here in the past and its specter seems to haunt all the drama we have been seeing in the libertarian scene (the witch hunt against Woods- which I linked to in my initial post, the denunciations of Deist and the MI, the persistent divide on the question of immigration, etc). I believe that by taking Rothbard’s libertarian litmus test (do you hate the state?) and expanding on it, we can get to the root of this question.
    The two aspects I wish to draw out are intertwined.

    1. Is the problem with a particular state (D.C, Brussels, etc) or is the “State” as an abstraction.
    2. What are the ideological grounds on which you object to the State

    If you find yourself answering that you hate the state anywhere, everywhere, and at all times because it is against reason, equality, liberty, and the fraternity of man as proscribed by the grand architect; that the entirety of history was the progression to universal man’s liberation from all forms of oppression, the worst of which being the hierarchical state, then you may be a jacobin.

    If you find yourself answering that you hate the state because it stands in the way of you being able to import slave labor from the third world to work at your sweatshop, allow private airlines to throw customers out mid-flight, and execute children stealing apples, then you may be Robert Wenzel (sorry couldn’t help myself).
    I could go on but instead I will answer my own question.

    I hate the liberal world order. I hate D.C and the European occupation government(s). I want nothing more than to see it all burn. Here are the reasons:
    1. It is based on lies (equality)
    2. It suppresses superior men and elevates inferior men
    3. It is dysgenic and culture destroying
    4. It is weak to being controlled by private power
    5. It is a threat to everything I care about

    These are objections to a particular state, not an abstraction. I do not hate all possible or currently existing states. I do not share the liberal world revolutionary ideology in which all people everywhere would “better off” under a regime of individual rights and anarcho-capitalism. Quite the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cont.

      I believe that European/Aryan man is facing both cultural and biological extinction. In order to survive at all we need a State that serves us and us alone. European people are scattered all over the world. Obviously in America, Europe, and Australia, but places like South Africa and South America as well. There needs to be total revolution in Europe and the creation of a NEW ORDER that serves the blood and culture of the people. If this fails it falls to the diaspora to carve something out where they can. What is the obstacle to all this?
      The US empire, or as I like to call it- ZOG.
      The State we need should have two key features

      1. It should be eugenic both biologically and culturally
      >I mean this very literally: Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race, stock, kin") is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a group of individuals
      inb4: UC are you advocating mass sterlization, abortions, etc?
      No. Just the promotion of good rather the promotion of bad, which begins with the recognition that there are objectively good things and objectively bad things, as well as the recognition there is a people (in a biological sense). Often times it may be that the way you promote something good is by not doing anything at all (see Tao te Ching).
      2. It should defend the nation against foreign subversion in all forms and it should ensure that it has enough territory and resources so that it can subsist without having to practice imperialism.

      I will close this long post by saying that I believe Hoppe attempted, knowingly or not, to excise liberalism from libertarianism. His vision was undoubtedly aristocratic in its own strange way, as well as elitist, and anti-democratic. Yet still, his “natural elite” are economic elite and they would presumably attain their position by serving a market- the most democratic of all institutions. Makes you think.
      The last thing a libertarian will part with is not his liberalism, but his capitalism.

      Delete
    2. History, geography, and cultures are influences but they are not predestination. Not only individuals but whole peoples have moved from the backwaters of the world to the forefront of civilization. The late Italian author Luigi Barzini asked of Britain: "How, in the first place, did a peripheral island rise from primitive squalor to world domination?" The story of Japan's rise from a backward country in the mid-nineteenth century to one of today's leading economic powers has been at least equally as dramatic. Scotland was for centuries known for its illiteracy, poverty, and lack of elementary cleanliness. Yet, from the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century, most of the leading intellectual pioneers of Britain were Scots, and Scots also become prominent in business, banking, medicine, and engineering-- not only in Britain but around the world.

      It took centuries for the English to absorb the cultural advances brought by such conquerors as the Romans and the Normans and by such immigrants as the Huguenots, Germans, Jews, and others who played a major role in developing the British economy. Their early dependence on outsiders was painfully demonstrated when the Romans pulled out of Britain in the fifth century, in order to go defend their threatened empire on the continent, and the British economy and political structure both collapsed. Yet ultimately-- more than a thousand years later-- the British rose to lead the world into the industrial revolution and controlled an empire containing one-fourth of the land area of the earth and one-fourth of the human race.
      Japan's economic rise began from a stage of technological backwardness that was demonstrated when Commodore Perry presented them with a gift of a train.

      Both the British and the Japanese became renowned for their ability to absorb the ideas and the technology of others and to carry them forward to higher levels. So did the Scots.

      http://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html

      max

      Delete
    3. Thanks UC, for the clarifications. I enjoyed the read. Thanks to Tony, Eric and Max for their input as well.

      Time to ponder and sip coffee. As Irma bears down on my region, I liken these discussions to her storm tracker. From this point, things will head down a likely path, but where it ends up, exactly, still remains to be seen.


      Delete
    4. "Often times it may be that the way you promote something good is by not doing anything at all"

      UC, I'm glad you added this disclaimer to your eugenics discussion. I can't conceive of a government (or merchant) so wise and benevolent that giving it even moderate control over this wouldn't be a total disaster.

      Delete
    5. Jeff Bell,

      I remain unconvinced that giving a state (qua state) any power over anything wouldn't end in disaster. I think either the NAP fits into (a particular) culture (meaning no state of any kind, merely "how we do things around here"), or we are doomed. Given my belief about Human Nature (fallen), I lean toward the latter, while I pine for the former.

      Delete
    6. Ron,

      I won't try to convince you that there is an ideal state but surely you would be willing to grant that it is often better to have a state or pseudo-state (like Hezbollah) than to be at the mercy of your enemies. Is there any doubt that the ethnic minorities in Syria are better off under the Syrian State? Why are the Zionists so intent on Balkanizing the Levant (Yinon Plan)?

      Having enemies is the main argument for a state. If we lived without enemies then there is no doubt (in my mind) organic social authority would suffice.

      Delete
    7. "I remain unconvinced that giving a state (qua state) any power over anything wouldn't end in disaster. I think either the NAP fits into (a particular) culture (meaning no state of any kind, merely "how we do things around here"), or we are doomed. Given my belief about Human Nature (fallen), I lean toward the latter, while I pine for the former."

      I agree that power over the choices of others by any individual or organization is a recipe for disaster. Rulers, governments and even cultures can destroy societies, and many have done so.

      The state will always be my enemy, which is to say the state is an enemy that will always be. I believe a truly stateless society can only exist as a transient, because it lacks the means to protect itself from its enemies both external and internal.

      "Having enemies is the main argument for a state."

      UC, while that statement is completely true, it's also true the state (its ruling apparatus) knows this very well. In the absence of enemies the state will manufacture them. The US has been at this game for quite a long time, probably since before the American Revolution.

      Delete
    8. UC,

      Thanks for the Bob Wenzel reference. Anytime I hear someone give him kudos for all his "great work" or whatever I cringe.

      I agree with all 5 points about hating the liberal world order. But I have to say, it is unclear to me how "4. It is weak to being controlled by private power," could ever change. If there are humans in the state, there are individuals in the state: there is private power. Whether democratic or autocratic in nature, I don't see how it doesn't always come down to the wealthiest making the rules.

      I also completely agree with your last paragraph about Hoppe and his version of libertarianism (which appeals to me more than any other). However, you write as if there's something wrong, or that you disapprove of, in there. Did I get that right?

      Delete
  8. Like it or not, unless you live by yourself in an island, we all will end up under some covenant or charter. Call it the Social Contract call it not having an alternative.
    The charter will be enforced, in its required duties including the penalties for non-compliance.
    The question is what the charter states about the individual's powers to act against the charter's agents when daidcagents overstep and abuse the charter's duties. And, who adjudicates is also of critical importance.
    We no longer live under the rule of law. Witness the disparate decisions from jurisdictions and judges.
    Call it whatever, the State, an HOA, whose slave are we?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed; you're gonna have to serve somebody." -Dylan

      Delete
    2. "Call it whatever, the State, an HOA, whose slave are we?"

      Conceptually, and HOA is different because you have to agree to it to purchase a home/plot of land under it's domain.

      Theoretically that makes it voluntary and you have a written contract/charter where you have expected outcomes, duties(both ways), you accept HOA "fees"(versus taxes) for administration/enforcement ofthe charter, etc. as a condition of being able to become a member/owner.

      So that's different from the "state" as we see it today.

      Delete
    3. Except to get my idiotic HOA Board to agree to follow its own rules, I have to sue them in government court. Until the culture of being the leader of a collective changes, we'd still be in a similar boat.

      My specific concern is interpretation of the mechanism for raising dues: I'd guess with no Fed manipulation of ability to borrow people would watch their pennies better, though.

      Delete
    4. "Except to get my idiotic HOA Board to agree to follow its own rules, I have to sue them in government court. "

      Yes, I am sympathetic to that/your trouble. In fact, it's the same argument used by those are "pro" US Constitution in concept.

      "If we'd only follow the Constitution", etc.

      That being said, I did point out in my original statement that maybe a better written contract/charter can come up with remedies to situations like yours. For example, why does it have to be a government court? Many a contract today have arbitration clauses written into them. (which can obviously be private panels)

      Delete
    5. Certainly in (my) dream land it wouldn't have to be government court, but the private arbitrators would have to be encultutated by the values of liberty themselves. In this case, ambiguities in favor of the private landowner. That's the government court rule now, also, in these cases, but I still have to sue myself partially since I am paying for the HOA's defense. It's agreeing with you that written agreements are better, but also pointing out that culture matters.

      Thank you,

      Eric

      Delete
    6. Whether an HOA or something else like zoning, when you have no options because all are under some charter then what?
      Libertarians make much about voluntary associations, what are the options to get out of a voluntary association?

      Delete
    7. There is no solution to the human condition.

      I get more pessimistic the older I get.

      Delete
    8. "Libertarians make much about voluntary associations, what are the options to get out of a voluntary association?"

      Contracts are only limited by the imagination of those writing them.

      "There is no solution to the human condition."

      I understand your viewpoint and it dovetails with Christian eschatology so I'm sure many agree. That doesn't excuse us from trying however with that in mind. (Hence the absurd notion of the New Soviet man)

      Personally, I think most people can appreciate the virtues of voluntary relationships.

      Delete
    9. "Voluntary."

      Thanks, Nick! You've improved my outlook on the "human condition." This post/thread has me needing that.

      Delete
    10. You're welcome gpond- it's an interesting thread to say the least.

      Delete
  9. Unhappy,

    I would like to preface that anything that follows is not meant to be rude, but offered up in a spirit of intrigue and inquisitiveness.

    I don’t accept that negative rights beget positive rights. Positive rights are always about the use of government force to ensure their ends, voluntary compliance notwithstanding. Negative rights are based on the absence of government force. One does not beget the other. Negative rights are ignored for positive ones.

    You use the example of freedom from discrimination. Antidiscrimination is not a freedom, but a government program. Freedom does not guarantee that discrimination will not occur.

    As for empire being baked into the pie, I disagree and look forward to reading more from you on this subject. How does an agrarian society, with a government based on rights recognized as off-limits by its government start out as just what’s needed to become an empire 150 years later? I could see how one could look at the circumstances of the country, with water boundaries and friendly neighbors, allowing for a prosperity that was later tapped into for empire. But the country’s initial political philosophy? Hmmm.

    Why do you accept that libertarianism has divided? If groups wish to identify as left or right libertarians, with their acceptance of some government as necessary, why believe that they are libertarians? If I say I’m an ostrich, will you proceed to explain how one feather begat the other and behold! I’m an Ostrich?

    Libertarianism was/is/will be based on the NAP as the guideline as to what constitutes libertarianism. The NAP is there for that very purpose. Why are liberals now socialists and the original version referred to “classic” liberalism? The moniker was stolen. I believe we’re seeing the same thing happen here. Libertarianism has gained in popularity, so it stands to reason that power groups desire to infiltrate in order to keep their power intact. If someone wishes for government intervention baked into their brand of libertarian philosophy? Poof! It doesn’t pass the NAP litmus test, and what you have is some other form of political philosophy. Fine. Go back to the liberal or conservative camps. Or make up a new group. But it’s not libertarian.

    “then you may be a jacobin.” Let’s not lose our heads, here.

    “then you may be Robert Wenzel.” I like Wenzel. Having read much of his stuff, I don’t think you do him justice with your remark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "As for empire being baked into the pie,"

      Heve you read any history involving these uSA post ratification of the Constitution of 1787?

      I recommend you findca copy of the annually updated, by Congressional durective, The Uses Of The United States Armed Forces Abroad.
      After reading it, pick up a few history books dealing with any the instances mentioned and uou will begin to see.

      Of course, the westward expansion is not empire making. /sarc

      Delete
    2. BTW, I like Wenzel andvread him.
      Wenzel lives at a level in life that allows him to afford his utopianism. There are lessons to be learned from Wenzel, in the same way Sherlock Holmes kearns from Dr. Watson, just not in the way that Dr. Watson, or Wenzel, thinks.

      Delete
    3. @J-Tex

      "and you will begin to see"

      Yes, because my "failure" to blame classic liberal tenets for empire must mean I'm ignorant about U.S. history and its expansion. SMH.

      "Wenzel lives at a level in life that allows him to afford his utopianism"

      Funny, I don't recall Wenzel being Utopian. Do I detect a smidge of class envy? I find Wenzel's websites very informative.

      Delete
    4. You are the one that does not see that "empire being baked into the pie." I proposed reading a book detailing the long, long, list of military adventures enabled by the new Constitution. As Patrick remarked, "I smelled a rat."

      Here is the latest:
      Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2016
      https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42738.pdf

      Class envy? Sure. If by that you mean being able to propose implementing ideas whose consequences I do not experience or can avoid.

      Delete
    5. Brutus,

      I appreciate the back and forth. Gonna try to keep my replies simple just because this is a big topic with many rabbit holes and I have to write several replies here. So my brevity is not to dismiss your points but to try and distill the debate to its simplist form.

      >Negative rights are ignored for positive ones.

      I understand this, but my point is they both come from the same worldview, just applied differently. The fact is, the longest running liberal project (America), beginning in a negative conception of liberty, has developed a whole host of positive rights all dressed in the language of negative liberty. The distinction is not stark enough to provide a bulwark against the welfare state just like the language of the constitution does not prevent its reinterpretation.

      What is needed for negative liberties to remain negative liberty?

      >How did it become an empire?

      Well I gave my two main reasons (universalism and weakness to control by private money) but this shouldn't be new territory for libertarians. Many have argued this was bound to happen after the ratification of the constitution and the end of the Articles of Confederation. In other words, the anti-federalists were right. But remember, both the federalist and the anti-federalists were liberals.

      Do you deny the present empire is in some respects a Liberal Imperium? Have you read Francis Fukuyama?

      >Why are the liberals socialists and the TRVE liberals socialists

      Very important question that gets to the heart of our differences. If you go back to my original post, this is where I tease libertarians for sounding like communists (b-but Stalinism isn't TRVE communism). While in a technical sense you are correct that a lot of modern liberalism is socialistic from an economic viewpoint, it is still philisophically liberal in terms of values and worldview, which IMO makes it worse than full blown communism in certain respects. As Jonathan Bowden said, "communism rots the body, and liberalism rots the soul."

      Why is it that the formerly communist (but still socialistic by the libertarian definition) countries of E. Europe are so much healthier in terms of culture and even physicality (a lot less fatties and homos, a lot more babes)? Could it something in liberalism? Consumerism? Capitalism?

      Many of the worst aspects of our society would have been (and were seeen) by the communists as bourgeoisie decadence, and they were right. Cultural Marxism is how you destroy the gentile culture once they *already have material abundance.* Full blown class war won't work, but cultural subversion will. Liberalism is completely open to this kind of attack. It worked.

      Can you please clarify your question about libertarians being divided. Are you going to tell me that you either are a libertarian or you aren't based on the NAP?

      Thx

      Delete
    6. J-Tex

      I'm asking Unhappy what he means by "baked into the pie". I have my own understanding of what it means, but I'm wondering if he is talking about classical liberalism as the pie (I disagree), or did he mean some kind of situational/destiny thing along the lines of my crude example of the new country being relatively safe to grow its wealth yadda yadda. Or does he mean the constitution like you offer up? Did I miss something where he already explained it?

      I'm aware of the constitution's consolidating effects, and the Antifederalists who argued against it. My nickname is BRUTUS, for cryin' out loud. :)

      "If by that you mean being able to propose implementing ideas whose consequences I do not experience or can avoid."

      Wenzel, like the rest of us, is a theoretical player. Rich or not, we're not affecting political policy. Wenzel, imo, uses the extreme - or absurd - examples to hash out the what-ifs in his "ideal" world. I don't think he condones the nasty stuff. Do you? Or are you talking about something else of which I'm unaware?

      I don't profess to be omniscient, nor correct in my thinking. That's why I read your stuff, Bionic's stuff, Wenzel's stuff, Unhappy's stuff, Rockwell's stuff... passing the time, letting my paradigm get tweaked by everyone here and elsewhere, while Pax Americana fizzles out.

      Delete
    7. Regarding Wenzel,

      I read him for years, lost all respect for him, and stand by what I said.

      Delete
    8. Correction from above

      >Why are the liberals socialists and the TRVE liberals socialists

      Should read

      >Why are the liberals socialists and the TRVE liberals "classical"

      (Also note to Brutus, haven't finished responding to you but have been busy with work today, cheers m8 )

      Delete
    9. Unhappy,

      Interesting thoughts, thanks.

      To be honest, I simply don't agree with you on many fronts, but I know how comments sections go. I've gotten enough answers from you to peg you into a category within my mind (right or wrong, and subject to change by further reading of your forthcoming thoughts; I'm sure they will be prolific and enlightening.) If you wish to view this as a victory by a superior mindset or something, then by all means do. Congrats!

      I'm older now, and enjoy some back-and-forth, but have played the comments game far too long to keep going - (used to blog myself at one time). The odds of agreement are always slim and not worth more of my time or effort. I found your thoughts worth the time, however, and I thank you again.

      I will stand by what I wrote about Wenzel, as well.

      Delete
    10. Brutus,

      >If you wish to view this as a victory by a superior mindset or something, then by all means do. Congrats!

      I am not here to take scalps, I only do that to my enemies and I don't see you or most of the regulars here as enemies. It is victory enough for me that you are willing to engage with my perspective, and considering how un-kosher my views are, anyone willing to do so I believe is coming from an honest place.

      It is very difficult to persuade someone to change their worldview so I don't even really try, I just offer up mine and critique it's competitors . This is the reason why when someone wants to sell you something they sell it as "real libertarians support x." There will be some who share my priorities and as such will be willing to follow me to my conclusions.

      I have made it clear in the past that my purpose here is to demonstrate that there is a third position between liberalism and communism. The people who will be reached by this are the ones who have always been dissatisfied with libertarianism, but that is not my purpose. Hell if my comments lead people to become better libertarians through being challenged in ways they aren't used to, I am fine with that. As you can imagine I do plenty of other political things online under different names. I come here for honest dialogue with the only kind of liberals I have any respect for.

      But I swear to God we are going to save our race and when the time comes if I have to drag you stubborn bastards by the hair then so be it
      ;)

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. I also echo what UC stated above ...

      U oh. Washing machine flooded laundry area. Gotta go.

      Update: wife went ahead and ordered new washing and drying machines. I coukd tinker with washing machine nut we are ready for newer. Dryer squeals some. Again, I could tinker and repair both. Curbside shoppers will pick items pretty quickly.

      Delete
    13. Jamie can't catch a break, if it's not his state flooding it's his laundry room.

      Delete
    14. To Unhappy and J-Tex,

      Sorry for the delayed response. I zipped through the backroads 4 hours to play golf with my brother in Appalachia's Black Mountains. Silver Creek Plantation. If ever in the area and like to golf, it's heavenly. Breathtaking views in all directions!

      If you happen to check back here, I understand and appreciate, but due to years of blogging, am jaundiced toward the "Yeah huh nu uh Yeah huh nu uh" nature of the comments.

      "if I have to drag you stubborn bastards by the hair then so be it" Given my balding nature, you can imagine the cringe-worthy nature of that statement. ;)

      Delete
  10. Unhappy continued...

    My “hate” for the state revolves around the understanding of the deleterious effects of it, as well as the potential for its transformation into something quite misanthropic. Also, the curious side of me wishes the state to get out of the way. I wish to see the new products, services and social organization that would appear. Where’s the harm in that? ;)

    How is the interest of the state different than the interest of its “owners”? If a state is owned, then the owners are the state, yes? Wouldn’t that fall under the strict definition of oligarchy? Merchants without state power, unable to use force with impunity, can not hope to achieve the same power as they would by controlling the state. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your idea of an absolute power stronger than the merchants is, to me, the definition of totalitarianism – and all that that implies.

    “These are objections to a particular state, not an abstraction. I do not hate all possible or currently existing states. I do not share the liberal world revolutionary ideology in which all people everywhere would “better off” under a regime of individual rights and anarcho-capitalism. Quite the opposite.”

    So, you’re not here to help fix some libertarian bugs in the theoretical system. You’re here to bring people back into some form of the minimalist fold? So it seems, anyway. I’m fine with that. I understand your particular governmental hates. I understand your misgivings about anarchism. Personally? I wish to see the state reduced into some manageable form, then see if things can go further – even though I can’t believe that it’s possible; I’m too far removed from such an environment to be able to visualize it - if possible.

    I like the term ZOG. However, I’m immediately skeptical of your personal ideas on what is needed with regards to a form of government. Oh, some of your notions are very attractive, but that is how most of the problems start isn’t it? You’ve got yourself some really fine good intentions to pave with. Simply find yourself some philosopher kings to do things exactly your way, because governments never turn out differently than planned right? Just ask those Jacobins you mentioned earlier.

    Why should I part with capitalism? I’m quite happy with the cooperative exchanges allowing for this computer I’m currently using, for the school supplies that come in the mail, for the stocked shelves of the many grocery stores in town, for my golf clubs, for the roof above my head. I’m glad it’s there to ration everything just so, by its clever use of the price mechanism.

    I respectfully look forward to any rejoinders. One thing's for sure, your sobriquet is very appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unhappy Conservative (2.0),

      You may consider much of what Brutus says here to be a substantial portion of my reply to you. The (American) state(s) IS (practically) my enemy. No other entity/person does more to harm me on a daily basis. None. There really isn't a second place.

      Other outside actors (other states) may also (theoretically) be my enemy/ies. That remains to be seen. I'm not blind to the possibility, but the American state apparati (apparatuses?) acost me daily, in countless ways.

      Delete
    2. MUCH of what I say?!? All or nothing!

      Sorry... I slipped into Objectivist mode there for a second. :)

      Delete
  11. There are plenty of crackpot anti-Zionists who are deeply anti-Semitic. They are usually on the Right, although Social Credit Lefties sometimes are anti-Semitic, because of the banking issue. They warn against the IJBC: the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy. This anti-Semitism goes back to the American Populist movement.
    This one is just anti-Zionist.
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/12876.cfm

    On the fringes of the Right wing in America there is a very special movement. It is crackpot to the core. It believes that the Jews are behind everything bad. Even worse, the Jews are making a potful of money doing it. This really annoys them.
    Not all Jews, of course. Not the guy who runs the local deli, who makes the terrific corned beef sandwiches. He's merely a circumcised dupe. It's the other kind. The secret ones. The cartel. The Power behind the powers.
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/11286.cfm

    The true sons of God are those who obey Him. This raised a major question for Israel, one which they never answered correctly: Can a stranger become a son? The answer was covenantally obvious but repulsive to Israel: yes. The stranger, if he acts as a son should act, is entitled to become the lawful heir. The son, if he acts as a stranger to the covenant, is to be disinherited. Adopted sons replace biological sons as the lawful heirs. This is the message of the New Covenant. The gentiles could become sons on the same basis that the Jews could: obedience to God's covenant, i.e., adoption.
    Adoption had always been open to gentiles in Israel, but it took up to ten generations for the heirs of some strangers to achieve this

    This open invitation to immigrate to Israel was a means of increasing Israel's wealth. Attracting productive people is even better than discovering valuable raw materials. Human creativity is more valuable in the long run than raw materials are,

    Strangers in Israel could become legal heirs through adoption by Israelite families. Blood-line inheritance was not the basis of the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was not a blood-line covenant. It was an ethical-judicial covenant. Men were by oath consigned, not by blood consigned.





    One mark of a free society is that strangers can flourish economically. The encouragement of immigration is part of biblical law. The problem comes when the national civil covenant establishes citizenship apart from a confession of faith, i.e., a covenantal oath of allegiance to the God of the Bible and His law. When inheritance is by mere physical presence, or by a pledge of allegiance to a secular State, immigration becomes a covenantal threat to those who are already dwelling in the land. When the State is used as a means of coercive wealth distribution -- e.g., the modern welfare State -- then the immigrant becomes an economic threat: a potential drain on the wealth of present residents.

    This does not mean that Christians' opposition to immigration is illegitimate when the State has adopted a non-Trinitarian confession.
    If they see that certain immigrants who confess a rival and highly aggressive religion are becoming eligible for citizenship, then as a defensive political strategy for the sake of the extension of the kingdom of God, they may legitimately seek to work politically to cut off such immigration as part of their goal of establishing a Trinitarian confession for the nation.
    But for those Christians who deny the legitimacy of a Christian nation, any opposition to immigration is made in terms of non-confessional considerations.
    This constitutes discrimination based on economic, racial, or other considerations. The Bible condemns all such judicial discrimination except against citizens of enemy nations during a declared war, which would in effect constitute an invasion, or against immigrants afflicted with contagious deadly diseases, which would also constitute an invasion.

    https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnde/Chapter25.htm
    max

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. max

      Have I done something to upset you? It is hard for me to imagine, because before your two comments in this thread, I really don't recall coming across your comments before.

      Three more Gary North cites, after the seven or eight before...I may have to fire up the smoker...

      Delete
    2. not you Mr Bionic.

      "I believe that European/Aryan man is facing both cultural and biological extinction. In order to survive at all we need a State that serves us and us alone."

      I do not like racial discrimination.

      max

      Delete
    3. Max, it is racial discrimination to protect your own people? Huh???

      The people's that didn't protect themselves no longer exist. They are lost and forgotten.

      Delete
    4. who are my people?

      Can a stranger become a son? The answer was covenantally obvious but repulsive to Israel: yes. The stranger, if he acts as a son should act, is entitled to become the lawful heir. The son, if he acts as a stranger to the covenant, is to be disinherited. Adopted sons replace biological sons as the lawful heirs. This is the message of the New Covenant. The gentiles could become sons on the same basis that the Jews could: obedience to God's covenant, i.e., adoption.

      https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnde/Chapter25.htm

      does not have anything to do with race.

      max

      Delete
    5. Strangers in Israel could become legal heirs through adoption by Israelite families. Blood-line inheritance was not the basis of the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was not a blood-line covenant. It was an ethical-judicial covenant. Men were by oath consigned, not by blood consigned.


      The problem comes when the national civil covenant establishes citizenship apart from a confession of faith, i.e., a covenantal oath of allegiance to the God of the Bible and His law.

      nothing to do with a race.

      max

      Delete
    6. Max, if you want to bring in foreigners to replace us then kindly do it on your own dime and don't think cheeks will turn in the face of your aggression.

      Delete
    7. >Can a stranger become a son?
      >Can Darnell become a son-in-law

      NEIN NEIN NEIN

      Delete
    8. The true sons of God are those who obey Him.

      The son, if he acts as a stranger to the covenant, is to be disinherited.

      The gentiles could become sons on the same basis that the Jews could: obedience to God's covenant, i.e., adoption.


      well all our communist/socialist/atheist sons and daughters are now in power and this is what we get by not following Gods Laws.

      max

      Delete
    9. The true sons of God are those who obey Him.
      If any of this Christians around the world follow Gods laws and obey his laws should they replace all our: communist,socialist,atheist family,friends and neighbors.

      Christians in:

      China 30mill

      india 30 mill

      Nigeria 72 mill
      Congo 63 mill
      Indonesia 24 mill
      Japan 2 mill
      in the world: 2,1 billion

      max

      Delete
    10. No, Max.

      Here is what is going to happen. When we win we are going to physically remove you because you are a traitor, with filthy traitor's blood. We won't have you in our society.

      Source: Hans-Hermann Hoppe

      Delete
    11. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is smart man.

      I do not think he believe in God, and I do not think he is christian.

      "When we win"

      who are we ---neo-nazi?, Progressive eugenics?

      The Progressive Era's eugenics movement favored forced state sterilization of the feeble-minded. Its state laws were validated by the Supreme Court in the Buck v. Bell decision in 1927. It has never been overturned. The Nazis used American state legislation, begun before World War I, as models for its own program of forced sterilization. Indiana was the pioneer. Some of these state laws stayed on the books until the 1950's.

      The super-rich in the early decades of the 1900's were supporters of this movement. The Rockefeller family was especially involved, both ideologically and financially. The rhetoric and pamphlets of the 1920's were dropped down the memory hole after World War II, because the Progressives wanted to cover up the fact that the Nazis had relied heavily on the eugenics movement for both its ideology and its programs. But the same zero-population growth outlook has remained. John D. Rockefeller III was a major promoter of zero population growth. He founded the Population Council in 1952.

      https://www.garynorth.com/public/13371.cfm

      max

      Delete
  12. Defining race
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

    max

    ReplyDelete