Posts
NO! NOT THAT
WAY! If that’s what I meant, he would
have to “physically remove” me from his (virtual) neighborhood!
I love his intellect, the way he creates the dots that he thereafter connects, his directness, and
his very dry and wonderfully refined sense of humor.
It was Hans Hoppe (more precisely, someone who challenged me
to challenge Hans Hoppe) that accelerated my interest in what has become the
most intellectually satisfying topic that I pursue via this blog, that of libertarians
and culture. With that out of the
way…
Libertarianism
and the Alt-Right: In Search of a Libertarian Strategy for Social Change,
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. (Speech delivered at the 12th annual meeting
of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey, on September 17, 2017)
You will note, sprinkled throughout my commentary are my “accusations”
that Hoppe has stolen some of my material.
I hope you understand my meager attempt at humor; everything I have come to on this broad subject (I truly mean “everything”)
began because Hoppe set me on that path, long ago.
I recently linked to the video version of this speech, and offered
a few brief comments. I purposely
waited before giving more extensive thoughts as I wanted to wait for this
transcript. This will be a tough post to
write…or, shall I say, write concisely. Is it OK with you if I just copy and paste
the entire text? You see my point. With this concern noted, I will attempt to be
efficient. (Update: I failed.)
Hoppe begins with his well-known examination of the requirement
for a private-property-respecting order if one wants to minimize conflict:
If you want to live in peace with
other people and avoid all physical clashes and, if such clashes do occur, seek
to resolve them peacefully, then you must be an anarchist or more precisely a
private property anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist or a proponent of a private
law society.
He contrasts this absolute requirement for respect for
private property with the views of those broadly known as
left-libertarians. He offers a long list
of add-ons to this one, simple requirement, added by libertarians who – for whatever
reason – do nothing more than destroy the powerful message of the
non-aggression principle. My favorite
from his list (and probably his):
[Any so-called libertarians who
argue for] the existence and justifiability of any so-called “human rights” or
“civil rights” other than private property rights, such as “women rights,” “gay
rights,” “minority rights,” the “right” not to be discriminated against, the
“right” to free and unrestricted immigration, the “right” to a guaranteed
minimum income or to free health care, or the “right” to be free of unpleasant
speech and thought.
Which automatically places Hoppe (and, he notes, Rothbard)
in the camp of “a reactionary, a racist, a sexist, an authoritarian, an
elitist, a xenophobe, a fascist and, to top it all off, a self-hating Jewish
Nazi.” (That last one, obviously,
applicable only to Rothbard; I think they would call Hoppe a “self-loving Nazi” and leave it at that!)
Hoppe moves to the primary subject of his speech: what is
the connection and/or relationship between libertarianism and the Alt-Right? He offers various Alt-Right speakers who have
attended his annual Bodrum conference; he traces the history of the Alt-Right,
beginning with Pat Buchanan; he suggests that the movement accelerated with
each US presidency beginning with Bush I.
Hoppe comes to the issue, the connecting point:
…the libertarian doctrine does not
imply much if anything concerning these
questions: First, how to maintain a libertarian order once achieved. And
second, how to attain a libertarian order from a non-libertarian starting
point, which requires a) that one must correctly describe this starting point
and b) correctly identify the obstacles posed in the way of one’s libertarian
ends by this very starting point.
Many libertarians are blind to this, because it involves
some understanding and respect for a topic which they avoid, whether
purposefully (because of their desire to appear “virtuous”) or out of
ignorance:
Yet many libertarians and fake
libertarians are plain ignorant of human psychology and sociology or even
devoid of any common sense.
In other words, useful tools.
Hoppe continues: libertarians have a theory; conversely, the
Alt-Right knows what they are against – but with no underlying theory:
While much of contemporary
libertarianism can be characterized, then, as theory and theorists without
psychology and sociology, much or even most of the Alt-Right can be described,
in contrast, as psychology and sociology without theory.
And in this, one will find the reason for the connection; in
this, one will see why some libertarians – those who have given more than a
moment’s thought to human “psychology and sociology” – find a connection with
aspects of the Alt-Right.
One of my favorite lines:
…the Alt-Right also laughs off as
hopelessly naïve the programmatic motto of so-called libertarians such as the Students for Liberty (which I have
termed the “Stupids for Liberty” and my young German friend Andre Lichtschlag
as “Liberallala-Libertarians”) of “Peace, Love, and Liberty,” appropriately
translated into German by Lichtschlag as “Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen.”
I have written early
and often regarding libertarians such as these. As to the Alt-Right:
“Millennial
Woes” (Colin Robertson) has thus aptly summarized the Alt-Right: “Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is
essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters
and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to
think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow
materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious.
This is the Alt-Right.”
In this description, one can see why even someone like Jordan
Peterson can be (and has been) labeled as Alt-Right. I won’t speak for Peterson, but given what I
have heard from him I suspect he agrees with every point. Heck, any normal / thinking human would agree
with most, if not all, of this statement.
In other words, “Alt-Right” pretty much describes anyone who disagrees
with some aspect of the neo-liberal, progressive, culture-destroying agenda.
Hoppe next addresses the two main questions, noted above. To the first question: how to maintain a
libertarian order once achieved:
Many libertarians hold the view
that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict
enforcement of the non-aggression principle (NAP)…. while the principle does
indeed hold and apply for people living far apart and dealing with each other
only indirectly and from afar, it does not
hold and apply, or rather it is insufficient,
when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbors
and cohabitants of the same community.
He gives an example of the bad neighbor – not violating the
NAP, but…well, I will just say, among the many bad characteristics of this
neighbor, Hoppe includes (and I will say stole)
one of my well-used examples: the neighbor operates a bordello, with all sorts
of creatures coming and going at all hours.
(Now, I know, it isn’t exactly
my example…but I’m not letting go of this!)
The lesson? The peaceful
cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each
other on some territory – a tranquil, convivial social order – requires also a
commonality of culture: of language, religion, custom and convention.
And this is what I first glimpsed when someone long ago
challenged me to attack Hoppe in the same way I attacked (and still attack)
left-libertarians. I wish I could
remember who pushed me on this; I really want to thank him.
Now to the second question: how to attain a libertarian order,
given our current condition. He first
examines the strategy of the “liberallala, the peace-love-and-liberty, the
Friede-Freude-Eierkuchen or the capitalism-is-love libertarians.” And, I tell you, I love this:
To illustrate, take my
former-friend-turned-foe Jeffrey Tucker’s five “Don’ts When Talking Liberty.”
They are “1) don’t be belligerent; 2)
don’t presume hatred of liberty; 3) don’t presume different goals; 4) don’t
presume ignorance; 5) don’t regard anyone as an enemy.”
Every single one of which Hoppe destroys (as
I have done here, long ago; is Hoppe stealing my stuff again?)
As a libertarian strategy, then,
Tucker’s advice must be considered simply a bad joke. But surely it is good
advice if one seeks entry into the State as some sort of “libertarian” advisor,
and this may well explain the enthusiasm with which Tucker’s “humanitarian”
libertarianism has been embraced by the entire liberallala-libertarian crowd.
Hoppe’s “former-friend-turned-foe” quickly
changed his tune after leaving the Mises Institute.
Hoppe offers that the state and the intellectuals that
support it have conducted a culture war, in the tradition of cultural Marxism
or Gramsciism;
I have previously noted that it is the same war supported by the liberallala-libertarian
crowd. If this war continues, is there
any doubt which side will get the outcome that they claim to desire?
Hoppe describes the culture war:
[It is] aimed at a trans-valuation
of all values and the destruction of all natural, or if you will “organic”
social bonds and institutions such as families, communities, ethnic groups and
genealogically related nations, so as to create an increasingly atomized
populace, whose only shared
characteristic and unifying bond is its common existential dependency on the
State. (Emphasis added)
And these outcast groups and institutions are precisely what
must be supported if one truly has an interest in reducing or eliminating the
state. Everyone else is a communist…or
pretender.
Hoppe draws a clear distinction between the Alt-Right and
libertarians on one topic in particular:
…I believe it to be a serious
strategic error to make “whiteness” the exclusive criterion on which to base
one’s strategic decisions, as some strands of the Alt-Right have suggested to
do. After all, it is above all white men that make up the ruling elite and that
have foisted the current mess upon us.
I
agree wholeheartedly, and Hoppe better stop this unseemly behavior.
Hoppe concludes by offering ten steps necessary to attain a
libertarian order from the current condition.
He suggests that the order is not important except for the first one,
and it is this one on which I will conclude:
One: Stop mass immigration.
No one is against immigration and
immigrants per se. But immigration must be by invitation only. All immigrants
must be productive people and hence, be barred from all domestic welfare
payments. To ensure this, they or their inviting party must place a bond with
the community in which they are to settle, and which is to be forfeited and
lead to the immigrant’s deportation should he ever become a public burden.
I have concluded something similar; in fact, I believe this
as about as close as one can get to libertarian immigration in a world of state
borders.
So, what of the open-borders libertarians, the Jacob
Hornbergers and Jeffrey Tuckers and Sheldon Richmans of the world?
(Brief message to all open-border
and liberallala libertarians, who will surely label this, you guessed it,
“fascist”: In a fully privatized libertarian order there exists no such thing
as a right to free immigration. Private property implies borders and the
owner’s right to exclude at will. And “public property” has borders as well. It
is not unowned. It is the property of domestic tax-payers and most definitely
not the property of foreigners. And while it is true that the State is a
criminal organization and that to entrust it with the task of border control
will inevitably result in numerous injustices to both domestic residents and
foreigners, it is also true that the State does
something also when it decides not
to do anything about border control and that, under the present circumstances,
doing nothing at all in this regard will lead to even more and much graver
injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry.)
Conclusion
I love Hans Hoppe!
"the white race matters"
ReplyDeleteit is not about race, it is about faith, religious belief
"open-border"
In the United States today, the waiting period for citizenship is as short as five years. The waiting period is similar in other democratic nations.
This, not the threat of economic competition,
is the problem of immigration for the free society.
Because the citizen authoritatively declares the law and seeks to impose it on others, he can become a threat to the free society.
The problem is the moral content of his confession of faith and his possession of civil sanctions,not his productivity and his possession of economic sanctions.
It is not the welfare state as such that creates the
problem of immigration; rather, it is the confession of faith of the would-be immigrants.
If their confession inherently threatens
the moral and judicial foundations of the free society, then immigration is a problem, with or without the presence today of a welfare state.
Freedom is based on more than private contracts.
It is based on a moral vision, which includes a vision of the moral boundaries of the state.
https://mises.org/library/sanctuary-society-and-its-enemies-0
max
Ah yes once you get the millions of Muslims invading Europe reading your favorite obscure writer the problems will solve themselves!
Delete"[I]t is also true that the State does something also when it decides not to do anything about border control and that, under the present circumstances, doing nothing at all in this regard will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry."
ReplyDeleteThis description is spot on, but it creates a conundrum with respect to prescription. "The white men who make up the ruling elite" clearly have an incentive to perpetrate an injustice on the domestic citizenry. They control, by failing to control, the borders.
What's a right-thinking right-libertarian to do? Vote the rascals out? How has that chestnut worked out for us so far? Ugh!
Tony, we are handed perhaps the best possible path in this imperfect - that of secession - and too many libertarians cannot even see their way clear to support this or even understand it.
DeleteSupport every movement for political decentralization, every single one. That is what a right thinking libertarian would do.
Hoppe is a mess...
ReplyDelete- about gays/women / blacks / minorities... rights: you do not have to be of those categories to advocate for special rights. In addition, not every gays/women/blacks/etc… advocates for those kind of fake rights. So, libertarians don’t have problems with those categories of people per se, but only with the advocates of fake rights. There are white, heterosexual, man, who advocate for that, and blacks (Walter Williams), gays (Justin Raimondo), women (Wendy McElroy) that oppose them. Hoppe, in confusing gay people and gay rights advocates, rises animosity against the wrong targets.
- there are not only people who advocate for gays/blacks/women/ minorities/etc… special fake rights, but also a lot of people who advocates for special fake rights for white, hetero, Christians, men, and families… those people are often part of the Alt-right, isn’t that a problem for Hoppe? mumble… mumble…
- Immigrants don’t have to be productive, they only have to live without violating the NAP, in so far as libertarianism is concern. Many people are unproductive in society. But if other people voluntary pay for them, there are no NAP violations. Everyone can think numerous examples.
- Sociology and psychology are good fields of research, and can give us a more realistic prospective on things. For example, theoretically you can be a racist, a homophobic, a white supremacist, and a libertarian. But reality teach us (but someone doesn’t want to learn) that very often those people – coincidence! – become violent, and – so strange! – aggressive against the categories of people they despise.
- homogeneity: Hoppe fail to comprehend that the solution to the “bordello problem” is the market. On which criteria people can or cannot live together, and associate or separate? There would be bordellos? Where would they be? And how will they coexist with neighbors? Those questions have not one single answer. The answer is not homogeneity: same culture, same religion, same language, and same ethnicity. There are many, variable, answers, changing in the market. As we cannot know how a free market society will be, because it will be a spontaneous ever-changing order, we cannot know in advance the place for everyone and every activity. Mises, Hayek, Rothbard have written so much about this, the decentralization of knowledge in the market, and how the price system will direct the allocation of resources, people, business, work, etc… The market is a manifestation of preferences, speculations, and convictions. It is not only an economic fact, in libertarianism the market is a paradigm for human relations. You will open a bordello where, in that society, it would be possible.
- Hoppe is selling his own preferences as the culture that libertarians must adopt, and he is conflating them with libertarianism itself. (And why is he living in Istanbul? Why don’t he physically remove himself from a place where he is of the wrong ethnicity, religion, appearance, and skin color?)
- Hoppe, failing to apply sociological and psychological analysis to Alt right, and not noticing the hate, the fear, the paranoia, the anger and the danger of those people, contributes to that danger. He is failing to remember the many way in history, also recent, in which white, heterosexual, western people have promoted special rights, trough state laws, to favor the categories they like and to aggress the categories they dislike. He is failing to remember laws against gays, blacks, women, etc… and he is failing in notice that those violations of the NAP can return. To say that is not to be a left libertarian, because we can simply oppose all the people who are clearly enemies of liberty. Hoppe fails to see things in an historic prospective: those laws against gays/blacks/women/etc… had been the premise of the positive discrimination laws of today, and the laws of today can be the premise for a return of the old discriminations laws. He fails to understand the ways in which far right and far left prepare the ground for each other, and never for libertarianism.
Anonimo Lombardo
AL, after writing a 2000 word post with the title "I Love Hans Hoppe," you will understand if I don't read past the second line of your comment.
DeleteSeeing, after all, that you don't read past the second line of either my post or much of anything Hoppe has written on these matters.
I was a sucker for punishment, I read the first paragraph.
DeleteI read even further than both of you.
Delete>Hoppe is selling his own preferences as the culture that libertarians must adopt, and he is conflating them with libertarianism itself.
Look guy, you need to understand that the concept at question here is civilization itself. The market is the product of civilization and not the other way around. More specifically Aryan Civilization, because while other groups are capable of civilization, namely Asians and Arabs, their civilizations are expressions of their culture and nature not ours. Blacks on the other hand have simply never had civilization as we think of it. As for homosexuals, they are the perfect expressuon of anti-civilizational forces. They have high-time preference, spread disease, do not breed, and must parasite off of those that do in order to obtain fresh "meat."
It's not a question of subjective preference but objective laws regarding the origin and maintenance of civilization. Libertarianism is not the key to some new kind of civilization that is exempt from the laws of nature as you would like it to be.
(And why is he living in Istanbul? Why don’t he physically remove himself from a place where he is of the wrong ethnicity, religion, appearance, and skin color?)
Maybe because Istanbul is less oppressive to Germans than Germany is. Really makes you think...
BM,
DeleteI think it's worth reading, if only to understand the twisted mindset of the libertarian majority.
Matt, I have a nice bottle of pino grigio chilling. Once I am about half way into it, I might be ready.
DeleteIt is market that build civilization and not the other way around. Rothbard see history as the great battle between Liberty and Power. Liberty, alias the market in libertarianism, is the condition for civilization. It is not a set of laws or rights granted by the State and it is not something that come to exists with the theory. It existed before the theory from the birth of the first human society. The market for libertarians it is not about economic but about human relations. It is freedom that granted the conditions to art, science, economic, trade, etc... developement. But I’ m glad to read unhappy answer.. with his opinions about gays and Aryans, becouse it is so clear in reading is his words that libertarians that serch for an alliance with those people are out of their minds and are proposing the complete derailment of libertarianism.
DeleteOnly a madman can seriously think that people that do not breed are a threath to civilization. Yes if eveybody tomorrow become gays the world is finisce. But spoiler that will never happen. And what if tomorrow everybody become priests and make chastity votes? And what of people who cannot have babies or don’t want? It seems to me that the far right always propose the same garbage
trying to dress it anew, today it is time preference turn.
And how can I be rapresentative of the libertarian majority? Or maybe of left libertarianism? That is pure selfdelusion. Nothing in what I write calls for left libertarianism, for special rights for someone or for a violation of the nap. Right libertarianism is libertarian in name only. Every time I read here I become more sure of this.
Anonimo Lombardo
Anonimo Lombardo,
DeleteYou say you don't support left libertarianism, yet you support the neo-liberal project of white minoritization.
Rothbard endorsed David Duke, and called for "outreach to the rednecks".
You're going to need more than 375 mL, bionic mosquito.
DeleteOK, Matt, you asked for it:
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-woman-of-winnili.html
I wonder how, or even if, aerotransportation would be possible in an anarcho-capitalist world?
ReplyDeleteOne of the things often forgotten in nay-saying private property is the fact that people do not live in isolation. We live in communities, we associate with others, and there is an emergent "social standard" that is very real.
DeleteSure, the little girl is trespassing on my lawn to pick a dandelion, but if I shoot her I have committed murder. Did she trespass first? Yes. Did she violate my property rights? Yes. It remains a fact that the _society_ I live in has set a standard of conduct that considers such a radically disproportionate use of force to be invalid, and no appeal to the NAP is going to do any good.
The theory of private property in land is a pyramid stretching from the center of the earth to the limits of the atmosphere (at least). However, the fact remains that the social standard allows me unrestricted _access_ to the underground through my two-dimensional ground plot, the limits of which are my ability to homestead that volume.
Sky is just the same. I can build up just as I can dig down. Can I build a 300-story building with a radio tower on it? Yes. Yet the space above what I can homestead remains open access to transit, and I would be in violation of the social standard if I shot down aircraft merely because they flew over my building.
The social standard also applies to just what is and is not trespassing in air. An aircraft, the operation of which is deliberately "violating my space" is open to retaliation. I happen to think Mike Rowe shooting down a camera drone was wonderful, and I consider his defense of his privacy to be fully within his rights.
Courts exist because people disagree with what constitutes a violation of property. The social standard exists for exactly the same reason.
>…I believe it to be a serious strategic error to make “whiteness” the exclusive criterion on which to base one’s strategic decisions, as some strands of the Alt-Right have suggested to do.
ReplyDeleteSo just like property rights or NAP are necessary but *insufficient* conditions for libertarianism, "whiteness" or European blood are necessary but *insufficient* conditions for Aryan Civilization. I honestly see this as something of a straw man. Although he is correct that some white nationalists will make the fallacy he is describing, I would not. A culture can survive political upheaval: see for example the former Eastern Block countries who are far healthier with respect to issues like homosexualism and race replacement. Or look at Russia which after a century of political upheaval has a much healthier Church than the High and Low Churches of the West. What cannot be survived is racial upheaval. We see this in the history of Aryan India and the death of Zoroastrian Iran, as well as former Western colonies like Haiti or South Africa. Though I doubt Hoppe would dispute this point.
>After all, it is above all white men that make up the ruling elite and that have foisted the current mess upon us.
While it is true that it was our own white elite that have *allowed* for this to happen, the solution to the problems in white countries can only come from white people, which when complete will be the basis for a new white elite.
None of these white elites actually believe the white masses benefit from the garbage they support, although some actually believe they are fulfilling some perverse moral duty. Jews on the other hand are quite clear that these policies are meant to serve the interests of jews. I wonder if Hoppe lumps Jews in with whites (big mistake) or if he just avoids the subject for what he sees as strategic reasons.
That aside, really great stuff from Hoppe, who I also love.
UC, sometimes it is in what we might perceive to be the little flaws that makes the attraction even stronger.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73PQOkFTFc
Can a Christian be a non-fake libertarian?
ReplyDelete"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven."
:Can a Christian be a non-fake libertarian?"
DeleteAbolutely yes. Libertarian rules for society, in fact, are really based on the Golden Rule.
I should say, compatible with...
DeleteHi Bionic,a regular lurker here! Appreciate your hard work in exposing the left libertarians and their obsession with open borders despite reality.
ReplyDeleteI will like to ask on your thoughts about Larken Rose, an anarchist. It seems that he does not understand property rights and think that freedom of movement trumps that even in an anarchist society. It struck me first during the debate between Christopher Chase Rachels. He argued after the 1h 12 minute mark that freedom of movement is a moral right that trumps property rights in an anarchist society.
The second was his reply to a comment by Bill Perdiris in this thread which was a response to Hoppe's speech.
https://www.facebook.com/larken.rose.7/posts/2006109679668830
I have heard the name "Larkin Rose" but am not familiar with his work beyond what you have shared here.
DeleteAn anarchist that does not respect property rights is a communist. I do not use this term lightly; I mean it precisely. There are many left-libertarians so far to the left for whom this label is accurate.
There is a common bit of history for anarchists, with many branching left and some branching right. Some part of this I examine here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/07/left-libertarians.html
That is my last comment on this issue, because we can go on disagreeing forever...and also I don't want to be annoying.
ReplyDeleteI will put things in another way: libertarianism is a procedural theory of justice, it does not imply a defined state of things to reach and maintain but a procedure to follow. The procedure is the NAP and it is defined, the outcome is open. Statists of the left or the right type have an other kind of theory of justice: they want a defined outcome, and think that the procedure is right if it gives that outcome. Libertarians that can’t accepts the fact that with a procedural theory of justice the outcome is open, are always trying to find quibbles for pervert libertarian theory, into one that give them their desired outcome. Hoppe's "realistic libertarianism" is of that sort too. Instead they must separate the two things. And ask themselves how, under a libertarian general order, can we have the kind of society, community, life, etc… that we prefer/ that we believe is moral/ that we believe will assure prosperity/ etc… So can a community built on homogeneity of ethnicity and religion, and expulsion of gay people (how? That require an Orwellian big brother but transeat..) live in peace under the NAP? I guess yes. But can communities built otherwise, on other criteria, live in peace under the NAP as well? Yes of course. Right libertarians call themselves realists, but in reality the big majority of people, think that the criteria Hoppe is proposing are repulsive, so it must be possible to be libertarian and very far from Hoppe’s view, or libertarianism is doomed. So much for realism.
Anonimo Lombardo
Since it is not aggression to refuse to deal with someone, for whatever reason, the answer to your long-winded comment is, "Yes."
Delete"I believe it to be a serious strategic error to make “whiteness” the exclusive criterion on which to base one’s strategic decisions, as some strands of the Alt-Right have suggested to do."
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstand the idea. "Whiteness" is important to white people; not to Africans or Orientals. Each group's race is a part of their culture and is hence important. There are many important aspects of culture; for example, I think family is the basis of culture but it is not everything --- same thing with race.
Some say that religion is the most important part of culture, but others have it down-list. Depends on your outlook I suppose.
I would say "whiteness" is important to many, not all, white people.
DeleteI will also agree that what we each value in "culture" is subjective.
But I do not see a real contradiction vis Hoppe. In his view, he is saying whiteness cannot be the "exclusive" criterion.
Are there not "some strands" of the Alt-Right that focus on this?
Whiteness cannot be the ultimate criterion for anything, much less a strategy for promoting liberty. What is usually described as "whiteness" in these debates, when not meant as a strictly racial or skin color concept, involves references to civilization, cultural contexts, respect for others' rights and property, and so on.
DeleteBut what is good in European cultural heritage is really a Christian heritage, built over the millenia in steps. St. Patrick invoked Christian concepts to condemn slavery, practiced the love of Christ by introducing literacy to the Irish, who learned to love the written word and preserved many Greek and Roman classics for posterity, shared their Biblical and secular knowledge in the universities of Charlemagne, incubated Western science and principles of individual rights, clinics and hospitals, orphanages, taboos against human sacrifice, and even Charles Darwin wrote about the relief of world travelers to find a church steeple on an unknown island because they would not find themselves in a stew where Christian missionaries had been.
Yet another comment went into space. Am I on some don't-post list? If so, please let me know.
ReplyDeleteMark, you are on no such list. I moderate comments - in other words, once you post the comment sits in limbo until I see it. Sometimes this is a few minutes, sometimes it can be many hours - if I am asleep, working (like paid work), etc.
DeleteI see you linked this piece at VD. Thanks.
Bionic,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your amazing blog. As a black man discovering Mises U and your blog was a match made in heaven for me. My libertarian years are as young as my age, but this has been a great journey and I hope to contribute to the efforts of people like yourself through right libertarian social change. Secession is needed more than ever.
First, I fully agree with Hoppe and do not see him as some homophobe or racist. The harsh and obvious truth is that homosexuality is a civilizational dead-end especially from a reproductive standpoint. There is nothing homophobic about admitting this just like saying black on black crime is a bigger issue than police brutality should not be seen as racist. Homosexuality is essentially male carnal nature unleashed. Without the female check, it is destructive in large doses (decadence in large doses in general). Even more so since at least the last two generations of Western denizens have turned their back on Christianity. No longer even acknowledging or being aware of how vital and indispensable it has been to the development of the West.
ReplyDeleteNote, I am not examining this from a creative, intellectual or economic standpoint. Gay men have made obvious contributions in this regard. But I believe sexual preference has been incidental to this. The only possible exception is the arts where a sharpened, almost brutal male wit in the Wildean vein, has led to some of my favourite works.
Left libertarians and people who smear Hoppe as racist and homophobic never seem to attack his arguments. An attempt at a constructive rebuttal of Hoppe would need to address the following:
1. For a healthy, thriving libertarian civilization, why is an emphasis on reproduction, the family and legacy not essential? This should include an explanation on how culture is shaped. Note, this does not imply the exclusion or obliteration of homosexuals as they have always existed in some form throughout history.
2. If you agree that Western Civilization is of value and deserves to be preserved, what aspects of Hoppe’s view do not reflect what is critical to ensure its’ survival?
3. Is religion or some combination of mythology, philosophy and moral teaching not necessary? Or is political ideology sufficient? If so, why not and was Christianity irrelevant to the progress of the West?
4. If cultures are all equal or worthy of merit, is Saudi Arabia as likely to be a libertarian paradise as the United States? If so, why? If not, why not?
5. Does open borders not have an economic cost (whether to the taxpayer in our current world or the individual in a libertarian world)? Who is to bear this? Is there no such thing as resource scarcity anymore or are we in Eden with limitless bounty and no constraints? How does this square with the NAP?? Can private property (sancrosanct in libertarianism) co-exist with open borders?
There are other questions they need to answer that are perhaps even more pertinent. To me, none of them can be answered without avoiding the fact that all cultures are not equal and that there are specific ingredients that are indispensable to a liberty-minded and free society.
Specifically on the alt right, I don't understand their strategy. Why introduce race into the equation? That is the game of the left: identity politics. They will win or bring you down to their level every time. Why not just focus on cultural values and the Western tradition? You are going to attract mostly white people anyway so why bother bringing race into it. It seems idiotic.
ReplyDeleteAs the alt right has gotten more attention, they seem to have become a conservative mirror of the left. At best, they are now a foil against the radical racist left. Hopefully they will drag each other down into the abyss before this is all over.
Adrian, I agree. Many of the views that can be labelled Alt-Right have wide appeal, but not this.
DeleteTwo things come to mind, and not mutually exclusive:
1) Rebellions attract many who are all against the same thing yet for different things.
2) There is manipulation by those who oppose the "mainstream" portion of the Alt-Right agenda. In other words, tools are purposefully inserted meant to discredit the movement.
Alt-right call people in Spencer camp alt-retards.
DeleteIf a culture/society is what provides a commonality to be able to transact with the least possible amount of misunderstandings and conflict, it all starts with the family. A family shares the genetics and a normal and healthy preference for sameness.
Bionic, I agree. I would not doubt that the intelligence services have their infiltrators on both the SJW left and alt right. I also suspect that the excessive coverage of Spencer as an alt right figurehead is deliberate by the media. The core alt right somehow needs to figure out how to marginalize or expunge the fringe losers for as small as they are, their actions could poison the reputation of their movement. Especially with the mainstream media involved. Maybe the damage has already been done. Time will tell.
DeleteAdrian, I am more and more coming to the view that our success (for those of us who want to move more toward a libertarian society) hinges on advocating and advancing the best traditions and norms of Western Civilization, while openly discarding the worst of the traditions (e.g. as has been done with slavery, etc.)
DeleteThe destruction of this tradition will lead to a defenseless population; the enhancement of this tradition will lead to a population that values liberty.
No small task.
Media reports every time Richard Spencer sneezes because they are in panic that they won't get culture adulteration. For the same reason for a time they reported every little utterance of that "God hates fags" joke of a group. They never got any more than some 75 people in their following despite the
Deleteoverwhelming free publicity and some backwards half-truths in their message. (Romans One is one of the natural results (judgments) for rejecting God, not its cause).
But they were able to talk about "God hates fags" as a lead-in to something Dennis Prager said about "gay marriage" or Dr. Dobson said...
>Specifically on the alt right, I don't understand their strategy. Why introduce race into the equation? That is the game of the left: identity politics. They will win or bring you down to their level every time. Why not just focus on cultural values and the Western tradition? You are going to attract mostly white people anyway so why bother bringing race into it. It seems idiotic.
DeleteWhatever criticism you have of “Altright” strategy (I have many myself), race shouldn’t be one of them. In democratic politics it is always best to be on the attack. You are correct that the left has won the identity politics game for awhile now, but that’s because the right wasn’t playing! The idea that they will win just because they have in the past is incorrect. The election of trump proves that implicit racial politics (immigration) can seal the divide between white union democrats and small gov republicans. If the white can become pro-white it will force the left to double/triple down on anti-white politics. It’s already happening even though pro-whites aren’t in positions of power. In fact if the GOP can’t become hardline anti immigration (and implicitly or explicitly pro-white) it will cease to exist as a political force when America loses a white majority.
In the event you haven't seen this yet, I'm passing it along for you to respond to or comment upon as you see fit.
ReplyDeletehttp://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=11833
Looking forward as always to your wonderful analysis should you decide to take this upon yourself.
Unknown
DeleteI find the vast majority of his criticisms valid if one considers the majority of (or at least the loudest and best funded) libertarians. Call them left-libertarians, universalist libertarians, etc. Further, I find many of his criticisms to also be equally applicable – perhaps even more so – to the Alt-Right.
I will offer a few examples:
“By that point I had seen enough of the world to know that most people would never go along with it.”
Only the left-lib, universalist libertarians expect such a thing; I will also suggest that the same is true of the “Alt-Right” philosophy – even more so. At least the all of the world’s major religions have some form of the Golden Rule (which at least approaches the NAP, although I prefer the silver rule); can anything similar be offered regarding the Alt-Right political philosophy (whatever that is, and more on this below)?
“Although libertarians never put it this way, and Hoppe does not in his speech, the underlying assumption is that libertarianism can become a civic religion.”
Only the left-libs believe this, consciously or subconsciously. Those, like Hoppe, understand that something else, something more, must bind society.
“That’s because no two libertarians can agree on the definition of libertarianism….This suggests a defect at the core of the ideology.”
True enough. Let’s try this: That’s because no two Alt-righters can agree on the definition of Alt-Right….This suggests a defect at the core of the ideology.
“The universalist ideology created by Murray Rothbard and others was a creature of the 20th century.”
I don’t believe Rothbard would say that he created a universalist ideology, but I cannot speak with authority; in any case, the more mature critical thinkers of the movement since Rothbard do not accept this.
But let’s say Rothbard did create a universalist ideology. I cut Rothbard a lot of slack, and the reason is to be found in the quoted statement. Rothbard “created” libertarianism as it has come to be known; he did this by pulling together aspects of many different strands. That he didn’t get everything “perfect” means what, exactly?
I must clarify one point:
Delete“That’s because no two libertarians can agree on the definition of libertarianism….This suggests a defect at the core of the ideology.”
True enough.
When I say “true enough,” I am referring to the “no two libertarians agree” part. I find no defect in the political philosophy (“ideology” seems too strong a term to me) of non-aggression. It is wonderful in its simplicity. Too many want to add too many appendages; this messes things up.
Might this stimulate a blog all its own? Perhaps the ZMan might even be persuaded that his might be a generalization that captures in caricature, what it lacks and loses in reality?
ReplyDeleteHow many races are there?
ReplyDeletehttps://creation.com/all-one-people
Live long and prosper, Spock. I didn't think Spock believed the Creation as described in the Bible; didn't you see "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier"? Oh, wait...you were in it!
DeleteIn all seriousness, whatever truth there is in this "we are all one race" idea, 99.9% of the people in the world believe otherwise.
This is one Spock that believes the biblical account of creation in six solar days approximately 6,000 years ago - it's only logical, after all: Jesus said so.
DeleteAs far as your 99.9% of the people who believe otherwise, whatever the figure is, it's another example of why we are in the mess we are in. If people believed God's word re: who we are, why we are here, how to get along with each other, right and wrong, etc., 99.9% of our problems would disappear.
"If" perhaps the biggest two-letter word in the English language.
DeleteWe will never get this with imperfect, fallen humans. So...here we are.
I agree that there us only one human race. But we are a rationalizing if not a rational race and we observe and categorize/group according to those observations. Science is, in part, involves categorizing.
ReplyDeleteThe human race is observably divided in groups, superficially, by morphology. These groups with modern science can be traced to various and sundry regions of the world. Lookup the suffix "oid" in the dictionary.
"And while it is true that the State is a criminal organization and that to entrust it with the task of border control will inevitably result in numerous injustices to both domestic residents and foreigners, it is also true that the State does something also when it decides not to do anything about border control and that, under the present circumstances, doing nothing at all in this regard will lead to even more and much graver injustices, in particular to the domestic citizenry."
ReplyDeleteThis was a strange comment coming from someone like Hoppe, for a few reasons. I am interested to get your thoughts, BM.
First, it sounds quite utilitarian, weighing up the cost of one policy vs. another and trying to pick the one with the least negative utility. "Utilitarian" is not a word that I am used to associating with Hoppe. How can he know or measure the "utils" for each person in society from one policy vs. another, and then sum them up to get to this conclusion?
Second, where else in Hoppe's writings has he advocated for state action, as opposed to cessation of action / inaction? I would have picked Hoppe to be someone who always and everywhere is for a reduction in state action and who never depends on the state to achieve an outcome.
Third, I don't see how inaction can be described as action just because of its consequences. When the state acts, it coerces people. When it doesn't act, it does not coerce people. Aren't libertarians against coercion? Moreover, one could extend his concept as follows: if the state stopped collecting taxes to pay the police, and thus the police went on strike, yes, society would suffer somewhat from the police being on strike, but does that justify advocating for the state to continue to collect taxes? I would have thought the libertarian answer is to applaud the cessation of tax collection and to look for private sector solutions to protecting property in the absence of police action.
NAPster
DeleteI offer the following three posts in response. I think this is the most efficient way I can move the conversation forward. After you read these, I will gladly discuss further.
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-logical-inconsistency-of-open.html
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/03/open-borders-no-answer-in-non.html
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/06/block-and-bionic-duke-it-out.html
In this last post, "open borders" Walter Block decides I might be on to something; the first two posts set up the "something."
BM:
DeleteI have read these blog posts, but they do not respond directly to the points I raised above. I am still interested in your views on those points.
The reason I ask is as follows. Perhaps I am misinterpreting you and Hoppe (and I feel sure you will tell me if this is so), but it seems that there is a particular outcome you want – a particular make-up of the society in which you live – and your position on immigration in a world with states is designed to achieve that outcome, even if the means are inconsistent with libertarian philosophy. I don’t have any quarrel with your having an objective, nor the nature of that objective. But where I do differ with you and Hoppe is that I don’t believe it is consistent with libertarian philosophy to advocate for the initiation of force – through the use of the state as border control – to create a society that rejects the legitimacy of the initiation of force (this seems to be of a piece with Bush Jr.’s comment in 2008 that we had to abandon free market principles to save the free market).
I can imagine that someone might respond “Well then, how are we supposed to get to a libertarian society if we don’t forcefully exclude or remove those who would reject its very principles?” There are at least two answers I would give. First, even if I can’t articulate how we get there, the shortcomings of my or the questioner’s imagination are not a justification to fall back on the initiation of force (this is one of statists’ favorite arguments: “Hey, if you can’t tell me what a stateless society is going to look like, then I think we need the state.”). Second, there are some obvious peaceful means that come to mind that may enable progress towards that goal, such as group shunning of unwanted newcomers, homeowner association covenants (e.g., the famously difficult process to buy into a New York City co-op building), and local residents pooling resources to buy neighboring property put up for sale so as to control who comes in.
There is one related point I would also like to make. I have long wondered if, in the context of debating immigration policy in a world with states, you are unfairly grouping together two different sets of so-called “open borders” libertarians (OBLs). It does seem that some OBLs (call them Type 1 OBLs) want anyone and everyone to be able to move to the US; some of them may want this for nefarious reasons (i.e., to dilute or destroy the traditional culture), and some of them may have other, less nefarious reasons (e.g., because they believe immigration is good for economic growth). However, there are other OBLs (call them Type 2 OBLs) who believe that to initiate force against individuals coming from abroad who have committed no NAP violation, and/or to forcibly prevent residents from contracting or associating with such foreigners as they so choose, is contrary to libertarian philosophy. I view Type 1 OBLs as being concerned mainly with ends, and Type 2 OBLs being concerned only with means. I just don’t understand the argument against Type 2 OBLs if it essentially says that IN THIS INSTANCE it’s OK to initiate force.
“…but it seems that there is a particular outcome you want – a particular make-up of the society in which you live – and your position on immigration in a world with states is designed to achieve that outcome…”
DeleteThe closest I can come to a libertarian immigration policy in world with state borders is a policy of invitation and guarantee: invitation by a citizen, with the citizen guaranteeing that the immigrant will not be a burden to society and will not be a criminal. Consequences attach to the citizen if either of these is breeched.
So…this doesn’t assume any particular outcome; it is merely as close to a libertarian policy in a world of state borders that I can come up with.
“But where I do differ with you and Hoppe is that I don’t believe it is consistent with libertarian philosophy to advocate for the initiation of force – through the use of the state as border control – to create a society that rejects the legitimacy of the initiation of force….”
I do not advocate for the initiation of force; I also do not advocate for cultural and political suicide. I do not accept that there can be any libertarian policy on immigration as long as there is a state; there is no such thing as a “do nothing” option – every option involves an initiation of force. Merkel did the “do nothing option”; do you believe this to be a libertarian solution? Do you believe she did not initiate force against those already living in Germany?
As long as there is a state – impossible under the NAP but accepted by libertarian minarchists – there will be state borders. To have state borders requires some sort of defense of those borders – defense being one of the few tasks allotted to government by minarchists. How does the state defend its borders without knowing who comes and goes and having some idea of their intentions?
Now, for the anarchist: the state cannot be derived from the NAP; how can the NAP offer a solution to state borders? I go further: to have a libertarian policy on immigration requires 1) absolute private property rights, and 2) no government intervention in immigration matters.
Libertarians are looking for an answer on immigration in a world of state borders that the NAP cannot offer – the NAP is impotent in this situation, it is incapable of squaring this circle.
“I can imagine that someone might respond “Well then, how are we supposed to get to a libertarian society if we don’t forcefully exclude or remove those who would reject its very principles?””
I admit to being one of the libertarian wimps when it comes to “forcibly removing” people already living in peace. I lean on other moral principles in this regard. This is me, personally. But I understand the view.
But what of “exclude”? If you and a dozen friends created your own “society,” and you wanted this to be a society solely comprised of Christian families, are you not allowed to exclude others? For libertarians, there is only one answer to this; that our only option is to rely on the state to make this happen (because we do not have absolute property rights) means what, exactly?
Because we are forced to work via the state in this matter, are we to merely accept being left naked regarding our own personal preferences, our own property? This is a very non-libertarian concept, don’t you think?
“…there are some obvious peaceful means that come to mind that may enable progress towards that goal, such as group shunning of unwanted newcomers…”
Illegal today. Even individual shunning is illegal – try not baking the wedding cake for the gay couple. It is impossible to square the circle you are attempting to square.
Finally, I appreciate your distinction of type 1 and type 2 OBLs. The type 1 I view as either useful idiots or criminally complicit. For the type 2, I have given my best response above (well, actually my best responses are probably in my more formal posts).
I will summarize: to advocate for open borders in a world absent full private property rights IS NOT LIBERTARIAN.
It is a circle that cannot be squared.
Several times you raise the point about constructing a “libertarian immigration policy.” I guess I don’t see libertarianism as a political philosophy that needs to come up with any policy other than “Don’t initiate force,” which is the whole basis for rejecting the legitimacy of the state, even when it exists. Thus when the state forcibly restricts humans from interacting with one another -- which is what it does when it plays border cop -- isn’t the libertarian “policy” to reject the legitimacy of that restriction? I understand that a libertarian is also a human being, and thus he will have his own unique objectives and desires that he may want to layer on top of that “policy,” but in his capacity simply as a libertarian, isn’t he supposed to reject all state action? Why is the NAP “incompetent in this situation”? It seems to supply an answer here as cogently as it would in any other situation.
DeleteWe also seem to differ on what it means to “initiate force.” If I understand your view correctly (based on your Merkel example), if a state does not restrict the movement of a person, it is initiating force against those people who might wish that there had been a restriction on that person’s movement. Yes, the state is initiating force against those people in its taxation and regulation activities, but these are positive acts of expropriation of private property and restriction on the exercise of self-ownership. However, in relation only to this individual’s movement, I cannot see how the state failing to restrict his movement initiates force against other people (and, conversely, because taxation funds state action, there IS initiation of force against these people when the state garners the resources to restrict this person’s movement). If a state does not tax A to provide a subsidy to B that B desires, is the state initiating force against B? Doesn’t your position amount to a statement that “Not acting equals acting”? Isn’t this a logical contradiction which renders the definition of “initiation” meaningless?
I’m not saying that things have worked out well in Germany, but libertarianism is concerned solely with means, not outcomes.
In this world where you want the state to act to defend its borders, how is the state supposed to concurrently serve all the varied and conflicting interests of its many citizens (leaving aside the point that, by its nature, the state will more likely act to serve itself)? Do you end up having to support majority rule?
Two small points.
On the topic of exclusion, I will grant that I was not as clear as I could have been. I did not mean not associating with someone, but rather initiating force to prevent that person from interacting with someone else.
As to shunning, not all is lost: consumers are still allowed to shun vendors, tenants to shun landlords, employees to shun employers, and neighbors to shun neighbors.
Finally, I would like to state my version of your summary: to advocate for state action in any world IS NOT LIBERTARIAN.
It is a circle that cannot be squared.
“Finally, I would like to state my version of your summary: to advocate for state action in any world IS NOT LIBERTARIAN.”
DeleteLet’s begin at the end:
1) I do not advocate for state action; I am stuck with state action – no matter what – on this topic as long as there are state borders.
2) I am honest enough to admit that my position on this topic is not libertarian, as no position in a world with state borders can be libertarian; you are unable to either see this or admit this.
“As to shunning, not all is lost: consumers are still allowed to shun vendors, tenants to shun landlords, employees to shun employers, and neighbors to shun neighbors.”
Yes, all of the shunning that makes a communist happy and makes a libertarian cringe. In each of your examples save the last one, consider that it is illegal for the one who owns property to “shun,” and it is legal for the one without property to “shun.”
My position is clear: it takes TWO things to come to a libertarian open borders position in a world of state borders:
1) Absolute property rights and all property in private hands
2) No state involvement in border control
I say why not push for the first; you say let’s take the second without the first. My priority is at the foundation of libertarianism – without absolute private property rights, there is no such thing as “libertarian”; your solution works with the cultural Marxists and Gramsciists and the state to destroy western civilization.
So, when faced with two actions necessary to move to a libertarian policy on border control, why do you side with THAT crowd? The crowd that is worried about outcomes, not means?
“I’m not saying that things have worked out well in Germany, but libertarianism is concerned solely with means, not outcomes.”
It is comments such as these from less-than-well-considered libertarian positions that will ensure that libertarianism will never gain ground. Some applications of libertarian theory are not so simple, yet too many libertarians bellow simple slogans, ensuring we remain marginalized.
Rothbard has written about such libertarians:
“One argument that paleoconservatives make about libertarians is that we tend to become so enamored of our "abstract" though correct theory that we tend to underweigh concrete political or cultural problems, and here is a lovely example.”
He is writing of educational vouchers, but his thoughts are perfectly applicable to the topic we are discussing, and I make the point here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/03/rothbard-and-open-borders.html
NAPster
DeleteSomething has been bothering me about our entire conversation. It is a conversation covering ground that I have covered a dozen times, but this doesn't bother me - nothing says I had the same conversation with you, and I don't expect every reader to have read everything I have written on a subject.
But this is what was bothering me: I HAVE had this same conversation with you:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/05/nap-time.html
See here:
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/10/nap-time-ii.html
You didn't convince me last time, and I specifically wanted to explore with you some ideas that came out of Hoppe's talk which was the reason for your initial blog post. But it's your blog and your rules, so if you'd prefer to use your time elsewhere, we can end our correspondence. Otherwise I would reply in substance.
DeleteNAPster, it's your time to reply or not. What I do thereafter is my time.
Delete(Part 1 of 2) You say “I do not advocate for state action; I am stuck with state action …” But the fact that there is an acting state doesn’t oblige you to advocate that it continue to act. You could also advocate that it cease acting, as I’m guessing you do in all other areas of society, and advocate for private, peaceful solutions to issues. So what you seem to be saying is that, while there IS a state, you advocate that it act to reflect your preferred immigration policy, but you will cease advocating for state action when there is no longer a state. That seems to be half-libertarian. And yes, I do not admit that there cannot be a libertarian position in a world with states; in fact, what is the point of libertarianism as a contemporary philosophy if not to argue against state action when states exist? As I have noted previously, in my view the libertarian position is to oppose the initiation of force, which means (among other things) opposing state action.
DeleteThe libertarian toolbox to resolve societal issues includes persuasion, self-defense against imminent physical threat, market transactions, shunning, secession, etc. You have given sound examples of restrictions the state places on certain types of shunning. But other peaceful means exist and, moreover, what you’re saying is that if I can’t make them work, then let’s use force. I can’t square that with the NAP.
Moreover, practically speaking, there are lots of libertarian issues with relying on the state to do your bidding. First, as previously noted, with all the diverse interests of individual citizens, how can the state be expected to pick a policy that satisfies everyone? If, per your wishes, the state forcibly excludes individuals who might not be in favor of traditional western civilization, it may be forcibly excluding some of these individuals who nevertheless want to engage, and have been invited to engage, in peaceful activities with residents (trade, employment, common interests, etc.). Second, why would you expect that the entity that has prohibited forms of shunning in which you might want to engage will in parallel exclude those who are protected by its own anti-shunning policies? Third, to advocate for the state to act as border cop is to support taxation to finance the state’s activities.
(Part 2 of 2) As to your two conditions – absolute private property and no state involvement in border control – I don’t think your summary of my position is accurate. I say push for the first but don’t compromise on the second. In fact, aren’t those two conditions true for every aspect of society? We want no state involvement in healthcare, education, etc. I don’t believe that you would advocate for state involvement in those other areas in the meantime, even, for example, to teach students in government schools about the virtues of western civilization.
DeleteYou suggest that I have sided with the cultural Marxists and Gramsciists against you. I reject the notion that there are only two sides. I am in favor of a third option: even if I were to share some or all of your views about these groups, I am not willing to advocate for initiating force to defeat them.
Finally, I go back and forward about whether you are actually articulating libertarian principle or libertarian strategy. On the latter, I offer some Rothbard sentiments from “For a New Liberty” (pp.385-6): “The insight that the State is the major enemy of mankind, on the other hand, leads to a very different strategic outlook: namely, that libertarians should push for and accept with alacrity any reduction of State power or activity on any front. Any such reduction at any time should be a welcome decrease of crime and aggression. Therefore, the libertarian’s concern should not be to use the State to embark on a measured course of destatization, but rather to hack away at any and all manifestations of statism whenever and wherever he or she can. . . . Thus, the libertarian must never allow himself to be trapped into any sort of proposal for “positive” governmental action; in his perspective, the role of government should only be to remove itself from all spheres of society just as rapidly as it can be pressured to do so.”
“You say “I do not advocate for state action; I am stuck with state action …” But the fact that there is an acting state doesn’t oblige you to advocate that it continue to act.”
Delete“I am stuck” means “you” are also “stuck.” It means that it cannot be avoided; there is no possibility of a policy where the state does nothing as long as there are state borders; I have explained why and don’t want to do so again.
“First, as previously noted, with all the diverse interests of individual citizens, how can the state be expected to pick a policy that satisfies everyone?”
It cannot; this explains part of my answer above. So what makes my preference (for the sake of argument, assume mine is different than yours) of less worth than yours?
“In fact, aren’t those two conditions true for every aspect of society? We want no state involvement in healthcare, education, etc.”
Wrong. Read again my link of the conversation with Walter Block; even Walter understood this – as hard-headed as he can be sometimes (Walter, if you read this, I know you understand my good-natured ribbing).
“You suggest that I have sided with the cultural Marxists and Gramsciists against you. I reject the notion that there are only two sides.”
Yet you have no problem insisting that I must choose from only two choices.
You and the Gramsciists have different ends in mind yet you advocate the same means. Given the same means, two different ends cannot be achieved – a physical and logical and philosophical impossibility. One end or the other will win – a libertarian society or a state-controlled (call it communist or whatever you want) society.
Given your means in a world of state borders and no real private property rights, I know which one will win. To believe otherwise is to ignore the evidence all around you.
It is willful blindness or corruption. And if your version of libertarian theory and application cannot deal with this in a manner that improves and enhances human life, you are embracing a dead political philosophy.
My version can.
It appears that we are both now starting to repeat our earlier points, so it's probably a good time for me to exit from this most interesting exchange of views. You make formidable arguments for your position. While I don't agree with your position, I certainly have a better appreciation of it. Thank you for indulging me on your blog.
DeleteThank you for the exchange; I also valued the discussion. Please stop by again if you find a different angle worth approaching.
Delete