“The Real Aggressor” by Murray N. Rothbard
“To take up arms against one set of socialists is not the way to stop socialism — indeed it is bound to increase socialism as all modern wars have done.”
The late, great Murray Rothbard wrote in this astute 1954 essay about how many conservatives have a “schizophrenic pursuit of both liberty and collectivism.” They adopt an “international-collectivistic approach” in foreign policy. It is why they call for and support collective organizations such as NATO. As Mr. Libertarian explicated, these individuals have “a faith in world government, supposedly restricted to the enforcement of so-called world law” to freeze the international order that currently exists. Moreover, these conservatives in the Cold War did not understand that the real "battle" was ideological in nature. Not just the subset ideology of communism but the superset it belongs to; statism.
“The battle can only be waged in the realm of ideas and reason. Man shall only tighten his chains — and those holding other men — if he takes up arms simply against one foreign statist faction. Even if Russia and China both were to be wiped out tomorrow, Communism would continue to exist (just as it did before 1917) so long as people continue to give credence to its collectivist tenets. . . .
“But some conservatives are failing to recognize that the enemy is statism, rather than simply Communism. And the fundamental reason, obviously, is that there is still an inadequate understanding of the very nature of the State.”
The very (false) notion, he wrote, that the State should only have "limited" power to protect citizens from aggression is from not understanding the nature of the State or seeing the necessary consequences of this view.
Rothbard then sets down the principles that should be applied to international politics and war. He also gives a path that the United States government should take for a path to freedom, i.e., to adopt "a foreign policy of freedom."
See Also: "War, Peace, and the State" by Rothbard
[Edited... I probably should have posted this Sat. morning. It should be fixed now.]
Politicians give me the creeps: All that calculating and conniving, pandering; all the baloney and hot air; all of the insincerity and impossible promises; all of the staged events and acting; and all the illusory “debate” that characterizes politicians and the general political scene of deceit.
It is a Friday evening. That means it is time to watch The McLaughlin Group. (By the way, Mr. Buchanan gave Rep. Ron Paul the award for Most Underrated in 2007 on the show.) I turned PBS on early and watched some other program. It was your typical establishment-type show. Not worth your time.
Watching it got me thinking on how I always cringe (and, at the same time, laugh) when I listen to the commentary on how a given politician is battling it out now with his opponent on this issue or that or with this dirt or that versus in the future time-wise for the greatest political score he can acquire or by saying this or that to pander to X interest group. But, he must be careful with the latter. He has to do his best not only with X interest group, but with the juggling of Y, Z, A, B, and so on. A politician might, perhaps, please X group, but that might come at the expense of B. He might be able to please Z and A, but that might cut into Y. Oh, no! For the former, if he attacks his opponent a little later versus now, then maybe he can cause the most damage when Election Day (always Capitalized, of course) comes.
Politicians have their behind the scenes staff with all of this in mind. Plotting and scheming.
Nothing seems strange, odd, or bizarre about this; especially to the commentators on these types of shows. Well, it is politics as usual. No doubt about that. No amount of satire can top it. It is the best show in town. Not even a real circus show, filled with honest men trying to make a living.
In case you are wondering, that program had no verbal mention, unless I missed it by some small chance, of Ron Paul. But how can you talk about him with the above? How does he fit into all of that? The questions answer themselves.
***
LRC Blog: "Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul?"
Not surprising, if true.
In one sense, though, as long as there is enough outrage and enough people that hear about this outrageous exclusion, from a candidate who has raised such a staggering amount of money proving that he is a viable candidate, it will only make the establishment look bad. Of course, it would be hard for the establishment to make itself look any worse than it already looks (at least for those of a pro-liberty bent)!
Once Fox "News" gets a few* hundred emails and plenty of phone calls, he will be there. :-) Sorry, establishment.
*(This needs the award for understatement.)
However, if they still do not let him in, the grassroots will then embarrass the establishment by, maybe, holding another large rally in his honor and will make sure it gets some good publicity in one way or another. This is what happened the last time when an exclusion occurred. It most likely gave him a little boost, one larger than if he attended that----what they call----"debate."
Mr. Burton S. Blumert writes:
When the NY Times called Ron Paul a "Nazi," in a smear typical of the newspaper that printed press releases for Josef Stalin, LRC blew the whistle, and mobilizing the Ron Paul movement, forced the newspaper to retract. Has that ever happened before? When Tim Russert on Meet the Press slammed Ron in a nasty attack-interview, we helped get the truth out, and made sure Tim and NBC heard about our concerns. When Glen Beck said that Ron Paul supporters were potential "domestic terrorists," LRC helped make sure his sponsors knew our outrage. Next thing you knew, Glenn was hosting Ron for an hour interview that was, by Beckian standards, pretty darn fair. This is the 21st century, and 18th-century technology like newspapers, and 20th-century technology like television, better get used to the Internet. LRC and the Ron Paul Revolution are holding them all to account. Indeed, LRC has more readers than at any time in our eight-year history. We have greater influence than ever before. Yet we are in danger of being put out of business.
He also writes: "[D]id you know, by the way, that we helped make 'neocon' a well-known pejorative term? Though they adopted the name for themselves, the neocons now call anyone else’s use of it "bigotry"! Sure, fellas."
Why not give them a few bucks?
LRC Revolution Stuff: Open Letters on Behalf of Ron Paul | Ron Paul News | The Ron Paul File
The Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill, a giant among libertarian literature, is now (for free) on audiobook from Laissez-Faire Books. It was put together by Mr. Ian Bernard, host of the talk radio program Free Talk Live. As someone who read this book, and which has a good spot in my freedom library, I can tell you that this book will open one’s eyes to the possibility of a stateless, libertarian society. It will make the incredulous skeptic think twice before instinctively reacting that the free market could not produce police, courts, and law. Go, and click here.
(Via the Mises blog.)
See Also: I typed up an entry that was based on this book here.
I hope you had a very merry, blessed, and holy Christmas day. Hopefully the New Year, 2008, will be a very productive and happy one for you and your family. In view of the fact that I have broken the rules before when it comes to topics on theology and Catholicism (and a couple of other subjects), and given the time of the year, I would like to type a little bit about the new book Sacred Then and Sacred Now: The Return of the Old Latin Mass by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
It is an excellent, very slim book that can be read in one sitting; especially great for the laymen. It is very handy. All Catholics not familiar (or whose familiarity is very little) with the Old Mass should go buy it, particular in light of this Mass being made more available in the future.
As I said in a previous blog entry, I purchased a copy for myself and for another person, a priest. It might be too basic for him, but I did learn from it. I'm much too young, the New Mass (now a.k.a. "ordinary form") is what I know. My experience with the Tridentine Mass ("extraordinary form") is little. The majority of my "experience" I have with it is just by reading about it. It is not offered in many places. Many of those that do experience it regularly drive hours every week, something not that feasible for many others that would like to attend this form of the Mass.
This is changing, though. Pope Benedict XVI's liberation of the extraordinary form will make it more widely available to those that desire it. As the Pope has written (July, 2007 letter to the bishops), and is the first quote in the book you will see inside:
What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.
What was then holy is still holy today, in other words. It cannot just be left behind, abandoned or forbidden. This is just common sense, at least it should be. (I grant that "common sense" is defined differently in today's world. Haha.)
In Sacred Then and Sacred Now, Dr. Woods explores some of the writings of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he became Pope. This exploration shows that he always had a deep love and appreciation for the old liturgy, even though he did not reject reform or been as much as a critic as some traditionalists.
One component of his thoughts has been that liturgical reform must be developed and changed organically; not abruptly. One cannot just break from the past. He also believes that Mass has now become more man-focused versus God-focused and that changes have given more individual concoction for creativeness in the new missal detached from a binding and sharing to all members of the Church. For a greater taste on this, see this article by Woods which was adapted for the book.
Woods also examines Pope Benedict XVI's issued motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. (The Pope's document and his letter to the bishops are included in the book at the end in the appendix section.) The message of these documents echoes the above. The Old Mass was not "outlawed." A group of people that desire it should be able to get it by asking their pastor, and he should do his best to grant their request. If he does not, they should then go to the diocesan bishop. And if that does not work, then they should go to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei." This (quoting Summorum Pontificum) "will exercise the authority of the Holy See." Thus, writes Woods, "the Pope expects his instructions to be obeyed ... [his] message to the bishops could scarcely be clearer."
Chapter three in the book gives a simple guide to the extraordinary form. Like the rest of the book, it is very well done and easy to read.
The next two chapters highlight the differences between the extraordinary and ordinary forms. I believe Woods does this very well, and answers objections to the extraordinary form powerfully----but understandably for the beginner. It shows how political correctness has taken over today, even in the Church. And how, in my view, the ordinary form does appear to cheapen the Mass.
This includes talk on the reasons for communion on the tongue, and kneeling for it. Woods writes about why only male altar servers are allowed and Eucharistic ministers are not used.
He tries to clear up "common misconceptions." For example, Woods talks about why Latin should be used because of its nature of being (as Pious XI said) "universal, immutable, and non-vernacular." The Catholic Church goes beyond nations, nationality, ethnicity, race. Its language should reflect that and should unite people. How wonderful is the idea that if one is traveling to a place around the world that the same Holy, True Mass is taking place. Woods also addresses the claims that people did not understand the Old Mass or that it supposedly diminished participation. Another complaint that is dealt with, is the priest and how he has his back to the people. (As if, Woods says, the people are the center of the Mass! An unfortunate example of today's misplaced modernism.) Then there is the criticism that the Old Mass should be rejected because it is really not that ancient.
You will find some online and offline resources at the end, plus a sermon of Father Calvin Goodwin.
Buy it here.
Recently, when I turned the television on, something struck me. It made me thing "Hmm. This is an important comment. It is a great way to defend libertarianism." Then, it soon hit me. The character on this television show made a point from Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethic or the a priori of argumentation. Only the character did not know it nor did the writers, of course.
Two characters were debating; it does not really matter what about. The point is they were debating and then one of them said (paraphrasing), "Well, hey. Am I not allowed to have my own opinion? This is America, is it not? Leave me alone."
This is actually a brilliant point. For how else can you have an opinion if you are not allowed to have it?
On closer examination you will see that there are limitations implied in this in regards to one's actions. In order to have an opinion, and for another person to have an opinion, you cannot have that right taken away from you. In the same way, you cannot take away this right from the person you are debating with.
If person A, say, believes that Linux as an operation system is better to use than Microsoft's Windows and person B believes the reverse, then they can debate until they are both blue in the face but they can at least agree to the fact that they disagree. After the debate is over they may now agree or they may still disagree (or may become unsure to agree or disagree), but they will leave it to that. They both must recognize that they are entitled to their respected views. This means that aggressing against the opponent is against this ethic. Starting a physical fight, without the approval of the opponent, is a violation on the right to have an opinion.
It is therefore this very ethic that rules out coercion as unjust against the person and property of man. Someone that has the opinion that it is within the rights that the State or a private criminal (or gang) has to coerce others is an opinion grounded in direct contradiction to having an opinion in the first place. That is to say, it destroys the very grounds or foundation to have an opinion. It destroys the requisites of opinion holding. As Hoppe says, it is the engagement of a "performative contradiction."
Reading Material:
Dr. Woods replies to this by saying, well, Murray Rothbard----Mr. Libertarian, must have been a phony too. So too with the classical liberal Lord Acton.
Mr. Rockwell writes that, "pro-liberty conservatives, let alone libertarians, have always dissented from the Lincoln Religion."
DiLorenzo chimes in. He also links to a article by conservative Frank Meyer on The Totalitarian Lincoln.
Here is Mr. Casey Khan on "Of Lincolnian & Unionist Idolatry." And Rockwell again on "Ignoramuses Against Ron Paul."
Thank God that Paul is running. It makes this election all so much fun. Fun, but also fun in the sense that a liberty message is being spread...How can you beat that? The establishment does not know how to deal with a man of honesty, integrity, principle, and Jeffersonianism.
What man but Ron Paul will talk about the consequences of interventionism, both domestically and internationally? Who else is armed to the teeth intellectually in defense of peace? And who else is going to talk about the Federal Reserve? Or speak the truth about empire? Or the facts about blowback----what increases the incentives for the development of terrorism around the world (which has shown to the empirically actuate)?
A man who stands his ground by telling the truth, when pressed by the attack media even though it has nothing to do with politics today, about the "Civil War"? A complete distraction. A non-issue. What man but Ron Paul?
If you just stumbled into The Paleo Blog for the first time and find this shocking, do not worry. I am the product of government "education" too. Watch DiLorenzo's speech (linked above). You might also want to check out his article archive at LRC here, many of which are on Lincoln. His book The Real Lincoln is very educating. Lincoln Unmasked is his second book on this subject.
I.
Given that public property exists, under democratic conditions, its management will produce (unlike private property) permanent conflicts between men on how "best" they should be run. To manage them is just as much an economic affair as it is to construct them. Administrating deals with the actions of men, and action is the foundation of economic activity. This administrating of public property will be based on political sway and therefore not based in the economic reality of scarcity, and accordingly to the genuine market demand and supply that is present.
To administrate public property, however, by default any of the State's actions (e.g., expelling drug users) or inactions (e.g., allowing junk to pile up with no cleaning) will abuse the helplessly robbed taxpayers. In distinct contrast to governmentally run property, private owners can justly implement their own rules and administration preferences. Customers that enter this private property do so voluntarily because they see it advantageous to do so. They, hence, benefit ex ante. Private businesses that implement rules and administer their property have to do this, though, to please the actual demands of consumers. The free market incentive structure will also pressure these businesses to do such inline with the underline economic realities. All of this is absence under statist a setting, of course.
By necessity any public property will be inferior to private property. The same is true with the production of various services. State officials and workers, motivated like everyone else, are self-interested and under the disutility of labor (i.e., men find labor painful and want less of it). They will therefore will want as much tax revenue as is possible and to produce or "serve" as cheaply as they can get away with. While the cost of their so-called "products" or "services" will continually rise, the quality will fall. Absence competitive conditions, innovation and cutting down on costs will deteriorate. With no profit-and-loss signals, no pricing signaling, allocations will always be distorted.
At times, nonetheless, you have to take certain things as a given. There are real world realities and treating statist public property as a complete slum, devoid of all common sense in maintenance and order, would only lead to a world that would increase the harm and decrease the living standards in the daily life of ordinary men and their families. That this position is becoming more common in libertarian circles is disappointing and, in my view, extremely damaging.
Surely it is better that the State uses its stolen tax money to build a public library than a nuclear weapon. Libertarians should not take a view of "I don't care because the State is doing it." Somewhat similarly, it is better that given public education exists, it is best that they have the ability to kick out hoodlums than not being able to. Government mailmen should actually deliver the mail to where it is meant to go versus not. Should the government mailman, after all, just dump the mail in the trash or actually deliver it to the proper locations? Firemen should do the job they are put there to do. The public libraries should be able to kick out bums who disturb the tax paying victims of the library who wish to use it. Hospitals should be run in the best shape that they can. (A very large number of hospitals near the border have closed down because a statist open door policy in regards to immigration. I can find no reason for someone saying that this is acceptable.)
The view that the running or maintenance of public property should amount to nothing is to cause double harm to ordinary people. They not only get hit in the head to be forced to pay, at the point of the gun, tax money, but they also get public property that is allowed to fall into the gutter. This is the kind of view, if I am not mistaken, that Dr. Walter Block has. Arguably he is the leading scholar of libertarianism today, along with Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and justifiably so. I find Dr. Block a source of wisdom and courage, from my reading of some of his writings and by listening to some of his online lectures. So I much admire and respect him, but I cannot accept his view on this matter. Making life worse is not the moral thing to do. Real people get hurt and makes life just more difficult. And this is why, as some libertarians actually believe, worse is not better.
Now I personally do not believe Block has a nihilistic attitude or view of the world (or thinks that "worse is better"), but I do believe that a fair number who subscribe to or share his view do, at least when it comes to the current statist world and its design. Although, unlike many of them, he believes one can support the "lesser of evil" in political elections. But, if I, as the slave, can pick between the lesser of evil; then why not the lesser of evil when it comes to the management of public property?
In the "Blockian" free-for-all idea of public property, if a man "homesteaded" a few signs on the government road----if he took them home, should that be okay? Even if it creates many hazards? Tomorrow if the State were to vanish, there would be no case against this man. That is tomorrow, not today.
Another way to look at this, is this. Let's go to the classic book Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt and the example of a young yob who throws a brick through a baker's window. What is being done is a criminal activity, of course. The boy should be punished. He should, at the very least, be forced to pay for a new window. It is an evil that should be prevented. But one evil is not equal to another evil. You cannot say that this act is as evil if the boy were to kill the baker. It would also be an evil to punish the boy who broke the window in the same way as if he killed the baker. They are not equivalents. It is therefore less evil if he causes less evil than more. Or imagine the boy stole the baker's car. If he is able to get it back, it is better that the criminal damages the car less than more. The baker would prefer, undoubtedly, to get his prized car back in one piece than none at all. So would all of us.
In a like-manner the above parallels a look into the various operations of the State. Thus, if the government runs the roads, it is better that they are run decently (for government "standards") than to run them in the worse way possible. Running them in the worst way possible would result in more accidents and fatalities. Something that should be wanted to be avoided, both in a statist society and a non-statist society. A State that snatches your kids and forces them to government school prison camps should do less damage to them than more. That is, the damage should be minimized as much as possible. Now try arguing against that! (Against minimizing the damage that those camps cause.)
As Murray N. Rothbard wrote in "What to Do until Privatization Comes" (Making Economic Sense, pp 146 – 150, sorry not online as far as I can tell), this opposite type of outlook is immoral and neither is it any kind of good strategy in the promotion of libertarianism. It could even cause a backlash.
He wrote that there are two types of statist activities. One is providing people with goods and services. The second is of direct coercion against individuals. Privatization is the goal of the first. The latter cannot be privatized and must be completely abolished. Short of the latter being abolished, Rothbard wrote, it is best that it is as inefficient an operation as it can be. We do not want efficient tax collectors! As for the first, however, we all should want to see the competitive free market provide these goods and services. Until that day comes, then what? Given that they exist with the State's monopolistic privileges, which will by necessity make these services or goods vastly inferior to the free market, they should be run "efficiently and" as "businesslike a manner as possible."
Murray Rothbard goes further in saying that libertarians have to reject the idea that public property should be run in a free-for-all with completely open access as "the law of the jungle." To quote him in more length:
For example: the government, owner of the public schools, does not have the regular right [today] of any private school owner to kick out incorrigible students, or to keep order in the class, or to teach what parents want to be taught. The government, in contrast to any private street or neighborhood owner, has no right to prevent bums from living on and soiling the street and harassing and threatening innocent citizens; instead, the bums have the right to free “speech” and a much broader term, free “expression,” which they of course would not have in a truly private street, mall, or shopping center.
Other essays by Rothbard have spoken on how once this kind of standard (open access and egalitarian principles) are applied to public property and the State it then becomes that much easier to force it on private property and individuals. An ideology of men in a society that sees that it is right that the State adopt such is an ideology that no longer discriminates or differentiates. Then the line between private and public property can start to blur. Inroads made on private property start to subject them to this ideology. And today the sad fact of life is that we all do see this. No longer does much of the discourse of men think of a restaurant, store, mall, etc. as a private establishment that is private property. Today it is thought of as "public" property.
Does this relate to immigration? Yes, because public property has this kind of open access and egalitarian ideology. It has also been forced on private property owners by the State. The remaining focus in this blog entry to The Paleo Blog will focus on this issue.
II.
Often anti-capitalists attack capitalism because of its "anarchy." The anarchy is seen through how production in capitalism is completely spontaneous by acting men. There is no central dictator guiding the process along. It is done through free individuals. Only this anarchy in which they speak actually brings order, as counterintuitive or paradoxical as it may at first seem. This process, it is interesting to note, is why it is sometimes hard to get the minds of the public to grasp why the free market is always superior to statist interventionism.
On the other hand, what exists de facto on public property truly is an anarchy (chaos). Its existence today creates a revolving door displaying this (bad form of) anarchy. Private property and the private sector does not have this, but to the extent that it has it is de jure created by the State. Take a look at the public park in a big city. At night it displays its true essence of State-chaos or State-"anarchy." It is reverse in comparison to the private Wal-Mart at night or the private park at Disney World, for instance. Now it is incorrect to reply to this to say that private property is a revolving door because it is open attracting customers. As far at that goes, the reply would be absolutely correct in commercial private property.*
At the same time, though, it is not a revolving door symmetrical to the State. It could not be. A private establishment that had no management of its property or no "law" would be looted and soon disappear. It would cause chaos. Another example would be in its hiring practice. This, too, could not be a revolving door. That is, if they want to stay in business.
Beyond the business or commercial world, private communities would obviously be the most exclusive away from crowds, noise, and strangers. This has become less true today by the State's desire to control the individual and expand its parasitic existence. It wants to make sure that "its" public property extends to all corners of "its" territory so as to make each individual household isolated and easy to control. It thus creates easy and open access. By having this access, it then expands the revolving door to all areas of society. This not only creates an immigration problem because now no longer can people decide (1) not to associate their private community with certain people, (2) close it to strangers who walk into their private community, (3) or close it away from the hustle and bustle of the center of their town or city, but it also isolates individuals and individual family households to atomize them from all social constraints and social-cultural intermediate institutions, which serve as a blockage to State control and power.
A single household does not have a revolving door to its entrance. One that did, i.e., one that had the door wide open and most likely had some goodies inside visible to the outside, would attract criminals.** This does not appear to change in its correctness applied to the macrocosmic level as it relates to public property and a nation-State. Implied in this is that given that public property does exist and that the State does exist, its control regarding access should end its free-for-all and be replaced with those that most directly connected with each given public property. The more this control zooms into those most tied into such-in-such property, the better. The ultimate goal being that it zoom in all the way until each public property becomes private.
Subnotes to this section
*[It might be important to note, even in attracting customers, the private business, nonetheless, would still not be a revolving door. Today it is impossible for businesses to discriminate. But in a free society they could. Excessively rude customers would be more likely in a free society to be kicked out compared to today under statist conditions. Businesses would want to please their regular customers by providing them a good environment.]
**[In purely economic terms, private communities would want to "let in" those that would increase and not decrease property values. They would not have just an interest in the here-and-now, but in the future because they own the capital of their respected properties. This is something that Hoppe argues in regards to immigration in comparing a monarchy to a democracy. Public property under the former would be more "conservative" relative to democracy because a classical monarchy owns the capital stock akin to a more private form of government versus democracy's temporary caretakers which make it more akin to a public (or almost unowned---as spoken about above) government. Although, I wonder if it is worse than what Hoppe deduces. In general theory he is correct from my limited reasoning, but democracy's caretaker is not just some kind of king-like caretaker. The filling of government politicians is more "spread out," so to speak, causing more calculation problems and disincentives for any "good" government. So they not only want to loot now because they might not get a chance in the future, but if they do not loot now another politician might for his "buddies" (e.g., special interest groups). So down with democracy.]
III.
Now I would like to go over some of the general ideological reasons or temperaments that some libertarians reject to the above proposal. The first has already been covered. This is the notion that public property should be run as a cesspool. They go from the notion "of here" to "privatization now" with nothing in the middle, even though that middle will sadly remain for the time being or exist until the latter (privatization) comes. They become indifferent to this "middle." A middle that can cause different levels of harm or frustration to the lives of men.
A second reason, that I have observed, is to attack this because, they say, it implies some kind of so-called "nationalism." But this is not implied in the above analysis. All that is suggested is that public property should be run more business-like and inline with the tax payers who are forced to pay for them-----i.e., to get some use out of that stolen loot and to minimize the damage of it until one day, hopefully, all of that public property is turned into private.
With that said, I personally fail to see what is wrong with the concept of "nation" or "nationality" (as long as we disconnect it with statism or a forced "nationalism"). If this makes me un-libertarian, then I guess so was "Mr. Libertarian," Murray Rothbard, un-libertarian. As he explained in his "Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State" [pdf] in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, we are not only motivated or "bond to each other only by the nexus of market exchange." There is such thing as family, language, and culture. "Every person," Rothbard wrote,
is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions. He is generally born into a “country.” He is always born into a specific historical context of time and place, meaning neighborhood and land area.
He said that a "'nation' cannot be precisely defined; [but] it is a complex and varying constellation of different forms of communities, languages, ethnic groups, or religions" and that a nation "is a complex of subjective feelings of nationality based on objective realities." Governments, it is true, have often developed from or out of nations, in a manner of speaking. Not always, though. Sometimes a State forms comprising various nationalities and holds them together artificially. Libertarians, Rothbard wrote, should welcome secession if these nationalities try to break off. The more this is done, the better. Secession should be all the way done to individuals. We should also understand that nationality does make a difference. (It has in the world.) For example, he writes, what should the language be for a given nation-State when it comes to the "street signs, telephone books, court proceedings, or school classes of the area?"
(One issue that Rothbard mentions in the essay is the problem of citizenship when an "illegal" baby is born in a given nation-State. The solution is the one that Rep. Ron Paul offers. It should be to reject automatic citizenship. This will put an end to the parents receiving welfare, which consequently helps to subsidize immigration.)
The hostility to the idea, concept, or analysis of "nation" sometimes comes from some sort of rejection to any "group." Including a group that forms a sort of nationality, a group in a particular city, or even family. (A business too is the joining of individuals in a group.) It seems to come from the attitude that groups only exist in the "abstract," whereas individuals exist in reality. So, for that reason, we cannot talk about groups. This can get to the point of silliness. It is this that makes the direction of how to reply difficult. A group of people is just a group of individuals. The group does not exist apart from the individuals that compose it, but this does not mean that groups cannot be formed or do not exist. The world would exist in chaos if man could not make categorical (group) statements about things, man as a being included. Everything would be random. We could not say that men exist, women exist, blondes exist, and so forth.
Insofar as a libertarian says that only individuals have rights, they are correct. All human beings have a right to their person and property. This consistent moral or ethical code logically rejects the idea of collective "rights." And when a libertarian says that we should judge individual persons qua unique individuals and treat them as such is also correct. But then to make the jump of group egalitarianism, or something of this nature, is something quite different. That is a "revolt against nature."
As the reader can clearly see, I take a "Hoppeian" position on immigration and agree with Murray Rothbard on the subject, meaning, and importance of "nation." The solution to the immigration problem is to be found in section II. Outside and independent of this more libertarian analysis, I happen to partly agree with Mr. Patrick Buchanan (see his books State of Emergency and The Death of the West) on what makes a framework for liberty (and a division of labor) possible, and how it interrelates to culture.
Today immigration is one unrelenting wave, and this is what makes it different than before. A people with different allegiances and a different language. Rightfully or wrongfully (I believe rightfully) the vast majority of the public does not want this. (Xenophobic, or whatever other smear term wished to be used, or not.) The trouble is that public property is what opens the doors, in particular the doors to their various communities. It destroys the freedom of men. As is so often the case, the interests of ordinary men and those that fill the State are reverse.
As Mr. Llewellyn Rockwell said in the introduction to The Irrepressible Rothbard:
Everybody with a noggin understands that millions storming across the southern border would cause an economic, political, and cultural upheaval. Libertarians should also understand that such a policy would, on net, make us less free, especially because the welfare state slathers tax dollars on all comers, and because, thanks to civil rights, minority aliens automatically have rights to trample on property and privacy, rights properly denied to the majority of natives.
(Rockwell continues that it was this that caused Murray Rothbard to revisit the issue. That Rothbard thought it was "the central government [that] uses liberal immigration policies ... as a means of unsettling bourgeois property holders and increasing the power of government.")
The unrelenting wave of immigrants do not have to assimilate. This causes a lot of resentments and hurts the bond between people, which is not just governed by the "cash nexus." (Life, after all, is not purely economic.) The language barrier is getting deeper. And I would not call bilingualism in any society a healthy thing. No more than a society that has a barter or partial barter (e.g., more than one hard moneys) economy. Both are somewhat equivalent in terms of an analogy. Both hinder the development of a complex division of labor; be it barter problems of double coincidence of wants or language communication problems. There is another way they fit as an analogy, as far as I can tell, and that is any developed society that has either of the two can only be caused by a Leviathan State.
A third reason is that many libertarians only look for a "formula." They like exact questions and exact answers. Everything, to them, is like a geometric puzzle. Each puzzle requires a perfect geometric solution. Since there is no "rational" way to say how public property should exactly be run (in relation to immigration or not), it should not be run at all----again, even though it exists and will continue to exist in its monopolistic form for the time being by the force of the gun. But there is an answer: The only way to specify how public property should be run, given that they exist, is through decentralization and a libertarian temperament of common sense. Many libertarians do not like that. There is not always a formula for this, almost (in the good sense) "conservative," temperament.
Of course, public property is on shaky grounds. Its existence is illegitimate. Evil and destructive ideas can be implemented on public property, but a libertarian temperament should be able to discern. It should fight against those evils; including the immoral idea that public property should be run into the gutter (which can only cause harm). That is the purpose of having this temperament. But decentralize, always. All the way until each piece of public property becomes private. More decentralization results in the tendency to run public property as it would if it were private (by being in the hands of those by it). Freedom is the ultimate answer to all questions of the political and judicial.
IV.
Now, personally, I do not expect anything to be done in terms of immigration and public property. It is not in the federal government's interests to do much of anything----democratic government in particular. The real solution to the problem is privatization and as quickly as possible. Let the "borders" of private property work. That will not only bring the good ideal of freedom of movement, but also eliminate any forced integration which creates hostility in society and violates property rights. It distorts the market. This, though must be admitted, will not happen any time soon. Sometimes, if I am to be fully honest, it is this that does push me to a more "Blockian" position on immigration. I become my biggest skeptic.
Now if this is to be ever truly solved on day it will probably be (with my pessimist side speaking) when the United States Empire collapses. The first trouble with this, though, is that the less any kind of cultural bond can be formed, the less likely any division of labor will be strong enough to introduce a truly free stateless society. The second trouble is that a natural aristocracy, in which H. L. Mencken spoke, needs to exist. Freedom will not necessarily be what is called for when that collapse happens. The average man is content in whatever the present order of things is. He just goes along with the flow. He finds it hard to discern right from wrong when he is a part of that flow. He is also unable to see that the culture is in a major crisis, and that the West is dying. The democratic mob is easy to be in contentment, and this contentment is fine to go along with tyranny.
There are reasons to be more optimistic than before, however. There exist men of great stature talking about the evils of statism. Classical liberal ideas are coming alive. Dr. Ron Paul is one of those great men of stature. He is talking about the evils of the federal reserve, fiat money, empire, and socialism. Dr. Paul is against "open borders." There are also centers of great erudition promoting the cause for liberty, especially the Mises Institute. More people than ever are reading Austro-libertarian literature. This is very true for the young, like myself, even with my limited capabilities. The ideals of liberty are snowballing. And it is ideas where the battle is at.
Murray Rothbard, the joyous libertarian that he was, was a long-term optimist. While I love Rothbard, this is something I do not share as much. That puts me into the more doom-and-gloom camp of Albert Jay Nock. But looking at the Ron Paul Revolution, Rothbard, as is usually the case, might have been right all along.
Some Online Resources:
- The Paleo Blog's "The Problems of Pro-Trespassing Libertarians" --- Has many external links as well. Plus see follow-up.
- "Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State" by Murray Rothbard
- "On Free Immigration and Forced Integration" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
- "Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem"
- Immigration Debate in the Journal of Libertarian Studies (pro & con): "Are There Grounds for Limiting Immigration?" by Julian Simon; "A Libertarian Argument Against Opening Borders" by John Hospers; "A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration" by Walter Block; "A Libertarian Theory of Free Immigration" by Jesus Huerta de Soto; "Immigration Into A Free Society" by Tibor R. Machan; "The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
- "Nationalism and Liberalism: Friends or Foes?" by David Conway
- VDare.com's "Libertarians and Immigration Archive"
- David Gordon on Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation
- Download Alien Nation
Merry Christmas
The Ron Paul Revolution Continues
Listen to Ron Paul's essay "Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View" here [mp3].
The Establishment Attempts to Attack Rep. Ron Paul. But fail.
Dr. Paul did a fine job combating Cavuto's smears on FOX "NEWS." You know, I would hate to find out who the donors of Giuliani are! Supporters include, but not limited to, pro-nuclear strikes against Iran (and beyond), pro-torture, pro-mass bombing of innocents, pro-patriot act, pro-dictatorial power in the executive, etc. Such things have more in common with any kind of Nazism than Ron Paul's attack on 90% of the federal government's coercive apparatus which is unconstitutional. And, by the way, the last time I checked Nazism or some kind of supremacy is a "big government" and socialist philosophy. As of yesterday when I went to www.ronpaul2008.com, I saw the opposite philosophy. Hmm. Interesting.
The Opponents.
In The American Conservative, Michael C. Desch writes that "Giuliani has surrounded himself with advisors who think the Bush Doctrine didn’t go nearly far enough." No wonder neoconservatives love this guy: a complete fascist in the true economic sense of the word. A guy that has made millions after 9-11 in big government contracts for his "private" security firm. Glenn Greenwald writes he is an "Authoritarian Temptation."
(Also check out Philip Giraldi's "No More Slam Dunks" in TAC.)
Daniel McCarthy, at Taki's Top Drawer, writes on "Huckabee: The New Huey Long." Huckabee is Mr. "Tax-Hike Mike." And, of course, pro-empire. Great... just what we all need.
Marcus Epstein writes on "Romney and the Rockefellers." If someone asked Gov. Romney if he supports affirmative action, it is obvious his response would likely be "No" to please the College Republican baking activists. But how is today's notion of civil "rights" to be enforced in the private or educational sectors? Why, by affirmative action! How else do you think it can be enforced?
John Derbyshire & Ron Paul.
Not all that surprising was National Review's endorsement of the empty suit Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination. But what is surprising is a gentleman named John Derbyshire, a political pundit associated with this magazine who seems not all bad and who is also a guru in mathematics (a subject I also enjoy). Derbyshire wrote an article endorsing Ron Paul!
Justin Raimondo speaks about Derbyshire. He also gave him the honor of being the "Conservative of the Year" at AntiWar.com here. ... Be careful, Mr. Raimondo, you are going to make Mr. Derbyshire's job security uncertain. Soon he will be called an "unpatriotic conservative."
The Empire, Neocons, and More
It’s the end of a year that sets a record for American casualties in Iraq --and yet, we are told, the "surge" is "working." We’re well into an election season in which the American voting public overwhelmingly opposes this war, and wants our troops out by the end of ’08 – and yet the "major" presidential candidates of both parties are pledged to keep us in, indefinitely. As we look back on the events of 2007, we can’t help but detect this strange pattern of inversion, which I have previously dubbed the "Bizarro World effect."
"The Latest Neocon Hissy Fit" by Thomas DiLorenzo.
Making War: A Conversation with Thomas E. Woods Jr.
Are anti-Ron Paul conservative Republicans allies to freedom or limited government? Of course no. Jacob G. Hornberger writes about it.
"The beginning of political wisdom," says Robert Higgs, "is the realization that despite everything you've always been taught, the government is not really on your side; indeed, it is out to get you." Read his "Four Types of Government Operatives: Bullies, Muggers, Sneak Thieves, and Con Men."
With some Christmas money I am going to purchase The Economics of Liberty ed. by Llewellyn Rockwell. It has essays from Rockwell, Rothbard, Tucker, Sobran, and others. The price is right: just $5.
Also, for those interested, Thomas Woods has a new book on Catholicism. It is called Sacred Then and Sacred Now: The Return of the Old Latin Mass. You can buy it here. I purchased two copies. One for me and another for a gift to someone else. (See Relighting the Flame of Catholicism.)
Murray Rothbard's 1984 essay explains "Ten Great Economic Myths":
- "Myth 1: Deficits are the cause of inflation; deficits have nothing to do with inflation."
- "Myth 2: Deficits do not have a crowding-out effect on private investment."
- "Myth 3: Tax increases are a cure for deficits."
- "Myth 4: Every time the Fed tightens the money supply, interest rates rise (or fall); every time the Fed expands the money supply, interest rates rise (or fall)."
-
"Myth 5: Economists, using charts or high speed computer models, can accurately forecast the future."
- "Myth 6: There is a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation."
- "Myth 7: Deflation--falling prices--is unthinkable, and would cause a catastrophic depression."
- "Myth 8: The best tax is a 'flat' income tax, proportionate to income across the board, with no exemptions or deductions."
- "Myth 9: An income tax cut helps everyone; not only the taxpayer but also the government will benefit, since tax revenues will rise when the rate is cut."
- "Myth 10: Imports from countries where labor is cheap cause unemployment in the United States."
Read Here.