9 posts tagged “immigration”

At VDare.com, Mr. Brimelow makes a case that “Immigration is the Viagra of the State.” His article is based on a speech he recently gave at the Property and Freedom Society. Click here to read it.

***

A Note on Multicultural Nations and Free-For-All Immigration

"Human beings," wrote Mr. Buchanan in his 2006 book State of Emergency, "are not blank slates. Nor can they be easily separated from the abiding attachments of the tribe, race, nation, culture, community whence they came."

It seems very naïve, if one was to ask me, when certain libertarians deny this or pretend that individual persons in actual fact are "blank slates."

When in 1991 the Soviet Union broke-up, it broke-up divided along these attachments. Thus suggesting, multiethnic and multicultural societies require force for them to be maintained.

This is what made Murray Rothbard re-think the issue. No "open borders" as such, it occurred to him, would be found in a libertarian private property society. Private property owners would, in distinct contrast with today, have full control over who could and could not immigrate or travel into and onto their roads, private neighborhoods and towns.

With that understanding, it seems fairly clear that a free-for-all of immigration would not exist. That can only be the outcome of the central government running public property and controlling private property owners' (and their voluntary associations') right to discriminate as they see fit.

(That is not to say that no immigration would take place. Obviously that would not be the case. Nonetheless, it seems lost on some that what the State brings is a free-for-all in replace of the wants and desires of different private property owners.)

Statistics today, if I remember correctly, show that as California's minority population is growing to a not-so-minority position, whites are leaving and moving to other states. This alone seems conclusive enough for one to say that much of today's mass immigration is not at all invited as they enter various neighborhoods and towns.

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
  

“In brief, culture is an exclusive, which is to say, self-defining creation, which satisfies needs arising from man’s feeling and imagination. Every culture has a kind of ontological basis in social life, and this social life does not express itself in equality, but in a common participation from different levels and through different vocations.” --- Richard Weaver

I am in the process of reading Visions of Order: The Cultural Crisis of Our Time by Richard M. Weaver. It has an introduction by Russell Kirk and a foreword by Ted J. Smith, III. I have only read the very first chapters and have skimmed some of the rest, but it is the usual rigorous presentation and analysis you would come to expect from the great Weaver. This book deserves a summary and review here at The Paleo Blog. I'll endeavor to put together one that does it (partial) justice in a week or two, depending how things work out in blog time.

Weaver is more known for Ideas Have Consequences, but, according to the late Mel Bradford in American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia, Visions of Order might be his more important book.

The author, of course, is a citadel of conservatism, properly understood. In the process of reading it has made me ruminate on a few tangent issues. The first thing is technology, in particular the Internet. The second thing is man's loss of community and sense of being.

The Internet

One thing I do think is the truth is that, while I am tremendously thrilled in so many ways with technology and the Internet for an almost infinite number of reasons (there is no need to analyze them in detail here), becoming too attached to it is destructive for any individual. A man that becomes obsessed or too attached with the Internet loses his place, of where he is, where he came from, and the many natural real face-to-face attachments he has to the "world outside" the net. Surfing the Internet, posting on a blog or two, email, and some online shopping is fine and wonderful. Making a few online-buddies is great too. The Internet is a great place with many wonderful things. (And sadly bad things too, of course.) I cannot stress that enough. But then again, many of men---especially the young----make it their basis of daily activity for life. It consumes it, too much. Are you to some extent guilty? Maybe, probably. Me? Yes, no doubt sometimes. (I spend time to produce sometimes long and repetitive blog posts.)

There are even web community sites out there that encourage you to post your daily activities hour-by-hour online for all the world to see. You have man getting caught up in all the chat rooms, forums, and the like. They become obsessed and infatuated with it, and lose a hierarchy of values for making an actual life for oneself. I would not call this healthy for mind, body, or spirit. At the extreme end, it can help shatter man (and mankind). It deforms personality. Of course, I defend the freedom to do such. The mob-mentality will do its thing. It is not as if the State, or I, can make life better to even the tiniest of degrees by dictatorial force. But that does not make it above examination or make a search for higher ideals for a culture and society nugatory. Man will always be required to be in an interminable state of cerebration, man being short of perfection and always in the possibility of heading to ruin or annihilation.

You might ask, What about the guy who makes his living online? There is nothing wrong with that. There should be no objections. It is a fine profession. He should be able to judge the proper balance in his life. Hopefully he is able to determine what is best for him correctly. And only he can do that, but one wishes he does contemplate that balance and not ignore it.

Community: "Globalization," Immigration, and Statism

I can understand more why some (paleo)conservatives attack "globalization." That is to say, I understand relatively more the temperament of this view. It is true that half of the attack I see as erroneous. Some of the error is in not seeing the difference between a free market and a statist (welfare for the rich) market or free trade and what is currently in existence. It is also not taking into account what, as Henry Hazlitt would hammer on, is the seen and the unseen when it comes to economic transactions.

It would be in vain to deny certain directions of a free market, but the chief principle is that under freedom such directions are organic. It flows with traditional settings and it flows with institutions and institutional development. Does a more international market come into existence under free conditions? Surely, yes. This should not be seen as a negative, not the least of which includes the reality that third world nations develop into higher living standards. Something that should be praised by all. In such a process, though, it further increases our living standards. It may even make certain jobs obsolete, but all to the good for the redirection into new areas. It is the two-sided transaction that makes this process possible in the first place. It does not contradict itself if such redirection happens. It happens based on the initial premise of mutual advancement. Real free trade is a blessing on community strength and well-being. It is also something that promotes peace between peoples. But be this as it may.

One aspect of this, by the way, is that if genuine free trade exists it will cause less immigration into the U.S. There will be less reason to move. Protectionism, on the other hand and all things being equal, will promote more immigration. It is funny because the position from a Buchananite would actually lead to things that would actively promote what is not wanted. If only he and his followers would read some good economics [PDF].

The immigration angle of what is currently taking place before our eyes, in my view, does bring danger. Some consider this part of today's "globalization."* Now there is nothing wrong with nationality, no matter what some left-libertarian will tell you. It does not originate out of the State; anymore than language has its genesis from State. Probably a good way to "gauge" the artificiality of today's immigration is by observing the bilingualism that is expanding. An underlying fabric to any society or division of labor is language. Just as a complex free market needs a hard money and must evolve out of a barter system, a market needs a common language in which people are attached to. It is of the most essential and necessary bonds to any society. (One example at end.)

*[Again: I do see danger in today's statist globalization.]

A main theme of The Paleo Blog has been the subject of social-cultural institutions and its relationship to statism. A point brought up several (!) times is that by giving more authority and control to the State, the less other areas of life will have in meaning and authority. In particular this is true for institutions that are essential for society to live and grow, like family. It is also true for church and community relationships. A Wal-Mart in a free market brings no harm to society or a small town. But when we lose community relationships/interactions, culture and church, we are harmed. We are harmed when we lose its hierarchy.

To quote Weaver one more time:

“A just man finds satisfaction in the knowledge that society has various roles for various kinds of people and that they in the performance of these roles create a kind of symphony of labor, play, and social life. There arises in fact a distinct pleasure from knowing that society is structured, diversified, balanced, and complex. Blind levelers do not realize that people can enjoy seeing things above them as well as on a plane with them. Societies with differentiation afford pleasure to the moral imagination as an aesthetic design affords rest to the eye.”

The State has never been the savor of community and conservative-oriented (non-statist) tradition. The State has done nothing to serve a conservative like the great Richard Weaver. Quite the opposite of doing any "good." The loss of the small town feel or the sense of community can partly be seen how a State has the means and the desire to break it up and stretch public property to all corners of "its" territory. It wants all family households, and especially individual persons, to be as tied to it as possible, if only to tax them as much as they can get away with. Major interregional roads or highways do not exist solely as the means for the advancement of economic exchanges. This I would call a "good." From the frame of reference of the State, contrariwise, it is seen as a powerhouse for control: for taxation and various regulations, least an institution stand in its way---it does not like any kind of (even indirect) competition. It is thus likely to create more such roads and highways, due not to market/people demand, but for its benefit.

Statism will consequently artificially facilitate an environment in which any kind of cultural development becomes less possible. For a culture to be whole it needs an ideal. It (i.e., the men that compose it) needs therefore to use judgment to discriminate against lesser values or ideas that lead to the opposite result. This kind of cultural metaphysical force cannot hold when statism controls spatial relationships and private property arrangements.

One aspect of this is immigration and assimilation. Instead of private property, in a sense, "regulating" immigration, the State opens all public property up in a free-for-all. (See my entry on the subject here.)

Property owners in the "public" sphere have very little discriminatory ability. Since discrimination results in ridding oneself of risks and lower property value, statist interventionism will promote a decline in civility and in fact promote a boost of dis-civility (by making it less expensive than under normal conditions, loosely speaking). They will hire disruptive men in fear of the State hammering down of them. Likewise, for the most rude of customers. For example, a Wal-Mart near-by me has hired a couple of people that cannot even speak English---literally. It is there business to do so, of course, and I hold no resentment or animosity to the given persons who were hired. Not at all. (I find such emotions damaging to oneself.) But what is the chance it was out of fear from State?

A Reply to Local Neocon Talk Radio Show: Topics include the Libertarian Party in Arizona, Trade, Globalism, Sweatshops, and Immigration...

The Libertarian Party in Arizona

Every time libertarianism is mentioned on this particular show, the producer, who you could consider a co-host of this show because she is so much involved in the on-air discussions, says that no one wants to be associated with the Libertarian Party in Arizona because it is filled with kooks and crazies (or something of that effect). She probably has some kind of grudge or something or another with Ernest Hancock, who by all accounts, from what I can tell, seems like a fine gentlemen. He is very dedicated to the libertarian cause, smart, and honest. He might be “eccentric,” that is all.

I am not an “insider” or follower of the workings of the Libertarian Party in Arizona (far from), but I do know it is stronger in Arizona than most (if not all) other states. During the 2004 election, Hancock running for the senate got the highest percentage any Libertarian running for that office has gotten anywhere else or any other time. He broke the record, it appears and if I remember correctly. Obviously then, she does not know what she is talking about. How are the Libertarians in Arizona “a joke” (her words) by those that help run it and organize it, if they do better and poll higher than the majority of other Libertarians? They must be doing something right!

To clarify, she was not attacking the Libertarian Party for being so small relative to that of the major political parties, but was attacking it for being run so poorly as to being weaker than what it otherwise could be. She was attacking the “jokes” of the party. Of course, no one can prove that support would be higher or lower if the major players changed. But she proves herself wrong if we compare the Libertarian Party in Arizona to other states.

Mission of Libertarianism

And, also, if the Libertarian Party does anything, it should be to spread ideas. It should be a tool for education. I am aware that many in that party want to turn it into a much more moderate version to become electable, but that misses the point of why it was created. By doing that (and the national Libertarian Party has done that), you also throw out principles. Libertarianism does not win and cannot win by throwing out values. Say, for example, the Libertarian Party tried to assimilate to the now mainstream position on healthcare. And say by doing this, the Libertarian Party started to (somehow) grow and those running for office in this party started to win. The question then would be: So what? Libertarianism did not win: statist ideas won. That is not a victory-----not at all.

So if this talk radio show producer believes that the idea is to win elections by undercutting the philosophy of liberty, she is dead wrong. Someone like Mr. Hancock is a no compromise libertarian and Arizona is lucky to have someone like that.

I know there was some brew-ha-ha in the Libertarian Party about changing its platforms. They did and trimmed it down to a more “acceptable” level. Mr. Hancock tried to stop that. I remember him reporting into Charles Goyette’s show. Mr. Goyette replied that “anytime you try to collectivize something, it is doomed” or something like that. He’s right.

Sweatshops and Trade

Another topic came up in response to libertarianism on the radio show. This was from the guest host who was filling in, not the producer. He said, paraphrasing: “Doesn’t the free market build factories in foreign nations for slave labor? Doesn’t it bring in all of this immigration?”

The protectionist right meets the anti-capitalist left in their slogans and propaganda. What is “slave labor”? When I think of slavery, I think of it meaning that someone is coerced into working for another. If the person refuses to work, then that person will be put into chains and forced to work. Slavery is the condition of being subject to the chain and whip. Factories that open up in Third Worlds are not slave workshops. To the contrary, they are beneficial to both us here in America and those that choose, by free choice, to work for them.

Those that decide to work for such factories do so because they believe that it is more beneficial to work there than to work at some other place. If this were not the case, then they would make a decision to work some place else. Hence, the opening up of the factory is beneficial to them. The alternative, in many cases, is starvation or even prostitution. Activists that try to stop the building of these factories condemn these people of the Third World to go into worse conditions. It is they who produce misery and poverty and not the capitalists. When the capitalists open up this new line of work it also adds to the future development of the people that live in such Third Worlds. More wealth and production is created. It frees up the market place into new areas of production. This will remain true as long as the market is relatively free (the freer the better) and will grow as much as the people in question are capable of growing. The more evil capitalist pigs who try to squeeze every penny, the better. See Thomas J. DiLorenzo's article "How 'Sweatshops' Help the Poor".

We benefit too in such a process. A more wealthy and prosperous neighbor does not make us get poorer. Opposite is the case! Just as, when Bill Gates makes his fortunes, he does not do so at the expense of our pocketbooks. There is a two-way “action” or relation. Mutual benefit occurs.

Questions that arise concerning the loss of jobs is fruitless then, as long as there is a free competitive market. I am not saying that an individual in question does not hurt if he no longer has a job or anything of that nature. But there is more than meets the eye. When production is increased or when costs shrink, the market place is freed up into more areas in the lines of production. It is a twist on the broken window fallacy of economics.

The long-run and net benefit is positive. If the calls for protectionism were true, then it would be exactly like saying that any new areas of development in the progress of technology should be discouraged and halted. Reasoning that says that new technology kills jobs is the same logic that calls for protectionism. But new technology, while it may kill some jobs, frees the market place up in new areas. The pyramid of production capabilities to fulfill different wants and desires is expanded. And the list of new wants is endless.

Just to be clear, libertarianism does not defend statist corporatism. Probably most huge multinational companies are one way or another in bed with the government. They are grated special (non-market) privileges, favors, and protection from competitive market conditions. Many of them owe their entire existence or their high status because of governmental regulations. So, yes, “imbalances” are created that do lower present and future production, lead to irrational economic behavior, and destroy and limit jobs. But we all should try to understand this and discriminate between the two. Anomalies like this exist because of statist interventionism in the first place. Adding a whole set of new regulations will further push these imbalances.

In addition, I have heard some protectionist-conservatives decry trade as “globalism” and as a means to spread multiculturalism. On many pages, except outside of pure libertarian ethics, I am on the same page as many of these paleoconservatives. Like paleolibertarian Thomas Woods, I am libertarian in politics and (old style) conservative in most other areas. But on this subject, these particular paleoconservatives make little sense to me. Government centralization is bad. And I reject it. This is why I am against all of these so-called “free” trade agreements. They harmonize power. It is a step backwards for liberty --- not forward.

As far as multiculturalism, this makes even smaller sense to me. Trade deals with trade: Movements of people deal with immigration. It is apart and different from trade. Movements of goods deals with the movement of goods (products). Getting good television sets, for example, from Japan is not embracing “multiculturalism.” Buying things more interconnected with culture, such as food and cuisine, happens like any other trade between people. One finds it in his advantage to get, say, a recipe and certain ingredients. He does so because he finds advantage. Good things are helped promoted, while bad ones will generally sink in the market place. It also helps promote some of “our” good values to them.

(In the essay "Weaver of Liberty," Joseph Stromberg quotes Weaver saying the following: "two rights must be respected: the right of cultural pluralism where different cultures have developed, and the right of cultural autonomy in the development of a single culture." As Dr. Stromberg replies, this is libertarianism property understood. There is not some big gap here.)

Immigration

The second objection to the free market was on immigration. This is a more complex task. In trade, there is a sender and a receiver. Governmental interventionism exists in trade, but, as far as I can right not see, does not overly stimulate free trade relationships. Hmm...This I will have to think about, I might be wrong.* What it does more of is overly stimulate anti-trade relationships instead.

However, in immigration there is not always a sender and a receiver. The movement of people is on property. He who controls a given property controls who can be on it and move on it.

*(A stimulus to trade with other people in another country would occur, for example, if the government heavily regulated X industry. X would then look relatively more attractive at places outside the U.S. But my guess is that government instead overstimulates the opposite.)

Public property is in an almost chaotic management in terms of how it handles movements of large amounts of people. Welfare and other services provided by government stimulate an influx of immigration that is unnatural to the free market. The question of how much immigration would or would not occur in a truly free market without government is unknown. There is no formula that we can use. But I can think I can safely predict that immigration would take on a whole different form.

Today’s public outrage on immigration helps to show that much of the current influx is not welcomed. Social tensions have risen. Crime has increased. And, as one would expect, movement in a given area no longer requires assimilation. As huge blocks of people move in, assimilation is no loner required. Communications breakdown, social-cultural-racial hostilities increase, and the complexity of the division of labor decreases in scope as a result. Without a communication glue to hold people together (language), participating in a complex and diversified division of labor becomes less possible.

(And the costs of providing increased welfare and other governmental functions is probably more than that of providing basic protection and enforcement near the border between Mexico and the United States.)

Liberty for people need people more-or-less unified. When people have different attachments, different faiths, different beliefs, and so forth, this does not promote a tendency for a free environment. Paleoconservative Pat Buchanan is exactly right on this.

Now with this said, government thrives on artificially making movement to all places as easy as possible. Because taxation on as many people as possible requires government to have easy access to all private property. Government also needs this easy access to control as many people as possible. Instead of internal order being provided by, for instance, heads of households and families, government needs to dismantle any natural authority and atomize individuals loose from these (voluntary --- private property law based) natural and organic institutions, authorities, and elites.

The “borders” of property are dismantled by the State. This is what gives government more power and allows it to expand its territory. It must defuse them in order to have greater control and to tax more. A North American Union logically would demand open borders.

And guess what? Neoconservatives want a North American Union. They know that open borders is part of that package. President Bush and the Republicans that support him, in typical neocon fashion, are condemning all of those who reject his amnesty as racists, bigots, nativists. I have sadly heard/read a few libertarians use those words for those that do not believe in open borders as well.

In light of all of this, one can say that immigration in a free market would take a different look. Immigration would not transform communities. The division of labor grows when there exists a social-cultural bond between people. Businesses and capitalists could not “externalize” the costs of new immigration onto other people. All immigrants would be invited under a free market. There would be no forced integration or forced exclusion.

As far as wages are concerned in the debate over immigration, this is not an argument against immigration. I believe that the reason against this influx of immigration is (partly) above in some of the previous paragraphs. It is not that they lower wages that causes problems. The same economic fallacies, I believe, are used here as they appear in the arguments that protectionists use.

Here is more on immigration on The Paleo Blog:

• The Problems of Pro-Trespassing Libertarians
• More on Immigration
• Immigration / Individual & Collective / Organic Culture & Private Law
• Culture - Social - Language - Religion Ties Matter
  

As history demonstrates, all peoples, cultures, and civilizations are not equal. Some have achieved greatness often, others never. All lifestyles are not equal. All religions are not equal. All ideas are not equal. Indeed, what is true martyrdom but that most eloquent and compelling of all testimonies that all ideas are not equal.

"Indeed," Patrick Buchanan continued in his important book The Death of the West, "as all men are endowed differently with gifts, talents, and virtues, the only way to achieve equality of result is tyranny."

Equality as a utopian ideal has nothing noble about it. It goes against the very nature of what it means to be human. Taking it as an ideal to implement in society by violence and slavery would prove to be a failure. For this reason it is an erroneous ideal that must be rejected. As an impossible "ideal" it goes against the nature of man as a rational being.

Today we all know that there are certain taboo subjects that cannot be touched, even in an objective, inquiring manner. One that is covered all the time at this blog is the nature of the State. That it violates natural law. The law that derives from us being owners of our respected physical bodies and other tangible-scarce property we either justly acquired through homesteading or voluntary exchange. Whereas the State works on principles that are directly the opposite and hence violate them.

Another taboo in today's society is the ideology of egalitarianism. The reason is straightforward: It is taboo because it connects into the first taboo covered. The dogma of egalitarian ideology directly relates to statism in that statism uses this ideology for its own purposes to further advance itself. A key aspect of collective statism is that it wants to breakdown social barriers to tighten its control over civil society. The State's task is then of being managerial and therapeutic. To enforce this ideology and its political correctness it must resort to social engineering against bourgeois. It even explains why the "managerial elite" welcomes, and even encourages, mass immigration because it weakens bourgeois, creates more tensions in society, and expands the welfare state. Blurring or eliminating distinctions or differences between genders is another area that the statist establishment pushes for. This creates conflict between genders----especially in regards to their natural familial relationships----and breaks down social norms.

Ditto in regards to race.

(See "Race! That Murray Book" by Murray Rothbard and "Why Race Matters" by Michael Levin.)

We all know that Richard M. Weaver, Jr. would not be a writer for National Review if he were alive today. His views on the subject of war would forbid him. As would his sound, old-style conservatism.

On the subject of communism as it relates to the government's engineering of race and their relationships, here is what Weaver in 1957 wrote for the magazine:

The Communist attitude toward race stems from Communism's positivistic representation of man, which has always had one of its cardinal tenets the dogma that there are no real differences between people expect economic differences. Remove the economic differences and all the others----racial, cultural, social, and moral----disappear. Thus the collectivizing of the economy can be depended on to obliterate the various differences that keep people from being "socialized."

(However, the various engineering of blacks and their communities has very much backfired. Today, because of the welfare state, the black family is sadly in horrid conditions. This has only multiplied the problems in black communities, as Walter Williams and others have argued.)

Weaver went on:

There was a time when ownership of property gave the owner the right to say to whom he would and would not sell and rent. But now, with the outlawing of restrictive covenants by the Supreme Court (especially in Shelley v. Kraemer), this right has been invaded, if not effectually taken away. There was a time when owners had complete discretion as to whom they would and would not hire to work in their businesses.

Here we see that civil rights have been used as a major weapon against man's private property and his liberty. It has greatly empowered the State. This is why Richard Weaver in his essay said that the terms "integration" and "communization" are "closely synonymous."

(Listen to this mp3 lecture of Paul Gottfried on "The Therapeutic Welfare State.")

What's more, the promotion and expansion of civil rights and affirmative action has spread more social tensions and hostilities between peoples. It actually promotes and encourages this. Pat Buchanan is therefore spot-on when he says the following:

The ballooning budges of federal agencies-----the EEOC, the Civil Rights Commission, the civil rights divisions of Justice, Education, and HHS-----requires a steady supply of fresh ‘victims’ of racism. The more money these agencies receive, the more violators and victims they must find. [emphasis mine]

Unlike what the statist establishment says, fights against social-cultural-religious-racial ties are a revolt against nature. It most obviously revolts against human history. Take a look at immigration, for example. It is my position that some kind of "national" identity of social and cultural cohesion, of future orientation and preservation are a necessary part of a society filled with individuals working together in a division of labor; in the expression of culture; in the expression of community bonds; language; and so forth. Certainly, social and cultural cohesion, future orientation and preservation result in strong families. This includes not only the nuclear family, but the extended family too. It means stronger community ties and bonds between people. Stronger church life --- stronger community tradition --- etc. These are the things that build off a truly free and healthy society.

This max influx of mass immigration does not share in this and is not a natural growth of the above. It is instead largely a result of statist integration. Open the borders wide enough by having a free-for-all or "anarchy" (in the bad sense) on public property, create more public property, increase anti-discrimination laws, and/or increase the welfare state (which includes such things as government schools) then these social and cultural bonds that hold people together in a division of labor will be eroded or shattered.

After all, if, for example, a mass influx of people with a different language and culture just lands in another, there will be a communication breakdown and a social-cultural breakdown as well. The erosion of a common market-language is similar to a d-evolution of money to barter. (Language develops, in a way, similar to money through the free market.) And conflict will breed. Throw in a democratic government, this tendency will be further promoted. Only a free society assimilates most naturally and organically. It does not happen in a statist society, particularly if it is democratic.

(See "Language Anarchy May Fracture National Bonds" by Sam Francis and "National Self-Determination" by Murray Rothbard.)

But instead of a strong civil society with strong ties, along with Leviathan has come a dying civilization. Birthrates have been lowering to the point of not even being able to keep up with replacement levels. Does a free society commit suicide? I doubt it. This is only the predictable outcome in the rise of social and cultural degeneration and statism. 30 percent of pregnancies are aborted. 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. (This is up 350 percent since 1962.) Fewer than one in four households are nuclear families. One in four babies are born out of wedlock.

Sex today is considered some kind of joy ride and a pleasure above its natural role biologically and spiritually. Indeed, much of the culture throws out pornography. It has become more and more mainstream. Contraceptives are looked at as a blessing. Hedonism is more and more considered the norm. All forms of anti-social, anti-family lifestyles have been on the rise.

We are told that all lifestyles are “equal” and we cannot judge. Joe Sobran is right when he says we live in an era of nonjudgmentalism.

Thus the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism is alive and well.

Here is one example of Cultural Marxism at work in Hungary, as Buchanan writes about in his book. Cultural Marxists saw that they should bring about (Buchanan's words) an "annihilation of the good values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries." In particular they saw the importance of using the schools to their advantage:

Children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time.

The Frankfurt School's "Critical Theory" bluntly represents: "essentially destructive criticism of all elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism."

In many ways the Critical Theory has accomplished its objectives.

How? Hans Hoppe has said that the State has used its power to promote "secular humanism, feminism, egalitarianism, moral relativism, multiculturalism, affirmative action, sexual liberation, and hedonism." "[T]he revolution has eroded man's will to live a productive life, to multiply, and to affirm and defend his own culture."

On the other hand, it has promoted statism. When government puts in a price control it is like throwing a rock in the pond. You see distortion waves. Freedom is an amazing thing. It is a complex network of relationships, hierarchical outgrowths, and so forth. When the government intervenes in the culture the same happens. You see distortion waves. Liberty and equality do not go together.

I hope all of you had a Wonderful and Blessed Easter!

• Taki's Top Drawer has provided some articles during this Eastertide with a Catholic bent. Please check it out, if you are so inclined. They are good articles.
  
• 

  VDARE dot com
  VDare.com has a article on the War Against Easter here.
• James Fulford at VDare.com's blog was kind enough to link to my entry on immigration: The Problems of Pro-Trespassing Libertarians. Thank you, sir!
• Paleo libertarian at yahoo dot co m is my email address, if you want to contact me and don't have a VOX account.

Even More on Immigration and The Death of the West

“Lockean Libertarians vs. Hume-an Nature” by Paul Gottfried is an interesting article I found. Some things I disagree with, but it is nonetheless an interesting article. Also worthy to note, Dmitry Chernikov at his website has a good reply letter to it.

***

In chapter ten of State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan, he quotes Sam Francis. In a nutshell, Francis made the comment in 1994 that only Western civilization could have made Western civilization. As Buchanan writes:

Had Francis sad this of Chinese civilization and the Chinese people, it would have gone unnoted. But he was suggesting Western civilization was superior and that only Europeans could have created it. If Western people perish, as they are doing today, Francis was implying, we must expect our civilization to die with us. No one would deny that when the Carthaginians perished, Carthaginian civilization and culture perished. But by claiming the achievement of the west of Europeans, Francis had passed beyond the bonds of tolerance. [pp 164-5]

This leads me to the main topic of this entry to The Paleo Blog...

Radical Individualism & Organic Culture

I.

Libertarianism is about radical individualism. Methodologically it takes an individualist stance. But as a libertarian myself and supporting the two things just mentioned (although, I believe in aristocratic individualism----like Albert Jay Nock), I also understand that individuals form institutions and relationships between each other. It is a sad thing that so many libertarians, especially many "in the Beltway" and leftist-libertarians, disregard culture as minor or unimportant.

One libertarian wrote on Strike-The-Root.com how people have to abandon “the group.” The problem was that he took it to the extreme. It is silly. People form groups. They are also apart of distinct groups. People belong to a specific gender and race. Like-people come together to form churches to worship. Like-people come together to share in culture and tradition. People come together in the free market to create businesses (which is kind of group). The world of commerce depends on man being social. Man is a social animal. He is also a spiritual animal------much to the detestation of some libertarians that have an irrational dislike of any kind of religion.

It is true that groups are nothing greater than the individuals that compose them. Butler Shaffer gave the example that a subway does not have a soul, anymore than a nation does. The soul belongs to distinct individuals, but they do interact with each other. Coercive powers to reshape the individual into a collective is destructive. Likewise, people abandoning their individuality for a collective is also destructive. But to think that individuality does not lead to individuals expressing themselves through the market place, family, friendship, kinship, culture, art, religion, and so forth with other individuals is foolish.

II.

In the same way, it is foolish not to see how a free society would form relationships with each other that include covenants, concordats, or whatnot. This would a major civilizing force. A force that would tighten the ability (that is, lack of ability) of atomistic individualism to express itself in whatever direction----destructive endeavor----that it wanted. Not all lifestyles are healthy individually, for one's family, or the growth and vitality of society at large, after all.

And I must say to traditional conservatives: If the majority of the public does not adopt traditional conservative values, then the government will most certainly not (unless it happens to be a traditional monarchy, perhaps). If these values are so weak (I do not believe so, and I bet most traditional conservatives do not either), then they will remain that. However, if they are strong and truer values, a free society can flourish them. Centralization of governmental power can only damage that. How could it not? Any natural outgrowths in a society in a statist condition become replaced with government centralization of power.

To go back to Butler Shaffer. He as a libertarian (see this article), along with many other libertarians, respect and admire the Amish. The Amish community is a perfect example of an organic and natural culture (although, maybe at the extreme end). It is a free and private community. THIS is freedom. That is, a representative of freedom.

We must all learn that freedom is the key prerequisite to a truly healthy culture and society. It allows individuals to truly express themselves together and flourish to the fullest. It is thus not something to be imposed by the point of the gun. Just as there are perverse unintended consequences of trying to economically engineer people, there are also perverse unintended consequences to socially or culturally engineer people.

III.

Occasionally people label someone like me as hating the poor and not wanting to help them. It is not like I am against helping the poor. And, really, how many people do you know like to see others suffer? Left-liberals and other statists know better, but they use childish emotionalism to attack people that actually use reason to see that the government interventionism increases poverty and misery. One method to help the poor is actually accountable and can help and the other one is not accountable and does not help on net. One increases community ties: of the nuclear family, the extended family, kinship relationships, neighbor & community relationships, the church, and so on. The other breaks this up. It is in freedom that these social intermediate institutions are strongest. Even as a libertarian, I understand this. It is this that helps to show the importance of cultural and social conservatism to mankind.

Someone that wants to socially engineer people in their limited image will always fail for obvious reasons. While it is true, I believe, that man will gravitate towards more conservative and traditional values because they are most natural and consistent, partly for the reasons just mentioned. And this is not to mention, as Hans Hoppe argues, conservatism is sociologically and praxeologically compatible to libertarianism unlike cultural leftism which propagate under statism with its promotion of high time preferences and its transfer of authority from traditional institutions to the State. But, still, men are different with each other as individuals and even categorically as groups or races.

It is therefore the preservation and promotion of the "old" culture (the transcending culture) is an important task in today’s world. It fights against statism and the centralized state. When people embrace statism versus actually engaging in productive free market and social-cultural activities, the death of Western civilization will be certain.

As mentioned here, production comes through actual voluntary transactions in a free market place of capitalism. Things that are really in need and that are really wanted by people will be produced because a demand exists. Government does not produce, but takes. Things that it creates with its looted goods is a system that is compulsory and monopolistic. Unlike the free market, its allocations will be faulty to the things it creates. Furthermore, the welfare state subsidizes bad behavior. Atomization of the individual from the ties of social institutions occur. Governments break these community and cultural ties apart. These social intermediate institutions are a natural part of society, i.e. the natural organic culture. They fulfill man's needs. ----- They fulfill man's spiritual and emotional needs.

The truth is that society needs to think about this, even a libertarian one. Because if people wanted to, they could stay home and become self-sufficient isolated households within their nuclear family. (It could happen now.) It would not violate libertarian ethics of conduct, but it would doom civilization. Or people could choose suicide. Again it would not violate libertarian ethics, but it too would obviously doom civilization----it would end it. (Thus we see here that libertarianism is only the foundation of society. Society is more than a foundation.)

IV.

To be honest, I think it is a falsehood when people say that we live in a culturally conservative nation. They use the example of homosexual "marriage" (a contradiction in terms) and say how most are against it. But if you turn on the TV, you see the majority of Americans watching all of this Hollywood crap. And if you turn the clock back only thirty or forty years, the values that people hold today would appear (and rightfully so) immoral to them.

This is a problem that the masses have----and will probably always have to a certain degree. In natural hierarchy in a free society, this is the only way that this can be changed. This must be combined with a free society's natural incentives and its returning of authority to its proper places.

Now for a word on the minority of people that really are concerned with today’s cultural leftism: Sadly, most of them think that all of this can be changed through politics and centralization. It cannot. The problem in the first place is statism. That is the heart of the issue and it and the things that have flown from that-------ideas----wrong ideas.

V.

Often (paleo)libertarianism is branded as a utopian idea. Maybe mankind as a whole will never get over its primitive instincts of using violence to control others by the point of the gun. Well, maybe.

But what really is utopian is the idea that paleoconservatives have. They believe that government can somehow be turned into a force for good. How can you turn government into a force for good? Government is meant to protect us, but it must first mug us. It is a contradiction.

They also fail to see that true (paleo)libertarianism expresses true (paleo)conservatism in a way that it could never.

I hope the above somewhat illustrated this. For instance, if you are Catholic and want to live under Canon Law, then you would have the freedom to do so. You could even get together with other like-minded people to develop such a community. It would be a private law society, but completely voluntary. The full expression of Catholic tradition and culture could be seen in anarcho-capitalism. So too could other cultural and religious traditions.

The authority in a free society would return to private property owners. The right to discriminate would be back. The right to from these types of groups would be back too. And so forth.

See "The Idea of a Private Law Society" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

(A follow-up ~ The Paleo Blog: "The Problems of Pro-Trespassing Libertarians")

Being Practical: Imagine a Deadly Situation

It seems that it is reasonable that a case can be made that the idea of “open borders” is incompatible with libertarianism. Trespassing is against libertarian values. It must be by invitation. But libertarians sometimes forget more practical issues. The social problems connected with mass immigration are an example.

Here is an extreme example. God forbid this should happen, but what would open border libertarians say if it did: Imagine some very bad sickness spread in Mexico. While private individuals can do their best to try to avoid potential people that have this deadly virus, there is so much government property it would be very difficult to do so completely. The answer would be clear: control the border. But would “open border” libertarians reject this because of their principles?

Welfare to Illegals

Why make the distinction at all? That is, between illegal and legal immigrants when it comes to welfare? Even libertarians that are open borders typically make the diction. While they might be against welfare in general, they still make the distinction.

Free Trade & Immigration

Those that favor free trade can also oppose “open borders.” In free trade there is a sender and