30 posts tagged “paleoconservative”

Mr. Sobran is of course brilliant. Read his latest piece available online, "The Nixon I Didn't Know," by clicking here.

"Hey, Neocon": Paleos are winning on the web.
(Plus see A Few More Thoughts)

Paul Gottfired talks about his new book, Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right . . .

--- The Neoconning of the American Right at LRC.
--- Buy Making Sense Of The American Right! at VDARE.
--- My Book at TakiMag.

Lew Rockwell on War Without End.

Justin Raimondo: Vietnam, Again.

War With Iran? It has already started, says Raimondo.

An Acid Trip Gone Bad by Fred Reed.

A Political Theory of Geeks and Wonks by Jeffrey Tucker (Which are you? Geek or Wonk?)

"Fair Tax" Scam.

Who Was Bastiat? ---- Jeffrey Tucker Interviews Mark Thornton For the Answer.

(I did take the time to watch this, despite a slow connection. Great interview! And a very nice look inside the wonderful Mises Institute and its, from all I have seen, delightful atmosphere and, dare I say, culture.)

Download The Bastiat Collection [PDFs]

Volume I & Volume II
And Buy Here.

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
  

Conservatism has surely been corrupted away from its father, the great Russell Kirk. I do not believe it is ever coming back (because of the nature of politics), but it is interesting to compare and contrast modern day conservatism relative to that of the father of post-World War II conservatism. How many self-described "conservatives" have any basis in its actual foundation? Could they even be called conservative? Do they know the principles of conservatism or the leading figures of it?

Contemporary conservatism may well be described as holding to an ideology that believes in the unbreakable strength of statism. To them, there is not a barrier to what statism can accomplish. The use of force can transform and mold a people to whatever their heart desires. Firepower can achieve anything. Inevitably this belief will echo into all other lines of reasoning that they have. Acceptance of big government aboard needs big government at home. As Murray Rothbard wrote; "It is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society." And I think it was said by Lew Rockwell that faith in government's ability in war making is the ultimate faith in government power. Need there be more said about modern day conservatives?

One wonders if there is nothing that after time conservatives will not come to accept as good and wonderful. Gene Callahan, the author of the excellent and highly recommend Economics for Real People, on his blog "Crash Landing" comments on this topic (although, with the following we probably could even attack the late Kirk for his unfortunate statism):

This post over at the Lew Rockwell blog reminded me of the stupidity of modern conservatives. Time after time, modern conservatives have fought some "progressive" programme only to embrace it as their own a generation later. You now here conservatives talking as if human society would be impossible without the police, apparently unaware that professional police forces are a nineteenth century invention. The war on drugs, a stupid, costly, and civil rights crushing adventure that has made the drug problem far worse than when it was begun, is another progressive programme that conservatives now think we couldn't live without. I actually saw one conservative writing that opium "legalization" in the 19th-century was the first time drugs had ever been legal anywhere, apparently not realizing that they had almost always been legal almost everywhere. Public education is yet one more example.

Is there any programme that conservatives think is so stupid and awful that forcing them to live with it for a few years won't lead them to love it?

Conservatism marches through time accepting and cheering on more and more government involvement into our lives. Status quo is really its goal: the status quo of the continuation of moving "progressively" to more statism and to accepting more leftist creeds. This interventionism into society is not just into the lives of the individual, but also the lives of families, churches, and communities. If there is a sure way to destroy cultural and social norms, it is to dismantle these important intermediate institutions!

One of the Giants of Conservatism is the aforementioned Russell Kirk (1918-1994). He was a traditionalist who influenced enough people as to have made the term 'conservative' popular with his book The Conservative Mind. Today many organizations and think-tanks give awards in memory of the late Kirk. But as these organizations do that, they promote so many of the very opposite values that he laid forth. He must be spinning in his grave. In fact, some of the neoconservatives, who originated from the left, are very open about their abandonment of conservatism to replace it with something else. Turn on talk radio or open up National Review or go to the many fake "conservative" blogs. They got your "Make-Believe Conservatism." But if you want some real conservatism, go to The American Conservative, Chronicles Magazine, Taki's Top Drawer, and VDare. (I'm not saying that I agree with them on everything or even necessarily on most fundamental topics as it pertains to the State, but if you want some real conservatism go to places that actually provide it.) You'll find more conservatism represented even at libertarian outlets like LewRockwell.com, AntiWar.com, and Mises.org. And where else, but those places, will you hear talk about Kirk, conservative Richard Weaver, or the Old Right?

See Daniel McCarthy's, who is extremely well versed in conservative thought, "National Review Isn't Right".

So what were some of Russell Kirk's thoughts on the war topic, in particular as it relates to the Middle East? A good bet is that many "conservatives" would attack the father of conservatism as a sissy, hate America, leftist, liberal.

Kirk on Robert A. Taft [source: Gene Healy "Conservatism, Old and New"]:

Taft's prejudice in favor of peace was equaled in strength by his prejudice against empire. Quite as the Romans had acquired an empire in a fit of absence of mind, he feared that America might make herself an imperial power with the best of intentions – and the worst of results. He foresaw the grim possibility of American garrisons in distant corners of the world, a vast permanent military establishment, an intolerant "democratism" imposed in the name of the American way of life, neglect of America's domestic concerns in the pursuit of transoceanic power, squandering of American resources upon amorphous international designs, the decay of liberty at home in proportion as America presumed to govern the world: that is, the "garrison state," a term he employed more than once. The record of the United States as administrator of territories overseas had not been heartening, and the American constitution made no provision for a widespread and enduring imperial government. Aspiring to redeem the world from all the ills to which flesh is heir, Americans might descend, instead, into a leaden imperial domination and corruption.

Thomas Woods asks: "Oh, and what kind of leftist said the following?" . . .

Kirk on Perpetual War [Source: Thomas Woods "Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder?"]:

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace comes to pass in an era of Righteousness -- that is, national or ideological self-righteousness in which the public is persuaded that ‘God is on our side,’ and that those who disagree should be brought here before the bar as war criminals.

First Gulf War:

Now indubitably Saddam Hussein is unrighteous but so are nearly all the masters of the "emergent" African states (with the Ivory Coast as a rare exception), and so are the grim ideologues who rule China, and the hard men in the Kremlin, and a great many other public figures in various quarters of the world. Why, I fancy that there are some few unrighteous men, conceivably, in the domestic politics of the United States. Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away? Just that is what happened in the Congo, remember, three decades ago; and nowadays in Zaire, once called the Belgian Congo, we zealously uphold with American funds the dictator Mobutu, more blood-stained than Saddam. And have we forgotten Castro in Cuba?

On Blowback (He must be a "blame America," "hate America" guy, right?):

We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States – even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary; while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands. Nor is this all: for now, in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems. [emphasis from Woods]

According to Lew Rockwell, Kirk once wrote to him that he wanted to see "Bush the Elder to be hanged on the White House lawn as a war criminal." What would he say about the current, even more foolish, president?

See Also:

• The Paleo Blog: Embracing Kirkian cultural principles from a anarcho-capitalist perspective --- Rejection of Ideology
• Understanding Neoconservatism --- The Neocon Archives at LRC
• From Intellectual Conservatism to Mindless Republicanism --- "GOP and Man at Yale" in TAC

Additional References Consulted: The Essential Russell Kirk edited by George A. Panichas and American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia.

For the very best in anti-war opinions in a magazine, nothing can beat “the magazine for thinking conservatives,” The American Conservative.

The back-cover of the latest issue (June 4) has this:

We Hate to Say
  We Told You So. . .

October 7, 2002

“Through U.S. forces could quickly defeat Iraq’s regular army in the field, there is a high risk of prolonged urban guerilla warfare and great numbers of civilian casualties.”

“Once in Baghdad, how do we get out? ... To destroy Saddam’s weapons, to democratize, defend, and hold Iraq together, U.S. troops will be tied down for decades.”

October 21, 2002

“... the administration really does not know whether there is a clear and imminent threat from Iraq, cannot prove that one exists, and resists proposals for finding out because the answer might undermine its plans for war.”

“As one senor Ba’ath party official said to me, ‘When the Americans say there will be dancing in streets if Saddam is toppled, they are simply reading fro ma book they have written themselves.’”

December 2, 2002

“Wolfowitz presents Chalabi’s raw intelligence as fact. His boss Rumsfeld accepts the same unfiltered data and presents it with equal confidence in the more powerful Principals Committee. Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis Libby, another Wolfowitz protégé, lap it up, and the National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice lacks the personal confidence to challenge the formidable Cheney-Rusmfeld-Wolfowitz axis.”

December 16, 2002

“There is no reason to think that fighting in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities will be a cakewalk.”

February 24, 2003

“Muslim extremists who sympathize with al-Qaeda but are not terrorist tell European journalists they are hoping the U.S. invades Iraq. ‘This will demonstrate once again that Muslims are being targeted and thus will allow them to rally Muslims to their point of view and recruit new militants,’ said leftist Algerian author and journalist Mohamed Siraoui.”

“All Western European intelligence services... now agree that an invasion of Iraq would be not only a distraction from the war on terror but a catalytic agent for would-be jihadi terrorists from all over the Muslim world and from Muslim communities in the West.”

Subscribe at www.amconmag.com or call 800-579-6148

-----

Time for those few people that are still deluded into neoconism to take a look at what is being said by those who correctly called this war from the very start. Bush, his administration, the politicians, and the neoconservatives got everything wrong: That it was going to be some kind of cakewalk, the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, the dawn of new democratic peace in the region, and so forth. They got everything wrong and those against the war from the start got everything right.

Joe Sobran has it right when he says: "War is just one more big government program."

A Couple of Highlights of the Magazine:

• Whose War?:  A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest by Pat Buchanan (2003)
  
• Congress Rubberstamps Martial Law by Jim Bovard (Recent - 2007)
  

The great Thomas E. Woods, Jr. is the author of New York Times Bestseller, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. He is also the author of The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, among others. Both of the two books just mentioned I have read. I highly recommend both.

According to Amazon, his new book is coming out in July. It is called 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.

Here is a sneak peek at the table of contents:

Contents
Introduction    Hoaxes and History
Chapter 1    Did the Founding Fathers support immigration?
Chapter 2    Did Martin Luther King Jr. oppose affirmative action?
Chapter 3    Were the American Indians really environmentalists?
Chapter 4    Were states' rights just code words for slavery and oppression?
Chapter 5    What was "the biggest unknown scandal of the Clinton years"?
Chapter 6    How wild was the "wild West"?
Chapter 7    How antiwar have American liberals really been over the years?
Chapter 8    Did the Iroquois Indians influence the United States Constitution?
Chapter 9    Did desegregation of schools significantly narrow the black-white educational achievement gap?
Chapter 10    Was the Civil War all about slavery, or was something else at stake as well?
Chapter 11    Can the president, on his own authority, send troops anywhere in the world he wants?
Chapter 12    Is it true that during World War II "Americans never had it so good"?
Chapter 13    How does Social Security really work?
Chapter 14    Was George Washington Carver really one of America's greatest scientific geniuses?
Chapter 15    Was the U.S. Constitution meant to be a "living, breathing" document that changes with the times?
Chapter 16    Did Indian wisdom help the Pilgrims grow corn?
Chapter 17    Who is most responsible for the "imperial presidency"?
Chapter 18    Is discrimination to blame for racial differences in income and job placement?
Chapter 19    Where did Thomas Jefferson's radical states' rights ideas come from?
Chapter 20    What really happened in the Whiskey Rebellion, and why will neither your textbook nor George Washington tell you?
Chapter 21    What made American wages rise? (Hint: it wasn't unions or the government.)
Chapter 22    Did capitalism cause the Great Depression?
Chapter 23    Did Herbert Hoover sit back and do nothing during the Great Depression?
Chapter 24    Did Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal lift the United States out of the Depression?
Chapter 25    Does the Constitution's commerce clause really grant the federal government the power to regulate all gainful activity?
Chapter 26    Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to do whatever it thinks will provide for the "general welfare" of Americans?
Chapter 27    Does the Constitution really contain an "elastic clause" that gives the federal government additional, unspecified powers?
Chapter 28    Did the Founding Fathers believe juries could refuse to enforce unjust laws?
Chapter 29    What do foreign-aid programs have to show for themselves?
Chapter 30    Did labor unions make Americans more free?
Chapter 31    Should Americans care about historians' rankings of the presidents?
Chapter 32    Who was S. B. Fuller?
Chapter 33    Did Bill Clinton really stop a genocide in Kosovo?
Conclusion    Schools and Superstition
Notes
Acknowledgments
Index

(Via http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip079/2007001347.html)

I guess Dr. Woods likes to get in trouble. It looks like a great book. I look forward to it. I added it on my long wish list of books. When it comes out, I'll be sure to get it...

(Via LRC: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/paul-offers-giuliani-a-few-policy-tips/)

Ron Paul

During today’s press conference, Mr. Paul expressed disbelief that Mr. Giuliani had never heard the occupation explanation before and suggested the “possibility that Mr. Giuliani has not been well informed.”

“I don’t think he’s qualified to be president, mainly because of his views,” Mr. Paul said of Mr. Giuliani.

“I’m giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment,” he announced. Here’s the syllabus:

–“Blowback” by Chalmers Johnston
–“Dying to Win” by Robert A. Pape
–“Imperial Hubris” by Michael Sheuer (The former head of the C.I.A.’s Osama bin Laden Unit was there to bolster Mr. Paul’s calls for a new, non-interventionist foreign policy.)
–The 9/11 Commission Report

Of course, Giuliani was lying, saying that he “never heard such a thing.” Even more absurd is how some in the statist mainstream media is trying to spin Ron Paul's view into some kind of 9-11 inside job-----a complete lie.

It is just Giuliani's way to get all of the flag worshiping wavers to wave their little flags in support of the American Empire, which, if they like it or not, is a monstrous evil. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the Health of the State."

Blowback? You mean---- there are consequences to bombing people day-in and day-out? There are consequences to putting up trade sanctions that kill thousands and thousands of people? Or giving money to dictators that rule over them?

Only someone living in a dream world believes there are no consequences: That no resentment and hatred occurs because of this. Or that it is not a major contributing factor. As has been documented, the primary reason for new recruitments into terrorist organizations is not out of religious reasons or that they hate the fact that women can vote in the U.S. (Ha!), but of the reasons just mentioned. (Indeed, the number of terrorists has increased dramatically after entering Iraq.) There is a reason they attack the United States and not Sweden.

With statist conservatives war triumphs all. They are so obsessed with war and in believing false war nationalism (e.g.: American government is always right / America is never wrong / It can do no wrong / America always wins / etc. etc.) that they would vote for an outright pro-war socialist (besides those things go hand-in-hand) before voting for someone as principled as the honorable Ron Paul.

Only partisan hacks believe that the Iraq War has decreased terrorism and has made the world safer. Terrorists are being created faster then we are killing them. They are not created in a vacuum. It is hence nonsense to believe that there is some fixed number or terrorists to kill. To end terrorism is the equivalent to having a war to end preemptive strikes: it never ends.

Read Mr. Scott Horton’s excellent AntiWar.com article “For Those Interested in Facts: They Hate Our Foreign Policy”

Highlights:
--- Ron Paul did not "blame America" or excuse the evil that was committed on 9-11. There is a difference between trying to understand why people hate us versus believing that terrorist activity is acceptable.
--- Paul asks why we do not get after Osama bin Laden. He is in Pakistan. With a nod and a wink from the U.S. government, it now has nuclear weapons, and the U.S. government goes as far as giving that government money. (And with this said, the American government is in Iraq----no connection with bin Laden etc.)
--- Bin Laden was backed by the U.S. in the drive to get Russians out of Afghanistan.
--- U.S. built bases in Saudi Arabia, a major outrage to Muslims.
--- One can read bin Laden's "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
--- Saudi bases used throughout the 1990s to attack Iraq.
--- Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA's bin Laden unit, reports that Ayatollah Khomeini spend the 1980s talking about the culture of America. But this did not have much of an impact. On the other hand, bin Laden talked about U.S.'s foreign policy to motivate people:
1) "The bases in Saudi Arabia
2) Unquestioning support for Israel (The 1996 Fatwa came on the heels of the first Qana massacre in Lebanon)
3) The no-fly zone bombings and blockade of Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of people (now replaced on the jihadist sales pitch list by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan which have killed hundreds of thousands more)
4) Support for dictators across the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.)
5) Pressure on the oil producing states to keep their prices set where America wants them
6) Support for Russia, China and India in their wars against Muslims"
--- Studies show that "every single individual suicide bomber on Earth between 1980 and 2004 – the one characteristic that all suicide bombers have in common is the presence of foreign combat forces in their country – not Islam."
--- "None of the September 11th hijackers was from an "axis of evil" state (Iraq, Iran or Syria). They were all from countries whose governments are our government's "allies" – in truth, client dictatorships. Most of them were from Saudi Arabia."
--- Fundamentalists want us there.
--- There were no "suicide bombing in Iraq before 2003."
--- CIA's National Intelligence Estimate reports that Iraq "has worsened our terrorism problem over all – by far."
--- "Also in 2005, the Saudi government and an Israeli think tank did studies tracking the individual jihadists traveling to Iraq to be trained in fighting Americans."
--- ...

Paul on Maher ~ YouTube Video
(Much better then the first interview. Real substance discussed.)

Anti-War Radio:

• Michael Scheuer --- Ex-Head of CIA’s Osama Unit says Ron Paul “exactly correct”
• Philip Giraldi --- Former CIA counter-terrorism officer backing up Paul
  
• Ray McGovern --- Another retired CIA officer backs up Paul
  
• Thomas Woods --- Author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization, and more talks about Ron Paul, Left versus Right, War,...
  
• Chalmers Johnson ~ Interview I / Interview II --- Author of Blowback, Sorrows of Empire, & Nemesis
• Justin Raimondo --- Editorial director of Antiwar.com, author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard and Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement

New ~ "The Ron Paul File" at LRC

Yes, I am a Rothbardian----a libertarian. But I do have much respect for an older form of conservatism. This is one reason why this blog is a “paleo” blog.

The late Russell Kirk is considered the founder of post-World War II conservatism. (See this entry to The Paleo Blog.) His views were very similar----if not exact----to Ron Paul’s on foreign policy. Having troops scattered all around the world or sending vast amounts to dictators is a foolish policy. Kirk was against the first Iraq War. He saw the coming blowback too.

Thomas Woods recently wrote an article called "Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder?” You can read it here.

(So, maybe, real conservatives should look more to Kirk, the father of conservatism, and less to the neocons who were former leftists.)

See Also:

• "But Who Was Right—Rudy or Ron?" by  Patrick J. Buchanan
  
• "Why Ron Paul’s Answer Terrifies Them" by Jacob G. Hornberger
  
• "Ron Paul Said It" by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
• "Ron Paul’s Patriotic Crimethink" by Patrick Foy
  

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

The conference held in honor of the late Samuel T. Francis (1947 – 2005) in release of the posthumous book Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America’s Culture War may at least partly appear on C-SPAN. Well...maybe. The book has a foreword by Pat Buchanan and an afterword by Joe Sobran.

It was surprising to first hear that C-SPAN was there at all. I will try to do my best to keep a look out if it does happen to appear on television. VDare.com will probably keep us up-to-date. And it seems, according to Peter Brimelow and Taki Theodoracopulos, some not exactly welcomed or expected things were said by at least one of the speakers that had little relevance to the conference and Francis.

Here is what C-SPAN says (no air-date ---- at least not yet):

Panel on Neoconservatism Panel on Culture Wars Panel on Immigration Editor Peter Gemma talked about Shots Fired: Sam Francis On America's Culture War, a collection of articles by the late Sam Francis (1947-2005). Mr. Francis was a member of what he called the real Right, those who, besides advocating limited government, states' rights, separation of powers, popular traditions, and the Bill of Rights, believe the U.S. is an organic product of Western European culture, not an artifice founded on some airy proposition (e.g., "All men are created equal"). Accordingly, he deplored massive immigration, multiculturalism, and minority special pleading. This session was part of the Sam Francis Conference.

While there are many areas, in my view from a paleolibertarian perspective, that are disagreeable with Francis, nonetheless the shackles the establishment put on him and their attempt to completely mute someone with his intelligence was uncalled for. As I stated before, there are also many areas that (especially) left-libertarians could learn from his writings.

[I just learned that Sam Francis was for a brief time an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute. It is kind of hard to square that with him. Once Francis falsely wrote in an article how capitalism is the enemy.]

The objective of the paleolibertarian is to cut down the government and abolish it. It is my contention that libertarians that support open borders lead us to the very opposite; i.e., more statism, the deterioration of individual liberty, and social chaos. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe teaches us, “open borders” is a complete government fabrication. This fabrication would not exist in anarcho-capitalism. “Open borders“ only result from a Leviathan State.

Immigration is one of the most debated topics in libertarian circles. It is difficult to say what group has a greater number of people in it. I am inclined to say the “open border” folks. Those that are closer to the Mexican border, on the other hand, are probably more inclined, at least relatively speaking, to take the view that is more hostile to “open borders” due to their proximity to the fronts lines.

Yes, it may seem somewhat strange at first: How can those that want to demolish the State want some kind of border enforcement?

Maybe this will help. Here is another way to look at it: The state exists. This is a given. If one can only call the state police when someone trespasses on one’s property, then this is something one will have to do. There is no away around this fact, at least in the given environment. The government exists. It has a monopoly of certain things. Libertarianism would say that this should not be so. However given the current environment, what are the next best alternatives? The government outlaws competition when it comes to law and order. Because of this fact, it is better that the government provides some kind of court system, which can and does uphold some basic libertarian principles (e.g., protection from private thieves and private murders), then to have nothing at all. Understand, this does not mean that the free market could not handle these things. It is because of the fact that they are outlawed. It is also due to the fact that the public has not come to terms with the logic of anarcho-capitalism.

What is the fundamental axiom of libertarianism? It is that no one has the right to violate the property rights of others. Implied in this is that no one has the right to trespass on another’s property. Therefore, no one has the “right” to immigrate. One cannot unconditionally immigrate into my house, for instance. You can only enter my house if I allow you to do so. I may also attach conditions if you enter my house. But clearly you cannot enter it without my permission or invitation.

In an ideal world society would be fully based on private property. This includes things like roads, schools, courts, hospitals, et cetera. Borders in a libertarian world, as we now know them, would not exist. This does not mean, however, that today's semi-"anarchy" that is taking place by Mexico would continue or expand. On the contrary, today's open borders would be replaced by the law and order of the "borders" of private property.

Immigration takes on a new meaning in such a world, but all "immigrants" that you associate with would be voluntary. A multitude of individuals, communities, and other private institutions, in a sense, would “regulate” who does and does not enter. If a private (voluntary) community does not want foreign strangers to enter, they can be sure that they do not. Inherent in libertarianism is that people can dissociate themselves with anyone they want for whatever reason.

Private individuals, unlike the government, have the smarts to have a lock on their home door. Individuals don’t have “open borders.” We have the authority to choose---to “regulate”---who enters and who does not. Only the government has the perverse foresight to be foolish enough to have the door open to “its” geographically controlled territory. But it is much worse than that: The door is not only unlocked and wide open but inside the house there are many free gifts (welfare) waiting for those who enter! This is certainly a recipe for disaster. Government subsidizes immigration. In addition, due to the fact that “our” government is democratic, and its very nature is “open” compared to a monarchy’s “closed” nature, this tendency is further promoted. (See The Paleo Blog's "Restoring Liberty Step-by-Step: Striking Down Democracy.")

A business owner will only choose a worker that will (in his mind) benefit his business. There is no “revolving door.” If that were the case for a given businessman, then he will not be in business for long. Or imagine your home. What do you think would be the result of an “open door” policy with free giveaways inside? Do you think your home’s value will increase? The answer is a clear no. On the other hand, if you allowed some good handymen, they might improve the value of the house. But that does not come about through the “revolving door.” It is something no individual property owner would do. And they don’t. This “bad” does not just turn into a “good” when we apply it to a macrocosmic level, i.e. to a large land controlled by a monopolistic government. Immigration is only good through the active and diligent enforcement of private property rights, which include the freedom to choose and discriminate.

Today we live in a society with an ever large and growing Leviathan State. So much of private property is being stipulated to government control and dictation. Instead of people having the natural freedom to discriminate in any way, government forces people to be with those that they do not wish to be with (by various non-discrimination laws). Government produces forced integration. When someone must be forced to be with someone they do not wish to be, predictably resentment and conflict will result.

Government's existence depends on being a giant mega-parasite. It cannot live any other way. Its food does not come about through voluntary transactions, but by outright (involuntary) theft. To grow it needs more hosts that it can attach itself to. In the eyes of the government, to be healthy it needs a larger number of hosts. The greater the number of hosts the better. This is exactly why the state likes open borders! Any self-respecting libertarian should pause and reflect on this. A pretty good bet is that when government likes something, whatever that may be, then it is virtually assured that it is something that people should not like! It is the reason why this issue has gone almost unnoticed until recent years. Government has stood silent.

Citizens have gotten angry. Arizona past Prop 200 in 2004. It denies illegal immigrants access to voting and welfare. The support Prop 200 was overwhelming. But practically every single politician was against Prop 200. While a vast majority of the residents of Arizona opposed illegals having the "right" to vote and receive welfare, the politicians were only too happy to have illegals both voting and receiving welfare. Should that be a surprise? No. Democracy is all to happy to expand itself to illegals. It wants more hosts. (And because the government is democratic it also needs to expand its open entry system.) The only reason now some politicians are talking about this issue is because the public has felt the effects of immigrants they do not want to be around. There is no other reason.

For government to expand it also needs to break down and isolate the individual. Government needs to own the roads and large amounts of land. In order for it to tax someone it needs access to him. This results in "government's" property in bordering all privately owned property. This lowers people's ability to keep away people they do not wish to associate with. Once people are encircled with government from all sides, anyone can walk right into your property. This includes foreigners. Instead of being able to set up barriers to prevent unwanteds, government almost completely destroys the ability for people to do this.

From this we should be able to gather how unnatural the idea of a "open border" is. As Murray Rothbard wrote:

If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as "closed" as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors. ["Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State"]

Here is what Hans-Hermann Hoppe has to say:

Through forced integration individuals are isolated (atomized) and their power of resistance vis-à-vis the State is weakened. In the “logic” of the state, a hefty dose of foreign invasion, especially if it comes from strange and far-away places, is reckoned to further strengthen this tendency. And the present situation offers a particularly opportune time to do so, for in accordance with the inherently centralizing tendency of States and statism generally and promoted here and now in particular by the U.S. as the world’s only remaining superpower, the Western world—or more precisely the neoconservative-socialdemocratic elites controlling the state governments in the U.S. and Western Europe—is committed to the establishment of supra-national states (such as the European Union) and ultimately one world state. National, regional or communal attachments are the main stumbling blocks on the way to this goal. A good measure of uninvited foreigners and government imposed multiculturalism is calculated to further weaken and ultimately destroy national, regional, and communal identities and thus promote the goal of a One World Order, led by the U.S., and a new “universal man.” ["Natural Order, The State, and The Immigration Problem"]

This is the opposite of the libertarian goal of decentralization and ultimate privatization. Centralization leads to forced integration and open borders. Decentralization and privatization leads to the opposite. It should be expected that if libertarian values were winning what would happen is the breaking away of large states into smaller ones. It is inconceivable how this would not lead to increased community power and segregation. You cannot promote libertarianism and then promote open borders. They are incompatible.

Tax payers are forced to pay for public property. In these terms it is not government that owns them, but the taxpayers in correspondence to how much they pay in. That is to say, if person x pays z percentage of the public property he owns z percentage. Murray Rothbard said that we must reject the idea that all public property should be run like a sewer just because it is public. For example, if some bum is stinking up the public library, he should be kicked out. It is true that this public library should not exist. Only private libraries should exist. However, under the current circumstances, it should be run like a business.

Stephan Kinsella in his LRC article "A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders,"* gives a good example. Right now the roads are owned by government. Is it un-libertarian of me or Mr. Kinsella to want some kind of rules for the roads? Both of us agree that they should be privatized. However, given that they currently are run by government, what is better: No rules on the road or Some rules? Obviously, I think most libertarians would say that there should be some rules. Most would not say that someone like me is supporting something that is un-libertarian. Kinsella writes; "I do not personally believe it can be convincingly argued that there should be no rules on public property, because this would result in significant costs to citizens who are victimized enough." Yes, things are bad enough without making the already bad system worse. Government should not be made to run worse than it is. (Unlike what some libertarians have suggested, making it worse does not necessarily mean that it will collapse. If it did, then this does not necessarily mean that people would be smart enough to embrace anarcho-capitalism ---- they could embrace something worse. And, by the way, it is also immoral to increase the power of the state to do immoral things [even if one's goal is its collapse].)

*(And here is a follow-up.)

This also implies to government controlled hospitals. Yes, get rid of government here.* But right now it would be stupid to suggest that there should not be rules to how they are run. Hospitals have been forced to close down because of illegal immigrants. This is very dangerous.

*(Did you know that in China, I heard on talk radio, that hospitals are in open competition with each other? They actually buy advertisement to tell people to come to their hospital versus another. Talk about them moving to closer to capitalism and us moving closer to socialism.)

Imagine a given territory of land. Now if this land is fully composed of privately owned property, then only those invited would be allowed to enter. No forced integration would occur. On the other hand, if government owns a significant portion of it (or controls the private sector by various non-discriminator laws), then there will most likely be immigrants who are there that would otherwise not be. Even if they got a job, this does not mean that they are welcomed. They still need to move around in this territory. They need to live somewhere. And so forth.

This is why, considering the c