Every now and then I find an article or forum participant or youtube post or tv show/movie that mixes libertarianism with some version of 'white power' activism.
Sometimes they quote Mises for their 'right to discriminate', other times they try to defend an alleged version of national-socialism that is supposedly pro-market. Invariably, though, these 'characters', be they fictional or real, have a strong 'Christian' persuasion and even when they do not openly defend Hitler, they talk about revisionism of the Holocaust as some sort of groundbreaking truth that will some day be known to all.
I can't help but feel somewhat disturbed by these characters, specially when they are so knowledgeable and share with us such things as a general dislike of democracy (though, obviously not for the same reasons) and advocate private defense.
Any thoughts?
I've never encountered any libertarian white-supremacists. Many (if not most) users at Storm Front are very friendly towards the idea of "national socialism".
If anyone tries to equate libertarianism with white-supremacy, just remind them that white-supremacists have a wide-range of views about government, and the very few that are libertarian would be the harmless ones!
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
They tend to be charlatans. Although, a libertarian can argue for a homogeneous society based on voluntary association and freedom thereof. Some might say this is somehow immoral, but I fail to see how. The truth of the matter is the welfare state coupled with an open border policy has distorted the natural rates of immigration, much as the state distorts any and all natural rates (except its "natural" rate of expropriation.)
Well, with every movement, you're bound to attract some nutjobs. Just explain to them the nationalism is inconsistent with libertarianism.
shazam: Well, with every movement, you're bound to attract some nutjobs. Just explain to them the nationalism is inconsistent with libertarianism.
Apparently quite a few people around here seem to think it is compatible.
I remember reading a few months ago that Ron Paul recieved a 500 dollar cash donation from a white supremacist. Paul was pressured to give the money back but he refuesed stating that he did not in any way shape or form support their racist views but he was not going to give the money back simply because the man did not share his belief. If a communist whom I had never met before offered me 500 dollars to put towards my education, I would not give it back because his views are wrong. To do so would be insane. Unfortanetly, the media put the focus on the part that he accepted the dontation and refused to give it back, but did not cover his reasoning for it and did not allow him to clarify his position. The socialist media is what gives libertarians a bad name. They are afraid of what might happen if the government was not in every aspect of their lives, so they attack the people who believe in freedom. You do not hear about the donations going to Hilary from leftists extremists who belive in class war, but Ron Paul will be scrutinized in attempt to dirty his name and his ideas on freedom from the government.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Yes, his explaination was excellent! I'm still waiting for Obama's explaination of Fonda's endorsement.
Every candidate that remains is pure scum.
Anyone that tries to combine Libertarian politics with racism is a fool.
"A man chooses, a slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan.
Brainpolice: shazam: Well, with every movement, you're bound to attract some nutjobs. Just explain to them the nationalism is inconsistent with libertarianism. Apparently quite a few people around here seem to think it is compatible.
Yes quite a few like Ron Paul are nationalist and a lot of "anarchists" endorse him
I really don't see any problem with Ron Paul keeping the money. In the end, it is not about him supporting the views of his followers, but the other way around.
I too think any movement is bound to have some crazy followers, or cast-outs from other organizations or ideologies, specially when libertarianism is so welcoming. In a way, you may say it is its strength because it shares many of the views of both modern left and right and so may be appealing to a wide section of the political spectrum. At the same time, it is also its weakness, for there is a lot of people who don't know anything about libertarianism and are easily impressed by it being favored by such groups as 'white supremacists' or even radical Christians who hope to substitute the State with their new version of the Church.
Again, as a libertarian, I am obviously not for any form of 'thought-police' and simply have no argument against any individual's right to be a stupid mystic or racists in their own property, as long as they do not use force or threat thereof.
I was wondering how bad you guys thought it was and what impact do you think it will have, if any, on the future of libertarianism or how it is presented.
Cheers.
I think it's important to consider what the real agenda of most white nationalists really is. While they are perfectly free to hold and express such views and while they are perfectly free to engage in free disassociation, I somehow doubt that the agenda of most white nationalists and racists is truly based on any kind of principled voluntaryism. I suspect that many of them wish to use the state as means towards their ends. In my understanding, the main goal of such groups is forced segregation and protectionism.
Brainpolice: I suspect that many of them wish to use the state as means towards their ends. In my understanding, the main goal of such groups is forced segregation and protectionism
Totally Agree
RokonFan1988: Brainpolice: I suspect that many of them wish to use the state as means towards their ends. In my understanding, the main goal of such groups is forced segregation and protectionism Totally Agree
And there is a secret racist under every bed.
Peace
JonBostwick: RokonFan1988: Brainpolice: I suspect that many of them wish to use the state as means towards their ends. In my understanding, the main goal of such groups is forced segregation and protectionism Totally Agree And there is a secret racist under every bed.
No, I'm not being PC (hell, I'm a civil war revisionist and strong opponent of affirmative action). I'm talking about die-hard racists who have a rather obvious agenda of forced segregation. Not your average person, but what amounts to "fringe" groups. You shouldn't assume that all opposition to racism can be reduced to ignorant left-wing political correctness. There is such thing as racism and its hardcore proponents have an ugly agenda that in principle is by no means compatible with libertarianism.
On one hand, there is indeed an ignorant tendency among some people to see or hunt for racism everywhere where it really doesn't exist. On the other hand, it is just as ignorant to pretend that it doesn't exist at all and/or is entirely harmless. Forced segregation is no light matter. It was a highly anti-liberty institutional travesty in America for a long time.
Inquisitor: , a libertarian can argue for a homogeneous society based on voluntary association and freedom thereof. Some might say this is somehow immoral, but I fail to see how.
The truth of the matter is the welfare state coupled with an open border policy has distorted the natural rates of immigration,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Last time I checked, most richer nations also have rather generous welfare systems that do not necessarily exclude immigrants. It'd be shocking, to say the least, if no one chose to avail themselves of these. When employers have to shoulder all the burdens of the costs of immigration themselves, and local employees are no longer rendered non-competitive by minimum wage legislation and the like, and with anti-discrimination and pro-"diversity" legislation out the window (and of course no more fiat money), one can expect definite changes in immigration rates - whether upwards or downwards I suppose it'll depend on the area.
...as to whether it coheres with the spirit of libertarianism, I do not see why it shouldn't. As far as I am concerned, libertarianism consists in no more than the NAP. Any and all sorts of societies are consistent with it provided they go by the NAP, although some will no doubt succeed more than others. My intuition is that its success would depend on just how much material prosperity a given society is willing to forgo for the benefits it perceives it'll receive from homogeneity, much like a syndicalist economic model would depend on the willingness of its participants to forgo material benefits for whatever they believe they'll gain by so doing. Neither strategy is inherently un-libertarian. For those who think libertarianism involves more (e.g. Hoppe, Long, Rand &c.), it is their specific models that are inconsistent with it. I'm only a thick libertarian in that I think some brands of libertarianism will succeed better than others, but for something to call itself 'libertarian' all it need do is comply with the NAP for me. For it to be Objectivism, or Hoppean libertarianism, or whatever, then stricter standards apply.
...as to whether it coheres with the spirit of libertarianism, I do not see why it shouldn't. As far as I am concerned, libertarianism consists in no more than the NAP. Any and all sorts of societies are consistent with it provided they go by the NAP, although some will no doubt succeed more than others.
Absolutely. Two good examples are Jews and the Amish. Both have a strong sense of community and exclusion of the "other," but both are non-aggressive. In fact one is pacifist, and the other nearly so. Both would do just fine in a libertarian society.
--Len.
LUCHAC:Any thoughts?
Yes. Ignore them. Talking/arguing with them only gives them your attention and brings the attention of others. If you are considering "problems of the world" (or even neighborhood), there are more significant ones that are amenable to attention.
My 2¢ worth.
Inquisitor: Last time I checked, most richer nations also have rather generous welfare systems that do not necessarily exclude immigrants. It'd be shocking, to say the least, if no one chose to avail themselves of these.
My intuition is that its success would depend on just how much material prosperity a given society is willing to forgo for the benefits it perceives it'll receive from homogeneity,
For those who think libertarianism involves more (e.g. Hoppe, Long, Rand &c.), it is their specific models that are inconsistent with it.
Len:Two good examples are Jews and the Amish. Both have a strong sense of community and exclusion of the "other," but both are non-aggressive. In fact one is pacifist, and the other nearly so. Both would do just fine in a libertarian society
That's just the opposite of methodogical individualism ? Societies don't have a will. They can hardly be willing to do anything. I hate to say it, but your position seems to be pretty collectivistic.
Inquisitor knows better than that--do we need to pounce on every bit of imprecise language? If enough people prefer to have neighbors similar to themselves, yadda yadda.
The Amish society is not libertarian.
Never said it was. But it's self-segregated, and pacifistic. It would continue to be a segregated subset of a libertarian society, after the revolution comes.
I don't think there's a Jewish society, but if you consider the nation-state of Israel...
The Jews aren't completely homogeneous, it's true. And I'm not talking about Israelis, or I'd have said so; there's a huge difference between Israeli culture and the Jewish diaspora. Diaspora Jews come in all flavors, but most of them at least oppose marriage to gentiles. This qualifies as "bigotry" against gentiles, but it's nonviolent and non-aggressive. In Libertopia, Jews would continue opposing marriage outside, without any legal difficulties.
What you say is true but I'm afraid it has nothing to do with my point. The main reason, by far, for immigration, is the one I stated. I think that a lot of people immigrated to the US before the US had a welfare state ?
To be sure, certain regions enjoyed high levels of immigration. I'm not sure to what extent the state was complicit or not. My point is that there will be a lot more regional variation under a private property regime. Some areas will be cosmopolitan and have high rates of immigration, others will not for obvious reasons.
Now you are being silly. I can easily argue a communist society (i.e. the individuals in it) will fail if its participants adopt their favoured economic system without slipping into collectivism. A society is not a non-entity, it is a collective of individuals - individuals which can, together, put plans into effect. I'm not hypostatizing society, if that is what you think I'm doing.
Classical liberals were interested, I believe, in the free movement of people and goods across the world. Conservatives on the other hand are not.
Right, conservatives argue for legal impediments in the way of the abovementioned elements. But free movement of people and goods mean there will be as much (or as little) movement of goods as a given society desires. It is not un-libertarian for a group of individuals to boycott a corporation's goods, and it is not un-libertarian to analogously refuse to associate with individuals with whom they wish no connection.
Inquisitor:. My point is that there will be a lot more regional variation under a private property regime.
A society is not a non-entity, it is a collective of individuals - individuals which can, together, put plans into effect.
But free movement of people and goods mean there will be as much (or as little) movement of goods as a given society desires.
I really don't know. I tend to believe not. Anyway, I think we agree that the only way to actually know, is by making private property absolute. And if that's the case, as some people already pointed out, only one dissenter is all it takes to 'wreck' the racial purity of such a...'community' ?
And that'd depend in turn on how willing individuals are willing to put up so-called dissenter - ostracism and refusal to associate with them are powerful influences, and require no force at all. Restrictive covenants and the like may function to resolve this issue. Besides, I doubt that individuals who dislike more homogeneous societies shall choose to remain in them anyway. Again, this will not fit the Objectivist view or even Long's type of anarchist society (both thick forms of libertarianism), but that is neither here nor there.
I don't thnk so. Human society doesn't work like that. It's not a contract made by a bunch of people. And even if a group of consenting adults were to form such a 'community' based on 'racial purity', it's not going to work. It's not realistic.
Perhaps, perhaps not. That alone does not make it un-libertarian, but merely impractical. And that is what I was driving at.
Right. And if there's no absolute free movement of goods and people, it is not a libertarian society.
What makes you think this free movement will be hindered? All it takes for such a society to form is the refusal to dispose of one's property in certain ways, much like all a boycott requires is abstention from consumption; surely you do not consider boycotts to be a hindrance in the free movement of goods?
'Communities' like the Amish can exist within a libertarian a society, but they can't at all create a libertarian society by themselves.
My point is something completely different. Namely, that there's no contradiction for a libertarian to be bigoted, as long as he doesn't initiate aggression. In principle, it's possible to be "white supremacist" and libertarian with no contradiction--except that, as others have noted, most "white supremacists" believe in aggression against non-whites, and only mouth libertarian platitudes to the extent it benefits themselves.
I wouldn't be surprised if they used non-christian, non-pacifist methods.
Sometimes, I'm sure. But the highest punishment in the Amish community is shunning--which is not only non-aggressive, but in fact the perfect model for a libertarian society. Shunning is the greatest "punishment" libertarians can impose for non-aggressive behavior of which they disapprove.
Inquisitor: Juan: Right. And if there's no absolute free movement of goods and people, it is not a libertarian society. What makes you think this free movement will be hindered?
Juan: Right. And if there's no absolute free movement of goods and people, it is not a libertarian society.
White nationalists could be considered "white power libertarians."
They support peaceful race separation and the right of association. Similarly, I would consider black nationalists to be "black power libertarians."
If they want to form their own communities where they celebrate their own race and culture, so be it. As long as they don't force their beliefs on others, I'm fine with them.
Political Atheists Blog
Juan:Len, 'Communities' like the Amish can exist within a libertarian a society, but they can't at all create a libertarian society by themselves.The Amish are highly conservative and I believe opposed to a good deal of what libertarianism implies. I don't know how they deal with dissenters, but I wouldn't be surprised if they used non-christian, non-pacifist methods.
The entire point is that in a libertarian society, the Amish, Jews, whites, blacks, etc. are all free to voluntarily form their own separate communities.
If, for example, the Amish don't like dissenters, then an Amish-dissenter community could form elsewhere, or the dissenting Amish could freely move to a religiously mixed community nearby.
White nationalism, strictly speaking, is a movement that wants to create separate white communities but not force others to do the same. Sure, there are a bunch of stormfront 12 year olds running around yelling "Heil Hitler" and supporting fascism, but they're only white nationalist in name, the same how there are many racist black nationalists.
The bottom line is that if they wish to separate themselves from non-whites, so be it, as long as they don't force their views upon others.
krazy kaju: White nationalists could be considered "white power libertarians." They support peaceful race separation and the right of association. Similarly, I would consider black nationalists to be "black power libertarians." If they want to form their own communities where they celebrate their own race and culture, so be it. As long as they don't force their beliefs on others, I'm fine with them.
Except that's not really the political platform of what most ethnic nationalist groups advocate. Many seem to support forced separation through central institutional means. While it is certainly true that some may be secessionists, which is fine, secession is hardly the only strategy advocated by most WN's. Out of pessemism and desperation felt from living under the current system, they may tend to advocate the usage of the current system in the present to coercively enforce their ends. For the most part, it seems to me that such movements are reactionary rather than revolutionary.
True, in a libertarian society different groups are free to voluntarily form into homogenous communities (they are also free to voluntary form into more pluralist communities). However, do you seriously think that if we became a libertarian society (especially in America, where a relatively significant degree of ethnic mixing has already taken place), everyone of each respective ethnic group would uniformly form into "pure" communities with no cross-overs at all? I don't. Do you really think it is likely that a truly 100% ethnically "pure" community is sustainable, at least in any long-term sense, through voluntary means? I don't.
I've actually never seen this. One thing we've experienced over the years are attacking the Mises Institute for putting commerce before nation and race etc. These people hate us as much as the left, if not more. Actually I don't mind. The whole nationalist, right-wing racialist tradition is anti-liberal and anti-market.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
Juan, what exactly is libertarianism to you? To me, all it is is a common political framework based on the NAP that unites a variety of political ideologies. Personally I am a neo-Objectivist/neo-Aristotelian of the sort Reisman is (except I'm a market anarchist), and to me that is the sort of libertarian society I'd prefer - and that is how I justify my position; but I take this to be a specific type of libertarianism.
Jeff, that is largely my experience of them too. Some are open to libertarianism and voluntary means of organizing society (and attaining their sought ends) and thus convert, whereas others might just adopt it rhetorically and yet others vehemently oppose voluntaryism. I see the latter two as no more than repugnant statists. They often argue that we put the market before society, or other such hogwash.
They often argue that we put the market before society, or other such hogwash.
Like Stodles's charge of "economization"?
Economism. Yes, that is sort of what I had in mind, although the claim is usually stronger than that. There are "capitalists" of which it can be said this is true (e.g. those who horribly misread Rand), but generally it's invalid when applied to Austro-libertarianism.
Inquisitor: Juan, what exactly is libertarianism to you? To me, all it is is a common political framework based on the NAP that unites a variety of political ideologies.
I also believe that if the NAP was consistently applied, the majority of individuals would choose to live in a progressive, industrial society, not in small conservative towns that enforce 'racial purity', or in kibutzs, or similar 'communities'
I believe that the incentives towards integration and inclusivity would increase rather than decrease over the long-term. I believe that more pluralist forms of social organization would tend to outcompete comparatively monocentric or homogenous ones. I base this on ideas such as harmony of interests (mutual self-interest), social evolution, comparative advantage and the economics of discrimination.
I think that the multicultural and 'progressive' position of the left is something they stole from classical liberalism, except that of course classical liberals don't want to impose 'multiculturalism' at the point of a gun.
As was touched on by Roderick Long in "Left and Right: 40 Years Later": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z31FQ1_jjlQ&feature=PlayList&p=5398146C2FF43F40&index=101
There's a definite element of cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism in a lot of classical liberal writings. However, as I said earlier, I am willing to bet there will be a lot more diversity in organizational firms under private property anarchism, and so long as some people genuinely desire homogeneity, egalitarianism, rural settings or whatever., they will pursue and sustain such societies. The Amish are an example of a people who differ radically from most modern individuals, as is the town of Orania, for instance, in South Africa. A desire for uniformity is too statist for my likings, and I think it is unrealistic to assume that such communities will fail outright or will be doomed to failure - provided their participants are willing to shoulder the costs. Some no doubt will, of course. So as not to argue in circles I'm going to leave it at this, but I do think that the widespread trend towards urbanization, just like the trend towards heavy industry, is at least partially due to the State (in fact I recall articles on Mises.org to this effect), and that in its absence there will be a multiplicity of organizational forms and living arrangements.
The Amish are an example of a people who differ radically from most modern individuals, as is the town of Orania, for instance, in South Africa. A desire for uniformity is too statist for my likings