Tag Archives: culture

Immigration – An Austro-Libertarian Analysis


Immigration – An Austro-Libertarian Analysis

By Duncan Whitmore

Both the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as the US President have elevated the topic of immigration to the top of the political agenda. Leftist, liberal elites – previously so sure they would arrive easily at their vision of an open, borderless world – have been scalded now that the lid has been lifted from the bubbling cauldron of the needs of ordinary, everyday citizens seeking to preserve their jobs and the culture of their homelands.

It is high time that this vitriolic, divisive and – frankly – often quite tiresome issue is put to rest. That, alas, is unlikely to happen, particularly as the political globalists seem content to plough on with their vision of open borders through the looming UN Global Compact for Migration. Listening to the mainstream arguments (or at least to how the leftist/liberal media chooses to portray them), one would be forgiven for thinking that the immigration question needs to be met by an all or nothing answer – i.e. that it is either an unqualified good or an unqualified bad. We are led to believe that it is a contest between liberals, or self-styled “progressives”, clamouring for fully porous borders on the one hand, versus elderly, conservative, racist bigots who supposedly want to keep everyone out and preserve England’s green and pleasant land for white faces.

The falsehood of this dichotomy is obvious to almost anyone who is not of the liberal-left, and, in fact, a “sensible” view on immigration is quite prevalent – that it is possible to be in favour of permitted, but regulated immigration, allowing some people to cross the border as immigrants to come and live and work in the territory of the state while denying that privilege to others. It is also recognised that immigration is economically beneficial in some situations, but not in others – i.e. when immigrants are highly skilled and productive instead of welfare consumers.

The task of this essay is to sharpen this “sensible” view with Austro-libertarian theory. We will begin by outlining the core libertarian theory concerning immigration before examining a key area for contention among libertarians – whether, in a world populated by states, any particular state should restrict or otherwise control movements across the border by persons who are not considered to be citizens of that particular state and whether this is in accordance with libertarian theory. We will then move on to exploring the economic and cultural implications of immigration policies. Read more

Advertisements

Why Libertarians Should Read Mises – Part Three


Why Libertarians Should Read Mises 

Part Three 

By Duncan Whitmore

In this final part of three essays exploring the importance of Ludwig von Mises’ for libertarian thought, we will examine Mises’ views on the fundamental importance of economics in society, and the meaning of this for understanding the particular nature of the state and statism in our own time. We will then conclude (in a separate post) with an annotated bibliography of Mises’ major works.

 The Fundamental Importance of Economics in Society

Mises had a particularly insightful understanding of the special, foundational status of economics and the influence of economic theory in human society. In his own words:

Economics […] is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man’s human existence.

[…]

Economics deals with society’s fundamental problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen.

[…]

The body of economic knowledge is an essential element in the structure of human civilization; it is the foundation upon which modern industrialism and all the moral, intellectual, technological, and therapeutical achievements of the last centuries have been built. It rests with men whether they will make the proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge provides them or whether they will leave it unused. But if they fail to take the best advantage of it and disregard its teachings and warnings, they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race.1

Read more

The Useful Idiocy of the Left


The Useful Idiocy of the Left

By Duncan Whitmore

The typical libertarian is unlikely to open his YouTube account or Twitter feed without encountering a cascade of material in which a) the left is drawing attention to itself in a loud and obnoxious manner; and b) libertarians, conservatives and their fellow travellers are castigating the left for whatever it is doing. Given all of this attention paid to the left one would have thought that they must have something important to say. Let us look at a few recent examples to see if this is true.

On August 11th it was reported in the news that around a hundred or so protestors had appeared in the constituency of Conservative MP Andrew Griffiths to demand his resignation. No doubt the motivation of a small crowd of Mr Griffiths’ constituents to give up their afternoon and don placards calling for his head owed itself to something extremely serious. After all, surely we would only bother to march through the streets to protest if the matter was as grave as an illegal war, right?

Actually, the flames of fury were ignited by something altogether less serious. Mr Griffiths, who is married, had been sending a considerable volume of lewd text messages to two barmaids, the contents of which were published by the Sunday Mirror. The high crime which had fuelled the protestors’ rage was that Mr Griffiths is a “misogynist”, the protest calling for nothing more than a rejection of his “behaviour and attitudes”. Read more

Friday Night is Music Night: tomorrow, Dresden…


And “now”, as that not-very-nice-man John Cleese always used to say… “for something completely different.” Tomorrow if I am not mistaken is the 65th anniversary of the raids by RAF Bomber Command and the USAAF on Dresden, for which the poor Western Allies (unlike Stalin who demanded them) got to carry the can, and got to be made to feel really shitty and ruthless and cruel, for six decades and more. We can by now probably all agree that this actual raid was not strictly necessary:  the war was effectively over, apart from clearing up the already-ample rubble, burying the corpses, trying and sentencing the villains, re-connecting up the Mains Services across Europe, and getting a functioning Market Economy running again.

But Stalin, bless the evil little bugger, wanted and demanded a show of “shock and awe”, loosely coupled to a less-than-needful wish of his Armies to have all enemy comms in front of them obliterated. He couldn’t range artillery that far  – be there ever so many Soviet “Artillery Divisions” (which there were) –  and his air force never quite had the heavy-lifting capacity ours did. So he got what he wanted: Roosevelt the scoundrel loved him anyway, and nobody was listening to poor old Churchill by then. The ally that bought the time in the first place, to form a coalition of allies, was by then regarded as the least important, and moribund, with a crumbling Empire to boot.

The result was the consigning down-the-memory-hole of chaps like this one in the video below. There has never even been a campaign medal for RAF Bomber Command, which suffered about 48% fatal casualties, around 56,000 men – a higher percentage even than the Merchant Navy.

The whole sorry episode should be a real object lesson to peoples who have some vestigial abillity to appoint and dismiss their governments.

You people all around and around, including us here, ought to be bloody careful who you vote for – you might get tyrannical psychotic murdering messianinc megalomaniacs, masquerading as caring liberal social democrats. I’m not saying quite out loud that Obama is one of that crowd, but you Americans who come and watch this page should tell your compatriots that they were not really thinking straight when you/they voted for him en masse, now, were you. He’s never been anything in his life except a gauleiter, after all – and look what a society surveilled by gauleiters brought to its people…

There’s not much time left here for us to avoid it.

How West-stalinist governments destroy education and deliberately de-civilise – part 2942A/-3. Bullying in schools


David Davis

I chanced on this just now.

This government is not content with forcibly occupying schools in the Austro-Serbian-1914 manner. Nor indeed in the manner of that of R3 in post-1933.

I respectfully suggest that this government is determined to exclude from society, and if possible destroy physically even including the use of death, any children whose outlook and innate relpectiveness might prejudice the growth of a population of biddable pro-GramscoFabiaNazi helots.The (a)moral position is halfway achieved already, since today British children are, functionally, State Property.

Hence, “bullying”, a custom long in use by children (until they learn property rights and about liberty)  but hiterto controlled adequately by real schools, is allowed and promoted pro-actively. This is actively accomplished in schools by plans known as “anti-bullying policies”.

“Bullying” is probably a primordial hominid-survival-mechanism, useful perhaps 300,000 to 1 million years ago, and probably co-eval with the reise of language as a skill. It may have had a utility in ensuring that the most aggressive and the most “celebrity-clubbable” juveniles (of either sex but mainly males – and who would be popular on account of their size/outgoing-nature/use of growls to threaten predators/warped-sense-of-humour/…etc) survived better in the presence of scarce gatherable resources, to reproduce, at the expense of the more retiring and noncommunicative ones in a group environment. By either killing the “geeks” or driving them off into the bush to be eaten by Short-Arsed-Bears, the survival of the more clubbable and aggressive juveniles could be helped.

My hypothesis may imply that “bullies” could be quite “intelligent”. This is not a problem for me, for most bullies I have ever met were at least not very much more dim than most normal people, and probably had other useful qualities if only these could be exposed and/or channelled.

Regarding “Policies” …. I relate the story of the Bishop who, when asked what was his policy regarding SIN, replied “I’m against it”. Schools today in the UK, for the benefit of our overseas reader, all have to have “policies” tod eal with “bullying”. these are often highly comples and deliberately unintelligible documents (we don’t want parents detecting that the verbiage means sod-all now, do we) which talk about the appointment of “peer mentors” (which is to say other children) to whom one should go on being bullied. Or that “The School absolutely does not tolerate bullying of any kind, and works with the appropriate practitioners, carers and organisations towards a strategy of agreement on how to co-ordinate the relevant activities, measures and experts’ skills in order to  formulate a pastoral-care-pathway designed to eliminate the ….”...f***-it –  I could go on.

In my day in the 1950s and just after, there was indeed bullying. My parents firstly tried to help me combat it by saying to the bullies: “But I will go to University and you will not!” Poor buggers my parents: they simply didn’t understand the mind of the English young male post-war bully. But schools had a more robust attitude happily. After a little time I was encouraged by the teachers, mostly ex-WW2 RSMs and redundant ex-Imperial ADCs from upper-Jipoopooland, to take matters into my own hands. I was not strong or large, but there were sharp things such as my teeth, fountain pens and compass-points, which it seemed I was not … officially … discouraged from using. So I did.

Injured bullies leaking blood were generally chastised by the nearest teacher and sent to Matron to be sewn up again and given permanganate swabs, plus a stern note to their _Father_ . It stopped after a few weeks, and I was not thereafter troubled.

Bullying will stop if recipients or “bullees” are permitted to retaliate with force. I believe that there are no conditions under which it will stop if the existing “policies” (which expressly preclude absolutely any retaliation by bullees) are allowed to continue. Since the kinds of people targetted as “bullees” are generally either not the product of the Labour-spawned underclass, or else do not generally conform to TV-driven “cultural norms” such as chavs, thugs, hairless-male-youths-who-crash-W-reg-white-Vauxhall-Novas-full-of-girls, and celebs, then “policies” for “anti-bullying”  must be a deliberate attempt to wipe out, by self-harm, the young population of those reflective enough not to conform and agree.

I rest my case.

…sorry…the end of the poll-question should have said “The New Utopia”.

« Older Entries