Tag Archives: society

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

Advertisements

Is Libertarianism Utopian?


Libertarianism – and any political position that leans towards a greater degree of freedom from the state – is opposed both ethically and economically on a number of substantive grounds. The proposition that without the state we would have inequality, destitution for the masses, rampant greed, and so on is a familiar charge which attempts to point out that libertarianism is undesirable and/or unjustifiable.

A further point of opposition is that libertarianism and the drive towards it is simply utopian or idealistic, and that libertarians are hopeless day dreamers, lacking any awareness of how the world “really” works. In other words, that, regardless of whether it may be desirable, some combination of one or more of impossibility, improbability or the simple unwillingness of anyone to embrace the libertarian ideal renders libertarianism either wholly or primarily unachievable. It is this specific objection that we will address in this essay.

Let us first of all recount the libertarian ethic of non-aggression, which states that no one may initiate any physical incursion against your body or your property without your consent. From this we can state that the goal of the libertarian project, broadly, is a world of minimised violence and aggression. Consequently, the questions we have to answer is whether a world of minimised violence and aggression is unachievable and, hence, utopian. Read more

The LPUK replies to our post about Gramscian alteration of cultures


Ian Parker-Joseph (Leader, The Libertarian Party of the UK)

(The following is a published comment on our original posting, reprinted as a formal post here, by kind permission of IP-J.)

I do not feel that you have gone far enough in your analysis, and whilst the view of history can be described in the manner your have described, you have not yet brought this up to date.

There is a much more insidious movement that underlies what we see going on around us. It is Communitarianism. It too is Fabian based, and is also determined to break down our historic and societal structures, so that it may build, right across the newly forming geo-political groupings society created and managed from the centre, and ultimately managed on a global basis.

Communitarianism is now present in the policy structure in all 3 major poltical parties in the UK, presented benignly as ‘progressive’ politics, they will dictate what communities should look like, how they should behave and what the demographics will be.

Progressive destruction always preceeds ‘progressive’ rebuilding, and all the parties have been responsible over the past 30-40 years for this happening here in the UK. Miners, fishermen, Steel, Farming are only some of the industries that have been forfieted in the name of Communitarianism.

The overall plan, to firstly destroy communities then to rebuild, not in the name of freedom for the people, under the rule of law, but in the name of controlled populations ruled BY laws, totally. Totalitarianism by any other name.

How does this happen without people knowing? Slowly, slice by slice.

Arnold Toynbee observed the lessons of history, in essence, when he said, “…all great Nations commit suicide”. We simply have to speed things along.

Here’s the plan:

1. Firstly, we must promote “Multiculturalism”. To support this, we will make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal, and that cultural differences are not important.
For instance, if any point out that drop-out rates are high for young Blacks, we respond by saying that this is entirely due to the prejudice and discrimination of the indigenous population. We refuse to countenance any other explanations.

2. The religious beliefs of immigrants must be accepted, not only as equal to, but superior to, those traditionally held in Britain. This must be done most carefully, so that liberal elements in the various churches can assist in their own downfall.

3. Encourage immigrants to settle together so that they have no need to take on the culture of the majority. Again, the key to this will be the constant promotion of ‘Diversity’ rather than ‘Unity’. When all that is left to hold us together is tolerance and pluralism we will have destroyed what is meant by being British!

4. We will encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture.
It will be important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in close proximity. Thereby reinforcing their differences.

5. But this isn’t all. We must make our fastest growing demographic groups the least educated. This will add a second underclass; a class unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to the indigenous majority. If we can make this underclass have a 50% drop out rate from school, so much the better.

6. We will of course have to get big business and liberal foundations to give our efforts to create diversity lots of money. We will invest in ethnic identities, and establish the cult of victimology. We will persuade the minorities that their lack of success is the fault of the majority.
This will enable the development of a ‘grievance industry’, which will blame all minority failures on the indigenous population. This will keep the majority intimidated. Because they won’t want to be labelled xenophobic or racist, they will rapidly become afraid to, even question, what is happening.

7. We will constantly find reason to celebrate Diversity. ‘Diversity’ is a wonderfully seductive word, don’t you think? It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Never forget that diverse peoples, artificially thrown together, worldwide, generally end up hating each other. That is when they are not killing each other. So preach ‘Diversity’ at every opportunity!
Remember, it is against historical precedent to have a diverse, peaceful, and stable society. Remember also that in general terms, people undervalue the unity that’s needed to keep a nation together. We will take advantage of this natural Myopia.
If we are successful, and we will be, (just so long as can keep the plan hidden from the majority for long enough) we will be able to Balkanise Britain as easily as Yugoslavia.
(And now for the really good bits)

8. We will place all these subjects ‘off limits’- taboo to talk about. In the Middle Ages the threat of being called a ‘Heretic’ stopped discussion and paralysed thought. For our purposes, words such as ‘Racist’, ‘Bigot’, and ‘Xenophobe’ will serve to halt argument and conversation opposed to our plan!

9. Having established ‘Multiculturalism’, (and ‘Multilingualism’) alongside the doctrine of ‘Victimology’ we will next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. We will repeatedly say that as immigration has been good for Britain in the past, it must always be good. We will endeavour to ensure every immigrant (especially those with strong religious beliefs, i.e., Muslims), whilst occupying the same or overlapping geographic areas as the indigenous people, do so with minimal interbreeding. We will of course ignore the cumulative impact!

10. And finally, we will no doubt have to create one or two new political parties to facilitate this. They will serve political blind alley’s to siphon off any who question what is happening. We will help the leaders, we select, keep control, by ridiculing their organisations, whilst labelling their supporters as right wing and out of touch.
A similar approach will be adopted towards any genuinely ‘Nationalist’ organisation that showed signs of growth, for such an occurrence would be a direct danger to ‘The Plan’. So, if such a group appears, on top of labelling them racist and xenophobic, we will also launch a massive negative-publicity campaign against them. We will use the police and intelligence agencies to harass their activists, attempt to bankrupt them and, amend voting procedures to deny such a group access to political power. (Scottish voting debacle ring any bells)

Did you recognise the 10 points of the plan to destroy Britain? You should do, as this ‘Plan’ was put into operation decades ago, and the final section of the ‘Plan’ is now being actively used – against Parties such as the BNP, UKIP and occasionally many of the other hundreds of registered political parties, unions, blogs,and many individuals.

It is no small co-incidence that all the major parties now follow the same centrist policies. The One Party State, as David describes from history above is the fate that awaits us under the ‘progressive’ politics of the Conservatives, Labour, Libdems and the EU.

“PATRIOTISM IS NOT AN OPTIONAL EXTRA” … by Robert Henderson


David Davis

Libertarians are unfortunately quite good at viewing their philosophy (or the several ones?) in isolation – in a vacuum as it were. In this respect we often fall victim to the chronic psychological condition, suffered by most lefties and other types of theoretical fascists, which I now call Marxistitis; this condition is sometimes compicated by acute bouts of  massive watery Verbose-Hegeliorrhoea. (These are NOT links! I don’t put links in red – it’s just that I have not written their two wikipages yet.)

We often tend to get a bit like that when “two or three of us are gathered together”… we think the battle of ideas is won, merely because we are right (of course we know we are, and we even know that…that fascist leftism will crumble into dust eventually.)

But not yet. And in the meantime, the forces of wickedness are daily gaining ground, and we are losing even the battle for liberty in Libertarianism’s country of birth, and its civilisational “range” (I use “range” in the zoological sense here, as of an area that’s effectively benign for a species and in which it occupies ecological niches).

Yes, we now have blogs – and ours are good, and better than the enemy’s, who howls “FOUL!” (because we know we are right.) So what? Cisco and the fat-pipe-people (good name for a “beat group”, yes? I think they are called “bands” now…) can pull the plug, or else our ISPs could be nobbled. So we could all go down in the end, and have to become as silent as 20-odd years ago, if a dash of Liberarian Nationalism is not, I think, injected, in order to at last bring about Sovereign Libertarian Polities (or even one.) I have got into deep shit for this on here before, but I think it matters.

Here’s Robert Henderson:-

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>

PATRIOTISM IS NOT AN OPTIONAL EXTRA

Robert Henderson

Contents

1. What is patriotism?
2. The value of patriotism
3. Tribes are natural
4. Nations are tribes writ large
5. The importance of a national territory
6. The democratic value of nations
7. What the individual owes to the nation
8. The liberal internationalist
9. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotism

2021

Twenty twenty one
And the pogroms come
Because no public One
Would heed Nature’s thrum
Saying ever on
Before each one
The tribe must come.

1. What is patriotism?

By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of owning a
land, of instinctively favouring your own country’s men and women,
of knowing that the interest of the “tribe” must come before
everything else. By this definition patriotism is something which the
vast majority of human beings can understand, – the only people who may
be genuinely immune to such comprehension are those who are severely
mentally retarded and those with a personality disorder such as autism
which reduces their ability to understand the social context.

The ease and near universality of understanding sets patriotism apart
from ideologies such as Marxism and liberal internationalism which ask
the individual to master both the tenets of the ideology and complicated
arguments to support of the ideology against attack Those who respond
to the call of patriotism cannot be hoodwinked and manipulated by the
few because almost everyone understands what patriotism is
instinctively. Contrast this with the fate of the majority of those
who, while professing to be adherents of an intellectually demanding
ideology , actually have little understanding of it, either because
they are intellectually lazy or because they lack the intellectual
wherewithal to master the ideology. Such people are left in the position
of the laity in Europe in mediaeval times when the use of Latin in both
translations of the Bible and church rites meant that the vast majority
of the population were left at the mercy of the a small clerical elite
who simply told them what to believe whether or not it was sanctioned by
the Scriptures.

2. The value of patriotism

The value of patriotism lies in its ability to produce social
coherence and an enduring and discrete population . Without patriotism
a country becomes no more than a geographical expression and is ready
prey for colonisation by overt conquest or covert conquest through
mass immigration.

The notion , assiduously disseminated by liberal internationalists,
that human beings are interchangeable social atoms who may live as
readily in one society as another is a recipe for national suicide,
because it embraces policies such as mass immigration which directly
lead to the weakening and ultimately to the destruction of their own
nations. Of course, for the liberal internationalist the destruction
of nation states and the subordination of nations are desired ends ,
but this is predicated on the demonstrably false premise that diverse
populations will live as peacefully and productively as homogeneous ones
. Indeed, the common internationalist claim is that diverse societies
will be stronger and, by implication, more enduring than homogenous
ones. The internationalists have no meaningful grounds for believing
this, for the whole experience of human history and the world as it
is today says that diversity of race and ethnicity in the same
territory equates to violence and social incoherence. There is
literally no example of a diverse society which has not suffered from
its diversity.

Ironically, the consequence of mixed populations is not a diminishing
of national/tribal sentiment, but an inflation of it. A people secure
in its own territory does not need to engage in constant national
expression because nothing threatens it: a people in a mixed society
must constantly do so because all the ethnic/racial groups are
necessarily in conflict because of the need for each to compete for
power and resources for their own group.

3. Tribes are natural

The sense of being separate, of belonging to a discrete group with
identifiable characteristics is a necessary part of being human
because Man is a social animal. All social animals have to have
boundaries to know where the group begins and ends. This is because a
social animal must operate within a hierarchy and a hierarchy can only
exist where there are boundaries. No boundaries, no hierarchy, because
no individual could ever know what the dominance/submission situation
was within their species, or at least within those members of the
species with whom they interact.

Where does “must operate within a hierarchy” come from? First the
observed facts: all social animals do produce hierarchies – although
these vary considerably in form – and human beings always produce
hierarchies, whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a
great modern city.

Why do social animals always form hierarchies? For animals other than
Man the answer is I think simple enough: only by forming hierarchies can
social groups cohere. This is most probably because animals vary
considerably in their physical and mental qualities. Observe any animal,
even the simplest single cell organism, and differences between
individuals within the species will become apparent. Some are more
vigorous than others, some larger, some, more adventurous and so on.
Individuals will also vary by age and, in sexually reproducing species,
sex.

In a solitary animal the practical consequences of differences between
individuals will be decided by direct competition, most commonly by the
formation of territories and the attempted monopoly of mates and food
within the territory, with the best endowed animals on average being
more successful.

When an animal is social, differences in individual quality have to be
resolved by something other than the methods used by solitary animals
such as scent marking of territory boundaries and serious fighting
because the animals have to live in close proximity. Competition for
desirable goods still occurs, most notably competition for mates, but
normally within behaviours which are not fatal to other members of the
group or behaviours which are so disruptive as to threaten the survival
of the group. The upshot of this social accommodation is the formation
of different social niches into which ind Read more

Time to have a prod at Polly Toynbee again (with a sharp stick)


David Davis

Here she is trying to pretend that Conservative talk about families distracts from the real work of socialism, which is income redistribution.

Sad, sad woman. She either reall really does not get it about humans and life, or else she is truly a socialist, and thus wicked. I am beginning to fear the latter.