In a typically overheated article at the Lew Rockwell website, is this extraordinary paragraph by Anthony Gregory:
“More important in U.S. fascism is the role multiculturalism plays in guarding against the accusations of violent prejudice. The U.S. government already addressed racial strife, our textbooks say. If racism remains, it is a problem with the culture and private sector – not the egalitarian state. The war machine and federal government were the saviors of blacks. LBJ, the same man who slaughtered millions of Asians, signed the Civil Rights Act, and so the federal government has been elevated to the status of being the Final Solution to racism, the redemption of America’s past sins. The all-out assault on property rights involved in Civil Rights legislation is itself a form of anti-racist fascism, yet to say so is to be met with incredulous perplexity, at best.”
This is a mixture of half truths and downright nonsense. (The “war machine” a “saviour of blacks”? WTF?). Yes, it is undoubtedly the case that “affirmative action” – which is euphemism for racial discrimination – is wrong and violates equality before the law. It is also true that some aspects of Civil Rights legislation have encroached on private property rights. But Gregory surely knows that some aspects of Civil Rights legislation addressed such indefensible acts as preventing black people – who were taxpayers – from gaining equal access to the public facilities they had paid for, as well as ensuring equal treatment for voter registration requirements, and so on. And given the statist abomination of the Jim Crow laws (enacted during the Progressive era), it is surely legitimate even for someone like Mr Gregory and his Rockwellian chums to accept that after such state-enforced bigotry was removed, it was a matter of natural justice to ensure that black people were put on an equal footing with whites in terms of access to public services that they had paid for.
It is, of course true in strictly narrow terms that a libertarian defence of the right to life and property does not say anything about how one should use, say, such property, nor should it. But life is so much more than simply focusing on such “negative liberties”; my conception of libertarianism is that it embraces social, not just narrowly legal or economic, freedoms. In my view, a free society is one that encourages “experiments in living”, in encouraging, or at least not scorning, the eccentric, the different, etc, with the key proviso that such experimenters bear the consequences of their actions. And I get a strong sense from Mr Gregory that he hasn’t much time for such things, for all his raving about how the US has been a “fascist” country. The problem is that by using that term to describe something like Civil Rights legislation, it leaves our vocabulary looking a bit inadequate when describing, say, Mussolini’s Italy.
On a slightly tangential point, here is Matt Welch, of Reason magazine, defending his recent book – co-authored with Nick Gillespie – from those “paleo-libertarians” over at the Lew Rockwell outfit. What a rum lot they are.
Johnathon,
You sir are a better man than me for spending any time at all at the Lew Rockwell site. For me, I immediately disregard anyone (left, right, or libertarian) that starts throwing around the word fascism when talking about modern-day America, or Great Britain, or any of the other western democracies. Don’t get me wrong, the state in those western countries is too damn intrusive, but “fascist”, oh please.
Serves you right for lying down with the flea-infested retards at lewrockwell, Johnathan. Yes, they do occasionally get something right over there — but there is SO much crap you have to wade through first, that it doesn’t make the search worthwhile.
About the only good thing ever about lewrockwell is that they have Albert Jay Nock’s “Isaiah’s Job” printed there — and if ol’ Albert had known where his peerless essay would end up, he’d have had a fit.
“given the statist abomination of the Jim Crow laws (enacted during the Progressive era)”
incorrect. from wiki
Anyone care to make a plank by plank comparison and contrast to what was in the article and refute it? Rolling of eyes and “oh, please” doesn’t cut it.
I would suggest spending some time examining the rise of the merging of business and governmental control for the last 100 years in the US (or the UK of which I am less familiar).
When commissars from the Justice Department oversee affairs of large corporations in perpetuity, and companies are “too big to fail”, I think it’s safe to say a legitimate form of fascism has descended upon your society. It doesn’t seem to faze people that the US has a bureaucratic leviathan that surpasses fascist Germany or Italy, but somehow isn’t fascism.
But one doesn’t have to look to hard at what is irritating the samizdatarians – the slicing into their legitimization of extraterritorial Force. Perpetual war for perpetual peace. The State can do no wrong when it comes to dropping bombs hither and yon. Any attack by the anti-imperialist right, brothers in philosophy on almost all other points, are “flea riven loonies” because they have frustrating consistency. I guess Dwight D. Eisenhower is a loon for warning against the military industrial complex. I’m accustomed to the difference of opinion on that front, but are we to a point, as cohorts of the minarchist/libertarian right, that we’re going to piss in each others’ soup? It’s to the State’s advantage that anti-statists spend more time fractured from each rather than creating some degree of unity.
Do I agree lock, stock, and barrel with Lew Rockwell, or those over at mises.org, or here? Nope. Never have. But it is inspiring that they do exist in a world where 90% of people don’t seem to have a problem with the grave issues – economic, political, and social – we have. But when I see fractiousness and name calling instead of legitimate refutation, I have to call it out, even if risks being derided or banned.
jim crow started in the 1870’s see wiki
Now the Reason/Rockwell flap has spread to Samizdata.
[Sigh]
…sigh…
Brad,
The phenomenon you describe is not fascism, but corporatism. Corporatism is bad enough, mind you; but Fascism must go beyond that. The Fascist believes that ALL activity must be absorbed into the state; as Mussolini said, “everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state.”
This means that chess clubs, religion, the whole practice of science and philosophy and art, are explicitly subordinate to the state and in its service. We are nowhere close, or else the Boy Scouts would have been rounded up and sent to concentration camps.
Corporatism, on the other hand, tends to be more narrowly focused on the economic world. Bad enough, as I said, but no need to abuse the English language by calling it fascism.
(Note: many idiots believe that “corporatism” means “rule by corporations.” These idiots are ignorant, provincial, and illiterate. Don’t be one of them. A good place to start is by looking up Peter Katzenstein, “Small States in World Markets.”)
those “paleo-libertarians” over at the Lew Rockwell outfit. What a rum lot they are.
I agree with what Brad says in his final paragraph.
Braaa! Lew Rockwell citation complete with hybrid Libertarian/Kazinsky foot stamper!
Aaaauuugh!
Sorry, Brad, but lack of responses to your challenge is not for a lack of arguments, but a result of most people realizing that it is a waste of time to debunk every ridiculous screed on the Internet. Life is short.
Also, while an ad-hom attack on the source is a logical fallacy in general, in life it can be a real time saver, as some sources (such a LR.com) are so reliably nutballs that anything emanating from them is virtually certain
to be falsifiable, with the odds in favor on the order of the half-life of a proton expressed in Plank-time units.
And I have no more Plank-time units to spare than it took to write you this explanation.
May I offer a correction:
However the term may have ultimately come to be understood as a “euphemism” for something else,
Affirmative Action was the phrase used in the order of Dwight D. Eisenhower to the military commands – making clear that action was to be taken.
That was its origin and purpose.
Good point. There are lifestyles to marginalize and preferences to shame. I’ll rest assured, though, that you won’t be shaming the politically incorrect preferences. So very brave.
Exactly. If everyone bears the consequences of their actions but the eccentric are shamed, then the society is not free.
To “libertarians” who believe in positive rights (such as feelings) – as opposed to the libertarians who believe in negative rights (life, liberty, and property) – that sounds great.
And life in Johnathan Pearce’s libertarian-utopia is great, except for the eccentric lifestyles/social preferences that are, you know, not approved and, thus, shamed without mercy.
But those shamed minority lifestyles/social preferences aren’t the eccentric ones! They’re also not the different ones! They’re simply the wrong ones!
Johnathan Pearce,
My previous comment was directed to you. Also:
FYI: it is generally accepted that the War Between The States was fought and won to save the blacks from slavery.
I’m afraid that Anthony Gregory doesn’t disagree with these points. I suppose he’s just timid enough to bring up the more respectable libertarian arguments, like the right of free association.
It’s not particularly generous to imply that he might disagree with these arguments, since, though they constitute basic principles of libertarianism, they, most crucially, comprise the core of the liberal Establishment Western culture.
As Johnathan clearly understands, those who disagree with basic principles of libertarianism are honorable and respected gentlemen, but those who disagree with the core of the liberal Establishment Western culture are a rum lot.
Johnathan’s Libertarian-utopia includes honorable and respected gentlemen, but not the rum lot. Certainly not!
I can agree with Jonathan that the quoted passage is hyperbolic, but my sense of agreement with Brad is far stronger.
The term “U.S. fascism” makes a certain sense if used in reference to a developing tendency for the State to incorporate the market. Mastiff’s “corporatism” is a difference of degree, not of kind.
“The Fascist believes that ALL activity must be absorbed into the state…”
Yet the difference between that and the belief that there is NO activity or aspect of life which ought to be beyond the reach of the State is a subtle one – which is perhaps why it seems to elude certain people who like to talk obtusely about their bill of partial privileges.
Compare with this passage from Detlev Schlichter’s most recent post for example:
“The overstretched banking industry, the overextended asset markets, insolvent governments – all of this is screaming for a cleansing liquidation and recalibration – and has done so for years. A crisis has now become unavoidable.But politicians still think that the power of the state is unlimited , that what they don’t find acceptable will simply not be allowed to occur. Only in the realm of politics is the belief widespread that reality is optional, and reality must simply be made to conform to the wishes of the political elite.”
The emphasis is mine. The element of fasicsm in Western governments lies not in the fact that it is realized in maximum degree a la Germany in world war two, but that the necessary principles are already instantiated and operating in merely latent form.
The lewrockwell piece is hyperbolic for sure, but I don’t think the basic premise is flawed.
I should have used preview. The emphasis should have fallen on the line “But politicians still think that the power of the state is unlimited…”. Bugger.
Mastiff,
Religion: http://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/christianity/homosexual-couple-win-bb-discrimination-case/
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/
Science:
http://climateaudit.org/
http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/
Art:
http://www.nea.gov/pub/how.pdf
Philosophy:
http://www.amphilsoc.org/grants/franklin
Where the government is concerned, legal philosophy has butchered the intention of the Constitution.
In America, the university system runs the government. Professors’ views are those implemented by the government, whether in economics (Keynesianism), science (AGW), affirmative action (human neurological uniformity is assumed), divorce court & anti-discrimination laws, (there’s women’s studies but no men’s studies), etc.
It isn’t often that I agree with Mussolini, but I think he was right that fascism/corporatism is a distinction without a difference.
Mastiff,
The state has NOTHING to do with science. Scientists can research whatever they want. And you don’t suffer from willful blindness.
http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/
http://climateaudit.org/
http://racehist.blogspot.com/
http://www.unb.ca/PAR-L/win/feminmethod.htm
The “war machine” a “saviour of blacks”? WTF?
This is lewrockwellspeak for “Lincoln was a murderous tyrant who just happened to free millions of slaves.”
I also note that he traduces LBJ for “slaughter[ing] millions of Asians”, which is an absurd distortion of the Vietnam War. Johnson is thus blamed for all the casualties (and then some) of a war of aggression launched by a Communist dictator who was an enthusiastic votary of Stalin. But since the Left hates Johnson for that war, it’s a convenient stick to beat him with.
Brad, so you believe that America in 2011 is EXACTLY the same, OR WORSE, than Italy in 1939 under Mussolini. Yeah, right, offer me the proof or STFU.
Jayson Virissimo,
The quote you attribute to Mussolini apparently was never spoken or written by him. See here:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Benito_Mussolini
In that respect, it is similar to the apocryphal “Stuff Jefferson Said, Vol. 3,” or the many quotations wrongly attributed to Tocqueville or Alexander Tytler.
In any event, the quote is suspect on theoretical grounds. Corporatism has nothing to do with “corporate power” in the sense of business corporations. The theory is that individuals lack the power on their own to have their interests represented, and so must be *incorporated* into some larger *corporate* body such as a guild, trade union, or “peak association” of businesses so that their views can be heard. Thus, the ideal corporatist society has all of its citizens be members of some group or other, and these groups then bargain between each other.
The classic Scandinavian model of corporatism is for a nation-wide labor union bargaining with a nation-wide “peak association” representing business, with the state serving as a supposedly neutral arbiter.
Bah, smited.
Yeah, I’ve had 3 comments smited, including 2 smackdowns of Mastiff, in the last few hours.
Yeah, I’ve had 3 of my comments smited, including 2 smackdowns of Mastiff, in the last few hours.
“jim crow started in the 1870’s see wiki”
The Progressive Era is often traced to the end of the 19th Century, so you are just nit-picking.
Brad, I am not engaging in “name-calling”. While I can value some of the LR output and the output of the Mises outfit in Alabama, it is necessary also to point out that there is an awful lot of overheated rants on that site. Some of the stuff is just nutty; some of it gives me grave cause for concern, especially on issues like race. And you must also be aware of the sort of worries that Tom G Palmer,(Link) for instance, has voiced about the kind of revolting views that have been transmitted on the LR blog (in some cases, so bad that they had to be taken down when people protested).
This is not merely a US issue since anyone checking out “libertarianism” via Google etc must wonder what sort of folk we are if they come across the sort of feverish nonsense that is often put on the LR site.
Liberty needs better friends than these people. Fortunately, they exist.
I think he is suggesting that the need for men in the armed forces required the federal government to be colour blind. Maybe even that the need for workers to replace the men drafted into armies forced more employees to become colour blind too.
“LBJ the man who slaughtered million of asians”.
I do not like President Johnson, he was a pro Welfare State social democrat (please note that is not the same thing as a “Fascist”), but the people who “slaughtered millions of asians” were the COMMUNISTS. “Uncle Ho” had been a Soviet agent since long before World War II (yes – like Stalin, helped by Americans during the war), and Pol Pot outdid even Mao (his inspiration) in despotism and cruelity.
“Left and right join hands” the absurd Rothbardian project to reach out to American Communists (the so called “New Left” – who were just like the “old left” accept they had longer hair) clearly continues. It failed then and it will fail again. It does not turn Communists into libertarians – on the contrary, it just gets young people (favourably disposed to libertarianism) and turns them into Communists – via making them “anti corporations” and anti the “Fascist” Ameican state (basically Marxist propaganda dressed up as “libertarianism”).
As Mr Owens said (when asked about why he represented the United States in 1936) “there is nothing wrong with the United States that Mr Hitler is going to fix” – accept, silly me, I forgot that Adolf Hitler was the innocent victim of Anglo American “Imperialism”. Or do people not not know that the these people are anti opposing Hitler also. Before they would have handed over the world to the Marxists they would have handed the world over to the Nazis (no wonder they are so popular at election time).
“You are dodgeing the issue Paul – the thrust of the comment was about race”.
O.K.
The Federal government was responsible for the end of slavery – and anyone who says that the Confederates were going to get rid of slavery peacefully is just flat wrong.
“But what about the Civil Rights Act”.
I do not believe that “Jim Crow” laws are part of “States Rights” – on the contrary I firmly believe that (for example) to make it an offence to sell food to a black person at the same counter as a white person (and so on) violates the 14th Amendement of the Constitution of the United States (the more honest racists admit this – which is why they argue the 14th Amendment was not properly ratified). “Seperate But Equal” is just a big fat stinking LIE.
“But what about private business enterprises CHOOSING to be racist Paul – not obeying Jim Crow laws, just choosing to be bigots”.
There I actually AGREE with the Rothbardians – people have the right to choose to be, non violent, bigots. To Hell with them – I do not believe the Federal government has the Constitutional power to make them act differently (let alone think differently).
But this last paragraph is not really what the issue is about.
What things are about is the following…..
The person who posted the paragraph that J.P. quoted was DE FACTO…..
Pro Communist in IndoChina (against the United States and the non Communist governments of Laos, Cambodia and the Republic of Vietnam – and against their allies also), pro “Uncle Ho” and Pol Pot – and the pro Soviet and pro Mao (two bitter rivals who actually cooperted in Indochina).
They are also pro slavery – for to be against the ending of slavery IS to be pro slavery.
And they are in favour of Jim Crow – for to be against the ending of Jim Crow IS to be pro Jim Crow.
And they call the United States “Fascist” – which is a LIE.
The paragraph that J.P. quotes manages (astonishingly) to both alienate conservatives (by smearing the United States as “Fascist” and spitting on the American side in the Vietnam war) AND alienate black people (of any political point of view) by spitting on Federal efforts against slavery and Jim Crow, a stand which alienates all decent white people also (South as well as North).
Want to do no why libertarianism has made so little progress over the last half century?
Stupid stuff like this “absurd comment” are the reason.
They are Obama’s dream – for two reasons.
Firstly they play into his hands (in terms of the general population) by making anyone who supports a smaller government open to the charge of being a racist and a neoconfederate.
But also they play into the hands of the radical left in another way – by the people (and there are some) who this stuff inflences.
As I pointed out above, step by step – the people who are influenced by this poison are led from opposing the “Facist Corporate State” and the “War Machine” which “slaughtered” millions of the “opressed” who were engaged in a legitimate “liberation struggle” (Rothbard’s very words – which he, in terrible folly, took directly from the Marxists), staight into the arms of the far left.
These Rothbardian (1960s Rothbardian) “arguments” are intended to bring young people to libertarianism – but, step by step, they lead to Marxism.
Last point.
Some of the young people influenced by the (de facto) pro slavery and pro Jim Crow stuff do not end up Communists – they end up “far right” rather than “far left” into the hands of the KKK and so on.
And, of course, the racists tend to want a strong State, in order to enforce their racism.
So (again step by step) these “anti Fascists” are led to FASCISM.
I agree that LewRockwell.com is full of nuts.
But, I also agree with David Gordon’s criticisms of what Matt Welch and Nick Gillespies say in their article there. I urge everyone to read David Gordon’s reply..
David Gordon does cover some of it Current – but far from all of it.
However, in what he does say he does have some “killer lines” – for example that he is unable to know whether Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie are libertarians or not. As their book is not really about libertarianism (i.e. only using force against the violators of persons and their property), but is about what a good thing athiesm is, how family breakdown should be welcomed, how America is an evil “Fascist” country and the world would be better off without America, and (of course) how evil “corporations” are.
The work of Welsh and Gillespie might as well be about astrology – it is not really about libertarianism at all.
;Am I wrong, or is this not all really about collectivisms in their various involuntary forms?
That would include establishing categories for those kinds of collectives based on the objectives of those dominating (through various means) their formation and extensions.
In turn, we should have to categorize the types of coercions required, first to establish, then to maintain, the particular form of involuntary collective.
In “Fascism,” as a category, we should remember what the symbol of the Roman Fasces stood for; as well as the “Mob Cap” of 1789.
“…is this not all really about collectivisms in their various involuntary forms?”
It is. Arguing about the terms is far too often an easy distraction from the two critically important aspects of the action; the principles of State coercion in operation, and the extent to which they are applied.
It’s one thing to say the U.S. is not fascist because you want to reserve that term for the totalitarian regimes of WW2, but when you’re the one getting your property expropriated or when you’re the one getting sent to jail for a victimless crime, or when you’re the one getting your door mistakenly kicked in by a police SWAT team and getting shot to death… then I would guess these fine distinctions of terminology won’t attract quite the same enthusiasm as they do on internet blogs.
I suspect that if that sort of thing happened to me, then I probably would go “nuts”.
I agree with Mike. The essence of fascism is nominal private ownership, but actual governmental control, of the means of production. The totalitarian overlay of, say, Mussolini, is a logical (and probably inevitable) extension of that, but is not necessary to the definition. So while the US hasn’t (yet) reached the level of despotism of Mussolini’s Italy, in my opinion the term “fascism” better describes Obama and the current US than does “socialism”. It’s certainly not “corporatism”, which implies corporate control of the government rather than the reverse.
@Paul Marks,
Not to defend everything on Lew Rockwell’s site, some of it is hyperbolic and misguided, but I think you are misinterpreting their general stance, and Anthony Gregory’s in particular, on the Civil Rights act. The objection is to the prohibition on PRIVATE discrimination, not striking down Jim Crow laws.
frak:I have no reason to think you are blogroaching or not commenting in good faith so please accept this a constructive criticism…
…stop putting so many links in your comments because no one is going to follow them all (most likely only a few people will follow any of them). The key to making a comment on a blog useful is to succinctly make your point, not barrage folks with link after link. Extract the germane point and summarise.
Paul Marks writes:
“However, in what he [David Gordon] does say he does have some “killer lines” – for example that he is unable to know whether Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie are libertarians or not. As their book is not really about libertarianism (i.e. only using force against the violators of persons and their property), but is about what a good thing athiesm is, how family breakdown should be welcomed, how America is an evil “Fascist” country and the world would be better off without America, and (of course) how evil “corporations” are.
The work of Welsh and Gillespie might as well be about astrology – it is not really about libertarianism at all.”
I am not sure if Paul is being sarcastic or not. I have read the Welch/Gillespie book, Declaration of Independents. What they are arguing is that, due to a variety of economic, legal, cultural and other reasons, traditional tribal loyalties in politics towards Republicans and Democrats are eroding fast, and creating a larger audience of “independents”; they argue, in my mind convincingly, that a lot of people who think of themselves as socially liberal (get out of my bedroom) and economically conservative (get out of my office/factory) are creating a constituency that is pretty favourable to the spread of classical liberal ideas.
I am not aware that they are attacking the family, religion or so forth; their book is a celebration, in fact, of the dynamism and resilience of America as a country founded on classical liberal principles.
What I suspect gets the ire of some of Lew Rockwell crowd is that these men are unambiguously metropolitan in their tastes and cultural markers. They are in favour of legalising drugs, legalising gay marriage, etc. That does not mean they say that criticising gays or drugs is wicked, but in general, they say that the pluralist sort of society based on tolerance and so on is more consistent with classical liberalism than the sort of rather grumpy, conservative stance taken by the LR crowd.
Their book has clear relevance to libertarian thought more generally, and I recommend it. Their arguments about the unaffordable nature of Big Government ought to appeal to the regulars around here.
Mastiff, thanks for the correction. According to The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics(Link):
frak writes: FYI: it is generally accepted that the War Between The States was fought and won to save the blacks from slavery.
No, it is not generally accepted.
What isgenerally accepted is is that the War of the Rebellion was initiated by the South to preserve slavery by destroying the Union, and was fought and won by the North to preserve the Union; and that since the South had chosen slavery over Union, the North ended slavery in the process. (Some Northerners wanted to do that anyway, though preferably not by violence.)
Paul Marks writes: Welch/Gillespie… argue, in my mind convincingly, that a lot of people who think of themselves as socially liberal (get out of my bedroom) and economically conservative (get out of my office/factory) are creating a constituency…
The “fast-growing ‘heart on the left, wallet on the right’ constituency” has been touted by libertarians for about a generation now. I see no sign that it is actually appearing. Nor that party identification has declined significantly. THe ideal of “independent voters” has been touted since early in the 20th century, but the proportion of voters who disclaim major-party allegiance has remained between 25% and 40% for a long time (a recent NBC poll reported 39% D, 34% R, 27% I or other).
jim crow was the result of the demonrats getting back power in the south. it had nothing to do with the start of the progressive era.. hardly a nit pick.
I realize it;s a bit late in the game to contribute to this lively conversation but I have something to add.
I contribute to both the Reason and LvM foundations so it’s not like I am picking partison favorites here, and lewrockwell.com is on my bookmark bar as a daily must visit. I will be the first to admit that not everthing posted there is to my taste and some writers occasionally jump off the cliff. I feel free to ignore them. But as I understand Lew Rockwell, it all makes some sense. First, everyone there is a guest– LWR isn’t paying anyone to do their work, I think, so the specifics of any personal view view expressed there is not particularly an editorial policy. What they all have in common is an intense dislike of (the) government as it is now and before. Nearly all the writers will point out government’s failings in the harshest possible way because they are trying to get the attention of people who have been raised or indoctrinated or have the natural propensity to view government as a natural good where their own personal inclinations are a not-so-good. LWR is to my thinking the non-scholastic arm of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a kind of a Fox News channel for libertarians.
The Reason people beilieve the government can be reformed; with enough new information voters will see the errors of the past and make the necessary corrections so that the government will become good overall. The Ludwig von Mises folks, heavily influenced by the Rothbardinan analysis for the most part, have reasoned that the government cannot ever be made good in its current form (for any significant length of time) without reverting to its old bad ways. If one has done any reading on the effects the possession of power has on any human being, see de Jouvenal, Hayek, Lord Acton… so many, so many… or, for that matter, remembers his latest personal exchange with a civil servant, must understand that the Rothbardian bomb-throwers must be, for all practical and theoretical purposes, correct.
I thought the author of the original cited piece made every attempt to clearly differentiate between the American and the Italian fascist formulations. In this day and age of the popular redefinition of terms, who could be surprised the fascistic nature of this government is not recognized for what it is or that the socialistic aims of the current administration aren’t seen for what they are. I clearly recall one of the O’s early post election speeches where he ridiculed the accusations of pending socialist legislation (“I haven’t anyone in government use the word ‘Socialist’). For most of us, it is enough that “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….” Should we wait until the national police force adopts brown shirts? Or, having a suspician that cancer may be in our future take some immediate steps?
I believe Kim De Toit is wrong. Albert, while not approving of the low class language and and lack of classical reasoning, would be well pleased. For all our failings, we are still the Remnant.
Wrong. Check out this long article by Reason a few years ago which shows how many supposedly reform-minded politicians in the period covered by the “progressive era” regularised the JC laws and entrenched them.
http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/when-bigots-become-reformers
The broader point is that the central, Federal government and certain individual US states were happy to use the violence-backed power of the state to oppress some citizens. It is therefore nuts to call reform and change to this appalling state of affairs “fascist”, as the author of this LR item does.
Allan Ripley: the problem with your defence of the LR site is that most of the articles, in my opinion, rarely enlighten me much; I know the arguments for free markets, the dangers of the state, etc. It is merely ranting to the converted. What I want, increasingly, is more explanation of how we get to a better place. For that, I am more likely to read Reason, think tanks such as the Adam Smith Institute, and the like.
If I were a student and interested in libertarian ideas, I would not bother with certain blogs at all. Far better to go through a reading list of Hayek, Mises, Rand, Hospers, Rothbard, Friedman (son and Dad), Nozick, Hazlitt, etc.
Jonathon, then there is absolutely no disagreement. There are very occasionally new bits at LWR but as you say, it’s largely choir-singing. I defend it for no other reason than that it pehaps serves the useful purpose of convincing a formerly statist yob that he would be better off as a libertarian yob, and in a tone of voice he can relate to. I would think the the largest number of (please forgive this) authentic libertarians have spent a lot of time and effort getting there. Trying to visualize a world that is in many ways the antithesis of everything one has observed or experienced or been taught is not for the faint of heart nor is it always entertaining to spend the hours trying to make a congruent sense out the scholastics.
The how-to-get-from-here-to there problem is the one that keeps me awake nights and it is particularly in light of the above. It is simply too hard to retrain most adults; the core principles of a libertarian need to be taught very early on and that doesn’t happen in the absense of libertarian parents. So, as a substitute, we have the different foundations and the blogs, each in its own way trying to raise the number of parents who might teach their kids. It’s all good, but there is no instant gratification.
I fear any noticable improvement will be in the future far beyond my existance, though. Pity. I’d really like to see that.
LewRockwell.com is bit unpleasant at times, and Reason.com is a bit unpleasant at times; most very idelogical people tend to be rather superior, arrogant and rant a lot. Depending on whether your vision of a libertarian society involves families going to Church or singletons having one night stands before popping down to the abortion clinic, you’re likely to overlook the flaws of one and emphasise those of the other. That’s life.
I’ll note that Perry De Havilland refers to the Western soci-economic system as ‘soft fascism’ or some such term fairly frequently. I doubt Mr. Pearce would repsond by advising readers to stay away from the sewer of Samizdata.
As regards the Civil Rights Act, there’s a bit more to it than simply opposing the 1/10ths or so of the Civil Rights Act that clearly was a frontal assault on the rights to free association and use of property (and opposed by Goldwater as such). The very aim is suspect because (as Sean Gabb says before you get antsy) the simple truth is that free people will the vast majority of the time choose to live among people like them and so the goal of a harmonious racially mixed society can really only be achieved by state force.
This can be a bit hard for the deracinated white socials liberals who populate Reason.org or Samizdata to understand, but it shouldn’t be all that incomprehensible. Just think for a second about what proportion of your friends are also de-racinated white liberals. Sure you might like to have ethnic friends, you may even have the odd deracinated Obama type as a token, but basicallay ethnic people don’t want to be your friend and never will. Try an experiment: take the 253 bus from Euston to Hackney all the way along and observe both out the window and the passengers. The various ethnic groups have no interest in being part of your white liberal society, they think it’s rubbish (naturally since it differs from theirs) and if given the freedom they will do everything in their power to carve themselves both from it and the various other ethnic groups in the area. (The only groups that have been succeffully integrated into a pan British culture are those white and Jamaican hoodlums who recently took London to bits.)
G, what a mixed bag:
Whatever unpleasantness exists on Reason is of a much lower order of magnitude to LR. I did a test and randomly checked the tone, content and style of the arguments on each of their blogs. There is just no comparison. And I can guess from the tone of your argument that you are one of those “paleo-libertarians” who is all in favour of freedom so long as you don’t behave outside certain very traditional norms.
The key is that Perry used the word “soft” to make it clear he understood that there are differences of degree in terms of the nature of state control of life and its extent. Striking down racial segregationist laws is hardly on a par with Mussolini’s Italy, which is what happens when the word “fascism” is hurled around indiscriminately. It is one of the reasons why I regard such people as a bit of a joke.
And this is a classic piece of racial sneering. I am particularly suspicious of your use of the word “deracinated”. What is that supposed to mean, exactly?
The point that an idiot like G does not or will not accept is that the vast majority of non-whites have chosen to integrate pretty happily into British/American/other societies but the professional “race relations industry” has chosen to make a fat living by not encouraging this trend further, but by choosing to highlight the endless differences. The problems in British society are not, by and large, racial. They are cultural, and largely a result of the Welfare State, and all the pathologies to which that leads. Remove welfarism, and many of these issues would fade in significance.
Johnathan Pearce,
I see I was rude earlier. Sorry about that.
These maps illustrate that this is not the case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315078/Race-maps-America.html“>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315078/Race-maps-America.htm
What evidence do you cite to support your view? I could also bring up the many racial fraternities non-whites (hispanic, black mainly) have established on many, many (maybe most) American college campuses.
The simple fact is that the Reason-type-libertarians argue for freedom as long as you don’t behave outside of certain norms, but the Lew-Rockwell-type-libertarians argue for freedom, without regard to norms. Just one example:
http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/20/are-property-rights-enough/singlepage“>http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/20/are-property-rights-enough/singlepage
My comment just got smited. And my comment was uncharacteristically polite and directed to Johnathan Pearce. I do hope it gets through!
Maybe, but that does not support the general point that different ethnic groups don’t mix, or mix so rarely as to be total, hostile strangers. Much of the paleo support for strict immigration controls rests upon the notion that no mixing ever really goes on. Or that the only people who “mix” are “deracinated”.
I remember reading that Reason article you link to. Kerry Howley makes what I think is a reasonable point. If people think that all that is needed for a free society is for folk to respect property rights, then I think that is mistaken. There needs to be broad culture that is tolerant, open; that fosters curiosity, is accepting of difference, and also saturated with the idea that people need to bear the consequences of their actions.
Liberty requires a rich soil, and simple formal insistance on certain negative liberties is, in my view, not the whole story.
Well what I said was
And I think I’m pretty much proved correct
Life is all motes and beams really.
frak makes my point really, but I would suggest that on this trip on the 253 bus, you stop to ask people whether they feel that multiculturalism industry is preventing them in some way from integrating into British society or whether they just prefer top live amongst people like them. Sure people will integrate if they are widely dispersed over the country, don’t have their own schools or other segregationist social institutions, but the only way to make that happen is, as I said, to call in the power of the state. Look, we’re all agree (I hope) that the state should neither promote nor discourage integration. The question is what will result from such a situation; if the answer is a high degree of separation between different ethno-cultural groups, it follows that the goal of racial integration is a suspect one for any government to have since they will inevitably lead it to restrict freedom.
Finally, Lew Rockwell.org carries pretty much anyone who a) supports Austrian economics (properly with no Monetarist/supply side exceptions) and b) prefers isolationism in foreign policy. In this broad spectrum you’ll find Christian reconstructionist Gary North and gay libertine Justin Raimando. It’s hardly an echo chamber.
From the reason article linked to
Or just perhaps someone interested in the history of economic thought.
First the point about Jim Crow – I have already said that I accepted the point about, voluntary, private discrimination not being the same as Jim Crow.
But if my point was missed – I repeat it.
J.P. comment about the book “Declaration of Independents”.
I must confess that I did not know that David G.s review was of that book.
Still what actually interested me was the quotation that J.P. gives – although that quotation is not from “Declaration of Independents”.
As for the obession (that some people have) with “corporations” (claiming that a Fascist “Corporate State” has somehow got somthing to do with the legal idea of a corporation…).
If American is dominated by corporations.
Why does the U.S. have the highest corporate income taxes in the world?
And saying “corporations do not pay” does not work – as most corporations are not like General Electric (they do pay).
And why do American company executives face endless rules threatening them with prison – for actions that would be considered clerical errors (or even standard practice) in the rest of the world.
Surely if “the corporations control everything” they would not keep whipping themselves.
This is really another example of part of “the right” taking up the language of Marxism – in this case 1960s “anti corporate” American Marxism.
Murry Rothbard.
Yes G – he was a great historian of economic thought, and he was a great economist himself.
Sadly once he got off those subjects……..