An-Cap Frustrated by Bernie Sanders’s Position on Immigration

Zerohedge has posted yet another libertarian attack, this time on Bernie Sanders. The weapon is a siren song of anarcho-capitalist utopia seemingly targeted at conservatives who reject US multinational society.

The article is by Jeff Deist of the left-wing Mises Institute.

Opening, Deist accuses Sanders’s support for immigration restriction of deriving from union support. Unions are now a force of immigration reduction? Sign me up then.

Deist then remarks how nations are not defined by states, which is of course true. The Kurds in Turkey are certainly not Turks despite living in Turkey. Kurds want their own nation-state – and should be given it.

What’s bizarre is Deist next proposes a ridiculous non-state utopia as a mystical alternative. Such a proposal is dangerous for misdirecting useful energy. People should dream of either improving the US or of acquiring their own nation-state, or region state (which might include several nations, e.g. the US South).

Anarcho-man is not some law-abiding merchant. He’s tribal and apt to behave more like a Viking than an Austrian. Tribal is fine by me, but dreams of something else seem like a siren song meant to destroy right-wing readers.

Cosmopolitan, merchant-valued society requires a powerful state to keep order. Even tiny Singapore, from what I’ve read, required powerful state control. That’s why Daniel Larison at The American Conservative has (as I recall) written praising a strong state. I don’t share Larison’s position, but I believe Larison is correct in how he serves his values, which are different from mine.

The US empire, aka the Borg, will eventually fall apart. But it will break into smaller polities, not lasting anarcho-utopia. We can enjoy nation-states and cosmopolitan states; but there needn’t be anarchy.

As to nations naturally arising, they can actually be created with force – have in history (eg. Philip II of Macedon). Ideally nations are naturally arising, but man is also malleable. A modern example is the growing EU and sense of nationhood as European rather than a particular national unit of Europe. I realise the EU is today weak, but the sense of Europe as a nation is also growing. We might see a united Europe replace the EU rather than a break-up. (I would prefer a break-up.)

Ironically the way Philip II united those under his rule is very similar to what the EU has done and what would happen under Deist’s utopia: economic integration and fluid mass immigration. These two forces unite an area into a single society. Put another way, Deist serves Leviathan Empire even if speaking against it. Lacking geographical remoteness, e.g. Greenland, the institution of the state (or tribe in some cases) is required to resist absorption into an empire.

The US was founded on a mistrust of government – and rightly so. But anarchy prevents resistance to a large, centralised government. Mass man is atomised. Only small-statists, or perhaps tribalists in very rural areas, can resist. Mass man (which, again, is to say individualistic, atomised man) is easily absorbed by an empire, malleable.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “An-Cap Frustrated by Bernie Sanders’s Position on Immigration

  1. redphillips

    I wouldn’t call the Mises Institute left-wing. They may be technically since libertarianism is an extreme form of classical liberalism, but it generally isn’t conceptualized that way these days. Usually the MI is viewed as right libertarian.

    Like

    Reply
    1. weavercht Post author

      The article is written as a “right-libertarian”, sure. The most important difference between “right-libertarian” and “left-libertarian” seems to be which audience is being targeted. The left-libertarians dream race would vanish while the right-libertarians dream races would freely split up (and there are other differences); but they can both be said to be left-wing regardless.

      The conceptualization of “socialist” as left and “libertarian” as right is an unwanted structure. The two can also be viewed as both left-wing with conservatives on the right.

      Part of the culture war is returning the definitions of “right” and “left”. We lost the word “conservative”. We seem to have lost the word “right”.

      The reasons for defending the term “right” include 1. the desire to exist within debate and thought 2. to ensure we’re not on the losing side of this ideological war. Currently the mock war is set up so socialists triumph over evil corporations and their conservative lackeys. Conservatives in truth are in a different camp from the two and have no reason to fight to the death on the losing side between two mass ideologies. Conservatives should pursue conservative interests, not serve libertarians in confusion.

      Like

      Reply
  2. hawthornecht

    It’s a silly article written for silly libs, but you are way off Weaver, I am not even sure if you read it. He (eventually) defends the Hoppe position and attacks the open-border sorts who call Hoppe a statist for inconsistent thought. Hoppe (and Mises and Rothbard) are considered highly amongst #NRx the folks who brought you #cuckservative.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. weavercht Post author

      “considered highly amongst #NRx the folks who brought you #cuckservative.”

      I’m not in that group, and yes, many fall prey to the siren song. I expect they also like Nietzsche and some perhaps even Cosmotheism.

      I admittedly did miss the Hoppe reference, but it doesn’t make my entire article off. To my defence, I shouldn’t be expected to be familiar with Hoppe.

      The author does write, “So from the statist perspective, Sanders is right: you can’t have large centralized states and unregulated borders, because those borders are at the heart of the state’s identity and its raison d’etre: control.”

      So, his position wasn’t so clear. Now I understand better.

      Nevertheless, the article proposes that an an-cap utopia would preserve different groups. It wouldn’t. It lulls in conservatives who want to oppose immigration, distrust the US federal government.

      Ideologies like that can be useful if used on opponents, to manipulate them into positions against their interests or to pass “extremist” views under the radar; but it’s certainly not advantageous to actually believe in them. Ideologies are tools to manipulate others with, nothing more. Many libertarian arguments are excellent, valuable though. (I’m not taking the Ayn Rand cult position that outside arguments should be excluded.)

      But ideologies tend to be embraced as such serves, or appears to serve, our interests. So, an an-cap ideology targeted at conservatives is certainly a threat to conservatives. It would be better if we used an ideology to target non-conservatives, encouraging them to serve conservative ends without their realising.

      Like

      Reply
    2. weavercht Post author

      Hoppe’s article includes much nonsense, now that I’ve skimmed it. He says states don’t discriminate based on qualities, but states have so discriminated in history. The US for an example. And Unz has proposed a similar discriminatory policy based on the minimum wage.

      Like

      Reply
  3. hawthornecht

    “I expect they also like Nietzsche and some perhaps even Cosmotheism.” Completely wrong–making fun of White Nationalism/NSDAP/My Socialism is Better than Yours is par for the course with that group, with the sort of nuance and snark that makes comedy…funny.Thomas Carlisle and a lot of the thinking of the South is in their minds. The slave importers were just another Cheap Labor lobby operation of course.

    Like

    Reply
    1. weavercht Post author

      OK. Maybe they’re wonderful people like you. I suppose culture/values are most important, but it would be better were they to convert to small-statists. You’ve read on the American frontier and Australian frontier, similar colonial tales. Lacking the state, force is used. And we’re social beings. You would expect in an an-cap world for small groups to coalesce and then expand with force, forming new states.

      Tribes would be the good expanding groups and corporations might be the bad. Corporations form part of the managerial elite, so the private sector is not entirely better than the public.

      Anyway +1 for the cheap labour comment, as always.

      Like

      Reply
  4. redphillips

    The main problem with the Deist article is that it takes place entirely in his head in the realm of theory. That said, it isn’t a straightforward liberal open borders argument.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Delete WeChat Account

    While Gibson and RNS scratch their heads and wonder how this came about, here’s a hint:

    Both Bernie Sanders and Liberty University apparently share an interest in getting away from the media’s drooling obsession with sexual issues.

    Good for them.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s