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.