War is an aggressive socialist program that threatens private property and freedom of contract, menaces the currency, and destabilizes commerce. In all these ways, war is one of the greatest threats to the capitalist order. FULL ARTICLE by Kel Kelly
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13876/patriotism-as-a-threat-to-capitalism/
Patriotism as a Threat to Capitalism
Previous post: The Significance of the Austrian School
Next post: Fiscal Euphemisms
{ 171 comments }
This is the kind of article that leads so many people to dismiss libertarianism as utterly shallow.
what are your specific objections?
Here is his message:
“Patriotism is an abstract notion with no real substance. It means nothing; it’s just a façade, a fake, imaginary glue that keeps a people naively devoted to causes, countries, governments, and neighbors who usually bring them harm (the phrase “come together” is similarly ambiguous and empty). National borders mean nothing. They would not exist without government force, and they are usually laid out for reasons of politics and power, not in accordance with the religions, identities, culture, or preferences of individuals.”
Apart from the dubiousness of these sweeping claims (does he seriously doubt that national borders often *do* correspond to precisely such things as religion, identity, and culture, and that these supra-individual things often do reflect individual preferences?), the only examples the author offers in support are at best statist distortions or outright strawmen. He seems to realize this, as he later tempers his claims thusly:
“In TODAY’S America, patriotism, effectively, is the act of aggressing upon other nations; it is the act of stealing from our fellow man in the name of furthering our prosperity, while in fact destroying our prosperity. It is UNDER THE NAME of patriotism and supposed freedom that it is justifiable for the United States to attack citizens of any country, including its own.”
(Emphasis mine.) Just so we’re clear: I regard American entry into any war you’d care to name as a calamitous mistake and as a grievous harm to the cause of liberty. This is esp. true of WWII, to say nothing of the current adventures in Mesopotamia. I reject, however, having to accept inane arguments about patriotism or even nationalism to criticize these wars. (Apart from this, war is hardly the only concern of this article, despite what people like mpollzkill are now contending.)
“I regard American entry into any war you’d care to name as a calamitous mistake and as a grievous harm to the cause of liberty. This is esp. true of WWII, to say nothing of the current adventures in Mesopotamia.”
Not very patriotic.
^^
but,this is the kind of article that makes me feel that i am not a solitary lunatic .patriotism can only be good if you are standing up to defend against an attack on certain moral principles.supporting the local football team etc are not examples of patriotism.
its a difficult thing to dismiss,however.it is an ancient instinct
This article seems a bit unrealistic, people will never stop being patriotic, unfortunately. A better perspective might be that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” Samuel Johnson.
Probably where we most go wrong, Rob, is in thinking too little of people. We have to think mass enlightenment is possible, or get really depressed or distracted.
That’s my favorite quote on patriotism (awesome use of it in “Paths of Glory”). You made me go get a bunch more shallow thoughts on it from shallow thinkers:
Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?
~Blaise Pascal
It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind.
~Voltaire
Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on his own dunghill.
~Richard Aldington
Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched.
~Guy de Maupassant
A nation is a society united by a delusion about its ancestry and by common hatred of its neighbours.
~William Ralph Inge
Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles.
~George Jean Nathan
Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
~Oscar Wilde
The greater the state, the more wrong and cruel its patriotism, and the greater is the sum of suffering upon which its power is founded.
~Leo Tolstoy
To me, it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography.
~George Santayana
A politician will do anything to keep his job — even become a patriot.
~William Randolph Hearst
When a whole nation is roaring Patriotism at the top of its voice, I am fain to explore the cleanness of its hands and purity of its heart.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
If I knew something that would serve my country but would harm mankind, I would never reveal it; for I am a citizen of humanity first and by necessity, and a citizen of France second, and only by accident.
~Montesquieu
Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind. We love the land of our nativity, only as we love all other lands. The interests, rights, and liberties of American citizens are no more dear to us than are those of the whole human race. Hence we can allow no appeal to patriotism, to revenge any national insult or injury.
~William Lloyd Garrison
It is not easy to see how the more extreme forms of nationalism can long survive when men have seen the Earth in its true perspective as a single small globe against the stars.
~Arthur C. Clarke
I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.
~Diogenes
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. – Einstein
Traditional nationalism cannot survive the fissioning of the atom. One world or none. – Stuart Chase
(From CoD: MW2)
They’re not rebuttals of nationalism, they’re quips. I suggest you read the definitions as outlines by Johann Herder – this blind libertarianism is far too abstract for me.
Another load of quips. Utterly vacuous.
Don’t forget to heap abuse upon all of General Butler’s “quips”:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Now here’s someone who had an intimate knowledge of what your government really is:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
They’re just qoutes, Shane. Interesting as such, but not intended to be an entire arugment. I enjoyed reading those posted by mpolzkill, added a few. What’s the big deal?
Because they’re quips…
Citing a quote here and there seemingly displays a prodigious intellect – although I’m under the impression these are merely a cut and paste job from an article – but ultimately it doesn’t tell us much about the thing itself. Most of these men need to be read in their entirety to fully appreciate the complexity of the subject they pass comment upon; certainly ‘nationalism’ for Voltaire and Montesquieu is an anachronism, Emerson was a transcendentalist and heavily indebted to Hegel and hence held very metaphysical ideas on ‘state’ (there is no exegesis on it like there is in Hegel’s work); Diogenes quote is utterly vacuous and is completely anachronistic for this discussion; Tolstoy’s views on ‘nation’ are fashioned by his profound Christian faith, and as such it won’t do to simply label him through an off the cuff quote. Pascal’s views are outmoded as well – how the hell can you cite an early Enlightenment thinker as a means of showcasing intellectual abhorrence to ‘nationalism’? As I say, utterly vacuous.
dude…
Unfortunately mpolzkill, the concept of mass enlightenment is delusional. You’re right in saying that without that things get depressing. The entire history of human society is depressing. Welcome to life. But to trust that “people” as a group will ever become collectively enlightened on their own is grasping at straws.
Oh and thanks for the quote mining. I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic by saying “shallow thoughts on it from shallow thinkers”. If that was a serious comment, I might suggest a less confident view of your own abilities.
Yes, very sarcastic in response to our resident superpatriot above, Beefcake/Byzantine?/Bringer.
They don’t all have to be geniuses, Rob. If they just got back to “do unto others”, that would do the trick.
Well said mpolzkill.
Thanks Rob. This is pretty simple too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0yVoxUQ7Q8
Thanks but I own the movie….
Horribly arresting and almost unwatchable.
Seeing the film once was enough; ought to be required viewing by any cultured human being.
“Resident superpatriot?” You really do live in your own world.
More sarcasm.
“own world”
I like it a whole lot better than yours.
Super realists here, Rob: B/B?/B, and Russ. They derive a great pride from their realism. They eat it up in D.C.
II think the author confuses patriotism with jingoism. Patriotism only means love of one’s country. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
There it is, Rob.
I agree; but I also agree with the Samuel Johnson quote.
STRONG article. Thanks.
I recognize that ‘patriotism’ can be used to promote aggression. However the author seems to hold that if a covered wagon party (or a community) sought to defend itself from attack, he would criticize those who were doing so as being patriotic.
The proper guide is that none should initiate force, but all should defend against it.
That would mean a lot more if your government had ever been anything but aggressive and had ever been attacked by anyone but the people it had aggressed against.
Are you saying that America was responsible for Pearl Harbor and for 9/11?
Are you saying that your gangsters had nothing to do with encouraging and provoking hothead Japanese and Arabian gangsters? It’s always their game plan, see the history of the Utes.
The bias of American anarchists against America is striking. Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia, and the Muslims have sought to dominate other countries and people. America was virtually an exception, following WWII by not taking territory. Nor have the American citizens sought to dominate others, but if anything have erred in their altruism such as by foreign aid. Yet the anarchists, in dealing with the relation between nations consistently find America culpable. By so doing they guarantee their rejection by the American people.
This is all just hilarious (in a very sick way, especially if you’re an Okinawan), like I said, “salt of the earth”. *Too* altruistic; don’t dominate; didn’t take any territory. How does one argue against these schoolboy illusions? The awakened and fed up victims of mercantilism don’t argue either, and they’re far more angry than I am.
Certainly, all those gangsters have done massive wrong in their failed attempts to imitate British and American gangsters. And from their weaker positions it is all inevitably uglier, like when your government had to wipe out the Indians.
Reject away, and meet the fate of all Empires, and soon.
If the U.S. provoked the Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11 attacks then the U.S. should profusely apologised and made reparations instead of an aggressive response.
harry elmer barnes on pearl harbor
http://mises.org/resources/3204/Perpetual-War-for-Perpetual-Peace
This goes to the legal doctrines of “fighting words” and “provocation”. Was the U.S. engaging in provocative actions for which Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11 would be reasonable retaliation thus making the U.S. the aggressors in both wars? Then again, you could argue that the Brits loaded up the Lusitania with ammunition and tipped off the Germans who now had a legitimate military target and the sole purpose was to kill U.S. civilians and bring the U.S. into WW1 because both sides were falling into a stalemate.
He might not be, but I am…
Look at your history before you presume your innocence.
I enjoyed this article and found it pretty unobjectionable. It’s polemical in style but if you stick with it the message comes out and I don’t think (contra Allen W) it’s advocating a refusal to respond to attack (“Freedom from harm and coercion should be a natural right, not something granted by those good enough not to kill us or keep us as slaves. This is why, for example, it is still illegal and unacceptable to forcefully hold women against their will or to strike a fellow man as an initiating aggressive act.” This leaves room for self-defense).
I’m not sure of the basis of the negative responses, perhaps the length of the excerpt (that’s the other thing, these are excerpts from Kelly’s book and so may be missing some context) meant that folks didn’t make it to the end? If that’s not the case I’ll withdraw that comment. Finally, and contra Russ on patriotism/nationalism/jingoism, the lines between them are fine and they would all seem to me to raise barriers against viewing humanity as humanity and each to be at risk of being exploited by demagoguery.
My pride in my country of origin is under all conditions contingent on the policies adopted by its political institutions, externally and internally. Which is just to say that I support the political ideals of liberalism, and not any individual political entity.
Patriotism is like a steamy love affair– you look past all the faults of your lover and see only the idealistic beauty you have become infatuated with.
I also believe that (as a Patriot–see above) the U.S. must engage military action in the world and maintain a clear superiority because “nature abhors a vacuum” and I would much rather bear the consequences of U.S. military leadership in the world than any of the alternatives.
They will not maintain it, and our grandkids are going to pay dearly.
This is largely a classic strawman argument. The author has set up his own definition of patriotism and then argued against it. What he is really arguing against is blind loyalty to the state, which is about as far from patriotism as one can get.
When the founders saw the abuses in their own government, their patriotism was the very thing that caused them to revolt. Our patriotism should motivate us to study our country’s miraculous founding, use the Constitution as our standard for choosing representatives, and educate our fellow man. If we’re not doing those things, we can hardly call ourselves patriots.
Very nicely put!!
See Karen, that’s exactly what I see behind all patriotism: a blind loyalty to the state. It slips so easily into nationalism or jingoism, I’d prefer to throw the whole sorry lot into the trashbin of history. I wouldn’t say the founders of your country were motivated by patriotism: they were motivated by a set of political ideals. It makes no sense to say “Our founders founded the United States out of love for and pride in the United States”. It makes a lot of sense to say “Our founders founded the United States out of love for individual liberty and against a thieving unrepresentative oppressor state.” Thoughts?
Or one could say, Jon, that “our founders founded the United States out of love for real estate and the chance of becoming masters of it.”
Roger said it all:
“you look past all the faults of your lover and see only the idealistic beauty you have become infatuated with.”
We are fighting against these dreams of what their country was and could be (rigorously placed in their heads from childhood), never what it was and is.
And you are exactly right, Jon, *everything* that is good about this country stems from *ideals* (many of these ideals finding the most fertile ground in your country centuries earlier, btw)
To be fair, mpolzkill, I don’t think Karen would disagree: I suspect we’re just using words differently. From Karen’s post I guess she would consider it a patriotic duty to criticize without censure any instance of departure from the ideals embeddd in the US Constitution, as she has objected to a definition of patriotism as blind loyalty.
For me I just don’t understand why this needs to be expressed in the language of patriotism, given how easily such sentiments can be perverted. It’s better to express the ideals one holds dear, and to make one’s criticisms directly under them, rather than under a flag or an anthem that may – or may no longer – represent those ideals.
Aware of the risks of reading one’s own perspective into an article, I think this is what Kelly is saying: “patriotism” has been used as an excuse to depart from certain values which are central to a liberal order. Patriotism in this sense is a threat to a free market order. I don’t see a strawman here. Anyhoo that’s enough from me, I have to do some work.
The founders were in no sense “patriotic”, since for the most part they “loathed” and envied their “fellow countrymen”, who were the native Americans. patriotism refers to “homeland” {countryman} prior {greek} to “nation or country”. the founders were ramshackle imperialists, who saw their “patriots” as mere savages and unworthy of existence, if we make the assumptions that this was the settler’s “homeland” at all.
The founders wanted the land and profits for themselves and those like themselves, to the exclusion of the king and the natives. The formed an “insurgence”, won with the help of other euro countries who also wanted to be in on the profits.
Then they went on to annihilate their native patriots and steal land from their mexican patriots.Patriotism cannot exist, as you mentioned in the “future”. Early Americans are the antithesis of patriots. They went to a foreign land to kick butt and claim this system of “private” property existed in their “new” country for their benefit.
Too many generalizations.
You criticize the “founders,” then later reference them as the “Early Americans,” which might be the heavy handed propertarians signing the Declaration of Independence, or the farmer who was attempting to escape his poor life in Ireland….
Anyway, good article. Further, as was shown, patriotism is a synonym for “nationalism”…. That’s all that should be necessary to connect the unsettling dots.
true, I would say the poor farmer would be a good patriot. but, our “founders” had no interest in having him sign anything. so he’s a patriot [countryman] but not a founder.
early american would be too general.
Patriotism is always a straw man if we don’t ask the speaker what they mean by patriotism. That’s how an ambiguous, subjective term works. Ask anyone about patriotism and they’ll all give you different answers. Even the dictionary leaves it up to ambiguity: love or devotion to one’s country.
What is a country exactly? Kel is right in this regard, a country can mean anything, and the article effectively went down the list and made a case against every one of them. Whatever patriotism may mean to you, Kel did a fairly good job of demonstrating why it’s not.
Patriotism is a pure violation of the Do No Harm rule. It demands that the patriot support that which he is patriotic toward no matter the circumstances. It demands to side with the murderer or the thief against the victim. Patriotism is unquestioned support, even if the behavior is detrimental. How this is considered a good character trait is beyond me.
“a country can mean anything”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLHFdduVDVg
Karen,
Sanity among a group of delusional, depressed demagogues.
Thank you.
Wildberry, I compared the tone of your posts with mine, and it’s like looking into a mirror. Why don’t you take a good long look yourself.
This is the kind of hogwash thinking that mpolzKILL loves to jump on. It is rare that something this stupid gets published here, but there it is.
At the most basic level, patrotism is no more harmful that being a fan of the Giants over the Dodgers. It hardly diminshes competitiveness in the sport. To bridge from that to the idea, to the assertion that we should live in a boarderless, culture-free world where markets can be really be “free” is the ultimate straw man.
All in all, a disgraceful bending of libertarian thought to reach a rediculous conclusion. Go on, you go be a “pure agnostic” and I’ll continue to try to define for myself what it means to be American. I believe in that idea. It’s personal. It’s human action.
Cheeez!
Look what your emotions did to your spelling, WB. The same ones that got us to Abu Ghraib.
Please tell us what that “most basic level is”, exactly. Are you saying that this most basic emotion is not used and abused (as Jon suggested) to great effect by the people who tax us and spend it in Okinawa and Germany and Baghdad and Pakistan?
You are an idiot. I am a bad speller. I didn’t use spell check because I’m short on time, unlike you, apparently. So sue me.
I’ve learned that debating anything with you is more than a waste of time. You go, mpolzKILL, whatever that means.
You usually spell well. I stand corrected, you’re not being emotional [uh huh].
That’s my name, Matt Polzkill. Like Wallkill, or Catskill.
Yeah, I don’t debate. You deluded and/or corrupted people *will* stop stealing from me in the name of your idiotic wars [dream big].
mpolzkill:
Out of extreme curiosity, what is it, exactly, that you do? I mean, do you work, go to college, smoke pot all day while dreaming of utopia (I am not suggesting that you shouldn’t be allowed to do so-just wondering)? You seem to have WAY TOO MUCH time on your hands. Maybe you could be more productive doing some kind of actual work….you know-manufacturing planes or helping people with their retirement accounts. I don’t know…something. Anything that actually puts your marvelous, omniscient brain to work….I mean, as intelligent as you clearly are (or think you are), you could have discovered the cure for cancer by now! Just a little “FYI”: you have some good, valid points; however, you should not be so arrogant and condescending as to think YOU are always right…you aren’t!!! How do I know? Because, unless your middle name is secretly “god,” you are a human and subject to error just like the rest of us here on earth. Hope you have a great day doing whatever it is you do or do not do.
That was really good, So-Cu, it got a round of applause from my girlfriend. I really hate to go on about myself and set myself up to be compared to Michael, but since you’re so curious, I’ll be brief: I’m a musician and devout reader, and for about the 20 years before Greenspan/W/Obama/Bernanke destroyed the economy I was a moderately-skilled construction worker. I still am, but it’s very off and little on. When I’m not playing music or reading I like to shoot futile verbal arrows at the people who really don’t have anything better to do (and the unfortunate products of their indoctrination camps): our Great Fathers and Mothers in D.C. Just like the card sharks and grifters they would be if not for their law degrees, they are up all night every night thinking of new ways to dominate every sucker they can. Kinda bugs me.
Really read your history and literature (philosophy and psychology), you won’t be God, but you’ll say some amazing things. Read Dostoevsky’s “Demons”, he foretold the future of Russia in frightening detail, he wasn’t a god. Is Ron Paul “arrogant” or a god here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA
On doing “good”: IMO (tiresome, but I guess I should stick that on my every sentence) there can’t be anything more important than trying to stop this hideous war machine which is bankrupting us and causing unimaginable havoc in the world.
The arrogance is the arrogance of the one-eyed-man in the land of the blind.
Glad I satisfied your girlfriend as I find it hard to believe you are able to satisfy her
Musician, huh….well, that figures; most amateur musicians that I have met I have tended to not like and view them as dung. A DEVOUT reader? Is reading a religion to you or something? Only a moderately-skilled construction worker after 20 years? Now that is just plain sad. “Shoot futile verbal arrows at the people who really don’t have anything better to do”: ummm….this seems like an incomplete thought to me. I think I know what you want to say, but you seemed to FAIL! “Don’t have anything better to do” than….(see how that works?).
Alright, when I get some more time, I will try to read some more history (obviously, you don’t need to as you apparently were an eyewitness to every back-room deal and secret meeting in history and have an unparalleled ability to fully comprehend all peoples’ true intentions and the outcomes of all combinations of decisions that could have been made). Congratulations!!! Funny to me how a moderately-skilled carpenter could be so omniscient (oh wait…are you likening yourself to Jesus?). I would love to brush up on my philosophy; I absolutely love the stuff! Unfortunately, I can’t promise a self-education on psychology as I absolutely hate the subject and find it to be a voodoo-like “science.” If you are implying that you say some amazing things, you should think again. At best, you parrot well; but hey, at least you can do that. I am surprised that a moderately-skilled carpenter can do even that.
BTW, sorry to hear about your underemployment situation. Maybe it is time to consider a change of careers? You know, as much time as you spend on here, you could have trained for a new career by now. I would share some of my bountiful blessing with you, but I am going to remain a war-mongering capitalist and say “No” to that-I am sure you won’t mind. You have probably taken unemployment by now anyway; so, in a sense, I have helped you out. Plus, I am not fond of helping musicians or self-righteous, egotistical pricks.
Mm hmm, nice. Well, get down around the most infantile emotions and this is to be expected.
Sorry that one sentence wasn’t clear enough. I find that people tend to dislike others in whom they subconsiously find similar traits. You suggested that I had nothing better to do than type on the internet, I lightheartedly speculated that I’m most irritated by people who *really* have nothing better to do other than trying to control everyone.
Goodbye, anonymous Don Rickles wannabe, unless you also want to come out to Colorado and eat all those words. It would be my pleasure to serve you [insert sexual reference worthy of a 12-year-old here].
- – - – - – - – - – -
Such a payment for all the entertainment I provided here, my feelings are really hurt. Ah well, the show must go on. Two other omniscient supergeniuses just like me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qh__HLkHcM
Well, in this diferent sort of national socialist state you’re not decapitated, it’s kind of a very slow lobotomization.
Libertarianism undoubtedly has an extremely rich intellectual heritage, but this sort of article, infused as it is with pure abstraction, is analogous to the fanatical writings of the most deluded Marxists. Maybe patriotism is irrational, but perhaps the irrational is an essential element to the human condition: you can dismiss it – what Hegel called ‘objective certainty’ – but it quite obviously plays an important and meaningful role in human life. More real-life intellectualism, less abstraction, please.
I can understand your confusion. This article takes the libertarian concept a few steps beyond the immediate concern. Libertarians have little love of the State and would seek to abolish it. Patriotism is about loving the State. As such, libertarianism and patriotism are mutually ideologies. You cannot be libertarian and patriotic at the same time. It’s also a highly relevant article as patriotism has never once been used for anything beyond a call to send money to the Government to do something, mostly to the detriment of the citizenry. Patriotism is called up to ask us to provide resources to kill strangers we have no personal problems with half a world away. Patriotism is invoked for us to send our resources to redistribute. Patriotism is used as a tactic to get us to load ourselves down with a lifetime of debt to buy products we don’t want to help boost State tax revenues. At no point has patriotism ever lead to anything positive or non-State related.
Further, you confuse what was written with Marxism. Marxism is the intellecutal cousin to Patriotism. Both demand the individual give up their identities, resources, and lives to some higher calling, some collective activity. Both make the same call, use the same tactic, just for different ends. Marxism is for total state ownership of everything while Patriotism is for blowing up foreigners. The key message of the article is to REJECT broad ideologies that force the individual to give up life, liberty, and property to be part of the group. At the very core, Marxism and Patriotism are identical. This article is exactly the opposite of them. It embraces individuality and rejects forced group identity.
“The key message of the article is to REJECT broad ideologies that force the individual to give up life, liberty, and property to be part of the group. ”
Let it never be said that libertarians lack a sense of irony.
“Let it never be said that libertarians lack a sense of irony.”
Let’s attempt to unpack that: The patriots here believe that good Americans are somehow better than other people. If we let down our eternal and hostile gaurd against them, we will lose many of our lives, all of our property, and what’s left of our meagre liberties to the barbarian hordes.
“The patriots here believe that good Americans are somehow better than other people. ”
Hmmm. Are you clueless, dishonest, or both?
I said “attempt”. Go ahead and modify what I said. Why do we salt of the earth have to maintain these defenses?
Looks like I was right.
I’m devastated.
What? I don’t get it
Also requesting clarification
Watch out, Queen Boudica is sitting at the Canadian border, waiting for just one final American to forget to put the flag out on their front porch.
There’s no confusion on my part: I’m well aware of libertarian views on the subject of state. I’ve discussed many times with American libertarians (I’m English) where they’re discussed the implications of a libertarian world view. Their attacks on the state fail to satisfy, however: I don’t find them convincing at all; they certainly have no argument against European conceptions of state. Suffice to say, I reject your arbitrary definitions of ‘patriotism’ and by consequence it’s fruitless listing your grievances of the principle.
You have a primitive understanding of state and patriotism.
Critique of USA state is exactly the same as critique of any EU state. I don’t see a reason to differentiate between thief calling himself USA or France. Concept is ultimately the same.
Wow, you couldn’t be more wrong. The continental tradition of conservatism as well as the English tradition of conservatism completely negates any libertarian critique of the state; certainly USA conceptions are liberal based and as such differentiate between civil society and state – no such distinction is made in European traditions of conservatism. Concept isn’t the same – come on, don’t be so naive to think that there is an absolute and universal appreciation of what constitutes the state.
So, tell me, how exactly is your state different than the state here? Your state doesn’t impose law on those who don’t want to be a part of it? Your state doesn’t tell businesses how to operate? Your state doesn’t tax from one individual to provide for the health care and daily bread of another?
Just because you chose to use different terminology doesn’t mean it’s substantially different. One of your famous countrymen said it perfectly: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. And I am using it in Bill’s original intention when discussing the concept of the State.
Ah, I see. Euro Conservatism is true reaction. Hence why Bastiat and the anti-Ancien Regimists sat on the Left side of Assembly, e.g. Not only do EC’s assume social relations subordinate to political design. They add that monarchy is the natural order. But in what way? Do reactionaries want only one King of the World (Barack Obama maybe)? This is where there might be reaction to reactionaries. Who gets to decide the criteria for proper demarcation of a kingdom and between kingdoms if there is indeed to be more than one? Would differences in opinion be considered out of Natural Order? I don’t want to imagine the bloody wars of succession under Euro Conservatism.
It seems that modern science has reactionaries in a bind. Monarchy too exists through preferences: and all preferences are individual. The king/subject relationship can be analyzed for its quality as means to ends, just like any other.
Won’t let me reply to your specific posts so I’ll do so here.
The mechanics of the state are irrelevant – the question is one of how is the state justified and how is hypostatised. Libertarian critiques are pertinent only for liberal conceptions: that civil society is distinct from the state, that the later is borne through a social-contract of the people. European traditions of conservatism reject social-contract theory and instead conceptualise state and civil society as a holism: that there isn’t any difference between the two and that they’re one and the same, hence the state needs no justification any more than the people need justification because it isn’t something external to themselves. Authority and legitimacy isn’t maintained through abstraction but through it’s existence as something inert and a part of the people. Therein the libertarian argument fails: it simply cannot proffer any reasonable criticism if the state is concetpualised thusly.
lol, Fallon, there isn’t anything of substance it what you just wrote, just a load of desultory thoughts and what you perceive European conservatism to be – as if it exists as one homogeneous block.
Okay Shane, maybe. But even when the ‘state and civil society (are conceived) as a holism’, that still makes the conservatives a little too determinist when they insist on knowing what the necessary design of this holism is. In other words, you could still have a society with no monopoly political arrangments outside the individual, no?
“Should we not have been patriotic toward the southwestern states before we stole them from Mexico?
Should the citizens of the various countries of the Soviet republic have been patriotic to the USSR after they were forced at gunpoint to be countrymen?”
What a pathetic comparison. He possibly could have had made some good points further on, but I wouldn’t give him the respect by reading the rest of this article.
Why is it pathetic? How is the United States’ acquisition of the vast bulk of its national territory any different than the Soviet Union? California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado were spoils of war. The native tribes of the Great Plains, Hawaii, and Pacific Northwest were murdered, rounded up, and sent to the worst plots of land in the nation to develop from a culture that was rich in tradition to one that has the worst suicide, alcoholism, and poverty rates of any ethnic group.
Oh, but I’m sorry, I should be fully aware that ad hominem always trumps factual argument.
Right, just quotes, powerful ones that will open or shut minds. Read Murray’s post here and then think of Tolstoy’s:
“The greater the state, the more wrong and cruel its patriotism, and the greater is the sum of suffering upon which its power is founded.”
I see what you say (assuming you’re bouncing off my response to Shane’s bizarre anger above), a quote is a thought distilled and refined repeatedly until only its essense remains, and as such they can have great force and effect – and your use of Tolstoy here is very good indeed. But they’re not a substitute for a complete argument and are rarely presented as a fait accompli to prove one side of an argument. Y/N?
Yeah, I was bouncing, Jon. No, they are not valid arguments. I don’t argue. If you do argue with these people (those who advocate theft for defense against perceived enemies) you tend to be forced into acknowledging that they have any valid points at all (or appear to acknowledge them).
I just appeal to those appalled by or sick of these peoples’ way to look down different avenues. My favorite avenue is through Spooner. I also like Lao Tzu, and I’m reading Berdyaev more and more for some other way. Tolstoy is good, too:
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/tolstoy_russian_liberals.html
We don’t have an empire so your question is redundant.
I dismiss cults as well, so we’re in agreement – unless, of course, you’re engaging in equivocation?
Have you even read any Tolstoy? Let me tell you something: Tolstoy was a Christian universalist – read his work on aesthetics to garner a full appreciation of his views – his reservations on state was pursuant to his belief in servitude to the Divine: subjects, as we are, not of the temporal but of the sacred: authority from God, but no man. As I said above, these quotes are meaningless.
Shane, I believe I understand your argument, but, I ask again, so what?
I’ve not read any Tolstoy, not a word! But the Tolstoy quote in question connects the state with patriotism and suffering, it is on point and is not immediately open to misinterpretation. It doesn’t seem possible to me that even a full appreciation of Tolstoy’s views on the temporal and the sacred, his work on aesthetics, etc. could undermine the meaning in this quote. Above you say that people use quotes to appear well read and intelligent: well, I can’t see that your posts are doing anything different here (my quotes came from a computer game: just to be honest, I haven’t read Einstein either).
What this quote tells me is that Tolstoy thought there to be a connection between the size of the state, patriotism and suffering. It tells me this in a pithy, well constructed phrase that illustrates mpolzkill’s point. As such the quote has meaning. If you want to drain that meaning by reference to your detailed understanding of Tolstoy’s position on aesthetics and religion, fine. It remains nonetheless.
Jon Leckie,
Even taken on its own terms (ie stripped of any context crucial for fully understanding it) this quote doesn’t support mpollzkill’s point, as it talks of the *state’s* patriotism being wrong and cruel in relation to *it’s* (the state’s) power. It says nothing of patriotism as such. Shane was right, mpollzkill is doing a cut-and-paste echo-chamber job and demonstrates the shallowness of much of the libertarian mentality that I initially was referring to. It’s a pity, I have great sympathy for libertarianism (much more than Shane) but articles like this are a joke, they fail to seriously comprehend that others (eg, European conservatives like Shane) may not agree with the hidden premises of liberalism (the irony I pointed out before).
Beefcake, what is the “state’s” patriotism, please? I don’t understand the concept, it makes no sense to me. I read the quote – quite naturally but there’s room for difference here – to say that the greater power of the state, the more it demands the absolute loyalty and support of its citizens, and consequently the greater the suffering caused by the state as supported by the patriotism of the people. I don’t think I’m contorting the natural meaning of the words, am I?
And I don’t agree with Shane’s position on libertarianism being inapplicable to the European state. Hayek wrote extensively on the experience of the state in Germany and Britain. If “European conservatives” don’t agree with the principles of classical liberalism, they can just learn to live with being labelled as the heirs to fascism’s crown.
Beefcake, did you read the entire excerpt from Kelly’s book? I pay attention to your quotes here and your trenchant criticism on this occasion is baffling me.
The State is, by definition, patriotic as the State is totally devoted to itself at all times.
“Beefcake, what is the “state’s” patriotism, please?”
You tell me, you’re the one (along with mpollzkill and others) who seem to think this quote supports a (knee-jerk) anti-patriotism position. By asking the question, you acknowledge the primary point: these “quips” (in Shane’s words) mean very little (apart from sloganeering) when excised from their original context.
Beefcake, there seems to be quite a lot of emotion here that I tried to avoid introducing into the conversation by maintaining an easy going tone and setting out my thoughts as clearly as I could. I don’t wish to enter into an antagnostic debate so I’m leaving it here. Just for the record, I’m not reflexively anti-patriotism, I just don’t understand the need for the concept when loyalty to a set of values – those of classical liberalism – achieve the same result and avoid the pitfalls of flag waving and nationalism. That’s the guts of it really. Take it easy. Jon
These “vacuous” quotes sure seem to have your panties in a bunch, Shane.
On “cut and paste”: I said in short what I did: Rob used my favorite quote on patriotism (used in a film I’d love to hear you dismiss as vacuous), so I set out looking for quotes from four or five famous quote collections and I posted the ones I liked. As I said elsewhere, they are powerful, they will invite the curious to read more from the great writers (what I want) and invite the close-minded to run or make desperate maneuvers (also what I want, thank you).
On “Voltaire, Montesquieu & Pascal”: The subject is “patriotism”, you switch it exclusively to its modern cousin “nationalism” and apparently claim that no one born before the rise of the supreme Nation-State can have any valid points on a love of ones homeland being abused. Uh huh.
On Tolstoy: Of course I have, have you read his letter to liberals which I linked. If you had, I think you wouldn’t pursue this ridiculous line in trying to dismiss him.
Again, all my efforts are for kids, not you sad sacks, only they can stop these idiotic wars.
John Leckie – don’t be soft in the head: the dichotomy isn’t either [classical] liberalism or fascism; and your name dropping of Hayek doesn’t amount to much: he wrote a lot about Germany and Britain? Who cares. He offers a critique of the state: is it universal in its application? Only if there is a synergy between right wing and left wing views, quite obviously there isn’t, ergo, if the critique fits the liberal interpretation, does it equally fit the right wing interpretation? As a point of logic, obviously it can’t; the final question is whether the right wing interpretation is reasonable, rational and coherent – it is. So you can accept the right wing interpretation or not, I’m not fussed either way, but if the right wing view is the one an individual subscribes to then it’s quite clearly impervious to your abstract libertarian criticisms.
Now who’s arrogant around here?
So, you and the State are one? And we aren’t? Well you’re not that arrogant, as it seems you’ll grant us a complete divorce. Thank you.
The dichotomy may not be classical liberalism and fascism, but lookie here, we live under fascism. How’d that happen, answer man? You satisfied with the way the British/American Empire is going? If not, what’s your remedy?
mpolzkill,
You set out looking for quotes to bombard your readers with: a surfeit of quips that convey a hollow sentiment in aphoristic form – need I repeat myself again? They’re vacuous. Read the actual works of these men if you want to garner an appreciation of their ideas.
Voltaire, Pascal and Montesquieu were writers of the transitional period between the universalism of Christian Europe and the particular which was concomitant to the emergence of the nation state; their views on ‘patriotism’ is moot because they subscribed to an interpretation of ‘patriotism’ that is no longer applicable – ‘homeland’ isn’t even a concept, as we understand it, that can be applied in the 17th century and the early 18th century: Europe was universal in its calling and identity, that is, it is universal in the sense of it being Christian. Hence citing them is anachronistic.
I have read Tolstoy, and I have dismissed him – actually reply to the relevant post if you disagree.
mpolzkill,
With all due respect, you’re trying to mock my brief elucidation of the conservative position but in doing so you’re betraying a clear deficit in your knowledge of political philosophy. If you want to reply with a bon mot of the order than you can ‘divorce’ the individual (oh, the reification is ever so humorous) to the state then be my guest: almost as vapid as your other posts.
If you think modern Britain and the USA is fascistic then you need to read more.
I’ll repeat myself, and will continue to do so as long as you try to minimize what I did to suit your position: of course I want people to read more from these writers, it’s only an invitation, not any kind of proof.
So you did read Tolstoy’s “Letter to Russian Liberals”? Of course you dismiss it and him, on what grounds exactly? Nothing in that letter is predicated on his particular concepts of Christianity.
“Europe was universal in its calling and identity, that is, it is universal in the sense of it being Christian. Hence citing them is anachronistic.”
Oh dear. You are being dismissed, you appear to be a hopeless believer in word magic, but I still await with bated breath the answers to my questions .
So then you are pleased with the road your Empire is going down?
“a clear deficit in your knowledge of political philosophy”
I’m well versed in cult recruitment techniques and I dismiss all cults.
So, we are free to disagree with you, but not free to fully disassociate ourselves from your cult, is that right?
No I didn’t read Tolstoy’s ‘letter to liberals’ – good god, man, do you think you can adequately formulate an opinion of Tolstoy and his world-view through a single document? The on the contrary, I’ve read HIS books and commentary on them. I find it mind boggling than you’re basing a formed opinion of the man on the basis of a single letter.
Word magic? If you don’t agree with me then state why. ‘Enlightenment universalism’ is an extension of Christian universalism – ideas of ‘homeland’ as a coherent principle, and by extension the patriotism showed to it, is empty through the eyes of men whose entire world view was based on a universalist principle.
Where did I say I *only* read this letter? You’re the one who has made the sweeping formulation of an opinion on the man and everything he thought, and without reading everything he wrote!
Yes, word magic. Now you’re attributing a mind-set to an entire age and continent of people based on words you’ve chosen. Let’s try to go back to basics here, Einstein:
“Homeland”
Try to forget your Empire’s sick defintion of that and try:
“the land of your birth”
Where do you think Pascal got this idea:
“Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?”
He dreamed it up wholecloth, I suppose? He *was* very creative, I grant.
You stated that ‘no where in the letter does it say his views are based on a Christian imperative’ – clearly that is moot if you’re attempting to define this mans world view, something that can only be done by appreciating the entirety of his work. Why would I dismiss the views of professional Tolstoy scholars on the basis of a letter, are you so conceited as to think you’ve discovered a nugget of information that invalidates previously held assumptions about the man?
And good god, are you really that ignorant of the history of ideas? Do you know what contextualism is? Do you know what the Cambridge School of historical thought is? There are sets of belief-structures that define the world-views of men of any given age, to understand the context of these belief structures is to be understand the essence of their writing. My dismissal isn’t through a capricious waving of the hand, I dismiss it precisely because I understand the ideas that governed the views of these men, hence my original reply.
“We don’t have an empire so your question is redundant….I dismiss cults as well, so we’re in agreement – unless, of course, you’re engaging in equivocation?”
I find it better if we just carry on down this thread.
OK, just for you, ’cause I like you so much, I won’t call this thing a cult or an empire. Perhaps you could suggest a word though, thankyou. See, I’m confused. You admit that your government *had* an Empire, yes? It all just went “poof”, I guess. But many of the satrapies and many more soldiers and garrisons remain? So again, this whatever you wish to call it, you liking it?
Shane, just to clarify your rules: I’m not allowed to quote any authors, and I’m not allowed to refer to any either? Well you can shove your rules. “Name dropping” Hayek on a site called mises.org? What a weird thing to say. Have you ever read him? In my view his critique of the state is universal, and your argument for excluding his critique escapes me: can you refer me to any reading that would let me in on the secret? I wouldn’t expect you to bother but I may as well learn something from this exchange, I’ve not been able to so far.
Jeez there are so many arseholes on this site these days.
Why do you evade so? I think I know why. Why did you misquote me?
“‘‘no where in the letter does it say his views are based on a Christian imperative’”
Unbelievable! I said:
“Nothing in that letter is predicated on his particular concepts of Christianity.”
“assumptions” Precisely. I’m not trying to define the man’s worldview, *you* did, suggested that it’s stupid, and from that asserted everything he had to say about this subject is invalid. Phew, you’re starting to bore me. I know quite a bit about his religious views, (though I’m much more of a Dostoevsky guy) this letter was directed at a different kind of audience and wasn’t predicated…screw it….At any rate, check it out, egghead: people can carry and display multitudes. Bah.
Jon,
I’m not saying you can’t ‘quote’ authours – which incidentally you haven’t done, you merely name dropped – I’m saying that such appeals to authority doesn’t in the slightest negate what I had to say, that being that there are clear differences in the political philosophies of liberals and conservatives.
Yes I have read Hayek – who hasn’t? Put it this way, I’ve read at least one work of most of the major philosophers and intellectuals of the western world.
In your view his critique is universal? Well you’re wrong, I’m afraid – as a point of logic how can it be universal when the defences mounted for the state differ depending on political inclination. There aren’t many works as such that enunciate the conservative position on state, least of the English position, compared to the plethora of work writing on the liberal – that is, social contract – interpretation. I suggest you start with Roger Scruton’s ‘Meaning of Conservatism’ where he mounts a defence of the legitimacy of the state.
mpolzkill,
Who cares where the letter is directed at? You have a shallow interpretation of Tolstoy – at least read some commentary of the man.
I can hardly discern a single nugget of coherence in your earlier post. I think I’ll leave it at that; the incessant colloquial nature of post precludes a full understanding of what you’re trying to write. Try again.
Jon,
Is this guy on drugs? I appeal to *you* because you can calm me down and this genius is really starting to irritate me.
- – - – - – - – - – -
Tolstoy could speak on matters other than his belief in Christianity. He could make simple points on any subject he would care to and it is silly to drag in any other things he thought in an attempt to dismiss his simple points. [phew] Here’s my very favorite quote of his which I guess you’ll dismiss due to your harebrained rules, but *you* really shouldn’t:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
And 4th try I think here on this other one:
The United States government (and this goes for your State, as they junior partner in so much of this, or at the very least get dragged along, or are powerless to prevent it], are you happy with their preemptive wars and general meddling in the Middle East?
Shane: well, thank you for the reference to Roger Scruton. I’ve bookmarked it and will try to take a look. So you’ve read Hayek: can I ask in an open and interested spirit how you would describe his arguments? It’s not fair of me to ask without putting up first, so here goes – and I’m going to assume a sympathetic audience, ok? It’s kind of hard to do this in bullet points and I’m not a scholar, just an amateur with an interest:
1. A complex economy is based on the division of labour. Civilisation arose and is only possible on the basis of a division of labour.
2. As an economy becomes more complex – ie the division of labour becomes more specialised, a coordination problem emerges and becomes more severe, in line with the degree of complexity.
3. The price mechanism – where supply and demand are allowed to interact without coercive intervention to set prices – is the only solution to the coordination problem that arises in advanced economies.
4. The price mechanism relies on private property and free markets.
5. The state may setup an institutional framework that facilitates competition (I suppose this to be where anarchists depart, but I haven’t read Rothbard yet) but when the state begins to plan against competition – that is, against free markets and against private property – the coordination problem reemerges.
6. The resulting booms and busts and myriad other problems result very quickly. A free market in which the role of the state is reduced to the highest degree possible is the best way for a community to make the most of the scarce resources available to it. Where the coercive power of the state is minimised and an appropriate institutional structure in place, the competitive process will avoid the aggregation of market and political power in the hands of a few players.
7. There is also a moral dimension in allowing to each individual the use of his own resources and time as he sees fit, without being coerced to follow the plans of others.
Now please work with me here, I wrote that in 15 minutes off the top of my head and I’m reliant on your cooperation: in advance of having a look at the text you’ve referred me to, why does it matter whether one takes a “leftist” or a “rightest” conception of the state? Doesn’t the coordination problem emerge regardless of the conception and irrespective of whether “the defences mounted for the state differ depending on political inclination”?
I’m not an anarchist, but I can’t speak on the concept because I’ve not read into it yet. It seems to me that there is valid role for the state to provide institutions that facilitate the competitive process by – among other things – protecting private property and allowing the price mechanism to function without interference.
Can we have a beneficial exchange of ideas along these lines, please?
mpolzkill, I like your style but it doesn’t lead to a beneficial exchange very often: that’s not your goal though so it’s cool (I agree with your substance too, which makes it easier not to have a problem with your style!)
I’ve just set out the longest post I’ve contributed here, and I’m kind of half waiting to be embarrassed by the gaps and errors that surely lurk in it! I can’t figure out where Shane’s coming from, so hopefully this conciliatory tone will work out and I can learn something, which is the whole point of coming here.
“it doesn’t lead to a beneficial exchange very often”
Hell no. I just want this guy to admit he’s an enemy of most of mankind. I say that now openly because it looks like he’s too smart to admit it.
I thought your post was good.
He’s coming from this position:
“Silly, foolish peasants, shut up and let us get back to running the world.”
mpolzkill,
Tolstoy was a theist, as such his world view was predicated on theism, in this case Christianity. Given his profound Christian faith it’s almost a given that any appraisal of his views on temporal matters have to be pursuant to his Christian world view; thankfully, there isn’t any need to effect any elaborate synergy between the sacred and temporal matters like ‘politics’: he’s quite explicitly in what he believes whilst the commentary of Tolstoy scholars can make lucid any confusion. Tolstoy’s opinions on human organisation was always in deference to the Divine: he advocated a primitive form of Christian communism analogous to the earlier English Diggers, this was borne from his Christian universalism, so his reservations about concepts like ‘patriotism’ is consequential of his reservations of organised political states, which is a product of devotion to the Divine and God as the absolute end of heaven and earth – this is interpretation differs enormously from other more secular philosophies.
And thanks for that impertinent Tolstoy quote.
I don’t care about foreign policy, if you want to discuss political philosophy then I suggest you stick to intellectualism.
Jon,
That’s an argument against statism, which I don’t reject. I was referring to Libertarian arguments the state, i.e., anarchism. Admittedly these are ideas of the extreme fringe of libertarianism so perhaps you don’t subscribe to them.
mpolzkill,
You haven’t struck me as a particularly sophisticated man: you cast aspersions in a comical manner in the vain hope of surmounting anything I’ve written; you equivocate on terms and argue from principles I reject (if you were to enter any intellectual discourse by deriding definitive principles through your own contempt, e.g., you’re obfuscating through the use of the word ‘cult’ and ‘empire’, you’d be laughed out of the room). If you want to play the serious intellectual then it pays to try and be serious.
I have read over your posts on European convervatism above (ignoring the Tolstoy stuff, which is exceedingly dull), against your most recent reply where you’ve now decided you support Hayek’s view on the state, contradicting your replies to me here (http://blog.mises.org/13876/patriotism-as-a-threat-to-capitalism/#comment-724087) and here (http://blog.mises.org/13876/patriotism-as-a-threat-to-capitalism/#comment-724055). To be fair, I think this may be result of a misunderstanding – which may be mine – as to whether libertariansim is co-extensive with anarchism, or whether minarchism and anarchism are two schools within libertarianism. I don’t know.
Disappointing, but I don’t hold you responsible, you’re not here to teach me. I hope your reference to Scruton will work out better for me.
All in all, a fruitless exchange.
“You haven’t struck me as a particularly sophisticated man”
Praise the maker, you’re an incredible sophist. I think one would need eight years of college to be able to write your incredible stupidities here about Tolstoy alone.
Unreal, you disparaged from the start and have done nothing but obfuscate and dodge since. You don’t care about foreign policy! You’re killing me, Mr. Serious. I don’t want anything but out of the rotten Empire you won’t even know you’re in until its crumbling over your head, if then. Last word for you, Einstein, good bye.
It’s fruitless because you’ve conflated statism with the state. They aren’t the same thing. Some libertarians have mounted sophisticated arguments against the state as an actuality, this a part from their usual critiques of statism, it the previous that I reject, not the later.
Rebut what I have to say on Tolstoy or say nothing at all.
I said you could have the last word (and you still can after this), but as Jon said, it seems like you just can’t help but be a complete arsehole. Actually I’m only posting this because it also goes to “Wildberry’s” delusions on another forum right now regarding the “Tea Party”. From the Letter in question (which I only want others to read, what do I care what you think, you are lost up your own ass):
“Alexander II. said he did not fear the Liberals, because he knew they could all be bought- if not with money, then with honours.
People who take part in Government, or work under its direction, may deceive themselves or their sympathizers by making a show of struggling; but those against whom they struggle (the Government) know quite well, by the strength of the resistance experienced, that these people are not really pulling, but are only pretending to. Our Government knows this with respect to the Liberals, and constantly tests the quality of the opposition, and finding that genuine resistance is practically non-existent, it continues its course in full assurance that it can do what it likes with such opponents.”
It goes on, without recourse to any imagined interventions by God or any prophesied end to this world or anything, and is quite good, IMHO. I think any honest people out there would find it very valuable. Tolstoy wasn’t born the type of Christian he became, and I think he might have known a thing or two about the world, despite what this political expert here seems to claim.
Shane:
It does no good to “debate” with mpolzkill. He has far too much time on his hands to do anything but be absolutely annoying. Plus, in case you haven’t noticed, he is absolutely correct ALL the time. He would have made a great college professor as he seems to live in “theory-land” 24/7 and is certain that he, and he only, has all the correct answers. It is too bad that his intelligence hasn’t afforded him the ability to become a multi-billionaire.
Jon:
You are right. There are a bunch of arseholes on this site; mpolzkill takes the cake. The funny thing is, I actually agree with about 80%+ of mpolzkill’s remarks; the problem is his form of delivery: he is just annoying and way too arrogant (not to mention he doesn’t like to answer people’s questions). If he would learn to debate and persuade, he would be much more enjoyable to read, and he might actually get through to some people (i.e. be effective). You even said yourself that you don’t think his style is very beneficial. Thank you for being more of a true debater with the desire to truly exchange ideas (if only mpolzkill would learn to follow suit). Unfortunately, I don’t think he believes he needs to learn because he is so sure he has got everything right. BTW, I really enjoyed your 7 point “flow chart” further down the thread. I think it was very well written (especially if you did it in only 15 minutes); furthermore, I think it is a very accurate analysis.
mpolzkill:
Why don’t you take a clue from Shane or Jon and write your remarks net of your arrogant, condescending tone? It is funny to me that you say you want to change minds, but your rhetoric and tone are so despicable that I wouldn’t give your ideas a nanosecond of thought. If you aren’t writing to educate and spread ideas, then just don’t write-go play music instead. Furthermore, you might consider putting down the history, psychology, and philosophy books and focus more on Euclidean geometry. That way, you can present your ideas in a proof that would be much easier to follow and would be free of your arrogant tone. Just a thought.
Some people like my stuff, some don’t. If you don’t, that pleases me very much. I will take your words under advisement though, anonymous internet tough guy; as I said people tend to most loathe those they unconsciously recognize a resemblance in. If my posts look anything like your opening spray of bile here…
http://blog.mises.org/13876/patriotism-as-a-threat-to-capitalism/#comment-723621
…then I *do* need to look in the mirror (another fine thought from Jon here). And one must always remember Nietzsche’s:
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.”
Antagonist, I do appreciate the feedback on the 7 points, if I got them wrong it would be back to the drawing board for me so that’s good. Thanks.
I do however have to come to the defence of mpolzkill: his style is his own, he can come up with some great lines, and for mine I see a very well read and capable mind behind his posts. He knows full well what he is doing, and I personally think he’s very good at absurdo reductio, and if people don’t like the way he takes positions to their ultimate end, then tough I say (I find arguments like “well I didn’t mean that, and if you take it that far of course it’s going to be stupid” to be weak and lazy).
As far as arseholes go, a thousand mpolzkills would be preferable than the one michael we have here (although he does keep the blood flowing, as someone noted). But’s that personal preference. Shane’s performance has also provided some nice examples of arrogance and condescension. I mean, “impertinent”! Give me a break. Only jumped up grad students and 70 year old ex-school teachers use that word.
In closing: nice Nietzsche quote, mpolzkill. Shane, blow me.
Ah schucks, Jon, thanks. I’m one-thousandth the asshole that Michael is….that’s a *major* asshole (teehee).
I get the impression that some minarchists here think we are fighting over your soul. I don’t get it, and I can’t understand what positions they ascribe to me. I worked for Ron Paul (won’t do anything like that again though, Tolstoy explained it to me). I have said that there will never be a world without governments unless there is an end of history. I never go into any silly anarcho-capitalist futurist theorizing. As you can see below, I advocate a truly Republican form of government as the least evil thing we non-angels could ever be under. Weird, I guess they just think D.C. is as good as they can ever get. No way, sorry to put it so strongly.
Your digs at and parting shot at Shane: gleeful laughter over here. Now let’s disband this mutual admiration society, whadaya say? Always a pleasure, Jon.
Matt
I think that just about all of the comments here are valid – the pros and the cons. Unlike most of what I write, this piece was indeed more abstract and less “scientific.” I was not trying to define Patriotism in any way, but simply to say that this is what Patriotism turns out to be in reality, or at least in present-day America. I just wanted to say that if this is Patriotism, it’s not a very good thing for our lives.
Also, I’m well aware of how naive my arguments are because of the fact that few people will really buy it. But no matter that I am part of a fringe micro-minority I can’t see any way that today’s Patriotism is anything but immoral and deadly, whether many of us admit it or not.
Seldom do those who are doing bad things see themselves as doing bad things. Seldom can a new perspective change someone who is accustom to the common perspective.
Sure, Kel, the angry and/or confused people here have been a party to such atrocities that it is highly unlikely they will change (although, it *is* possible, like with General Butler, and with the two soldiers in the “Wikileaks company” who recently made a public apology to all Iraqis). Your thoughts are mainly for all the millions kids who haven’t been terribly corrupted yet.
I thought it was good and well written.
We are rooted in a particular culture, people, language, and place. Humans are born with the innate need to live with other people in a variety of relationships. Without ties to particular people we are adrift in a sea of anonymity and isolation. People are not social atoms who arbitrarily and temporarily cling to anyone who is near them. As people find themselves surrounded by other people who look, speak, and act different from themselves, they either attack or withdraw. Consider sociologist Robert Putnam’s study on diversity breeding social withdraw. The common set of customs, habits, and traditions of a culture provide the informal, spontaneous means of people forming bonds that facilitate free and peaceful interactions among them.
Without these ties that have naturally developed over time, people are much more likely to look to government to provide the means to coordinate their actions with others as well to provide outlets for their social needs. As Karl Marx observed, capitalism tends to grind down the means people have of identifying with each other and forming social bonds via indigenous culture. As this homogenizing process has unfolded, we have not seen the diminution of the state, but its increase in power and prestige and its control over the mass men who are cut free of their natural ties to one another. This entire process of destroying informal ties people have to one another has always resulted in the centralization and strengthening of the state with the accompanying increase in influence of politicians, judges, and bureaucrats.
You mention Argentina in this article. I notice you conveniently avoid the Affect that the Friedman Economic School trained Chicago boys had on all those countries, commencing with Indonesia, Chile and all those that followed. Shock and awe is a term that started with Friedman, escalating into deprevations or Effects on every socio/economic aspect of life within those countries; escalating into martial law; morphing into disappearances or abductions of a great deal of people through the school of torture and the facilities of isolation. It has taken thirty years for South America to start climbing above Friedman economics. Although I don’t agree with some of the politicians there today, I do believe that South America would have been a very different place if Allende and his third way had been allowed to prosper. Every politician up until just recently has treated his countries resources and wealth as his own personal bank account. That has to change and it is to a degree. I like what Ecuador is doing. I like the fact that Brazil is telling the industrialized nations that if you want us to stop cutting down the rainforest, then you must kick in a lot of money as inducement. Help us build alternative business; infrastructures that result in schools and hospitals. This is what America and its IMF don’t do but the Chinese do. Certainly China needs to improve its human rights agenda and its environmental policies. Overall, they do want the resources but are willing to train the people, provide jobs, help build infrastructures and kick back some of the profits into the countries economic structure. America and the rest of the developed world failed to do this. Its record and the debacles caused by the CIA are too numerous to document here. Suffice it to say, the Friedman vultures are coming home to roost in America. We are already seeing this in the policies of King Barky, and his controller, Queen Antoinbama.
Michael Kirkby
Michael Kirkby, I agree with much of the description of events here but just can’t understand how you attribute these events to Friedman or by (erroneous) extension to Austrian Economics. There is so much room for agreement here about what is wrong in the world but your ideas on the cause of these problems, in particular the impression that free market economics supports corrupt gangsters, corporatism and statism is not correct. It is the existence of the strong state that enables and facilitates these criminal practices, not the free market and limited government which to the contrary is the greatest protection against such abuses. The state is the enemy, not the free market, which prevents the aggregation of power to the point where it can be abused. Aggregation only occurs where government can use coercion to favour certain groups and entrench their interests to the detriment of the rest of society: hence crony capitalism.
This is an open question that is not intended to be antagonistic or condescending: have you just read Naomi Klein? She’s awful, as deep as a puddle. What about Free to Choose? Now I don’t like Friedman very much at all and much prefer the Austrians: have you read much mateiral on mises.org? Any Hayek or Mises? I’d include Rothbard but I’ve not made it to his stuff yet. I just ask because if you’ve not, you should, because your view on what free market economics is about would be very much challenged and improved. You might still disagree with it at the end of the enquiry, but there’s so much really good and interesting stuff beyond Friedman, who cannot and should not under any circumstances be taken to be the beginning and the end of free-market thinking.
Michael, it’s interesting how many people say I intentionally ignore, mislead, etc. Because you want to assume this does not mean it’s true.
Though your main argument is not clear, you appear to be linking what I promote–capitalism–with imperialism. They are two different sides of the spectrum, as imperialism, along with communism that you allude to as beneficial, consists of government control and oppression by force. Note that this section is pulled from a larger book. If you go and reference the book, you will see that the majority of the chapter that this article is from does in fact discuss in detail all of those debacles caused by the CIA and the wars caused by the government force you seem to support. I think the main confusion is your associating the Chicago school with the Austrian school and with free markets capitalism.
They’re still plugged into the Matrix. Being set free is an unsettling experience. Some prefer to eat non-existent steak, because it just tastes so gooooood.
allende’s wasn’t a third way. he was a marxist who won democratic elections on a minority vote, and who was intent on transforming chile into a cuba, before being toppled by the coup. chile’s economic fortunes have been far different to its neighbours. pinochet’s murders and torture were inexcusable, though smaller in number than his neighbouring regimes.
the “chicago boys” were chilean, not argentine.
“National borders mean nothing. They would not exist without government force, and they are usually laid out for reasons of politics and power, not in accordance with the religions, identities, culture, or preferences of individuals.”
What Mr. Kelley is arguing is that nations mean nothing, for a nation cannot exist without defensible borders (yes by government force). Yet it is through nations that culture, including economies, develops. This is plain reality, as contrasted with the theories of how fine life would be, were there no nations (which is what existed before them).
If one cannot appreciate the virtues in the formation and continuation of America, he will not only preclude support from our citizenry, but will follow a path whereby nothing that can exist will be furthered.
Allen, who gets to define those values? Who gets to identify those who act in contravention of those values? What if one supports those values, but does not support the domestic and/or foreign policy of the government that controls the nation or the territory within the national borders?
I find your love it or leave it attitude a tough one in which to find any merit. I’m not American, but I really dig your country, I really admire it greatly and I would love to spend more time there. I am by no description an anti-American. But I come from a land (downunder) where over the last 10 years every nit-wit bogan has gotten a Southern Cross tatoo, and every Australia Day wraps himself in the national flag and then drinks himself into a state where both himself and the flag end up covered in shit and vomit, with the last words slurred from his mouth before he passes out in the gutter likely to be “If you don’t like it, go back to where you bloody came from”.
Now I’m not ascribing such behaviour or anything like it to you, but I see a pretty slippery slope at the edge of your position. To me, it’s far safer to drop the national angle and simply plead loyalty to life and liberty, private property and freedom from state coercion instead. These are values that can unite peoples, not drive them apart.
“every Australia Day wraps himself in the national flag and then drinks himself into a state where both himself and the flag end up covered in shit and vomit”
Oh, if the biggest American suckers were so innocent. *Every* day many of them behave even worse all around their nearly 1,000 foreign bases in the world, and they all help make shit out of entire countries. *That’s* OK though, KBR will fix it all up. Too “altruistic” again, Weingarten?
Ok my man I really enjoy your posts but try not to inflame the crowd too much! It might be time for a cup of tea and a lie down
Like you say, you don’t argue, but I like to and I find Allen’s posts to be interesting … just not sure where he’s coming from here and would like to find out.
Haha, that one *was* rough, but I sure would like to talk about *this* government and its rotting subjects instead of their visions of what it was, is or could be.
He came from public school. Have at him, I’ll butt out, I’ve about had my fill of screaming at sleepwalkers for today anyway.
Take care Jon, I always enjoy your posts, too.
Jon, my position is simply that there is a reality to survival, and that whatever virtue we find has depended upon it. To deal with moral and philosophical issues without addressing survival is unrealistic. I find great value in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and believe that America has been head and shoulders above the rest of the world. However, even if those who denigrate it find more favor in our detractors, they still cannot be intellectually sound if they do not meet the requirement of survival.
labor and liberal alike adore shrouding themselves in khaki. i predict it will increasingly become the “in” colour.
I was hoping to hear from you, newson. Green and gold khaki… sounds like the new fashion craze for summer 2010/11!
“defence of australia” has been long superseded by a preference for offshore adventures. the only party that seems to be openly against this is the greens. i suspect this speaks to a deep and reflexive anti-americanism of their electorate, more than to a defense strategy.
anyway, anzus ensures we’ll be joining america’s wars.
“Freedom” means what? Except in terms of doing and not doing the words is not useful. If you were more free exactly what would you start doing or stop doing? Responses always seem to boil down to three things. Paying less taxes, smoking dope (or participating in some other so-called vice) and doing stuff that violates other people’s freedoms (zoning laws, animal control, noise control . . . ).
It doesn’t matter from what, billwald. The presumption should be in favour of the individual’s space to act: unless there’s a damn good reason to confine that space, there should be no interference. These days any old excuse will do and the consequences are becoming apparent.
Try this poor guy, for example bilwald: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/us-farmer-fined-5k-for-growing-too-many-vegetables/story-fn3dxity-1225921745275
Libertarians serve only to defend the interests of a pure capitalist philosophy, but in the absence of real world experiences which do exist, there must be a form of governance of groups of people’s in areas of the world. Now if you are saying should we be less warlike and more peaceful in our relations with other nations in the world and quit trying to undermine other nation’s to our personal gain, then yes, I agree we need to change our our foreign and defense policies. But no, America for the sake of argument should not dissolve itself and open up it’s borders to anyone who wants to wander in and operate without any allegiance or oath of loyalty to their newly adopted country. The Founder’s knew that total anarchy does not guarantee Freedom, but that there needs to some kind of Constitutional/Republic set of rules in place to ensure that that the individual’s rights are not abused or negated totally. Our freedoms are Natural or God-given and there has to some kind of morals in place or there is no freedom to protect. I will say this, when other nations in the world adopt our Bill of Rights then and only then will I say lets not have borders—although we still need some local forms of governance in order to fulfill the needs of the people. Thank-you for this opportunity, Dave S.
And thank you for contributing, Dave.
Never mind other nations, it would also be a good start if our own country adopted the Bill of Rights.
To the contrary, capitalism implies more solid boundaries– that which is based on property v. politics.
Another article – another example of the sterility of (Secular/Left) Libertarianism (Secular, Arrogant, DEAD)
Patriotism: Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one’s country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one’s country
Jingoism/chauvinism: A perversion of patriotism typically characterized by foolishly seeking to advance one’s countries interest through unjustified wars – wars for the purpose of conquest or to gain hegemony over other countries by threat or use of unjustified violence.
No evil comes of true patriotism. I have a particular love the USA its my homeland but I have no ill will to the other nations of the earth. Some will imply that there is something questionable about having a particular regard for one’s homeland, but this is no different than a father having a particular love for his daughter. The father’s particular love for his daughter does not imply that the father has any hostility to all the other little girls in the world. Indeed if a little orphan girl where to come into his life he might adopt the girl and come to have the same particular love for her as he had for his biological daughter. Similarly a Pole might leave Poland and come to Britian and might take on patriotism to his new homeland. LVM acted as a patriot when early in his life he worked to have the Austro-Hungarian Empire adopt economic policies that would have been a blessing to its people and may have preserve that nation/empire. LVM also acted as a patriot when he spent much of his life in his adopted homeland, the USA, trying to advance the knowledge of the economic principles that would bless this country and indeed any country.
P.S. Nice response David J. Sanchez Sept. 13 2010 1:16pm
Sorry the first try was garbled…
Another article – another example of the sterility of (Secular/Left) Libertarianism (Secular, Arrogant, DEAD)
Patriotism: Love of country devotion to the welfare of one’s country the virtues and actions of a patriot the passion which inspires one to serve one’s country
Jingoism /chauvinism: A perversion of patriotism typically characterized by foolishly seeking to advance one’s countries interest through unjustified wars -wars for the purpose of conquest or to gain hegemony over other countries by threat or use of unjustified violence.
No evil comes of true patriotism. I have a particular love the USA it’s my homeland but I have no ill will to the other nations of the earth. Some will imply that there is something questionable about having a particular regard for one’s homeland but this is no different than a father having a particular love for his daughter. The father’s particular love for his daughter does not imply that the father has any hostility to all the other little girls in the world. Indeed if a little orphan girl where to come into his life he might adopt the girl and come to have the same particular love for her as he had for his biological daughter. Similarly a Pole might leave Poland and come to Britain and might take on patriotism to his new homeland. LVM acted as a patriot when early in his life he worked to have the Austro-Hungarian Empire adopt economic policies that would have been a blessing to its people and may have preserved that nation/empire. LVM also acted as a patriot when he spent much of his life in his adopted homeland the USA trying to advance the knowledge of the economic principles that would bless this country and indeed any country.
P.S. Nice response David J. Sanchez Sept. 13 10 1:16pm
Love of the USA implies legitimizing collectivism and theft on an epic scale, if USA is indeed a political entity rightly identified as a state. How do you rationalize the behavior of individuals donning the USA hat?
Loved the essay.
It reminds me of one of my favorite scenes in Catch-22. In it, an old Italian man is explaining to Yossarian why Italy has won the war. Of course, Yossarian argues that the man is a lunatic, since Italy has clearly lost the war. Weeks ago the Italian citizens were all waving Italian and German flags, and now they’re all waving Italian and American flags.
“Exactly,” (I’m paraphrasing here), the man says. “A few weeks ago we were overrun with Germans, and we pretended that they were our friends. And right now the Americans are our friends. But in a while, you’ll be gone, the Germans will be gone, and Italy will still be Italy. We’ll only be waving Italian flags. We won!”
That seen is epic, great reference, Chris (but Yossarian never would have argued that. Yossarian, another great coward):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bjBAez9cm4
*scene [what-the-hell? brain blip]
Looking through all these posts again, it should be obvious to third parties who the dishonest group here is. Where has anyone said that you shouldn’t love your homeland? Love your mom, baseball, and apple pie too. Our side is clearly talking about how your emotions are used by hucksters who sell war.
What a wheelbarrow full of you know what. “We stole it from the Mexicans.” Since there was a time when there were no “Mexicans” who did they steal it from? And then before that, some tribe “stole” some land from some other tribe—and so it goes.
There was a war. The US won. They occupied some of the land and kept it. The solution is for Mexico to go to war, in some form, and win it back. That is pretty much how land has changed historicallay and the writer’s idea that it was ‘stolen’ while it may make the writer feel good is just a load of it.
Right Arpy the problem isn’t that what the author states is true, whats offensive to you is that you don’t like this truth. You think starting a war and taking land is all fair. You say “there was a war” but you pretend the US didn’t do anything bad as part of it. But you still say that land is supposed to change hands by starting wars and taking it. If you will tell me where you live I will come start a war and take you posessions–and maybe your girlfirend or wife too. Thats fair right?
Gman:
I am sure Arpy (or anyone else in disagreement with you on this site) would gladly give you his address. Afterall, you libertarians are such wimps and pure utopian theorists, one should not be concerned about a “fight” or a “war.” with you. You probably do not own a gun, and if you do, you probably do not know how to use it.
I am still curious about something which no one on this site has ever answered. If you people are so anti-American and pro anarchocapitalist, then why do you not renounce your citizenship and pool your resources together to buy an island so you can live in utopian wonderland? That would seem to me to be the logical step to take. Or, do you not do this because the market has not figured out a way to do so? Or is it because you are scared to try your little experiment? Or is it because you do not really believe in what you say? Or is it because deep down inside you are a little anger machine ready to beat the s@#$ out of someone who disagrees with you? Or is it because none of you anarchocapitalists are actually productive laborers, but just a bunch of armchair theorists who would starve to death because no one knows how to work and produce wealth? Or is it because you anarchocapitalists have such inflated egos in regard to your intellectual prowess that you know you would not get along? Or is it just easier to complain and “enlighten” as opposed to just launching out and doing what you believe in doing? Or…is there another reason? Please, enlighten us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5_Ipv-24oM
Also, I’m the guy in the glasses (1:08 to 2:33):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nttb9J_AF3c&feature=related
At the end of the clip there’s also a great part about why the Russians must fight the French (“Imagine your loved ones conquered by Napoleon and forced to live under French rule. Do you want them to eat that rich food and those heavy sauces?”), but there appears to be something wrong with the video.
Come on out to Colorado and I’ll meet you in a field of your choice, anonymous internet tough guy. We’ll decide who gets to stay in North America in a battle using large socks filled with horse manure.
And sorry for the “cut and paste”, a great sin, apparently.
Ahhhh, mpolzkill:
So surprised to see you post to my comment (I am joking of course); you seem to have something to say to everyone. You know, a wise man does not “flap his gums” every chance he gets, but a foolish man does
Funny how you were so quick to “jump my post”….oh, wait a minute, you must consider yourself a wimp (I get it now). Also, I am sorry that I didn’t find over 20 minutes to watch your youtube videos….it would be quicker if you would just tell me what is on your mind as I am not a huge fan of youtube anyway.
Unfortunately, little one, I am not just an “internet tough guy;” I have proven real-world toughness….sorry to disappoint. However, I won’t be able to meet you in Colorado anytime soon as I am far too busy with real-world, big-boy issues like putting food on my table and paying my bills, acquiring wealth, etc. (again, sorry to disappoint). But knowing you live in Colorado does at least explain much about you. I am surprised, though, that you would choose to live on land that was taken by force from the evil American government of yesteryear—just one more reason that you and your merry band of “anarchies” should relocate to an uninhabited island that you obtained solely through market forces (i.e. purchased).
BTW, I never said or implied that “cut and paste” was a great sin, but thanks for the heads up. Now, I know what i need to pray about in my 5, eastern-facing prayers tomorrow.
Jeez mpolzkill, you sure do bring ‘em out of the woodwork. Between this guy and SoCurious, I hope you’re not crying into your cornflakes this morning, what with the quality of the insults and invective vomited out here being so high and all.
What a waste of time.
Jon,
Haha, right, this one makes “SoCurious” look like Oscar Wilde. Too bored for any response at all other than: the Federales and their stooges may leave my birthplace, or any one of you oh-so-tough-guys can easily find me and come remove me from my birthplace as punishment for my thought crimes.
I understand the emotions, really though, I really do feel sorry for them. Anonymous patriots, you can start a healing for yourselves if you sign this letter:
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5966/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2724
http://freestateproject.org/
Mexico is winning it back by flooding the area with immigrants.
It would be wonderful if the English language had a few additional words to help us distinguish the feeling of pride and loyalty to people who make up your community, share you values, etc. without expressing any pride or loyalty toward the privileged of getting robbed and controlled by one government as opposed to another.
That inevitable outcome of the unchecked state apparatus is the destruction of all identity outside of national identity, all pride outside of national pride, all culture outside of national culture.
Jesus came explicitly to establish a new government on the earth – the kingdom of God – a government in which Jesus is ruler (Lord). The political aspect of his message, which was the entire point, has largely been ignored. Government IS religion and patriotism is worship. Every man made idol requires human sacrifice in one form or another. There will continue to be wars, state pogroms, abortions, and executions because they are required by state worship.
Whilst I agree that patriotism in an extreme form is very dangerous – the article by focusing solely on the negative aspects failed to address the organisational nature of human beings….. can it not be explained by our desire to belong to a group – that gives us identity and security however false a construct that is (excuse me – I have no idea!). Yes I agree governments and specific areas of land are bad groups to adhere to blindly… but what is the “peaceful” alternative – wandering nomads it appears – sorry but that is not a solution. Unless we understand the underlying causes for our behaviour – then it is impossible to provide viable alternatives. This article merely points out the symptoms of a “problem” nothing more
And “the stealing from the rich” is also a mystery to me – for a start I am not sure what it has to do with the psychology of the human being – which category I would put the first section – charging no taxes – so we need to rely on the kindness of mankind to look after each other on this crowded planet?!?!….. get me to the nearest cave with half decent security…. anyway am new to Mises so perhaps I just ain’t getting it so far – my friend who pointed me in this direction will not hesitate…. was a great article to read!
Mark, all displays of patriotism directed at this extreme empire, The United States (formerly, *these* United States) are examples of extreme patriotism. Extremely misguided and dangerous. If you believe in Republicanism, then you must consider this empire to be a horrible monstrosity (and the reasons for the monstrosities it conducts daily then become clear, as well). Here is a great intro as to what exactly constitutes a Republic:
http://www.vtcommons.org/journal/2006/03/don-livingston-republicanism-and-size-part-1
No wandering nomads required or wanted by me, I’d be very content living in a Republic. Let’s try it out, first step, cut D.C. off.
I don’t know, the “wandering nomads” has some kind of romantic appeal to me…. always moving, visions of exotic tents and beautiful women….
Okay, uhh, sorry. I’m back now.
Just to throw in a late item to this relatively aged blog thread, from the AP, Paris, in the last hour re the French Senate passage of burqa veils;
“Many proponents say the law will preserve the NATION’S VALUES, including its secular foundations and a NOTION OF FRATERNITY…” [emphasis my own]
Irony of ironies.
Apologies, line should have read, “….in the last hour re the French Senate passage of *a ban on* burqa veils;”
to mark:
“kindness” cannot be institutionalized. taxes reduce disposable income, some of which on balance may have been destined for charitable purposes. charity and coercion are mutually exclusive.
Just two comments.
1. While I whole-heartedly accept the premise that governments get a lot of people killed who would otherwise have had no disagreement, people do not need governments to get them to fight. All they need is to envy or covetousness. Cain did not need a government to induce him to kill Able.
2. The author also seems to underestimate some people’s inability to live and let live, to leave alone those that are different. For some people, being different is reason enough to attack them.
Thank you, Rex. Finally, someone who actually seems to understand human nature.
The question then becomes, given your givens, what kind of relationships manage potential hostility better, vertical privilege based on political power or horizontal equality? What ideological framework might serve to de-incentivize aggression and be most able to thwart it when it arises? Statism or libertarianism?
Comments on this entry are closed.