Brainpolice : Centralization, Libertarianism

The Distribution of Power

Brainpolice — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:57:00 GMT

In modern political jargon, conservatives are associated with the concept of "small government" or "limited government". If this is interpreted to refer to the degree of government power there is, historically conservatives have not stood for it. Indeed, so-called "conservative" governments and parties have historically supported quite a high degree of government power. However, if this is interpeted to refer to the amount of people who weild government power, conservatism has always stood for "small government" in this sense. This understanding of the terms and their implications coincides well with Karl Hess's claim, which was articulated in his brillaint article "The Death of Politics", that the defining characteristic of a "right-wing" regime is the concentration of power into the fewest hands possible.

Using this analysis, monarchy is actually as small or limited of a government possible. In contrast, democracy in the original sense of the term refers to an equilibrium of power that is spread out in as many hands as possible. Assuming that there is a finite amount of power available, this would imply a decrease in the actual amount of power weilded by each individual. Taken to it's logical conclusion, the end result would actually be the negation of political power as such, as it is essentially rendered obsolete in terms of the degree of power able to be held by a person. It is a sort of checks and balances in which each respective individual's power is kept in check, as each individual's liberty is limited by the like liberty of everyone else. The individual is sovereign only over themselves. This concept was once dubbed "the law of equal freedom" by Herbert Spencer and was adopted by the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker. It is also another way of phrasing what contemporary libertarians call the non-aggression principle.

In applying such an analysis to modern politics, the bulk of what is considered to be the political left today would actually have to be considered "right-wing" and undemocratic under these definitions, since left-liberals most certainly do favor the concentration of power. The disagreements between the contemporary political left and right can mostly be seen as a matter of which particular individuals or interest groups should weild this concentration of power and how they should use it. Democrats favor concentrating power in the hands of Democrats and Republicans favor concentrating power in the hands of Republicans. The welfare state concentrates power into the hands of welfare bureaucracies and the warfare state concentrates power into the military bureaucracies. State-socialists favor concentrating power in the hands of socialists and state-capitalists favor concentrating power in the hands of capitalists. No matter which way one slices it, the principle of oligarchy is at work. People from such groups may often pander to the concept of democracy, but only as a means to enable oligarchy.

The concept being used here does not strictly apply to governmental institutions. It applies to institutions and power in general, and therefore there are concerns with respect to the concentration of so-called "private" power. The contemporary political left is concerned about the private concentration of power, and in and of itself this is a worthwhile concern, although this concern is often held on the basis or erroneously logic. Furthermore, the solution to the concentration of private power that is often proposed by the contemporary political left is entirely wrong and counterproductive. The error that is made is that the contemporary left advocates concentrating power in the hands of the state in the name of combating private power. This merely shifts the power into different hands. It does not solve the problem at all. It creates new problems. This is one of the fundamental flaws of Marxism as a strategy: it essentially creates a dictatorship in the name of combating private power. What one is left with is an all-powerful government that absorbs the private power into itself. In short, the state itself becomes the monopoly capitalist. Mikhail Bakunin was aware of this problem, which is why he rather sharply critisized Marx.

The contemporary political right faces a bit of a different problem. While they have superficially had anti-government sentiments ingrained into them, they often function as knee-jerk apologists for private concentrations of power. While they may sometimes quite correctly see the problem with governmental concentrations of power, they often overlook the problems with private concentrations of power and the degree to which the two are synergetic. The solution proposed is essentially to artificially empower private institutions. But the political right falls into an inevitable contradiction in doing so, as the only way to do this is through political means, and hence by relying on governmental concentrations of power. The political right also tends to idolize the military. Hence, the conservative's claim to being anti-government is based on a bed of sand. Government is perfectly fine to them, so long as it is in their control, used to stamp out foreign enemies and to empower their allies in the so-called "private" sector. At best, what one is left with is a mixture of the concentration of governmental and private power. But even in the process of pursueing their ends, since they favor political means to those ends, they nonetheless may theoretically empower the state just as much as anyone on the political left would. Even elements within the movement of anarcho-capitalism may fall into the trap of trying to join or infiltrate the state in the name of abolishing it, hence my usage of the term "right-wing marxists" to describe anarcho-capitalists who still favor political strategies.

Political systems usually are some mixture of governmental and private concentrations of power and while the two spheres may superficially be separate they are in patronage with one another and have a high degree of synergy. But this is not really a "balance of power" so much as a conglomeration of power. Merging different power elites together doesn't create a balance. A true "balance of power" would be a social order in accordance with the law of equal freedom - an equilbruim literally between individuals. Such a social order is only possible in the conditions reflected in anarchism. Archism of any sort inherently negates "equality of authority", as Roderick Long describes it. So long as institutions such as the state exist, a true balance of power and equilibrium of liberty is not possible because the very nature of such institutions is that of oligarchy and hence there is an extreme imbalance and inconsistancy in how principles are applied to human beings. Therefore the solution can only be found in anarchism, properly understood.

Left-Libertarianism

Brainpolice — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:39:00 GMT

I consider myself a left-libertarian. To avoid any confusion over what this may imply, I fully support private property, voluntary exchange, money, rent, employment, and so on (or more strictly speaking, I don't advocate their abolition). And I completely oppose the state. I advocate a free market in everything, from clothing and shelter to defense and arbitration. I have a dislike for people like Noam Chomsky, who I feel is largely economically illiterate and confused. I'm not a marxist or a communist or a syndicalist. Some may therefore be thinking, "so what's so 'left' about it? what differentiates you from 'right' libertarians? you sound like any other anarcho-capitalist to me!". I'd like to explain myself in order to make it clear that there is a very real distinction to be made.

Firstly, it is worth exploring how one views power in general. All libertarians, particularly market anarchists, oppose the power of the state. A lot of emphasis is placed on the power of the state and how it effects society. However, in my understanding, while the left-libertarian joins their comrades in opposing the state, they oppose the concentration of power and centralization in general. This includes the concentration or centralization of so-called "private power". While cookie-cutter anarcho-capitalists make brilliant arguments against state power, they tend to specialize so much in doing so that they may neglect the problems with the concentration of "private" power. Their libertarianism is "thin" in the sense that it is restricted to anti-statism.

The cookie-cutter anarcho-capitalist often seems to act as if whatever is "private" is legitimate in all respects. It's almost as if the principles somehow magically don't apply when we are dealing with non-state organizations. But to use a simple example, a gang or mafia may be "private" but it certainly is not legitimate. The left-libertarian views matters more broadly, that is, they apply libertarian principles not only to delegitimize the state but also to any other group of "private" people who violate rights. The left-libertarian's libertarianism is "thick" in the sense that it is more than just a matter of anti-statism, it is more broadly a matter of anti-authoritarianism and anti-centralization. The left-libertarian may additionally oppose corporations, extremely large buisinesses and possibly even organized religion. The left-libertarian sees no good reason why buisinesses should be centralized.

Karl Hess once described "the right" as supporting the concentration of power into the fewest hands possible, while in contrast "the left" stands for spreading it about as much as possible in an equilibrium. "The left" implies "equality of authority" in which everyone's freedom is limited by the like freedom of everyone else - a mere restatement of the non-aggression principle. Using this analysis, right-libertarians are to "the left" to the extent that they oppose the concentration of power in the hands of the state, but they nonetheless are still to "the right" to the extent that they still support private concentrations of power. While the right-libertarian may be consistantly anti-state, they are not consistantly opposed to the concentration of power. They may even fully endorse "private" concentrations of power and portray such organizations as victims of the state.

In short, the right-libertarian or cookie-cutter anarcho-capitalist, while they are likely fully aware and informed of the fact that we don't currently live in a free market or free society, functions as a "vulgar libertarian". What this means is that they function as apologists for big buisiness, corporations and currently existing conditions or property titles. They use free market theories or analysis to legitimize conditions and organizations that came about in a non-free market. They tend to cling to a worldview in which "big buisiness is America's most persecuted minority", as Ayn Rand once stated. They still tend to think of state intervention as somehow being inherently anti-buisiness, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The right-libertarian is essentially pro-buisiness more or less across the board without proper consideration for context. The left-libertarian calls them out on this.

Another difference between the left-libertarian and the right-libertarian is over what they think society will be like in the absence of the state. Cookie-cutter anarcho-capitalists essentially envision a society more or less identifical to currently existing society but without the state. But the left-libertarian sees much more broad implications that would seem to radically alter the organizational structure of a society. The left-libertarian does not think that the results of a free market would mirror current economic conditions by any stretch of the imagination. Left-libertarians may tend to think that free competition would function as a check on the general size of economic organizations, and therefore draconian large buisinesses simply couldn't survive or exist. They may also be tolerant of or more open to possible "socialistic" experiments within a free market, or advocate a signficant increase in self-employment over standard wage-employment.

The difference between the two sides can also be thought of in terms of how one's position relates to the traditions of the anti-authoritarian left, or how one views their own position in relation to it. It's partially a matter of historical context and the political spectrum. Right-libertarians buy into the cliche that socialism is inherently a statist/political system, while left-libertarians aknowledge the existance and possibility of voluntary or anarchistic socialism (in short, all they're really doing is taking an anarchist without adjectives approach). To the right-libertarian, all socialist forms of organization are inherently violent or political systems - all socialism is state-socialism. To the left-libertarian, there is a distinction to be made between state-socialism and genuinely libertarian socialism. The left-libertarian has a much greater degree of tolerance for "socialistic" forms of organization so long as they are voluntary, while the right-libertarian considers all "socialistic" forms of organization to be inherently involuntary.

There's a major difference in terms of where one finds their roots. To the right-libertarian, their philosophy derives from and grew out of the "old right" and the founding fathers of America. To the left-libertarian, their philosophy derives from and grew out of the old libertarian left (the mutualists, the individualist anarchists, the voluntaryists, etc.) and wouldn't exist without them. The left-libertarian sees market anarchism as having grown out of old non-state socialist traditions and is likely to see ideas such as mutualism as not really being that far off from their own position in the grand scheme of things. In contrast, the right-libertarian is largely out of touch with such roots and probably considers mutualists and other more voluntaristic socialists to be enemies. They see little to no connection between these ideas and contemporary market anarchism, where the left-libertarian does.

Another major difference is over strategy and where one thinks their true alliances lie. The left-libertarian is much more likely to be opposed to the political process and consequentially they may not vote, argue against running for office and regularly denounce the libertarian party and reformism. The left-libertarian is a radical and a revolutionary. In contrast, the right-libertarian essentially functions as a minarchist in practise as they regularly participate in the political process, encourage people to participate in it, run for office themselves and advocate reformist strategies. Comparatively, the right-libertarian is a gradualist and even counter-revolutionary. The right-libertarian more or less takes the exact same strategy that a minarchist would, and consequentially falls prey to political oppurtunism and get-liberty-quick schemes.

The difference over where one thinks their alliances are is also significant. Right-libertarians regularly ally with conservatives, particularly paleoconservatives. To the right-libertarian, conservatism is the closest thing to libertarianism on the political spectrum and conservatives inherently are less statist then "the left". They may even views themselves as an extension of the conservative movement. The left-libertarian, in contrast, wants nothing to do with conservatism and sees no reason why it should be regaurded as somehow less statist than "the left". The left-libertarian sees conservatives as hijacking the libertarian movement and employing quasi-libertarian rhetoric to get people to associate their own positions with liberty and free markets. To the left-libertarian, conservatism in the original sense of the term is the polar opposite of liberty, as it stands for the status quo, the romantisization of the past and an endless sea of authoritarian tendencies.

From the perspective of the left-libertarian, sometimes the right-libertarian takes positions on current issues that in fact are conservative rather than libertarian. One of the most common cases of this is over the issue of immigration, in which right-libertarians essentially support restricting people from crossing political borders. To the left-libertarian, this merely grants legitimacy to the state and treats it as if it were a legitimate private property owner. The same is true of many so-called "privatization" schemes in which the state sells "its" property off to a single economic organization, essentially transfering from a state held monopoly to a private monopoly. The left-libertarian is much more skeptical of so-called "free market" reforms than the right-libertarian is, being much more likely to consider them manifestations of mercantalism or corporatism.

Another difference between the two may simply be a matter of cultural traits or preferances. Right-libertarians may often be strict "cultural conservatives" and therefore have traits such as opposition to multiculturalism, feminism and secularism. They may openly praise "the family", "the church" and "the nation". In contrast, the left-libertarian is much more likely to see these things such as multiculturalism and secularism as being good and support voluntaryist versions of them. The left-libertarian may add things such as anti-racism and anti-patriarchy to their agenda, and such things need not be imposed by the state but a result of voluntary efforts. And while many right-libertarians may tend to praise "the family", the left-libertarian may very well be skeptical about the organizational structure of many families and view them as abusive. And perhaps most importantly, the left-libertarian is not a nationalist.

It should be clear at this point what the left-libertarian is not: they are not vulgar libertarians, conservatives, in bed with conservatives, anti-immigrationists, reformists, extreme gradualists, and so on. It is likely (although not necessarily mandatory) that they are not racists, organized religion supporters, nationalists, chauvenists, and so on. The left-libertarian is not an apologist for "private" concentrations of power and corporations. The left-libertarian may very well oppose corporations. In short, the left-libertarian has distanced themselves from conservative traits as much as possible and view themselves as supporting liberty in a much more broad sense than your cookie-cutter anarcho-capitalist does. It is in the context of this much more broad perspective that they are to "the left" of their comrades.

The Paradox of "State's Rights"

Brainpolice — Thu, 08 May 2008 02:26:00 GMT

One of the most well known American legal traditions is state's rights. State's rights is essentially the idea that each individual state should retain its sovereignty or independance from the federal government. The idea is that each state may have its own varying laws and precedents that the federal government may not supercede. It's as if each state is thought of as being its own nation in and of itself, and before the formation of the federal government this quite literally was the case. Afterall, each American state is roughly the size of an entire European nation, sometimes or even often larger. The idea of state's rights would not have been formed if it weren't for the establishment of a larger apparatus, a federal government that each state is supposed to be a part of.

The idea of state's rights can be used in two basic ways: to stop the federal government from forcing a law on a state, or to stop the federal government from removing or defying a state's law. In other words, state's rights can be used to oppose federal laws and to support state laws. The former function of state's rights can be used to delegitimize and defy the federal government. But the latter function of state's rights presents a problem if one is trying to abide by an objective standard of justice, for theoretically state's rights can be used to uphold and preserve a state's unjust law. To be clear, this does not mean that the federal government is any more justified, but it does show that state's rights is an inconsistant standard for justice since it can be used to legitimize state governments.

From a libertarian anarchist perspective, none of the governmental entities in question are legitimate. The federal government doesn't have "rights" and neither do the states. Only people have rights. The doctrine of state's rights is problematic in that it may leave free reign for state governments to do just about anything. It may function to limit the powers of the federal government, but it does nothing to limit the powers of the state governments. In other words, it sets up a double standard of justice between the levels of government, and for this reason it may lead to some ugly results. It seems inconsistant for one to proclaim that the federal government may not do X but the state of Ohio may. Either X is right or wrong, hence the precise entity or people engaging in X is entirely irrelevant. It matters not if it is 100000 people, one person, France, America, Ohio or Kentucky that is enforcing X.

For example, it seems absurd for one to proclaim that "it is illegitimate for the federal government to impose drug prohibition laws, but the states may impose drug prohibition laws". This would shift debate on the issue from a matter of the justice of drug prohibition itself to a matter of which entity or level of government may prohibit drugs. But for the libertarian anarchist and the proponent of ethical consistancy, that is entirely irrelevant. Drug prohibition is illegitimate altogether as a matter of principle, and therefore it would be no more legitimate for the state of Ohio to enact and enforce such laws then it would be for the federal government to do so. State's rights is problematic to the extent that it is used as a mechanism to legitimize the laws and policies of state governments in defiance of rational principles of justice. It could theoretically be used to legitimize anything a state does that is not explicitly prohibited by the constitution, and the question of what the constitution prohibits the states from doing is rather open ended to begin with.

The issue of integration and segregation is often debated about in the context of state's rights. The fact of the matter is that while the federal government most certainly engaged in an injustice by establishing forced intregration, state's rights was used to legitimize and sustain forced segregation. It's a lose-lose situation no matter which perspective one approaches it from. If the federal government is allowed to impose a ban on discrimination that encompassed all of the states, then property rights are violated. On the other hand, if the states are allowed to make discrimination legally binding or obligatory within their territories, then property rights are violated. Both forced segregation and forced integration are illegitimate, and both the federal and state governments are illegitimate. To the extent that state's rights was used to preserve the power of the states to have a policy of forced segregation, it was an incredible injustice.

State's rights is only useful to the extent that it may stop the federal government from enforcing an unjust law on all of the states, so that there is at least some possibility that certain states will not have that law. This helps avoid a "one-size-fits-all" approach being shoved down the throats of the entire country. It certainly is potentially more beneficial to have more variance between the states so that there is at least some possibility for one to persue alternatives. However, internal to each state, the exact same problem presents itself. An individual state may still enact and enforce an unjust law. And with respect to smaller entities within the state, it is likewise a "one-size-fits-all" approach. The counties and cities have no choice but to be herded into a uniform model by the state. So why not continue the principle and have "county's rights" and "city's rights"? If it is followed through consistantly, one eventually stops at individual rights, the only real kind.

The advantage of state's rights that is commonly pointed out is that one has the ability to "vote with your feet" between each state in order to persue alternatives. This makes a certain level of sense. However, is this not merely the exact same thing as the "love it or leave it" sentiment that is usually applied to entire nations? When people object to their own nation's way of doing things, sometimes they are told that they can just move. But this retort avoids addressing the problem and only begs the question. In short, it assumes the legitimacy of the nation-state to begin with. But from the viewpoint of the libertarian anarchist who rejects the legitimacy of states, the burden of proof is on the state or those defending it to justify it. If the individual is truly sovereign and legitimately owns their property, then they should not have to move. Rather, the state should stop coercing them and trying to claim partial control over their property. This is true of smaller state entities as much as it is of large nation-states. If states do not legitimately control their territories, then state's rights is a very inconsistant creed.

None of this is meant to imply that the federal government should be given more powers. On the contrary, it is meant to imply that the powers of all levels of government are illegitimate as a matter of principle and that libertarians should be more skeptical towards the creed of state's rights than many of them tend to be. State's rights is a very inconsistant and moderate form of decentralization, a vain attempt to simulate free association and competition through large and arbitrary political units or territories. In comparison to the level of decentralization that anarchism entails, a regime of state's rights is still fairly authoritarian and centralized. Perhaps the traditional model for America is not nearly as decentralized as some libertarians would like to think.

PaleoConservaNationalistTarians

Brainpolice — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:50:00 GMT

There has been a lot of hooting and hollering lately in libertarian circles, particularly as it relates to the Ron Paul campaign. This seems to be representative of a broader conflict between "culturally left" and "culturally conservative" libertarians. It is becoming commonplace for critics and opponents of Ron Paul, as well as people who are simply neutral to him, to be labeled "CosmoBeltwayCentralistTarians". It is important to note that this is a cluster-concept or a package deal term. It lumps multiple distict ideas together into one: cosmopolitanism, association with the beltway and support for centralization. But it is disingenous to imply that all of these things inherently imply the other. It is even more disingenous to imply that libertarian critics and opponents of Ron Paul inherently must be on the pro-war bandwagon. Lumping pro-war, cosmopolitanism, centralization, association with and criticism and opposition to Ron Paul together into one package deal is simply unfair. Especially as it relates to anarchist and anti-voting critics who see the Ron Paul crowd as being the true "beltway libertarians".

What exactly is cosmopolitanism anyways? Philosophical cosmopolitans are moral universalists: they believe that all humans, and not merely compatriots or fellow-citizens, come under the same moral standards. The boundaries between nations, states, cultures or societies are therefore morally irrelevant. Based on this understanding of cosmopolitanism, how can any libertarian possibly object to it? Is libertarianism not based on the non-aggression principle, and does the non-aggression principle not apply consistantly to all human beings? If the non-aggression principle is only applied to certain nations or other such groups of human beings, then it no longer is being consistantly applied. Cosmopolitanism can be seen as a logical extension of individualism in that moral standards apply to individual human beings, not exclusively to group-identities.

Some would have us believe that cosmopolitanism (and the opposition to nationalism and political borders that comes along with it) inherently implies support for global government, but this is not necessarily the case. It is true that some cosmopolitans may come to the conclusion that there needs to be a global government, but under logical examination their conclusion is actually inconsistant with cosmopolitanism because a global government will be run by an exclusive and small group of individuals who are not held to the same moral standards as everyone else. Even a global government would lack universal application of moral principles. No, the logical conclusion of cosmopolitanism is not global government, but the exact opposite: no government. To the philosophical anarchist, governments are illegitimate in part precisely because they represent an inconsistant application of morality. Along with reasons having to do with the problem of territorial monopoly, the anarchist may very well oppose political borders because they represent artificial divisions that allow moral inconsistancy.

On the question of centralization and decentralization, it is often implied that left-leaning libertarians and libertarian opponents of Ron Paul object to decentralization and favor federal dictation when it comes to certain issues. But this is also fallacious. Take the issue of abortion for example. Sometimes pro-choice libertarians are accused of supporting the idea that the federal government should essentially mandate abortion everywhere, and therefore favor centralization. But at least for this pro-choice libertarian's perspective, that's not exactly how it works. Once again, we are trying to consistantly apply principles. Many pro-choice libertarians would not support a federal ban or federal subsidization of abortion. But the point is that the same principle should apply to the states and localities. If it is true that the state has no legitimate authority to decide on the issue in either direction, then in principle no level of government may outlaw or subsidize abortion. Principles must apply consistantly.

It is of course true that a state's rights approach to the issue would be preferable to a federal approach, but a state's rights approach is still not entirely consistant. In short, from the fact that centralization at the federal level is potentially much worse then state's rights, it does not follow that states or localities may legitimately have carte blanch to do just about everything that the federal level is prohibited from doing. Decentralization, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to individual sovereignty. State's rights is actually a rather moderate form of decentralization. At least from an anarchist libertarian perspective, states of any sort don't have any rights. Individuals do. So the point is: go ahead and leave such issues to the states, but don't just stop there. Keep pushing for consistancy. Keep pushing for more and more decentralization. Don't just transfer governmental powers to the state or local levels and then suddenly fully support those powers.

Another disingenous set of claims is that "left-libertarians" and libertarian opponents of Ron Paul are erroneously defining libertarianism as a lifestyle, making it seem as if libertarianism requires one to personally support alternative lifestyles and "culturally left" causes. But strangley enough, I have yet to meet a left-libertarian that actually has made such a claim. On the one hand, this accusation is fallacious in that it equates support for the liberty of people to engage in such "culturally left" activities with active support for and participation in those activities. Someone may radically support someone's right to engage in all sorts of activities that they do not actually personally favor. On the other hand, this charge could easily be leveled at "culturally conservative" libertarians who appear to imply that cultural homogeniety, traditionalism and religiosity is a requirement for a functional free society. In the atempt to achieve such things, there is always a dangerous temptation to use political power. What many left-libertarians fear is not the freedom of people to hold and practise culturally conservative lifestyles, but the possibility that they will be enforced through political means. But this does not mean that culturally left libertarians are themselves going to support political means in order to deliberately attack things such as religion and racism.

Insofar as the culture question is concerned, no particular cultural views or practises are a requirement for a libertarian society. This is libertarianism in a narrow sense, as a political philosophy in which whatever is voluntary gets a green light. However, libertarianism as a broad philosophy may very well be seen as being compatible with certain cultural causes, and that some cultural sentiments and practises may be more conductive to a free society then others. It is important to emphasize the difference between cultural views or practises being a requirement and being compatible and/or conductive. No serious left-libertarian would claim that you have to be an anti-racist and secularlist in order to be a libertarian. However, they would quite likely see such views and causes as being compatible with libertarianism. They may very well approach libertarianism in a broad sense in which there are non-governmental forms of coercion or oppression that deserve opposition. Afterall, states are not the only institutions that violate the non-aggression principle. Why should private organizations that engage in fraud and coercive usury, along with religious institutions that instigate conflicts, be given a free pass?

While there may certainly be some legitimate criticisms of libertarian deviations towards the "left", deviations towards the "right" deserve close scrutiny. If there are "CosmoBeltwayCentralistTarians", there are also "PaleoConservaNationalistTarians". There is of course nothing inherently wrong with a libertarian holding "culturally conservative" views, but some of these people hardly can be described as consistantly keeping them personal and not supporting political means towards their ends. A "PaleoConservaNationalistTarian" may harbor any combination of the following traits: nationalism, populism, opposition to immigration, support for protectionism, constitutionalism, pro-family, sympathies for monarchy, anti-abortion, anti-secularism and racism. To the "PaleoConservaNationalistTarian", the white anglo-saxon is America's persecuted majority. Behold the white proleteriet's burden! Multiculturalism and secularism are viewed exclusively as being a political system that is enforced onto the persecuted majority of white Christians. Opposition to government mandated religion is equated to persecution of Christians. Accordingly, we must close and secure "the borders", deport the evil Mexicans who are "stealing our jobs", buy American products only, fight toothe and nail for conservative judges, try to get abortion illegalized at the state (or federal) level and support theocracy on the "local level".

While many of these libertarians quite likely have wonderful track records on questions of war and foreign policy, it seems that they have a tendency to reconcentrate such militartistic means into domestic police powers. Since they are nationalistic, they may very well see a "proper role" for the military and paramilitary forces on our own domestic soil: to stop people from entering the territory and to monitor those who do enter the territory for drugs, disease, criminal records, citezenship and visas. According to these people, if an individual does not have the explicit permission of the government, they may not own property, have a job or possess any negative rights whatsoever within the territory. Without such permission, the government has free reign to kidnap you and forcibly exile you from the territory. Additionally, allegedly there is nothing wrong with the government using the tax-payer's money to fund gigantic border fences and maintain a massive immigration beureacracy to keep track of who is who and where they are. Oh, and you can kiss the free market in language goodbye, since the government must mandate uniformity in language all across the country. "National sovereignty" is a high priority, higher then individual sovereignty apparently.

Some of these same people who would gladly do away with the federal department of education simultaneously have no problem with local school boards dictating the curriculum to be taught children. Indeed, all things that the federal government is not supposed to do, "the community", or what in reality is more local state bodies acting in the name of "the community", may legitimately decide. Collectivism (which always is imposed by what amounts to an oligarchy in reality) at the federal level is bad, but apparently collectivism at the more homely level has free reign. This approach may be more libertarian then having the federal government do such things, but it certainly is not consistantly libertarian. There are many double-standards that may be supported in a more local way. Forced integration bad, forced segregation good. Government-enforced secularism bad, government-enforced religiosity good. Clearly, the "PaleoConservaNationalistTarians" are not innocent when it comes to the use of political means towards their ends, particularly if the means are not federal.

Then there is their support for constitutionalism and the "rule of law". The problem here is that the "rule of law" is a myth and libertarian theory has long since debunked the common conception of the social contract. Of course, there's also the problem that enforcing the law for the sake of it being the law is not consistant with any libertarian conception of law. Libertarianism involves an independant theory of justice that whatever the law happens to be must be held up to. There is also a post-ponement arguement often made, which essentially states that because the current system and certain set of laws exist, it should be enforced for the time being until certain things are done away with first. Only when certain things are gone, such as the welfare state, can we move on to persueing other goals, so claims the "PaleoConservaNationalistTarian". Strategically, this only keeps the system in place. Such an attitude in itself post-pones change. Such gradualism is perpetuity in practise. Libertarianism is "radical" in that it always keeps pushing for the ultimate goal, it does not post-pone one section of its own goals by putting them to the side until other goals are first met, or it does not obtain (partially or fully) a goal and then stop there and be content with the status quo when there are other goals to be met or the goal is not fully met yet.

The problem with "PaleoConservaNationalistTarians" is that in the attempt to preserve traditions and create homogeniety they sometimes end up supporting political means. PaleoConservaNationalistTarians hold onto a historical view that is conservative in that they glorify the past. Tradition is to be preserved at all costs, while deviations are to be opposed toothe and nail. PaleoConservaNationalistTarians wish to "restore the Republic". But clocks cannot be turned back. In the attempt to turn clocks back, however, a lot of damage can potentially be done.