Is it possible to be both a nationalist and a libertarian?
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
38 comments to Discussion point XIII |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
It should be “an individualist”, not “a libertarian”. The answer is no. Note, supporting your “nation” (however that is defined) is not the same as being a nationalist, just as supporting whatever group of people for whatever reason is not the same as being a collectivist.
Not in Scotland it would seem…..
No
Heh.
But seriously, no.
Perhaps yes, if you’re Flemish. An if one believe in individual liberty, it’s probably a good idea to support nation states against the EU.
I’m a Scot, and I’m in two minds about independence: Scots seems a good deal less keen on all the NuLab Gestapo stuff, and independence might (big might) make us grow up, but it would also make us just another powerless vassal of Brussels, so in what sense would we actually be independent?
Sure, but I wouldn’t say that makes you a
exactly.
No; nationalism presupposes a national identity apart from and generally superior to individual identity, and since any ideological derogation of the individual subordinates or circumscribes free choice, it is inimical to liberty.
Some of the anti-EU rhetoric coming from people who claim to be libertarians gets very nationalistic. It gets framed in terms of treachery, us vs them etc. I’d say that this is not a libertarian view though.
That said, I can think of no way to be libertarian and in favour of the current state of the EU, but rather than complaining about the EU taking power away from our government, we should point out that no government should have these powers, be they in Brussels or Westminster.
Lets not kid ourselves, the same shysters are in power in Westminster as in Brussels and would do most of these things anyway.
That depends on how one defines a “nationalist”. In principle, it’s possible to imagine even an extreme nationalist who fervently hates and despises persons of different nationalities, but who practices such attitudes strictly within the sphere of his own personal life and property rights. Such a person might refuse to make friends with persons of different nationalities or do any business with them, and might strictly avoid the consumption of foreign goods, both material and cultural, but would still stop short of supporting aggressive foreign policy and government-enforced oppression, discrimination, or forced assimilation of national minorities at home. In my opinion, someone like that could still be called a libertarian by any reasonable definition, just like anyone else who wants to practice any other personal whim — as long as he keeps it personal.
However, are there any actual nationalists like that in practice? I suppose one could find some isolated examples if one looked really hard, but only a few of them. In practice, if someone really feels nationalist passions, he will always also feel a strong temptation to call for the government to implement policies guided by these passions — and such policies can never be libertarian by any definition. Thus, at the end of the day, I’d say that nationalism is incompatible with libertarianism in practice, if not in theory.
The historical record is certainly clear — nationalism is the only ideological current in recorded history that is responsible for piles of corpses comparable to those produced by socialism. And it’s certainly not an accident that the very top of list of infamy is rightfully occupied by the ideology that combined those two in both name and content.
Depends what kind of nationalism.
Nationalism might be nasty, belligerent and collectivist and usually has been so. That’s incompatible with individualism.
On the other hand – building a libertarian society on a global scale is a tall order. So, if your national society is more libertarian, or liberal-free than other societies, it makes sense to support it over them. (Like many support Britain and it’s legal traditions over the EU).
Thirdly: one has a cultural and family background in common with people of one’s nation. It makes sense, and isn’t wrong, to feel some affinity toward your nation, to the point of even fighting for it’s survival when it’s threatened.
Bottom line: depends what nationalism.
Ivan:
Drew just did that, quite well.
That’s why I personally prefer “individualist” rather than “libertarian”.
Actually, no – collectivism is, nationalism being just one particular form of it, socialism being another.
Indeed.
Jacob: consider my first comment, and Drew’s definition of nationalism – I think it covers your point.
Depends how you define “nationalist”. You can use the leftie caricature of xenophobic flag wavers, if you like. That’s not very libertarian.
But at a pragmatic level, a return to nation states and strong borders will be an essential part of a recipe for establishing libertarianism, so long as the nation states reasonably reflect a people with a sense of nation (e.g. England). Only groups who are comfortable with each other as a society will be able to establish libertarian governments within their societies.
Libertarians have an unfortunate habit of looking at things too economically. Unchecked immigration may be fine on economic principle but in practice the importation of large numbers of people with greatly different cultural values leads the indigenous population to experience cultural panics (which may be entirely reasonable) and intertribal tensions are the inevitable consequence, which can only be checked by authoritarian impositions by government (which then bubble out into intense conflict anyway since no government can hold the lid on the pressure cooker forever). To presume we can “educate” people not to be tribal is as naive and collectivist as the worst ideological utopianism of the post-marxist hegemony.
Humans are all intensely tribal. Sometimes they can appear not to be so but such persons generally owe their allegiance to tribes based on some commonality other than ethnicity (e.g. academia, liberalism etc) so it’s a fallacy. Indeed the current authoritarian nightmare is a class-based tribalism, in which a self-defined tribe of wise hegemons use the power of government to afflict those they see as Others (broadly speaking, the proles).
Where a natural demos exists, libertarian government could work. An English libertarianism could work, for instance, with a small government and vast individual freedom and local decision making where decisions are really necessary. But, for instance, if you fling a huge proportion of foreigners fighting for mediaeval theocracy into that mix, the society will ultimately collapse into bloodshed, since the two tribes defined there have no commonality.
Humans evolved to see other people in terms of similarity or difference from the self. The more similar another person seems to oneself (by subjective criteria, be they ethnicity, social class, shared interests etc) the more trusted they are- and the less so the less trusted they are. We may wish that weren’t the case but there’s nothing we can do about it. Attempts to abolish the localism of nationhood either by forcing disparate groups to become as one or by flooding one group with newcomers will inevitably lead to tyrannical government- take the EU for instance or the burgeoning “hate laws” in Ukay. It’s important of course that a nation represents a genuine tribal commonality of course, otherwise it’ll splinter like Belgium is trying to do. There’s no apparent massive difference to outsiders between the Flemish and Walloons, but as tribes they self identify as distinct and as such need seperate states. We should be looking at making the nation states fit the tribes, rather than trying to make Walloons and Flems all feel Belgian, or make Kurds feel Iraqi. When those nations are a good fit to the people within them, local policies of liberty and freedom can more easily flourish.
I think the suggestion of what type of nationalism might b helped by looking at nationalism and patriotism. To my mind the latter doesn’t have such tribal overtones.
O/T but it always annoys me that patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel is always misunderstood, being a criticism of scoundrels not patriotism..
Hovis, it may be worth saying that patriotism is the love of ones own country, while nationalism is the hatred of somebody (everybody) else’s country. I wish I could remember where I first saw that.
That distinction is a little vague, I don’t get it. For example: opposing the immigration of another tribe into your country is “supporting your nation” or is it “nationalism” ?
In an ideal world, where all people are libertarians, and all governments minimal and respecting individual rights, there would be no need for nation-states, and nationalism would be like membership in a voluntary social club, which can discriminate, based on it’s member preferences, but is ok.
In our imperfect world, people gather into tribes (nations) to protect themselves against predations by other tribes. This is an imperative necessity. Maybe, sometimes, in Utopia, there will be no predatory tribes.
It depends on who “us” and “them” are. EUphiles like to characterise this as nationalist, i.e. the EUphobe is against “Europe” and by implication Europeans- other nations or nationals. But I would say “us” is The People and “them” is the European Union, the governmental organisation, and to say that is not nationalist at all. Quite the reverse.
Surely libertarians seek power to be transferred downwards, from governments to the local level to individuals. For a ruling class to transfer power upwards, away from individuals and to the superstate, can quite reasonably be termed an act of treachery. Even most libertarians will consider government of some description having a role in national defence, and that surely means the defence of the people governed from the predations of other powers. On those terms, giving power over those people to another power is treachery indeed, surely?
…building a libertarian society on a global scale…
Individualists of the world, unite!
First the Triston Mills point.
No the flood of regulations after the Single European Act of 1986 (a flood that continues to this day) was mostly about things the politicians (bad though they are) had no interest in. If a Civil Servant can say “this is in accordance with E.U. policy” then all objection to regulations collapse – and neither ministers (and some have been anti endless regulation over the last 20 years) or Parliament can do anything.
So the “E.U. does not make much difference” point is mistaken. And that leaves aside things like the CAP and CFP
Nor for the actual matter of the post.
The old “patriot not nationalist” point needs to be made.
“Individualist” is wrong. People do not tend to live as isolated atoms (in fact that is how the left parody the libertarian postion), people live via cooperation with others via various social insistutions – familes, business enterprises, churches, clubs, socieities and so on.
A patriot is simply someone who loves what is good about his or her country (and does not love what is bad) and wishes to make things better. And of course there are such things as cultures, and nationalities (for example, as the Venerable Bede understood there was such a thing as the “English people” even though he was writing in a time when there was no such thing as the English state – the people were divided between several Kingdoms).
But being a “nationalist” implies an ideology. That everyone of a certain group should be under the same government – which led, for example, the “unification” of Germany and Italy (both of which “unifications” had negative consequences from the libertarian point of view), and that people of a certain group should not be under “alien” rule – even if this “alien” rule is less oppressive than rule by members of their own group is likely to be.
One can love the traditions, history and culture of one’s people without wanting such political unity – but one can not really be a “nationalist” and not want it.
But it is not only the above. “Nationalism” also implies “economic nationalism” – for example taxes and other restrictions on imports and government action to direct the economy.
A patriot may decide that the libertarian principle of voluntary cooperation (again NOT “atomistic individualism”) is better than the collectivist principle of force. But the term “nationalist” implies that there is a bias in favour of the collectivist principle.
Very good discussion in bringing out the distinction between patriotism and nationalism. The EUSSR seems to think it can command loyalty by sliming patriotism as nationalism. I don’t think it will work.
In the modern sense, no. But I look back on some readings of how the French galvanized no matter what political bent during the early stages of WWI. There was a culture felt to be at stake that rose above politics and the State and it rationale for Force. It’s the cultural paradigms that transcend debates that when challenged by an outside Force that can stand as a form of nationalism, setting aside smaller debates to concentrate on the big cultural mainstays. It is when this sense of culture become bureaucratized within the State that it takes on a whole different flavor altogether. It is certain that once one set of superiors gets to decide, the plurality of what makes a Frenchman or an Englishman or American goes out the window.
This is a very basic question I have as a U.S. libertarian. At what point does a clear and present danger present itself that all parties will clearly see a danger to our particular culture (in very broad strokes), unleash collective force to protect it, but then dissassemble the apparatus once the “mission is accomplished”? If there are no specific cultural paradigms worth preserving, then I have little interest if a part of the US is attacked. Just as if Islamistan invades Urovia I am disinterested, so I would be if Mainlain Florida were invaded. Perhaps it’s simply about the mercilessness of the enemy, and even without examining the apparent clashing of culture happening there and then, that I can surmise that bombs will be dropping on my head at some point so might as well join in, again all without any abstracts such as nation or culture or such.
It really boils down to – you get an idea of a national consciousness only when it is truly threatened en masse. Then I think you will see many enemies, who make so much out of nothing in what is truly an antebellum period, unite when confronted by a true threat. What happens after, assuming victory, is a good question. I fear that instead of a pluralistic society, one side will take advantage and retain the reins of Force and impose its own notion of what a “true” patriot of the nation is.
Jacob:
It really depends on the true reason for the opposition. just like if an employer would not hire a black employee: is it because he is black, or form other reasons (he is not fit for the job etc.). I agree with the rest of your point, and ian explained it very well.
Paul: as far as I am concerned, being an individualist does not at all mean being anti-social, only being anti-collectivist.
I would gladly destroy anyone who would hurt America.
If that makes me a nationalist, then make the most of it.
As with any discussion involving vague and ambiguous terms, I suspect the answer is “it depends.”
The American Revolution, having as its aim the creation of a nation, was a project both nationalist and libertarian.
I suspect one could say the same of the American Civil War, to the extent that its aims were both the preservation of a nation and the elimination of slavery within that nation.
In short, if your nation is libertarian, and you are supporting it against non-libertarian opposition, then, yes, I think the two can be fellow travellers.
Of course, if your nation is not libertarian, and/or what you support it against is libertarian in nature, then not so much.
I apologize Alisa.
I am so used to replying to attacks on libertarianism (or even milder pro freedom positions) as “atomistic individualism” that I forgot that there is nothing wrong with individualism withouth the “atomistic”.
After all, in a different context, I am a “methodolgical individualist” myself, in that I believe that a policy should be judged by its effects on flesh and blood individual human beings – not collective wholes.
I also believe that “market forces” are just a mixture of physical facts (such as the effects of the weather on supplies) and the individual choices of human beings.
Brad:
It is true that World War One united France – before the war a very divided country (to this day people talk of the “two Frances” one regional, pro private property, old style Catholic and Royalist – the other centralized, pro state power, anti Catholic or “progressive” Catholic, and anti Royalist).
Sadly World War Two did not see any such unity – it is forgotten today, but the left (especially the French Communist Party) stabbed France in the back in 1939-1940.
“But Vichy was of the right” – actually it was a lot more complex than that with a lot of Vichy politicians not being from the right at all.
But, in any case, it was not the Vichy men who had undermined France either before the war, when the Popular Front government undermined the French military to fund its welfare programs (and putting a Soviet agent in charge of the Air Force did not help). or during the war itself – the great strikes and other sabotage of 1939 and 1940.
Oddly enough leftist British films about France in this period such as “The Foreman went to France” leave all this out.
But then in Britain also in 1939 the left did not support civilization in peril (a fact they now wish us to forget) the pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany stood and Britain was an evil “capitalist” nation anyway, it was a “bosses war” – as Orwell put it “who stood forth to defend civilization – only Colonel Blimp and the old school tie”. Orwell (Eric Blair) was on the left himself (and hated Colonel Blimp and the old school tie – i.e. Tory England) but he honestly reported what he saw.
Sadly 9/11 has shown that disloyality does not just exist on the left.
It was not the Iraq war that made some libertarians side against the United States – because they were already sideing against America.
Libertarians are quite correct that the United States does not live up to the vision of limited government presented in the Constitution – but those who conclude from this that Uncle Sam is always in the wrong and the United States should not be supported in the struggle against radical Islam make a terrible error.
They should remember the words of Mr J. Owens when asked why he, a black man in segregated America, supported the United States.
“There is nothing wrong with America that Hitler is going to fix”.
Paul: I can never, ever forgive Rothbard.
You can’t be a nationalist, but you certainly be proud of your nation.
To be a nationalist is to demand special treatment for your nation – and I am not in favour of that because it isn’t a level playing field, and as well all know, a level playing field is the best place to see your nation at its best!!
Nationalism is just another variant of collectivism and statism. Patriotism is just a waste of time.
Paul Marks- I ask you- what is the extent of your patriotic duties, except of course going around accusing others of ‘disloyalty’? Besides the gabbling, what have you ever done for queen and country?
Cynic you were obviously grown in a petrie dish and live in an ice bucket.
Alisa hit most of my talking points, and Paul and Alisa have already covered it but I want to affirm a distinction between describing what the smallest autonomous unit is (individualist) as opposed to how that unit chooses to live (in isolation?). I am, without any apology, an individualist. And what do I do as an individualist? I seek out a community of like minded people for cooperative interaction.
To the topic, I have no loyalty to geography or genetics. My loyalty is to the contract that I share with other people. It is called a constitution. I will defend the one I live under much as Billy Beck would defend ‘America’. And probably with as much emotion. Not because I was born under it, but because it is the best one in use anywhere for protecting my moral values of life liberty and property. When I defend it I am in fact defending a contract containing most of my own greatest values.
If it is damaged to the point it no longer protects what I value, I will reject it.
I usually ignore Cynic but I can’t let his equating of nationalism and patriotism stand. He apparently gets his definitions from wikipedia, which says “Patriotism is closely associated with nationalism, and is often used as a synonym for it.”. That may be in modern deconstructionism, but a trip to the OED (and a very strong magnifying glass) says patriotism def. 2 is having the characteristics of a patriot. And, same OED, (same magnifying glass) patriot def 2. is “one who disinterestedly or self-sacrificingly exerts himself to promote the well-being of his country; one who’s ruling passion is the love of his country (J); one maintains and defends his country’s freedom or rights.
Incidentally, under patriotism it gives some examples of usage. It quotes Johnson in Boswell (1725?) as saying “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels”, but well above that it quotes Bolingbroke in 1718, “Patriotism must be founded in great principles and supported by great virtues.”
Read ‘country’ as ‘constitution’ (which is how America is delineated) and yes, so long as it contains my principles, I’m a patriot. At least I try to be.
So instead of having two interchangeable words, I suggest patriotism returns to its principled roots and let nationalism keep the geography and genetics meaning.
Nationalism is pure collectivism, patriotism is a principle based value judgment.
And to Thaddeus’ question, nationalism is collectivism, libertarianism is (or should be) individualism, so no, they are mutually exclusive.
I consider myself both an English Patriot and a Libertarian.
Do you believe a stable society, legal system and any other societal infrastructure to be property rights or not, and to which the existing members have some say in how they are treated and some pride in how they are run?
I do.
In other words, I can be proud of my country because it is mine.
Mid: I am so glad you have your OED (where is mine, BTW…) and your magnifying glass on hand:-) Nothing like those to fight Newspeak.
“Read ‘country’ as ‘constitution’ (which is how America is delineated)…”
Not to me. That’s the “United States”, which is something very different to me. To me, America was set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution was fundamentally a counter-revolutionary act.
Using a Cold War example, Baltic nationalism that wanted independence from the USSR could be libertarian, but Soviet nationalism that wanted to preserve its empire could not.
Using a Cold War example, Baltic nationalism that wanted independence from the USSR could be libertarian, but Soviet nationalism that wanted to preserve its empire could not.
I think that is an additional and more modern example of what I was getting at above.
I’ll have to think on that, Billy Beck. I consider anything in the Declaration of Independence that was not specifically undone or denied in the Constitution to be underlying the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was never rescinded. As far as I’m concerned, everything in it is still binding unless something in the Constitution specifically undoes it.
I think the idea that the Declaration is an historical only, and not a legal document is perpetrated by the left because there is so much they oppose contained in it. All the more reason to treat it as an active legal document.
Billy Beck – “what made you think I was thinking of Rothbard” – I was of course.
Cynic.
Things that did not lead to a regular job or a pension.
Which is irritating – as some of the people who got the regular jobs, and will get the pensions, did not give a toss about Queen and Country (not that this will surprise you).
Still perhaps we did some good (it is hard to tell) and, although one is supposed to say “it was mostly very boring, just a lot of standing around.,…..”, I am going to admit it was fun at times.
I will give you one incident (which is quite harmless).
I remember standing with a friend whilst we were both having breathing difficulties and he turned to me and said “you know Paul, at this moment we are all that stands between Western Civilization and total collapse”(an absurd exaggeration of course). Of course we both laughed – which is a really bad thing to do if you are having breathing difficulties.
But I would not have missed it.