Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.


Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Labour’s Immigration Policy is Decidedly Conservative: Identity Politics Left & Right.

 

This post is partly to explicate the Libertarian advocacy of open immigration, and in doing so to demonstrate how libertarians don’t belong to either right or left politics, rather, existing  uncomfortably - though justifiably self-righteously because we do not call on others to pay for our ideals - in the schism between a free society and the authoritarian ones we now live in, governed by the brute fist of what has become a global, Orwellian tax surveillance state.
 

This morning I find leader of the Labour (Left) Opposition, David Cunliffe, is electioneering on what looks to be a Conservative immigration policy promising to slash net immigrant numbers from 40,000 per year to as low as 5,000. I write ‘looks’ because in fact Left politics in New Zealand has morphed via identity politics (that is, stereotyping bigotry) into a patriotic, nationalistic, protectionist and contradictory mess that makes a mockery of The Internationale. (I won’t even dignify this Labour policy with the economic argument against using immigration policy to ‘fix’ house prices, which is to miss, well, everything.) My initial response:
 








 

From this that arch-tweeter of New Zealand conservatism, Redbaiter, picked up on both this tweet, and an earlier statement by myself that drug legalisation was the litmus test of a free society. Note I like Redbaiter: there is a large divide between our views, but at least he has views held passionately, and I can have a good old ding dong with him on Twitter without him running childishly to the block, which far too many of New Zealand’s Left tweeters and bloggers do (though not all of them). I run the below Twitter timeline simply to show that Libertarians are not Conservatives, for we are social liberals, and to scope out (sorry everyone reading this from Christchurch where that has become a dirty word ) a policy of open immigration such as would exist in a free society constituted as a minarchy. I’ll do a final summary at end relating this theme back to my earlier posts on multiculturalism.
 












 

At this stage Redbaiter went to one of his own ‘themes’, which is the Chinese peril: you won’t be mistaken, but may be confused, at the associations this raises with both Labour and Green politicians statements against Chinese investment in New Zealand. The answer to the conundrum I believe lies not so much with economic ludditism - though that is part of it - but with the Left’s new found penchant with nationalism, born of protectionism - sorry, that's economic ludditism again - and long time conviction for identity politics; policy making, such as enforced quotas, on the basis of an individual's identity with a group (gender, race, etc) rather than a libertarian’s classical liberal individualistic ethic, and individual property rights as the only basis for law making. It’s a type of stereotyping the Left hold in common, ironically, with the authoritarian right, as exemplified in Redbaiter’s conservatism.
 
































 

For the record, typo alert, that tweet of mine above should read 'founded'. Anyway, then the reason why I like Redbaiter plus would be happy, if he were to uncloak, to carry the ding dong on over a bong … sorry, he’d have no part of that. Why I’d be happy to continue such debate over a beer at the pub:
 








 

But bottom line, there is only one word to describe what underlies Redbaiter’s, Labour, Green and for that matter, NZ First's, constant anti-Chinese sentiment: ugly.
 
 

Multiculturalism, Sharia Law and Open Immigration:
 

The other bogey the Right cite against open immigration is the threat of Islam and Sharia Law; to that I have two responses:
 

Firstly, the barbaric Sharia Law in every way I can think of breaches the non-initiation of force principle, thus much conducted under Sharia is rightly criminal behaviour in a free country. Western classical liberalism would never extend a hand to Sharia. So the crimes committed under Sharia in some (some only) Moslem-centric countries are not an argument against open immigration, including by a person of any race who describes themselves as a Moslem, for my understanding is a moderate Islam does not hold with Sharia.
 

Secondly, yes, of course I have huge ideological and philosophical issues with Islam, more so than with a Christianity which has thankfully has its sword blunted by the West’s Enlightenment, but, so long as any individual signs up to the non-initiation of force principle, and not to use our welfare system, then they are welcome here. Society has to be based on that. I have written on my views of this in my following blog post: Montesquieu and Islam: The Peaceful Crusade in Dunedin – Please Excuse my Discomfort.



Update 1: The Conservative / Libertarian Divide – Summary.

 

Firstly thank you to Brendan McNeill of AConservative Perspective for debating this with me in the below comments. The thread serves well to show the differences between Conservatives and Libertarians. Central to Brendan’s reasoning is the following:

 

I am capable of differentiating between Muslims as people, and Islam as a totalitarian religious ideology. Unfortunately we cannot tell by observation which Muslims will radicalize, and which will not.

If we accept that there is just as many good / bad Muslims as there are in the general make up of the population, adding the risk of radical Islam into the mix simply serves to make them the least desirable candidates for immigration.

 

Brendan would allow no Muslims immigrate to New Zealand. To sum up our differences, and my argument for an open immigration, I simply reason as follows.


A free society is not one where a group, such as Brendan’s conservatives, get to say, ‘yeah, not all Muslims are violent, but their belief system is awful so we’re letting none in, just in case.’
 

A society where that ethic rules is a bigoted tyranny of conservatism governed largely unknowably by subjective whim, every bit as bad as a bigoted tyranny of socialism - just with much better economics.


The opposite which I advocate, as a Libertarian basing first principles on individualism, is a free society in the form of a constitutional minarchy with an objective rule of law, and including, for the reasons I give above, open immigration with requirements for entry centred only as to each individual per their own case and history, not as identified with an arbitrary group, be it ethnicity, gender, religion, et al, which is always the (identity) politick of stereotyping and, ultimately, always, of bigotry.
 

Related:

Open Immigration: Marriage - Balwinder Singh & Glyn Kessell.

Open Immigration: Cutting Off Our Noses Because the Law Says So - Chinese Students.

 

 

 
Posted by at 14 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 24, 2014

Ukraine Redux: Why Classical Liberals Are Not Tories.






 
I’m a classical liberal/libertarian, that is: a laissez faire capitalist, (small, as in tiny, state) minarchist, social liberal who believes in free markets and drug legalisation, euthanasia, a woman’s right to abortion, (wait for it) open immigration; who believes, thus, in individualism over identity politics, because individualism is the opposite of rascism, of sexism, and of bigotry; who believes in freedom over statism, and who believes I should be able do whatever I like, left completely alone by the state, so long as I do no harm. In these views, as my previous post on the Ukraine usefully demonstrated, I’m as far removed from Tory conservatives, as I am from Left collectivists.
 

Against the clip I posted of a Ukrainian woman explaining that what the protestors wanted was freedom from dictatorship, and freedom from politicians only interested in their own ends, a state of affairs well explained by the accompanying video of unarmed protestors being ruthlessly murdered by Ukrainian government snipers, Tories came out to attack my view in comments, saying:
 

From Andrei:

 

In truth Ukraine is bankrupt and the IMF came up with a plan that would reduce Ukraine's sovereignty and Putin gave the Ukrainian Government a way out of having to be subservient to the IMF and western bankers and that is when these current troubles actually started. … Ukraine is on the brink, it may end up Balkanized the way Yugoslavia was in the 90s - it may end up being even more serious given the utter mediocrity of current Western leadership but let me tell you this some of the opposition "are not fighting for freedom" they are literally facists and these factions have zero interest in peaceful resolutions.

 

From Angry Tory:

 

Get a grip. They aren't protestors, they're communists. Communists don't believe in individual "rights" so certainly don't deserve any. … The fact is the country is choosing between self-determination, economic sovereignty, and yes lower taxes, individual rights, and a much less regulated, more flexible economic system under Putin --- or the open communism of the last communist mega-state, the European Union. … If you want to own a gun; drive a (petrol) car;, burn coal, oil, or gas; smoke, eat, drink, whatever you want; and live free from massive intrusive surveillance you are objectively more free in Russia than in NZ or especially the EU! … Here's a simple test: Ask yourself - who do Russel Norman, Jane Fonda & George Clooney support? then pick the other side.

 
While Andrei and Angry Tory try to sort out amongst themselves whether the protestors are fascists or communists, I’ll posture an alternative position they were largely neither: rather, like the woman in the clip, of whom not one of her words or ideas I disagree with, the protestors are a collection of disparate individuals who understand, like no one born and living in New Zealand can, what the true thug state, and dictatorship, is like. Albeit there will be elements amongst them that are unsavoury, especially thinking of that regions history of a null-headed nationalism and anti-semitism, that changes nothing in what the young Ukrainian said in the clip. Also, if this rabble were communists, why did they celebrate former President Viktor Yanukovych doing a runner today – oh yeah, the rabble won – by toppling Lenin statues all over the Ukraine?
 



 
To Angry Tory who asked me to look at which side Russel Norman was on, then choose sides from that, my rebuttal to him stands: he is thinking only in the straight lines of group-think, just as he (and I) would largely accuse the Left. As a matter of fact, though I believe Green economics would destroy us economically, while tragically growing the Big Brother state, as a social liberal I am yet closer to Norman than National and certainly Colin Craig on legalisation of cannabis, on euthanasia – two issues important to me – on abortion, etc. Classical liberals are ‘liberals’, very definitely not Tories.


So, my spleen vented, this is my slant on the situation in the Ukraine, which works toward my view most of the protestors simply want the same freedoms that I do; and that this issue, therefore, revolves around individual rights versus the authoritarian state.
 

Philosophy cannot be separated from economics. There can be no laissez faire capitalism, where individuals are not left alone by the state. So despite Andrei and Angry Tory’s opinion that Putin and Yanukovych are the path to free economies for Russians and Ukrainians, and the socialist EU is the enemy, as much as I hate the socialist monster of the EU, I have to call bullshit on that. Many of the mixed economies of the EU, as with US and New Zealand, are well down the socialist road to serfdom, but the gains made by the light shining out from the humanism of the Enlightenment as regards human rights and the sanctity of an individual life, are not all lost. A human life still has a value under the rule of law as operating in the West; not so in Russia, plus the clip of the snipers in my last post shows it most definitely is not so in the Ukraine. An individual’s life in those countries is cheap, and for those poor sods who are ‘different’, such as the homosexual community, or many ethnic minorities, as the reportage leading up to Sochi has shown us, life is at best miserable, at worst, lethal. And that comes from the top, from homophobe, KGB indoctrinated, medieval Putin.
 

Given this, the Russian and Ukrainian states are not capitalist, as in laissez faire. Indeed, they are so far down the road of the corrupt, crony state that their economies more closely resemble gangster and mafia stand over societies, with governments ruthlessly exercising their power to fleece populations. Whether you’re the richest of oligarchs, or a Pussy Rioter, if Putin wants you in one of his labour camps, then in a labour camp you’ll soon find yourself. Perhaps one of the Tories could explain to me where labour camps for political dissenters fit into a free society based on free markets? As far as I know there are no political labour camps in EU countries. In Russia, Putin has slaughtered thousands, if not more, in the name of his war on terror, many of them just happening to be ethnic minorities.  
 

Ukraine’s crony state is every bit as bad as Putin’s. Over the three years of his Daddy’s corrupt reign, Oleksandr Yankovych, son, trained as a dentist, availed himself of a massive change infortune:
 

 

While in 2010, the year before Viktor became president, Oleksandr was worth $7 million US dollars, by the end of 2013 he was worth $510 million: that’s an increase in wealth of 7,285% in three years. Please don’t take it personally, dentists, but ‘yeah right’. On one of the CNN clips I saw today, the protestors upon entering the presidential palace, hastily vacated by Viktor, were stunned at the opulence their taxes had paid for while they were living brutal and hard lives. I'm on their side.
 

To sum up, I don’t think the protestors who were murdered in the Euromaiden were all fascists, communists, or rabble. I reckon it’s far more likely they were me. Though quite apart from all that, the Tories seem to think the crime we all witnessed in that sniper clip was justified by the hope of self-determination and free markets under Putin, rather than falling into the perfumed clutch of the EU. I made a comment to the NBR thread on the events taking place in the Ukraine, and it’s all I need to say on that:

 

All that aside, a government that commands professional snipers to clinically murder unarmed protestors, on that alone, loses any mandate it has to rule, and those who made the command, with those who carried it out, should be tried and judged under the rule of law. I would even call, from the video clip, that particular action a war crime.

 
Evil means, and evil bastards such as Yanukovych, Putin, and those snipers, never justify ends, especially when those ends are societies as far removed from liassez faire markets and the free society, as communist ones are.
 

Finally, here's a question for you: where do you want to live, Russia or Ukraine, alternatively, France, Italy or Germany? Yeah right. You can't separate philosophy from economics.

 
Posted by at 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)