Paleoconservative Rollcall

[AuH20]

How many paleos in here, besides myself? I don't really consider myself a libertarian because they are so many subsdivisions that spin off in various directions.

[Dunedain]

Guilty as charge as being Anti-communist, pro-citizen, nationalist, traditionalist. Although much of libertarianism overlaps with these Paleocon ideas.

[Todd]

Been one as far as I can remember. But desperate times sure make your personal pendulum start to swing in the darndest ways. (in other words, when I see government out of control...I start to empathize much more the libertarian and Anarchichal suggestions).

I still consider myself one.

[LibertyEagle]

How many paleos in here, besides myself? I don't really consider myself a libertarian because they are so many subsdivisions that spin in various directions.

Me.

[AuH20]

Guilty as charge as being Anti-communist, pro-citizen, nationalist, traditionalist. Although much of libertarianism overlaps with these Paleocon ideas.

I've always had a soft spot for Russell Kirk:

http://www.bobbymcbride.com/conservativeculture/ten-conservative-principles-russell-kirk/

[Dunedain]

I've always had a soft spot for Russell Kirk:

http://www.bobbymcbride.com/conservativeculture/ten-conservative-principles-russell-kirk/

Edmund Burke is my favorite (and the very first!) Paleoconservative. Russell Kirk writes extensively about his ideas in "The Conservative Mind". Burke's "Reflections On the Revolution In France" is one of his the greatest Paleoconservative work, it drives home why tradition is important to a nation and how Egalitarianism is simply a form of tyranny.

[Todd]

I've always had a soft spot for Russell Kirk:

http://www.bobbymcbride.com/conservativeculture/ten-conservative-principles-russell-kirk/

Ron Paul thinks so as well.

[Icymudpuppy]

I'm still not really clear on the definition of a paleoconservative, does anyone have a good one, or maybe a paleoconservative position on all the issues?

I don't quite match up with the libertarian position, but I'm close on a lot of it.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm still not really clear on the definition of a paleoconservative, does anyone have a good one, or maybe a paleoconservative position on all the issues?

I don't quite match up with the libertarian position, but I'm close on a lot of it.

Paleo-conservatives, or traditional conservatives, share a lot of libertarian principles. You might enjoy reading this; it's pretty short.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/PresidentsEssay/PresEssay2004.pdf


I'm still not really clear on the definition of a paleoconservative, does anyone have a good one, or maybe a paleoconservative position on all the issues?

I don't quite match up with the libertarian position, but I'm close on a lot of it.

Someone probably has a better definition than this, but here's a start.

- A limited constitutional government
- A strong national defense (not offense)
- Fiscal responsibility in government
- Personal privacy
- Personal responsibility
- Individual liberty
- National sovereignty

Plus, I don't know how to say it best, but a strong proponent of federalism or states' rights. And that the Constitution is to be interpreted and applied as to the Founders' intent. It is not a living document; if we want to change it, go through the amendment process.

[Dunedain]

I'm still not really clear on the definition of a paleoconservative, does anyone have a good one, or maybe a paleoconservative position on all the issues?

I don't quite match up with the libertarian position, but I'm close on a lot of it.

EDIT: LE beat me to it. Although my list is slightly different.

We are what conservatives used to be, before it was taken over by neo-conservatives. Some will disagree I'm sure, but generally Paleos believe in these principles as I see it:

- tradition over untested ways of doing things
- We only fight our own wars
- We put our nation first
- Fiscal responsibility and anti-fiat money
- pro-citizen (i.e. don't flood our country with illegals)
- pro-freemarket
- anti-communist
- pro-nation
- limited government
- Christian or at least a belief that the church is an institution that provides social stability and is therefore positive. This last point probably would be the most contraversial but it is sound if you read books by Russell and Burke who are like the founding fathers of conservatism.


As you can see libertarians believe in many of these principles however they tend to be not be focused on traditional values but are very focused on free market economic principles.

[erowe1]

I don't mind calling myself a paleo-con, as long as that doesn't imply that I'm for restrictions on trade and immigration.

[klamath]

I am probably closer to a paleocon than any thing else.

[nate895]

I guess I am closer to paleocon that libertarian these days, though I prefer the term Theonomist.

[Bucjason]

I'm a minarchist. I don't care whether the power is in the local or the federal government , as long as it is limited to protecting us from aggression , and protecting life , liberty, and property.

[angelatc]

Yes, me! So happy to see that LE and I aren't the only 2 left around here. :)

[johnrocks]

I'm pretty much a Ron Paul "clone" when it comes to politics,lol. I've been labeled a "staunch conservative", a "Goldwater Conservative" and a kook depending on the forum I am on, heck, I've even been called a "cut and run libtard" a few times, I wear my wounds like a badge of honor:cool:

Seriously though, I don't care much for labels anymore, they've become so bastardized.

[erowe1]

Ron Paul thinks so as well.

Ron Paul is a fan of Russell Kirk? Are you sure about that? That sounds fishy to me.

[Todd]

Ron Paul is a fan of Russell Kirk? Are you sure about that? That sounds fishy to me.

I've heard him mention him and Robert Taft in the same guise in a speech during the primaries. Sorry I can't find a you tube.

I think it was in reference to his non interventionism stance. Probably more praise for this particular belief.

[AuH20]

Russell Kirk's former assistant on Ron Paul:

http://oneoarinthewater.blogspot.com/2007/12/kirk-assistant-on-ron-paul.html



First, what indeed is "the art of the possible"? By analogy, every poll that existed, every commentator who wrote (including some "conservative" ones) stated that the Goldwater campaign was impossible from the beginning and would be completely defeated (and overwhelmingly so) in 1964. Kirk, out of principle, considered it is his duty to defend him and his efforts, because to begin to make the "possible" a reality, at times, one must commit, by taking what appear to be revolutionary steps, to changing what at first glance may appear to be "impossible." Kirk fully understood this, and wrote about it at some length in his books. Can you not remember his gloss on Robert Frost--"for why abandon
a belief simply because it ceases to be true...cling to it long enough, and it will turn true again"? Or Eliot, "there are no lost causes...."

The "politics of prudence" is not a politics of half-measures and compromise with evil or with "the enemy," but rather, if we may look at it from a more Aristotelian viewpoint, one of knowing just how to advance a just cause that may appear at first view incredibly hopeless and to make it by wise and judicious decisions, hopeful. Prudence is never, never pusillanimous. Prudence may at times involve measures which appear to a casual observer to be revolutionary, fruitless or even "suicidal," but in the long view of history turn out to have been critical in the scheme of things.

Thus Goldwater's campaign, which I am certain you would have considered "fringe" back then had you lived then, was much more "prudential" and necessary; and the long range results of it, while today not all felicitous for many of us in the "Old Right," still have been on the whole much more positive than not.

As you point out, one of the definable results was the eventual election of Reagan in 1980. And if the Bushes I and II have been a great disappointment, still much of the discussion in politics now turns on points and terms originally suggested by Goldwater.

As for Buchanan (and I was his state chairman in 1991-2, and active in his independent campaign in 2000---RK was his co-chairman in Michigan in 1992), his early stands against unfair trade, his criticisms of the globalist war policies of the GOP, and his clarion calls about illegal immigration have indeed had resonance---and I do not think we have seen the last of the confirmations of his Cassandra-like warnings. You may call him "fringe," if you like, and suggest he made no difference. Dr. Kirk, the prudential conservative, did NOT think so, and neither did or do I. We shall see what history holds in the future.

Finally, as for Dr. Paul, it simply remains to be seen. Frankly, I think you writing him off as "fringe" (which, if you will pardon me, appears the standard refrain of fossilized establishment "conservatives" who no longer have any connection with the earlier giants of the once-potent movement) is premature. And who knows what kind of influence he (and his campaign) will or may have on the thousands of young folks who support him?

As I said earlier, I am not a traditional libertarian, and the "fit" of old-line "paleo-conservatives" with Dr. Paul is not 100%, but, nevertheless, he represents a healthy tonic and a real choice for most of us and, in the end, a prudential choice to shake the establishment, to create much-needed discussion, and to hopefully shame the establishment types into re-examining what has and is going wrong.

If that, alone, is accomplished, then I think Dr. Kirk would have heartily approved, even enthusiastically.

[erowe1]

I've heard him mention him and Robert Taft in the same guise in a speech during the primaries. Sorry I can't find a you tube.

That doesn't necessarily mean much depending on what he said. I think RP was definitely the best choice for Kirk/Buckley/Reagan style conservatives in 2008, despite his differences with them. And there are a lot of Republican primary voters who fit that mold. So appealing to his commonality with Kirk, Buckley, and Reagan (all of whom I would call more fusionist conservatives than paleocons) would have made political sense for him in that context. But that doesn't mean he considers himself very close to them overall, or that he wasn't holding back other opinions he has about them that might not go over so well with Republican primary voters that you might hear him say in other contexts. Compare the way he highlighted his early alliance with Reagan during the 2008 primary with the way he has excoriated Reagan in other contexts to see what I mean.

[nate895]

Russell Kirk didn't like libertarianism (http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/upload/92505_1.pdf), and I now agree with many of his assessments. I think modern libertarianism has arisen from French enlightenment thinking, as opposed to British enlightenment. Of course, I am a throwback to before then even, but if I had to vote between being governed by British enlightenment thinkers (such as Burke) and continental thinkers, I'd pick British thinkers in a heartbeat.

[erowe1]

Russell Kirk's former assistant on Ron Paul:



Like I said, I definitely agree that RP was the best choice in 2008 for fusionist conservatives like Kirk, and certainly for paleoconservatives like this former assistant of Kirk's. But because RP's differences with everyone else in the GOP field were so enormous, that's not necessarily saying a lot. And those sentences you highlight tread a fine line between endorsing him and damning him with faint praise, which I think illustrates my point.

[BlackTerrel]

I've always had a soft spot for Russell Kirk:

You realize he was Catholic right? I thought you despised them people.

[erowe1]

Russell Kirk didn't like libertarianism (http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/upload/92505_1.pdf), and I now agree with many of his assessments. I think modern libertarianism has arisen from French enlightenment thinking, as opposed to British enlightenment. Of course, I am a throwback to before then even, but if I had to vote between being governed by British enlightenment thinkers (such as Burke) and continental thinkers, I'd pick British thinkers in a heartbeat.

Even though I don't call myself a libertarian, I think your charge implies that modern libertarianism is far more monolithic than it is. There are all kinds of modern libertarians with all kinds of intellectual roots. I also agree with you about British versus French thinking. But even within your distinction, anyone today whose thinking is in the mold of a Lord Acton, for example, will certainly be more easily classified a libertarian than a paleo-conservative, and will also certainly be more libertarian (relatively speaking) than Kirk was.

[TCE]

I guess I'm not seeing the key differences between Paleo-Cons and libertarians:

Both:

* Support individual liberties.
* Believe in non-interventionism.
* Are for Sound Money.
* Believe in National Sovereignty.
* Are against gigantic government.
* Are Constitutionalists.
* Believe in Personal Privacy.

Where are the key differences? And, even if there are some, it doesn't seem like it is worth a large disagreement over considering all of the overlap.

[nate895]

Even though I don't call myself a libertarian, I think your charge implies that modern libertarianism is far more monolithic than it is. There are all kinds of modern libertarians with all kinds of intellectual roots. I also agree with you about British versus French thinking. But even within your distinction, anyone today whose thinking is in the mold of a Lord Acton, for example, will certainly be more easily classified a libertarian than a paleo-conservative, and will also certainly be more libertarian (relatively speaking) than Kirk was.

A lot of people who are really "Classical Liberals" today define themselves as libertarians because of the convenience and an agreement on a broad array of issues. When I say "modern libertarian," I mean someone who is in the radical caucus of the LP, and those with heavy radical sympathies. The difference between real libertarians and "Classical Liberals" is not many political issues, but why they believe what they do as far as government goes. Modern libertarianism is not monolithic, you are right, but neither was French enlightenment thinking.

[Todd]

That doesn't necessarily mean much depending on what he said. I think RP was definitely the best choice for Kirk/Buckley/Reagan style conservatives in 2008, despite his differences with them. And there are a lot of Republican primary voters who fit that mold. So appealing to his commonality with Kirk, Buckley, and Reagan (all of whom I would call more fusionist conservatives than paleocons) would have made political sense for him in that context. But that doesn't mean he considers himself very close to them overall, or that he wasn't holding back other opinions he has about them that might not go over so well with Republican primary voters that you might hear him say in other contexts. Compare the way he highlighted his early alliance with Reagan during the 2008 primary with the way he has excoriated Reagan in other contexts to see what I mean.

Right. I don't mean that Paul looks to Kirk for his overall world view. ( think Kirk actually had some vitriol for some libertarians) but even in Paul's book - The Revolution a Manifeto - he has a whole chapter devoted to points on the non interventionist leanings of Republicans like Taft, and Kirk as inspiration that the Repub. parties history is not one of warmongering as it currently is today.

This made me think about some of the Paul campaign slim jims I still have. With Paul's picture next to Reagan. I would say he still has some respect for what they stood for (or said they stood for). You're right that is why he probably tied himself so closely to Reaganesque conservatism during the primary.

Simply agreeing with previous poster that Paul may have a soft spot for Kirk, probably because of what's been previously stated.

[Dunedain]

Russell Kirk didn't like libertarianism (http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/upload/92505_1.pdf), and I now agree with many of his assessments. I think modern libertarianism has arisen from French enlightenment thinking, as opposed to British enlightenment. Of course, I am a throwback to before then even, but if I had to vote between being governed by British enlightenment thinkers (such as Burke) and continental thinkers, I'd pick British thinkers in a heartbeat.

An excellent description of the differences between classical conservatism and libertarianism. We are, as Kirk mentioned, allied for a short time because we both have the same enemy...big government.

I second everyone should spend the 15 minutes it would take to read the above in quotes.

[Dieseler]

Here.

[lester1/2jr]

as someone who witnessed the horrors of takimag when commenters were allowed, I have to say I am definately NOT a paleocon. I like alot of the writers, but alot of their fans seem like just blatant out and out racists and even nazis in some cases

[Dunedain]

I guess I'm not seeing the key differences between Paleo-Cons and libertarians:

Both:

* Support individual liberties.
* Believe in non-interventionism.
* Are for Sound Money.
* Believe in National Sovereignty.
* Are against gigantic government.
* Are Constitutionalists.
* Believe in Personal Privacy.

Where are the key differences? And, even if there are some, it doesn't seem like it is worth a large disagreement over considering all of the overlap.


Extreme libertarianism doesn't believe in national sovereignty generally. And they hate all government. Paleos just hate the current government.

[Dunedain]

as someone who witnessed the horrors of takimag when commenters were allowed, I have to say I am definately NOT a paleocon. I like alot of the writers, but alot of their fans seem like just blatant out and out racists and even nazis in some cases

So...if nazis were fans of brushing their teeth, you wouldn't be? Who are these sensible writers whose message you believed in until you changed you thought better of it?

[AuH20]

Extreme libertarianism doesn't believe in national sovereignty generally. And they hate all government. Paleos just hate the current government.

Some Georgian type libertarians don't even recognize property rights.

[nate895]

Some Georgian type libertarians don't even recognize property rights.

I don't know what Georgian-Libertarians are, but that sounds more like Nihilism or anarcho-socialism.

[AuH20]

I don't know what Georgian-Libertarians are, but that sounds more like Nihilism or anarcho-socialism.

Actually, they're more respectable than the groups you cited. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

But I still take pause with some of their beliefs.

[Brian4Liberty]

- Christian or at least a belief that the church is an institution that provides social stability and is therefore positive. This last point probably would be the most contraversial but it is sound if you read books by Russell and Burke who are like the founding fathers of conservatism.


Yeah, that one is controversial. I would say that most are Christian, and at least subscribe to Christian ideals. At the same time, the fundamentalist Christian "culture war" is a newer development (and idea). It gets associated very closely with Paleos, as Pat Buchanan is considered a Paleo, and he was duped into making the famous culture war speech at the GOP convention by the Bushes (I believe it was GW personally). Pat has softened on the anti-gay rhetoric quite a bit since then. Heck, he pals around with Rachel Maddow... ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm a minarchist. I don't care whether the power is in the local or the federal government , as long as it is limited to protecting us from aggression , and protecting life , liberty, and property.

Lol! Yeah, limited State power is also a good thing!

[Brian4Liberty]

I guess I'm not seeing the key differences between Paleo-Cons and libertarians:

Both:

* Support individual liberties.
* Believe in non-interventionism.
* Are for Sound Money.
* Believe in National Sovereignty.
* Are against gigantic government.
* Are Constitutionalists.
* Believe in Personal Privacy.

Where are the key differences? And, even if there are some, it doesn't seem like it is worth a large disagreement over considering all of the overlap.

Do you consider anarcho-capitalists to be libertarians? The divide in the libertarian camp is between minarchists and ancaps. Paleos are very similar to minarchists.

[johnrocks]

I consider paleo cons and libertarians; libertarians of a more mainstream flavor; to be swimming in the same direction so to speak, we need to stay focused on the major issues, not get bogged down on things that aren't mainstream yet.

[TCE]

Extreme libertarianism doesn't believe in national sovereignty generally. And they hate all government. Paleos just hate the current government.

Right, but "extreme" translates to "a small number of libertarians." Meaning most libertarians actually believe in National Sovereignty and like some government.


Do you considered anarcho-capitalists to be libertarians? The divide in the libertarian camp is between minarchists and ancaps. Paleos are very similar to minarchists.

Yeah, they're the more radical ones. I guess I'm just not understanding some fundamental differences between your run-of-the-mill libertarian who believes in National Sovereignty and is a Minarchist vs. a Paleo-Con.

[lester1/2jr]

Dunedain - well, I think there's more to a movement than just it's column writers. some of the people that hung out there, and it was not discouraged by the editors there, were like serious white nationalist losers who hobby horsed their racist shit into every thread. it turned me off paleoconservatism.

that said, american conservative is way better than reason. alot of the beltway libertarians, they are just spineless and will shill for whoever pays them and basically I think everyone here regardless of what they call themselves would agree that lew rockwell makes them look very bad.

I'm not some politically correct nosebleed guy, I just have no desire to listen to alot of shit about interracial dating, various papal pronouncements, and culture war stuff from the 80's. I still like some of the paleocon author guys espeically pat buchanan and taki theadoracopoulus

[Brian4Liberty]

I guess I'm just not understanding some fundamental differences between your run-of-the-mill libertarian who believes in National Sovereignty and is a Minarchist vs. a Paleo-Con.

I am thinking it's the "family values/culture war" thing that separates them. And mostly that boils down to gays and abortion.

[TCE]

I am thinking it's the "family values/culture war" thing that separates them. And mostly that boils down to gays and abortion.

So, Paleo-Cons are against both while libertarians don't care either way?

[Dunedain]

Yeah, they're the more radical ones. I guess I'm just not understanding some fundamental differences between your run-of-the-mill libertarian who believes in National Sovereignty and is a Minarchist vs. a Paleo-Con.

These are good questions, as they've made me think. I would say it comes down to the social issues and emphasis on tradition and our non-government institutions.

Pcons are against gay-activism generally because homosexuality is not a venerable western institution. Libertarians believe in freedom to do whatever you want. Therefore, if it feels gay, do it.

Pcons are pro-family because they see the family as a fundamental building block of our civilization. Libs would be all for getting rid of the family if it became common-place to do so. Pcons want to protect marriage. Marriage is not even in the libertarian lexicon.

Pcons HATE being told "Happy Holidays" even if you are an aethist Pcon. We've said "Merry Christmas" for generations damnit. Libs don't care because people should be able to say whatever they want to say.

Pcons ask - what has worked in the past? What does tradition say? What would are founding fathers say?

Libs ask - what does the marketplace of ideas accept? Who owns the land underneath the place of contention? What does the freemarket say?

[TCE]

These are good questions, as they've made me think. I would say it comes down to the social issues and emphasis on tradition and our non-government institutions.

Pcons are against gay-activism generally because homosexuality is not a venerable western institution. Libertarians believe in freedom to do whatever you want. Therefore, if it feels gay, do it.

Pcons are pro-family because they see the family as a fundamental building block of our civilization. Libs would be all for getting rid of the family if it became common-place to do so. Pcons want to protect marriage. Marriage is not even in the libertarian lexicon.

Pcons ask - what has worked in the past? What does tradition say? What would are founding fathers say.

Libs ask - what does the marketplace of ideas accept? Who owns the land underneath the place of contention? What does the freemarket say?

Makes sense, thank you.

[Brian4Liberty]

So, Paleo-Cons are against both while libertarians don't care either way?

Kind of. And also whether government/laws should take a position on them at all. A Paleo might tend to want to legislate those things (and that can be a reaction to others wanting to legislate them in the first place).

[Dunedain]

And most importantly, Libertarians collectively think that you shouldn't think collectively.

sorry, couldn't resist....:D

[paulitics]

I'm pretty much a Ron Paul "clone" when it comes to politics,lol. I've been labeled a "staunch conservative", a "Goldwater Conservative" and a kook depending on the forum I am on, heck, I've even been called a "cut and run libtard" a few times, I wear my wounds like a badge of honor:cool:

Seriously though, I don't care much for labels anymore, they've become so bastardized.

Same here, although I am slighly to the left of Ron Paul, which would make me a liberal to some people on the right. But, if I were to post on dailykos they would think I was a KKK member who hates gays, children and the elderly, but has a soft spot for greedy oil companies.

It's pretty cut and dry. I am for small government period. I wish we could be labeled that way. I would just call myself a 10 percenter. I want federal government to be about 10% of what it is right now, and all of it designated to the defense of liberty. State government I have a higher tolerance for, because competition amongst states would keep alot safeguards within.

[Dunedain]

Dunedain - well, I think there's more to a movement than just it's column writers. some of the people that hung out there, and it was not discouraged by the editors there, were like serious white nationalist losers who hobby horsed their racist shit into every thread. it turned me off paleoconservatism.

that said, american conservative is way better than reason. alot of the beltway libertarians, they are just spineless and will shill for whoever pays them and basically I think everyone here regardless of what they call themselves would agree that lew rockwell makes them look very bad.

I'm not some politically correct nosebleed guy, I just have no desire to listen to alot of shit about interracial dating, various papal pronouncements, and culture war stuff from the 80's. I still like some of the paleocon author guys espeically pat buchanan and taki theadoracopoulus

Believe whatever is best for you, your family, and your nation in that order. Everything else is irrelavent especially the opinions of others.

[randolphfuller]

paleoconservatives have no use for personal privacy, in fact they hate it. All Supreme Court decisions on this topic have evokd a venomous response from conservatives, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, the Georgia case allowing the private possession of pornography, and on and on. Judge Bork failed of confirmation in the Senate because he referred to it as an inkblot. All true paleoconservatives have a phobic hatred of personal privacy.

[Athan]

I've been paleo-conservative ever since falling in love with Liberty's Kids back when I was out of high school.

Before that I was simply an independent disgusted with both parties. So I've been awesome for a VERY long time and at a very young age.

[GunnyFreedom]

Constitutionalist, full-stop. everything else is incidental to the central point. This puts me AWFUL close to the paleocons, but somewhere in-between paleocon and libertarian, I think.

[Dunedain]

paleoconservatives have no use for personal privacy, in fact they hate it. All Supreme Court decisions on this topic have evokd a venomous response from conservatives, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, the Georgia case allowing the private possession of pornography, and on and on. Judge Bork failed of confirmation in the Senate because he referred to it as an inkblot. All true paleoconservatives have a phobic hatred of personal privacy.

There is a big difference from Sean Hannity conservatives and Paleoconservatives. Actually, they agree on very little and are on opposite sides of most of the issues.

I've yet to meet a Paleocon that will say they support government warrantless wiretips, the Patriot Act or other government spying.

[Dieseler]

I used to love my personal privacy.
Wish I could get it back.

[GunnyFreedom]

There is a big difference from Sean Hannity conservatives and Paleoconservatives. Actually, they agree on very little and are on opposite sides of most of the issues.

I've yet to meet a Paleocon that will say they support government warrantless wiretips, the Patriot Act or other government spying.

And, if I'm not mistaken, the opposition to both Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas have everything to do with the 10th Amendment, and nothing whatsoever to do with privacy.

OK, I know I'm not mistaken, I was just trying to be less venomous than randolphfuller was. RP people should be above the mischaracterization of others viewpoints, that is something the M$M, Neocons, and Neolibs do to characterize us as "kooks."

If someone has a point of disagreement, then they should address the actual philosophical structure at odds rather than just making crap up because it is easier to refute.

The Paleocon opposition to the decisions in both Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas have nothing to do with a "hatred of privacy," but rather a commitment to the principle of the 10th Amendment. The US Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to take any kind of stand whatsoever regarding abortion, and the Constitution must be violated in order for SCOTUS to rule as it did.

If you want the US Government to legally take a stand protecting abortion, then you would need a Constitutional amendment.

From a Constitutionalist standpoint, the question of pornography WRT Lawrence v. Texas is less clear. The 1st Amendment guarantees a right to the freedom of expression, and so long as all parties involved are consenting adults then there would seem to be a Federal interest in protecting this right.

I would be interested in hearing why a Paleocon objects to the court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, but as a Constitutionalist I have to side with the court. In what way does the object at question in Lawrence v. Texas not fall under protected speech?

[LibertyEagle]

Last time I knew, Paleocons were constitutionalists too, before in fact that term ever became popular.

[GunnyFreedom]

Last time I knew, Paleocons were constitutionalists too, before in fact that term ever became popular.

No constitutionalist could ever support a legislative definition of marriage, or the war on drugs, for instance. Legislating morality at the Federal level is altogether unconstitutional, but I have met self-described paleocons who think there is a place for the practice. I know that many paleocons oppose the WOD, but a lot do not.

I agree, that for the most part, for many many decades the paleocons were the closest thing we had to constitutionalists. As I said in my post, this puts me VERY close to the paleocons; but if something seems critically important enough, they would be willing to address it without authorization.

Me, I say if it comes down to the life or death of the nation and you need to do something or the nation dies, then amend the Constitution to authorize it. If it is REALLY that important, then you could get the Constitution amended in short order. If you can't amend the Constitution, then it must not have really been that important.

My simple answer: If the Constitution does not specifically authorize it, you cant do it. Period. Full stop. If you think there is a need to do something at the Federal level that the Constitution does not explicitly authorize, you can always amend the Constitution.

[Old Ducker]

I don't believe I can be categorized, nor do I apply any labels to myself except in convienience (I use Libertarian). There is just no ideology that I can plant my freak flag into and say "I'm home." I do consider Paleocons natural allies and would have few problems living under their regime. I'm also a big fan of Pat Buchanan; I follow his columns and have read most of his books. Occasionally he pisses me off, but I find myself cheering far more often.

[youngbuck]

If not libertarian, I'd call myself a paleo-con.

[AuH20]

Russell Kirk didn't like libertarianism (http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/upload/92505_1.pdf), and I now agree with many of his assessments. I think modern libertarianism has arisen from French enlightenment thinking, as opposed to British enlightenment. Of course, I am a throwback to before then even, but if I had to vote between being governed by British enlightenment thinkers (such as Burke) and continental thinkers, I'd pick British thinkers in a heartbeat.

Kirk described libertarians as almost "future paleoconservatives meandering through an embryonic stage of development." They're constantly clamoring about this abstract term 'liberty' while ignoring it's dependence on order and moral certitude. Liberty is a man made construct, that derives itself from the strength of the community. Liberty, as we currently know it, does not exist within the jungle.

[LibertyEagle]

Whoa there, Gunny. Not all Paleocons are the same. :)

[GunnyFreedom]

Whoa there, Gunny. Not all Paleocons are the same. :)

Correct. nor did I imply that they were. :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Some of you so-called Paleocons who believe our founders were your Burkean type should actually read history more in-depth. You can read their own works, letters, and writings. You can also read Murray Rothbard's - Conceived in Liberty.

Our Founders were libertarian, and were very radical classical liberals of their day. Most were from the Lockean perspective, which is vastly presupposed to libertarianism. Many call Rothbard a Super-Lockean. It's funny, our Founders were liberals, who vaunted progress in the name of liberty, natural law, private property, etc. instead of entrenched tradition. I think Paleo's are stuck in the past. Traditions themselves are not something to be coveted. Indeed, most traditions, are antithetical to liberty.

If you want a succinct difference. Libertarians want to maximize liberty as our highest end goal, and those of us An-Caps are for 100% liberty, whereas Paleo's want to manage, control, and corral society into a stagnant pool of ideas, culture, and in essence prevent all progress. They deny the right of the individual to live how he or she sees fit. They deny trends in society that move in opposition to their cultural beliefs. This is why Paleos do not like Libertarians. Libertarians take the works of the Classical Liberals to their logical conclusions. People like Turgot, Say, Jefferson, Locke, Paine, Kant, etc.

Paleo's generally are protectionists, do not favor private property to its definitive ends (For example, those living on the imaginery boundries of the State do not have any property rights and cannot allow who they wish onto their own property, etc.), like to legislate morality (Cultural tradition), etc. They say they are for religious tolerance, yet then go on to say we are a Christian Nation therefore it is perfectly acceptable to create laws in accord with Christianity, if not on the Federal level, at least on the State level. Some call themselves Constitutionalists, yet, say they are for liberty, but yet are perfectly ok with tyranny on the local level.

Libertarians are logically through reason very sound. Paleo's and most other ideologies are inconsistent, illogical, and harmful to liberty. If Paleo's were thrown back to the 18th Century they would most likely be tories, whereas libertarians would be the radical classical liberals of the day, or even more individualistic anarchists like Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker -- the precursors to Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism.

While I do not see Paleo's as an enemy at this time, there will be a time, and not too far along the train when we will meet on the battlefield of ideas as mortal enemies. Especially in the realm of economics and liberty. Generally, Paleos and most other ideologies favor the use of violence to subjugate people, through the misguided notion of necessity to use violence to enable liberty. We call this the Hobbesian Myth.

In essence, most Paleo's are...in the easiest labelling of terms social conservatives and somewhat liberal on economics. They have yet to realize, like Jefferson and many of the radical classical liberals that economic and personal liberty are tied together, and when you have tyranny in one, you will ultimately have tyranny in the other. See for instance, the war on drugs.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Kirk described libertarians as almost "future paleoconservatives meandering through an embryonic stage of development." They're constantly clamoring about this abstract term 'liberty' while ignoring it's dependence on order and moral certitude. Liberty is a man made construct, that derives itself from the strength of the community. Liberty, as we currently know it, does not exist within the jungle.

And yet, Paleocons believe the notion that only liberty can be obtained through coercive violence, and yet not believing that the very essence of the State attracts those who most of us would want far away from any seat of power. Order, more accurately conveyed as LAW, can be wholly private, and indeed is in many instances (See: Contract). For a more in-depth scenario with regards to Private Law, see Hoppes: Private Law Society on YT.

libertarians, are not that close to Paleo's. We staunchly believe in NAP, Natural Law, Economic liberalism (Austrian Econ. wholly free-market, free-trade, etc.), etc. We believe in ultimate morality that coercive violence in any regard is inherently criminal, and the State does not possess any more rights than an individual. A group of individuals cannot give to the State a right they do not possess.

What I think Paleos and most everyone else get stuck on, and what Rothbard succintly put:


The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State. -- Murray N. Rothbard

But, for Paleos one must have this coercive violent force to reign in their version of what society should be like. This is tyranny, is it not?

[Dunedain]

I agree with much of what you have said. I'll comment only on a couple.


Paleo's want to manage, control, and corral society into a stagnant pool of ideas, culture, and in essence prevent all progress. They deny the right of the individual to live how he or she sees fit. They deny trends in society that move in opposition to their cultural beliefs.


I would summarize the above to say Paleo's will defend the ideas that made their civilization strong. If something is working well (like the family) why throw it in the trash can? Is mass adoption of children by gay couples over straight couples "progress"? Some would risk to say "yes" but it's never given us any benefit or worked out before (i.e. no tradition of gay families in any race or other species). What is the benefit to try it, and who gets hurt if the "progression" doesn't work out? In this way tradition is also part of natural law. There is a reason a tradition was founded. Like a well worn path, you know it will take you somewhere useful.

I've also found that most people's dislike of Paleo-conservatism is loosely related to their hatred of Jesus Christ, or the Church or something to do with Christiandom. I find that reason to rather unusual. If you don't believe, don't believe. But don't believe the church isn't a useful institution. It used to be how all the poor and sick were cared for. Now we have the Obama and other wonderful government officials putting lazy people on the public dole and the church is just another entity that is victimized by the government.

Once again all cultures that are successful or have been successful have a being of divine importance at the center of their belief system. I can't think of any exceptions except our present experiment. And an atheist society just isn't going to work because it's never ever worked before and the people haven't changed.



While I do not see Paleo's as an enemy at this time, there will be a time, and not too far along the train when we will meet on the battlefield of ideas as mortal enemies. Especially in the realm of economics and liberty. Generally, Paleos and most other ideologies favor the use of violence to subjugate people, through the misguided notion of necessity to use violence to enable liberty. We call this the Hobbesian Myth.


It is to bad you consider people that believe in tradition and follow a religion as your mortal enemy. Maybe if you got to know some of us a little better you'd realize were just trying to survive in the world that same as you.

[Brett]

I'm closer to Paleo-Libertarian, but Paleo-Con here...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No constitutionalist could ever support a legislative definition of marriage, or the war on drugs, for instance. Legislating morality at the Federal level is altogether unconstitutional, but I have met self-described paleocons who think there is a place for the practice. I know that many paleocons oppose the WOD, but a lot do not.

I agree, that for the most part, for many many decades the paleocons were the closest thing we had to constitutionalists. As I said in my post, this puts me VERY close to the paleocons; but if something seems critically important enough, they would be willing to address it without authorization.

Me, I say if it comes down to the life or death of the nation and you need to do something or the nation dies, then amend the Constitution to authorize it. If it is REALLY that important, then you could get the Constitution amended in short order. If you can't amend the Constitution, then it must not have really been that important.

My simple answer: If the Constitution does not specifically authorize it, you cant do it. Period. Full stop. If you think there is a need to do something at the Federal level that the Constitution does not explicitly authorize, you can always amend the Constitution.

The Constitution is not infallible. Indeed many would argue especially most of us who sympathize with the Anti-Federalists, that the Constitution itself is an enabler of the tyranny we currently have. It established these offices of power, established the notion that the Federal Government supercedes the States in various ways (Think of it in terms of pre and post Unification of Germany. Pre-unification and the decentralization of the States led to a vastly better region), and allowed for monopolistic enterprise over the economy. Many here, believe that if we are to have a Minarchist society, that it would be vastly more preferrable to have the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution, especially since the Constitution gives a vast increase of power on the Federal Level.

One thing that always irked me with Constitutionalists is their at least if not complacent view, but overt view that tyranny on local levels is perfectly acceptable. Local being state.

Constitutionalists are a mixed bunch in regards to principles. I think they are far too nationalistic for my taste, but then again, perhaps if you handed them Nozick's Anarchy, State, Utopia and some Lysander Spooner perhaps they would be better equipped to argue for a minarchist society on principled grounds. I consider Gunny a great ally, but we do have very different tastes in regards to the totality of the State.

[Dunedain]

But, for Paleos one must have this coercive violent force to reign in their version of what society should be like. This is tyranny, is it not?

That is a great question. Let me share my New World Order with you.

There is room for more than one ideology on the planet. As like flocks together with like I believe we'll find more and more people migrating to where others are like themselves both ideologically and ethnically. Natural law pushes together those with common religious beliefs, common ethnic heritage and common political beliefs.

Think of homosexuals in San Francisco, and Christians in the bible belt. Expand that to include Paleos in New Hamshire, mestizos in Arizona, whites in North Dakota, blacks in Detroit, a multicultural hell hole at the center of every major city. A balkanized world is what we are looking at some day as soon as the federal government is out of our hair and stops pushing us all together to fight at each others throats. We will stake out our own territory like what happened in Russia when the U.S.S.R regime fell. Natural law.

There would be no reason to live under tyranny if you could leave and go somewhere else. Natural law. The strong societies will attract the best and become stronger.

Of course, there will be people that will say, "People can't choose to live among people like themselves. That's evil"/ Those are the real tyrants, not Paleos.

[The Deacon]

I'm sticking with just plain "conservative", no matter how many radical Republicans try to subvert it.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm sticking with just plain "conservative", no matter how many radical Republicans try to subvert it.

lol

I hear ya. :)

[Dunedain]

I'm sticking with just plain "conservative", no matter how many radical Republicans try to subvert it.

At some point "conservative" will be the same as "KKK" or "nazi". We'll probably be calling ourselves "neo-progressive-conservatives" by then.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I agree with much of what you have said. I'll comment only on a couple.



I would summarize the above to say Paleo's will defend the ideas that made their civilization strong. If something is working well (like the family) why throw it in the trash can? Is mass adoption of children by gay couples over straight couples "progress"? Some would risk to say "yes" but it's never given us any benefit or worked out before (i.e. no tradition of gay families in any race or other species). What is the benefit to try it, and who gets hurt if the "progression" doesn't work out? In this way tradition is also part of natural law. There is a reason a tradition was founded. Like a well worn path, you know it will take you somewhere useful.

I've also found that most people's dislike of Paleo-conservatism is loosely related to their hatred of Jesus Christ, or the Church or something to do with Christiandom. I find that reason to rather unusual. If you don't believe, don't believe. But don't believe the church isn't a useful institution. It used to be how all the poor and sick were cared for. Now we have the Obama and other wonderful government officials putting lazy people on the public dole and the church is just another entity that is victimized by the government.

Once again all cultures that are successful or have been successful have a being of divine importance at the center of their belief system. I can't think of any exceptions except our present experiment. And an atheist society just isn't going to work because it's never ever worked before and the people haven't changed.



It is to bad you consider people that believe in tradition and follow a religion as your mortal enemy. Maybe if you got to know some of us a little better you'd realize were just trying to survive in the world that same as you.

No I don't consider people that believe in tradition, or follow religion by itself as my mortal enemy, but Paleo's seek to use the above to force others into those beliefs, through the State. For instance, marriage, adaption, etc.

Private institutions should be able to behave and lay out contracts in whatever way they so desire, as they are sole sovereign arbitrators of their property, as long as what they are doing does not harm someone else, or someone elses property. In this regard, the State should have no part whatsoever in the contract of marriage.

No one is advocating to throw marriage in the trash, I am advocating that society will use whatever works the best without any coercive violent force (The State). If Marriage and the nuclear family happen to be that, then that is what will come to fruition. If it indeed is not the best way to advance, then something better will replace it. I however, doubt something would ever replace the nuclear family as the most beneficial.

I think you are confused. Libertarians don't really care what you do, or what I do, or what anyone else does as long as you do not inflict harm or impede on someone elses liberty. So, if people want to have nuclear families, by all means go ahead! If a gay couple wants to adapt a child, and the parents or parent of said child wants them to adapt the child then so be it! That's called private contract, and is consensual and is called liberty. The State or you, or anyone has NO right to tell two people what they can or cannot do in their own contracts.

Tradition is not apart of Natural Law. All natural law is, is self-ownership. It is the Lockean approach and Rothbardian approach to everything we believe in. From Natural Law flows private property, and all other rights. These rights are in many cases antithetical to tradition. For instance, slavery was once tradition. Monarchy was once tradition. Tyranny was once tradition. Feudalism was once tradition. The Church inquisitions and murder was once tradition. Tradition itself is not something that should be enforced, especially when it contradicts with liberty.

You see the Church as a benevolent institution, however in factuality the Church is an insipid tyrannous institution. Look at the debate on "marriage". How is that not tyranny? Why can two people not be able to enter into any contract they want? The problem....marriage is a State institution now. And you defend it on tradition when clearly the tradition is inherently tyrannous. I would also argue that many NPO (Non-Profit (Charitable) Orgs.), are more inline with Christs teachings than the Church. The Church runs profits, vast profits. They do, do a lot of charitable work, which I applaud, but one good deed does not undo a tyrannous deed or many deeds. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with profits, and they are necessary and rightful liberties to every one of us, however, when you are supposed to follow Christ teaching making money from people trying to help others isn't exactly Christ-like.

My dislike of Paleo-Conservatism lies in its inherent tyrannous nature.

[ChaosControl]

It is probably the closest fit to my ideology.

I don't think libertarian fits me since I think states rights are a good thing in that different states should have different laws for people who want different environments. This can include different laws both on social and economic issues and I think that is better than one set for everyone. Also I am more of a traditionalist than libertarians would be.

I differ from paleoconservatives a bit on immigration probably, I'm more pro-immigration. I don't know paleoconservative views on corporations, but I am somewhat anti-corporation so I may differ from them there too. Otherwise I think its pretty close.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That is a great question. Let me share my New World Order with you.

There is room for more than one ideology on the planet. As like flocks together with like I believe we'll find more and more people migrating to where others are like themselves both ideologically and ethnically. Natural law pushes together those with common religious beliefs, common ethnic heritage and common political beliefs.

Think of homosexuals in San Francisco, and Christians in the bible belt. Expand that to include Paleos in New Hamshire, mestizos in Arizona, whites in North Dakota, blacks in Detroit, a multicultural hell hole at the center of every major city. A balkanized world is what we are looking at some day as soon as the federal government is out of our hair and stops pushing us all together to fight at each others throats. We will stake out our own territory like what happened in Russia when the U.S.S.R regime fell. Natural law.

There would be no reason to live under tyranny if you could leave and go somewhere else. Natural law. The strong societies will attract the best and become stronger.

Of course, there will be people that will say, "People can't choose to live among people like themselves. That's evil"/ Those are the real tyrants, not Paleos.

You are advocating for locality de-centralization. This, is once again, not inherently unlibertarian. If people want to leave, or stay, or abide by whatever contractual faculty you have in your community then that is perfectly fine. However, paleo's are nationalists and are not advocating for the secession of all 50 states, or even communities within States. This is not the Paleo position, this is the libertarian position or more importantly the anarchic/voluntaryists-libertarian position.

I generally believe as you do, as per Hoppe's de-centralization theories. Like people will always congregrate with like people. When forced into "multi-cultural" communities tensions always arise, for good reason. However, you are vastly under-estimating what you are proposing and overgeneralizing. Do you believe in democracy? That is, if a majority of the population believes in such and such then such and such should be law? It would seem so through your generalization of geographical areas. For instance, I should not be under the law of the Bible belt if I did not explicitly sign a consensual contract agreeing to such terms or laws. Same as with San Francisco. I own my own property and can do with it what I want, as long as it does not harm another, or if the contractual stipulations that went along with purchasing said property did not make me fall under the local laws of whatever community. That is Natural Law--- Self-Ownership.

I however, would wager to say you disagree, and that majority beliefs can overule minority (Natural Law rights) rights. As you seem to have no problem forcing those in the Bible belt under christian-esque law. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting.

There would indeed be no tyranny if we lived in a VOLUNTARY society. Something tells me though, that Paleos are not voluntaryists! :D

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It is probably the closest fit to my ideology.

I don't think libertarian fits me since I think states rights are a good thing in that different states should have different laws for people who want different environments. This can include different laws both on social and economic issues and I think that is better than one set for everyone. Also I am more of a traditionalist than libertarians would be.

I differ from paleoconservatives a bit on immigration probably, I'm more pro-immigration. I don't know paleoconservative views on corporations, but I am somewhat anti-corporation so I may differ from them there too. Otherwise I think its pretty close.

I'm curious, what do you believe is the libertarian position on societal culture? I can sum it up for you in two words though: liberty & contractual.

Do you believe in private property? Truely, literally, private property?

[The Deacon]

Of course some paleo-conservatives differ from us quite a bit. I came across this today:

Can a Capitalist Be A Conservative? (http://www.amconmag.com/postright/2009/12/05/can-a-capitalist-be-a-conservative/)

This paleo-conservative author has made other posts claiming that you can't oppose the wars and favor capitalism. If that's indicative at all of the general "paleocon" camp then I'm not anywhere near it really.

[AuH20]

And yet, Paleocons believe the notion that only liberty can be obtained through coercive violence, and yet not believing that the very essence of the State attracts those who most of us would want far away from any seat of power. Order, more accurately conveyed as LAW, can be wholly private, and indeed is in many instances (See: Contract). For a more in-depth scenario with regards to Private Law, see Hoppes: Private Law Society on YT.

libertarians, are not that close to Paleo's. We staunchly believe in NAP, Natural Law, Economic liberalism (Austrian Econ. wholly free-market, free-trade, etc.), etc. We believe in ultimate morality that coercive violence in any regard is inherently criminal, and the State does not possess any more rights than an individual. A group of individuals cannot give to the State a right they do not possess.

What I think Paleos and most everyone else get stuck on, and what Rothbard succintly put:


The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State. -- Murray N. Rothbard

But, for Paleos one must have this coercive violent force to reign in their version of what society should be like. This is tyranny, is it not?

Paleos are libertarians mugged by reality, so to speak. Some of these seemingly robust ideals harbored by libertarians become folly when taken off the page and are actually applied. However, I respect most libertarian positions, except for those that I deem to be counterproductive.

Take for example the quandary of the free market. In the current economic climate, the free market does not exist. Some paleos will not succumb to a mythical free market that is not in operation. Union pensions are backed by the government and we call that the free market? Competitive wages abroad in third world locales are intentionally suppressed by international chicanery. Free market?

While I'm an advocate for the theoretical application of the free market, I'm consciously aware of the burdensome economic model we've been subjected to. In some cases with unfettered immigration or a calculated market subversion by a foreign power, to endorse the so-called free market would be the equivalent to national suicide.

[ChaosControl]

Our Founders were libertarian, and were very radical classical liberals of their day. Most were from the Lockean perspective, which is vastly presupposed to libertarianism. Many call Rothbard a Super-Lockean. It's funny, our Founders were liberals, who vaunted progress in the name of liberty, natural law, private property, etc. instead of entrenched tradition. I think Paleo's are stuck in the past. Traditions themselves are not something to be coveted. Indeed, most traditions, are antithetical to liberty.

The agrarianism that Jefferson was fond of is in many ways tied to paleoconservatism. It maintained more power in the rural areas, it recognized the farmer and the family as important. The culture and values rise from there. When we shifted to the industrialized urban areas, all things began to fall apart.

Traditionalism does not mean "stuck in the past", it doesn't mean one oppose progress. Similarly "progressivism" has little to nothing to do with actual progress.

Traditions are something to be cherished. They are a summary of the culture of past generations. Instead of blindly rejecting them and pursuing hedonistic cavemen behavior which is the true living in the past regressivism, one needs to take the good of the past and learn from it and then add to it which will result in the best of the present and the best potential future. So many seem to have some irrational hatred or phobia of tradition. Tradition is in no way anti-liberty.

There are, yes, some people who would like to just revert to another time and live there, they want to throw away the little progress that has been made. One can be, however, a traditionalist and still recognize the areas we have improved. We should take the best of both worlds instead of foolishly rejecting either.

[AuH20]

Traditionalism does not mean "stuck in the past", it doesn't mean one oppose progress. Similarly "progressivism" has little to nothing to do with actual progress.



You touched on Kirk's Tenth Principle:


Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

[angelatc]

Of course some paleo-conservatives differ from us quite a bit. I came across this today:

Can a Capitalist Be A Conservative? (http://www.amconmag.com/postright/2009/12/05/can-a-capitalist-be-a-conservative/)

This paleo-conservative author has made other posts claiming that you can't oppose the wars and favor capitalism. If that's indicative at all of the general "paleocon" camp then I'm not anywhere near it really.

He's not a paleo-con. He's their resident center-left pot-stirrer.

[ChaosControl]

I'm curious, what do you believe is the libertarian position on societal culture? I can sum it up for you in two words though: liberty & contractual.

Do you believe in private property? Truely, literally, private property?

Well I think the libertarian position is good, for some places. I'm big on decentralized government. I'm actually not as big of a fan of the constitution as some because I think it centralized government too much, so I don't really refer to myself as a constitutionalist these days.

I think it is fine for in some areas for society to set norms that they want to be abided by. Everyone has the right for there to exist a society that fits their values to a degree, I think. So I think it is fine for them to establish codes and laws that reflect those values. With states, or even county rights, one can then choose a place of residence that reflects their values.

If libertarianism has full control, you could not have these as some areas would be considered anti-liberty. Like one town may have a no alcohol rule, another may say no premartial sex, whatever. It may seem like authoritarianism to some, but that is why it should never be applied on a national level and people should be free to find an area that fits them.

I may want a society that is fond of tradition, very pro-family, very values oriented. But in a libertarian world, no place is really guaranteed that as people could do as they feel as long as they didn't hurt anyone. Why should I be rejected that right? Why not allow a place to be like that and the people who like it can move there and people who dont can go elsewhere?

I believe in private property, yes. I don't know about "absolute". Like just because you own your land doesn't mean you can kill someone on it and be okay since it was on your land, or you can't store nuclear waste on it. Basically property rights within reason, same idea with free speech where you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and such. Regarding property, I strongly oppose property taxes since I think they show that we merely lease land from the government rather than own it.

[ChaosControl]

You touched on Kirk's Tenth Principle:
That sounds about right, sounds like I'd get along with his views.

[nbhadja]

I agree with much of what you have said. I'll comment only on a couple.



I would summarize the above to say Paleo's will defend the ideas that made their civilization strong. If something is working well (like the family) why throw it in the trash can? Is mass adoption of children by gay couples over straight couples "progress"? Some would risk to say "yes" but it's never given us any benefit or worked out before (i.e. no tradition of gay families in any race or other species). What is the benefit to try it, and who gets hurt if the "progression" doesn't work out? In this way tradition is also part of natural law. There is a reason a tradition was founded. Like a well worn path, you know it will take you somewhere useful.

I've also found that most people's dislike of Paleo-conservatism is loosely related to their hatred of Jesus Christ, or the Church or something to do with Christiandom. I find that reason to rather unusual. If you don't believe, don't believe. But don't believe the church isn't a useful institution. It used to be how all the poor and sick were cared for. Now we have the Obama and other wonderful government officials putting lazy people on the public dole and the church is just another entity that is victimized by the government.

Once again all cultures that are successful or have been successful have a being of divine importance at the center of their belief system. I can't think of any exceptions except our present experiment. And an atheist society just isn't going to work because it's never ever worked before and the people haven't changed.



It is to bad you consider people that believe in tradition and follow a religion as your mortal enemy. Maybe if you got to know some of us a little better you'd realize were just trying to survive in the world that same as you.

I am sorry but that is BS. Atheism existed before religion was created.


But anyways denying someones freedom is terrible period.

I don't care if paleos think drugs or prostitution etc are bad, if they want to keep them illegal then they do not fully understand freedom and are intolerant to other people's beliefs.

It has been proven over and over than giving the government even just an ounce of control over our personal lives will just result in an avalanche of government growth.

[AuH20]

Another point to be made about the paleoconservative perspective. Paleos generally view this republic as a sanctuary that should be fiercely defended as opposed to some libertarians who view it as a beacon of freedom for the entire world. Given what transpired to the Mayans and Romans, thanks to mindless self-worship and overindulgence, it's quite easy to understand how fragile this civilization is. Libertarians don't strike me as humbled by the natural world as paleoconservatives generally are.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You touched on Kirk's Tenth Principle:

You do know that the Classical Liberals which you so love were radicals right? That they had a revolution against thousands of years of tradition via Monarchical structure? Correct? Right? How do you reconcile this belief? That you believe that the epitome of everything there is, is within the ideals of Classical Liberalism? Do you not then, acknowledge the illogical conclusions brought forth from Classical Liberalism? Would then, not progress be to reform and follow through to the logical conclusion? That logical conclusion being Anarcho-Capitalism?

Why do you deny the reform that must take place? Indeed, it seems like you are not listening to Kirk, then. What is our tradition? Liberty? Private Property? Well, if so, then why do you defend an arbitrary power that subverts and destroys private property? Why do Paleo's defend imaginery borders, strict rules and regulations on private property, and a staunch lawful adherence to moral platitudes supposedly founded on Christianity? Indeed, the radicals are the fundamentalists who seek to impose biblical law and morality via force and gunpoint. They are in direct contradiction of the tradition of Jefferson and near-ultimate liberty. What about George Mason? The Anti-Federalists?

So, you see, the Anarcho-Capitalist is following in the tradition of the Classical Liberal. Paleo's definitely are not.

You should definitely read Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty.

http://www.amazon.com/Conceived-Liberty-Set-Murray-Rothbard/dp/0945466269/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260503977&sr=8-1
http://mises.org/store/Conceived-in-Liberty--P96C18.aspx

[Mini-Me]

It is to bad you consider people that believe in tradition and follow a religion as your mortal enemy. Maybe if you got to know some of us a little better you'd realize were just trying to survive in the world that same as you.

I can't actually speak for Austrian Econ Disciple, but I think you're misinterpreting what he means here. I wanted to remark on this because your comment made me a little sad on the inside. ;) It's not that people who believe in tradition and follow religion are mortal enemies of libertarians; far from it. Heck, plenty of libertarians personally believe in and follow both as well. Rather, the paleocons who may someday become enemies of libertarians are the ones who would use the coercive power of the state to force their particular tradition and religion on other people who wish to freely choose different paths. It is not tradition or religion in general which is anathema to libertarians; it is force.

[Pericles]

Russell Kirk didn't like libertarianism (http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/upload/92505_1.pdf), and I now agree with many of his assessments. I think modern libertarianism has arisen from French enlightenment thinking, as opposed to British enlightenment. Of course, I am a throwback to before then even, but if I had to vote between being governed by British enlightenment thinkers (such as Burke) and continental thinkers, I'd pick British thinkers in a heartbeat.

I agree, there seems to be a good deal of Rousseau in the vision of no government libertarians, so you can add me to this list.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I can't actually speak for Austrian Econ Disciple, but I think you're misinterpreting what he means here. I wanted to remark on this because your comment made me a little sad on the inside. ;) It's not that people who believe in tradition and follow religion are mortal enemies of libertarians; far from it. Heck, plenty of libertarians personally believe in and follow both as well. Rather, the paleocons who may someday become enemies of libertarians are the ones who would use the coercive power of the state to force their particular tradition and religion on other people who wish to freely choose different paths. It is not tradition or religion in general which is anathema to libertarians; it is force.

Correct.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I agree, there seems to be a good deal of Rousseau in the vision of no government libertarians, so you can add me to this list.

A pertinent I believe assessment of Conceived in Liberty, a book every American should read.


Murray Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" set is a brilliant history of the American experience. Rothbard chronicles the events that make up America. He starts in volume one by carefully outlining and detailing the founding of the British colonies in North America from Jamestown to the Glorious Revolution in Britian. Rothbard masterfully points out how the wide open and easy availablity of land enabled the colonists to become a new kind of man- a man of freedom and independence. The colonists did suffer under tyranny during this period, from Puritan Massachusetts with it's theocracy to the tyranny of the corporation that ran the Virginia colony, Rothbard lays out a complete history of the colonial founding.

In volume two it is shown how the "salutary neglect" of the British government allowed the colonies to develop not only independent trade, but their own self government. During this period the colonies were virtually self governing due to a combination of the wars Britian fought in Europe and the ruling British elites' contempt for the colonists. The colonists developed a sense of not only being "Englishmen", but citizens of their own colonies. Also a nascent American nationalism began to develop along with a contempt for the corruption in Britian and it's aristocracy.

Volume three is, in my humble opnion, the very best of the four volumes. It is in this volume in which Rothbard shows the radicalism as the real American Revolution began with the Stamp Act in 1764 and culminating in the Declaration of Independence. Because of this, I believe this to be the most important volume.
Rothbard begins by showing the colonial opposition to the centralizing tendancies of the British government. First, the outrage against the Stamp Act which the colonists saw as unconstitutional and passed to "enslave" them. Next, we have the Townshend duties which the colonists, led by such radical patriots like Samuel Adams, saw as unconstitutionally regulating their trade. These unconstitutional acts were "nullified" by the colonies in harsh and strong language. Colonies denounced the acts and passed resolutions declaring the acts void. The populace and governments of the colonies then refused to enforce the acts. Colonial officials were threatened, and warned not to violate the liberty of their constitutents. Eventually the colonial governments were literally overthrown and royal government ended.

During this period, Rothbard points out how the colonists drank deeply in the cup of Enlightenment philosophy. Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke, the English Levellers, Sidney and the Roman and Greek philosophers were the base of the new emerging libertarian philosophy. Rothbard, without directly stating it, totally refutes the lies of the Religious Right about the Founders being "born again" Christians, and the loony Left's assertion about a "conservative" revolution. Both views are false. Instead you see a new nation rising out of the ashes of the Old World. A new nation based upon the liberalizing effects of the Enlightenment. Freedom of speech, religion, person etc were supported and written into the new revolutionary constitutions and liberal ideals of equality under the law, and free trade were beginning to flourish.

The fourth volume is quite good. Rothbard details the military portion of the Revolution with the consequent upheaval of society in the new American States. Committees of Public Safety. Correspondence, etc became the de-facto governments after the fall of British authority. These committees were, in many cases, popularly elected and supported. The committees used coercive and aggressive methods against "Tories" by confiscating property, banishment, and sometimes outright violence; further refuting the view that it was a "conservative", and "consensus" oriented revolution.

Rothbard brings us to the end of the war and deliniates the "liberating" effects of the Revolution. The gradual elimination of slavery in many colonies, the ending of religious qualifications for public office, the equalizing of property by the natural effects of having vast open land, the purchase of Tory estates at small prices and the gradual, but eventual melting away of the class oriented society of Britian.

These volumes are a treasure, and should be read and re-read. Rothbard will scare both right and left by this history. He thoroughly destroys the "conservative" and "consensus" historical view, and leaves the leftist interpretation to rot in it's own rhetoric. He also refutes the view of the modern court historians by showing the colonies to be independent entities, with their own self governing societies. He correctly shows how the American Revolution was a massive social, political and philosophical revolution. He will scare the daylights out of modern Federalists by showing how colonial legislatures opposed, refuted and literally nullified British authority in America. They passed resolutions directly opposing the authority of the central government. He proves that the opposition to strong central government started not in the Civil War, or in Jefferson's masterful Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, but during the American Revolution. He proves that opposition to centralized government is as American as hot dogs and apple pie.

If you love history,liberty, and freedom, buy this set! You won't be sorry!

I would behoove everyone here to read Conceived in Liberty. It is a liberating, accurate portrayal, and immense volume on this period of our history.

[LibertyEagle]

Stop hijacking the thread, AED.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Stop hijacking the thread, AED.

Well, I guess I won't defend libertarianism from mischaracterizations by Paleo's. Sorry...:rolleyes:

Far be it for me to confront Paleo-conservatism with facts. I'll just leave and let you fellows trash libertarianism, and sing to the chorus.

[lester1/2jr]

Paleos are libertarians mugged by reality, so to speak. Some of these seemingly robust ideals harbored by libertarians become folly when taken off the page and are actually applied.

that's another thing I don't like about paleo cons: their arrogance. they really believe they speak for the silent majority and there are millions of people like them out there. but theres not, it's just them. and yet they parade around like proud peacocks because they believe they are god's gift

[Bucjason]

My dislike of Paleo-Conservatism lies in its inherent tyrannous nature.

I think you are over-stating things quite a bit.

Paleo-con's are far from tyrannical. In fact the differences they share with libertarians are so miniscule , that only political nuts like ourselves can even decifer the difference between them.


The two groups are like minded people , and should be political allies. Let's not get carried away here.

[Brian4Liberty]

Paleos are libertarians mugged by reality, so to speak. Some of these seemingly robust ideals harbored by libertarians become folly when taken off the page and are actually applied. However, I respect most libertarian positions, except for those that I deem to be counterproductive.

Take for example the quandary of the free market. In the current economic climate, the free market does not exist. Some paleos will not succumb to a mythical free market that is not in operation. Union pensions are backed by the government and we call that the free market? Competitive wages abroad in third world locales are intentionally suppressed by international chicanery. Free market?

While I'm an advocate for the theoretical application of the free market, I'm consciously aware of the burdensome economic model we've been subjected to. In some cases with unfettered immigration or a calculated market subversion by a foreign power, to endorse the so-called free market would be the equivalent to national suicide.

You hit that on the head.

[Brian4Liberty]

that's another thing I don't like about paleo cons: their arrogance.

I am not really a paleo, but I haven't noticed that. On the other hand, some ancaps are a different story...

[Andrew-Austin]

Anyone else think of paleontology when they hear 'paleoconservative'?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QZR88NQ_bOQ/SY9FDzs_stI/AAAAAAAAAjY/uISiLXV-gHc/s400/Museo_di_Storia_Naturale_di_Firenze_-_paleontology.jpg

[lester1/2jr]

am not really a paleo, but I haven't noticed that

not coincidentally, you highlighted the passage I also highlighted. I was doing so as a demonstration of paleo arrogance. you as an affirmation. just shows the diversity of opinion here.

paleo "reality" seems to involve protectionism racism and the like. I guess if you are someone who benefits from one of those things, an overpaid worker or ugly white guy, it probably make sense for you to support it.

[Todd]

Anyone else think of paleontology when they hear 'paleoconservative'

Yes..Isn't it unfortunate we take a word and give it a connotation that denotes something of a bygone era and thus "negativity"..... instead of just referring to true conservatism the way it was originally conceived.
Like the way "Liberal" is now referred to as "classcial Liberalism" if you want to talk about freedom.

You can thank Neocons at National Review (Joe Sobran was outed at National Review) for starting the purge of anyone with libertarian leanings from the ranks in favor of the new religion.

[Brian4Liberty]

paleo "reality" seems to involve protectionism racism and the like. I guess if you are someone who benefits from one of those things, an overpaid worker or ugly white guy, it probably make sense for you to support it.

:confused:

Are you talking about Pat Buchanan or something?

[AuH20]

You do know that the Classical Liberals which you so love were radicals right? That they had a revolution against thousands of years of tradition via Monarchical structure? Correct? Right? How do you reconcile this belief? That you believe that the epitome of everything there is, is within the ideals of Classical Liberalism? Do you not then, acknowledge the illogical conclusions brought forth from Classical Liberalism? Would then, not progress be to reform and follow through to the logical conclusion? That logical conclusion being Anarcho-Capitalism?

Why do you deny the reform that must take place? Indeed, it seems like you are not listening to Kirk, then. What is our tradition? Liberty? Private Property? Well, if so, then why do you defend an arbitrary power that subverts and destroys private property? Why do Paleo's defend imaginery borders, strict rules and regulations on private property, and a staunch lawful adherence to moral platitudes supposedly founded on Christianity? Indeed, the radicals are the fundamentalists who seek to impose biblical law and morality via force and gunpoint. They are in direct contradiction of the tradition of Jefferson and near-ultimate liberty. What about George Mason? The Anti-Federalists?

So, you see, the Anarcho-Capitalist is following in the tradition of the Classical Liberal. Paleo's definitely are not.

You should definitely read Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty.

http://www.amazon.com/Conceived-Liberty-Set-Murray-Rothbard/dp/0945466269/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260503977&sr=8-1
http://mises.org/store/Conceived-in-Liberty--P96C18.aspx

There are redeeming qualities (i.e. contract based agreements based on volition) found in anarcho-captalist model, but it's ultimately lacking a foundation. What would be the populace's primary motivation to honor such contracts? Any society that does not promote virtue is doomed from the start. And I'm not necessarily implying that Christianity (I am a deist actually) has a monopoly on the promotion of virtue, because it certainly has it's fair share of skeletons.

[Brian4Liberty]

as someone who witnessed the horrors of takimag when commenters were allowed, I have to say I am definately NOT a paleocon. I like alot of the writers, but alot of their fans seem like just blatant out and out racists and even nazis in some cases


Dunedain - well, I think there's more to a movement than just it's column writers. some of the people that hung out there, and it was not discouraged by the editors there, were like serious white nationalist losers who hobby horsed their racist shit into every thread. it turned me off paleoconservatism.
...
I still like some of the paleocon author guys espeically pat buchanan and taki theadoracopoulus


that's another thing I don't like about paleo cons: their arrogance. they really believe they speak for the silent majority and there are millions of people like them out there. but theres not, it's just them. and yet they parade around like proud peacocks because they believe they are god's gift


paleo "reality" seems to involve protectionism racism and the like. I guess if you are someone who benefits from one of those things, an overpaid worker or ugly white guy, it probably make sense for you to support it.

I went back and re-read the thread. I assume you are talking about the racists that you have run into. I hope you are not painting the people on this forum who identify as paleos with that brush. Ron Paul had a few "racists" support him, and many people used that to paint him negatively.

As far as applying something like immigration policy to reality, I have found that it is not "overpaid workers" who begin to have second thoughts about massive uncontrolled immigration. It is usually those who become unemployed (and see that job taken by a recent immigrant) that begin to question the current policy. Sometimes it has to effect you personally before you even care about the issue (or question your previous "open border" ideals). "Mugged by reality", as someone put it... ;)

[lynnf]

I'm paleo, too.

lynn

[Bucjason]

The Constitution is not infallible. Indeed many would argue especially most of us who sympathize with the Anti-Federalists, that the Constitution itself is an enabler of the tyranny we currently have. It established these offices of power, established the notion that the Federal Government supercedes the States in various ways (Think of it in terms of pre and post Unification of Germany. Pre-unification and the decentralization of the States led to a vastly better region), and allowed for monopolistic enterprise over the economy. Many here, believe that if we are to have a Minarchist society, that it would be vastly more preferrable to have the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution, especially since the Constitution gives a vast increase of power on the Federal Level.

One thing that always irked me with Constitutionalists is their at least if not complacent view, but overt view that tyranny on local levels is perfectly acceptable. Local being state.



I agree the constitution is not infalliable. In fact, I believe if our founders were still around, they'd call for another CON-CON to fix some of the minor loop-holes they left that have turned into huge mistakes and misinterpretations over time.

I also disagree with the ridiculous notion some have, that localized government has the right to absolute power and tyranny, while only the federal needs restricting...

[ChaosControl]

I agree the constitution is not infalliable. In fact, I believe if our founders were still around, they'd call for another CON-CON to fix some of the minor loop-holes they left that have turned into huge mistakes and misinterpretations over time.

I also disagree with the ridiculous notion some have, that localized government has the right to absolute power and tyranny, while only the federal needs restricting...

Well I agree with this. For one, the constitution grants government too much power.
However, while we do need a Con-Con, we cannot allow those currently in power to be the ones who write up a new constitution, such is the guarantee of totalitarianism in the most extreme sense.

And yes local shouldn't be allowed to do anything, for example property tax should be eliminated as it is the most vile of all taxes and basically says government owns all land and we rent or lease it with the taxes as the fee. "Buying" land is merely buying the lease, kind of like some of those condos you can buy.

That said, I still say local should have more than state which should have more than federal. But they do need to be have strict limitations on their actions nonetheless.

[LibertyEagle]

while we do need a Con-Con, we cannot allow those currently in power to be the ones who write up a new constitution, such is the guarantee of totalitarianism in the most extreme sense.

Exactly. This would be falling directly into the hands of those we are fighting.

http://www.jbs.org/freedom-campaign/4941

[KenInMontiMN]

Interesting discussion, with a lot of mislabeling IMO.

Paleo here.

I'd agree with some earlier posts that degree of nationalism is the #1 fault line where the paleos show some cleavage from the libertarians. I'd disagree with statements that religious viewpoints and such are a real factor, they are not. No paleo ever lets their own personal religion or views interfere with constitutionally limited Federal govt, if they do that they are by definition not paleoconservative, but rather are more in league with neoconservatives and pure social conservatives first and foremest who lack such regard for limited govt. Bork was mentioned, and you can't label him a paleoconservative - he was all about amassing power into govt structures, he was well off of the deep end in wanting to limit the powers of citizen-jurors for example, he wanted to be the only arbiter of law in his courtroom, and completely usurp judgment of the law itself from the people.

Painting those who wish to amass and centralize govt powers into the Federal realm as paleoconservative confuses the issue, they are most certainly not paleoconservative. That is on the other hand very much a neocon and neolib tendency, all too obvious today.

The paleoconservative is Jacksonian in the sense of being adamantly opposed to corporatism and the corporate-welfare state, adamantly opposed to no-border internationalism; recognizes and stands firmly against such Fabian socialism, knows full well the future it encompasses, a Wellsian world society deeply split between a wealthy elite ruling class and a much rougher working class who serve the desires of their rulers. Wells went so far as to paint those gloomy futures into evolution into two separate species, where one came to feed on the other in the most literal sense. The paleoconservative understands that in a marketplace dominated by internationalist corporatism, the free market mantra is a myth and smokescreen behind which immense mischief is accomplished, behind which national sovereignty is corrupted, and whole societies are destroyed economically and culturally. The social conservative can be a paleoconservative if their constitutional spine is stiff - no different from an atheist or agnostic having a firm constitutional spine and therefore passing paleoconservative muster. I wouldn't argue the fact that there are a whole lot of jellyfish in this regard, populating our country today, voting in on both sides of the aisle.

Today's libertarians on the other hand tend to disparage national sovereignty and favor the more internationalistic no-borders philosophy, in league with the neocon and neolib global corporatists in that regard, whether intended or not. They risk, by clinging to free market abstractions over actual realities, banking on a Santa Claus that has never existed in any pure sense, and honestly in a globalistic whirlwind of multinational corporate dominance, that free market abstraction stands about the same chance of prevailing into noticeable reality as the proverbial fart in the windstorm.

If our nation is to have an ongoing sustainability and posterity into future generations, sound currency is a must, and hand in hand with that, it's a must that Federal govt take up and resume its mandate to beak up corporate socialism into small ineffectual pieces, and use border regulation effectively to insure a reasonable balance of trade. Without that reasonable balance of trade, economic viability isn't sustainable, and we trade away the future of the US. In a whirlwind atmosphere of wildly imbalanced trade, the benefits of such are dwarfed by market management globally, and the ensuing currency mercantilism, so whatever market efficiency present gets dropped down our chimney by that jolly old free-trade elf, it is wrapped in layers of crap that come to outmass the gift itself with time. Economically, we're drowning in foam peanuts, and its getting increasingly difficult to find the the tiny item of value hidden somewhere within - and even if we can locate the thing it isn't worth enough to offset the costs of dealing with all this styrofoam. That is pretty much where we stand today.

The libertarian tends to side with the internationalist in seeing dissolution of national sovereignty as less govt intrusion while the paleo understands it as a centralization toward global levels, much more out of the reach of the individual citizen of any country.

[heavenlyboy34]

Today's libertarians on the other hand tend to disparage national sovereignty and favor the more internationalistic no-borders philosophy, in league with the neocon and neolib global corporatists in that regard, whether intended or not.

What libertarians feel this way? :confused: All this sounds very unlibertarian to me. All the libertarians I know of are anti-internationalist, pro-private property, anti-corpratism.

[__27__]

What libertarians feel this way? :confused: All this sounds very unlibertarian to me. All the libertarians I know of are anti-internationalist, pro-private property, anti-corpratism.

How can you believe in the free market and be anti-internationalist? If a higher quality product can be made at a cheaper price to the consumer in Japan, why would you want to exclude that from the US market? Protectionism is anti-free market.

I don't believe in political borders, I don't believe in protectionism, I believe in the free market.

http://www.cato.org/

[LibertyEagle]

How can you believe in the free market and be anti-internationalist? If a higher quality product can be made at a cheaper price to the consumer in Japan, why would you want to exclude that from the US market? Protectionism is anti-free market.

I don't believe in political borders, I don't believe in protectionism, I believe in the free market.

http://www.cato.org/

And Ken's point is that this is aligned with what the globalists desire and he's right. So, whether you realize it or not, you are helping them achieve their goals.


Originally Posted by KenInMontiMN
Today's libertarians on the other hand tend to disparage national sovereignty and favor the more internationalistic no-borders philosophy, in league with the neocon and neolib global corporatists in that regard, whether intended or not.

[heavenlyboy34]

How can you believe in the free market and be anti-internationalist? If a higher quality product can be made at a cheaper price to the consumer in Japan, why would you want to exclude that from the US market? Protectionism is anti-free market.

I don't believe in political borders, I don't believe in protectionism, I believe in the free market.

http://www.cato.org/ (http://www.cato.org/)

You've used internationalist differently than is traditionally used, so that explains my confusion. It is traditionally used to describe someone of the international fascist or socialist persuasion. I don't believe in political borders or protectionism, either. The free market is indeed the most perfect regulator possible. You might want to rethink calling yourself an "internationalist" as this implies relationships between nations and their subserviants. Perhaps "international capitalist" is a better name for you.

[heavenlyboy34]

And Ken's point is that this is aligned with what the globalists desire and he's right. So, whether you realize it or not, you are helping them achieve their goals.

To an extent he's right, but he doesn't understand that many of today's libertarians eschew national soverignty in favor or INDIVIDUAL or LOCAL soverignty. Trying to make a case about "all libertarians" like Ken did is even more difficult than making one about "all republicans".

[__27__]

And Ken's point is that this is aligned with what the globalists desire and he's right.

I wasn't disputing Ken's point, although it is misdirected. It's akin to saying that the socialists who are supporting RP's Audit the Fed bill because they would like to see the Fed ended so they can place a state run institution in it's place, are one and the same with Paul and any free-marketers who want to see it ended and nothing put in it's place. Because one has a similar goal does not mean they have the same reasoning for it, nor the same hope for what will come after that goal is achieved. Yes, Cato and I want to see one world in the sense of no political borders, the difference from us and the 'Globalists' is that we want NOTHING to have power over the 'one world', save the market. The 'Globalists' want to create new political borders to include the entire globe in higher and more powerful government structure. Essentially, Cato and I want one world market anarchy, and the globalists want one world government. To claim the two are the same is as ignorant of reality as to claim Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have the same goal in regards to the Fed and monetary policy.


As for my response directed at HB, he claims to be an anarchist/voluntaryist yet seems to imply in this response that he believes anarchists/voluntaryists support nationalism and protectionism, which I find no evidence for. If that is his personal view, he is welcome to it, but I hardly find it standard or average for ancap/voluntaryist lines of thought.

EDIT: Disregard the second, I see it was a misunderstanding of verbiage betwixt myself and HB. Apologies.

[__27__]

You've used internationalist differently than is traditionally used, so that explains my confusion. It is traditionally used to describe someone of the international fascist or socialist persuasion. I don't believe in political borders or protectionism, either. The free market is indeed the most perfect regulator possible. You might want to rethink calling yourself an "internationalist" as this implies relationships between nations and their subserviants. Perhaps "international capitalist" is a better name for you.

After reading your response to LE, I had a feeling this might be your issue. We believe the same thing, it's just simple verbiage that was getting in the way.

I am an internationalist in the sense that I do not support political borders, or ANY barriers to international free trade. However, where I differ (not any small deviation to say the least) from the 'Globalists' is I do not wish a 'new' global government power structure to preside over the planet.

[LibertyEagle]

To an extent he's right, but he doesn't understand that many of today's libertarians eschew national soverignty in favor or INDIVIDUAL or LOCAL soverignty. Trying to make a case about "all libertarians" like Ken did is even more difficult than making one about "all republicans".

True enough that there is no such "all libertarians". But, there certainly are some who take the open borders stance and those are the ones he is addressing his post to.

And preferring individual sovereignty and local sovereignty is all nice and fine, but while we still have a federal government and all these POS globalists running around trying to put us under some kind of world government, arguing for dissolving our national sovereignty is the exact same crap that the globalists are trying to do. Can't you see that?

[heavenlyboy34]

As for my response directed at HB, he claims to be an anarchist/voluntaryist yet seems to imply in this response that he believes anarchists/voluntaryists support nationalism and protectionism, which I find no evidence for. If that is his personal view, he is welcome to it, but I hardly find it standard or average for ancap/voluntaryist lines of thought.

I would politely ask that you stop repeating this false, as it does not reflect my belief(see my previous post).

[KenInMontiMN]

stato.org?

Many with libertarian tendencies and who choose the label to one degree or another see the borderless world as the ultimate goal, and don't mind saying so.

As far as the Japanese product goes, protectionism would exclude the product, sane nationalistic regulation aimed at ongoing stability and sustainability would ensure balanced trade within reasonable tolerance, and global corporatism would allow such imbalance over time to destroy US industry completely. Those are three very different stances; too many 'free-traders' could care less whether the US goes completely bankrupt or not - or whether there remains any viable market whatsoever for the product after the currency collapse, and the ensuing hyperinflation of the imported product's price here. The benefit of the greater production efficiency only has some value to the extent that the market for it sustains its own viability. The benefits of free trade only exist over time in an atmosphere of reasonably balanced trade partners.

The free market is only possible when everybody operates with sound currency, rather than nobody operating with sound currency. That way when imbalances grow and debt therefore increases, those currency valuations adjust accordingly to regulate trade back toward balance, in theory at least. But it is always a good idea to back up theory put into practice with some regulatory safeguard, unnecessary and unapplied regulation as long as the applied theory holds up in reality.

[__27__]

I would politely ask that you stop repeating this false, as it does not reflect my belief(see my previous post).

And I did. See edit.

[KenInMontiMN]

"The merchant has no country"

-Jefferson

[Brian4Liberty]

Interesting discussion, with a lot of mislabeling IMO.

Paleo here.

I'd agree with some earlier posts that degree of nationalism is the #1 fault line where the paleos show some cleavage from the libertarians. I'd disagree with statements that religious viewpoints and such are a real factor, they are not. No paleo ever lets their own personal religion or views interfere with constitutionally limited Federal govt, if they do that they are by definition not paleoconservative, but rather are more in league with neoconservatives and pure social conservatives first and foremest who lack such regard for limited govt.

Good post.

I guess we often measure an ideology by it's main public faces. Pat Buchanan is usually cited as the main Paleo, so his positions get attached sometimes. The "family/religious values" angle is often mentioned in definitions. Clearly, wanting to enforce those values via the government does not lend itself to limited government. Your definition is a good one.

Here is a common definition on the internet:



http://usconservatives.about.com/od/typesofconservatives/a/PaleoCons.htm

Paleoconservative thought in the US is most widely associated with the anti-communist and anti-globalization right wing movement, which emphasizes tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity.

[__27__]

The free market is only possible when everybody operates with sound currency, rather than nobody operating with sound currency. That way when imbalances grow and debt therefore increases, those currency valuations adjust accordingly to regulate trade back toward balance, in theory at least. But it is always a good idea to back up theory put into practice with some regulatory safeguard, unnecessary and unapplied regulation as long as the applied theory holds up in reality.

The free market requires no such thing. Trade imbalances are accounting fiction, perpetuated by political borders and nationalism. In a free market you trade with who you wish, if someone wishes not to trade with you, you don't make trade. Every trade in a free market is mutually beneficial, or it would not take place.

[__27__]

"The merchant has no country"

-Jefferson

"Commerce with ALL, Alliance with none."

-Jefferson

[heavenlyboy34]

True enough that there is no such "all libertarians". But, there certainly are some who take the open borders stance and those are the ones he is addressing his post to.

And preferring individual sovereignty and local sovereignty is all nice and fine, but while we still have a federal government and all these POS globalists running around trying to put us under some kind of world government, arguing for dissolving our national sovereignty is the exact same crap that the globalists are trying to do. Can't you see that?

Yes, I see that. Perhaps I am not being clear enough. This is a sad side effect of net communication. :( As I've said before, I don't believe that dissolving the government is the same as dissolving the nation. The nation can exist without a national government, and in fact would be better off with much more local control. We agree on this, I think. The only places we disagree is exactly what this localized control will look like, as this kind of freedom hasn't happened yet.

The globalist's intent is also totally different-they want centralized global control, while libertarians want decentralized control. This is why I believe Ken's analysis is faulty. Sorry I don't have time to get into detail now. Nice seeing you. ttyl.

[LibertyEagle]

I wasn't disputing Ken's point, although it is misdirected. It's akin to saying that the socialists who are supporting RP's Audit the Fed bill because they would like to see the Fed ended so they can place a state run institution in it's place, are one and the same with Paul and any free-marketers who want to see it ended and nothing put in it's place. Because one has a similar goal does not mean they have the same reasoning for it, nor the same hope for what will come after that goal is achieved. Yes, Cato and I want to see one world in the sense of no political borders, the difference from us and the 'Globalists' is that we want NOTHING to have power over the 'one world', save the market. The 'Globalists' want to create new political borders to include the entire globe in higher and more powerful government structure. Essentially, Cato and I want one world market anarchy, and the globalists want one world government. To claim the two are the same is as ignorant of reality as to claim Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have the same goal in regards to the Fed and monetary policy.

I realize your final objective is quite different from that of the globalists, but the reality is that there are not enough like-minded people with enough power to transition from where we are now, to the ideal that you lay out. It has to come in steps. And the steps you use to accomplish your objective have to be well thought out, since as you realize, the globalists have the very same intermediate steps as you currently do. So, when you advocate these same common steps, you are helping them achieve THEIR goal. It's as simple as that.

Be very careful not to advocate the removal or dissolution of the few ever-disappearing things that are standing in the globalists' way.

[KenInMontiMN]

The free market requires no such thing. Trade imbalances are accounting fiction, perpetuated by political borders and nationalism. In a free market you trade with who you wish, if someone wishes not to trade with you, you don't make trade. Every trade in a free market is mutually beneficial, or it would not take place.

....true as long as no credit is involved. Once you allow one party to trade on credit (because they are economically out of sorts), the door is open to a descending spiral of the worst sort, that ultimately leads to the benefit of neither. In the long run, that means goods/services traded for goods/services, as opposed to today's situation - goods/services traded for empty promissory notes who's promises can never be fulfilled.

[KenInMontiMN]

In short commodity-backed currency means that goods/services are invariably traded for goods/services, because the commodities exist to back the currency. No more currency can be created on credit. Reasonable balance is thereby enforced; it is a mistake to think of sound commodity-backed currency as anything other than a regulatory tool to keep spending in balance with production (or to keep spending in balance with intake when it comes to govt), and to keep us from having to carry all our stuff around with us in our pockets all the time, or in some sort of wagon behind us, in order to be able to trade.

It's no coincidence that the same decade we went over completely to fiat currency is the same decade we began running trade deficits.

Fiat currencies could work only if means were in place to insure against both public and private deficit spending, which is the same thing as saying no credit growth allowed. But the track record on such fiscal discipline is miserable to say the least. It is human nature to spend more when credit is allowed to grow unfettered. Credit dampers of one sort or another are an economic must. I really could care less just what sort of dampering gets applied, regulatory fetters or currency fetters - as long as they work.

[erowe1]

Bump, just to make the observation that everyone on this forum who claims to be a paleoconservative should be supporting John Hostettler for Senate.

I'm just saying.

Incidentally, we're having a money bomb for him on April 22nd.

[MelissaCato]

How many paleos in here, besides myself? I don't really consider myself a libertarian because they are so many subsdivisions that spin off in various directions.

Me. :D:cool:

[BuddyRey]

I agree, there seems to be a good deal of Rousseau in the vision of no government libertarians, so you can add me to this list.

The last thinker I or most other Voluntaryists would want to be associated with would be Rousseau. You're talking about Mr. Social Contract Theory himself! :eek:

[Badger Paul]

Here I am

[silentshout]

Pcons are against gay-activism generally because homosexuality is not a venerable western institution. Libertarians believe in freedom to do whatever you want. Therefore, if it feels gay, do it.

Pcons are pro-family because they see the family as a fundamental building block of our civilization. Libs would be all for getting rid of the family if it became common-place to do so. Pcons want to protect marriage. Marriage is not even in the libertarian lexicon.

Pcons HATE being told "Happy Holidays" even if you are an aethist Pcon. We've said "Merry Christmas" for generations damnit. Libs don't care because people should be able to say whatever they want to say.

Pcons ask - what has worked in the past? What does tradition say? What would are founding fathers say?

Libs ask - what does the marketplace of ideas accept? Who owns the land underneath the place of contention? What does the freemarket say?

Ok, based on this, I am defintely a libertarian. I don't give two hoots if someone tells me "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas," for example. People have the right to say what they want...I don't have to agree but it's not worth getting my panties into a twist over semantics. Also, I disagree with paleocons that the Christian church is always positive...I see religion as very corrupt. I don't mind other people going to church, but I am not into dogma myself of any kind. As Thomas Paine said, my mind is my own church :)

[silentshout]

I am sorry but that is BS. Atheism existed before religion was created.


But anyways denying someones freedom is terrible period.

I don't care if paleos think drugs or prostitution etc are bad, if they want to keep them illegal then they do not fully understand freedom and are intolerant to other people's beliefs.

It has been proven over and over than giving the government even just an ounce of control over our personal lives will just result in an avalanche of government growth.

I agree with you, and the comment that said that people who distrust the church hate Jesus Christ...omg. Sorry I just don't have any words...

[Spider-Man]

- pro-citizen (i.e. don't flood our country with illegals)


a.k.a. Reason #1 I am not a paleoconservative.



- pro-freemarket

Many paleos are protectionists. I wouldn't say that paleoconservatism is pro-freemarket. They are pro-capitalism, yes.


- Christian or at least a belief that the church is an institution that provides social stability and is therefore positive. This last point probably would be the most contraversial but it is sound if you read books by Russell and Burke who are like the founding fathers of conservatism.

Reason #2 I'm not a paleoconservative.

[Vessol]

I definitely do not consider myself a paleoconservative, but I do see many similarities between their beliefs and my minarchist/left libertarian beliefs. The main differences as noticed before is the rooting in religion and morality, I have no issue if you yourself have religion and morals, I have both of those. But I disagree that any such things should be forced onto other people, to me that is Anti-Liberty. Everyone should be equal under secular law. Not to mention many paleoconservative leanings towards economic protectionism and usual support of our pro-intervention foreign policy.

[Tend yer biscuits.]

Justin Raimondo's book, Reclaiming the American Right, is a good primer on the Old Right. I think 'Paleocon' was a term coined in the 80's when the Trotskyites were taking over the GOP through the Reagan admin and National Review.

[Tend yer biscuits.]

I think paleocons are best summarized as tribal. Individuals owe something to the community, but loyalty radiates out from local to regional to global. It's an ascending theory of government with the family as the basic unit rather than the individual. Thus every issue isn't reduced to power/oppression models as in libertarianism. There are natural duties as well as natural rights. For the paleocon, the question is never whether to be governed, but how to be governed.

[givemeliberty]

My parents were grassroots supporters of Goldwater in '64 so I grew up in a "Goldwater Republican" household. I feel right at home in the RP movement but yes I guess I am a paleo-conservative, even if that definition is slightly too mainstream for my views.

[Imperial]

My dad has always been a paleocon, even though I am more of a libertarian. I have qualms with paleo-conservatism but there is much overlap and space for cooperation.

[Pericles]

The last thinker I or most other Voluntaryists would want to be associated with would be Rousseau. You're talking about Mr. Social Contract Theory himself! :eek:

Yes I am. And while I'm at it, Rothbard is very weak in his historical analysis of events.