Restore the Paleo-Alliance?

[Aratus]

In the 1990's, Lew Rockwell laid out "The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism".

You can find that here: http://anarcho-monarchism.com/2016/01/28/the-case-for-paleo-libertarianism/

A few years ago, he has seemingly shed the "Paleo" title, because it was hijacked by Mercantilists and Statists, and he didn't want to be associated with that.

You can find that here: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberal-post-interview.html


So the question I bring forth to you all today, starts from the assumption that we are all sympathetic to "Paleo-Libertarianism" as it was originally laid out: Meaning, we are Old Right Libertarians.

So, lets take a look at the Trump Phenomena. I'll admit, I have done my fair share of "atta boys" as I've watched Trump shred Neo-Cons, Progressives, the Republicans, the Democrats, and everyone inbetween. Optimistically, he could be viewed as a wrecking ball, turning the Establishment Cartel into a flaming pile of rubble.

But make no mistake, while he has his Buchananite moments of Paley-Conservatism, there are also very real moments of Statism. Rockwell may have abandoned the Paleo title because of Buchanans transgressions, but he has recently been promoting (and I have no idea why), Trump...an extremely Statist version of Buchanan; wholly without the ability to process things such as, Liberty...or Virtue. He is an ideological authoritarian, who sometimes has mildly rational policy. I, and I'm hoping all of you, want absolutely nothing to do with that.

But...but. We have an opportunity here to co-opt this Paleo-Con resurgence by bringing them out of the authoritarian wilderness, and into our libertarian civilization. Truly, half of the work is already done for us. They have questioned the "establishment", meaning the neocons who have a stranglehold on the party. A good chunk of the Trumpkins see him as a small government guy....that is our way in.

When, Trump takes the nomination, and the party...it gives us an incredible opportunity to out-conservative the GOP. Operating under the assumption that he wins...all we need to do is blow the whistle against him...not using "establishment" rhetoric, like Rand attempted to do "See guys, he won't promise to support the Republicans..."....no, we need to be bold and like our Freak Flag fly! Capture the anger and discontent that the electorate has against the government in general. We, and only we, can do this with any sort of intellectual honesty.

But this MUST be a Republican movement. The Libertarian Party, and it's panzy assed Libertine affiliates are toxic (as Rockwell points out in his article).

Alright team, lets hear your thoughts.

What if we relabel this GOLDWATERITE LIBERTARIANISM because
the very young have absolutely no idea who Senator Robert Taft was...
I am seeking a label that does not draw to it a NEO-CON fifth column.

 

[Aratus]

The worst of it is that Mr. Donald Trump's actions bring to mind the political career of Louisiana's HUEY LONG
and also this somewhat forgotten & abandoned by the political wayside novella by monsieur Sinclair Lewis.
http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Happen-Here-Signet-Classics/dp/0451529294 Again, this book has its "chicken little" moments, but...

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

That's why my own formulation of the libertarian view begins by defining it as believing in "the maximum liberty under God," or God's law, and then define liberty as per the non-aggression principle. This ensures the Author of Liberty is acknowledged, and thereby Virtue is baked into the cake. As for what a real pro-liberty conservative is, as opposed to what current "conservatives" stand for, I appeal to Rockwell's summary comment:

The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America.

Absolutely.

As far as the Lew quote goes, I agree with almost everything, however, I would draw attention to the "greater attachment to nationalization than to the idea of self-determination".

To quote Walter Lippmann: "Self-Determination, which has nothing to do with self-government but has become confused with it, is barbarous and reactionary: by sanctioning secession, it invites majorities and minorities to be intransigent and irreconcilable. It is stipulated in the principle of self-determination that they need not be compatriots because they will soon be aliens. There is no end to this atomization of human society. Within the minorities who have seceded there will tend to appear other minorities who in their turn will wish to secede."

To put it plainly, self-determination is a Wilsonian Pipe Dream. It does not lead to the Anarco-Capitalism that so many on these boards find to be the best form of government. It leads to tyranny. Every. Single. Time.

I differ to the Declaration of Independence.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


This anarchical fracturing of society would leave chaos in its wake. As an example, the French Revolution. The existence of intermediary social institutions squandered and destroyed by tyrannical minorities (or majorities…or individuals) who despise their social and societal governance. The disappearance of any objective morality. The disappearance of all virtue....and in truth, the disappearance of all Liberty. It detracts from Lews own planks in the Paleo-Libertarian article.


VII. The egalitarian ethic as morally reprehensible and destructive of private property and social authority.

VIII. Social authority – as embodied in the family, church, community, and other intermediating institutions – as helping protect the individual from the State and as necessary for a free and virtuous society.

IX. Western culture as eminently worthy of preservation and defense.

X. Objective standards of morality, especially as found in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as essential to the free and civilized social order.

Nationalism is vital to the existence of any people, and of any state. It is a globalist folly to believe yourself to be a “citizen of humankind”. Globalism is just as detestable as this Tyrannical Anarchy (which Plato, Burke, and our founding fathers have described in detail.)

To quote Patrick Buchanan: “We are trying to create a nation that has never before existed, of all the races, tribes, cultures and creeds of Earth, where all are equal. In this utopian drive for the perfect society of our dreams we are killing the real country we inherited — the best and greatest country on earth.”

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

What if we relabel this GOLDWATERITE LIBERTARIANISM because
the very young have absolutely no idea who Senator Robert Taft was...
I am seeking a label that does not draw to it a NEO-CON fifth column.

In many ways, Goldwater was the first detractor from the Old Right. There is a reason that he is the first among the "New Right", but, that is not to say that I dislike Goldwater. I really like quite a bit of what he says.

I actually have Conscience of a Conservative right in front of me, let me find my favorite quote...."My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if i should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests", I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Simply, "conservatives" would be wise to return to Goldwater..or even better, to the Old Right (kids these days have no idea who Taft or Goldwater are...lets be real). We libertarians, can find a comfortable home in the Old Right as well...

A libertarian government and a conservative society makes for the greatest safeguard of both liberty and virtue.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Absolutely.

As far as the Lew quote goes, I agree with almost everything, however, I would draw attention to the "greater attachment to nationalization than to the idea of self-determination".

To quote Walter Lippmann: "Self-Determination, which has nothing to do with self-government but has become confused with it, is barbarous and reactionary: by sanctioning secession, it invites majorities and minorities to be intransigent and irreconcilable. It is stipulated in the principle of self-determination that they need not be compatriots because they will soon be aliens. There is no end to this atomization of human society. Within the minorities who have seceded there will tend to appear other minorities who in their turn will wish to secede."

To put it plainly, self-determination is a Wilsonian Pipe Dream. It does not lead to the Anarco-Capitalism that so many on these boards find to be the best form of government. It leads to tyranny. Every. Single. Time.

I differ to the Declaration of Independence.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


This anarchical fracturing of society would leave chaos in its wake. As an example, the French Revolution. The existence of intermediary social institutions squandered and destroyed by tyrannical minorities (or majorities…or individuals) who despise their social and societal governance. The disappearance of any objective morality. The disappearance of all virtue....and in truth, the disappearance of all Liberty. It detracts from Lews own planks in the Paleo-Libertarian article.


VII. The egalitarian ethic as morally reprehensible and destructive of private property and social authority.

VIII. Social authority – as embodied in the family, church, community, and other intermediating institutions – as helping protect the individual from the State and as necessary for a free and virtuous society.

IX. Western culture as eminently worthy of preservation and defense.

X. Objective standards of morality, especially as found in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as essential to the free and civilized social order.

Nationalism is vital to the existence of any people, and of any state. It is a globalist folly to believe yourself to be a “citizen of humankind”. Globalism is just as detestable as this Tyrannical Anarchy (which Plato, Burke, and our founding fathers have described in detail.)

To quote Patrick Buchanan: “We are trying to create a nation that has never before existed, of all the races, tribes, cultures and creeds of Earth, where all are equal. In this utopian drive for the perfect society of our dreams we are killing the real country we inherited — the best and greatest country on earth.”

As Murray would say, if the US can secede from the British Empire, the same principle allows Florida to secede from the US, Tampa from Florida, etc. The presumption of State ownership of man is one of the great failings in modern thought from a liberty-oriented POV.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

The worst of it is that Mr. Donald Trump's actions bring to mind the political career of Louisiana's HUEY LONG
and also this somewhat forgotten & abandoned by the political wayside novella by monsieur Sinclair Lewis.
http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Happen-Here-Signet-Classics/dp/0451529294 Again, this book has its "chicken little" moments, but...

For sure. Populism can be the greatest of evils, or the greatest of goods. It depends on the citizenry and the power of the office. Unfortunately, the citizenry will not inhibit the office, which holds far more power and potential for tyranny than any other in the entire world (nuclear football anyone)....and that is all before even mentioning Trump himself.

 

[Rad]

No. Paleo libs wanna be openly racist. The open border types want social Darwinism on the poor without having an economy in place that works for everyone, screwing over people is the fastest way to socialism just ask Britain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...ain#The_Industrial_Revolution_and_Robert_Owen

Empire was a uniting force but its off the chopping block in order to "play the game." If the groups aren't united around ending the Empire, transitioning safely into a free market economy, and protecting civil liberties while maintaining mechanism that prevent exploitation (sorry Lew but Jim Crow lite ain't happening) then whats the point?

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

As Murray would say, if the US can secede from the British Empire, the same principle allows Florida to secede from the US, Tampa from Florida, etc.

Murray would be correct, that Free People have the right to self-governance. A prudent reading of the Declaration of Independence lays this out clearly. However...this concept is very, very different from Self-Determination.

*Can* the US secede from the British Empire. and so on and so on...Yes. But just as war must be just, as must secession.

Using the logic that you present...defensive war would be unjust just because aggressive war is.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Murray would be correct, that Free People have the right to self-governance. A prudent reading of the Declaration of Independence lays this out clearly. However...this concept is very, very different from Self-Determination.

*Can* the US secede from the British Empire. and so on and so on...Yes. But just as war must be just, as must secession.

Using the logic that you present...defensive war would be unjust just because aggressive war is.

Um, no. Secession only has to be just to the party seceding. Forced union is aggressive by nature. Your analogy doesn't fit here.

 

[otherone]

Um, no. Secession only has to be just to the party seceding. Forced union is aggressive by nature. Your analogy doesn't fit here.

outta rep. government without consent is tyranny.

 

[LibertyEagle]

In many ways, Goldwater was the first detractor from the Old Right. There is a reason that he is the first among the "New Right", but, that is not to say that I dislike Goldwater. I really like quite a bit of what he says.

I actually have Conscience of a Conservative right in front of me, let me find my favorite quote...."My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if i should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests", I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Simply, "conservatives" would be wise to return to Goldwater..or even better, to the Old Right (kids these days have no idea who Taft or Goldwater are...lets be real). We libertarians, can find a comfortable home in the Old Right as well...

A libertarian government and a conservative society makes for the greatest safeguard of both liberty and virtue.

Out of reps, but this is a great post.

 

[erowe1]

I don't see anything that needs to be restored. The Old Right is alive and well today and usually does get labelled libertarian. I myself would identify with the Old Right.

But Trump is the exact opposite. Old Right = opposing Trump.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

No. Paleo libs wanna be openly racist. The open border types want social Darwinism on the poor without having an economy in place that works for everyone, screwing over people is the fastest way to socialism just ask Britain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...ain#The_Industrial_Revolution_and_Robert_Owen

Empire was a uniting force but its off the chopping block in order to "play the game." If the groups aren't united around ending the Empire, transitioning safely into a free market economy, and protecting civil liberties while maintaining mechanism that prevent exploitation (sorry Lew but Jim Crow lite ain't happening) then whats the point?

I don't believe I've been openly racist at any point in my advocating for Paleo-Libertarianism. Nor do I categorize myself as racist. Though it is absolutely true, that racists may be attracted to this ideology, as it allows them Freedom of Association, I would assume that all peoples would enjoy that Liberty. Hell, even today with State-Sponsored Integration, people still group together. Check out this news documentary from Trevor Phillips, the head of Britain's Equality Commission for New Labour. https://youtu.be/Tb2iFikOwYU If anything, it is highly interesting to hear a multi-culturalist reflect on his own governmental policy.

No, Paleo Libs see Western Civilization and Culture as being superior. Did it originate and flourish in Europe....with White People? Sure. Yea. But that is irrelevant. Because Western Culture works just as well anywhere else in the world where it is embraced and assimilated to. Western Civilization (at least pre-ww1) is a good thing. I would argue that Western Civilization has been completely turned on its head with Marxist Egalitarianism (yes, even here in the US and all over Europe). Western Civilization is all but dead.

But I'd like to resuscitate it if possible.

You are correct about the open border types. Without borders, in an international anarchic system, the State and her Citizenry, will suffer from economic exploitation. As far as Industrialization leading people to vote for Socialism...you are correct. Remember, a key component of Marxism is that the Economy must be industrialized before a Revolution can happen. Thus Democracy is a terribly dangerous institution (read your Plato). Luckily Paleo-Libs generally are in favor of borders and Free Enterprise.

Empire was an uniting force...but moreso, a civilizing force. It spread Western Civilization all over the globe...and that influence still reaps blessings even today. Sure, the sins of Imperialism are substantial...but we are judging the past with the standard of the present. Take away some of the nastiness such as slavery and blatent oppression...and Imperialism is actually a pretty strong force for good. Again, its a complicated discussion...but the people of Singapore were much better off than the people of the Highlands of Cambodia.

Off the chopping block...tragically perhaps, at least for the people of the world suffering under the boot of tyranny (with 100's of millions being killed by "anti-imperialist" governments since WW1).

By groups, I assume you mean NGO's or individuals (you're a little unclear) aimed at ending Empire....I contend that the closest things that exists to Empire today is the United States, which is NOTHING like the Empires of Old. I think you would be pretty hard pressed to find many people of the world that are benefited by our "Empire"....transitioning into a market economy (those don't exist in the age of globalism)....and protecting civil liberties (like the freedom to refuse service to someone at your own business) …while maintaining a system to prevent exploitation…Taxes. Taxes. Taxes.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Um, no. Secession only has to be just to the party seceding. Forced union is aggressive by nature. Your analogy doesn't fit here.

outta rep. government without consent is tyranny.

You are missing what I am saying. I am pro-secessionist. It is a fundamental human right. This is the right to self-government via the consent of the governed. However...this is different than self-determination.

I really do hope you'll read the declaration of independence and contrast it to Wilsonian self-determination. They are in no way the same.

 

[Aratus]

In many ways, Goldwater was the first detractor from the Old Right.
There is a reason that he is the first among the "New Right", but, that
is not to say that I dislike Goldwater. I really like quite a bit of what he says.

(kids these days have no idea who Taft or Goldwater are...lets be real)

We libertarians, can find a comfortable home in the Old Right as well...

A libertarian government and a conservative society makes for
the greatest safeguard of both liberty and virtue.

I was hoping today's 21st Century born young had a glimmering of an idea as to who LBJ was...

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I don't see anything that needs to be restored. The Old Right is alive and well today and usually does get labelled libertarian. I myself would identify with the Old Right.

But Trump is the exact opposite. Old Right = opposing Trump.

The Old Right isn't even alive and well in Ron Paul Forums...pretty much the only "Old Right" Politician worth his salt since the John Birch Society was "alive and well".

Trump is not Old Right, and we should be opposing him. I agree. But, Trump is, perhaps without even knowing it, resurrecting some tenets of Paleo-Conservativism. We just need to swoop in and present a libertarian alternative to the authoritarian Trump.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I was hoping today's 21st Century born young had a glimmering of an idea as to who LBJ was...

Oh hell no. I'm guessing that I've been in the public education system much more recently than you have.

He is praised as a freaking hero. I cannot even describe how disgusting State Indoctrination is.

 

[Aratus]

if they have absolutely no idea who FDR, JFK and LBJ were, let alone HHH of Minnesota,
then each time they see AU + H2O they simply think in terms of elements and chemistry
and not our Bill of Rights and Freedoms or Liberties. I despaired at explaining who Robert
Taft was, but had an optimistic hope they understood what happened in 1964 and 1968.

 

[Aratus]

Trump is not Old Right, and we should be opposing him. I agree. But, Trump is, perhaps
without even knowing it, resurrecting some tenets of Paleo-Conservativism. We just need to
swoop in and present a libertarian alternative to the authoritarian Trump.

this current situation is deeply laced with ethos, pathos and bathos, let alone irony

 

[erowe1]

The Old Right isn't even alive and well in Ron Paul Forums...pretty much the only "Old Right" Politician worth his salt since the John Birch Society was "alive and well".

Trump is not Old Right, and we should be opposing him. I agree. But, Trump is, perhaps without even knowing it, resurrecting some tenets of Paleo-Conservativism. We just need to swoop in and present a libertarian alternative to the authoritarian Trump.

I don't see how the Old Right is not alive and well here. Despite the upswing of Trump trolls lately, it still seems to be the dominant political ideology.

Paleo-conservative and Old Right are two different things. Yes, Trump is enjoying a lot of paleo-conservative support, but that's only for the issues that paleo-cons get wrong (immigration and trade), and none of the ones they get right.