I don't think borders are necessarily an impediment to a free market. However, if preference is given to entry of goods or people based upon a measure of the "westernness" of their point of origin, that would create a less free market than would otherwise exist.
No, I never favored a restriction or ban on imports from non-western nations. I didn't say that. I am talking philosophy, culture, and foundation of laws. It has almost nothing to do with trade or the free market.
I don't understand the general obsession with sharia these days, but sure, let's go there. You would have a problem with individuals voluntarily subjecting themselves to a religious authority of their choosing? This seems to be in direct contradiction to values 8 and 10. Doesn't this concept go against part of the judeochristian tradition? Aren't there myriad christian communities which currently engage in this sort of self-policing behavior? Would your government eliminate these other voluntary authorities as well?
Sharia is an easy example because it is observable in some European Countries and in some Secular (formerly) Middle Eastern Countries. I have a serious issue with a Religion breaking with the Western Idea of the a detached Religious Rule from Civil Rule. I have a problem, with Democracy, yes. It is Tyranny. Sharia Law undermines Liberty (and Life...and Property..), and thus it is incompatible with our Western Culture and Civilization. "We the People" have no right to impose Sharia Law, just as the Congress has no right to defer its Power to Declare War to the Executive Branch (whoops).
However, Social Institutions may rule Sovereign over individuals lives if they choose to subject themselves to it, so if a person wishes to practice Sharia Law upon themself...and only themself....that is their choice. To my knowledge, there is no Christian Communities, anywhere, actively seeking to impose specific denominational doctrines upon the masses via government coercion. However, the question of morality is different than that of religion in itself...and Christian Morality is obviously the foundation of our legal code, and it should continue to be. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife ect. We have a few thousand years of philosophical questioning, and I think its pretty easy for us to see the difference between Chivalry and Forced Equality.
The government cannot police a territory that it does not own unless it infringes on property rights. This means either taking the property from its owner, or allowing the owner to retain ownership but restricting what the owner can or cannot do on their own property. For example, the proposed "stronger southern border", which is supported by many identifying as paleo*, requires the use of eminent domain to implement, as the government does not currently own all of the land adjacent to the border. In the case you suggested of the government preventing sharia law from existing, I cannot imagine how such a thing could be enforced without infringing on property rights, as all of the proceedings would take place in private homes and places of worship.
The governments duty, via the social contract, is to secure and defend our property rights. The border itself, like waterways, are a public good. The commons. If there is anything that Eminent Domain is to be used for, this would seem to qualify. Of course, in an ideal world, every property owner would lay down landmines on their property line to prevent intruders....the truth is. Under your system, one property owner may just allow their property to be an untouchable funnel for immigrants...which is ultimately a market failure for the rest of the nation, who do not wish (via law) for these people to be present in the country. That is the purpose of government. As far as the Sharia thing again goes. I am not talking about Social Institutions. People will do what they will. I do not want Social Institutions to control Government, nor Government to control Social Institutions. That should be clear.
Could you give me a list of countries where those principles are a defining part of the culture? I would like to move there.
As I said, Western Civilization has pretty much been destroyed since the end of WW2. European Civilization destroyed itself. We were the final bastion, but we've allowed ourselves to turn to Egalitarianism...destroying us as well. You wanna move somewhere? Move to a 3rd World Dictatorship...I guarantee that you will be more free there than here, in the Land of the Bureaucracy.
You're seeing what you want to see through a lens focused on culture war above all else. What I'm saying has nothing whatsoever to do with western culture and everything to do with liberty.
There is a Culture War. Absolutely. To believe otherwise is to have the Marxist wool pulled over your eyes. I'm not disagreeing with you...but you are disagreeing with me. You are clearly failing to see what I am saying because of misinterpretations. Read what I write, don't imply.
There is no way to enforce or protect western culture while also eliminating or even reducing government's involvement in markets, individual liberty, and property rights. If you prioritize liberty over culture, then the paleo in paleolibertarian is a distinction without a difference, so far as I can see it. If, on the other hand, you allow government to regulate action in order to protect culture, then the result is paleoconservatism of a non-libertarian flavor.
You somehow think that enforcing or protecting western culture is not libertarian. The truth is the opposite. What are we but a collection of western ideals? Markets, Liberty, Rights...that is all pure west. You want to protect that? I do. You believe in individuals? I do.
How about the government that wants to put you into groups...they don't. That want to strip you of property rights for "the common good"...they don't. That wish to tell you what you can or can't build on your land "for the good of the environment"...they don't. You are a paleo-lib and you don't even know it.
Lew abandoned Paleo-Libertarianism, because people like you just make stuff up about what it is. Culture is a Societal Function...not a governmental one. The best way to protect it, like with freedom of religion, is to detach it from the nasty grip of government.
I want you to look at Great Britain. The old height of western civilization. What happened since WW2? Is it that you can't see the 180 degree change in its culture, or are you just not paying attention.
"The West is the Best"...and unfortunately, it has been overrun by the masses of the 3rd world, who seek nothing more than to pervert our own civilization against itself.
Democracy is Tyranny of the Majority....
