The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Publications Filter?
VDare
Nothing found
 TeasersiSteve Blog
/
Libertarianism

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

From Reason magazine (which really ought to look into changing its name to something more appropriate, such as Smugness):

Baby Bust!
The world is panicking over birthrates. Again.
Kerry Howley

As a historical example of panicking over birthrates, we read:

“Waves of birthrate anxiety swept through France at the beginning of the 19th century…

And, of course, all that French hysteria over Germany having a higher birthrate and thus being able to field a bigger army turned out to be just a hallucination as the Germans never ever bothered France again.

The article includes three mentions of Mark Steyn’s America Alone, without mentioning the ongoing court battle in Canada over whether the leading newsweekly up there has the legal right to print part of it.

And, of course, there is zero mention in the article of the most prominent public calls for maintaining the quantity and quality of the race — from Jews.

For example, Elliott Abrams, who served during the first Bush II adminstration as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs and then was promoted to Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy, spent the Clinton Administration years trying to keep Jews from marrying shikses. Abrams wrote in Slate in 1999:

“But the accommodationists are wrong. Intermarriage is both inevitable in our open society, and immensely threatening to Jewish continuity here. The Jewish community must avoid excuses and circumlocutions, and recognize that only a powerful Jewish identity built on the faith and practice of Judaism can enable young American Jews to resist the temptation of intermarriage. Only that faith can explain to them why they should resist the melting pot and build a family that takes its place in the covenant of Abraham.”

Putting a race warrior like Abrams in charge of America’s Near East policy was a little like making Rev. Bob Jones III ambassador to Nelson Mandela’s South Africa. But nobody seemed to notice the joke. That’s just one of those things you aren’t supposed to talk about, especially in Reason.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Libertarianism 
🔊 Listen RSS

James H. Cone, creator of “black liberation theology,” is to Jeremiah A. Wright is to Barack Obama. The analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s not at all bad.

But nobody in the white media takes black intellectuals seriously, so you are not supposed to care, either.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Libertarianism, Obama 
🔊 Listen RSS

As usual, Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution illustrates Across Difficult Country’s aphorism. Alex says:

I understand individual rights and I understand counting everyone equally but I see less value in counting some in and some out based on arbitrary characteristics like which side of the border the actors fall on.

The difference is quite obvious if you remove the libertarian economists’ assume-we-have-a-can-opener blinders. We live in a world where violence — perpetrating it and preventing it — is the fundamental fact that social and political organization must deal with.

Thus, all property rights come out of the barrel of a gun.

Once you realize that, the reason why we prefer the welfare of our fellow citizens to that of non-citizens is (to get all reductionist):

They are the ones who would fight on your side.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS

Writing about The Alamo last week, I quoted historian Paul Johnson on America’s conflict with Mexico in the 1830s and 1840s:

“It made moral as well as economic and political sense for the civilized United States to wrest as much territory as possible from the hands of Mexico’s greedy and irresponsible rulers.”

Johnson goes on:

“California was an even greater prize than Texas… Considering the benevolence of its climate, the fertility of its soil, and its vast range of obvious natural resources, it is astonishing that the Spanish, then the Mexicans, did solittle to make use of them.”

Harvard student Richard Henry Dana sailed from Boston to California inthe mid-1830s. In his famous memoir Two Years before the Mast, he recounted with astonishment that the San Francisco Bay, perhaps the finest location for human habitation in the entire world (and, as a native Los Angeleno, that’s not easy for me to admit) was almost devoid of settlement. He hinted broadly to his readers that Americans could make better use of such a prize.

The American takeover of California resembled an operetta version ofthe more dramatic events in Texas. Political loyalties among Spanish-speakers in California were splintered among representatives of the relatively new Mexican government; those whose hearts still belonged to Spain; native-born Californios leaning toward self-rule; and those Californios (led by the impressive Gen. Mariano Vallejo) who hoped for annexation by the U.S.

The most dynamic element, however, were the American immigrants—typically New Englanders who had jumped ship and married intolanded Californio families.

In 1844, California revolted against Mexican rule. In 1846, at PresidentJames K. Polk’s prodding, it declared first its independence, then its allegiance to the U.S.

In 1848, gold was discovered. Hundreds of thousands of fortune-seekers rushed to Northern California. But Southern California remained a sleepy, backward cattle-raising region until the Southern Pacific railroad arrived in 1887, launching the region into the modern era with its first real estate boom. (The third main region of California is the Central Valley, where agricultural elites always wanted cheap labor.)

Subtle but important social differences emerged between Southern and Northern California. Which was the better mode was arguable—until recently.

Now, however, it has become clear that Northern California’s traditional elitism has helped it withstand the onslaught of illegalimmigration better than Southern California’s traditional populist libertarianism.

Personally, I always preferred the greater openness of SouthernCalifornia society. But that kind of freedom comes at the expense of quality of life when it’s abused by millions of foreign lawbreakers.

To use David Hackett Fischer’s system for categorizing the four kinds of British immigrants, Northern Californian was largely founded by New Englanders of Puritan descent. Southern California was largelypopulated by Middle Westerners, whose social roots typically stretch back to colonial Pennsylvania and to the South. By the 1950s, it was the paradise of the common man.

Northern California went through the typical political evolution of post-Puritans: into Lincolnian Republicans, then reformist Progressives, then modern lifestyle liberals intent, paradoxically, on preserving old-fashioned amenities like open space, traditional architecture, higher culture, and wildlife.

In contrast, Southern California was much more conservative, as thepopularity of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan testify. But in the 1990s, much of the GOP base began to be driven into the Great Basin by illegal immigration-driven population growth. Southern California’s Republican remnant, in its gated communities, is coming around to the Northern liberal point of view.

Northern California forestalled much of the dreariness of Southern California’s Hispanic areas by being a high-cost economy. Ferociously powerful unions kept wages high. Stringent aesthetic restrictions and large amounts of land devoted to parks kept housing costs high. Northern Californians spearheaded the environmentalist movement—which had the unspoken but not-unintended consequence of driving up property values even further.

Southern California, in contrast, was not heavily unionized orenvironmentalized. It encouraged developers to put up huge tracts of homes.

Conservatives have had a hard time grasping that homeowners often use environmental laws to thwart new developments and enhance the value of their own property. Conservatives like to think of themselves as preserving property rights from meddling environmentalists. But the fact is that property owners themselves are often among those most intent on meddling.

In the ranchlands east of Oakland, for example, housing restrictions mean that most developments are dense housing pods surrounded by vast expanses populated only by cows. In the south of the state, it would all be tract housing.

The Monterey Peninsula exemplifies Northern elitism, privateenterprise-style. The exquisite oceanfront Del Monte Forest is accessible only via the 17 Mile Drive, which costs an $8.25 toll to traverse, or 49 cents per mile. It’s worth it, though, because much ofthe natural beauty has either been preserved untouched, or enhanced with the finest set of golf courses in America: Pebble Beach, the famous public course with a $395 greens fee; Cypress Point, the ultra-private “Sistine Chapel of Golf;” Spyglass Hill, Robert Trent Jones’ Sr.’s best course; and four others.

Tellingly, Northern California has preserved most of its best golfcourses from the Golden Age of golf architecture (1911-1933). But Southern California has lost many such courses, like George C. Thomas’ Fox Hills in West Los Angeles, to housing during the post-War boom.

As a native Los Angeleno, Northern Californian snobbishness has always gotten on my nerves. Nonetheless, the payoff has becomeundeniable. Rather than being inundated with unskilled immigrants from one country, Northern California mainly attracts skilled immigrants from a wide diversity of countries.

The lesson for the GOP is sobering. If it won’t fight to enforce immigration laws on the national level, citizens will try to parry the effects at the local level.

And the socially acceptable way to keep out swarms of poor immigrants is the Northern Californian liberal way: environmentalism,unionism, historical preservationism, NIMBYism—indeed, the whole panoply of Democratic Party policies at the state and local level.

It makes no sense for Republicans to drive conservative-minded affluent people, desperate to keep their suburb from turning into North Orange Country, into the arms of the Democratic Party.

But that’s exactly what George Bush’s GOP is doing.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration, Libertarianism, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS

Top libertarian pundit Jacob Sullum wrote recently in Reason Magazine Online:

You can move from Nome to Key West or from Honolulu to Bangor in search of a better life without getting official approval from anyone. Not so if you want to move from Tijuana to SanDiego or from Toronto to Buffalo. The standard explanation for such distinctions revolves around the concepts of citizenship and sovereignty. But these terms seem to do little more than restate the puzzle: “Citizens” are the privileged ones who getto live and work in a particular place, because the government that exercises “sovereignty” there says so. …If there’s a compelling reason why a different standard should apply to immigration between countries, I haven’t heard it yet.

Jacob Sullum, “Moving Targets

Well, as a free market fellow-traveler, perhaps I can supply the reason.

A free market economy has two main advantages over a highly politicized system. Of course, it produces more wealth. But equally importantly, it doesn’t corrupt people as much as any system that uses the state’s monopoly on violence to take money from one person and give it to another. (As illustration of the perverting power of combining normal human greed with politics, observe the career of the Rev. J. Jackson.)

The potentially fatal weakness of free markets, however, is that they increasingly foster inequality.

Within America, income inequality has grown significantly since 1973, for a variety of reasons.

  • The modern information-industrial economy offers fewer and fewer rewards to a strong back and more and more to a strong mind. In 1952, factory workers made 67% as much as engineers. By 1988, they earned only 29% as much. Today, if you look at young adult siblings raised in the same households, the ones in the top quarter of the IQ scale earn almost twice as much as their brothers or sisters in the bottom quarter of the bell curve.
  • We corrupted America’s poor back in the 1960s by(temporarily) offering enough welfare for an unmarried woman to feed herself, her kids, and a boyfriend or two.
  • We’ve been importing large numbers of people from the less productive classes of the less productive nations. And we haven’t come close to the bottom of the barrel yet. Only recently, for example, have non-Spanish speaking Indians from Chiapas and similar downtrodden regions in the south of Mexico begun to show up in America. Andean Indian peasants, favela-dwellers from the scenic slums of Brazil, and Africans (otherthan the wa-Benzi elites) have yet to figure out how to get to America. But, unless we make the effort, they eventually will.
  • By increasing the supply of low skilled labor, these immigrants drive down wages among America’s less able citizens.
  • Population growth, which these days is wholly a product of current and recent immigration, drives up land prices. This makes it harder for working families to afford their own homes in immigrant gateway states. In the West, this drives native-born families out of the lush coastal regions and into the harsh deserts of the interior.
  • We haven’t been importing many competitors for ourhomegrown verbal elites, so their earnings remain strong. American lawyers, for example, are overwhelmingly native-born. With the exception of a few British Commonwealth journalists, media workers are almost all American-born. Laws restricting government jobs to citizens protect federalbureaucrats. Politicians, of course, face little competition from hungry immigrants. So it’s hardly surprising that the American establishment has year after year rejected overwhelming public support for limiting immigration.

It’s time for us good guys to take a lesson in prudence from the bad guys. As you may recall, Trotsky and Stalin had a little falling out. Trotsky wanted to pursue “permanent worldwide revolution.” Incontrast, Stalin thought it wiser to concentrate on “revolution in one country,” and only pick off buffer states as circumstances allowed. Stalin won the debate with Trotsky through the penetrating power of his logic (and ice pick), and went on to be the most enduringly successful of the 20th Century’s sizable cast of monsters.

This is what libertarians must realize: There is staggeringly too much inequality in the world for America’s love affair with capitalism to survive importing massive amounts of it.

In The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor, Harvard economic historian David S. Landes wrote, “The difference in income per head between the richest industrial nation, say Switzerland, and the poorest nonindustrial country, Mozambique, is about 400 to 1.” (For my review, click here.)

It’s crucial to understand that a hankering for equality is not some fad instigated by Marxist college professors. It is deeply rooted in human nature. Just see what happens when you try to give one of your kids asmaller slice of the pie than you give the others.

America’s exceptional devotion to free enterprise was based on our being blessed with a nearly empty continent, populated only by Indians who, while brave and tenacious, were ultimately too thin on the ground to hang on to their property. Throughout American history, cheap land and high wages made possible a degree of equality of land ownership impossible to achieve in Europe without heavy governmentintervention. Even though 19th Century Great Britain enjoyed a higher degree of social mobility than was typical in Europe, around 250 families owned about 3/4ths of the real estate in the entire country.Today, after generations of punitive death duties, the Duke of Westminster still owns about 10% of London.

Socialism didn’t happen here because we didn’t need it to happen.

The eternal temptation of the wealthy, however, is to try to acquire cheap labor in order to grow even richer. Plantation owners imported and bred millions of slaves. After the Civil War, Gilded Age capitalistsneeded factory hands. They could have found them among the millions of oppressed blacks of the Jim Crow South. But they believed, no doubt rightly, that European immigrants were cheaper relative to theirproductivity.

As a nation, we’re still paying for the slave trade, slavery, and the failure to incorporate the freedmen into the national labor market. One of the indirect costs is the vast prestige of liberalism even today, after decades of disastrous policies. The single most important reason liberals maintain their dysfunctional moral cachet in 2001 is because they were on the side of the angels in 1964.

In 1965, however, Congress changed the law to once again allow the importing of large numbers of cheap laborers. This has helped solve the servant problem of the current generation of the rich, but at the cost of slowly creating a new proletariat of voters who suffer from expensive land and low wages.

History shows that people in these conditions tend to vote for the Left. And who can blame them?

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Libertarianism, VDare Archives 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.


PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation