The Same Reasons I am not a Conservative…
By Mona
.
…but rather, am a libertarian, are largely those stated by F. A. Hayek many decades ago. The inestimable Jim Henley’s Henley Doctrine, to wit: “Hayek does not stop at the water’s edge,†has been only one of Jim’s many astute observations.
.
Today’s conservatives especially fail to grasp this truth. Their antics and errors are well identified in Hayek’s 1960 essay, Why I am not a Conservative, all emphasis mine:
…[I reject] the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule – not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people..[...].Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it – or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts..[...].Connected with the conservative distrust of the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries. But refusal to acquaint one’s self with new ideas merely deprives one of the power of effectively countering them when necessary. The growth of ideas is an international process, and only those who fully take part in the discussion will be able to exercise a significant influence. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots.A great deal more might be said about the close connection between conservatism and nationalism, but I shall not dwell on this point because it might be felt that my personal position makes me unable to sympathize with any form of nationalism. I will merely add that it is this nationalistic bias which frequently provides the bridge from conservatism to collectivism….[...].Only at first does it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to “civilize” other[10] – not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government.
Comment by Michelle —
December 9, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Hello
Comment by swassociates —
December 9, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
??????????
Do you mean the factually challenged moron?
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
swassociates and all: Beginning now, I am deleting all comments that merely insult Jim (or myself or Dr. T., for which there are many other threads below where you may do that). Deal with the substance of what I wrote, or do not comment. However, criticize any of the ideas therein, including Jim’s, as stridently as you like.
Comment by Karen —
December 9, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to “civilize†other[10] – not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government.
That’s the issue, isn’t it? Too many people fear anything new, as though novelty itself is an evil, and not the possible effects of the innovation. If the innovation is mostly wrong, it should be easy to demonstrate that fact rather than to just denounce it for being new.
Oh, and is there a good resource for Hayek’s books? Both Amazon and BN.com are mostly out, other than extragantly expensive rare books.
Comment by Qwinn —
December 9, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
“Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.”
You mean like the thousand or so holes that have been found in global warming/climate change “theory”?
Those still get defended, and the capacity of those defenders to refuse to acknowledge facts contrary to their theories is, well, pretty much infinite.
Qwinn
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
Well, I was a skeptic about anthropogenic GW for a long time, but when Ron Bailey concedes it is happening, then I defer to his superior knowledge about such things — I’m not a scientist of any sort.
Comment by Matt Stevens —
December 9, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Honestly, I wouldn’t object if all of you close comments until the Mark Steyn fans give up and go home.
It’s good to engage with “the other side,” but when a large group of obnoxious, insulting strangers come to your house and issuing catcalls you’re entitled to throw them out.
(I’m sorry to hear, BTW, that Jim made a mistake. Happens to the best of us.)
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Karen asks:
I have to believe you can get a used copy of Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty (from which the Why I am Not a Conservative essay is taken — it is the concluding chapter), for pennies or small dollars via Amazon or other online used book sites. But then, I haven’t looked.
Comment by Qwinn —
December 9, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
“Well, I was a skeptic about anthropogenic GW for a long time, but when Ron Bailey concedes it is happenings, then I defer to his superior knowledge about such things — I’m not a scientist of any sort.”
I see. So what government action are you willing to support in order to rescue us from the impending global climate disaster?
Qwinn
Comment by Thoreau —
December 9, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Yeah, “Hayek doesn’t stop at the water’s edge” is one of Jim’s finest contributions. In 2003 it stumped me to hear so many self-described libertarians talking in unison about “changing the dynamic in the Middle East” and “transforming a region.” I had only identified as libertarian for a few years, but I knew enough to know that social engineering was generally seen as a bad thing by libertarians.
In 2006 I read Hayek, and I liked it. OK, I only read The Road to Serfdom, but I want to read more Hayek when I get the chance.
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
I honestly do not know, and also am not certain to what extent human beings are a cause of GW (tho it now seems probable we are to some degree a cause). In areas where I am incompetent to hold an opinion, I defer to those who are not incompetent. Bailey has always been skeptical of environmental alarmism, and I tend to find his prescriptive opinions persuasive because I know he isn’t one to cry “wolf!”.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 9, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Mona, speaking as a professional, I strongly urge you not to take your lead on scientific matters from anybody enthused about transhumanism and singularities.
Ron has some good points, and I even plan to assign one of his articles in a class, so do read him as one viewpoint to consider. But don’t defer to him.
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Yes, Herr Doktor T.
I’m just sayin’, when Ron accepted anthropogenic GW, that pretty much settled it for me. It is simply a subject well outside of my competence.
Comment by Qwinn —
December 9, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
So if Ron Bailey endorsed it, you would be willing to give the state increased powers to match the “threat” of global warming, purely on the authority of someone you trust?
In what way is this libertarian? More to the point, how is Hayek’s rant against conservatives above not applicable to you? Do you think the conservatives being complained about are different somehow? Don’t they just have a different set of authority figures they trust to tell them what a proper use of government is?
Actually, as a conservative, I find most conservatives to be a surly limited government lot (political class excepted), and it would take a lot more than a single authority figure telling them something to approve an increase in government.
Qwinn
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Mona, an argument can be made that Hayek does indeed stop at certain waters edge, to argue otherwise is essentially taking Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis as a given. Do not confuse a desire for the “goodies” of western civilization with a desire to start attending Vermont town meetings & create an independent judiciary, the two are not the same. This confusion is part of the error-laden thinking that the Bush administration persists in. Culture matters, it matters quite a lot, and Hayek is not going to be found in those cultures where the individual is nothing more than part of a larger unit. Hayek grows out of a particular cultural matrix and he will not be well received in certain other ones.
I’ll illustrate the point very simply: which is more likely to be found in a Palestinian or Turkish bookstore, a copy of anything by Hayek, or a recent translation of “Mein Kampf”? Which is a bestseller, and which is not?
Now, I believe this is the point at which you inform me that I am a “racist douchebag”, despite the fact that Islam is not a race…
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
December 9, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Powell’s City of Books is a good source for Hayek – an awesomely massive establishment, they’re getting in new copies all the time as well as selling the ones they have, so when there’s something I want, I check there every few weeks.
I second the sentiment that it might be worth just closing all comments for a while.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 9, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Sure, there are some non-trivial differences between America and other societies. But that doesn’t mean that those other societies are less complex and easier for outsiders to shape and control.
Democratic Domino Theory was based on the idea that we could go in and install liberal democracy by force. The complexity of any society, Western or otherwise, argues against such a project.
Comment by Qwinn —
December 9, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Yes, better close those comments, after all, wouldn’t want my on-point questions that have nothing to do with the recent kerkuffle to cause any ungood thoughts.
Qwinn
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Ron Bailey hates state power grants rather like a vampire does a crucifix, so if he endorsed something draconian to control GW (which he has not come close to doing), I’d consider that there was a serious problem with GW. But no, I would not consider only Bailey’s policy prescriptions.
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Then you will be disappointed. Jim and I do not agree on what constitutes racism or sexism, and that has always been the case. And I have not called you or anyone else a racist.
But I do not intend to see copies of Hayek placed on Palestinian or Turkish bookshelves at the point of a gun. Nor would the dear departed old man himself so desire.
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Bruce wrote:
Nah. As long as all abide by my announcement in comment #3, I’m leaving comments open.
Comment by David Roberts —
December 9, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
On global warming, I too would advise against slavishly following the lead of Ron Bailey. Instead, I advise deferring to the thousands of scientists from hundreds of countries who come together through the IPCC process to survey the latest scientific literature. Or you could defer to every reputable scientific academy and association in the world. Try any of the folks on this list, all of whom have endorsed the IPCC conclusions:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Or if you don’t like the eggheads, you could defer to any of a growing coalition of business leaders, religious leaders, national security scholars, hunting and conservation leaders, etc. etc. etc.
You might also browse around here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
The alternative is to go with the roughly dozen discredited scientists and hobbyists that are endlessly recycled on FOX News. You might wonder why they never seem to turn up any new ones.
Anyway, Ron Bailey is hardly your only option.
In general, the whole passage you quoted could not be more right on, Mona. One wishes that when your new commenters saw themselves so starkly and plainly described, it might stop them short, or cause them a moment’s introspection. But if that were their nature, I suppose they wouldn’t be who they are, doing what they’re doing, right?
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Dave Roberts, thanks for the citations, but about this: Anyway, Ron Bailey is hardly your only option.
My only point was that when such as Ron Bailey concedes — as he did a few years ago — that GW is happening, I take that as an indication that the case is so compelling as to be closed.
“What is to be done?” is another matter, and I do not know. I opine like a house on fire in my areas of competence, but this just isn’t one of them. (Search the archives and it will be quickly revealed that I do not write on the subject — I’m wholly ingerant about it.)
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Mona, I am not disappointed you did not (yet) call me a “racist douchebag”, but rather a bit surprised, as so far you are not living down to the standards for this web log. Perhaps you are saving it for later? Oh, well, time will tell.
Now, I don’t see anyone in this thread asking that Hayeks’ books be put anywhere at the point of a gun. My point is that Hayek does indeed stop at the waters edge, or at least some waters edge; his writings are not universally applicable to all people in all times and places. Stating this in some libertarian fora has gotten me quite a bit of the sort of “debate” that I have encountered here; ad hominem, namecalling, begging the question, etc. It is almost as though Hayek’s books are found on stone tablets, rather than on paper…
So tell me, Mona, are you willing to agree that Hakes ideas are not universals, that they do not apply to all people in the world oday?
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
That depends on the ideas and level of generality. Myself, I vehemently disagree with Hayek on one issue, but otherwise find his insights into human nature, social engineering and centralized planning to be beyond all reasonable dispute, given evidence to date.
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Well, Mona, I simply must enquire what issue you disagree with Hayek on, out of pure curiousity if nothing else.
Of course, if it’s time for you to inform me I’m just another “racist douchebag” for asking, then by all means, don’t hold back.
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
He endorsed conscription under some circumstances. I adamantly oppose it.
Comment by mds —
December 9, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
Indeed, imagine if oil companies were to start admitting the existence of anthropogenic climate change; it would then be all over for the skeptics.
More seriously, I defer to the APS in honor of the “-physics” part of my really fancy diploma. I’ve read bits and pieces of the literature, but since it’s not my specific area of expertise either, there are limits to how well I can evaluate the details. But either the consensus is strong, or a lot of people in my web of trust are actually involved in a extremely thorough and sinister conspiracy. And since Sir William shaves my face and/or legs…
Anyway, thanks for the highly apropos Hayek, Mona. See, this is why I was espousing Hayek as an icon in preference to Friedman. Right or (horribly) wrong, he thinks the Big Thinks.
Comment by Chris Newman —
December 9, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Sheikyerbhouti:
I’m not sure I understand the thrust of your argument against Jim’s dictum about Hayek. If going beyond the water’s edge means that his books and ideas are well-respected in all countries, then certainly you are right, but that’s pretty obviously not what Jim meant. I take him to be claiming that the truths Hayek identified are no less true overseas than here, and no less true of governments’ attempts to create social institutions from scratch in other countries than of their attempts to do so here. Your own post above seems to illustrate this point rather than refute it, where you point out correctly that people in other countries, whatever their desire for material improvement, do not necessarily have any desire to “start attending Vermont town meetings & create an independent judiciary.” Isn’t that precisely the Hayekian critique of our intervention in Iraq? That Bush & co. somehow believed that Iraqis, once freed of Hussein’s rule, would be immediately able to implement the types of civil institutions that give rise to liberty as we understand it, even though there was no historically emergent cultural basis for those institutions? Hayek’s main theme is the way that social institutions emerge over time as a spontaneous order, and that trying to short circuit that process by rationalist top-down planning is both unlikely to work well and likely to lead the society that tries down the path toward collectivism. Is it your contention that these dynamics do not apply to our efforts at nation building overseas?
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Chris Newman:
Well-said and asked.
Comment by Professor Blather —
December 9, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
What a colossal straw man that is.
Here’s a hint: whenever you tell a group what they think – right before attacking what you just told them they think – you’re an idiot by definition.
As an actual conservative, I laughed out loud at much of what Hayek claimed conservative generally think and feel. In fact, a good 90% of what he wrote is anathema to most conservatives.
That entire screed was no different than a conservative blithering on about liberals who hate America and support terrorists … and then explaining why such views are bad.
It’s stupid and intellectually lazy.
If you want to know what someone thinks – ask them.
Then, if you disagree, feel free to attack that opinion.
But just tilting at massive straw windmills is embarrassing. Especially when your straw man is constructed so obviously wrongly.
Are there any actual critical thinkers at this blog? At all?
Comment by Professor Blather —
December 9, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
Never mind. Obviously there are no critical thinkers here.
I can’t imagine admitting that I’d abandoned critical thought because, well, since somebody else accepts an idea, it’s “pretty much settled.”
That’s almost as embarrassing as what your co-blogger did.
Think. For yourselves. You can do it.
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Professor Blather: What are the errors in either my quotes of Hayek’s essay, or the entirety of his piece to which I link? A substanceless tantrum about it is no substitute for actual, specific criticisms.
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
To repeat: I agree with “Thoreau” above, that there are cultures that are not going to be democratized by force. Unhappily for “Thoreau”, this also has implications for societies such as Europe that allow mass immigration from countries that are actively not democratic. Specifically, if a given culture actively rejects such concepts as an independent judiciary, separation of church and state, free speech even for hurtful speech, and large numbers of people who live that culture become residents of a democratic society, then those very institutions will be in peril.
The “Democracy project” that you deride is not all that different from the liberal/libertarian “democracy project” of open borders. You don’t want to live in Baghdad, fine, but why then import millions of the people of Baghdad into Paris, New York, Londonistan, etc. with their culture (no free speech for those who “insult Islam”, genital mutilation of girls, etc.) intact? It is not only as futile, but it ultimately damages the very culture that gave libertarianism a place to grow.
PS: “Mona”, I fully expect you to delete this posting as well. I guess deleting postings you do not like is more genteel than calling me a “racist douchebag”, but the intent is the same: silencing opinion and facts that you do not like. Thanks for living down to the standards of this site.
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
I do, but just as on some fact questions courts allow expert testimony from those who are not “fact witnesses” to the event at issue, we must sometimes rely on those who know much more about a subject than we do. I’m not a polymath — are you?
The best I can do in areas where I am wholly outside of my areas of competence, is rely on those whose views I have found reliable where I am competent, when they are competent in areas where I am not.
Comment by Qwinn —
December 9, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
His point was that that’s exactly what you’ve done by quoting that screed by Hayek. The quote is the substanceless tantrum which doesn’t apply at all to how conservatives really think (and you might want to think about the fact that that was written in 1960. Conservatism has changed more than a little bit in the last 47 years, or did you miss all that stuff about Goldwater and Reagan?)
As he said: If you want to know what conservatives think about a particular subject, ask them, and then you can launch your own “specific criticisms”. Until then, you’re engaging in exactly what you just criticized Professor Blather for.
Qwinn
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Chris Newman, the fact that Hayek’s thought is rejected in favor of Adolph Hitler’s in nominally educated parts of the world such as Turkey simply points out that libertarianism is not, and can not, be a universal at this time or likely other times either. This fact has profound implications for foreign policy and for immigration policy.
But of course, now I’m just another “racist douchebag”, right?
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
No Shiekyerbhouti, I’m not deleting that latest comment (your other one violated my stipulations in comment #3). You didn’t insult the bloggers here in the last comment, but rather, raised good questions.
I do not entirely disagree with your point in that last comment. Mostly I’m an open borders gal, but I expect immigrants to assimilate to the values in our BoR.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 9, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
Sheikh-
You’re right, culture matters. The integration of communities will be easier in places where Hayekian ideas are respected.
Europe seems to be bad at integrating immigrants. America, with a more open culture and an economy that is closer to free market ideals (although still far from perfect on that score) seems to do rather well at integrating immigrants.
Comment by mds —
December 9, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
I couldn’t agree with you more, Sheikhyerbhouti. I’m as bothered as you are that Hitler’s ideas about racial and cultural “purity” and the intrinsic superiority of northern Europeans over the Semitic adherents of a non-Christian faith still find such an eager audience today, even in a supposedly enlightened land such as America.
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
“Mona”, I raised exactly the same points in the posting you deleted as in the one above. Your double standard with regard to insult (sock-puppets here must not be insulted, but they may freely and stupidly insult others without let or hindrance) is duly noted.
I am not surprised to learn that you are in favor of open borders. So here is a question for you: how many billion immigrants should be accepted in any given year? Does even asking that question make me a “racist douchebag”, I wonder?
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
“Thoreau”, how do you propose to integrate a community that explicitly rejects not only Hayek, but the Constitution and Bill Of Rights/Rights of Man into a Western cultgure? How do you propose to integrate people that actively reject the very concept of free speech?
Do you still wish grave bodily harm be done to me, by the way? Or are you done with that fantasy for now?
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
Are billions seeking admission?
Comment by Thoreau —
December 9, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
“Thoreauâ€, how do you propose to integrate a community that explicitly rejects not only Hayek, but the Constitution and Bill Of Rights/Rights of Man into a Western cultgure? How do you propose to integrate people that actively reject the very concept of free speech?
Are these generalizations true of each and every Muslim seeking to come here? Is it possible that the people seeking to come here are the ones disenchanted with the cultures and governments of their native lands?
And I never wished any harm on you. You showed up acting all serious in a 24 thread, so I joked that I can’t hurt you but Jack Bauer can. If you want to discuss it further, take it to that thread.
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
Qwinn inanely writes about Hayek:
Oh yeah, I missed it, and apparently so did Hayek. But see former NR publisher William Rusher to demonstrate your ignorance and get a sense of how maybe Hayek and Hayekians in the conservative movement (that included Goldwater) maybe fully knew the conservative breed.
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
Mona, you say you are for open borders. That means literally no limitations of any kind on people who wish to enter the US, including numbers. How many wish to come here now is irrelevant, the question is how many you would find room for under your ideal system.
So how many billions per year would be acceptable to you?
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
And I repeat, are billions trying to gain admission? If so, I’ll factor that into my thinking on the subject.
Comment by Mona —
December 9, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
And oh, Shiekyerbhouti, no, I don’t think anyone who has committed in their country of origin what would sensibly be considered a violent felony here, should be allowed to immigrate.
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
I wrote:
“Thoreauâ€, how do you propose to integrate a community that explicitly rejects not only Hayek, but the Constitution and Bill Of Rights/Rights of Man into a Western cultgure? How do you propose to integrate people that actively reject the very concept of free speech?
“Thoreau” replies:
Are these generalizations true of each and every Muslim seeking to come here?
“Thoreau”, even if it is only true of 35% (such as the precentage of UK Muslims who openly admit they wish to see Sharia imposed there) the danger to cultural institutions such as free speech are obvious. Surely you are aware of the ongoing Saudi “libel tourism” project to shut down all publication of any criticism of Islam at all? That can only be accellerated by bringing more anti-democratic thinking people into the West, right?
Is it possible that the people seeking to come here are the ones disenchanted with the cultures and governments of their native lands?
Is it possible that the people seeking to come here want the material goodies of the West, such as better health care and a functioning court system, but that a substantial number of them believe they also have a divine mandate to bring the West into the Umma by any means necessary? Precisely how do you propose to filter out those that support Jihad and the Wahabbie/Salafi world view from the others in a reliable fashion? Criminy, we can’t deport people who slice up the genitals of 2-year-old girls now, what’s going to happen when there are thousands more demanding their “right” to such a disgusting practice?
And I never wished any harm on you. You showed up acting all serious in a 24 thread, so I joked that I can’t hurt you but Jack Bauer can.
The desire on your part to have a keyboard “crammed down my throat” was, and is quite clear. Such an action would cause grave bodily harm or death to me, and you clearly wanted that.
If you want to discuss it further, take it to that thread.
You have already run away from that thread, “Thoreau”. So there’s not much point any more, now is there?
Comment by barstoolcadaver —
December 9, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
The Zappa fan has finally ceased harping on the “racy d-bag” bait? Disappointing and relieving at the same time, much like a low yield bowel movement.
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
Mona, if you are going to restrict immigration only to those that haven’t committed felonies, you are not in favor of open borders, you are an immigration restrictionist. What next? Are you going to tell me that people who have publicly urged the Constitution be overthrown should also not be allowed to immigrate? Goodness, what bigotry that would be!
Also please stop dancing round the issue of numbers. You say you are for open borders, then that means as many immigrants as wish to come here in any year. How many would you accept? Is there any numerical limit to the number of foreigners you would let into the country, or not? This is an easy question to answer if you have actually thought about the issue…
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
“Barstoolcadaver”, if you want to call me a “racist douchebag” I’m sure Mona won’t mind. She’s prohibited insults of sock puppets, not of real people like me. Besides, it’s kind of a motto for this website now…
Comment by Thoreau —
December 9, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
1) For the record, I don’t want a keyboard shoved down anybody’s throat. It was a fucking joke, when you consider the context of a Jack Bauer thread, that it was a reference to a famous Jack Bauer speech, how I said that Jack Bauer would do it, and that I explicitly said I can’t (and hence implicitly won’t) do it.
2) Regarding libel tourism, this is not a Muslim thing. It’s a British thing. The Economist has repeated reported on how the wealthy and powerful of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and other places have attempted to use British libel laws to stifle criticism on any number of matters.
The problem is one of illiberal laws and institutions, not Islam.
3) Regarding that 36% figure, I’ll need to examine the study and context and methodology before I concur with your assessment.
Comment by mds —
December 9, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
Yes, in the sense that it’s not absolutely impossible, like skiing through a revolving door. Do you have any guesstimates as to what this “substantial number” actually is, of eager materialists who are also ascetic fanatics?
(”Bring the West into the Umma by any means necessary”? Wow.)
So, anyway, Sheikyerbhouti, once you stop dreaming up unsubstantiated hysterical scenarios about the terrifying barbaric Muslims who are gonna git ya:
(1) Since Muslims, per Steyn, are unable ever to adopt pluralistic Western norms, simply keeping the evil Muslim immigrants out will be insufficient. What, besides our white women breeding more, do you suggest to deal with the all-but-inevitable Eurabian caliphate?
(2) How do we handle homegrown conversion to such a perverted faith? For instance, what should be done to Congressman Keith Ellison, who might not actually follow his oath of office when given the option to bring the US into the Umma?
(3) Why do you keep spouting about billions of immigrants, as if you were an innumerate fool?
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
Here is an interesting fact for all the sock puppets here to ignore: a daughter of a Moslem leader converted to Christianity. She has moved over 40 times since then, because of the death threats against her, apparently including one from her own brother (”Mona” and the rest of you clones can use a search engine to look up “honor killing” and maybe learn something. or not.). Buried in this article is a poll of Moslems aged 16 to 24, and we learn that 36% of them believe that any Moslem who converts to another religion should be punished with death.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=500087
So, “Thoreau”, “Mona”, and the rest of the sock drawer, do you have any problem with this?
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 9, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Oh, mds, can’t you come up with better strawman arguments than these? Really, you haven’t learned anything; you still don’t realize that Islam is not a “race” (HINT: What color of skin are the Moslems of Bosnia?) it is a political/military system with religious trappings. A political system that has used terror as a tool for 14 centuries, along with a treatment of minorities that makes Jim Crow look positively idyllic.
Really, “Mona”, you should leave the eds account in the drawer. It is just pathetic.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 9, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
There’s one line in the article about the poll. It sounds fishy, so I’d like to learn more about methods, as well as the phrasing of the question.
Comment by Chris Newman —
December 10, 2007 @ 12:16 am
Again you seem to arguing for Jim’s point rather than against it. It was Bush who took the position that libertarianism was a universal (you know, the talk about liberty being god’s gift to humanity etc.), and made the mistake of trying to create a free society from the top down in a part of the world where too many people preferred Hitler to Hayek for this to have much chance of working out well. In other words, the “profound implications for foreign policy” of which you speak are precisely that nationbuilding of the sort we tried to implement (and that Bush himself used to criticize) is doomed to fail.
Despite your repeated invitations, I have no interested in engaging in namecalling with you. I’m trying to have a respectful serious conversation. If you’re not, just let me know and I’ll stop wasting my time. I will also say that I think it very unfortunate that the proprietors of this blog (which I have long read and found useful) have allowed their tone to degenerate to the point where the intemperate post that started this whole kerfluffle struck Jim as a good way to wage a battle of ideas. I think he’s better than that and hope he and his co-bloggers learn from this experience.
Comment by Shiekyerbhouti —
December 10, 2007 @ 1:21 am
“Chris Newman”, I really don’t have any problem with criticism of the Democracy Project overseas, despite your attempts to paint me so. Now can you please deal with the other side of the coin, the issue of importing large numbers of people with no experience at all in self-government some of whom feel a religious command to destroy all secular governments, into countries such as the UK, Spain, France, Germany and the US? Can you get around to at least addressing the libertarian version of the “democracy project” now that we have no disagreement about the other one?
You might to be a real person, unlike virtually (heh!) all of the other posters here, so I am willing to have as serious a discussion as you can handle. But if the urge to call me a “racist douchebag” overcomes you, please do not hold back on my account. I certainly do not wish to impose my standards upon this site. It would be far too much work for me, and I don’t have the time.
Comment by KRYPTODYNE —
December 10, 2007 @ 1:24 am
IF ONLY THE SAME STANDARD APPLIED TO ALL YOUR POSTS.
Comment by Tom Schulz —
December 10, 2007 @ 1:38 am
I think that there is no arguing with people who don’t have the ability to logically think their positions through to the end. It is apparent that you haven’t thought these ideas through to their final result, should these ideas actually be adopted as policy. When your logic gets snagged by your feelings, it is not logic anymore.
The arguments that I see here for open borders, not judging other societies for their barbarity (and make no mistake, it is barbarity when humans kill other humans for their thoughts), AGW, and all the other factless arguments, show nothing more than a refusal to see the world as it is, and cling to childhood with the tenacity of a …well, a child. It feels so good, though, doesn’t it? Let not reality intrude…
It is scary to see people who believe that murderous savages should be left in peace because the holders of these notion’s claims are lost in reverie for their childhood, where they live in a perfect, protected world. The world is not, and never has been a terribly safe place to live, and to pretend otherwise is suicidal.
But I guess it feels selfless to think that way. And it’s really about what we feel, not what is real, isn’t it?
AGW? There is plenty of scientific evidence that GW is caused by nature, and not by man. But guess what? Anyone who tries to bring up that eveidence is shouted down. It’s all there on the internet if you aren’t too complacent to look for yourself. The issue is far from settled.
And carbon credits? Do you have any idea what an outrageous scam they are? Nope. Because they sound so “nice”. They are nothing more than another way to part fools and their money.
And I have met no one who blames Muslims in general for the Jihad, but that doesn’t mean you can shrug your shoulders and pretend that a very major problem doesn’t exist. The most ironic part of all this, is that the very people you lionize are, at this moment, sharpening their knives to cut away your freedoms – and most likely your life. They laugh down their sleeves at you.
And so do I.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
December 10, 2007 @ 2:48 am
“My point is that Hayek does indeed stop at the waters edge, or at least some waters edge; his writings are not universally applicable to all people in all times and places.”
Is it the case that state run economies are lumbering, pathetic, ill-managed disasters in some cultures, but wonderful, inspired, innovative and agile miracles in other cultures? Are there no lessons to be drawn from Hayek that might apply cross-culture? Do you regard Middle Eastern economies as well-managed? Do you think Middle Eastern countries have anything useful they might learn from Hayek?
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
December 10, 2007 @ 2:59 am
““Thoreauâ€, how do you propose to integrate a community that explicitly rejects not only Hayek, but the Constitution and Bill Of Rights/Rights of Man into a Western cultgure? ”
In 2004 a majority of my fellow citizens voted for a party that has been promoting torture and a Unitary Executive who can operate without any restraint on their power. Why should I fear foreigners? It’s my fellow citizens who seem intent on ending the political order that America has striven for since 1775.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
December 10, 2007 @ 3:04 am
“Also please stop dancing round the issue of numbers. You say you are for open borders, then that means as many immigrants as wish to come here in any year. How many would you accept? Is there any numerical limit to the number of foreigners you would let into the country, or not? This is an easy question to answer if you have actually thought about the issue…”
The market imposes its own limit on immigration between countries, save where governments feel the need to restrict immigration to a level lower than what the market supports. To say one is for “open borders” is to suggest that the market, not the government, should be in charge of setting the limit on immigration.
Personally, I’d be happy to see immigration near the level that the market would support. This would be a large number of immigrants. I assume the result of such immigration would be prosperity, as most market activity tends to lead to prosperity, and since previous waves of immigration to America have also brought prosperity.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
December 10, 2007 @ 3:14 am
“Also please stop dancing round the issue…”
Such language suggests a great deal of confidence about one’s argument, but also implies the person speaking is in control of the conversation and gets to direct it.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
December 10, 2007 @ 3:20 am
“a substantial number of them believe they also have a divine mandate to bring the West into the Umma by any means necessary?”
I think I’m suppose to be afraid of these people? Listen, there’s only been one time in my life that someone picked a fight with me because of a view that I expressed, and the person picking the fight was a citizen of the US. I can think of good reasons to be afraid of my fellow citizens, especially when so many of my fellow citizens seem ready to give up on the Bill Of Rights. Why should I fear some hypothetical future scenario where scary foreigners take over America and overthrow democracy? I’ve got much more immediate concerns about the attack on my fundamental rights that a number of my fellow citizens are now pushing.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
December 10, 2007 @ 3:29 am
“Now can you please deal with the other side of the coin, the issue of importing large numbers of people…”
This is in a post that is made up almost entirely of a quote from Hayek.
On my own weblog, I used to be just fine with the occassional off-topic comment, and of course Jim, Mona and Thoreu are free to set the comment policy for this blog. But if you are going to go off-topic, and raise unrelated questions in the comments (I mean, unrelated to the post above) don’t you think you should be a little less demanding in your tone?
If the issue of immigration is going to be discussed on this weblog, isn’t it up to the owners of this blog to do a post on immigration? And wouldn’t that be the appropriate place for you to raise your questions?
Again, Jim, Mona and Thoreu are free to engage you on this topic, in this thread, if they wish. But you can’t really demand that they engage you on this topic. You’re off-topic. Your comments have nothing to do with the post.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
December 10, 2007 @ 3:30 am
“I certainly do not wish to impose my standards upon this site. It would be far too much work for me, and I don’t have the time.”
Are you sure? Because you do seem to have a lot of time.
Comment by Tom Schulz —
December 10, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
Lawrence Kubner -
You are one scary human being. I am biting my tongue, because you are one of the people that I referenced before. There is no arguing with someone who has refused to grow up. Or maybe you really are twelve years old. I hope the latter is the truth, because it is terrifying to think that you might actually be an “adult”.
What happened to you that crushed your ability to think logically? Were you never exposed to the real world? Or, as a child, were you the one who ran the household?
Brrrrrr…
Reading your posts is like jumping into the resevoir in the middle of winter. Could you post anything logical and verified by history to support the fairy dust that you perch upon?
Scary guy, you are…
And like most progressives, you are bulletproof.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
December 11, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
“You are one scary human being. I am biting my tongue, because you are one of the people that I referenced before. ”
Tom, I apologize if I scared you. That wasn’t my intent.