Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Economic Advantage

Economic Advantage
Thomas Allen

One argument that libertarians and other proponents of free trade use is economic advantage. That is, if country A excels in producing agricultural products and country B excels in producing agricultural implements, A benefits from trading its agricultural products for country B’s agricultural implements instead of manufacturing them itself — and vice versa.

For example, the South excelled in producing cotton and tobacco. Great Britain excelled in manufacturing fabric, tools, and other manufactured products. So, the South traded its agricultural products for British manufactured goods and vice versa. For that reason, the North imposed protective tariffs on manufactured products to give itself an economic advantage over Great Britain.

However, few libertarians and other proponents of economic advantage see any advantage of one race or culture over another. To them, all cultures and, especially, races are equal. If they acknowledge that races and cultures cause economic advantage, then they would have to advocate policies to protect and preserve racial and cultural differences and, consequently, racial and cultural advantages. To keep the advantages of different races and cultures from disappearing, they would have to promote segregation and separation, which is highly politically incorrect.

Libertarians and other proponents of free trade either ignore or fail to realize the importance of race and culture. Race determines culture, and culture determines economic advantage.

Although the natural resources of a country are important, race and culture are more important. They decide if anything is done with them and what is done with them. Africa is a prime example of race and culture determining economic advantage. Great mineral treasures and agricultural potential lie in Sub-Sahara Africa. From their creation, Negroes and Khoisans have inhabited this region. Yet, they did little to develop it. Until the Aryan settlers arrived, the Negro’s most important export was slaves — first to the Melanochroi and then to the Aryans of Europe and later New England. Aryans developed Africa’s mineral resources and agricultural potential.

An example of cultural impact on economic advantage occurred in Europe during the Middle Ages. The Church prohibited the charging of interest on loans. So, if a clergyman, king, nobleman, or merchant needed to borrow money, they had to borrow from the Jews, who were not covered under the Church’s anti-usury edict. Thus, culture gave Jews an economic advantage in lending and later banking.

To retain and maintain economic advantage, racial and cultural advantages, i.e., differences, have to be protected and preserved because economic advantage grows out of racial and cultural advantages. To retain and maintain cultural advantage, races have to be protected and preserved because culture grows out of race. (Race precedes culture and, therefore, makes a culture.) Segregation and separation are the only sure way to preserve and protect the races, and, thus, they are the only ways to maintain economic advantage. Goods and services can cross borders without people (immigrants) crossing borders freely — especially, immigrants of different races and alien cultures.

Contrary to what libertarians and other proponents of free trade may believe, racial and cultural diversity and, therefore, advantages and differences are at least as important as, if not more important than, economic advantage. All are necessary for the well-being of mankind. Economic advantage depends heavily on culture, and culture is the product of race. Therefore, if economic advantage is to be retained and maintained, the races have to be protected and preserved. Only segregation and separation can protect and preserve them, and, by that, retain and maintain economic advantage.

Copyright © 2019, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on economics.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

Review of Boudreaux’s “Questions for Immigration Skeptics”

Review of Boudreaux’s “Questions for Immigration Skeptics”
Thomas Allen

Like most libertarians, Donald Boudreaux is a proponent of open borders and unrestricted immigration from the third world. In his article “Questions for Immigration Skeptics,” he faults several issues that opponents of open borders and unrestricted immigration use to support protecting the borders and restricting immigration. Below, are responses to some of the issues that Boudreaux identifies.

Using a common libertarian argument, Boudreaux contents that the mostly unrestricted immigration between 1607 and World War I resulted in a boom in the culture and economy of the British colonies and later the United States. Virtually unrestricted immigration of northern and western Europeans during this era was economically beneficial to European immigrants.

However, was this unrestricted migration of Europeans an economic and especially a cultural boom for the North American Indian? It certainly was not a boom for the Indian tribes that are now extinct. Moreover, this unrestricted immigration was such a cultural boom for the Indians that many no longer know the language of their ancestors, with many of these languages having become extinct. Much of what remains of traditional Indian culture is fading.

Boudreaux complains that placing restrictions on immigration reduces the freedom of Americans, both Blacks and especially Whites, by reducing the opportunity to mate with people of other races and thus hastening their extinction by breeding themselves out of existence. Thus, for Boudreaux and other libertarians, flooding the country with third-world nonwhite aliens is a great benefit. These nonwhite aliens offer White Americans the great benefit of amalgamating with them. Because of such miscegenation, the hated White race becomes extinct, which is a goal of liberal democrats and progressives and apparently of libertarians and neoconservatives. As most libertarians and neoconservatives are White, they must be consumed with self-hate.

Oddly, many libertarians agree with the desire of the liberal democrats, progressives, and neoconservatives to destroy the White race, Christianity, and Western Civilization — that is to destroy the foundation of libertarianism. (Has libertarianism ever risen in any other culture, religion, or race?)

Paradoxically, Boudreaux and other libertarians prefer flooding the country with evermore statists, as though enough of them are not already here. They want more people who have little used for a free market economy and see the government as the solver of all problems. Does not the country already contain enough people with this mentality?

Boudreaux complains that placing restrictions on immigration reduces the freedom of Americans to interact with non-Americans commercially. If so, such restriction of interaction is not significant. Most products that Americans buy are manufactured by non-Americans or contain parts manufactured by non-Americans. Furthermore, many agricultural products that Americans eat are grown by non-Americans. Even much of their computer services are provided by non-Americans. Apparently, Americans do not have to import non-Americans to interact with them commercially.

Another freedom that Boudreaux identifies that restricted immigration obstructs is learning from non-Americans. This complaint is so absurd that it hardly requires a response. With today’s internet and electronic communication systems (cell phones, television, radio, etc.), little restrictions exist for learning from non-Americans outside of China, North Korea, and a few other extremely authoritarian countries.

As an argument for open borders, Boudreaux notes that from Washington through the Garfield administration, the US government did not restrict immigration. If a duty of the government is to protect and control the country’s borders, the US government failed to perform this fundamental duty.

He fails to notice two important things. First, the people who were entering the country then came as true immigrants; they did not come as invading hordes of colonists as they are coming today. Second, except the Negro slaves and Chinese laborers, who were considered more as guest workers than immigrants, nearly all these immigrants were White Europeans and, therefore, of the same race (White), culture (Western Civilization), and religion (Christianity) as the Americans for whom the founders wrote the Constitution.

One great benefit of not restricting immigration during the antebellum era was that a large number of radicals from the failed Revolution of 1848 fled to the United States. Uniting with the Puritan Yankees, they succeeded in bringing Lincoln to power in 1861. To him, Americans owe the type of government that they have today — an all-powerful central government that claims the right to control everything, not only in this country, but also throughout the world, and seeks to do so. Bordeaux and other libertarians should rejoice; for this is the fruit of unrestricted immigration. Instead, they object to the results of their policy of unrestricted immigration.

One aspect that Boudreaux and other libertarians ignore is that before the early nineteenth century, Europeans came to the United States as colonists and not as immigrants. They came to supplant the Indians. They did not want to assimilate into the Indian culture. If any assimilation were to occur, the Indians would have to assimilate into the European culture.

Likewise, a large number of people entering the United States today come as colonists and not as immigrants. They have no intention of assimilating. Some, such as La Raza, admit as much. They want to retake the Southwest through colonization. Whites can assimilate with them or leave.

Like many libertarians, Boudreaux is so myopic that he only sees the potential benefits of unrestricted immigration, if all the things that he claims result from unrestricted immigration are truly beneficial. He all but ignores the culture, social, and racial destruction; to the extent that he does consider them, he finds their destruction desirable. However, liberal democrats and progressives are well aware of the destructiveness of unrestricted immigration, which is why they promote it.

Just as the Eastern Indian tribes learned earlier, the Plains Indians came to learn what happens when a people fail to protect their borders from unrestricted immigration. Failing to stop, much less restrict, immigrants from entering their country, the Plains Indians, like the Eastern Indians, lost their country. Moreover, these immigrants, who were really colonists, drove the Indians who had survived the genocidal wars to exterminate them to reservations, most of which were on undesirable land. Apparently, these open-borders-unrestricted-immigration proponents, who are mostly White, want Whites and, for that matter, Blacks to go the way of the North American Indian.

Open borders and unrestricted immigration have reduced the North American Indian to insignificance. Therefore, Bordeaux and other libertarians who promote open borders and unrestricted immigration must not care much about the North American Indian. Moreover, they do not care much about Whites or the American Negro. Unrestricted immigration will reduce them, if they survive the genocide, to the status of the North American Indian because Melanochroi and especially Turanians are coming to colonize the country. In general, Melanochroi and Turanians have little uses for Whites (Aryans) and none for Blacks (Negroes). Thus, libertarians, liberal democrats, progressives, neoconservatives and other proponents of open borders must disdain Whites and Blacks and adore Turanians, except the North American Indian, and Melanochroi.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Friday, February 7, 2020

The Difference Between Government and State

The Difference Between Government and State
Thomas Allen

In Fugitive Essays: Selected Writings of Frank Chodorov (Charles H. Hamilton, editor; Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1980). Chodorov gives an excellent, concise explanation of the difference between government and state. (Here, state means a political entity and not a territorial entity as commonly used in the United States.) Referenced page numbers to quotations from this book are enclosed in parentheses.
Chodorov defines government as:
a specialized service arising out of community life. It owes its existence to the individual’s interest in himself. Its specific job is to maintain the peace necessary to productive enterprise. Its related job is that of providing such services as may enable each of the specialists in the community to carry on more efficiently. And that’s all (p. 95).
Among the services that government provides are police, courts, and other services that prevent trespass against or endangerment of a person and his property. Government may also provide some services that are beneficial to all members of a community such as a uniform system of weights and measures, road maintenance, and sanitation. Much beyond these, it becomes a state.
He adds:
The distinctive characteristic of government is that in performing its functions it may have recourse to the use of coercive authority. Its particular attribute is power, vested in it by the producing specialists for the specific purpose of maintaining a condition necessary to their production (p. 95).
(Producing specialists are farmers, workers, businessmen, and others who are involved in producing real wealth.)
  Unfortunately, these protective measures can be used against producing specialists. Protectors can use their power to plunder the producing specialists. (For this reason, the producing specialists should always outgun the protectors.) When the protectors use their power to plunder instead of protect, as happens in a welfare state, which is built on plunder, the government “ceases to be a service and becomes a state” (p. 96).
“[T]he the moral basis of political authority is the right of life and the related right of property. But when that political authority is so exercised as to deny these basic rights, it divests itself of all ethical validity; and that is so even if those who so exercise the political authority surround themselves with law, custom, and a desire to do good. . . . [W]hen the exercise of political authority deprives the individual of his rights it ceases to be a service and becomes a disservice” (p. 96).
Chodorov defines the state as “those in whom the political authority is vested and who use it for other than protective purposes — [justifying] its action by invoking a ‘higher law’ (p. 96).” Thus, it replaces the rights of the individual with the rights of the community, nation, humanity, etc. The justification of the state rests on the chimera of a group of people acting together having rights that supersede the rights of the individual.
When the people in power use government to “engage in projects which jeopardize the life or property of the individual, or utilize that power so that either they or a favored group benefits at the expense of the producing public, that government is transformed into state” (p. 295).
Chodorov writes:
The state by virtue of the power of government which it acquires, perpetuates the purpose of conquest; by legal methods it regularizes the exploitation of the producer, in favor of the nonproducer, and by an elaborate system of education it obfuscates the immoral relationship and even covers the exploiters with an aura of respectability (p. 97).
Continuing, he explains:
The state is a person or a number of persons who exercise force, or the threat of it, to cause others to do what they otherwise would not do, or to refrain from satisfying a desire. That is, the state is political power, and political power is force exerted by persons on persons. The superhuman character given it is intended to induce subservience” (pp. 388-384).
Thus, the state is a group of morally responsible people combining together to plunder the wealth of producing specialists and to create and grant special privileges to themselves and their allies.
He notes that government is a social instrument and the state is an unsocial perversion of government. Government is healthy, and the state is pathological. Consequently, the state is the enemy of the individual.
He concludes:
The distinction between government and state, then, is in the use to which political coercion is put. When it is used negatively, for the protection of life and property, with which must be included the adjudicating of disputes among citizens, it is a service; when it is used positively, in the interests of one group of citizens, including politicians, against the interests of other groups, it is a disservice. In the one case it makes for harmony, in the other it is the cause of discord (p. 98).
  Thus, government is used to protect life and property. When government is used to plunder property and to grant special privileges, it becomes a state.
Although the Bible supports civil governments, it does not support the state. When a government degenerates into a state, it ceases having biblical support because the state is a form of idolatry.

An Illustration
Ancient Israel illustrates the difference between a government and a state. During the era of the judges (1441–1065?), Israel had a government, but it did not have a state. Judges, who were usually men of wisdom and integrity, ran their government. Judges ruled by natural selection and common consent. Custom and tradition restricted the judges to applying the laws that Moses had delivered from God and that had become traditional customs (common law). Violations of these laws carried their own penalties. Thus, the judges normally considered only crimes that were mala in se; that is, acts that are inherently immoral, such as, murder, thief, perjury, and adultery (miscegenation) — for God had declared such acts immoral. However, the judges did not execute their rulings; the people executed them usually by public opinion. (Judges also led the Israelites in war against invaders.)

In ancient Israel, the state arises with the kings. Samuel warned the Israelite against establishing a state (having a king). He warned:
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them unto him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots; 12 and he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and he will set some to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and Jehovah will not answer you in that day (1 Samuel 8:11–18). (If only the tax level today was just 10 percent.)  
However, the Israelites rejected his advice, and Samuel gave them a king.
What Samuel had prophesied happened. With the rise of the state, enforcement of mala prohibitum became more important than mala in se. Mala prohibitum acts are acts that are illegal because the government declares them illegal. Examples of mala prohibita are failure to file the proper paperwork, failure to pay taxes, failure to obtain the government’s permission (licenses, permits, etc.) before undertaking certain actions, failure to follow regulations, and traffic laws.
Unlike malum in se, which is an act that is wrong in and of itself, malum prohibita is an act that is wrong only because the government prohibits it. (If a country today had a government without a state, which none do, most likely, some mala prohibita, such traffic laws, would exist.)

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.