Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.


Sunday, May 18, 2014

Labour’s Immigration Policy is Decidedly Conservative: Identity Politics Left & Right.

 

This post is partly to explicate the Libertarian advocacy of open immigration, and in doing so to demonstrate how libertarians don’t belong to either right or left politics, rather, existing  uncomfortably - though justifiably self-righteously because we do not call on others to pay for our ideals - in the schism between a free society and the authoritarian ones we now live in, governed by the brute fist of what has become a global, Orwellian tax surveillance state.
 

This morning I find leader of the Labour (Left) Opposition, David Cunliffe, is electioneering on what looks to be a Conservative immigration policy promising to slash net immigrant numbers from 40,000 per year to as low as 5,000. I write ‘looks’ because in fact Left politics in New Zealand has morphed via identity politics (that is, stereotyping bigotry) into a patriotic, nationalistic, protectionist and contradictory mess that makes a mockery of The Internationale. (I won’t even dignify this Labour policy with the economic argument against using immigration policy to ‘fix’ house prices, which is to miss, well, everything.) My initial response:
 








 

From this that arch-tweeter of New Zealand conservatism, Redbaiter, picked up on both this tweet, and an earlier statement by myself that drug legalisation was the litmus test of a free society. Note I like Redbaiter: there is a large divide between our views, but at least he has views held passionately, and I can have a good old ding dong with him on Twitter without him running childishly to the block, which far too many of New Zealand’s Left tweeters and bloggers do (though not all of them). I run the below Twitter timeline simply to show that Libertarians are not Conservatives, for we are social liberals, and to scope out (sorry everyone reading this from Christchurch where that has become a dirty word ) a policy of open immigration such as would exist in a free society constituted as a minarchy. I’ll do a final summary at end relating this theme back to my earlier posts on multiculturalism.
 












 

At this stage Redbaiter went to one of his own ‘themes’, which is the Chinese peril: you won’t be mistaken, but may be confused, at the associations this raises with both Labour and Green politicians statements against Chinese investment in New Zealand. The answer to the conundrum I believe lies not so much with economic ludditism - though that is part of it - but with the Left’s new found penchant with nationalism, born of protectionism - sorry, that's economic ludditism again - and long time conviction for identity politics; policy making, such as enforced quotas, on the basis of an individual's identity with a group (gender, race, etc) rather than a libertarian’s classical liberal individualistic ethic, and individual property rights as the only basis for law making. It’s a type of stereotyping the Left hold in common, ironically, with the authoritarian right, as exemplified in Redbaiter’s conservatism.
 
































 

For the record, typo alert, that tweet of mine above should read 'founded'. Anyway, then the reason why I like Redbaiter plus would be happy, if he were to uncloak, to carry the ding dong on over a bong … sorry, he’d have no part of that. Why I’d be happy to continue such debate over a beer at the pub:
 








 

But bottom line, there is only one word to describe what underlies Redbaiter’s, Labour, Green and for that matter, NZ First's, constant anti-Chinese sentiment: ugly.
 
 

Multiculturalism, Sharia Law and Open Immigration:
 

The other bogey the Right cite against open immigration is the threat of Islam and Sharia Law; to that I have two responses:
 

Firstly, the barbaric Sharia Law in every way I can think of breaches the non-initiation of force principle, thus much conducted under Sharia is rightly criminal behaviour in a free country. Western classical liberalism would never extend a hand to Sharia. So the crimes committed under Sharia in some (some only) Moslem-centric countries are not an argument against open immigration, including by a person of any race who describes themselves as a Moslem, for my understanding is a moderate Islam does not hold with Sharia.
 

Secondly, yes, of course I have huge ideological and philosophical issues with Islam, more so than with a Christianity which has thankfully has its sword blunted by the West’s Enlightenment, but, so long as any individual signs up to the non-initiation of force principle, and not to use our welfare system, then they are welcome here. Society has to be based on that. I have written on my views of this in my following blog post: Montesquieu and Islam: The Peaceful Crusade in Dunedin – Please Excuse my Discomfort.



Update 1: The Conservative / Libertarian Divide – Summary.

 

Firstly thank you to Brendan McNeill of AConservative Perspective for debating this with me in the below comments. The thread serves well to show the differences between Conservatives and Libertarians. Central to Brendan’s reasoning is the following:

 

I am capable of differentiating between Muslims as people, and Islam as a totalitarian religious ideology. Unfortunately we cannot tell by observation which Muslims will radicalize, and which will not.

If we accept that there is just as many good / bad Muslims as there are in the general make up of the population, adding the risk of radical Islam into the mix simply serves to make them the least desirable candidates for immigration.

 

Brendan would allow no Muslims immigrate to New Zealand. To sum up our differences, and my argument for an open immigration, I simply reason as follows.


A free society is not one where a group, such as Brendan’s conservatives, get to say, ‘yeah, not all Muslims are violent, but their belief system is awful so we’re letting none in, just in case.’
 

A society where that ethic rules is a bigoted tyranny of conservatism governed largely unknowably by subjective whim, every bit as bad as a bigoted tyranny of socialism - just with much better economics.


The opposite which I advocate, as a Libertarian basing first principles on individualism, is a free society in the form of a constitutional minarchy with an objective rule of law, and including, for the reasons I give above, open immigration with requirements for entry centred only as to each individual per their own case and history, not as identified with an arbitrary group, be it ethnicity, gender, religion, et al, which is always the (identity) politick of stereotyping and, ultimately, always, of bigotry.
 

Related:

Open Immigration: Marriage - Balwinder Singh & Glyn Kessell.

Open Immigration: Cutting Off Our Noses Because the Law Says So - Chinese Students.

 

 

 
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

14 comments:

  1. Brendan McNeillMay 19, 2014 at 9:07 AM

    "but, so long as any individual signs up to the non-initiation of force principle, and not to use our welfare system, then they are welcome here."

    Mark, idealism has its place, but then so does pragmatism.

    All of us are immigrants or decendents of immigrants, so we can hardly argue against immigration, and speaking personally, I welcome it.

    I do believe we need to be selective however. The experience of Britain and Europe, is that it's not always the first generation of Islamic immigrants that develop a love for jihad and sheding the blood of infidels, but often the second and subsequent generations. Example, the London 7/7 bombings, and the wave of Britians and even 'Aussies' who are presently fighting in Syria.

    Descriminating on the basis of 'religion' does not fit easily with the present day politically correct dogma that pervades western culture. Furthermore we appear to be afflicted with politicians who appear determined to display their mulitcultralist credentials.

    The present day ideological environment poses a significant risk for countries like New Zealand, as it makes us ill equipped to push back against the wave of resergant and millitant Islam that is afflicting the planet, and therefore vulnerable to the followers of this supremisist ideology.

    Immigration yes, but with caveats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark HubbardMay 19, 2014 at 9:14 AM

      We'll never agree on this Brendan.

      In a free society, the only caveat can be regarding non-initiation of force: if you do not follow that (rule of law, in other words), then you're out.

      Because look at what you're saying.

      You are suggesting no Moslem, at all, be allowed immigrate here?

      Well, in India Hindus are killing peaceful Moslems, so, no Hindus?

      Out of the troubles in Ireland, which still flair, no Christians (or just the Catholics?)

      There's no end to that other than bigotry.

      Regarding Islam, and multiculturalism, my views unchanged from that final link regarding the Islamic school in Dunedin.

      Thanks for reading though :)

      Delete
    2. Brendan McNeillMay 19, 2014 at 10:16 AM

      Hi Mark

      Then you are 'out' where? If you have residencey or are a New Zealand citizen as a second generation follower of Islam what does 'out' mean? Out to prison and dependency on the tax payer?

      Why wait until there is blood on the streets of Auckland as there is in London, Boston, New York, and virtually every major city in Europe and then only take a reactive response?

      I said pragmatism has its place.

      Hindus, Christians, Budhists etc are not presently responsible for 90% of the conflicts on the planet, nor do their religions support a doctrine of bloody Jihad against the unbeliever.

      Tell me, does the confident libertairan value the ideal of open immigration above the personal security of a nations citizens?

      Delete
    3. Mark HubbardMay 19, 2014 at 10:52 AM

      That's just scare-mongering from a very bigoted viewpoint, Brendan, which is the point.

      There were what, four London bombers out of a Moslem population of how many million? What percentage was that. And let's ignore all the other groups, including white men and women, committing violent crimes.

      But even saying that you still won't grasp what I mean.

      Classical liberalism is an individualistic ethic: every single individual treated on their own terms. You say this Moslem man might beget a bomber: but we can't know that anymore than that 'white trash guy' - to employ the sweeping stereotypes you're working on, might beget a child who will be a burglar or a murderer.

      We don't know. What we do know is each individual man and woman, their history of initiating force, or not, and if not, then they're welcome. Any other approach relies on tarring that individual not with the sins of their fathers, which is bad enough, but with the supposed sins of an entire arbitrary 'group' of people, which is to obliterate their individual humanity; every Moslem individual wanting to immigrate here judged by four boys born in England in Moslem families. Really?

      That's as ludicrous as it is, again, bigoted. It's the type of nonsense peddled by the Marxist feminists and those of the Left who would make policy by race or gender, not individual merit and uniqueness.

      I've not got time at the moment to that better, the above is clumsy, but I hope you see what I mean.

      Delete
    4. Brendan McNeillMay 19, 2014 at 12:23 PM

      Ah, but it's not just four boys in London is it. Australia has 18 people behind bars for plotting terrorist acts on Australian soil, all of them are.... Muslim.

      Just coincidence perhaps, but then what are the statistical chances that 100% of those 18 people convicted of plotting terrorst acts in Australia are completely made up from 2.2% of the populations demographic?

      And, since when has truth telling been bigotry?

      We would be foolish indeed to allow any ideology to blind us to reality, libertarianism is no exception.

      And... you haven't answered my question. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

      Delete
    5. Mark HubbardMay 19, 2014 at 12:44 PM

      Treating people and policy making around people as mere representatives of arbitrary groupings, not on their own terms, is bigotry. It can't be anything else.

      You prove my point, Brendan, that conservatives deserve Marxists and vice versa as you're both the same: you're all stereotyping identity politickers that would imprison us in the minds (and prejudices) of each other. No free, voluntary society to be found in that.

      Final example: the worst client I ever had, in terms of people being vicious to each other and just not nice to work with, was a church. In the end I said I can't be bothered. However, that group of Christians bares no relation as to how I would or do deal with you, or, for that matter my family, five out of seven of which are Christians.

      I will always hold on policy matters such as this to first principles: and one of those is an individualistic ethic. I deal with people on their own terms as individuals first, because the answer to racism is individualism; the answer to sexism is individualism; et al.

      Delete
    6. Mark HubbardMay 19, 2014 at 12:58 PM

      Regarding your question, sorry, one back.

      How restrictive and suffocating is this prison you would put me in to keep me safe?

      First principles: I'll take freedom thanks. And think of it this way, just as the best way to bring down communism was voluntary trade, sell them Coke Cola; so, surely, will be the best way to blunt the sword of Islam, by interacting peacefully with it, just as the mystical barbarity of Christianity was 'tamed'. The evil we see on the news every night exacted by a barbaric Islam won't be beaten by drone strikes across borders and seas, but by winning the war in the heads of individuals, ideas. They're the only thing that is important in the long term, and that 'war' requires peaceful, voluntary interaction quite possibly over generations.

      Reason bet Christianity, and can kick Allah's arse too :)

      Delete
    7. Brendan McNeillMay 19, 2014 at 1:34 PM

      Ok, finally from me on this subject.

      I agree that we need to treat people as individuals - I have successfully employed Muslims, my extended family has helped resettle a Muslim family into New Zealand who have been victims of wars in the hellish Islamic hellholes they have escaped from.

      Muslims themselves are not the problem; they are often the first victims of Islam.

      However, none of that changes the fact that Islam is at least in part, a violent supremacist ideology. The evidence of this is being played out daily around the world and is a matter of public record.

      Should New Zealand have accepted boatloads of committed Nazi's following their defeat in Germany following WWII, even if individually they were not personally involved in throwing Jews into gas chambers?

      We would not have done so, because 60 years ago we had not been infected by cultural relativism. We were still intelligent enough to recognize the risk that a supremacist ideology represented to the peace and tranquility enjoyed by those of us living in liberal democracies.

      When it comes to immigration, no Government personnel are capable of determining if any follower of Islam is likely to be radicalized or if their offspring will become hot for jihad.

      We are therefore reduced to a numbers game.

      Who cares if only 0.01% of Muslims or less shout 'Allahu Akbar' while following the violent example of their prophet in their attempts to murder the infidel?

      What society is enriched by that behaviour?

      But I take your point about the triumph of reason. Perhaps you would like to lead a team of rationalists on a peace keeping mission to Syria, or Iraq, or Pakistan, or Bangladesh or Nigeria, or Central Africa, or Gaza, or the Sudan, or Southern Thailand, and explain to the followers of Islam there the error of their ways?

      I will personally reimburse your costs 100% if your mission is successful.

      Delete
    8. Mark HubbardMay 19, 2014 at 2:54 PM

      One other of my first principles is knowing when you are contradicting yourself that you must re-examine your premises.

      You cannot throughout this thread argue an immigration closed to Muslims, and then say above, quote:

      "I have successfully employed Muslims, my extended family has helped resettle a Muslim family into New Zealand who have been victims of wars in the hellish Islamic hellholes they have escaped from.

      Muslims themselves are not the problem... "

      That is a complete contradiction. Examine your premises.

      Regarding your hard-line views on Islam, I could make as hard-line a case against 'your' Christianity, based on the Bible, which is every bit as fantastical as the Koran.

      See your problem?

      The Muslim population in the UK now measures in the millions: if they are all so convinced of their mastery, and there is no moderate Islam as you would contend, there would already, to use your phrase, be blood on the streets in bucket loads: there's not. Ditto for New Zealand. We have a growing Muslim population: can you name the last supposed Jihadi event? Indeed, regarding my own personal safety I would be far more concerned about the skinheads in Christchurch than the entire Muslim population, albeit what they believe is anathema to me.

      Regarding cultural relativism, I dealt with that in my Montesquieu piece, linked from the main post. Nothing must take our eye off Western Classical Liberalism ... except unfortunately it did. Socialism. That's still our biggest problem. Indeed, regarding those second generation London bombers, can I suggest that the poverty begotten of socialism, and the soul destroying dependence of welfarism, was every bit as big a cause of what those boys did, as was their religion.

      Delete
    9. Brendan McNeillMay 19, 2014 at 10:43 PM

      Ok, since you asked....

      I am capable of differentiating between Muslims as people, and Islam as a totalitarian religious ideology. Unfortunately we cannot tell by observation which Muslims will radicalize, and which will not.

      If we accept that there is just as many good / bad Muslims as there are in the general make up of the population, adding the risk of radical Islam into the mix simply serves to make them the least desirable candidates for immigration.

      That should be obvious even to the casual observer.

      That we have sought personally to make the Muslim presence in our City a positive experience through the provision of employment and personal engagement with refugees, does not detract from my statements about Islam or present day reality.

      Something else that should be obvious to the casual observer is that as the influence of Islam increases in any society, liberty decreases. Compare if you will just the basic liberties we take for granted in the west, free speech, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, just to name a few, these are simply non existent in countries that have majority Muslim populations.

      Even in countries with relatively small Muslim populations like the UK freedom is diminished because of Islam. For example denigration of Islam is now against the law, free speech is diminished, there are more than 80 Sharia Law courts operating, pork is banned from school lunches, and from more than 200 Subway franchises, Muslim employees at large department stores have been reportedly allowed to refuse to sell alcohol or pork to customers, Muslim taxi and bus drivers have refused to carry blind people with seeing eye dogs, as dogs are considered unclean, there is presently a ministerial investigation underway in 20 State schools in Birmingham that have come under the influence of Islamic intolerance, returning British troops are spat at, abused, and murdered in the street by Islamic fundamentalists, honour killings are taking place, Islamic grooming gangs are raping and pimping girls as you as 12 and even though the authorities new it was happening they did nothing about it for eight years so as not to disrupt ‘community cohesion’.

      Is that what we want for New Zealand?

      Mark your Biblical theology appears week, and you know virtually nothing about the Koran based upon your statements. There is no comparison between the two religious worldviews as evidenced by the behaviour of both their founders and their sacred texts.

      Ideology of all kinds, including libertarianism tend to be idealistic and utopian by design. Don’t let an aspirational ideal blind you to the reality on the ground. We all have to deal with what is, not what we would like it to be.

      Delete
    10. Mark HubbardMay 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM

      You say:

      I am capable of differentiating between Muslims as people, and Islam as a totalitarian religious ideology. Unfortunately we cannot tell by observation which Muslims will radicalize, and which will not.

      If we accept that there is just as many good / bad Muslims as there are in the general make up of the population, adding the risk of radical Islam into the mix simply serves to make them the least desirable candidates for immigration.

      That should be obvious even to the casual observer.


      :)

      Your casual observer, throughout your comment, is anything but. He is standing on a copy of Crusades101 and is squinting to see this issue through his one eye.

      There is a widely differing range of belief within Islam from fanatical to moderate: it is not good enough to say that all believers are therefore excluded. Again, these are all individuals, and their ability to live in NZ relates only to their individual records.

      The male population comprises the greater portion of our criminal violence offences, including rape, obviously, so do we tar all men as rapists - as done by the identity politicking rape culture Marxism - and exclude them from living here also?

      That stereotyping, and always bigotry.

      You say:

      Something else that should be obvious to the casual observer is that as the influence of Islam increases in any society, liberty decreases. Compare if you will just the basic liberties we take for granted in the west, free speech, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, just to name a few, these are simply non existent in countries that have majority Muslim populations.

      There's the crux of it. In our modern democracies, yes. Just as via the voting booth we have lost our freedom to the socialist illusion of the free lunch, as children inculcate in our schools. However in a minarchy not so. The only thing defended in same is the principle of non-initiation of fraud, no exceptions, and that's not up for vote. Neither are free speech, etc, as the only thing that minarchy protects are the rights of the smallest minority: the individual. The only way any ideology can overthrow that is to initiate force, and on that, its out.

      Post 1 of 2 (Because comments restricted on word length).

      Delete
    11. Mark HubbardMay 20, 2014 at 11:45 AM

      The next thing you're going to throw at me, per your latest blog post :) is look! An Islamist group in Auckland has declared Jihad, and there is violence.

      Again, that does not have any impact on a policy of open immigration. Let's break it down.

      Two different branches of Islam - both as daft as each other by the look of it - are competing for use of the same mosque. This is therefore a property rights issue to be solved as between the two groups in a civil court of law (remembering minarchy revolves around the rule of law).

      Another matter entirely, if any of the parties resorts to violence, then the only principle that needs to be defended here is the non-initiation of force. Such parties must face criminal prosecution and imprisonment, plus, possibly in the circumstances, deportation.

      None of that relates to the ability of a completely disassociated Muslim person being able to immigrate here.

      Delete
    12. Mark HubbardMay 20, 2014 at 12:35 PM

      Final summation.

      A free society is not one where a group, such as your conservatives, get to say, 'yeah, not all Muslims are violent, but their belief system is awful so we're letting none in'.

      That's a bigoted tyranny of conservatism governed largely unknowably by subjective whim.

      The opposite is the free society I advocate, a constitutional minarchy with an objective rule of law, open immigration and all.

      Delete
  2. reedMay 21, 2014 at 6:37 PM

    Mark
    I think immigration is first a matter of ownership and second a matter of preference or good. The rights and wrongs of immigration are dependent on property and the principles around ownership.

    You and Brendan have different preferences regarding immigration - freedom is your preference where safety is part of Brendan's.

    It is not morally wrong to advocate for freedom regarding property management.
    It is not morally wrong to advocate for safety regarding property management.

    More here.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)