Why are anarcho-libertarians indifferent to the fate of Europe? Doesn’t the question answer itself?

A reader writes:

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it appears as though not a single word has been written on the French situation by any of the writers at LewRockwell.com. I read your posts and links on the topic and find them gripping, but to the libertarians at LRC this must all somehow be irrelevant. Up to this point I confess I’ve been an LRC fan, warts and all (I suspect you’d consider them to be more than “warts”), but it strikes me that their silence reflects severe limitations in their philosophy. Whoever can sit by idly and unconcerned as events unfold spelling out quite clearly the future of the West cannot lay claim to being taken seriously. Lew Rockwell is fiddling while Paris burns.

LA to reader:

1. Why do you think they are silent?

2. Why not write to him and ask him the reason?

3. Are you suggesting it’s because they hate statism, and Europe is statist, so it deserves whatever happens to it?

4. But what about LRC’s interest in Western culture, ancient artifacts, ancient history, Christianity and so on?

The reader replies:

I’ve written and asked, and Rockwell wrote back saying simply “thanks for the prod.” That was several days ago, but still nothing. Your point #4 is what’s so baffling, as paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from the unprefixed variety by its recognition of factors regarding culture. Your point #3 probably has something to do with their attitude, but is still so lacking that it’s hard to believe that would be the sum of their thinking on the subject.

LA to reader:

Perhaps the prefix (the “paleo,” meaning devotion to traditional culture) is the paleolibertarians’ unprincipled exception to their libertarianism, which, like all unprincipled exceptions, is gradually let go of as the principled part of the ideology keeps rolling forward and crushing all that is not itself.

Another reader comments:

I found your post on the Lew Rockwell crew’s strange silence regarding France to be fascinating. It’s something I’ve pondered myself. I consider myself a paleolibertarian; I used to visit Lewrockwell.com on a daily basis. Lately, my visits have become more and more sporadic. That site has started to bore me a great deal. Everything with the LRC crew is about the state. As a whole, they tend to take an extremely reductionist view of Muslim-Western relations. It can basically be summed up in a recent Rockwell post on the blog entitled “Of Course.” The post is a link to an article that says “Foreign Policy Spurs Muslim Extremism.” That’s it. It’s all about “blowback” with them. I agree that this is probably part of the issue, but it is obviously not getting to the heart of the matter.

I’ve also found that LRC is overrated on immigration. LRC looks good in comparison to the raving open border fanatics that tend to form the core of the libertarian movement, but it is an issue that is rarely touched upon at Rockwell’s site.

To respond finally to the main point of your post: I’ve concluded that the “why” of LRC’s silence on France and immigration isn’t very important. What is important is that they are silent and that I realize it, so that I can now direct my attention to writers who actually concern themselves with cultural issues. I have found your site to be truly outstanding in that regard.

In response to the previous comment, Jim Kalb indicates the elements of a libertarian (or, more correctly, an anti-statist) critique of culturally incompatible immigration that the LRC people could make, but (in what I see as their ideologically driven contempt for our whole civilization) don’t bother to make:

My impression is that they’re not serious about working out their own theory. There are obvious things they could say about the riots, that they were caused by public housing, the welfare state etc., that the existence of the state attracts culturally incompatible immigration and exacerbates its disruptive effects because it prevents people from acting locally and setting things up through agreement so that they only have to include and deal with people to the extent they find them compatible, etc. They seem more interested in bomb throwing though.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 14, 2005 10:35 AM | Send