Deep Libertarianism: Human Ecology

Posted by James Bowery on Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:28.

A libertarian world would reach an equilibrium where there were a number of human ecologies occupying land held in trust for the posterity of the founders of the respective ecologies. Within each such land trust a way of life compatible with its ecology would be pursued. They would tend to be exclusive of other ways of life due to interdependencies within the ecology. And while they will have varying degrees of population exchange with other human ecologies, all will be partially inbred to varying degrees—coevolving, over the span of generations, genetic as well as cultural adaptations. In more traditional terms, these land trusts are known as “nations”—natives of a human ecology deriving a way of life from the nature of their land’s ecology. Many of these human ecologies would have property rights upheld within them to varying degrees, just as extended families will tend to have varying degrees of reciprocal vs kin altruism governing their family’s affairs—varying degrees of debt/bankruptcy forgiveness, etc.

The reason libertarianism reaches this equilibrium, of land trusts that control entry of others to their land, is the same reason anyone controls entry of others to their land: To prevent damage—in this case damage to the human ecology and possibly the natural ecology of the land trust. A shallow libertarian answer to such ecological concerns is reliance on Tort law to remediate ecological damage resulting from open borders. This is inadequate, not just because “an ounce of prevention”, “a stitch in time”, etc., but because the jury in a tort case is required to not only understand the plantiff’s causal hypothesis of damage to his ecology, but to agree with it. Ecological interactions are highly complex and teasing apart causation is very difficult, frequently requiring experimental controls. If it were easy, then central planning of a “scientific state” would work much better than it does. No—we are mere humans left adrift in a mysterious world with our own views on how the world operates at the level of human ecologies—on how cause and effect are related. We may even see the same ecological correlations but then we are all subject not only to the fact that correlation doesn’t imply causation, but to what statisticians call “the ecological fallacy” which prevents us from drawing strong inferences merely from observing ecological correlations—assuming we can even gather the data.

This is why Federalism must allow voluntary internal controls on migration: the very limits on human knowledge in the face of nature demand that our laboratory of the States—of human ecologies—of nations—have borders protecting the integrity of experimental controls while maintaining the fundamental ethical requirement that experimentation on human subjects must be by mutual consent.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by 2R on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:36 | #

This is a good point. I would have no problem with the whole globalist, open borders, free market, libertarian crowd if they just allowed people to decide how they wanted to live. The business and liberal elite can have all the mestizos they want, as long as the people in my state were allowed to say: NO!

Allowing Americans the right to free assembly again would take care of many of the social issues that America faces. Lets say White Americans migrated to the Pacific Northwest (PNW). We hire who we wanted and limit the flow of migration to who we wanted. We wouldn’t force non-whites out, but could choose to replace them at their jobs by the new Whites. Eventually, blacks could do the same in the Southeast and mestizo’s in the Southwest. Each group would govern how they wish. If the blacks wanted a socialist Southeast they could have it.

Eventually, natural Nodes would form with a majority of Whites, blacks, and mestizo’s all living in their respective nodes. Again, no one would be forced out, but since they would have a better opportunity at their own node, they would go there by freewill. Social issues like health care, education, and welfare would be solved in a manner that best fits the community. Communities could celebrate their own cultures and no one would get “offended” because they wouldn’t have to be there. States would have the majority of the power and the federal govt would handle national defense only. Each node would have a militia, but would not be able to have tanks, fighter aircraft, or strategic weapons. The federal government would still have a monopoly on power.

Of course the blacks would complain due to a lack of capital. Which is why I would agree to a reparations payment of $100,000 for each black born to the ancestors of slaves. They would then have the ability to buy houses, educate themselves, and start business within their nodes.

This is the only way, a multicultural nation can work short of totalitarianism. A loose federation of states and nodes that would have places where all people could be happy and safe. A place where our children could learn about their heritage and celebrate their culture. Each node would develop natural comparative advantages and would be connected by high speed transportation and telecommunications. Social problems would decrease greatly.

There’s no reason why a system like this couldn’t work. The globalists could still have their cheap labor because they would be free to allow anyone they wanted in their node. The globalists could have the Northeast corridor metropolis/DC area and do what they wanted. The White node would be the technological center of innovation for the world. Certain universities within the White node would still allow foreign students and people from other nodes. These would be in the big cities of the White node, and would be centers of knowledge sharing and cultural exchange. We don’t need to be cut off from the world. At the same time, most schools would be for our people and these would laboratories for building better men and women of the West.

If the globalists would just let people live in a natural way, humanity could achieve great things. By allowing people to form their own nodes, each society can bring the best out of their own people. Why can’t you globalists do the right thing instead of making everything difficult? (I know they read MR) Its going to end up like this anyway, why not do it the easy way?

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:21 | #

I’m not sure I understand your reference to high speed transportation. Are you referring to transfer of goods? While there would still be States that preferred high levels of human exchange, the evidence is that people prefer lower levels of migration.

Posted by 2R on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:35 | #

The high speed transportation would be for the exchange of goods and for movement of people. The people wouldn’t be coming to live or migrate, but they might come to discuss business or attend school in the big urban areas. They may even come to travel. Our people may be doing consulting as well. I envision several “silicon Vally” types of techno-sub-nodes within the White node, so we’ll have a great deal of business opportunities with other nodes. This high speed transportation will also be used within the node.

Posted by zusammen on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:41 | #

In order to apply this deep libertarian ecology, we’ll have to discard our speciesism. Speciesism appears to be a residual leftover from the pre-automobile days of cart and draft horses, mules, oxen and other slave beasts.

The practice lives on with some of the deplorable practices in our big meat industries - deplorable to the extent that it is unhealthy for the human consumer as well. The house pet industries have, for some whites of child bearing age, displaced the practice of raising their own young.

What’s needed is not for us to demote our own species, but to elevate our respect for all other forms of life. At minimum, we’ll be physically and psychologically healthier for it.

We have the means to lessen the human footprint on the ecology. The automobile and suburbia, I believe, were never necessary. We could make our cities much more compact, in some cases taking better advantage of vertical space and minimize routine travel distances. In the US, social policies have been sabotaged with the intention of creating suburbs and sprawl so banks and land developers could profit.

In the 60’s, HUD began its program of “urban renewal”. HUD tore down housing in center-city ghettos and replaced that housing with freeways and offices, as well as a few scattered housing projects. The Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman, referred to the program as “Negro removal”.

These displaced African-Americans took the federal money they received for their old homes and went shopping for homes in the surrounding ethnic neighborhoods and older suburbs. Each wave displaced by “urban renewal” prompted a whole new wave of “white flight”.

With the welfare system producing increased rates of illegitimacy and escalating crime rates, the stage was set to keep the whites moving and the economy growing for quite some time. Billions were made in profits.

Posted by zusammen on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:43 | #

From the essay http://www.whitenationalism.com/ls/ls-07.htm

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:03 | #

The level of discourse here is anthropocentric. I agree that the problem of natural heritage must be addressed, although I might differ with you regarding how, but it is very difficult to get even highly intelligent people to think through things even limiting it to the anthropocentric viewpoint.