December
30th 2009
Posted under Immigration & Interventionism
Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation has responded to the article I posted yesterday. Here’s his response, with my additional remarks.
It’s a gentlemanly and rational exchange, but it illuminates the vast differences between libertarianism and conservatism. I believe understanding those differences is crucial to the survival of liberty and Western civilization.
RedPhillips on 30 Dec 2009 at 10:38 pm #
Some Libertarians just can not see beyond their ideological noses. Good luck ushering in a free Utopia in a society numerically dominated by Third World immigrants. Immigrant groups are manifestly not (with a few small arguable exceptions like the Cubans) a constituency for limited government. As Steve Sailer and others have frequently pointed out the constituency for limited government is almost entirely white. This is a point that is also often made by the obsessive multicults when they observe the demographic make-up of the TEA Parties and jubilantly dance on the white man’s grave as they survey the demographic trends. Mr. Hornberger’s largely admirable ideas regarding liberty will be increasingly marginalized under a tidal wave of demographic change, and it is wishful thinking of the grossest sort to not be able to see this obvious fact.
Kirt Higdon on 30 Dec 2009 at 11:58 pm #
It may be true that the constituency for limited government is almost entirely white, but it is a tiny constituecy and a tiny minority of the total number of white voters or whites in general. The trajectory of this country has been toward more powerful and less limited government since the adoption of the Constitution, with the trend undergoing significant accelerations at various periods such as the Civil War and the New Deal/WWII/Cold War period. “Good luck ushering in a free Utopia in a society numerically dominated by Third World immigrants”???? You’ll probably have luck just as good as you’ve had ushering in a free Utopia in the US or Europe, in societies numerically dominated by whites – in other words, no luck at all.
RedPhillips on 31 Dec 2009 at 3:33 am #
“It may be true that the constituency for limited government is almost entirely white, but it is a tiny constituency and a tiny minority of the total number of white voters or whites in general.”
This is unfortunately true, and I thought about mentioning this in my reply, but I didn’t want to clutter up my point. But my point still stands. Large scale immigration dooms what constituency there is for limited government to increasing irrelevancy.
Many whites favor limited government rhetorically. They support it in general but not in particular. They want to cut spending but don’t want to cut it for anything in particular and often want to increase it for many things in particular. Especially stuff that affects them (SS) or their district (military base x) directly.
But at least many whites pay lip service to limited government. This is something we can at least work with. Most minority groups openly promote larger government and view limited government as hostile to their interests.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 31 Dec 2009 at 3:10 pm #
I would highlight the resistance to HillaryCare and ObamaCare from the South as a case in point.
S.L. Toddard on 31 Dec 2009 at 6:05 pm #
Just a heads up: on the VDARE front page there is currently a debate between Peter Brimelow and Mr Hornburger:
http://www.vdare.com/