Pro-immigration stance shows Libertarians still do not get it

Lindsay Perigo's liberty would be substantially effected when Sharia Law comes to NZ.

Lindsay Perigo’s liberty would be substantially effected when Sharia Law comes to NZ.

Libertarians are a strange group. They claim they have mapped the one true path to freedom, and straying from that path will see you ex-communicated. Which seems kind of doctrinal for a group that professes to hold the ideal of liberty above all else.

The path they adhere to so strongly includes mass immigration. Apparently without discrimination. It amazes me they can’t see the downside.

However what really upsets me is that such a view demonstrates a complete lack of regard for the West’s cultural and historical development, a process that over the centuries has brought liberty to so many countries. While other countries bereft of Western cultural influences have been mired in totalitarianism and or dictatorships.

Hong Kong under the stewardship of the British became what many surveys describe as the most free society in the world. Now the British have left, dark forces are working to slowly destroy that freedom and make Hong Kong citizens subjects of the military junta, the Generals of the People’s Revolutionary Army, who rule mainland China.

England prospered because of traditional respect for the rights of the individual. Rights that were enshrined in documents like the Magna Carta that endowed all citizens, no matter the circumstance of their birth, with the same rights.

Most countries colonised by the English inherited the same individual rights based legal and parliamentary systems, and these systems remained in place while the Commonwealth was a meaningful association. The United States established an even better system, but the people who wrote that country’s founding document, the greatest founding document of any country ever, were all English.

Ayn Rand, real name Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum, was a Russian immigrant. Born in 1905, she arrived in the US in 1926 after witnessing the horrendous events of the Russian revolution and its aftermath. Her father’s business was confiscated, and until moving to America, she and her family suffered the full cultural onslaught of Russian communism.

Although well read in philosophy, Rand wrote on freedom and liberty in a way that suggested she did not know that English society, in traditional terms anyway, already shared her enthusiasm for the subject, and that unlike Russian society, had realised this reverence in our laws and systems of government.

English colonies had anchored their societies to liberty long before Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged. I don’t think Rand understood this fully. I don’t think she understood that our failures lay in failing to conserve our founding ideas, and yielding to Progressivism, a movement led by left wing academics bent on deconstructing our traditional world and converting it to their brave new Utopia.

I think too many Libertarians suffer from this same blindness regarding the historical development of the West. The liberties the founders of our societies held as foremost in importance are already under massive and largely successful assault from Progressive forces. Our grip on those principles and ideas grows weaker every day, as the effects of decades of cultural Marxism become apparent.

It does not help in arresting our decline away from individual liberty to have our countries invaded and populated by citizens from cultures that do not share those historical values.

The UK was once the global flagship of individual liberty. Middle Eastern and African cultures have now by democratic means gained control of this ship and liberty is lost. Soon the UK will be subject to Sharia law and all of the associated anti-liberty influences. This only happened because of the indiscriminate immigration that the followers of Ayn Rand, in league with their fellow western Progressives, have encouraged.

Even with this stark example of the dangers of immigration staring them in the face, (the UK) the Libertarians will not yield the point that our traditional culture of individual freedom is under the most dire threat.

The Libertarians today appear to be just another brigade of the Progressive army helping to break down the West and rebuild it into an Orwellian Utopia that every day becomes closer in modern terms to the totalitarian disaster Ayn Rand left behind in Russia in 1926.

Mass immigration is being used as a tool by the Progressives to break down the West, and until the Libertarians latch onto this truth, they’re defeating the very purpose they assert is most important to them.

16 thoughts on “Pro-immigration stance shows Libertarians still do not get it

  1. If sharia law comes to Australia all we can say is “we warned you” Muslims don’t integrate and try to shove their customs down our throats even though it is our Country that they decide to live.


    • Yes, I think one only has to observe what is happening in the UK and other parts of Europe to see their objectives is not to live as the locals live. Their intent, as they are unafraid to state, is “to conquer by means of their women’s wombs”.


  2. Another excellent article, Red. The Libertarians I know – the “radical” ones at least – have a belief that the nation state is an edifice of evil and should not exist.

    I see Libertarians and Prog/Liberals as two sides of the same coin – one actively seeks to destroy western civilisation by attacking the institutions and inviting in hordes of screaming savages who will bring it down, while the other is a naive group of pollyannas who will see the destruction of western civilisation by erasing national borders and inviting in hordes of screaming savages who will bring it down. One accomplishes by design that for which the other is merely an unintended consequence.


    • Yes, I observe they have become mere self focused cultists these days and have apparently given up on any ideas they once held about connecting with the voting spectrum. (in NZ anyway)


      • “There’s no government like no government unless it is very very small!” The Libz were always one step back from the Anarchists inasmuch as the need for government was accepted. The Nation-State was not regards as evil but rather as bloated and needlessly interfering. This message was never adequately conveyed to the constituency.


  3. I look at Not PC a bit (I like the economics and tiny govt concepts they preach) but have increasingly come to feel that Cresswell is a “cut and paster” of suitable opinions rather than a free thinker in his own right. I confess to being disappointed to find that they are the enemy of common sense as much as the lefties are.

    Thanks for the background on Rand. She’s not the Messiah but they treat her like one.


  4. Most people don’t even know what Liberty means. On a ship a captain gives the sailors liberty. The ship arrives at the dock. And the captain can give you liberty-a day off, if the captain wants to. If a storm is about to come in the next three days, the captain may decide to get a move on. So Liberty means what the employer chooses to give you. The statue of liberty is surrounded by water, confirming it is an admiralty/maritime concept. So when people call themselves libertarians technically speaking it means the people with the money decide everything, and decide what everyone else gets.


  5. Libertarianism seeks to maximise individual liberty; and the empirically observable result of mass Third World immigration – countries typically which have no history of limited government or even democracy – is increased voter support for socialist policies and diminished liberty. Starry-eyed Libertarians need to drop the idealism and deal with the reality.


  6. In retrospect the mistake libertarians made in NZ was to attempt to engage with the constituency. I believe that libertarian philosophies would have been better advanced through their absorption by other parties. Decades ago certain of the National Party premises were libertarian (albeit in a watery vein) but as the Nats have become social progressives these tenets have been extinguished. When the Libertarianz addressed the voters there was a failure to distinguish between ideals and policies. One of the ideals was to have open borders. The merest suggestion that this ought be a policy is inviting destruction through unfettered immigration.
    There was a fleeting perception that ACT would hold true to certain libertarian philosophies but inevitably the requirement to appeal to voters destroyed any spinal beliefs in their camp.
    Perhaps libertarians of whatever hue and wherever domiciled may well be better off being ginger-groups who can appeal to voters on an issue-by-issue basis?
    The centre of the spectrum is fully populated by progressives who sate the immediate concerns of voters living in a haze of unexamined ideas, rather than adopting policies founded on seminal philosophies. Perhaps there is no spot on the political spectrum for any party which elects to adhere to its philosophies.


    • The Libertarians have a few problems but I think one of their main ones is Objectivism. This is a kind of semi-religious ideology that because of its relative complexity alienates the man in the street.

      That is why the Libertarians have failed to capture anything above marginal support. The NZ branch in particular is IMHO in the hands of a bunch of arrogant condescending elitists who put the success of the Libertarian party in second place to their own narcissism.

      The Libertarians in NZ once had many more supporters, but their numbers have been decimated since they made Objectivism their main focus.


      • The Libertarianz Party no longer exists. This does not mean there aren’t those who still agree with the principles. I remember that during my membership I was occasionally hesitant to offer an opinion due to the opinion falling outside the strict lines of thought. I did subscribe to Objectivism for many years but surprisingly I came to see it as untenable once I began to study quantum mechanics later in life. Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle” glancingly refutes the “A = A” tenet of Objectivism.


  7. I have a different view entirely. Its because they failed to deliver on their most significant point. In the mid 80s NZ went through a radical change called Rogernomics. Now here’s where it all went wrong. Adam Smith the founder of economic’s definition of true free is totally different to Roger Douglas’. Adam Smith was greatly influenced by David Hume. This is how free trade works. A dollar is an ounce of silver (That’s the original definition) of dollar.

    If we import more than we export, we lose our silver. With less silver per person, this means prices and wages go down. When prices and wages go down, our exports go back up, giving us back our silver, driving wages and prices back up, which means our exports are more expensive. And so on and so forth, so ultimately your export of goods equal your import of goods over time, but that’s if you allow silver and gold to be a corrective mechanism. The exchange rate works like this. A dollar is an ounce of silver, a pound is a pound of silver. Their are 16 ounces to a pound. If it costs a pound, it costs $16. So their’s no need for the Reserve bank to work out what the exchange rate should be.

    Now of course we went off this system a long time ago, but the point is true free trade means your exports of goods equal your import of goods and services. But the way free trade is currently defined is if someone buys up $10 million of our land, that $10 million injection has to affect our exchange rate, and if you say it shouldn’t they call you protectionist. So if we had true free trade, we would be producing more of our own goods, than we are now. So on that one point not understanding what a gold standard is, and how that relates to true free trade, our economy has been in economic decline. And that is why people say it doesn’t work. Because the most vital and dynamic point is not understood.


    • Good points Meatloaf- Here’s a graph that backs it up. NZers have a lot of people in work, but they’re not producing anything.

      Here’s a graph from Treasury that says it all-


  8. Yep, you took the words right out of my mouth. The amount of hours worked has gone up and down, meanwhile GDP per capita, and GDP per hour worked have both gone down in each and every year. So its like we have more people in services all the time, with no increase in people actually producing something. Imagine 9 truckers per farmer. The farmer don’t need that amount of truckers, and so increasing services doesn’t increase our wealth.


  9. Pingback: My Article Read (9-30-2015) | My Daily Musing

Comments are closed.