Thursday, March 7, 2013

Humanity and Nations

One of the reasons I'm careful to call myself a "Libertarian Nationalist" is that it's a popular and irrational cliché among libertarians in general to regard mankind as made up of individuals and individuals only, and to dismiss tribes and nations as "social constructs," and national boundaries as "imaginary lines."  Nonsense.  Most all of the nonsense in libertarianism is simply contamination from liberalism.  Liberals are of course eager to regard nations (as well as religions and families and other non-governmental structures) as old-fashioned and obsolete, because such things get in the way of liberal plans for ordering everybody around and attaining utopia.  Libertarians shouldn't be that way.  All human institutions spring from human nature and are there for a reason.  Many are in need of reform, of course, but trying to simply abolish human institutions is futile and self-defeating.  Bad Eagle explains, and adds that while nationalism/tribalism is natural, maybe imperialism isn't:


Nature, Nationalism, and Naïveté


Whether evolutionist, or Biblical creationist, scholar or mystic, scientist or psychologist, all must agree that nationhood is apparently a natural condition of corporate humanity. Perhaps it is the ultimate extension of the natural family orientation; a nation is a sophisticated tribe. However, an empire is a different thing. The impetus for one group of people to rule over another is not found to have natural precedent.

When I taught humanities courses at Oklahoma State University-Oklahoma City campus, one course I taught repeatedly was Ancient Humanities. This involved the observation of civilization from Mesopatamian Sumer and North African Egypt (ca. 3,000 B.C.) to Medieval Europe (ca. 1200 A.D.). Particularly in the first semester course, “Ancient Humanities,” one could see clearly the issues of nationhood with respect to conflict. I was most impressive to discuss why, for example, the Akkadian people attacked and conquered the Sumerians (ca. 2,350 B.C.). What are the reasons for such aggression? The Akkadian people are identified as Semitic (“Semitic barbarians” according to Robert C. Lamm), but no one knows the origin of the Sumerians (who themselves overran the original inhabitants of the Sumer river valley). Sabatino Moscati regards the Sumerians not as Semitic, although they used the Semitic language, even in their cuneiform. See, Ancient Semitic Civilizations (1960), p. 46.  (Read the rest HERE.)

2 comments:

  1. Sooner or later all political philosophy is contaminated by leftism. This is why I've pointed out "libertarianism" is dead because it been killed by leftism (there are no nations, open immigration is good, etc.). I've told leftist-libertarians they are libertarians but plain old destructive leftists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Like the blogger here I too call myself a Libertarian Nationalist. More specifically an Ethno-Culturalist Libertarian Nationalist. I point out that a Nation is a collection of real, flesh-and-blood people who share ties of familiarity, culture, language, etc; white a Country is just a legal fiction that often contains several nations, so that it is clear were my values and allegiances stand.

    As for the standard "Libertarians" of today I do not grant them that moniker. They are Neo-Libertarians. The same NeoCons are Neo-Conservative and bear only a passing resemblance to true Conservatives, Neo-Libertarians have only the bare minimum (almost all of it in the economic sphere) in common with the original Libertarians of the past.


    ReplyDelete