I have suddenly decided that any Libertarian parties should be extremely hard nationalist, that is to say especially British or English. Discuss.

How about the “British National Libertarian Party”?

David Davis

For why, see my comments responding to Tristram on my earlier post here. Er, about English churches being allowed to deliberately fall into ruin, owing to visceral hatred from Gramsco-Eagletonian fascist Marxists.

9 responses to “I have suddenly decided that any Libertarian parties should be extremely hard nationalist, that is to say especially British or English. Discuss.

  1. That’s a sick joke. Libertarianism and nationalism are incompatible. Your earlier post was conservative. As an Objectivist, albeit not an orthodox one, I regard religion as irrational superstition. Millions have died in the name of religion.

  2. This doesn’t chime well with me. I am proud to be British because our country played such an important role in bringing about a (relatively) free world, but that is all. I would be happy to live within a European federation, for example, so long as it was a minimal state (unlikely, I know!).

  3. It’s not a sick joke, in fact, it makes perfect sense to me. Apart from the Nationalist-Religion-selling section of politics such as the BNP etc, to be a nationalist just means to believe in a nation with specific borders, administered as such. One of the problems with political literacy is the inevitable loading of terms, which sometimes has a Newspeak Dictionary effect on all the terms we tend to acknowledge. In other words, they digress from their real meaning until they become meaningless. I think that is perhaps a better weapon for putting the term ‘Nationalism’ in the correct category, although that could be said to be smoothing down walls. If Libertarianism is realism, then there’s no problem with Nationalism. The half-baked twats that tend to spout Nationalism, are.

  4. Excellent idea.

    Libertarians (e.g. Ron Paul) believe in national sovereignty. They are so sick and tired of bureaucracy at home, that they definitely do not want to take part in big government overseas (UN, WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc.)

    Not only that, it makes sense from a public choice theory point of view too. If there is nationalist anti-EU sentiment, individuals have a more direct link to their representatives.

    It would have to be a form of nationalism that didn’t involve love of the state though.

  5. That’s the soul of what I meant with regard Nationalism etc, or rather the soul of the Nationalism David and I were looking for.

  6. PS I love Ron but he never slowed down enough from his constant one-pitched tirade to be really considered. Here’s where the political loaded words seep in.

  7. Nationalism implies government enforcing barriers. It implies fundamental restrictions on individual liberty by enforcing national boundaries.

    Nationalism is also a collectivist creed, grouping people together as belonging to some nation, a nation which they had no say on being a member of.

    This is also a surefire way to kill libertarianism. It will become just a small adjunct of nationalism rather than a broader political movement which sets little store in arbitrary boundaries and sees all humans as having equal rights.

  8. Come on David, nationalism is just another form of collectivism – something we libertarians should be shunning.

    I have no problem with individuals, volantarily of course, identifying with being ‘English’ or ‘British’ or whatever, but alienating otherwise libertarian-minded individuals in the name of nationalism is just silly.

  9. Liberty in one country may be a lot less than perfect, but…

    Well for starters neither the EU, nor the UN, nor any other supranational body is going to make life freer for us here.

    The fundamental assumptions of “progressives” about the power of the state and against private property permeate almost all international conventions and international / supranational bodies.

    The best we can realistically hope for is that one day British (or more likely just English) political leaders will remember this island’s history and parliament will pass something along the lines of Henry the Eighth’s Act which stated: “the realm of England is an empire”. (Empire was used in a technical sense to denote a polity and jurisdiction from which there was no appeal to a higher or external body.)