I’m asking because I don’t know a whole lot about paleoconservatism, other than it is conservatism that is hostile to the welfare-warfare state and things like affirmative action, immigration, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, Larry McDonald, Ron Paul (by some accounts at least), and the JBS are considered Paleoconservative, and they’re all capitalists, but then I read in other sources that paleoconservatism is against capitalism. Larry McDonald also condemns what he calls “super-capitalism”, so that really throws me off, unless he meant corporatism.
To me it seems like neoconservativism is the one that’s anti-capitalist, but I don’t know for sure, so that’s why I’m asking.
If this question isn’t clear, or if I’m not asking the right thing, let me know, and I’ll try to help the people here answer my question better.
I think that “paleoconservative” is an ill-defined political term. I think the idea is to be reflective of the “Old Right” but that also tends to be pretty ambiguous. About halfway between conservative and libertarian is what I think of. Maybe the Tea Party Patriots wing of the tea party movement represents it pretty well.
As far as being capitalist, paleoconservatism certainly seems compatible with capitalism. It’s a different version of capitalism than many of us here support, but capitalism nonetheless.
I have seen some, speak in favour of Red Toryism and Distributism. Then there is always Russel Kirk on libertarianism, Hoppe discusses some of his and Rothbard’s interactions and dissatisfactions with the PaleoCons here as well.
I’ve always heard protectionists like Pat Buchannan labeled as “paleoconservative”. On the same token, I’ve heard the same description tossed towards people like Lew Rockwell. Labels don’t mean a whole lot when you think about it.
On wikipedia it says that “paleolibertarianism” is associated with the LVMI, or at least once was. I honestly don’t see why Libertarians are always trying to asscoiate with either “conservatives” or the “left”. Why can’t we just be anarcho capitalists?
How would you know I’m thinking? I don’t really care if someone is conservative, I just don’t see how paleolibertarians like Hoppe, think that libertarianism and conservatism, somehow naturally mesh together. It’s the same way with left libertarians. I thought being a libertarian is doing whatever the hell you want, as long as you don’t violate other people’s property rights.
To Capitalist_Pig, I guess what the deal is is that they are not supportive of libertine societies and/or are heavily influenced by Christianity. I think Lew Rockwell is very Christian somehow. Not that they wouldn’t support privacy, just that they think there is some moral order that society needs. Maybe? Hell if I know!
I’d like to think that maybe paleoconservatives are more isolationist in foreign policy, socially conservative but skeptical of state enforcement of private behavior, and economic protectionists (i.e., Pat Buchannan). Paleolibertarians are non-interventionist, socially conservative but skeptical of state enforcement of private behavior as well, and free marketeers (i.e., Lew Rockwell). I guess that’s the dividing line.
Isn’t Lew Rockwell and Anarcho-Capitalist? Social conservatism only seems to be relevant if the person advocates a legal system to support such a society which I’m positive Rockwell wants nothing to do with.
Right, but he supports some kind of social authority and religious influence in society as a whole. Not enforced by the state though, which does make him an anarchist.
Quoting Wikipedia:
In January, 1990 Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. published “The Case for Paleo-libertarianism” in Liberty magazine. In it he wrote that the “conservative crack-up presents an historic opportunity for the libertarian movement” to unite with conservatives but only if “libertarianism is deloused” of those who believe in “freedom from cultural norms, religion, bourgeois morality, and social authority.” Citing drug use by libertarians and the nomination of a prostitute as the California Libertarian Party candidate for lieutenant governor, Rockwell asserted that “the only way to sever libertarianism’s link with libertinism is with a cleansing debate.” Assailing alleged “hatred of western culture,” he asserted that “pornographic photography, ‘free’-thinking, chaotic painting, atonal music, deconstructionist literature, Bauhaus architecture, and modernist films have nothing in common with the libertarian political agenda - no matter how much individual libertarians may revel in them” and stated “we obey, and we ought to obey, traditions of manners and taste.” After explaining why cultural conservatives could make a better argument for liberty to the middle classes, Rockwell predicted “in the new movement, libertarians who personify the present corruption will sink to their natural level, as will the Libertarian Party, which has been their diabolic pulpit.”[1]
Paleoconservatives usually think capitalism causes ‘prosperity’. But they don’t like new-fangled inventions, science, empathy for foreigners, and social liberalism that comes with that prosperity.
Well, then please enlighten me and tell me what it “really” means. I mean, I read two articles by Rockwell about it, and the wiki article. They seem to think that libertarianism and paleoism go together and I don’t see how they can think that. Just because they might be a litle social conservative, doesn’t make them any more libertarian than anyone else. What I really don’t get is when they criticize left libertarians, when they don’t seem to be any better themselves. What the hell does God and family structure have to do with liberty?
Lew said he meant paleolibertarianism as this harcore back-to-the-Rotbardian roots libertarianism. It was to distinguish from the halfhearted beltway libertarianism, for example the constantly compromising Libertarian Party.