I think that a false dichotomy is being presented. What if I reject both the paleo-populist approach and the cato-reason approach? I reject the nationalistic and culturally conservative views of the paleo types, and I reject the pro-war and centralist views of the Objectivists and Cato types. I also reject the notion that the only libertarian criticism of Ron Paul comes from the Cato types. It also comes from the most radical factions within the movement.

Most people resist calling themselves democrats or republicans, let alone libertarians (or anarchists). If you want to persuade people, you have to be clear about where you stand on key issues and why (briefly). Paul succeeds because he persuades people… some other ‘libertarian’ organs don’t persuade people because they send mix messages on key issues and are known for their strange positions on marginal issues.

BP, I still don’t see it as a clear false dichotomy. Yes, the emphasis on two different factions, but I don’t see how these two are clearly portrayed as the only factions of libertarianism. The only sin seems to be that other factions are not mentioned.

“Where exactly are these closed border positions taken?”

By Paul, Hoppe, Kinsella and Koster to name only a few out of many.

Raimondo’s analysis of libertarian factions strikes me as oversimplified, but a workable first approximation. On the other hand, I don’t think the case against cosmopolitanism is anything like as strong as he makes out. I believe there is a deep congruity between cosmopolitanism and libertarianism.

An important focus of libertarian values is trade and trade-based economies. Historically, trade has taken place in cities, and cities have tended to evolve a way of life based on trade. And part of that way of life is regular encounters with strangers—with people from other cities and even other countries, and with people from other communities within a given city. The costs of maintaining a uniform set of customs in a city are much higher than in a smaller community. Instead, city dwellers need to develop the social skills for dealing with strangers and with people who don’t share their customs. This is where we get words such as “urbanity” and “politeness”—both of which ultimately mean “acting like a city dweller.”

Cosmopolitanism is part of this set of customs and values. Trade brings together people from different cultures with different customs; a trade-based economy favors people who are culturally flexible, who don’t insist that everyone live by their customs. In the long run, it leads to a sense that most customs are matters of personal choice and personal taste.

Part of the paleolibertarian program seems to be an emphasis on the right NOT to associate with people who are different, or live by different customs. And yes, that is a right. People are entitled to live in enclaves of tradition and conformity. But a market economy tends to undermine all traditions, as people who cooperate across cultural differences outcompete those who refuse to do so. In the long run, I think, the paleolibertarian position is a demand for the right not to be part of the market economy. And since the ultimate rationale for libertarian values is to enable people to live by free association (of which the market is the economic aspect), the paleolibertarianism Raimondo favors looks like a less enthusiastic support for those values than the cosmopolitanism he derides.

I think the following quotation from Charles Johnson (of http://www.radgeek.com fame), may shed a great deal of light on what to make of the “two paths” which Raimondo has presented:

“[U]rbanity at its best tends to help certain kinds of tolerance and pro-freedom thought flourish; but I think agrarianism at its best tends to help other kinds flourish. The best parts of the American Revolution (radical, anti-statist, directly democratic, anti-mercantilist, etc.), for example generally came out of the Massachusetts hinterland, for example, with most of the mercantilist jobbery and Law and Order conservatism coming out of the urban centers in Boston, New York, etc. What I’m inclined to say is that each form of life nurtures both its own characteristic virtues and its own characteristic vices. The agrarian tradition at its best cultivates populist skepticism towards self-appointed elites, individualist skepticism towards the arbitrary demands of others, an ethic of self-reliance, a willingness to live and let live in matters of private property, a skepticism of utopian central planning, etc. At its worst it tends to encourage parochialism, anti-intellectualism, hidebound traditionalism, “I got mine” indifference, conventional bigotry, a failure of skepticism towards traditional and supposedly “natural” authority, etc. Conversely the tradition of urbanity at its best tends to cultivate cross-cultural tolerance, respect for intellect and education, solidarity with others, intense skepticism towards traditional centers of authority, etc. But at its worst it has also cultivated predatory mercantilism, soul-killing mass politics (typically in the name of “democracy”), utopian central planning, imperial arrogance (both towards the Provinces and towards the underclass of the city itself), etc. I don’t want to slip into empty waffling here, but I do think that what we need to look towards is dialectical engagement with the best in each, in an effort to encourage, synthesize, and adapt.”

I would be interested to hear what others think about the above-quoted material, and how (if at all), it bears on whether libertarianism ought to pursue one “path” to the exclusion of the other, or rather attempt to “dialectically engage[] the best of each” approach?

P.S., Let me be clear that in acknowledging the value of urbanity, even ‘cosmopolitanism,’ I in no measure mean to endorse war, centralism, “loosed individuals,” or boot-lipping vis-a-vis the power elite. In fact, I think that it’s important that in critiquing these latter that, we not take for granted that self-described cosmopolitans really are such…

“I believe there is a deep congruity between cosmopolitanism and libertarianism.”- William H. Stoddard

I am fully aware that classical liberalism (and libertarianism) is, in one very important sense, cosmopolitan in character.

However, there is a species of liberalism which can be called ‘cosmopolitan liberalism’ but contrasts with classical liberalism: a species of liberalism that developed by way of being critical in response to the political liberalism of John Rawls.

Understood as being this, ‘cosmopolitan liberalism’ is incompatible with classical liberalism for two reasons: first, it claims Rawls’ difference principle should be applied at the international level so as to redistribute income from well-off countries to poor ones in the way that Rawls claims social justice only requires redistribution from better off to the least well off citizens within a state. Also, cosmopolitan liberals, in the sense in which they can be contrasted with classical liberals, believe there should be open borders and full rights of citizenship (including rights to welfare) to those who migrate to present day western social democracies, something Mises certainly did NOT think, although he agreed, in an ideal world, there would be open borders, but equally full mobility of capital and strictly limited government with no welfare rights.