State vs Nation: Migration and Racism

In this article, I'm trying to distinguish the notions of "Nation" and "State" and show how the second one stole the first. I'll take a concrete example, the problem of immigration.

The article is inspired by Pascal Salin. You can find his outstanding writings at "Le Québécois Libre" (however, only in French ...).

Before exposing the core of the problem, there is a parenthesis to open. As I was about to write this - being a Frenchie - I had to check in the dictionary for the translation of the word "étatiser", which means "decide that a "private" matter becomes a "public" matter, ruled by the State." What a surprise! In English, "étatiser" is translated "to nationalize"! THIS WORD IS FALSE!!! State and Nation have to be opposed. So in this article, I'll create a word for "étatiser": STATALIZE.

Let's try to explain. A free society is a society in which every individual has the right to do whatever he wants to, provided that it respects the legitimate rights of the other individuals. Ergo, a free society is based on the acknowledgment and defense of property rights.

This libertarian vision is based on a realistic perception of the human being. The collectivist detractors insist that the libertarian theory conceives human beings as lonely particles, hostile to one another but it's truly the opposite: the libertarian individual is fundamentally a social being.

Indeed every human being belongs to societies, big or small, and he has the feeling to be part of these groups. The Nation is such a groups, the largest one. Nation represents combined social ties born in history and revealed through culture, language and religion. Nation comes under spontaneous order, it is multiform, evolutionary and difficult to grasp. It's the result of multiple perceptions, somewhat different among members.

That is why it is a mistake to assimilate Nation to State which is, on the contrary, a very precise and institutionalized reality. And it's pretty striking to observe that today, just as in the triumphant statism era, we see once again the rise of nationalism. That is proof that States forced the creation of social systems, and not Nation as perceived by citizens--to whom they allowed themselves to give this name. And of course the State exerted all its energy in convincing people that nationalists are all somewhat Nazistic ...

I insist that Nation results from a feeling of belonging to a community, and that is why the "State-Nation" is a lie: it is not possible to statalize feelings. Then as always, when statalization occurs the State creates a monopoly for itself and defends it. And so it fights against regional particularisms; State destroys spontaneous Nations.

As an example, the struggle in France to destroy regional languages in the name of the republican equality in the 19th Century. That is followed by the most perverse move: in order to deceive you, STATE IS PERSONIFIED to ease the assimilation of Nation to State.

So they say: "Germany decides to..." or "France exports..." In the first case, they make you think that the entire German population decides, as if some type of collective mind did exist. In the second case, they make you believe that export is a collective act, that it's a common interest and that ergo State is able to determine it. LIES! Germany doesn't decide; the German government decides. France doesn't export; some French producers do.

- Caption: the 85 m/279 feet tall statue of Mother Motherland commemorating the Battle of Stalingrad in Volgograd, Russia -

This shows that a mythic, collective interest does not in fact exist, but that some particular interests do: those of the ones who are holding power or the ones who are producing goods. The use of these abstractions has a well defined goal: to abuse you. To make you think that Nation is assimilated into State; even that Nation is a property of State which ergo reserves the right to manage the national territory.

From there emanates the myth of "public property". The intellectual legitimation of "public property" consists in saying that State can "produce" some goods and services in an optimal way, while private companies can't. ANOTHER LIE.

Let's consider the immigration problem. The starting point of a libertarian reasoning about immigration would be to say that immigration (as emigration) is a fundamental right of a human being. How can you advocate the free exchange of goods and oppose free movement of human beings? Thus the best immigration policy would be not to have one at all!

Let's compare free trade with immigration. How can we define the free exchange of goods? Free trade simply means that public power should not use its monopoly to hinder the trade, wanted by both partners. So free immigration doesn't mean that an individual has the right to move wherever he wants, but that he has the right to move wherever he's welcome. In a private property system individual rights are conditional: you may enter someone else's property if you're welcome and respect the rules established by the owner.

In such a system, a free exchange one, both immigrants and inhabitants of the welcoming Nation should benefit from the deal. Otherwise there should be no immigration. If immigration is allowed and accepted, it's because there's a win-win situation.

In a collectivist system (our States) - with the notion of public property/public services - the situation isn't so fair. Because the public goods are produced in a collective way, they have a hidden cost. And so, these goods/services are for free or are inexpensive: it's financed through taxes, the productive citizens paying a high price, the less productive ones paying little or zip.

This is why the State induces bad immigration: it becomes advantageous for unproductive immigrants to come and benefit of all the services that are free or almost free, while contributing as little as possible; whereas potential productive immigrants are less enthusiastic: they know they'll pay too much through taxes for what they get in services.

Lets take an example, California vs Texas. An article in The Wall Street Journal in 1993 explained why immigration from Mexico was three times higher in California than in Texas, while the Texas-Mexico border is far longer than the one separating California from Mexico. It's because the social security system in California is much more developed than it is in Texas. As stated by an immigration official in Texas: "It's impossible to live from welfare here".

In the actual situation where the immigration policies are defined for the Nation by the State - I mean where social policies tend to subsidize the immigration of the less productive people - some who favor immigration as we know it, claiming their generosity through speeches against racism, are not touched by the problem; whereas others, who see their environment degraded by this system are opposed to it, seek help through the State to solve their social problems--a waste of time.

So the State is creating RACISM. What can we expect? The people leading the State are pretty comfortable come election day: all these assisted men who came in and got their voting rights will vote for them to perpetuate the system; whereas they don't have to worry too much if productive citizens get fed up and leave the country for a less unfair one: after all, they would have voted against them!

Immigration is not the problem. THE PROBLEM IS THE STATE. We, the people, citizens, have to find a way to recapture what it has stolen from us, the Nation, our Freedom, control over our Fate!

Here it is, only a short introduction about a matter I value very much. And the subject is worth further in-depth development.

- Filed on Articles in "The Post Democratic Preferences of the Neotots", cat. Neo Totalitarianism