"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A POLICY THAT OBJECTIVELY BENEFITS THE NATION..."
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS 'WHAT'S BEST OF THE NATION'
PUBLISHED: 26th June, 2017 | By JOSEPH ROSS
One thing that gets passed around by members of the Alt-Right is,“We will do what’s best for the nation”. The problem is, that it doesn’t tell anyone anything about policy. Nearly every non-globalist political philosophy believes that what they are doing will benefit the nation and it’s people. However, there is no such thing as a policy that objectively benefits the nation.
When the state institutes a policy, some people benefit at the expense of others. Social security benefits the old at the expense of the young. Having the state pay for education would benefit those who wish to go to college at the expense of blue collar workers. Importing cheap labor would benefit the shareholders of the company and consumers of said product, at the expense of the workers. On the other end, blocking the free movement of labor would benefit the workers of the industry, while the shareholders earn less profits, and consumers have to pay more for the product or the service. One could go on all day citing these types of examples, but the point should be clear.
The Alt-Right doesn’t unanimously agree on policy. On one end, you have some people like the guys over at Rebel Yell who still identify as libertarians. They aren’t the modern LP libertarian but more of the paleo-libertarian variety. You also have full blown National Socialists at the Traditionalist Workers Party. Most people fall somewhere in between, or just don’t care about economics. Those listed above have their views because they believe that their policies will benefit the nation.
This is how almost everyone used to get their ideology. Many older people that I know, some on the Alt-Right, will say that back in the ‘80s and ‘90s, everyone they knew wanted America to succeed. People were Democrats or Republicans because they thought the policies those parties proposed would benefit the nation more than what the other party proposed. The modern left is a relatively new phenomenon. Many of the older people I know who voted for Trump in 2016 voted for Democrats through the 90s and some even voted for Obama in 2008. Their views didn’t change much, they’ve just witnessed the modern left change from what it used to be to explicitly anti-American, anti-white, and anti-male.
Many people I talk to say that they would support something like a state funded social safety net if there were only white people who had access to it, as they believe that would prevent abuse. Based on my study of economics, this simply isn’t true. While it is true that whites collect welfare at lower rates than some other racial groups, it doesn’t mean that there still won’t be problems. The welfare state encourages dependency on the government, instead of encouraging people to save and plan for tough times when times are good, or building strong communal bonds. Right now, people who are bad can still receive welfare. If charities were controlled by churches or private secular organizations, people wouldn’t automatically get it. If the recipient of the assistance knew that the person giving it to them could take it away at any given time, they would actually be thankful for it and work to get themselves in a position of independence, instead of relying on it indefinitely and taking it for granted.
Another policy that is destructive is social security. It was a massive ponzi scheme from the very beginning. The purpose of it was to help out in the short run and then let later generations deal with it. We’re at the point now where it’s about to implode. They’ll either have to cut benefits, raise the retirement age, import more workers, or borrow even more money. As it is now, it’s political suicide to do anything to cut benefits. The easiest solution they have is to just bring in more workers, even if it does the most damage in the long run. Social security is also harmful to the family unit because parents are no longer dependent on their children in old age. Instead, they’re dependent on the government.
Lastly, there are things that nearly everyone agrees are bad, such as obesity, video games, promiscuity, degeneracy, alcohol, cigarettes, weed, heroin, etc. There is the individual rights issue that needs to be factored into this. Most people won’t give up things they enjoy even if it’s harmful. Then, there’s the fact that prohibition has been proven ineffective, time and time again. If I could snap my finger and get rid of weed, I would, but I don’t believe that the resources spent on attempting to rid the nation of weed is worth the benefits received. For the more dangerous drugs that actually kill people, like heroin, going after the cartels like the President Duterte of the Philippines is the way to go!
Having differing viewpoints in a movement surrounded around a common goal is beneficial, it attracts different people who wouldn’t otherwise join. You need to either say what your views are, or say that they should be put on the back-burner until one problem is fixed and then the other issues should be debated at a later date-as opposed to just declaring that the policies you support are “what’s best for the nation”.
IF YOU ENJOY OUR CONTENT AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE. SIMPLY DONATE THE PRICE OF A PINT, CHEERS.