“Victory for the Eurosceptic forces would likely be a victory for protectionism, economic nationalism, immigration barriers, and Putin.”
They say that like it’s a bad thing.
I always did think Reason tended to be a bit neoconnish and this illustrates it.
Support for “free trade” (globalization) is definitely an area where I disagree with orthodox libertarians, who apparently do not realize that regional super-states (like the European Union or the apparatus of NAFTA) and a de facto global super-state (in which the American empire is senior partner and military arm) have largely been created in the interests of fostering “free trade.”
Globalization is the primary force that is causing the re-proletarianization of labor in the post-industrial countries, along with neo-liberal domestic economic policies.
Mass immigration is the “reserve army of capital,” as thinkers from Ralph Nader to Alain de Benoist have pointed out, and only serves to hasten the re-proletarianization process.
Also, it’s possible to be neither a Putin-idolator or a Putin-phobe. Contemporary Russia is not the Soviet Union, and while Russia certainly remains an imperialist country, it is largely a backyard imperialism, comparable to American imperialism as it was during the nineteenth century. Nothing to get worked up about, from an international or geopolitical perspective.
There is much to agree with in Petr Mach’s response to my article about the European Union (EU). As he puts it, my defense of the EU is “utilitarian,” not a principled one, and I fully accept that it is possible to imagine alternatives to the current political arrangements in Europe that would be much friendlier to individual freedom than the status quo.
Unfortunately, Mr. Mach’s text does little to address my main concern, namely that such alternatives might not be on the menu of options available to us at the moment, and that the likely political dynamics of an EU downfall carry a big risk of making the continent, as a whole, less free.