 Welcome ladies and gentlemen. We're talking today with none other than Dr. Joe Salerno our VP for academic affairs and Joe has written an article just about a week ago Entitled Mises on nationalism the right of self-determination the problem of immigration. It's really a sweeping article Joe I think it brings up a lot of the points of debate that are current not only in Austrian circles, but in libertarian circles and and really In greater political circles now in the US in the West as well So I think it's worthy of discussion ladies and gentlemen will post a link to it As well as I think a link to Guido Hulsman's Biography of Mises the last night of liberalism because there are some sections in that book I think really pertain to what Mises was thinking and how he developed his thought on this But Joe what I like so much about this article is that you you're willing to tackle some of these problems from Mises perspective The idea of subsidiarity versus universalism of the notion of free migration and immigration versus self-determination And there's a lot of tensions inherent in these and I think a lot of the rhetoric out there on Open borders and immigration and nationalism is facile It doesn't necessarily take in all the points that we ought to be considering but let me let me start with this Mises of course born in the late 1800s in the in what was then the Austro-Hungarian Empire and what is now where he was born Now part of Ukraine. I mean this is a guy who saw a lot of different languages a lot of different nationalities Ethnicities all sort of subjugated by monarchs and so how does his his experience of growing up in a polyglot? Region of the world be prior to World War one How do you think that factors into to his entire worldview on on nationalism and migration? I think profoundly affected his worldview on nationalism on nationalism and on on immigration you know being in the Austro-Hungarian Empire with a multitude of of nationalities different languages traditions and so on he he saw that when when political power was exercised by by majority in a certain area that in it evidently resulted in Let's say a situation and and an interpretation of the laws if not the laws themselves that were oppressive to the minority and they were oppressive both intentionally and unintentionally people naturally thought that their Culture and the and and their way of thinking their ideology their wealth and shown their worldview I should be spread and and imposed on on the minority Well, you talk about Mises in this article as a cosmopolitan and that that's not necessarily Certainly not in Mises view at odds with nationalism per se I mean first give us give us sort of your thumbnail definition of cosmopolitanism as Mises would have understood the term as Mises understood the term it was situation where people's different people's and different nationalities lived peacefully with one another and interacted through through trade free trade and Had no animus had no reason to want to extend their political political control over other nationalities and peoples and we talk about nationalities I mean that's a word. That's very nebulous. It can apply to different linguistic groups Which it certainly does but also to people of similar linguistic groups Maybe of different religions or or people who had lived in on different sides of the mountain and and had different experiences That caused them to have different cultural affinities and so on But I think a lot of times today the term is used as a denigration towards provincial Nationalists or people who want to cling to tradition or cling to You know their their own culture as opposed to people who are more worldly and better traveled and who who basically want Multiculturalism as a universal value. Yeah, well, you can think today of think of the Amish in parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio They might be provincial in some sense They're they're they're bound very closely together by customs traditions and religion, but yet they're very cosmopolitan If you visit there, they're very welcoming and you you know, they they buy and sell They allow you they actually have Bed and breakfast that you can stay in but on the other hand They they look at the rest of the world as as different from themselves and that and as their culture as being something That's to them superior to to other cultures now at the outset of the article you talk about Mises definition of liberalism or how he would have thought of it you sort of provided two pronged Analysis for that, but you also talked about classical liberalism, which David Gordon argues is kind of a made-up Expression in the 20th century because progressives came along and stole the term liberalism somewhere probably around the Great Wars when that shifted But let's talk about your Mises is definition of liberalism is having two problems one being freedom and self-determination But also the nationality principle, which you take pains to point out is not statist right in nature, but I Think a lot of libertarians view nationalism as inherently Statist and ill libertarian and and as you point out digging a little deeper Mises did not necessarily agree Yeah, so so so Mises saw liberalism as composed of two principles One of which was sort of freedom and laissez-faire in domestic policy And the other of which was what he called the nationality principle now by that what he meant was that when people are free to form their own political Units that they tend to form them in a way that results in people of the same nationality the same language living together under The same set of laws so what what he was at pains to Point out was that people did not that that this nationality principle was not the cause of Different nations, but really the result of them. It was the result of people's Self-determination so the principle of self-determination Resulted in people who self-identified with certain cultures and languages forming a political unit so liberalism itself the appeared on the scene as sort of a revolutionary movement against these foreign rulers That were imposing You know that were despotic and oppressive and so as an old Mises looked on on Nationality is getting together in the political unit Germans Italian Serbs as An alliance of the oppressed against the the foreign oppressor. That's why he raised it, right? And also his experience in World War one. He was obviously someone who was an Austrian Patriot visa visa the Russians And fought personally against the Russians in World War one That I get the sense that Mises is using the term nationalism in a way that that people used it before World War two I think Hitler and the Nazis really changed in people's minds what nationalism is But maybe maybe the term's gotten a bad rap and I want to give you a quote from your article. He says Mises contends that nationalism is thus a natural outcome of and in complete harmony with Individual rights and I think a lot of people would not see nationalism that way today. No in fact Mises does distinguish between Sort of aggressive nationalism and peaceful or liberal nationalism he uses those terms over and over again or sometimes militant nationalism as being also aggressive nationalism and so from Mises point of view Peaceful nationalism was just a nationalism that was a natural nationalism that arose from these two principles of laissez-faire and The nationality principle that is based on the right of self-determination When you had polyglot territories that is different Languages people who spoke to flying living under the same state as we did before and after World War one That's when militant nationalism got its start and that's how you know Hitler got his start that he wanted to bring all the Germans The dirt the German nation in under the control of the German state So that was aggressive nationalism and he wanted to subject other people's in those areas where Germans lived to the your two two two of the the despotism of of his state Well, I think we have to consider also not only did did Mises grow up in the in the old patchwork of The Austro-Hungarian Empire, but he also lived in time before mass media created much more of a monoculture in the west that there were Really differences among peoples and territories and languages now today This always gets uncomfortably mixed in with race And I think that's that's sort of the bed bug in this whole Conversation about nationalism and immigration but When you when you you move on in the article talk about Mises views on colonialism I was talking to you offline about how that you could read something like this in the nation or here at an NPR I mean how The degree to which he hated European colonialism and thought that it would it would yield very bad things which it did and continues to do but there's a There's a a quote here from Mises not from you that's particularly Striking today Europeans must not be surprised if the bad example that they themselves have set in their colonies now bears evil fruit So it almost strikes me as a parallel the colonialism of the 1800s and early 1900s versus the interventionism Today of Western countries in the Middle East Yeah Well, I mean the earlier the earlier colonialism Mises was was fighting against hypocrisy that said well even if if we Should leave them alone. They're not fit yet to govern themselves and Mises of course They're not fit to govern themselves at this point because they followed your example You know the suppression of of the indigenous peoples What was was the main point of of colonialism they're enslaved in their expropriation Well, you know Mises of course was a Democrat. Yeah But I think he he saw democracy differently. He didn't he didn't see it as mass multicultural democracy and and I think that that's evidenced by your treatment of of of his jaundice eye towards Majoritarianism majority rule and that for minority populations within a political area Their life was was much like Those in the colonies in other words if you're a minority in a democratic Political apparatus You're sort of colonized. Yeah, I mean he made that point very strongly says who cares if It's a result of foreign conquest or of a majority That you're living under certain rules and laws that you had no really no part because you don't speak the same language No part in in helping to formulate Even though you might have representatives minority representatives in in the legislature. They really There is no chance that that their thoughts are going to be heard and acted on Well, and he talks about that the natural antipathies that may or may not Exist between people and I think you see this even in the US today Look at the antipathies produced by democracy the people who hate Trump's guts, right? Right now feel that they've lost their right of self-determination. I mean, this is what a vast social democratic Majoritary majority welfare state looks like right. I mean if you that's right if you hate Trump I Guess you feel put upon right now. You feel oppressed you feel disenfranchised, right? But but What means would say to all that is of course you have the chance of being the majority again There's someone of a different nation nation in the in the in the in Mises's sense of a people who self-identify with a certain religion Language and so on there. They're all they will they have no chance There's no prospect of ever becoming a majority. I Hillary might win in four years, right? But the the Cherokee nation is never going to get its president in the United States Exactly and the other thing I noticed that open borders libertarians. I never hear them say that Cherokee nationalism is a bad thing In and there was point in other words. I think I think most of our listeners would say a Real Cherokee nation ought to be completely Independent of the US federal government it ought to not pay taxes not follow federal regulations It ought to be sovereign territory even if it exists within the the borders and confines physically of the current United States Yeah, I agree with you and I think you know the the US government has co-opted These nations who initially these the Indian nations would probably have wanted to be completely free of the of the US But now they're tied into the state governments. They have casinos that they've been co-opted So they're no longer a separate nation and no no longer have a yearning To to exercise the right of self-determination unfortunately because of the welfare state Well, then you delve into this thorny problem of Physical movement of people migration of people versus self-determination and and you identify as Mises did the tensions here And one point that Mises makes I'd like you to touch on is that when states are illiberal The the nationality principle that that he saw as part of liberalism becomes more important because the state is Providing welfare of the state is is is controlling life through regulation. Maybe through socialist ownership So the idea of of a nation within the state Becomes exacerbated or heightened. Yes, it does the national conflict the nationality conflicts become heightened because the Lord's of the state is the more margins on which it makes decisions that impinge on on on the rights of Of of the minority populations so Interventionism exacerbates any natural antipathies that may exist But they they really don't even go national nationality conflicts actually still even exist under a laissez-faire liberal Democracy in which there is no Right of self-determination in which people cannot opt out languages, you know linguistic groups and so on So Mises goes beyond saying that if we just get rid of the interventionist state And we have a minimal state laissez-faire state things would be fine He's he's as well. Well things certainly are worse under socialism or interventionism for the minority nationality But but they're not fine under laissez-faire liberalism. In fact, we've not completed the liberal revolution yet We have to allow the exercise of the right of self-determination of peoples And allow them to opt out because even where they're just administering the courts and And and contracts and so on there There's there's ways of of the majority Imposing on and oppressing the minority. So this this calls into question where they've even if we had some kind of minimal night watchman state Would a multicultural society still be free would people still feel that they had self-determination? But of course at some point it's it's an impossible problem I think Mises even says this that you can always get to a smaller and smaller minority down to minority of one person And it's very hard to to to create political subgroups However small that really taking into account every individual's true thoughts or interests, right? So we're not talking about utopia here. We're talking about We're talking about trying to improve things. You know one interesting point Just to on this Mises makes a Response to those people who always bring up Switzerland as a counter example where they're Germans Italians and French and They say well look here's a multicultural state. He says well, no, they're separated into cantons And in fact he makes a statement that if indeed there was Internal migration where you had a substantial minority of let's say French in a German canton Then you would have he said that the peace of Switzerland would long ago have vanished right, right well, it's interesting it is that Mises really speaking here more as a political theorist and a Sociologist not an economist per se, but he said, you know, we can see that there are values above and beyond Just greater productivity in the workforce or greater efficiency That could argue against mass migration of people across borders So he was he was willing to acknowledge a cultural component because as libertarians were often viewed as you know We'd sell our grandmothers for another point of GDP, right, but but Mises Didn't see things that way. No, he didn't he even said that and it's in a completely free world Where we didn't have let's say a government intervening in any way People's cultural affinities their their desire to be near their families and speak and people who speak their language Would not equalize wages throughout the world would not bring about the maximum human productivity So why should we aim at that as a policy? That's what I would call Economistic trying to make policy based on some maximizing something or optimizing something Which unfortunately is a characteristic of the Chicago School of Economics, but not the Austrian school Well, whenever we're talking about Mises on any subject, especially outside of economics I always like to point out to people that he's obviously authoritative someone we should listen to he's not necessarily just positive or infallible What what can we take from all this in other words in in libertarian Debate these days there tends to be this idea that you're either open borders or You're some sort of status closed borders person who wants a vast federal apparatus and checkpoints and guys with guns at the border stopping You know impoverished Mexicans from entering the United States or poor Syrian refugees or whatever And of course that those aren't the two choices in other words We were argue for some kind of market borders and and we're a long way from a private property society where it really was up to Property owners alone. I've always found it a bit fast. I want people say well You have no interest in controlling any property other than that what you just what you particularly own in your town And then Rothbard later in life came to see that the individual And and the state were not the only two units of analysis When it comes to this so talk about how what you see as a libertarian position on Borders and immigration today. Yeah, I I think it's Mises his work is extremely important here. So overriding importance Mises does not see Does not give a solution To immigration. He says the best that we can do is is to allow state borders to be changed as as people's and nations move But but he does it doesn't come out and set on any sort of program for that But what he he does do is is to show us that Immigration is always a political problem as long as there is a state There's going to be a problem no matter how small the units you get as you pointed out before There's there may very well be minorities that are oppressed. So we have to start from that premise I mean that that's a positive insight meaning that it's you know, he's not make any value judge me saying the nations exist Unfortunately Majorities oppressed minorities. So let's start from there and see how we can have a peaceful world. So you can You can Registrating Mises you can reject the open border position. I mean that you know, they're giving They're giving a solution and a very radical solution without even knowing really the problems So I think this is a debate starter not a means is not debate enter But a debate starter, but it does narrow the debate It does push out sort of the completely closed border types as well as the open border types They're there there are people that have not examined the problem and have no insight into it at all So I think we have to start all over again as libertarians to think about this This is a world of states and of nations and there are two different things Well, ladies and gentlemen, if you're interested in this issue of nationalism and immigration You know from the open borders perspective, Jacob Hornberger is writing a lot about this and of course our own Walter Block Yes is writing a lot about this You know, hoppa has written quite a bit about a private property society and now we've got Salerno Channeling Mises and and writing about this as well. It's a fascinating topic Again, we will post the link to Joe's article called Mises on nationalism the right of self-determination the problem of immigration From my perspective one of the most important articles of the year and and I think that it's something that we owe it to ourselves to delve into I think that Trump's election has caused a lot of bad feelings a lot of ill will and a lot of superficial thinking on the part of people on both the left and right and I think It's time for us to get beyond this and I really think that the best solution in it in a in a failed world Is this principle of subsidiarity and it amazes me with Trump and power why the left in particular? Continues to resist this when we could all get to a place where we're perhaps not self-governed But governed in a manner that's that's more amenable to our worldview and and that's really Something that I think we as libertarians ought ought to be to be working towards which is Subsidiarity and and secession and nullification and if you're never Trump You should be Yes, well Joe Salerno, thanks so much for your time a great article a fascinating conversation and the debate's not going to go away anytime soon No, you're right. Thank you