9 thoughts on “The Middle East”

  1. For over 2000 years the “natural” conditions in the Middle East, with few exceptions, were those of ethnicities and empires. What will follow the arbitrary post-WWI states is unpredictable. Multiple new states, e.g. with the Kurds as a model? Reestablishment of some empire-like dominance by Iran and/or Turkey? Probably a long, bloody and painful process in any event, and who knows if there will ever be a stable result.

    Meanwhile, there’s the whole matter of the post-colonial borders in Africa… another horror story in so many places.

    1. “For over 2000 years the “natural” conditions in the Middle East, with few exceptions, were those of ethnicities and empires.”

      This ^^

      Colonialism has nothing to do with it, although it was perhaps the most recent incarnation of conquest. Colonialism might also have been the best hope going forward. The institutions introduced through colonialism are better than a return to a Mad Max world. The challenge is in getting people to adopt successful aspects of other cultures while retaining what makes them unique.

      The Middle East has been the locus for human interaction and conflict since before we were humans. It shouldn’t be a shock to anyone that the area would return normal. This is, however, probably the best time period to achieve stability, end constant war, and create good governments that represent their people. But it takes a conscious effort to do so.

      “Meanwhile, there’s the whole matter of the post-colonial borders in Africa… another horror story in so many places.”

      And another place where constant warfare and brutality has been the norm for all of human history.

  2. What is the “natural state” of the United States? Or, of the world, for that matter? The natural state is a bunch of naked apes congregating into enclaves and fighting each other for food and shelter. But, the world has gotten too crowded for that to be viable, and artificial states have to be created, or the apes will kill each other off to the last.

    We look askance at the Arab world today, but not so long ago, the First World nations were fighting each other tooth and nail with all their industrial might. I often think the only reason the First World is stable now is that we killed off a critical mass of the hotheads in those wars, and the remaining population has been genetically predisposed to compromise. The fact that we achieved the capability of mutually assured destruction was also a key moderating influence.

    The ME never killed off all their hotheads. And, they cannot yet wipe each other out completely. So, maybe endless squabbling and mass killing is the natural state of that system. Which would seem to argue that there is going to be a lot of blood shed before they can achieve a similar, relatively stable condition as the First World powers.

    1. The natural condition seems to be small communities who send their young men out to kill each other to control population. That’s not really a problem in the modern West, where most nations are below replacement level.

      The next war in Europe will be between Radical Islam and Metrosexual Liberalism, since they can’t possibly co-exist. The only real question, as far as I can see, is whether it starts from the ghettos within the EU, or by invasion from the Middle East.

  4. One thing that makes this shakeout different from the many that have occured throughout millenia is, of course, Nukes.

  5. The one point on which I want to challenge Mr. Wright’s Libertarian ideal regarding national borders is the Welfare State.

    Serfs are traditionally bound to the land, but is not means-tested public assistance, however justified by reasons of compassion and preserving social order and the recipients meriting this help, a mode of serfdom that requires “binding people to the land”? If we offer social safety net benefits beyond the median standard-of-living outside our immediate borders, are we not extending that safety net to those additional lands?

    The concern is that the end state of open immigration along with globalization of labor markets is having a monied elite living behind tall walls along with the vast majority having a standard of living well below what we consider “middle class” or “middle income” in the U.S., with a fat tail of the income distribution dippling into dire poverty?

    People with the inheritance legacy, drive, skills or whatever circumstances will always preserve their membership in the monied elite — they always have under all circumstances, even under Soviet Socialism where the Nomenclatura may have been compensated with Frequent Flyer Miles instead of cash income.

    Here is the question: do those of us in the vast middle in any way, either according to Progressive Social Justice or according to Libertarian Principles, deserve it any better than the desperate teens in Central America coming across the border? If the answer is no, than some people coming in may see their situation improve, but some people already here will see their situation equilibrate with the global standard by becoming worse?

    This is what is driving the vast Paleo-Conservative Conspiracy against Immigration Reform. Call them whatever names you will, shame them for their unconcealed bigotry, but the concern comes from the deep grass roots as President George W Bush found out, an experience from which President Obama appears unwilling to learn.

    1. How did this comment end up on this thread?

      I was replying to a post on the thread where concerns about open borders were being discussed?

Comments are closed.