It is Friedrich Hayek, not Friedrich "von" Hayek which is used by his opponents as a way of disparaging him, such people generally ignore titles of nobility were abolished in Austria following the end of WWI. I would want to add I do not endorse Hayek's views on minimum wages, I think it belongs to the same category Hayek redundantly identifies in "The Road to Serfdom" or "The Constitution of Liberty", namely well-meaning people who ignore the consequences of their policies and are guided by irrational feelings instead of reason, and thus do wrong whilst convinced of abetting others. Most of the time, however, Hayek's ideas are praiseworthy, in my humble opinion.

I have never ascribed anarcho-capitalism to you, I have just said some of your assertions were pandering to it. I perfectly know the difference between classical liberals, anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, conservative liberals and so on. Again, I used to be a classical liberal. I share many of your ideology's ideals absent the fact you are too focused on economics, which precludes you from envisioning different fields, for there are connections between economics, philosophy, demographics and culture, which are actually coterminous and assume cohesiveness when dealing with all of them.

I know at least of two democratic states which reduced bureaucracy of late, that is to say Sweden (which admittedly had a long way to go) and Canada (whose public spending has been gradually dwindling and roughly matches that of the U.S. nowadays). Bureaucracy is never something that is given, public choice theories do not always come true. However, I agree with your assertion that liberal economics usually allows to cut bureaucracy, again, I am no enemy of liberal economics, I only want it to comply with other goals. I do not set much store by the idea that economics in itself is a suitable end.

Perhaps I ought to define which meaning nationalism bears to my eyes. Nationalism quite simply embodies national supremacy, sovereignty of national peoples, sovereignty of national parliaments or crowns (and so on according to different regimes). Nowhere did I say I wanted nationalism to be turned into national tenets to be followed to the letter, I would rather have it as a sort of ingrained habits encouraging to propinquity between fellow countrymen sharing the same culture, language, history and willing to live together to enjoy this very inheritance. Nationalism does not necessarily go hand in hand with hatred of foreigners as is all too often assumed. Something strikes me in your last comment; whilst you gladly disparage bureaucracy you say elites are better guides than peoples owing to a purported lesser propensity to be ruled by emotions, what are bureaucracies if not elites effectively in control of ever-growing patches of our personal lives? Monarchies have not prevented bureaucracies from growing, for in Napoleon III's reign in France (1852-1870), bureaucracy kept burgeoning. Democracy seems to me a surest form of government, although I do not begrudge the British their constitutional monarchy.

Bastiat held conflicting views as to different topics, he was not so liberal when rejecting colonization in Algeria only on financial grounds, and not because of a yearning for liberty. He did not quite perform an efficient missionary work amidst erstwhile socialists if one considers the fact today's French socialists are amongst the most illiberal throughout the West (bar perhaps Wallonia's socialists who are even worse).

Again, free markets are basically the most efficacious economic structure, they are likely to be widely efficient and democratic. There is no way I would challenge these views, and this I have been saying from the outset of our debate. Civilizational areas and areas of similar economic development often mesh, as it happens. Free trade should be applied within the West, including Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In these cases, culture and comparable levels of economic performance converge, albeit countries such as Poland, Romania or Russia may be less advanced, they still are economies whose patterns resemble those of the West in spite of the need for significant improvements. Besides, we need Russian oil and natural resources. Japan, although culturally different, could be associated ('of' rather than 'in') due to comparable standards and advanced economic maturity. Belarus remains a largely Soviet economy and a quasi-dictatorship, it has no inclination to pursue trade contracts and therefore is not to be comprised. I see no reason not to include Ukraine and Georgia.

Out of sheer curiosity; which country are you from?

@KO: Thanks for the link, it is quite an interesting blog for sure.

@pale rider: I see our views concur concerning P2V, he is my favourite French politician, although not devoid of personal flaws, I, for one, wish he had more stamina and greater endowments as to his rhetoric.

@ pale rider: Of course, I did not mean to justify nation as the supreme ideology, however, I wanted to make a case for belonging to a national polity a centrality. How could nations be possibly justified if it were not for the best interest of their respective peoples? Nations are objective realities: they rest on language, culture, history, and more importantly on the citizens' willing to live as a community, such facts meet with Lockean theory of social contract that justifies the state as the warrant of justice and collective security. I believe that in effect peoples should be able to decide through democratic decisions which policies they want their governments to pursue in the accomplishment of their interests. And I significantly differ from Monarchist's point of view that bids at justifying divine right as a source of power, whereas in my conception of things the state derives its legitimate powers from the consent of the governed. I am all for free markets nationwide, though they should be mitigated--which is, incidentally, not inconsistent with views held by classical liberals such as Friedrich Hayek who wished for minimum wages in order to secure internal social peace--regarding education for instance, as for the rest, I believe free markets are the best and most efficient form of economic organization. Only they should apply on a national basis, most of the time they are also efficient internationally but not when conditions differ so greatly. I challenge Monarchist to quote one single example of a country that throve on UNFETTERED free trade, for both Britain and the U.S., purported beacons of this theoretical model, prosperred whilst applying either high tariffs or limited protection. Theory is all good, evidence is quite another thing. Do not get me wrong: I want competition and free enterprise as a means of ensuring efficiency and prosperity, yet it would be both immoral and counter-productive to push for inexistent rules. Even Friedrich Hayek's pattern of spontaneous order implied a string of rules for markets, such rules would be simple enough for everyone to understand them but would exist none the less, which is quite different from complete lack of rules that rather panders to anarcho-capitalism. I am thus a capitalistic patriot wishing for free markets to a reasonable extent, precisely because free markets are largely democratic in their functioning.
Concerning supranational bodies, such structures are illegitimate in that they do not require consent from the part of the governed but function in discretionary ways, outside established rules. They wilfully ignore realities such as languages, customs, sovereignty or civilizations, which account for their evident failing when dealing with internal problem from a globalized point of view. The IMF purports to be defending free markets whilst doing the opposite by infringing upon national markets for the putative sake of stabilizing them, therefore implicitly acknowledging solutions by dint of state intervention, and destroying the very basis of their own philosophy. Some classical liberals are quite aware of the problem, and feel their philosophy can only lead to eventual self-destruction if tenets are to be enforced until the end without taking into account varying environments and contexts.
I am not a proponent of FN. My favourite party still remains Mr. De Villiers' "Mouvement Pour la France", which stands for more realistic economic solutions, whilst the FN stubbornly advocate socialistic measures as means to redress France's economy, the kind of so-called solutions which were already used in the past with disastrous fallouts. The MPF is resolutely pro-Christian (and does not belong to the self-proclaimed New Right) and in favour of a pattern most resembling family capitalism with strong incentives for individuals to compete and do to the utmost of the ability. None the less, one should not be delured into thinking Mr. De Villiers is so attached to economic freedom, I challenge you to find a single party that defends such things in France, definitely one of the most socialistic countries all over the world.
Best regards.

@ KO: thank you very much, I also greatly relish the occasion to debate persons whose own knowledge is quite appreciable in spite of our differences.

Hi Monarchist, I agree with what you wrote in response to my message. I also totally agree with your first point. There are times when faith is is more important than ethnicity or nationality. When forced to choose, I prefer my faith above all else. It is simply too important a part of my identity, and it defines my person. On the other hand, Christianity played an immensely important role in shaping the nations of the West, so it's not surprising that nationalism or reactionary sentiment often go hand in hand with Christianity to oppose those who wish to destroy the Western tradition. So it's not necessarily wrong for nationalism and Christianity to go hand in hand, it's just that one should not forget that Christianity was equally meant for those who wish to destroy us. The irony is that the biggest enemy of Christianity in the West today may not really be Islam, but rather those of our own kind who sometimes still claim to be "Christians". The fight against Islam is not a defense of the decadent lifestyles of Westerners. We are not going to win the battle if people do not also give up on their superficial postmodern idols. Best regards.

So, tell me what is socialist in Mr. Le Pen's manifesto? Absent protectionism, I cannot see many elements of that stripe. Besides, I would rather have a patriotic protectionist than a 'conservative' traitor bowing to whatever foreigners demand. You should not take such principled views on free trade; the United States throve owing to the lack thereof during the 19th century. For a more comprehensive view, read this:
http://conservatively-yours.blogspot.com/2009/06/free-trade-and-use-of-e...
Limitation of foreign trade does not mean you are not preaching for internal free enterprise, and free markets economics to some extent.
As for the MPF, there is absolutely no way it is socialist. De Villiers defined himself as "100% anti-socialist" during the 2007 presidential campaign. He is a devout Catholic, advocates low taxes, estrangement from the EU, and would wish for numerous allowances to disappear. Yes, he was and always is in favour of protectionism, but only on an European scale (I would tend to include the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand in such an area). So what? It takes much more to make a socialist. Free trade is usually a good thing in economic terms, it allows significant purchase power for consumers, yet it should not be practiced at the expense of our nations, unless one has masochistic proclivities. As you will see in the article of the link above, David Ricardo himself wanted to limit free trade, and spoke only about "civilized world", thus nations sharing common values, and attaining given levels of economic development.

Why France is already lost:
- the youth is overwhelmingly socialist (I believe I will be the only one [bar two other fellows] to vote for a truly right-wing party in my whole university).
- France has been resting on an intellectual mistake since the 1789 French Revolution: the French believe in universalism, they think everyone has a natural yearning to join their culture, which is to them the grandest and the most magnificent. Such an imbecility allows them to let in millions of migrants because they all reckon we are 'citizens of the world'. (Yesterday I was at odds with friends using the term, and needless to say they refuse to realize there is a real world out there.)
- France is one of the most economically socialistic countries in the West, perhaps only beaten by Belgium (the Walloon part at least) and Sweden, which means the state possesses extensive control over the economy and our means of subsistance. Need I remind you France's elite is just as corrupt as everywhere else in the West, that is they effectively could control our lives if a totalitarian regime were to settle in Paris.
- France has already been under siege for decades; owing to the philosophical features of universalism, it has accepted tremendous numbers of migrants from North Africa and central Africa, that is from its former colonies. Most of them are not counted in statistics because ethnic statistics are banned in France, and substantial patches of that population naturalized. (So that they could rely yet more intensely on welfare benefits.) By then, I can tell Paris is on the verge--if not already--of becoming a non-French majority city. In my own region, Muslims are awfully numerous, too (and their demographics are as dynamic as ever). What I mean is we have got too many of them to reverse the trend. If we offered migrants subsides to allow them to leave, (1) I fear they would come back as soon as possible to have that subsidy again (it already occurred with some Gipsies), (2) by their sheer numbers, they would lead France to utter bankruptcy (a prospect we are already facing due to our decaying nanny state).
- The French are disarmed: they have not got the ability to defend themselves any more. Of course, such a situation exists in most of Europe. It is why the U.S. have such a huge advantage over us; if threatened by from within or from outside they could retaliate with the full might and wrath of millions of U.S. citizens standing for their lives and birthrights. Such a thing is most unlikely to happen on this continent. In Takuan Seiyo's words, the French have become Pods.

I, for one, honestly cannot see a way out of this predicament, for I know the French character, I know it is prone to accept guidance. By contrast, the English-speaking peoples are much more self-reliant, and I am sure Britain will prove--in 4 days--it can rise up again. If you had lived in France so long as I do, you would have no different opinion. Trust me, if the French are ever to survive, they will but elsewhere. Hopefully France will teach other Europeans a lesson so that they truly understand the nature of Islam.

1 - France as a single united entity did not exist at the moment the Poitiers battle took place, it is somewhat anachronical to resort to such an argument. However, Frankish tribes are technically our forebears, and tremendously contributed in shaping today's culture. I would rather invoke the French Revolution that reversed the course things were taking, and of course resulted in bloodshed. I, for one, am convinced such a bloodbath will occur once more, once the French are getting started, they cannot stop. There is a fundamental dearth of moderation in the French character, as compared to Lutheran peoples for instance. Perhaps such a trait could be useful for a change. Obviously, I am willing to escape such developments yet I believe this will be hardly feasible, and we will have no choice in the end but to retaliate once we have stomached the first blow.
2 - Of course, I have been advocating gun ownership for every French (and European): the Americans have a fundamental advantage over us in that firearms possession is ingrained within their character, and enshrined withing Amendment II. We, on the other hand, lack such traditions and liberties. As foreigners, you must understand the French state rests on an intellectual defectuosity called Jacobinism where the state is allowed to perform tasks that would be better off within the hands of individuals. I suggest that we reverse the trend, in some regards, my views are extremely marginal in France. I am far more likely to be incarcerated for disruption of public order or be dismissed as an utter fool convicted of the grossest imbecility rather than being hearkened to. The French are so deeply in love with the current establishment they wil not consent to being unplugged if not faced with seemingly indomitable hazards. I am sure France will awake sooner or later but, honestly, I fear it will be too late once it does. The surest way for me to escape the final demise of this country is emigration, either to the U.S. (where citizens will not be stripped of their birthrights so easily) or Australia (which is still secluded enough to avoid being overriden by undesirable aliens). Let's hope my English skills are sufficient to do so!

...in any attempt of European peoples to reverse Islamization and Third World immigration? After all, those are core policies of the EU and France, and the Franco-Islamic scheme for recovering empire goes back to De Gaulle, n'est-ce pas? Thus I am not sanguine about the role of the EU in protecting European peoples in the future. I am not even sanguine about the role of the French state and military in a popular struggle against Moslems. To tell the truth, I am not sanguine about the attitude of an American government towards European attempts to take back their countries. Frenchmen should arm themselves. They cannot depend on their institutions to protect their interests.