Lessons of the Holocaust
by Max Raskin A Libertarian Lens One of the most frustrating aspects of history is that two people can study the same facts and statistics, yet come up with completely different opinions; and, as a result, many intellectuals adopt a sort of historical nihilism, where there is no "right" and "wrong" interpretation. This view is so bothersome because there is a proper interpretation of history – the past is not merely a hodgepodge of historical data with no modern relevance. What historians need then is the proper lens with which to look at events and trends. The question becomes: Which lens is best? If you believe in the Marxoidian dialectic (read: voodoo), then stop reading. If you believe that people need to be ruled by an oppressive government that limits their personal freedoms, then read [mainstream historian]. If however, you think that the proper lens for evaluating history is a lens that is critical of state power, then this is for you. (If you are a Straussian, then take note that my first name has three letters and I was born on the third month, so therefore the third line of my third page is what I really mean.) People don’t learn about the Holocaust to memorize more dates and show off their erudition. Instead, people examine atrocities to prevent them from recurring; historians observe the troubling trends of history and then analyze why these trends are harmful. It is not enough to say we should never elect Adolph Hitler again. We don’t live in the past and thus must understand its theoretical lessons do not consist in blindly gathering data, but in garnering a paradigm with which to guide future policy decisions. Santayana was right in that we have to learn the lessons of the past so as not repeat our mistakes – but even more important than learning lessons of humanity’s greatest tragedies, is learning the correct lessons. The Political Spectrum One of the biggest misconceptions about Adolph Hitler and the Nazis is that they were somehow fundamentally different from Joseph Stalin and the Communists. Hitler is "right wing" and Stalin is "leftist." This is evident in the insipid comparison of Bush and Hitler. Briefly, people believe Hitler an extreme Republican and Stalin an extreme Democrat. Nothing could be further from the truth – in fact they are both extremist in their hatred of private property and liberty. Hitler’s hatred of the Communists was mere rhetoric because when looked at, both he and Stalin did not differ in their Hegelian belief that "man owes his entire existence to the state." Nazism (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) is socialism. It is not free market. It is not capitalist, but rather corporatist (liberals – an important distinction). In fact, if you ignore the anti-Semitism (other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?), and actually read the political platform of the Nazis (NSDAP), it reads very much like the progressive nonsense that many politicians today espouse. The Nazis were supportive of welfare, social security, workers’ rights, national health care, public education, the nationalization of industry, and finally the redistribution of wealth through heavy taxation. Sounds like [Democratic presidential hopeful]. This is not to say that they did not support aggressive foreign policy and restrictions on civil liberties like [non–Ron Paul Republican presidential candidate]. But most people are shocked to find the similarities that Hitler had with Stalin. Thus, we need to rethink our political spectrum. The economist and political philosopher Ludwig von Mises aptly noted that, "The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended."
Our new political spectrum is simple. The extent to which a government acts is the extent to which it is closer to the totalitarian side of the spectrum. The extent to which a government allows its citizens to live freely is the true measure of that government’s value. Unfortunately, America should have taken the opposite course of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. New Deal socialism and the emaciation of our Constitution were certainly not as bad as in other countries, but why head down the road to fascism at all? Interventionism, both foreign and domestic only gives rise to new problems, as government is congenitally incapable of producing anything desirable. The Right to Bear Arms A general rule of any sound political philosophy is that if Hitler denounced idea X, then X ought to be vindicated, and if Hitler was supportive of Y, then Y ought to be vehemently condemned. This is the exact opposite of the "What Would Murray Rothbard Do?" school of political science. Reductio ad Hitlerum can be a fallacy (obviously, Hitler’s belief that one and one makes two does not make it wrong), but it is a good place to start. Which leads to a point about guns. Once again, the common perception that gun toting, redneck NRA members would support Hitler is completely wrong. They would be appalled (among other things) to find that not only did the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 prohibit Jews from owning guns, but the 1938 National Weapons Law made gun ownership restricted to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." The problems with gun "control" are many. Although the two talking points that gun ownership decreases crime and that criminalizing guns ensures only criminals will have them are convincing, there is an even more important lesson to learn specifically from the Holocaust. An armed populace is not easily subjected to tyranny. Armed citizens are able to protect themselves against foreign and domestic aggression. When Hitler took away the Jews’ right to own weapons, alarms should have gone off. A person who normally wouldn’t own guns, should have gone out and armed himself simply because it was illegal. This does not advocate going out and buying weapons right now, simply that if our government were to prohibit any group from owning weapons, then you should go out and arm yourselves to the brim. Sure, maybe if the Jews had guns it wouldn’t have made much of a difference, but the question we must ask is – why then did the Nazis want to take away their rights? If gun ownership really doesn’t prevent tyranny, then why would the Nazi government pass such a law? Clearly this shows that owning guns does prevent some kinds of tyranny, as it at least makes the government think twice before they are going to engage in rampant genocide. As Americans we should understand that our country was founded on principles that would obviate any such despotism with our rights immutably codified. We would do well to heed to advice of Thomas Jefferson when he proclaimed, "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Government Let us not forget that the Holocaust did not happen because of the voluntary decisions of free individuals, but was only made possible because a centralized, powerful state was in place that could be used as a tool for Hitler and his cronies. There is no demand for war and mass murder on the free market because only very small groups of people (sadists, megalomaniacs, and neocons) get satisfaction at the pain of others. There have always been people as deranged and bigoted as Hitler, yet it is only when a powerful state develops that they are given a vehicle to pursue their sadistic fantasies. It should not be surprising that the Holocaust took place in Germany. After unifying (read: centralizing) the country, the despot Otto von Bismarck established the first welfare state, and indoctrinated his people into believing that limited government liberalism was bad and only through government could the masses be saved. Though Bismarck and his few successors did not commit any thing so heinous as the Holocaust, as the old political adage goes, "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." The free market often comes under attack for its supposed inability to provide for the poor and the inequality of wealth that arises without egalitarian redistribution. While opposing laissez-faire capitalism on these grounds is certainly contradicting sound economic theory, even if you think that too little government is a bad thing (which it is not), it is still preferable to too much government. By limiting the power of the state to begin with, there is no need to worry about the caprice of future rulers. The problem with a "loose" interpretation of the Constitution and the rule of law is seen here. When the people allow for the government to decide what rights we have, it is only a matter of time before some leader uses an emergency to completely deprive us of our liberties. Don’t trust the government. Yes, the bad guy in this story is Hitler, but to end the lesson here would be to do a great disservice to all the people who died because of him. The real villain in the story is the government – it is only through the state and its bureaucracy that someone like Hitler can rise to power. Democracy As Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." While this is true, Mencken is too easy on this sacrosanct institution. In reality, democracy not only gives the majority the power rule themselves, but also to rule the minority. Democracy is really the theory that the majority knows what they want and others deserve to get it good and hard. The whole scheme of democracy is really a political fallacy – an appeal to the masses. Simply because fifty-one percent of the populace believes that X is correct does not make it so; yet this is exactly the view that democracy is predicated on. Although mobocracy is much less flattering, it is true democracy. No political party has the right to force themselves upon others simply because they were elected through a parliament. Unfortunately, this is difficult to reconcile with democracy. At base, Jews who did not vote for Hitler should not have been bound to follow his laws because his government does not rest on the consent of the governed (or slaughtered). But what of Bush? Should those who did not vote for him be compelled to pay for his war through taxation? Of course not. As we should be the controllers of our government, we should be allowed to pick and choose what services we pay for. If we refuse to pay anything, then no power on Earth, no matter who elected it, has the right to steal from us. Positive and Natural Law Arguably the most important lesson of the Holocaust is the necessity to distinguish between what is legal and what is right. There are two branches of conduct by which man can live. He can either follow natural law, a body of rules that are derived through logic and reasoning, or he can follow positive law, a fiat set of standards imposed by the state. Whereas natural law tells us that murder is always wrong, positive law, as in the case of Nazi Germany, can tell us that we are allowed to murder X people. Clearly the righteous gentiles who hid Jews were doing something illegal, but who would claim that to be immoral? This attitude of "love it or leave it," with the government being the ultimate decider of right and wrong is absurd. Most of the laws that exist today are patently immoral. The only real law that man should be forced to follow is that he should be allowed to do with his body and property as he pleases provided he does not initiate aggression against he body or property of another. When a government law comes into conflict with this rule and tries to prevent a person from either taking drugs or refusing to be burglarized (read: tax evasion), then the law is immoral and you have a human right to break it. Choosing to exercise this right is a question of personal morality, but when a person takes drugs or works below the minimum wage, he ought not to be punished. Conclusion Although these ideas are probably difficult to accept, they mesh nicely with the American idea that government is best when it governs least. Social scientists are always talking about experimenting with communism and other forms of government interventionism, but they never talk about experimenting with liberty. Yet if looked at objectively, we find that most of the horrors of the world have been caused by the state. If society ever hopes to progress, it must learn these lessons and see that far from being extreme, the kind of logic that stands behind the state is the kind of logic that sanctions the Holocaust. June 13, 2007 Max Raskin [send him mail] goes to high school in New Jersey. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com |
