RichardY Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 A choice between Nationalism and Anarcho-Capitalism OR Do Nothing/Join the State? Nationalism If you go Nationalism then I would say you are basing your preference fundamentally on the genetic make up of an area, cultures are liable to change throughout history therefore it can not be culture alone. What similarities might a Religion have towards Nationalism? My point being that the Jewish people eventually decided en masse to found a nation again based on being Jewish and eventually even with Genetic Tests? Even in Islam, Buddhism and to an increasingly lesser extent Christianity there are divisions at the Ethnic level, I haven't seen any Chinese looking Amish although maybe there is one. When 2 different Nationalities or Religions meet in a situation of gaining material wealth or eliminating a potential genetic threat in order to preserve ones gene-sets, is conflict inevitable, is balkanisation the answer for peace? Is the Will to Power and abandoning the NAP between tribes the best way of preserving such a reality? Anarcho-Capitalism Embrace the NAP, although in a society dominated by Fear(Of The Unknown, or unprocessed emotions?) I do not see how this is possible. In higher I.Q societies where people are able to obtain a higher degree of knowledge this could be possible. There may well be nutters(or having a bad day and ruining everyone else's) with guns, but would it be better to have them weeded out of the gene-pool now rather then later when more potentially powerful technology exists? Do Nothing/Join the State? Is letting another region of the World this time Europe again, collapse into a Khmer Rouge style scenario a good idea, to discredit the state? Especially if they target intellectuals, thereby decreasing the I.Q of the Population, creating more of a helot slave class. Maybe it might even go Nuclear, what if through a system of Alliances, like WW1 Turkey or another NATO ally gets more involved in a conflict? Would it make more sense to Embrace the Aggression Principle, but not between those who understand the NAP and material wealth and well being it may bring, and join the State for self preservation. With perhaps making choices to put yourself and others in a less dangerous situation. For people who do not want or will not take “Power over People” as an end in itself, might the only option be to embrace the horror?
Kevin Beal Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Ultimately Anarcho-Capitalism will be the order of things, but until then, Nationalism appears to produce better outcomes than ethnically diverse societies.
shirgall Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 As they say, send us your huddled masses, but they must yearn to be free. Yearning for Sharia fails this test.
Pelafina Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Is the libertarian justification for nationalism based on using pre-emptive violence in order to prevent potentially worse violence? 2
shirgall Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Is the libertarian justification for nationalism based on using pre-emptive violence in order to prevent potentially worse violence? The first justification for exclusion regards the existing use of force against residents of a nation to provide services that are disproportionately used by incoming refugees. The high risk of violence, cultural clashing, and high chance of misuse of voting power to initiate more force against residents is a follow-on justification. Related: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/07/migrants-ushered-in-from-muslim-countries-double-those-from-europe/ From 2009 to 2013, the U.S. issued 680,000 green cards to migrants from Muslim countries, more than twice the approximately 270,000 green cards issued to migrants from European countries.
Pelafina Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Shirgall, Do you think these events are calculated and intentional because governments gain by creating these problems? Or is it just stupidity?
shirgall Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Shirgall, Do you think these events are calculated and intentional because governments gain by creating these problems? Or is it just stupidity? From what I can determine through casual observation from thousands of miles away, there's a complex game with heads of state afoot. Putin's efforts and withdrawal from fighting ISIS and supporting Syria, Turkish PM Erdoğan manipulating the large populations of Syrian refugee camps, Greek refusal to seat refugees under EU law and instead telling them to move on to other countries, even refugees coming to Sweden through the Russian Federation, all point to countries playing games with this crisis.
vahleeb Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 I'd say ancap for the long-run. But a plethora of small nationalist-minarchist-monarchist states that do away with taxation, despite it being morally inconsistent, might bring us better short term effects. That being said, I can't vote since I support two different paths depending on the temporal horizon.
shirgall Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 New battleground, old tactics. http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/04/germany-syrian-refugee-admits-to-trying-to-frame-far-right-for-arson-vandalism/
Recommended Posts