How is it a state? To be such it must extend its rule over those who do not desire it.
Okay, not exactly a state. A form of theocracy maybe ? Anyway, I admit that ‘state’ is not the right word.
Still, your point about uniformity as too statist is perfect - the Amish and other conservatives want uniformity. If people lived in small uniform communities that wouldn’t imply real individualism - just a sort of statism on a smaller scale. That’s the core of my argument. I have nothing else to say.
More power to them. All clubs, organizations, companies, religions, etc., have some definition of membership. If aggression is not initiated, they’re perfectly legit. It doesn’t matter how conformist they are.
It’s important for libertarians to keep that straight. We aren’t anti-authoritarian, nor advocates of mob-rule or chaos. It’s perfectly fine for groups to exist and have rules, as long as they don’t coerce.
–Len.
Excuse me ? Who is ‘we’ ? I am anti-authoritarian. You can ‘shun’ me and claim that you’re a real libertarian and I am not, if that makes you happy (but not consistent…haha)
Well my point was that having nothing but large, internally diverse cities is itself a form of uniformity, and one no doubt that at least in part the state contributed to. Some here will say this is the inevitable outcome of free association, even if at a less accelerated rate than the one currently seen, and that is where I part ways with them. Compelling homogeneity via a state will not work because there will always be people within it who disagree (indeed, that is the problem at present) and who will not have the option of simply dissociating with those in the majority. In free societies, individuals who share common values will be much likelier to band together and seek common ends, and it will also be easier for dissenters to leave or otherwise be dealt with peacefully. This cannot be resolved a priori, as it has purely to do with value scales in the end (and thus is outside the scope of economics, and in the realm of ends; things would be different if the proponents of these schemes thought they’d result in higher material prosperity, which they won’t.) I agree with you that this isn’t individualism - but it’s not intended to be, and libertarianism as I’ve argued is broader than that - my guess is you’re a thick libertarian, and thus have a specific view of what it should be; so am I, but I differentiate what I advocate from the more skeletal NAP (I also think Aristotelian liberalism is the only correct form, but so long as one does not use force they are permitted to be wrong AFAIC.) I don’t mean to drag this on, but I do want to be clear in what I mean.
Think again. You believe in property rights, including the authority to exclude me from your property, and to impose rules and conditions. You believe that business owners own their businesses, and can refuse to serve anyone they please, and hire and fire employees as they please. Do you have any idea how much authority structure you’re supporting?
As a libertarian you can demand not to be aggressed against. But you can’t stop me making rules, evicting trespassers, buying and selling, hiring and firing, starting clubs and kicking people out of clubs. The only way you can oppose those things is to oppose my property rights–which I advise you not to do, since I’m willing to defend my property rights with deadly force.
Think again.
–Len.
Not exactly. Since I believe in property rights, I won’t agress against you, but. that’s not because you have authority over me. As a matter of fact you’ve none.
Perhaps we’re debating about the proper usage of words rather than having a real political disagreement. ?
I see. So that’s the source of the disagreement I guess ? I’d argue that individualism and libertarianism are closely conected, or are even the same thing. I don’t think such a claim of mine is outlandish…
True, good point about that.
But I also think that is because most people are statists naturally. I’ve read a bit about white nationalism before on yggdrasil’s library (whitenationalism.com) and some of the posts by the smarter ones on stormfront. It seems to me like those (the smarter) white nationalists would be in favor of a libertarian society. You can also see on stormfront that one of the subfora is dedicated towards forming separate white communities based on voluntary association.
I’ve never really seen any black nationalist or other communities really advocating the same.
But I think that overall, these groups of people will realize that they can live the lifestyle they want to in a libertarian society, as long as they does not involve forcing someone to do something against their will.
I think he’s saying that libertarians believe in voluntary association and social contract, which means that rules/authority can be asserted through social contracts binding communities together.
I’m not saying that there won’t be any mixed communities. There obviously would be more heterogenous communities than homogenous ones.
But there are already a few “white only,” “gay only,” and “black only” communities held together by a common ideology. I certainly think that there could be sustainable communities like that in a libertarian society. There is bound to be some “authoritarianism” in these communities, just as in every other community due to rules that one agrees to under the social contract that binds that community together. I also never said that 100% of these communities will be 100% homogenous. There are bound to be some that are homogenous, and others that are mostly homogenous, but might have a few religious/racial/ethnic/cultural “outsiders.”
On the other hand, if those communities are bound to dissolve in an anarchist/libertarian society, I wouldn’t mind either, as that would mean that people simply have abandoned their ethnocentric mentality.
This thread has gone too long without a citation of Hans Hermann Hoppe.
This is historically how things have worked. Even without private ownership of the public spaces of movement (streets), there is a natural market tendency towards segregation. For example, a white supremacist will value real estate in a neighborhood full of white supremacists at a much higher price than anyone else, particularly a black family who will not be willing to pay such a high price to live next to white supremacists. As such, because sellers want to take the highest bid, a neighborhood with a white supremacist foundation will gradually become more and more homogeneous as white supremacists purchase more property from people wanting to leave the proximity of white supremacists. (What one class of people considers a good, another class considers a bad, leading to a series of exchanges of property that concludes in segregation.) In a commercial or business district, on the other hand, the trend is to have as large a market as possible for one’s goods, and thus commercial districts will be mixed and indiscriminate.
We recently had an “encounter” with a racist in our local Ron Paul meetup. This individual had never attended a meeting that I was aware of. All his interactions were via the meetup listserve. Based upon his comments, I assume this person was a white male. It was kind of fascinating to watch it unfold. At first he was unremarkable in his comments except that he was a good writer and well spoken. But gradually little bits and pieces of racist leanings started to dribble out. Most of the time you had to read between the lines to catch it, but other times it was overt, with references to “Japs,” and “slants” and the like. Just weird, creepy stuff and nothing he said ever had anything to do with RP. Eventually–and too late in my opinion–group members starting challenging some of his crapola. Things got heated, and along the way he a comment made about stuffing Nancy Pelosi into an empty bourbon bottle and watching her float out to the Pacific. And then that’s when it ended. I don’t know what our group leader said or did, but eventually Mr. Racist made his final sign off from the list, suggesting in parting that we had all just succummed to PC pressures. Too weird.
If you look hard enough, there were lots of racists in the RP camp. Now, I’m a Ron Paul supporter, campaigned for him in New Hampshire, donated every “money bomb”, worked with the meetup, etc. And, there were plenty of libertarians and fellow travelers. There were also a lot of JBS/conspiracy theory/Jewish bankers/scary-right-wing types. Generally, the young people tended to be libertarians, the older folks tended to be this other type. I know we lost votes in NH owing to some of these folks who’d get in people’s faces on the streets screaming about the NAU. Perhaps that has something to do with Paul running as the “real conservative” and having appeal to the far right side of the party.