Wow, I didn’t realize there was this much to the man. I had only thought of him as an anti-white type guy based on the anti-white racism Dr.Block mentioned. That’s good to know. Not such a bad guy after all.
I did not not know he renounced this philosophy. That’s interesting. Thank you Dr. Block. Well, now the next time I get called a racist for not showing my love for Marty King I can quote a famous, shocking african-american whose philosophy I actually have something in common with. Malcolm the libertarian, who’d have thunk it? Amazing what you can find out.
I Rothbard’d it and found out MNR was very critical of the idea of New Africa, alleging that in the current State framework they’d likely become indirect welfare recipients via “foreign” aid. Any thoughts on that?
Does anyone know if there are any openly libertarian black nationalists?
I`ve always felt this sort of secession on an ethnic basis is more libertarian than secession on a legal or semi-legal basis. It is probably against personal preference of majority of libertarians, but looking at it from a doctrinal position such an ethnic separatist movement disregards all state building documents in place, while a secessionist movement of a certain federal state reinforces and draws from a set of them. Also it seems preferable that people should identify with something wholly unconnected to a state like ethnicity rather than with their regional bureaucracies such as federal states.
Most libertarians may not care for such collective idetities but in practice, in the modern word loyaty to one`s ethnicity is by far the biggest rival to state loyalties, particularly in multi-ethnic states.
I think businesses are a bigger competitor. Also religions and philosophies serve as a kind of bulwark. Even sports teams sometimes have cross-national followings (Leaf’s Eh?). Pretty much anything that pulls people together in a manner outside governmental lines can serve to compete against the state. Music, television shows, movies, this site has many members who live outside The United States. I would submit that I have more in common with a Japanese libertarian, Ignostic, Dr. Who fan than I do with a fellow American who is a Marxist and despises all Science-Fiction.
Indeed, that doesn’t stop some people trying to come up with libertarian justifications of it.
You mean like the banks and most other buisnesses? Good luck attempting to defend anarchism with that.
No, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. You’re not either of them and I wasn’t referring to you, just generally to left libertarians (and actually most libertarians in general.)
If you want to debate the origins of the church I would be happy to do so but I think this should be a separate thread under “History”. Do you want to start a new thread?
I first listened to Malcolms speaches in my second year of university, before I ever heard of human action. I’ve always enjoyed listening to them ever since. He made me come around from my original lefty veiws on a number of issues: integration, self-determinism, saying what you believe regardless of the ‘offense’ it causes to thin-skinned hypersensitives, gun ownership and self-defense, not turning the other cheek, Martin Luther King the poster boy of the civil rights movement. And you can quote him when in arguments with proponents of anti-dicrimination legislation.
Perhaps, but not in the area of identity and loyalty. People are not loyal to companies, they would not fight the state for a brand name. There is no “Adidas Liberation Army”.
Sports teams? That is an interesting point. Yes, affiliation with a sport team can augment ones identity. In certain situations fans of a certain team act as a mini-nation. Wherever there is some identity there can in a sense be some “nationalism” (as in sentiment of togetherness and solidarity, rather than as a state building ideology).
I am with Bynaztine on this one. How far does one go back to find injustices that may or may not have happened in the past? Why should I be liable for the slave labor my ancestors utilized 145 years ago? In another one of his essays on the topic, Dr. Block implies that my ‘wealth’ (I am not rich) is somehow a direct result of my slave-owning ancestors, and thus the slaves descendants should be able to sue me over it. Setting aside that the property in Virginia and Kentucky that the slaves worked for us is long since NOT in my family’s hands, I dont see how slave descendants would have a legal leg to stand on.
By that logic, Indian tribes would be to sue every resident of say, Des Moines, for their use of ‘stolen’ land. Nevermind that alot of these tribes had almost no concept of private property. In fact, the whole thing would be a recipe for disaster, and would lead to massive violence.
I do not see what else needs to be said. Nonsensical land reform like that would be unenforceable in an libertarian society, unless private courts want to commit agression against slave-owner descendants on a massive scale. Now if we are speaking of something more recent, such as eminent domain, I am more inclined to agree with him. He speaks less of the Indian tribes in his essays on land reform/reperations, but obviously I would agree they should homestead unoccupied federal land they once held.
Of course not. The archduke of Stratton knows he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The connection between church(crimes) and state(crimes) is self-evident.
ps: Maybe I should clarify that the connection is evident for any libertarian who knows history, not for conservatives.
But people surely will kill their neighbors in the name of race, religion or nationalism. There’s nothing libertarian about collectivistic ‘identities’. This ‘anarcho’ conservative thing will go nowhere…nowhere libertarian that is.
That is such a cliche. How does that work anyways? Do they say the words while doing it? “I kill you in the name of Armenian Americans”?? Are they comedians?