Hmm. Well pre-War Germany had never had Bohemia and Moravia, or Austria, but it certainly did have Alsace and Lorraine. If his goal was to return Germany to pre-war Germany, then he’d have to have made war with France. But I accept most of your points. However, you’re wrong on some - Hitler’s invasion of Belgium, Netherlands (two more neutral countries) and France was the first real conflict between the “Allies” and Germany. I’m not saying it wouldn’t have been better for Britain and France to stay out of the war, as personally I believe they should. But, by invading 4 independent countries in Europe, and 2 more afterwards, all with declared neutrality to Germany, he was certainly “asking for it”.
Yes Britain and France and the USA turned it into a “world war”, but it was already turning into a pretty big European war.
It is geographic, racial and cultural, as the people who have made that land what it is would tell you. It would be less free for the reasons set out in my original post. Just like the Amish, whose combination of strictly preserved German ancestry, religious practices, and bucolic locations are what make them Amish. For some reason, this sort of thing horrifies the compulsive social engineers among us, who despise actual human diversity.
Ok I should have said his goal was to unite the German speaking lands (“Greater Germany”) which included uniting the former German Empire and that of the the Austria Hungarian.
Well remember France and Britain both rejected Hitler’s offer of peace and declared war on Germany first. He only ordered a conquest of the Low Countries after they declared war on Germany. He had really hoped they would have accepted his peace offer and ordered them to be occupied so the Allies wouldn’t occupy them first.
I’m not defending the dickhead in any way. He was a terrible man. Just pointing out that he was hardly the only instigator or aggressor in that whole mess. Afterall, Churchill was obviously chomping at the bit to go to war.
Yes but I don’t know if you can then extrapolate that comparison to ALL such secular/non-secular states. There are just too many variables to consider to accurately compare those broad categories in a very meaningful way, I think.
They didn’t terraform the land, they just homesteaded property there, and created a culture as well; yet, as long as they don’t own the entire island, they have no right to prevent others from homesteading what hasn’t already been.
First of all, you take the assumption that it is right for the government to cease immigration totally, that even if there’s uninhabited land far away from any New Zealanders that immigrants can’t even go there. If this assumption were to be taken by all the nations of the Earth, and a catastrophe happens somewhere, there would be no chance for refugees to flee. Of course, you can answer that immigration quotas can be eased when such a case arises, but that assumes the government would be able to react fast enough.
Second of all, human immigration and migration is a rather natural event that has been repeated so often in history that I see no reason why this would result in the government “artifically enlarg(ing) the tax base.” Immigration is not an artificial event orchastrated by the government; instead, it is a human responce towards a habitat becoming so hostile that it is no longer living there.
Third of all, “interpersonal conflict” often is the direct result of immigration; yet, if the original habitants do have property rights over an area and they do not want immigrants there, then they can simply not let immigrants there. However, if the original habitants do not have property rights there, then they cannot stop anybody going there and homesteading it. Having property rights over land involves more than just writing “my land” all over a map.
Who is to dictate the value of a country? It is each property owner that dictates whether he likes immigration onto his propert or not, there can be no collective valuation in respect to this.
The market has no power to cease immigration in total. It can only give an incentive for individuals to either support immigration on their property or ban it.
But notice. I’ve not suggested that. I’ve said that no rational property owner would grant access people who decrease the value of their land, at least not the extent that the democratic state does. Kings certainly did not.
You’re picking a different fight. The topic at what hand is which country more closely approaches the libertarian ideal. New Zealand, with its low population density and relative cultural homogeneity appears to be such a place. Again, interpersonal conflict is minimized (you don’t need a bunch of rules with a neutral arbiter), the tax base is low so government has to stay small, and people who want to make the State irrelevant to their lives have enough open land that they can do so.
So, in the context of the State, you may very well hew to a pure libertarian position that government borders are everywhere and always illegitimate, but you should realize that higher population density and multiculturalism make your libertarian goals that much more remote.
Because all the other countries are that much worse. Of course, the US’s big shift didn’t come until 1965. Prior to then, the US was quite monocultural or, at the least, there weren’t a bunch of laws telling people who they had to be around, and thus people could retreat into their safe harbors and interact or not as and to the extent they chose.
This is so clueless. I think that not so long ago, say in the 80s, New Zealand was a rather socialist country.
It’s painfully obvious that the inhabitants of NZ in the 80s belonged to the same race/culture of the current inhabitants. So, where’s the correlation (not to mention causal link) between race and politics ? Nowhere to be found.
http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/twilight/two.php
"Back in 1984, the country was run, as David Lange was subsequently to say, like a Polish shipyard. It had endured nine years of the Prime Ministership of Sir Robert Muldoon, an ugly dwarf with a formidable intellect, an unbridled malevolence, and an overriding passion for two things: power & alcohol. The result was the closest thing to a Reign of Terror you could get in a country that was not officially a dictatorship, the most closed & regulated economy you could get in a country that was not formally communist or fascist. "
How did things change ? Maybe NZ was full of subhumans at that time and then a new government imported true libertarian anglos ? Or what ?
Also, it’s very funny that people like Giles and Byzantine who are always preaching religion don’t seem to love their neighbors, and humans in general, much. Or perhaps niggers are not really human and so not included in the christian principle of universal love.
I’ll use the Heritage Foundation data on New Zealand, which I beleive are a good measure of economic freedom below.
Would you have any census statistics to back this claim up? I tried to google some, but I have yet to be sucessful. Otherwise, you have no evidence to make this claim.
According to the Heritage Foundation: “Total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, are high. In the most recent year, government spending equaled 41 percent of GDP” Well, so much for a small government for New Zealand’s is pretty massive esspecially considering the fact that while it has a 49.6 rating in this category, the world average is 65.0.
If people actually need to do this then their land is anything close to what the libertarian ideal, this is a silly, self-contradicting point.
May I also add that the program of compulsory schooling was designed to ensure American cultural homogenity, its not right that the Irish keep their cultural heritage by going to Catholic schools.