I don’t see how statists are obviously disqualified at all, since it begs the question of what means they use to maintain ethnic purity, and the question of how such a community sustains itself as such in light of economic incentives and the natural flow of movement. I would hardly consider most white nationalists to be libertarians. Just because the size of the territory in question is smaller does not mean that it is non-coercive in organizational methods per se. Particularly in an area such as a America in which there already is a notable degree of ethnic intermixing and there is a comparatively high density of capital accumulation, I don’t see how such a homogeneity is practical or sustainable at all.
No, they really are extraneous to the validity of any argument. Unless you wish to say who is positing the argument or various misrepresentations of it are logically relevant to its validity.
An instance of flamebaiting:
That is, in addition to the use of vague, loaded, ill-defined terms such as ‘racism’.
An admission of willingness to engage in character assassination:
So really, it’s up to you whether to continue this way or not.
-Jon
They’re disqualified from being libertarians, if they’re statists, is what I mean.
-Jon
Oh, okay. Thanks for clarifying that.
Well, I apologize then…
No, I ‘kind of’ assumed it, because I’m under the impression that the majority of the posters here, who supposedly are defending the right to free-association, are indeed racists.
You didn’t, but that’s more or less what the cultural-conservatives-anarcho-libertarians(?) claim will happen…
Are you kidding ? Are you saying that you’ve banned the use of the word ‘racism’ ? Well, you’ll ban all people who used it ?
Aha. And people who constantly post about the ‘superiority’ of western culture can’t be regarded as flamebaiting for instance ?
Juan,
You most definitely will not engage in character assassination in this forum, unless you are itching to get banned. I know you had that in scare quotes, but just to be clear: character assassination is by definition a slandering attack, particularly intended to damage someone’s reputation. Slander is a malicious, false, and defamatory statement. There will be none of that here. Even if you happen to think something is true, you would be advised to avoid making the claim because moderators may not agree with you and also because such incivility is still against the forum rules.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
Racism : 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others..
The definition seems to objectively match the position of some of the members of the forum.
No, it was an observation that the term “racism” is all the things I mentioned it is.
And no, trying to argue such a position on its merits differs from implying one is in favour of concentration camps, deportation, or whatever other positions one wishes to attribute to an opponent to elicit an aggravated response from them. So the more apposite question is: who are you kidding?
-Jon
And the inherent incompatibility of this vis-a-vis libertarianism is…?
-Jon
Well, what I said was not false. I was just repeating what my ‘victim’ said. It might have been a bit of a low blow, but it’s no different than the claim by various forum members that race A or B is superior to race C or D. As a matter of fact, claiming that europeans (or whatever) are ‘superior’ can be regarded as a false and defamatory statement - the malicious part is a bit harder to assess though…
I hope this reply of yours is not an indication that you’re not taking what I said seriously… Don’t try to rationalize or parse words. I meant what I said. No character assassination. No personal attacks that you think contain true information.
How do I send you a PM ? The function seems to be disabled ?
I aknowledge some basic biological/genetic variance among races, but racism is more of the fallacy of making a collectivistic/holistic projection out of it (viewing or treating a race as a thing in and of itself irrespective of the diversity of its individual parts) in a fatalistic sense and essentially making a moral distinction between these overgeneralized groups of people (I.E. implying that certain groups have different rights or none at all). But as far as statistical generalities are concerned, it’s practically irrelevant to the traits of an individual even internally to a single “race” and any degree of correlation that there may be doesn’t necessarily equal causation. I do think that there is a distinction between “race realism” and “racism”, but I also often find that racists often use race realism as a facade and a basis by which they project or engage in confirmation bias. Their conclusions simply do not follow from the data. And perhaps most importantly, the moral implications are hazardous to say the least.
It should be possible to send PMs. I’ve received and sent them before. Maybe there’s a temporary glitch. Jon tells me the site has been acting up lately.
It’s been acting up. Also, I think all users have had their settings changed to “receive messages from friends only” or something like that ?
I want to try to respond to this topic again but it has devolved into “You’re a racist” and “No I’m not”. I think some Leftist institutional brainwashing in the public schools has some people convinced “race” shouldn’t ever be discussed.
By the way, from my reading here I never got the impression anyone was “racist” in the sense that their race is superior to all others. Only that some people simply believe that other people don’t want to associate with other “races”. This was the world view that people had for thousands of years until the Federal Government forced multiculturalism on most Americans.
Brainpolice’s (i think it was his) statement that multiculturalism helps America, I think, is an ill-conceived notion. As America progresses toward state enforced multiculturalism we see the breakdown of society more and more. Of course, the problem here (as we can all agree) is the STATE is interfering. But if the STATE had not intefered, would we still be moving toward this multicultural society?
I do not think so.
Unfortunately, replacing one institutional ideology with another, is still institutional ideology, although I have found that some on the left frequently see this as ok, as long as it is their ideology.
As pointed out earlier, there is no issue with people being white nationalists. Not if you’re truly libertarian, and they are willing to adhere to the NAP.
What is evil, is breaking the NAP, not exercising the right to disciminate through freedom of association or property rights. Anyone who would place limits on freedom of association within the NAP, is not libertarian themselves (IMO).
This claim is stupid.
What the hell is this breakdown of society? And what does it have to do with different people living together? State interference is also overrated.
It’s only fair that local authorities have the right to exempt themselves from the national immigration laws, provided that the foreigners they allow to settle have only the right to settle within this particular territory and that their presence there do not make them eligible for any citizenship or national rights.