I don’t recall ever implying that race should not be discussed - in part, that’s precisely what I’m doing. I also don’t recall ever stating that “multiculturalism helps america”. I also don’t buy into the conservative rhetoric that implies multiculturalism to be purely involuntary, while segregation is somehow a voluntary “natural order”. That seems way too one-sided. The main reason why we do have a multicultural society is not because of state intervention, it’s because people tedn to flock towards where the capital accumulation is. From my perspective, some degree of multiculturalism is the inevitable outcome of the division of labor and people following economic incentives to begin with. The idea that state intervention is the sole reason why people from different cultural backgrounds co-exist in the same general geographical area is silly. Multiculturalism was forming in America long before the civil rights laws were even fathomable, even in spite of the fact that what we had was state-enforced separation for much longer. There have been plenty of immigration waves, and long before there was a massive welfare state.
I’d fathom to guess that most white nationalists haven’t even heard of the NAP, and they envision a white-only nation-state.
Fully agreed! And immigration controls do exactly that.
Here we are back to this flip flopping between freedom of association and state-enforced separation. The problem is that the state doesn’t have a right to discriminate, since it isn’t a legitimate owner. We’ve been through this already.
Fully agreed! Which is precisely why I put so much heat on anti-immigrationist “libertarians”.
If only the standard was applied consistantly, at which point even these “local authorities” have no legitimate authority to determine wether or not an individual can be inclusive or not with their own property, since the “local authorities” do not legitimately own the entire land either. Unfortunately, that isn’t how it works, as we are still dealing with state-enforced exclusivity on illegitimately claimed land.
Great article : (thanks Scineram)
“Yet I look around at London and see a very different world to that seen by Hoppe. It is abundantly clear that when the state does not enforce multiculturalism, social values will naturally evolve not to Hoppe’s hypothetical future libertarian neo-tribalism but rather to cosmopolitanism, right here and right now. The only Volk of the future is the Volkswagen. When people of different cultures and races actually interact economically, the inevitable consequence is familiarity, cultural influence and ultimately miscegenation, not a regression to atavistic tribalism.” Perry De Havilland
Indeed, it would seem to be the case that as the division of labor intensifies world-wide, the incentive towards inclusivity increases and people’s attachments to tribalist allegiances become futile and counterproductive. It becomes more and more counterproductive and nonsensical to try to hermetically seal people from eachother. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious, since social cooperation is always more productive than isolation.
At some point you reach a scale that becomes indivisible. You can’t split up a street between multiple properties, for example. It is and can only remain one good under one owner, and all properties hierarchically attached to it are bound to this owner.
All that says is that multiculturalism works in London. Hoppe was very clear that big cities are where tribal mingling is most probable, but is also where rules for integration and segregation must be the most developed.
Ive asked you not to reply to my posts.
Based upon your experimentation with white nationalists? Charter member at Stormfront? Strawman.
I’ve already explained that there is no we. This is another strawman. I’m not claiming the state has a right to discriminate, you keep arbitrarily shifting the discussion. Individuals, under the NAP have a right to racially discriminate. If you have a problem with that, tough. It is what it is, and no amount of strawmen or linguistic chicanery will change that fact.
Your anti-racism bias should be manifested in your personal relationships, not used as a criticism of the libertarianism of others. It’s as silly as criticizing any other group that disciminates for any other reason, be it Christians who want to marry and hang out with Christians, or homosexuals who want to hang out and do business with members of the same group over say, heterosexuals.
Again, I will ask you to stop following me around the forum. I don’t appreciate it. For the sake of keeping the peace, leave me alone and I will do likewise. I have no interest in playing games.
Not at all. It illustrates a general principle.
Based on my interaction with them and personally looking into their ideas. What? stare
Nitpicking. You know what was meant. On this board, this has been beaten like a dead horse already.
Again, it is you and others who keep shifiting the discussion by making private property and free association arguements when we are talking about state policy with regaurd to state-claimed territories. I need not repeat what has been clarified for pages now.
You’re misunderstanding. What I’m critisizing is the attempt to reconcile paleoconservative politics with libertarianism, and the continual attempt to obfuscate the issue by making private property arguements in the context of state policy. Freedom of association is not what’s in question, the legitimacy of state enforced immigration restriction is. Quite frankly, some people here are obfuscating in that they are shifting to libertarian arguements to implicitly justify state controls. They also obfuiscate by straw manning anyone who disagrees as if they are advocating violations of free association.
I’m not following you around on the forum and I’m not playing games. When I see you make posts I find erroneous, I reply to them. If you can’t handle that and if you have an inability to directly address anything I say, that’s your problem and not mine.
I’ve asked you numerous times to move on, and stop interjecting yourself into discussions I am having with others.
There is a selectivity to what you are doing, that offline is known as harassment. Most people have the self contol to avoid conflict.
We’re going to end up in flame wars that get one or both of us banned, and decent discussions closed. For the sake of the board over individual ego, I am again asking you to stop harassing me.
Did you read what Stranger said or did you gloss over it? My suspicion that most critics of Hoppe on cultural matters have not so much as read his book is strengthened yet again.
-Jon
I don’t know how many of you are actually familiar with the “multiculturalism” of London but most of the non-English immigrants in the past 30 years have segregated themselves into various areas of London and are also the cause of quite a few “immigrants rule” riots. It isn’t exactly working out well.
It’s actually bizarre that London of all cities was given as an example.
-Jon
I bought his book years ago and it’s sitting right here on my shelf. I find his conclusions to be incorrect.
The interesting thing is that Stranger didn’t say De Havilland was wrong. Stranger seems to have acknowledged that ‘multiculturalism’ works…‘at least in London’.
Perhaps because Stranger has actually read the book. And as for London, I’m curious in what sense multiculturalism “works” there. I can think of less suspect examples if I wanted to make such a case.
-Jon
What I think is important in the quote from De Havilland is not a concrete example of multiculturalism working, but the clear characterization of libertarianism on one hand and culturally conservative tribalism on the other.
As to reading Hoppe’s book I’ve zero interest in doing so. I’ve read some articles from Hoppe and I think his political views don’t make sense.
From your beloved book :
“The best one may hope for…even if it’s not very likely to happen…is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country. This means following a policy of the strictest discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character and cultural compatibility”
“…all immigrants must demonstrate all around superior (above average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values - with the predictable result of a systematic pro-european immigration bias”
There are so many mistakes in there…I wonder for instance why an ‘anarchist’ like Hoppe bothers advising democratic rulers what they 'should ’ do ?
But the funny thing is that Hoppe says “The best one may hope for” as if taken for granted that his readers agree with his cultural bias and with his arbitrary judgement of what is ‘good’.
It certainly isn’t my problem then that you wilfully remain ignorant of what he is arguing, yet vociferously oppose Hoppe’s thesis - when you have no real knowledge of what it is. I can also read disjoined articles by an author - which without background knowledge of the author’s more general work make little sense. But I wouldn’t be willing to say I understood the author, then, at all. Even less that I am sufficiently able to crticize him. Feel free to embark on a crusade against “conservative tribalism”. Feel free to make snide remarks about Hoppe’s “anarchism”. However, don’t expect anyone to take it seriously. So far the mistakes and misunderstandings I’ve noticed have not been Hoppe’s. Personally, I oppose second-best solutions to problems, whatever they may be, but I certainly do not feel the need to attack the author in question on account of it.
As for the “best one may hope for”, you are free to disagree with him, just as you are free to disagree with any economist when they speak in value-laden terms, just as you are also free to disagree with a physician speaking in value-laden terms. Basic Austrian econ. Lesson over for today. From what I’ve seen you take it as an axiom that multiculturalism is inherently libertarian and that anything else is not. How utterly wertfrei.
-Jon
Ipse dixit.
Which is exactly the case. Hoppe’s ‘theories’ are not objective.
Haha. Well, thank you professor Irenicus. Can I recommend another pupil for you ? What about enlightening De Havilland as well ?
Sorry, you’ve got that one backwards. I consider libertarianism to be inherently multi ‘racial’ while some people seem to think that only ‘superior’ races are clever enough to enjoy a free society.