Anarchism and Nationalism??

Inquisitor, I agree that if people were free to interact voluntary we would see some of them associate by 'language' or color of the skin or...myths as Stranger puts it. However the key question is how will these people deal with dissenters within their own 'communities' ?

Stranger, when you say 'Israel' are you talking about the socialistic, militaristic and theocratic nation-state of Israel ? Or are you refering to some sort of Jewish tradition ?

I don't believe that one can be a nationalist and an anarchist, or at least one cannot be a nationalist and an individualist anarchist.  Nationalism is inherently collectivist.

But, you can be an anarchist and still hold that Texas should be permitted to secede from the Union.  I would like to see every state secede from the union, and every county secede from every state, and every community secede from every county, and every household secede from the local government.  So, although I'm not a nationalist, I agree with nationalist groups insofar as they advocate secessionism.

ChaseCola:

You can be both, I would be proud of the USA's lack of government and its culture, Texas the same thing. I would still see us as a "country", just one without government.

That's patriotism, not nationalism.  And I would agree that one can be a patriotic anarchist, evn a patriotic individualist anarchist.  I would love my country even more were it to have no government.  But nationalism is different, and in my opinion, repugnant: it's based on myths and collectivism; it's also blind and usually anti-intellectual.

Byzantine:

In fact, you would see more "collectivism" under anarcho-capitalism

You would see a highly-collected society, a dense web of interactions, and a variety of institutions constituting voluntary "collectivism" under individualist anarchism.  But this is not what one typically refers to when one mentions "collectivism"; usually, the speaker means to refer to involuntary or coercive collectivism.  The patriotism of a stateless society, i.e., the love of a person for his or her stateless country, certainly does not constitute coercive collectivism in any way.  It does not even entail a collectivist mindset!

Let us compare nationalism to racism.  Obviously, in a free society, nobody would be punished for being a racist or a nationalist, as long as the racists and nationalists abide by the non-aggression axiom.  But both ideologies require a collectivist mindset, both require that judgements be made not based on individual character but rather on irrelevant characteristics (e.g. skin colour, place of birth).

I will say that one can be a collectivist anarchist (e.g. a voluntaryist anarcho-communist), and not be punished for it in a free society.  (As long as the communist is a voluntaryist, as long as he/she never uses aggression to get others to join him or her, we individualist anarchists have no problem with him/her starting a commune, or sharing his or her possessions with others.)  So, in that sense, one can be a voluntary collectivist and be an anarchist.  Thus, one can be a racist, a nationalist, or a communist and still be an anarchist, as long as the person agrees with the non-aggression axiom.

However, anarcho-capitalism is a strictly individualist anarchism, and one cannot be a racist, a nationalist, or a communist and still be an individualist.  All three ideologies require a collectivist mindset, and by holding them, one ceases to be an individualist, and ergo also ceases to be an anarcho-capitalist.

Juan:

Stranger, when you say 'Israel' are you talking about the socialistic, militaristic and theocratic nation-state of Israel ? Or are you refering to some sort of Jewish tradition ?

 

I am talking about the Israel that speaks hebrew. 

Byzantine:

The National Football League, the Franciscans, Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, your family, etc., are all examples of collectives.  In fact, you would see more "collectivism" under anarcho-capitalism because it is the secular state that displaces the pre-state institutions of organic society.

National Foodball League franchises can routinely be bought and sold . . . try  that with your citizenship.

Franciscans have no power over any member's life or property, nowadays anyway.  When religious orders had the power to beat and murder their members, yes that was collectivism.

Liberty Mutual membership is a contractual shareholding . . . which again can be bought and sold.

Family?  If the law requires sons to pay parents' debt without ever co-signature, and if an adult son commits a crime and the parents are punishable by death, then yes the system would be collectivist.

See a common theme there?  Collectivism is not just a voluntary membership.  The litmus test for collectivism is whether each individual member has the right to exit and have no more liablity imposed if he chooses no longer be such a club.   For example, if you live in a cul-de-sac with three houses, having a weekend barbecue together is not collectivism; however, if your decline to participate results in the other two family at the barbecue to take a vote and kick you out of your own house, now, that would be collectivism in action :-)