What you say is true but I'm afraid it has nothing to do with my point. The main reason, by far, for immigration, is the one I stated. I think that a lot of people immigrated to the US before the US had a welfare state ?
To be sure, certain regions enjoyed high levels of immigration. I'm not sure to what extent the state was complicit or not. My point is that there will be a lot more regional variation under a private property regime. Some areas will be cosmopolitan and have high rates of immigration, others will not for obvious reasons.
That's just the opposite of methodogical individualism ? Societies don't have a will. They can hardly be willing to do anything. I hate to say it, but your position seems to be pretty collectivistic.
Now you are being silly. I can easily argue a communist society (i.e. the individuals in it) will fail if its participants adopt their favoured economic system without slipping into collectivism. A society is not a non-entity, it is a collective of individuals - individuals which can, together, put plans into effect. I'm not hypostatizing society, if that is what you think I'm doing.
Classical liberals were interested, I believe, in the free movement of people and goods across the world. Conservatives on the other hand are not.
Right, conservatives argue for legal impediments in the way of the abovementioned elements. But free movement of people and goods mean there will be as much (or as little) movement of goods as a given society desires. It is not un-libertarian for a group of individuals to boycott a corporation's goods, and it is not un-libertarian to analogously refuse to associate with individuals with whom they wish no connection.
Inquisitor:. My point is that there will be a lot more regional variation under a private property regime.
A society is not a non-entity, it is a collective of individuals - individuals which can, together, put plans into effect.
But free movement of people and goods mean there will be as much (or as little) movement of goods as a given society desires.
I really don't know. I tend to believe not. Anyway, I think we agree that the only way to actually know, is by making private property absolute. And if that's the case, as some people already pointed out, only one dissenter is all it takes to 'wreck' the racial purity of such a...'community' ?
And that'd depend in turn on how willing individuals are willing to put up so-called dissenter - ostracism and refusal to associate with them are powerful influences, and require no force at all. Restrictive covenants and the like may function to resolve this issue. Besides, I doubt that individuals who dislike more homogeneous societies shall choose to remain in them anyway. Again, this will not fit the Objectivist view or even Long's type of anarchist society (both thick forms of libertarianism), but that is neither here nor there.
I don't thnk so. Human society doesn't work like that. It's not a contract made by a bunch of people. And even if a group of consenting adults were to form such a 'community' based on 'racial purity', it's not going to work. It's not realistic.
Perhaps, perhaps not. That alone does not make it un-libertarian, but merely impractical. And that is what I was driving at.
Right. And if there's no absolute free movement of goods and people, it is not a libertarian society.
What makes you think this free movement will be hindered? All it takes for such a society to form is the refusal to dispose of one's property in certain ways, much like all a boycott requires is abstention from consumption; surely you do not consider boycotts to be a hindrance in the free movement of goods?
'Communities' like the Amish can exist within a libertarian a society, but they can't at all create a libertarian society by themselves.
My point is something completely different. Namely, that there's no contradiction for a libertarian to be bigoted, as long as he doesn't initiate aggression. In principle, it's possible to be "white supremacist" and libertarian with no contradiction--except that, as others have noted, most "white supremacists" believe in aggression against non-whites, and only mouth libertarian platitudes to the extent it benefits themselves.
I wouldn't be surprised if they used non-christian, non-pacifist methods.
Sometimes, I'm sure. But the highest punishment in the Amish community is shunning--which is not only non-aggressive, but in fact the perfect model for a libertarian society. Shunning is the greatest "punishment" libertarians can impose for non-aggressive behavior of which they disapprove.
--Len.
Inquisitor: Juan: Right. And if there's no absolute free movement of goods and people, it is not a libertarian society. What makes you think this free movement will be hindered?
Juan: Right. And if there's no absolute free movement of goods and people, it is not a libertarian society.
White nationalists could be considered "white power libertarians."
They support peaceful race separation and the right of association. Similarly, I would consider black nationalists to be "black power libertarians."
If they want to form their own communities where they celebrate their own race and culture, so be it. As long as they don't force their beliefs on others, I'm fine with them.
“The fact that our economical models at the Fed, the best in the world, have been wrong for fourteen straight quarters, does not mean they will not be right in the fifteenth quarter.” - Alan Greenspan (no kidding)
Juan:Len, 'Communities' like the Amish can exist within a libertarian a society, but they can't at all create a libertarian society by themselves.The Amish are highly conservative and I believe opposed to a good deal of what libertarianism implies. I don't know how they deal with dissenters, but I wouldn't be surprised if they used non-christian, non-pacifist methods.
The entire point is that in a libertarian society, the Amish, Jews, whites, blacks, etc. are all free to voluntarily form their own separate communities.
If, for example, the Amish don't like dissenters, then an Amish-dissenter community could form elsewhere, or the dissenting Amish could freely move to a religiously mixed community nearby.
White nationalism, strictly speaking, is a movement that wants to create separate white communities but not force others to do the same. Sure, there are a bunch of stormfront 12 year olds running around yelling "Heil Hitler" and supporting fascism, but they're only white nationalist in name, the same how there are many racist black nationalists.
The bottom line is that if they wish to separate themselves from non-whites, so be it, as long as they don't force their views upon others.
krazy kaju: White nationalists could be considered "white power libertarians." They support peaceful race separation and the right of association. Similarly, I would consider black nationalists to be "black power libertarians." If they want to form their own communities where they celebrate their own race and culture, so be it. As long as they don't force their beliefs on others, I'm fine with them.
Except that's not really the political platform of what most ethnic nationalist groups advocate. Many seem to support forced separation through central institutional means. While it is certainly true that some may be secessionists, which is fine, secession is hardly the only strategy advocated by most WN's. Out of pessemism and desperation felt from living under the current system, they may tend to advocate the usage of the current system in the present to coercively enforce their ends. For the most part, it seems to me that such movements are reactionary rather than revolutionary.
True, in a libertarian society different groups are free to voluntarily form into homogenous communities (they are also free to voluntary form into more pluralist communities). However, do you seriously think that if we became a libertarian society (especially in America, where a relatively significant degree of ethnic mixing has already taken place), everyone of each respective ethnic group would uniformly form into "pure" communities with no cross-overs at all? I don't. Do you really think it is likely that a truly 100% ethnically "pure" community is sustainable, at least in any long-term sense, through voluntary means? I don't.
I've actually never seen this. One thing we've experienced over the years are attacking the Mises Institute for putting commerce before nation and race etc. These people hate us as much as the left, if not more. Actually I don't mind. The whole nationalist, right-wing racialist tradition is anti-liberal and anti-market.
Jeffrey TuckerEditorial VP, Mises
Juan, what exactly is libertarianism to you? To me, all it is is a common political framework based on the NAP that unites a variety of political ideologies. Personally I am a neo-Objectivist/neo-Aristotelian of the sort Reisman is (except I'm a market anarchist), and to me that is the sort of libertarian society I'd prefer - and that is how I justify my position; but I take this to be a specific type of libertarianism.
Jeff, that is largely my experience of them too. Some are open to libertarianism and voluntary means of organizing society (and attaining their sought ends) and thus convert, whereas others might just adopt it rhetorically and yet others vehemently oppose voluntaryism. I see the latter two as no more than repugnant statists. They often argue that we put the market before society, or other such hogwash.