pull down to refresh
Do you believe people coordinate ethnically and/or religiously? Do you believe people have a desire to force their beliefs on others?
It is not about what I believe; it is about what I see. It does not mean I behave following these behaviours.
I have mixed feelings about patriotism and nationalism.
I fully comprehend the point you raise, and I refuse to adhere to it due to the simple fact it is the cause of all the mess we live in today, especially the idea of private property. That's why you live in fear someone may trespass, someone may take what you believe is yours. The state/governments are the ones who created private property, making you believe you own something. In reality you have been given the privilege to overlook the property owned (in a fictional jurisdiction) by the state/government. Otherwise, why are you continuing to pay taxes, asking for a permit to build an extension, and getting a licence to drive what you believe to be your car? Whatever...
I know why. Because you have fear someone from the gov will come and take it away from you. Fear.
Fear is part of a natural healthy response to a credible threat.
Fear is an induced belief. You are free to accept it or see it as an opportunity to learn something, upgrade your perspective.
This is kumbayaism and it's also wrong.
kumbayaism? Another -ism? Everyone is good at tagging and categorizing, not many are at evaluating and observing.
But hey, who am I to tell you what or what not to do? What or what not to believe. People voluntarily serve the purpose that most fits their needs. Nothing personal here, simply sharing ideas I know you might disagree with.
I fully comprehend the point you raise, and I refuse to adhere to it due to the simple fact it is the cause of all the mess we live in today, especially the idea of private property. That's why you live in fear someone may trespass, someone may take what you believe is yours. The state/governments are the ones who created private property, making you believe you own something.
Why do you think this? I think this is objectively wrong, but I'm curious who even made a compelling case to you in order to get you to believe this. Or do you believe in "personal property" (private property with more definitional issues) instead?
kumbayaism? Another -ism? Everyone is good at tagging and categorizing, not many are at evaluating and observing.
Fair point. Everything is an -ism and it's getting annoying. I read that back and it annoyed me. My point is that you seem to be pointing towards "what if we all just got along" or Imagine by John Lennon. This will not happen no matter how much it is desired and oftentimes the people culturally adopting beliefs along these lines are just giving ideological cover and fertile soil for ideologies like socialism/communism to grow. The growth will not be anarcho-socialism, or anarcho-communism, it will be authoritarian socialism/communism. In fact, I would argue, if you wanted to live in an anarcho-socialist or anarcho-communist community, the best way to do that would be within a Hoppean framework. It is not a clever insight to say "the state defines who owns what". That is only partially true in reality. Private property ownership is such an innate part of this world that even animals understand it. Dogs very much understand when a toy is theirs, when a home is theirs, and will defend it with violence. Those things are the dog's private property. A government didn't define that the dog owns that property and if the government says it's not the dog's that doesn't make it true. If a government steals that property it doesn't make it not the dog's property. Try to tell a dog "private property is just like your opinion man, what if we all shared" when he doesn't want you in his territory or to have his toy and you will find out how real and innate private property is to this world.
But hey, who am I to tell you what or what not to do? What or what not to believe. People voluntarily serve the purpose that most fits their needs. Nothing personal here, simply sharing ideas I know you might disagree with.
Fair. I think you're a good faith actor engaging in a good faith discussion and I generally appreciate your input when I see it on this platform. That being said, I don't think you put forth the effort to seriously engage with my points. This is a very common anarchist/libertarian response where instead of seriously engaging and attempting to take seriously a limited set of choices, they retreat to the abstract. It is responding to a question of "Somebody is breaking into your house. You have a gun and are proficient with it. Do you shoot them or attempt to leave/hide?" with "I would never live in an unsafe neighborhood in the first place"/"I would never own a gun". It is a behavior Michael Malice points out that his twitter followers exhibit often.
Nobody has a right to stand on my property if I tell them to leave.
Yes, I agree with this, and I also think Hoppe is right. An ideal world should look something like this:
Jokes aside, as you said, in an ideal world of absolute freedom of association, lasting demographic change probably wouldn't come easily, since communities tend not to welcome outsiders warmly. That's just human nature: we're more inclined to accept people who are like us (in customs and values).
Jokes aside? That's literally what I think hahaha. Yeah, I agree. I think visitation would be fine and the requirements for residence whether temporary or permanent would be much more rigorous.
Do you believe people coordinate ethnically and/or religiously? Do you believe people have a desire to force their beliefs on others? If you believe those two things, it is impossible to chalk up the problems associated with ethnic replacement to xenophobia or some "fear of strangers". I mentioned it above already, the problem is not we have robust private property in a rothbardian/hoppean sense and people are inviting a lot of people who are different than us. The problem is the state and other entities are helping bring in these foreigners against the consent of many Americans and then they come and receive incentives to stay like welfare, subsidized loans, private aid. Then they advocate to make America more like their old country. They add to the supply of labor which naturally brings down the price according to the supply demand curve (I realize there can be complexity there). I would also argue that there is a racial component which I won't elaborate on here because I think that would only close your mind off more. I will just say that the only countries they want to flood with immigrants to demographically replace natives are white ones (and Japan for some reason, I think to destroy a successful homogenous society to eliminate the example).
Fear is part of a natural healthy response to a credible threat. If you're walking alone at night and there is a man walking behind you acting odd, fear is the appropriate response. I believe the correct response here is fear (recognition of serious credible threat) and then anger (motivation to act to eliminate the threat).
This is kumbayaism and it's also wrong. Nobody has a right to stand on my property if I tell them to leave.
I have mixed feelings about patriotism and nationalism. It has caused people to not resist against the state and do many things against their interests that they otherwise wouldn't. Love for your people and homeland is often definitionally co-mingled with these. Ultimately I love my homeland and people, but not my government. I am nationalistic and patriotic only where it protects my land and people. I said it before, but I understand the anarchist "anti-border" arguments. I also think they're wrong and Hoppe is right. I think in a society where absolute freedom of association is preserved, free movement, but not permanent residence would be commonplace in most places, but it would be subordinated
to the consent of the property owners who could decide as a community that it's time to move along or we will no longer provide you services.