/liberty/ - Liberty

>>17166

Sure, you can be proud of the land you own.

>>17167

But nationalism isn't necessarily tied to a particular land.

Nationalist Libertarianism

You achieve a stable libertarian society through nationalist means. In other words you keep out (don't let them immigrate to your country) people who are incompatible with your desired society such as Muslims, communists/fascists, and people with below average IQ, while promoting ideas of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

"Nationalism" and "libertarianism" are pretty vague terms, but I can briefly explain the compatibility between the two.

If by "nationalism" you mean not letting foreign people into the nation and by "libertarianism" you mean having a small government that doesn't intervene in the economy and respects individual rights: yes, a government could simply protect the borders with a small military and then do nothing else. That would be libertarian and nationalistic.

If by "nationalism" you mean the government forcing ideals, funding businesses, prohibiting certain behaviour and other sorts of hyper-nationalistic stuff: no, there really isn't any form of libertarianism that would be consistent with a government that forces its beliefs on citizens and/or intervenes in the economy etc.

What about small nationalism (the first one) and libertarianism/anarchism (based on the NAP)?

Well, if 100% of the nation voluntarily supports nationalism, i.e. border protection, then yes, nationalism is completely valid. If everybody on a single piece of land decides that they collectively own that land and they want to make sure that nobody else invades, then they are free to protect it with force. If a family can prevent people from entering their house, then a nation can prevent people from entering its borders.

If 100% of a nation decides to enforce the exact same thing, but foreigners are already living on the land, can the nation deport those foreigners? No. The native people could segregate themselves or simply wait for the foreigners to leave/die.

As for when a country "democratically" decides to invite the 3rd world into its borders… Seems pretty aggressive to me. Forcing people to live with statistically violent immigrants seems unnecessary and destructive.

No.

It's called autism

>>17166

>>17169

The issue is I've never heard of a nationalist nation that doesn't try to expand due to its ridiculous social safety nets.

>>17166

Soft civic nationalism, yes. Just close the borders and you are a civic nationalist these days.

Ethno-nationalism, not for long, because the much more collectivist demands of racial theory will require more and more state control in order to carry out. Taking property off of ethnicities will require an expansion of coercion on a massive scale and the repression of rights for that segment of the population. It would be highly hypocritical to call that state libertarian even if it increased liberty for those that remained (which again won't last for long, as ethno-nationalism usually comes with revanchist militarism). The whole concept of liberty breaks down when you say you've still got it after forcefully splitting the populace up. If 10,000 people had an absolutely pure free market, but 1,000,000s were in camps, would that be a libertarian scenario?

>>17188

Because they are national socialist. We are not.

>>17166

Libertarianism plays well with others.

Historically, Nationalism does not.

You do the math.

>>17230

You are not a special snowflake subject to a different procedure.

>>17188

>government funded social safety nets

>libertarian society

Pick one

The whole point with NatLib is that you dont keep the nationalist stance long term, you use it as a stepping stone to a more pure libertarian state.

>>17235

Where the fuck did my flag go?

>>17235

>Paleoconservative

Heres the thing though, I don't agree with the paleo position on things like drugs and marriage, preferring that drugs be legalized and minimally regulated and for government stay out of marriage entirely.

I also prefer free market capitalism rather than protectionist policies that paleos seem to prefer (tariffs are OK when it on products from countries who also have tariffs on products from my country, but free trade deals should be sought to remove these restrictions).

Also since I don't live in burger land, or even a country with a federal government or written constitution (all we have is a poorly written treaty with the natives) I don't think the term Paleoconservative is really applicable to me since most of their views are based on the US constitution and are applicable specifically to the US federal government.

>Classical Liberal

On the other hand I don't agree with some of classical liberalism either, preferring the paleo position on things like immigration or military interventionism.

In regards to 'Nationalism' I feel that it can take many forms, a country doesn't necessarily need to be a big state imperial power to be nationalist. Provided that the government, regardless of the size, puts the nation first (rather than itself) in its role then its nationalist. In regards to welfare and other social safety nets I would possibly argue that welfare and such is actually inherently anti-nationalist since it is not in the long term best interest of the nation but instead acts solely to grow public dependence on the state.

>>17168

>But nationalism isn't necessarily tied to a particular land.

Full Definition of nationalism

1 loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

2 a nationalist movement or government

>>17188

>The issue is I've never heard of a nationalist nation that doesn't try to expand.

Bhutan are quiete nationalist isolationists and know better then to expand into china and India.

Thailand and Burma dont seek to expand either nowadays.

(they are actually nationalistic as fuck)

Iran is quiete stable too, sure the Gulf war was fucked, but that was a conflict based on the fact that Iraq is a colonial chimera and not a legit nationstate-thus having shia populations centers in it which ought to symphatize and identifie more with Iran.

The history of european nationstates is much more expansion minded, but you still find mostly peaceful outliers like the swizz and Sweden(YES!) whose only nationalist-fueled sin was the attempted genocide of the Sami-minority.

Also, level headed nationalists like Kemal Ataturk knew better then to start wars over border disputes and just choosed a quiete pragmatic solution with greece-far reacing population exchange which made clear ethnic borders and secured the peace, attemps which were often attempted in central europe too but often failed due to retards with too much power due to overly strong centralisation.

Nationalism is a positive and strenghtening force as long as it stays in certain boundaries.