alt-right racism is Ron Paul's fault (Salon article)

[LibertyEagle]

Libertarians aren't nationalists or internationalists. Somehow, you've merged nationalism into liberty. The two viewpoints are opposed to each other.

Hardly. Libertarians, at least the ones who aren't traitors, are interested in their nation's sovereignty and refuse to sell it out to internationalists. Sorry for ya.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Proclamations now?

Not much difference than a decree.

Freedom means something different to every man and we've both read where other self proclaimed libertarians have disagreed with your interpretation of libertarianism over the years, why would you try to speak for any of them?

Freedom means something different to everyone, for sure. I'm sure Marxists believe when the proletariat smashes the bourgeoisie, there will be real freedom, but we here should all know what freedom looks like.

That is not an excuse to tarnish Ron with white nationalism.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Hardly. Libertarians, at least the ones who aren't traitors, are interested in their nation's sovereignty and refuse to sell it out to internationalists. Sorry for ya.

Libertarians are not interested in national sovereignty, they believe the individual is sovereign. Again, it's just not a liberty viewpoint.

 

[tod evans]

Freedom means something different to everyone, for sure. I'm sure Marxists believe when the proletariat smashes the bourgeoisie, there will be real freedom, but we here should all know what freedom looks like.

That is not an excuse to tarnish Ron with white nationalism.

Nobody here has done as you claim.

The OP is a quote from some left wing site so it's out...

Besides nothing posted on this site reflects on Ron or Rand in any way, the opinions expressed belong to the person typing them and anybody who claims otherwise is being disingenuous.

Personally I don't mind debating alt-anybody on their views and don't think any of them should be discouraged from posting.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Freedom means something different to everyone, for sure. I'm sure Marxists believe when the proletariat smashes the bourgeoisie, there will be real freedom, but we here should all know what freedom looks like.

That is not an excuse to tarnish Ron with white nationalism.

Where did anyone tie Ron with white nationalism?

 

[tod evans]

Where did anyone tie Ron with white nationalism?

Ha!

Beat ya' to it.....

 

[Sola_Fide]

Where did anyone tie Ron with white nationalism?

It's been going for years. How could you not have seen it?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Libertarians are not interested in national sovereignty, they believe the individual is sovereign. Again, it's just not a liberty viewpoint.

Leftist libertarians may not be, but Ron is damn sure interested in national sovereignty.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Leftist libertarians may not be, but Ron is damn sure interested in national sovereignty.

Do you believe the individual is sovereign?

 

[LibertyEagle]

It's been going for years. How could you not have seen it?

Where did anyone post that Ron Paul loved white nationalism? Personally, I don't care if he did; just curious. He also has spoken to La Raza too, I believe.

How long have you hated white people?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Do you believe the individual is sovereign?

Stop trying to change the topic. YOu claimed that Ron didn't care about national sovereignty. You are wrong. Admit it.

 

[undergroundrr]

There you go again conflating nationalism and white nationalism. You must know they are not the same at all. Nationalism is putting your country first; as opposed to internationalism, where you put the world above your own nation. Internationalists are traitors. Ron and Rand most certainly are not that.

Nationalism could be considered a very temporary force for good only if it represented a reduction of the sphere of state power rather than an expansion of it. In practice, that doesn't ever happen.

In practice, nationalism is worship of a nation-state, a Hobbesian artificial man. It would seek to prevent a body of people from seceding. Once a nation (aka a territory under which a government has exclusive monopoly on force) reaches some fictitious condition of sovereignty, imperialism is certain to follow due to the natural impulse of the state. Nationalism is militarism, expansion.

Why not abandon this horrid word? Let white nationalists have it. It's appropriate to their cause. It's a tainted word and always will be because of it's ultimate end, subjugation of the whole of humanity.

 

[LibertyEagle]

When are you going to abandon the words, anarchist and libertarian? They are tainted too.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Stop trying to change the topic. YOu claimed that Ron didn't care about national sovereignty. You are wrong. Admit it.

He cares about it. But the version of the concept of national sovereignty he cares about is diametrically opposite to the version you care about. Don't misrepresent him by equivocating the terminology like that.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Nationalism could be considered a very temporary force for good only if it represented a reduction of the sphere of state power rather than an expansion of it. In practice, that doesn't ever happen.

In practice, nationalism is worship of a nation-state, a Hobbesian artificial man. It would seek to prevent a body of people from seceding. Once a nation (aka a territory under which a government has exclusive monopoly on force) reaches some fictitious condition of sovereignty, imperialism is certain to follow due to the natural impulse of the state. Nationalism is militarism, expansion.

Why not abandon this horrid word? Let white nationalists have it. It's appropriate to their cause. It's a tainted word and always will be because of it's ultimate end, subjugation of the whole of humanity.

+rep

 

[Sola_Fide]

Stop trying to change the topic. YOu claimed that Ron didn't care about national sovereignty. You are wrong. Admit it.

I'll take that as a "no" from you. I knew that you didn't anyway.

 

[undergroundrr]

When are you going to abandon the words, anarchist and libertarian? They are tainted too.

Because their ultimate end isn't the subjugation of all of humanity.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Do you believe the individual is sovereign?

We believe in individual sovereignty, but that is not the only form of sovereignty that is compatible with liberty. The delegation of powers by a free people to a civil government implies that state also has sovereignty, as far as it defends and protects the rights or interests of the people. Nationalism can be libertarian (represents the people) or authoritarian in nature (state worshipping) in nature, but it is most often pro-liberty in practice, especially as expressed by figures like Ron Paul, and in the recent Presidential campaign.

Not only is nationalism distinguishable from white nationalism, white nationalism is distinguishable from white supremacy. Supremacists typically talk about their race as above all others and advocate for superior treatment, while white nationalists typically only seek to be able to talk as openly and positively about their race as other races do (be they La Raza, the Black Caucus, etc). The potential for crossover is obvious, but it is also obvious that the two need not be conflated. The real elitists seem to be determined to conflate these groups, however, and join in smearing most of the people who have mobilized to oppose the globalists and internationalists.

 

[Superfluous Man]

We believe in individual sovereignty, but that is not the only form of sovereignty that is compatible with liberty. The delegation of powers by a free people to a civil government implies that state also has sovereignty, as far as it defends and protects the rights or interests of the people.

It only implies that that government have sovereignty with respect to other nations, not with respect to its own citizens, who, by your explanation must be sovereign over it, and not the other way around.

I think that the kind of national sovereignty that you just described is pretty much what Ron Paul seems to believe. But notice that this concept of national sovereignty leaves no room for that government regulating immigration or trade, which is precisely what LE wants when she refers to national sovereignty.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

salon is not worth my time...