I may comment on the rest of your post later on, but I'd just like to know where you come up with this definition?
I quote sources in the rest of the post. It's clearly a nation
state you are supporting. That is what we colloquially mean by "state". Since you support a nation state, you are a nationalist statist...and since a nation state is defined by several monopolies, and one of those is on geographic gang turf (borders) in which the mafia (government) has demesne to extort (tax) it's occupants via a threat of kidnapping (prison), this is a necessary aspect of what anarchists and Voluntaryists call the "state".
It's what everyone generally means by "state", because no dynasties or empires exist today in the classical sense of those words.
"state" = nation state. (for all intents and purposes)
Should I NOT have a monopoly on my own property in so far as what other people can and cannot do while they are on it? What is this "particular land area" that you speak of? How about the space that I personally occupy? For instance, my seat on an airplane? Do I not always monopolize whatever particular spot in the world that my 155 pounds takes up?
This was answered well by Wesker.
It just really seems like this definition is lacking something. Possibly, you are drawing some imaginary boundaries?
Actually the state does that...they're called "borders". They're just dotted lines they draw on a map with little or no regard to geographic natural borders, populations, or consent of those within those gang turf lines. Look at made up nation states like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. that England just made up out of thin air, and are constantly trying to break apart as they never were single nations to begin with (nor states). There is a reason either tyrants or no central government at all rule these places...they're made up out of thin air by dotted lines on a map. The boundaries are imaginary, and the doing of the state (in this case, the mega-state of England before it's Empire collapsed).
Tell me, according to your beliefs, which forms of government are NOT compulsory?
To me personally? Self government. I abhor all social contracts (and democracy). To Voluntaryists? Governments for which they voluntarily subject themselves via voluntary social contracts (that may or may not include democracy), and have no regard for geographic area (so they do not claim demesne over all who happen to reside within said area).
Again, I repeat the simple to understand principle:
If you have the mental and physical ability to govern yourself, then you have the right to govern yourself. If no other person or their properties are harmed or defrauded in that self governance, then logically all external compulsory government is tyranny. --- Me
Refuting this via argumentation ethics has proved thusfar, impossible. You simply have no right whatsoever to govern someone who has not first harmed or defrauded another person. Initiation of force is not ethical. The state, their taxes, their laws of pre-emption, are all in conflict with this concept.
Also, I'd like to know, is it possible to adhere to anarchist philosophy, how ever you define it, with a compulsory form of government WITHIN MY OWN HOUSEHOLD.
How is that against your will? If you own your home it is yours to do with what you wish...obviously you can't be a tyrant to yourself..it's of your own free will. You can be a tyrant to children, that's not arguable...but assuming you aren't abusive mentally or physically (which we may define abuse differently, but that's a separate issue) to your kids, it's important to understand kids don't have the same individual rights as adults. Governing children is legitimate and non-tyrannical when not abusive. They do not yet have the mental and physcial ability to govern themselves (they eat glue, for instance). Since you are not doing anything against your own will, and are not tyrannical to your kids, then all that remains are your mate(s) and guests. Guests subject themsleves to your rules voluntarily...but that doesn't include violcence, theft, or aggressions of a serious nature. It just means your "rules". Rules are not rulers, and rulers are not leaders. You being a leader and in control of your property hardly makes you a tyrannical ruler. Since your associations with guests are mutually voluntary, it's not compulsory at all.
Compulsory means against your will, or against their will. No one is compelled. Your example fails the simple criteria for government of a compulsory nature.
As for your spouse(s), you may also find they put up with a lot...of their own free will. As long as you are not kidnapping them, chaining them to a wall in the basement, etc., any abuse they put up with is voluntary...not compulsory. Again, that does not include theft, violence, or aggressions of a serious nature.
Look, you can't call boxing "assault", S&M sex "rape", or working for an expert in a particular field "slavery". When the association is voluntary it is boxing. When you use a state, it's ASSAULT. I'm not asking you to stop boxing, and I don't want to ban you from doing it...I want you to stop punching me in my face against my will. That's what the state is...assault.
Your attempt to appeal to nature is an informal logical fallacy...but for the sake of helping you understand the concepts better, I answered it anyway. I'd suggest you read anarchist authors (books and newsletters) from America over the last two centuries in order to understand the concepts. Rothbard is not the end-all be-all of anarchism. Read Tucker, Spooner, Warren (or of him anyway), Thoreau (transcendentalism), Konkin III, Molyneux (video above, Canadian), and dozens of others that escape me at the moment. It's out of a lack of reading these things that lead you to ask these questions that have been answered for decades, if not centruies.
One rule I have is that no one is allowed to speak spanish on the property.
Why just one language? Are you anti-spanish or something? What does this say about you? There isn't a legal national language for a reason...the founders knew it would be tyrannical, and make it impossible for other natiopns to become states without completely destroying their cultures coercively. So what is your reason for this? Because I don't understand spanish either, but if someone was in need of help and spoke only spanish, but had a child that was bi-lingual translating, I wouldn't throw them off my property. What kind of sociopath would? Talk about callous. Also, you can't punish people on your property, as you assert, if that means violence, theft, or acts of serious aggression (chaining them to a wall for instance, or depriving them of food). So the idea you are tyrant over your land is nonsense. You'd be in prison...and deserve it. So, since you can't be a tyrant, why do you make excuses for state tyranny?
Nationalist statism is an ideology, not a philosophy, that allows you to make excuses for such sadism.
I have made many decrees such as this. No one agrees to most of them, no one had a say in making them.
Sure they do...they can not follow the rules and leave. They can say "FU" in spanish and leave...you can't jail them. You can't extort them. Your wife can leave you at any time (although the state used to not allow this, and it also didn't allow her in the past to report you had raped her if you had done so, because Comstockery statist laws called that "pornography"). But you are comparing private property with public demesne.
You do comprehend (I hope) that individuals have rights...not collectives. YOU have property rights...no collectives have any rights. That's a fundamental principle of the Enlightenment, Age of Reason, and classical liberalism. There re no "State's Rights"...they have powers, authorities, and jurisdictions. It's a colloquialism (and an unfortunate one), nothing more. Corporation have no "rights", they have powers, authorities, and jurisdictions.
Also, there is a huge difference between alienable rights (like property; separable from the individual, subject to border), and inalienable rights (also called unalienable rights; that which cannot be transfered, sold, or separated; not subject to borders). For instance, every person in the world has the right to trial (the Constitution even says "persons" not "citizens"), they all have rights to life, speech, etc. The state can only aggress against those rights, not grant them. None of those inalienable rights can be sold. BUT, alienable rights can be sold, transfered, and are inferior therefore to inalienable rights.
Whenever your alienable right to property comes into conflict with inaliebale rights like life, speech, or trial...the alienable right to property loses.
You cannot limit speech insofar as it requires violence. You can't stop feeding your kids, throw them into the street, or chain them to a wall if they ignore your rules and speak spanish...PERIOD. You cannot kill a 3 year old for trespassing when they walk on your grass...the assumption of innocence always lies with the inalienable right above the alienable right. You'd have to prove someone you shot for trespassing was indeed doing so willfully and knowingly..or face penalties for murder. Unethical egoism and statism often try to make excuses for wanton murder over trespassing ("looking for an excuse to kill legally", as it's called)...but that's what Durkheim saw coming in anomie. Anomie isn't just when there are no rules...it's when statism causes too many rules. Unethical egoism is no rules; statism is a set a rules that overrule natural law (unlawful harm and fraud).
So the idea you have some inalienable right to property is nonsense...it's alienable and therefore overruled by inalienable rights of others. This why when Jefferson plagiarized the famous line "life, liberty, and property", he changed it to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"...because he knew property was not an inalienable right at all.
So here, I'd request you read the Enlightenment authors more in depth, and all the material you can get your hands on from the Age of Reason....as you seem to confuse the two distinct forms of rights, and seem to be asserting you can do more than you can really do with alienable rights. You also seem to enjoy the power trip....but that's pure speculation on my part. Cultural insensitivity often denotes this kind of control-freakery....but not always. But certainly, you can't force your kids to speak English. You can only do so much to prevent it before you become a monster (criminal/tyrant/sadist).
But you already know this...
They protest every night at dinner.
...don't you?
As far as rent...please refer to the dozens of anarchist books on the subject. It's perfectly fine because it's a voluntary association and is private property, not public. You can't charge me "rent" for being born by accident of birth in a particular geographic area. This is property tax essentially means you DO NOT own your property, but you rent it. It's tyranny; a complete end to property rights.
You have no property rights (in terms of land) in the state. You rent your land, and they can seize it at any time for the "good of the collective" (collectivism; eminent domain).
I still wouldn't use the term "statism" with nationalist.
You can't want a nation state and not be both nationalist and statist...so there is no logic in your argument. It's like saying I'm not a racist bigomist for marrying two women and hating black people. If A+B=C then C=A+B.
As far as nation being independent of the state (the compuslory government with land monopoly and social contract/law monopoly, among other monopolies)...this is true. Many nations exist in the USA right now.
The Latin King Nation (LKN), the Gangster Disciple Nation (GDN), the Vice Lord Nation (VLN), and the list goes on and on. Notice, however, that all of them try to set up geographic monopolies known as gang turf (borders) and extort all those within those borders (a state). Also notice...they are all organized criminal gangs, just like the state (mafia). They share a unique langauage usually (not always), are often racially defined (not always), and ALWAYS share a culture (usually defined as a ideology like the code of "Kingism" for the LKN).
Nationalism, like statism, is a mental disorder (imho)...and criminal. When the two are combined, they lead to sociopaths easily rising to the top of the hierarchical structures of the society. They always seek to monopolize and abuse others.
So calling people who support the constitution any type of "statist" is wrong. We are not supporting "statism". We are supporting a return to our nationalist roots. Which is simply the rule of law encapsulated by the Constitution.
Again, nonsense. A+B=C, so C=A+B. You are both a nationalist and a statist for supporting a nation state based in a compulsory social contract; the Constitution. Read "No Treason: Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner. There are no social contracts in natural law, unless voluntary. And to claim gang turf (geographic monopoly) is not necessary for you to engage in your social contract...this makes it specifically a state. That makes you a statist. You dislike the term, but wish to redefine it. It means someone who think organizing people against their will in a state is preferable for society. It's not that complicated. Own your ideology; you extoll it with pride, so own it...or change it, like we did. We all used to be statists too, you know? It's not like we're any better than you are. There is no shame in changing from ideology to philosophy. As the video says...take the pill. It's okay, we had to wake up too at one point.
And only a statist would think of the philosophy of individualist market anarchism or Voluntaryism as "vulgar" individualism. We aren't into anomie or unethical egoism. In fact, anomie is caused by both statism and unethical egoism, not individualism.
From my blog entries:
It is my belief that the State draws it's authority from the following areas:
1. The monopoly on social contracts (within a certain area only one standard of law is accepted)
2. The monopoly on violence (the liscence for force to enforce the statist standard of law within the area)
3. The monopoly on capital (having only one accepted currency with no competition allowed)
4. The monopoly on collective defense (using the statist law to compel or conscript someone to fight in a war(s))
5. The monopoly on intelligence (secrecy for the sake of the State, not for the sake of defense directly)
State - a form of collective government where one or more of the above State authorities are in place; compulsory government
Statism - the belief collective government in one or more of the above State authorities is a preferable manner to organize society
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry....mall-Government-Statism-and-Statism-Generally
Is your priority NO government and NO boundaries?
We don't want NO government...we want self government, or in the case of Voluntaryism, voluntary government. NO government is anomie, not anarchy or Voluntaryism. TOO MUCH government is also anomie. You seem to confuse the concepts.
BTW, we want NO state (compulsory government) and NO gang turf (borders) from which it derives demesne. We don't want one world state, we want no states and as such world anarchism and Voluntaryism. Both are devoid of borders...but one is tyranny, and the other is liberty.
Look, you can engage in any masochistic contract you like...you just can't subject others to it that do not wish to freely associate (and again, accident of borth and where you choose to live is irrelevant to these contracts). You can have one contract, your neighbor on the left have another contract, and the neighbor to the right have a third contract. I can live across the street and have no contract. That's a stateless society with both anarchism and Voluntaryism. What you want is a state...the right to outlaw all competing contracts, and outlawing the right to opt-out of any contract whatsoever.
What other contract are you aware of that cannot be gotten out of when one party (the government) continuously violates the contract? What other contract outlaws all competing contracts? NONE! It's not even really a contract therefore, because all other contracts are individually opted-into...whereas the statist social contract is against your will, and not agreed to by you at all; but agreed to by some dead guys 200 years ago on your behalf before you or your parents, grandparents, or great grandparents were ever born. That's not a contract...it's tyranny. It's not a voluntary association...it's compulsory sadism. It's not simply nationalism...it's nationalist statism.
This is the logical conclusion.
And let me say also...there is only one non-utopian philosophy known to all the history of man...stateless philosophy. Utopia was a fictional novel by Thomas More, in which he described a collective where all laws were uniform and life worked out great. Because anarchism and Voluntaryism do not seek uniformity in law they are not utopian. To be utopian you must seek uniformity...the very thing that is unrealistic in any society. We do not advocate nor seek utopia:
"[T]here are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The Anarchists] never have claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow authority. . . .As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always, say the Anarchists. No use of force except against the invader . . . " --- Benjamin Tucker
Nationalism and statism are ideologies, not philosophies...and the same can be said for all ideologies that rely on these two concepts (progressivism, modern liberalism, conservatism, Constitutionalism, etc.). Anarchism and Voluntaryism are philosophies. As such, we do not seek any Utopia....that is what nationalists, statists, and nationalist statists seek. And they have failed. For more than 200 years you have heralded the small state and gotten a larger and larger one, now the largest nation state in all of history. Would it be so horrible to seek anarchism or Voluntaryism and to achieve a small state by accident? Afterall, as humans we always fall short. But can you not see that starting with the goal of a small state has indeed made you fall short WAY worse than you would of liked? Wouldn't it make sense to fall short and hit the goal of small statism AT WORST? If we keep chasing goals that are unrealistic and utopian we'll never approach what you want. You have to shoot for something past the target...like in martial arts when you punch THROUGH the target.
Anything else will logically fail.
Do I expect to achieve anarchism or Voluntaryism? Not in my lifetime. But do I expect to achieve it? Yes. Is it possible I'm wrong? Yes. If I'm wrong, we get a small state....if you're wrong we get what we have now! Think about it.
