03-17-2017, 12:39 PM
Every overly generalized line you write makes it painfully obvious you don't interact in your community worth a damn. Your exclusive focus on the big picture makes it obvious. As I said before, at least have the balls to discuss that specific group in plain detail.
Here's the point you're missing because you're too blind to see it. It doesn't require statist solutions for the population to have enough of displacement. Violence does not require the state, or did you forget that? Do you think human history always required a state for tribes to come into conflict when one felt pressured or threatened by another? Do you seriously believe humans don't show marked preference for those they know over ones they do not? Do you believe humans will not fight for the ones close to them at the expense of those that are not? How, in the name of all that is holy, does any of that require the state?
Displaced populations, given a high enough percentage of the population, are prone to taking affairs into their own hands. That's the point. If enough of the population is suffering displacement and discontent, then they can become a potent force in their own right. In fact, the great irony in all this is in order to successfully displace a population with an influx of foreigners you need the government's force to accomplish it, because the foreigners would not have the means to defend their claims without the government's protection.
So if you want to argue for the displacement of an existing population, for any reason (in this case, economically), then you had better be ready to bring government force as back up. And that makes you a statist, because you know damn well what is going to happen without government force and it isn't pretty. Only a government has the force necessary to force integration on a population, which is damned well necessary when one population's prosperity declines in favor of another. Human history bears this out, hell American history bears this out.