Prove it. You are yet to back up your baseless assertion.
Not going to do what you should have done yourself 5 posts ago.
Please back up everything you just said. What statements, what misunderstanding of philosophy? What on earth are you talking about? Go try apply gravity to social systems, see how far that gets you..
Only if you distort it's meaning. Which is what you are attempting to do.
It's all you've got mate. Word plays, it's getting pretty old.
No, it's not reality - it's your fantasy land.
"Nationalism" is constantly referred to and associated with the nation-
state. That is what was meant, and understood by everyone - because it is in context.
What you do then, is take it out of context - completely and utterly, and then go; oh Rothbard says it differently.
Yes, because Rothbard uses it in reference to no nation-state.
Since you seem to like appeals to authority, and dictionaries - I'll use both:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.
Rothbard in the article you won't cite = (1)
What 27 was referring too as incompatible with Liberty = (2)
And thus makes this whole ordeal a complete waste of time.
So don't expect any
"well yeah newbitech is right" - because it's as clear as day, you are wrong.
Connect With Us