Nationalism and Libertarianism?

[Joseph de Maistre]

Is nationalism compatible with libertarianism? At the very least, can it be compatible in only a social or cultural sense?

I am a fan of a number of Old Right thinkers, including Kirk and Taft, as well as some of their influences. Patrick Buchanan has always been a great supporter of the gold standard, as well as an opponent of NAFTA/CAFTA. Murray Rothbard even supported Buchanan for a time. Naturally, there are a number of positions that Buchanan takes that distinguish him from a purist libertarian. Immigration stands out. He names the man in my username as a "great conservative." Of course, most libertarians would reject this man.

However, I think there is much to glean from those caricatured authoritarians of history. Maistre is not well-known, but he set the foundation for much of Francisco Franco's ideology in Spain. And though he was a dictator, he was a dictator who lifted his country out of depression with the free market, though he oppressed minorities and defended traditional culture, religion, and society.

Do nations matter in a libertarian world? If they do not matter, why do they seem to pop up so inconveniently throughout history? Should there be a state remedy for this?

[muzzled dogg]

libertarianism is incompatible with any kind of collectivism, including nationalism

[heavenlyboy34]

"Small l" libertarians generally oppose nationalism, but don't mind if others indulge in it. I consider it a mindless, foolish, ignorant sort of philosophy, but I don't sit around chastising nationalists for the hell of it. I find nationalism a particularly sad innovation in thought. Like other forms of collectivism, it breeds beligerance, bigotry, envy, covetousness, and just about every other negative human character trait.

[Joseph de Maistre]

libertarianism is incompatible with any kind of collectivism, including nationalism

But don't libertarians favor freedom of assembly, as well as freedom from assembly? I have read Judge Napolitano argue that private businesses should have the right to discriminate. He says it may not be pretty, but is this not a right of freedom of assembly?

If so, is it not a justification for tribal groups? Isn't nationalism the extension of tribalism on a larger scale?

[heavenlyboy34]

But don't libertarians favor freedom of assembly, as well as freedom from assembly? I have read Judge Napolitano argue that private businesses should have the right to discriminate. He says it may not be pretty, but is this not a right of freedom of assembly?

If so, is it not a justification for tribal groups? Isn't nationalism the extension of tribalism on a larger scale?

No, as Nationalists consider State-initiated violence legitimate as long as it serves "National Interests". Further, a "tribe" is comprised of people who personally know each other to some degree or another. In Nation-States, knowing everyone well is an impossibility except in really tiny ones.

[Joseph de Maistre]

I find nationalism a particularly sad innovation in thought. Like other forms of collectivism, it breeds beligerance, bigotry, envy, covetousness, and just about every other negative human character trait.

Certainly, you would find many people who agree with you.

I have noticed that some libertarians ask social conservatives, "Would you use government to enforce your views?"

So, would you use government to force people not to act nationalistically, assuming they do not threaten force or violence upon others? Certainly, I could argue that another man should be a Christian because I am, but if it does me no harm, and he uses no force upon anyone, the issue is unrelated to government or politics.

[heavenlyboy34]

Certainly, you would find many people who agree with you.

I have noticed that some libertarians ask social conservatives, "Would you use government to enforce your views?"

So, would you use government to force people not to act nationalistically, assuming they do not threaten force or violence upon others? Certainly, I could argue that another man should be a Christian because I am, but if it does me no harm, and he uses no force upon anyone, the issue is unrelated to government or politics.

No, of course not. I thought I was pretty clear about that, but thanks for giving me the chance to clarify. I maintain that people have the natural right to believe whatever ridiculous things they want so long as they don't coerce or aggress against others.

[Joseph de Maistre]

No, as Nationalists consider State-initiated violence legitimate as long as it serves "National Interests".

The assumption that there is support for violence is bothersome to me. Sure, some anarchists commit terrorism and murder, but not all are necessarily violent.

Further, a "tribe" is comprised of people who personally know each other to some degree or another. In Nation-States, knowing everyone well is an impossibility except in really tiny ones.

Indeed, which is why the best free state is small. Plato argued they should be no larger than 5,040 heads of household. This is also why our framers designed the Constitution to be federal, so that the states would make a majority of the decisions in our lives, rather than the central government.

[Indy Vidual]

libertarianism is incompatible with any kind of collectivism, including nationalism

True.
Ironically, Ron Paul and many of "us" are concerned about national sovereignty.
Then we have the libertarians (or 'some of us'), anarchists, and even the UN Globalists all either unconcerned about nationalism and/or actively destroying national sovereignty.

[The Gold Standard]

The assumption that there is support for violence is bothersome to me. Sure, some anarchists commit terrorism and murder, but not all are necessarily violent.

You may not get what he meant by violence. Violence is any violation of the property rights of another person. If one believes their nation/government should tax their people, they are advocating state violence, because theft is violence. This includes taxing someone who imports goods they purchased overseas. Stealing their money is theft.

[The Gold Standard]

True.
Ironically, Ron Paul and many of "us" are concerned about national sovereignty.
Then we have the libertarians (or 'some of us'), anarchists, and even the UN Globalists all either unconcerned about nationalism and/or actively destroying national sovereignty.

Well, I think Ron Paul only concerns himself with national sovereignty to protect us from global government. If the debate were moving in the other direction, I bet he would advocate individual sovereignty.

[Joseph de Maistre]

You may not get what he meant by violence. Violence is any violation of the property rights of another person. If one believes their nation/government should tax their people, they are advocating state violence, because theft is violence. This includes taxing someone who imports goods they purchased overseas. Stealing their money is theft.

You are right.

However, I would still maintain that just because one thinks in nationalist terms, they are not necessarily advocating the destruction of private property of those outside their nation. One might argue: you want the State to favor your ethnic group over others. I would respond: no. I want the State to stop subjugating my ethnic group for historical grievances that I have no control over.

If groups of people gravitate toward one another, and they tend to gravitate away from other groups, we can call them bigots all day long though it changes nothing. That is the simple exercise of the right to assemble as you wish, without the use of violence in any form.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's all a matter of scale. A nation is a smaller partition of the globe, which can protect people from global or outside oppression. States rights are supposed to give relief from the Federal level. Local from State, and finally, individual property rights should offer the most protection. Theoretically speaking, of course.

[Brian4Liberty]

Is nationalism compatible with libertarianism?

And you have to be careful with the term "libertarianism". There is a vast spectrum who will call themselves "libertarian", from anarchists, all the way to Sean Hannity (who believes that greed is good), or Bill Maher (who wants to smoke herb all day at the Playboy mansion).

[Joseph de Maistre]

And you have to be careful with the term "libertarianism". There is a vast spectrum who will call themselves "libertarian", from anarchists, all the way to Sean Hannity (who believes that greed is good), or Bill Maher (who wants to smoke herb all day at the Playboy mansion).

Indeed, I was unaware of the broad spectrum of beliefs (one set of beliefs for each libertarian). I think a Lew Rockwell would probably support some form of nationalism, while a Randian type might reject all of it.

[Brian4Liberty]

Indeed, I was unaware of the broad spectrum of beliefs (one set of beliefs for each libertarian). I think a Lew Rockwell would probably support some form of nationalism, while a Randian type might reject all of it.

Many people on this forum would essentially be followers of Murray Rothbard.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Indeed, I was unaware of the broad spectrum of beliefs (one set of beliefs for each libertarian). I think a Lew Rockwell would probably support some form of nationalism, while a Randian type might reject all of it.

I suggest reading more about Lew Rockwell and Ayn Rand.

[otherone]

Nationalism is the antithesis of Libertarianism. Nationalism is the facade of Authoritarianism. In a free country, the individual is sovereign.