So We Anti Globalists Are now xenophobic Nationalists.

[Superfluous Man]

Racists like the Founding fathers made this country.

And that's a good thing to you?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

And that's a good thing to you?

The constitution is a good thing, yes.

[osan]

Yes. It's a euphemism for white nationalism.

How do you justify this claim?

Zero. They don't want freedom at all.

And this? What I have seen of those ID'ing as "Alt-Right", they seem to be interested in at least some aspects of freedom. Perhaps you go too far.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Look at your examples. The ones that you yourself chose to mention.

Which ones are you speaking of? If you are talking about my support for a little regulation of the free market, then I guess you are right. But in my view you can be a libertarian and have a little regulation.

[The Rebel Poet]

I see your point. I agree that extreme nationalism is bad. There should be a little bit of a counterweight.

You agree with whom? I sure don't agree with those sentences. ALL nationalism is bad. All nationalism is extreme. A little counterweight to nationalism is like leaning in towards a volcano with a little counterweight pulling you away from it. The biger the counterweight the better, but the ideal solution is to stop sticking your head in the volcano.

But I don't see a better alternative to moderate nationalism. Again, by definition nationalism to me is putting your country first.

How about putting people first. Why is that something you haven't even thought of?

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't put our country first and put other countries ahead of us or have open borders? That doesn't make much sense to me.

You know very well I didn't say that. If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop using deliberate misdirection.

Also, some food for thought, America was a nationalist country and it devolved into the total opposite up until Trumps election.

Wrong. America was not a nationalist country till the Civil War; the founding documents are clear that all power and authority rests in individuals alone. Those individuals can collect their power into states and those states collected their power into a federation. Nationalism is not the opposite of globalism, it is the opposite of individualism.

[osan]

You're thinking about fascism. America was a nationalistic country in the past and it didn't result in fascism. Japan is a nationalist country today and its good.

I don't know why people are against nationalism. Nationalism to me is just putting our country first and rejecting liberalism.

What part of "tends" do you not grok?

Nationalism has not fared that well through history, but I did not say there was anything wrong with it, in sé. In fact, I went to some effort to say otherwise.

[The Rebel Poet]

Which ones are you speaking of? If you are talking about my support for a little regulation of the free market, then I guess you are right. But in my view you can be a libertarian and have a little regulation.

You can have a little regulation just like you can be a little pregnant.

[otherone]

And this? What I have seen of those ID'ing as "Alt-Right", they seem to be interested in at least some aspects of freedom. Perhaps you go too far.

federally-authorized, federally-mandated, federally-regulated, federally-dispensed freedom.

The alt-right believes the federal government is sovereign. They just use the words "nation" and "country" instead.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

You agree with whom?

You.

I sure don't agree with those sentences. ALL nationalism is bad. All nationalism is extreme.

Do you think American nationalism was extreme up till the civil war?

How about putting people first. Why is that something you haven't even thought of?

It is. That is why I am a nationalist.

Liberalism/globalism is putting other countries ahead of our people and giving our hard earned tax money that we cant spare to other countries. Like Obamas philosophy.

You know very well I didn't say that. If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop using deliberate misdirection.

I didn't accuse you of saying it. It was a question.

Wrong. America was not a nationalist country till the Civil War; the founding documents are clear that all power and authority rests in individuals alone. Those individuals can collect their power into states and those states collected their power into a federation.

In my view, America still had nationalistic tendencies up till around the 1940s although not always.

Nationalism is not the opposite of globalism,

How come?

it is the opposite of individualism.

I don't see how that is true but I understand why you may think that if you are talking about extreme nationalism like under Hitler which puts the state first. I am not that sort of nationalist.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

You can have a little regulation just like you can be a little pregnant.

Ill give you one example. Companies in China don't give a damn about the environment and that is why you have to wear a mask in Beijing because the smog is so bad. This is one of the few instances where I believe there should be gov regulation.

[The Rebel Poet]

Ill give you one example. Companies in China don't give a damn about the environment and that is why you have to wear a mask in Beijing because the smog is so bad. This is one of the few instances where I believe there should be gov regulation.

Apparently no one has ever told you that China is a Communist country? They are not under-regulated I assure you.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

federally-authorized, federally-mandated, federally-regulated, federally-dispensed freedom.
The alt-right believes the federal government is sovereign. They just use the words "nation" and "country" instead.

Have you ever researched the alt-right? If what you said is true I would not be part of it. I want to downsize the fed gov dramatically. Most of the fed gov is worthless and abuses their power which I hate.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

They are not under-regulated I assure you.

I know. But why is there crazy amounts of smog?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Nationalism has not fared that well through history,

It depends on the degree of nationalism IMO. fascist nationalism is always bad. Moderate nationalism was good for the United States and is good for Japan now. I just don't see anything wrong with being a light nationalist who does what is best for our people but at the same time doesn't worship the state and put it ahead of the people (fascism).

but I did not say there was anything wrong with it, in sé. In fact, I went to some effort to say otherwise.

I know.

[otherone]

Have you ever researched the alt-right? If what you said is true I would not be part of it. I want to downsize the fed gov dramatically. Most of the fed gov is worthless and abuses their power which I hate.

Every proclamation of your "nationalism" is a pump on the federal vacu-jack.

[The Rebel Poet]

I know. But why is there crazy amounts of smog?

Because of their nationalism. If they ditched nationalism for individualism, each individual would have the incentive to keep the air they breath clean. The problem Communist China has is TOO MUCH government not too little. It's called the Moral Hazard.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Every proclamation of your "nationalism" is a pump on the federal vacu-jack.

Wouldn't you agree that being an American nationalist is following the constitution?

I don't see any evidence to support your assertion.

[osan]

federally-authorized, federally-mandated, federally-regulated, federally-dispensed freedom.

Or perhaps just federally protected?

Just a thought.

The alt-right believes the federal government is sovereign.

Do you have evidence of this? I have not noticed it as yet. They seem to be calling for the rights of men. Granted, this is not a thing I am expert on so perhaps I have just missed the essentials.

They just use the words "nation" and "country" instead.

I could be mistaken, but this sounds a bit presumptuous.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Because of their nationalism. If they ditched nationalism for individualism, each individual would have the incentive to keep the air they breath clean. The problem Communist China has is TOO MUCH government not too little. It's called the Moral Hazard.

I read about moral hazard just now. I bookmarked your link and I will study it when I sign off.

However, I have one objection.

I just read the definition of individualism from Wikipedia:

"Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.[1][2] Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance[3] and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group,[3] while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.[3] Individualism is often defined in contrast to totalitarianism, collectivism and more corporate social forms.[4][5]"

The problem with the smog example I gave you is that people are not always perfect. Lots of them are immoral and they will ruin the environment for an extra buck. I don't see how there cant be a least a little government control to ensure they follow rules to not maximize profit but have clean air. And I do believe that you can be a nationalist and an individualist.

[otherone]

Or perhaps just federally protected?

Just a thought.



Do you have evidence of this? I have not noticed it as yet. They seem to be calling for the rights of men. Granted, this is not a thing I am expert on so perhaps I have just missed the essentials.



I could be mistaken, but this sounds a bit presumptuous.

They seem to be calling for the rights of certain men.

[osan]

They seem to be calling for the rights of certain men.

Examples? I have yet to see this.

Thus far I am seeing what appears as a textbook ID-based campaign; against alt-right because they are alt-right. I am still not clear on who/what they are, but so far the words against them have been nothing more than buck-naked assertions. If anyone can show me some convincing evidence that "alt-right" is what is being claimed, I will accept it. Thus far, I keep asking and keep getting what seem to be deflections.

[timosman]

Thus far, I keep asking and keep getting what seem to be deflections.

You are not the target audience for this PR effort.

[otherone]

Examples? I have yet to see this.

Thus far I am seeing what appears as a textbook ID-based campaign; against alt-right because they are alt-right. I am still not clear on who/what they are, but so far the words against them have been nothing more than buck-naked assertions. If anyone can show me some convincing evidence that "alt-right" is what is being claimed, I will accept it. Thus far, I keep asking and keep getting what seem to be deflections.

Who's words do you consider to be exemplary of the "alt-right"? Those who identify themselves as such here? The alt-right believes that it is the responsibility of the federal government, as controlled by their inclinations, to alienate individuals from their rights, based on race, nationality, IQ, political leanings, culture, or anything else that does not align with their vision of America. In doing so, they believe that everyone's rights of free association, free travel, and free markets should be violated.
Examples are manifest throughout this thread, and many others on RPF. Their label is meaningless. Their intent, as communicated through their own words, can not be misconstrued as being remotely friendly to liberty.

[undergroundrr]

The alt-right believes that it is the responsibility of the federal government, as controlled by their inclinations, to alienate individuals from their rights, based on race, nationality, IQ, political leanings, culture, or anything else that does not align with their vision of America. In doing so, they believe that everyone's rights of free association, free travel, and free markets should be violated.

This is well and succinctly put and applies to every argument I've seen about the issues that REALLY, REALLY concern the alt-right defenders (not to say self-identifiers) to the point of nail-biting hysteria.

I know this video is a cliche now, but it applies directly to what they're calling for.



At its worst, a few here in their neuroses about Islamofascism have really gone full-circle to neoconland and seem to be ready to send their own kids to Syria.

[otherone]

At its worst, a few here in their neuroses about Islamofascism have really gone full-circle to neoconland and seem to be ready to send their own kids to Syria.

More likely they'll cheer as a cop pulls me over to make sure I'm not transporting a beaner in my trunk. I'm hoping that I'll have my papers in order, or at least my implanted chip is functioning correctly.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

The Autism on this thread is proof that libertarianism is a dead letter if not co opted by the left.

[tod evans]

The Autism on this thread is proof that libertarianism is a dead letter if not co opted by the left.

Speaking of autism.......

I'm still waiting on you to ask questions Ace...

Come on buck up, try to start discourse if you're capable...

[heavenlyboy34]

The Autism on this thread is proof that libertarianism is a dead letter if not co opted by the left.

LOL You realize this isn't actually a libertarian forum, yes? (despite being ironically named after a quite hardcore libertarian) Most of the actual libertarians that came to these forums over the years have either been banned or primarily participate in the off-topic/hot-topicish subforum places.

[osan]

Who's words do you consider to be exemplary of the "alt-right"? Those who identify themselves as such here? The alt-right believes that it is the responsibility of the federal government, as controlled by their inclinations, to alienate individuals from their rights, based on race, nationality, IQ, political leanings, culture, or anything else that does not align with their vision of America. In doing so, they believe that everyone's rights of free association, free travel, and free markets should be violated.
Examples are manifest throughout this thread, and many others on RPF. Their label is meaningless. Their intent, as communicated through their own words, can not be misconstrued as being remotely friendly to liberty.

And once again you answer with no evidence other than your apparent opinion.

I don't know enough about "alt-right" to take anyone's word as exemplary.

It is as if people are pulling new words from their bootholes and the whole world takes them as somehow authoritative. I suspect this sort of thing is primarily the product of noise campaigns designed to get people worked up in one direction of another.

The signal to noise ratio is so low in human communications anymore, I can barely believe anyone is able to order a fookin' pie from Pizza Hut (EEEeeeeewwww...) these days.

Humanity is an unmitigated, ambulatory disaster.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Speaking of autism.......

I'm still waiting on you to ask questions Ace...

Come on buck up, try to start discourse if you're capable...

Can you understand that if you import millions of people who will vote against your rights, you will lose your rights?

why import more welfare voters?




See how this works out? You lose everything if they are not kept out. But hey I guess you like losing.

LOL You realize this isn't actually a libertarian forum, yes? (despite being ironically named after a quite hardcore libertarian) Most of the actual libertarians that came to these forums over the years have either been banned or primarily participate in the off-topic/hot-topicish subforum places.

Shocking.....