You believe that national groups have a right to self-determination; the rest is a (failed) attempt to rationalize that with libertarianism.
In fact, your nationalism, consisting of (a) a rejection of inter-national intervention in the interest of advancing human liberty, and (b) support for domestic policies which benefits domestic residents at the expense of the liberty of human beings in general, runs contrary to the pragmatic argument in favor of the state, on which you hypocritically rely in criticizing anarcho-capitalists (who are indeed mistaken, but
you're in no position to criticize them: at least not on those grounds).
By way of illustratration:
Pragmatist Libertarian: The state is bad, engages in aggression, but the situation which would exist in the absence of the state (i.e. not a free market in defense as you hope, but choas, tribal warfare) is worse: i.e. entails even more aggression. So, in the interest of maximizing liberty, we ought to support the state, and aim to minimize its aggression as much as possible.
Anarcho-Capitalist: Lalala, I can't hear you... Tyrant!
...
Pragmatist Libertarian: If the goal is to maximize human liberty, it shouldn't matter where these humans happen to live. Granted, most inter-state military interventions go poorly (at least when looking at recent history), but there is no reason to oppose in principle an intervention which would result in a net gain for human liberty, taking into account the costs and benefits of the various parties concerned. More liberty is better than less; this should be non-controversial.
Nationalist "Libertarian": Lalala, I can't hear you... Tyrant!
OR
Nationalist "Libertarian": [insert elaborate rationalization]
Pragmatic Libertarian:
Connect With Us