"Controlled Opposition! Gate-Keeper! Shill!"

[CCTelander]

This is very good.

[TheTexan]

He's wrong and because it's the internet I am compelled to post why.

He argues that Nationalists, compared to Globalists, have no principled difference and they're simply arguing over the size of the plantation.

Both of these things are false.

A Globalist is by its very nature a statist, because having a universal jurisdiction necessarily means that people aren't able to leave that jurisdiction.

This is not the case with Nationalism. Nationalism is not inherently statist; it is compatible with voluntaryism. More than just compatible, I would posit that nations (of voluntary association) would be the standard rather than the exception in a voluntaryist world.

And while most Nationalists of today are not what one would typically call a sophisticated student of voluntaryism, they at least show some propensity for the concept, by rejecting globalism. Globalism is after all, the polar opposite of anarchism/voluntaryism.

And its important to consider, do most Nationalists subscribe to that particular ideology because they like the concept of organizing themselves into a group of people with shared values (e.g. voluntary association), or do they subscribe to Nationalism for the explicit purpose of requiring people to belong to that jurisdiction (statism)?

I would argue that most Nationalists are such because of the voluntary aspects. Their rejection of Globalism is a rejection of statism itself, even if only on a subconscious level, with their conscious level too far indoctrinated to fully understand what that difference means.

[ClaytonB]

He's wrong and because it's the internet I am compelled to post why.

He argues that Nationalists, compared to Globalists, have no principled difference and they're simply arguing over the size of the plantation.

Both of these things are false.

A Globalist is by its very nature a statist, because having a universal jurisdiction necessarily means that people aren't able to leave that jurisdiction.

This is not the case with Nationalism. Nationalism is not inherently statist; it is compatible with voluntaryism. More than just compatible, I would posit that nations (of voluntary association) would be the standard rather than the exception in a voluntaryist world.

And while most Nationalists of today are not what one would typically call a sophisticated student of voluntaryism, they at least show some propensity for the concept, by rejecting globalism. Globalism is after all, the polar opposite of anarchism/voluntaryism.

And its important to consider, do most Nationalists subscribe to that particular ideology because they like the concept of organizing themselves into a group of people with shared values (e.g. voluntary association), or do they subscribe to Nationalism for the explicit purpose of requiring people to belong to that jurisdiction (statism)?

I would argue that most Nationalists are such because of the voluntary aspects. Their rejection of Globalism is a rejection of statism itself, even if only on a subconscious level, with their conscious level too far indoctrinated to fully understand what that difference means.

I enjoy Rose in small doses, but he is sometimes the proverbial man with a hammer to whom everything is a nail. Nationalism is definitely better than globalism because nation-scale imperialism is still smaller and more local than global imperialism. Thus, the power of nation-states -- while enormous -- is still much smaller than the power of a truly global government would be. In addition, while the US is an enormous country, it's still far more local and cohesive than an "American Union" would be. And if our Constitution were actually obeyed, the ordinary American would rarely, if ever, interact with the Federal government itself, with almost all governing functions being performed by the States, not the Feds. But alas, we know better than the Constitution and history and God and everything else because... we're modern.

One of the most important lectures ever given by Hans Hoppe:

[Swordsmyth]

He's wrong and because it's the internet I am compelled to post why.

He argues that Nationalists, compared to Globalists, have no principled difference and they're simply arguing over the size of the plantation.

Both of these things are false.

A Globalist is by its very nature a statist, because having a universal jurisdiction necessarily means that people aren't able to leave that jurisdiction.

This is not the case with Nationalism. Nationalism is not inherently statist; it is compatible with voluntaryism. More than just compatible, I would posit that nations (of voluntary association) would be the standard rather than the exception in a voluntaryist world.

And while most Nationalists of today are not what one would typically call a sophisticated student of voluntaryism, they at least show some propensity for the concept, by rejecting globalism. Globalism is after all, the polar opposite of anarchism/voluntaryism.

And its important to consider, do most Nationalists subscribe to that particular ideology because they like the concept of organizing themselves into a group of people with shared values (e.g. voluntary association), or do they subscribe to Nationalism for the explicit purpose of requiring people to belong to that jurisdiction (statism)?

I would argue that most Nationalists are such because of the voluntary aspects. Their rejection of Globalism is a rejection of statism itself, even if only on a subconscious level, with their conscious level too far indoctrinated to fully understand what that difference means.

Nationalism is the best compromise between the ideal and the possible.