Foxfyre wrote: What were you doing with your post other than stating your own views?
You asked me a specific question which required me to elucidate my views, so I gave a suitable explanation to which you did not interact with whatsoever. I answered your objection (which was embedded in the question). Shall I assume that you have no rebuttal then? Good.
Foxfyre wrote: I don't want open borders under any circumstances.
So you believe the government should be able to tell you who you can invite onto your own property and from where? I don't want to be a slave under any circumstances. Apparently you do.
Foxfyre wrote: I don't want to be subject to any sort of world government that is not in our national interests.
I don't want to be subject to a world government either (what does that have to do with anything?). In fact, I don't want to be subject to ANY government, no matter what they regard as "in their interests." What matters are my interests, those of my family, and those on my property who are under my authority.
Foxfyre wrote: It was your post I was specifically addressing when I made my remarks.
Was it now? It looks to me like you were attempting to explain how a constitutionalist approach is nationalist by nature and thus is anti-globalist, but that has nothing to do with my argument or claims; hence, my confusion.
Regardless of your "preconceived" notions, or that of the OP, the spectrum of political ideologies is far more complex than simply "nationalist v. globalist."
or "big government v small government."
Regarding the former, I am neither, regarding the latter I am neither. I don't want government AT ALL
, thus I don't want a state telling me where I can go, or who i can invite onto my own land.
You do apparently.
Hence, your notion of "freedom" and "rights" are actually more limited than under my system, thus your "nationalism" is incompatible with your belief in "liberty."
I have no such problems in my system. People should be free to associate with whom they want and exclude whom they want, and the same goes for products sold on the market. In some ways this makes me more "nationalist" than you. I believe people should be free to create all white communities or English-speaking-Christians-only communities on their own land and to govern them by their own rules and exclude everyone else.
Your constitutional does not permit this, so in the end, whose system is better for preserving the cultural interests of certain groups? Not yours.
This is a much bigger issue than "borders." This issue also comprehends property rights, taxes, welfare, discrimination law, etc.
A complex issue should be dealt with the sophistication it deserves and I do wonder though whether you are up to the task.