Rancid wrote:This got me thinking though.
My reluctance to be a civic nationalist myself has always been due to the fact that I think civic nationalism is a marginally stable ideology. Marginal stability is a control theory term (I'm an electrical engineer after all). Basically, a marginally stable system is one which is stable, but the slightest disturbance or change in the conditions that allow the stability quickly turn the system unstable. An easy example of this is resting a ball at the very top of a hill. The ball is at rest on the top of the hill (i.e. stable), but the slightest breeze will send the ball rolling off the hill (unstable). Where as if the ball was at the bottom of a valley, if a breeze were to push the ball, the slope of the valley would push the ball back down towards the bottom of the valley. This type of stability is better, there's a technical engineering term for it which I can't remember. I'm not a controls engineer....
I think civic nationalism is a lot like the ball on the top of the hill. Basically, it can start off guided by genuinely good/just/moral ideals that are non-racist. However, it can easily be high jack and corrupted to be more like non-civic nationalism. Ultimately, civic nationalism also requires discrimination of some type. Maybe it's not race based, but it could promote discrimination based on something else that could potentially be horrible.
In short, I don't think it works in the long term.
I really do like massive integration of the global economy and technology. It forces us all to play nice with each other.
1. This is a terrible argument against civic nationalism as it is solely based on a "perceived" potential for a slippery slope into a position you would critique for its meany racism.
2. The reason most of the recent populist movements have garnered great success in the west as of late is due
precisely to the fact that people
"don't want to place nice with each other and don't want to be forced to do so either." I have no problem with open borders and free trade.........
BUT it should be voluntary and consensual down to the individual level and that is definitely
NOT what the globalists have been pushing; they ain't ancaps after all; they are multi-national corporations acting in concert with certain western states to create a system where both they (the corporations) and their political partners (certain western states/parties/etc) can benefit.
You can have free trade and open borders without globalism. People should be able to play nice if they want to and be left alone if they'd rather not.
You wouldn't need nationalist movements of any stripe if people were re-enfranchised with their absolute and God-ordained rights of property, life, and liberty.