[Baff]

I change between the two as required.

I am nationalist vs globalists and Globalist vs socialists who have taken control of the national means of production.

Whatever I need to be to break peoples power over me.

I'm right wing, so governmentally I want smaller rather than larger.
I'm not working class so I only want localised industry /no immigration to protect their interests and not my own.
I am democracy friendly so again I want small local accountable govt as a preference over world government.

But I will adjust this as is practical to rival which ever threat to my freedom I see.

Not dogmatic on this political schism.

Today I am about 75/25 Nationalist/ Globalist

[Foxfyre]

Not necessarily, you can have open borders without disorder; our current system promotes disorder because the welfare state incentivizes mass migrations and political turmoil in the host nations.

Under a system of private property absolutism, inter-regional migration would be balanced and orderly and multiculturalism would not be thrust on property owners as they are the main agents of consent for the villages and towns under their own proprietorship.

But can you have open borders without disorder if those entering your country do so for the purpose of accessing resources mandated by law and/or simply thumb their noses at the law?

[Foxfyre]

I change between the two as required.

I am nationalist vs globalists and Globalist vs socialists who have taken control of the national means of production.

Whatever I need to be to break peoples power over me.

I'm right wing, so governmentally I want smaller rather than larger.
I'm not working class so I only want localised industry /no immigration to protect their interests and not my own.
I am democracy friendly so again I want small local accountable govt as a preference over world government.

But I will adjust this as is practical to rival which ever threat to my freedom I see.

Not dogmatic on this political schism.

Today I am about 75/25 Nationalist/ Globalist

Perhaps it would be useful to define the terms as they are intended here? The hardcore globalist defines Nationalism in terms of Fascism or Nazism. President Trump describes nationalism as living and let live while getting along with everybody and helping others as much as possible while not being anybody's doormat and not allowing ourselves to be taken advantage of by others for their own self interests. Nationalism is acknowledging that a nation without laws, borders, common language, shared values is not even really a nation.

I am a nationalist as President Trump describes it even as I appreciate how important the USA is to the rest of the world and am grateful that the USA is the most generous, caring, and helpful of all the world's nations.

But I was not going to check 'nationalist' in the poll and then be told that I had agreed that I was a Nazi or Fascist or member of some supremacy group or whatever.

[Sivad]

I change between the two as required.



Whatever I need to be to break peoples power over me.

That's how I approach politics too. I push in whichever direction needs pushing. I'm totally independent and I hate all the factions and ideologies. I have a set of general values(liberty, prosperity, justice, etc) and I know which directions I definitely don't want to go(authoritarian socialism or corporate crony capitalism), but I don't have any strict ideology I adhere to because the world is too messy and complicated for ideologies and who wants to get bogged down in that nonsense anyway.

[RhetoricThug]

I've erased RhetoricThug because he's a myth.
(soundtrack)

That's how I approach politics too. I push in whichever direction needs pushing.

This makes you a self-referential reactionary.

I'm totally independent and I hate all the factions and ideologies.

That's an autobigraphical narrrative told by you for you, based upon memories that were once experiences. Multiplex collision, an electrical-notional election based upon the motion of choice. Where are you in the sequence of genetic unfoldment, interfacing with potential circumstances?

I have a set of general values(liberty, prosperity, justice, etc) and I know which directions I definitely don't want to go(authoritarian socialism or corporate crony capitalism), but I don't have any strict ideology I adhere to because the world is too messy and complicated for ideologies and who wants to get bogged down in that nonsense anyway.

All of which wouldn't exist without your interactions in a biopshyical system in which you gain the knowledge that informs your opinions.

In the END will all think we're right.

ALL of us, FOOLS!

IS this the end or the beginning?

[Sivad]

In the END will all think we're right.

No, I don't know if I'm right, all I know is that I'm informed, honest, and reasonable. If you assess the issues correctly according to what you know you know(very little), what you know you don't know(quite a lot), and what you don't know that you don't know(unknown quantity) then it's almost impossible to be wrong because all of your positions are held tentatively. In other words you're a skeptic. True skeptics are rarely right or wrong but they are always correct.

[Victoribus Spolia]

But can you have open borders without disorder if those entering your country do so for the purpose of accessing resources mandated by law and/or simply thumb their noses at the law?

Under Anarcho-Capitalism there is no law in that sense because there is no state and those who trespass on your property, you are free to shoot as you please.

When I say that I am hypothetically open borders, I only mean that I opposed a state creating a border and telling me as a private agent who I may or may not bring onto my property.

However, I do believe in borders, private ones only.

Further, I technically oppose immigration to the U.S. right now and support Trump's position on the matter only because I am already burdened with a welfare state used to justify robbing me via taxation. So long as this welfare state exists, I don't want immigrants because they will burden that system and give the state more reason to tax and oppress.

If I had the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason, strong castle-laws, and there were no welfare state, i'd have little problem with no southern border.

But that, in essence, would be anarcho-capitalism or something near enough.

[One Degree]

Other. Making it about borders and economics misses the point. It is about centralized control or decentralization. The degree of each we want places us into the arbitrary categories of ‘globalist’ or ‘nationalist’. Many who want more local control could be considered anti nationalist, but certainly not globalist.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Many who want more local control could be considered anti nationalist, but certainly not globalist.

Great comment. This in many ways dumbs-down the essence of my own views on the matter.

After all, you can't get more decentralized than replacing a state with making people states unto themselves on their own property. Every man a king in his own castle.

Not a globalist view, but neither is it nationalist either. It transcends the distinction and has sympathies to both.

[Rancid]

I selected Globalist*. I think if we can get the world's nations on a more equal footing economically, then I think there would be more global cooperation which will be required to keep progressing our increasingly complex society. If no one is any stronger than anyone else, they are less likely to want to fight each other.

This is why you see me not being happy about China's rise. We need them to rise, but not too much. I'm also happy to see the US decline as well, but not too much. I'd like to see Latin America raise up to match US/EU. I'd like to see Africa do the same, but I think Latin America is better situated for that than Africa. The middle east cannot join the rest of the global cooperation culture until it's culture changes such that it is more compatible with the rest of the global culture. Til then, they should be left completely alone. Basically we need an equalization to happen.

Now, the above is TOTALLY not possible. In spirit I'm a globalist, however, I'm also a very practical person with flexible morals. I know for example, that China would not be satisfied with matching the US/EU. I know that the US would not be happy with losing standing and leverage against China. There's all sorts of dynamics like this playing out, and it's all rooted in the self-interest of the leaders of each nation. Thus, I'm often forced to act like a "nationalist" because I know actors like say China (they're the easy example here) would have no problem turning Latin America into a client state (they're already doing this actually). I know they'd have no problem screwing over the US/EU. etc. etc. etc.

[Foxfyre]

Under Anarcho-Capitalism there is no law in that sense because there is no state and those who trespass on your property, you are free to shoot as you please.

When I say that I am hypothetically open borders, I only mean that I opposed a state creating a border and telling me as a private agent who I may or may not bring onto my property.

However, I do believe in borders, private ones only.

Further, I technically oppose immigration to the U.S. right now and support Trump's position on the matter only because I am already burdened with a welfare state used to justify robbing me via taxation. So long as this welfare state exists, I don't want immigrants because they will burden that system and give the state more reason to tax and oppress.

If I had the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason, strong castle-laws, and there were no welfare state, i'd have little problem with no southern border.

But that, in essence, would be anarcho-capitalism or something near enough.

I am a Nationalist as President Trump described Nationalism. I believe a nation must have borders to ensure a common language and culture that it wants to have.

I think the U.S. Constitution complete with the Bill of Rights, as it was intended, is high on the list of the most amazing documents the world has ever known. But if we subject ourselves to the governments, intentions, ambitions of every country in the world, then the Constitution ceases to exist.

The Founders gave us opportunity to have a country that was the most prosperous, most forward thinking, most generous, and most free nation the world has ever known. The cornerstone is individual liberty or the right of each person to be who and what he/she is, to say what he/she thinks, believes, hopes for, embraces, cares about with impunity. Each person has the right to his/her own property and to order his/her life as s/he wants and to join with others to order the sorts of society that the group wants with impunity.

The only restriction on any of us was intended to be that we cannot interfere with anybody else's ability to be who and what he/she is and that we consent either personally or via elected representative to what laws, rules, regulations ensure order in our society.

There are segments of our society who have gotten away from that principle and who presume to dictate what people are allowed to think, believe, say lest they be punished. And there are those of us who are pushing back on that and trying to restore the original intent and concept of the Constitution. I hope there are enough of us to make that happen.

But becoming globalist and subject to some sort of world order would make that impossible.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am a Nationalist as President Trump described Nationalism. I believe a nation must have borders to ensure a common language and culture that it wants to have.

I think the U.S. Constitution complete with the Bill of Rights, as it was intended, is high on the list of the most amazing documents the world has ever known. But if we subject ourselves to the governments, intentions, ambitions of every country in the world, then the Constitution ceases to exist.

The Founders gave us opportunity to have a country that was the most prosperous, most forward thinking, most generous, and most free nation the world has ever known. The cornerstone is individual liberty or the right of each person to be who and what he/she is, to say what he/she thinks, believes, hopes for, embraces, cares about with impunity. Each person has the right to his/her own property and to order his/her life as s/he wants and to join with others to order the sorts of society that the group wants with impunity.

The only restriction on any of us was intended to be that we cannot interfere with anybody else's ability to be who and what he/she is and that we consent either personally or via elected representative to what laws, rules, regulations ensure order in our society.

There are segments of our society who have gotten away from that principle and who presume to dictate what people are allowed to think, believe, say lest they be punished. And there are those of us who are pushing back on that and trying to restore the original intent and concept of the Constitution. I hope there are enough of us to make that happen.

But becoming globalist and subject to some sort of world order would make that impossible.

I don't know why you quoted my remarks in answer to your question if you only intended to describe your own standard neo-republican views.

You could of just posted your own position, you don't need to quote my remarks if you have no intention of interacting with them

[Foxfyre]

I don't know why you quoted my remarks in answer to your question if you only intended to describe your own standard neo-republican views.

You could of just posted your own position, you don't need to quote my remarks if you have no intention of interacting with them

Sorry, but I thought I was interacting with your post that quoted me when you made it. What were you doing with your post other than stating your own views? I don't want open borders under any circumstances. I don't want to be subject to any sort of world government that is not in our national interests. It was your post I was specifically addressing when I made my remarks. I also intended it to explain why I consider myself a nationalist which would be in keeping with the OP.

[Victoribus Spolia]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Citizen J]

For me, it's simultaneously both and neither - it's complicated.
My vision of a perfect world would not have national lines. But instead there would be enclaves - lots and lots of enclaves. One enclave for each culture, and another for each race. The enclaves would be "purists" and can keep anyone from entering them. But none would be allowed to keep people from leaving them. Thus, the world at large would have an endless supply of diversity to prevent the homogenization of the human race - both genetically and culturally. But these enclaves should never be allowed to encroach on one another. The world at large would be globalist, of course. While each enclave would naturally be nationalistic. And it would be up to the globalist world at large to keep the enclaves separated.

[Foxfyre]

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.



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.



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.



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.

I understand. You consider me non responsive and inferior, which is your right. So my rebuttal is: I think you have it wrong in several areas and we disagree on a lot. I will let it go at that and wish you a pleasant day.

[One Degree]

For me, it's simultaneously both and neither - it's complicated.
My vision of a perfect world would not have national lines. But instead there would be enclaves - lots and lots of enclaves. One enclave for each culture, and another for each race. The enclaves would be "purists" and can keep anyone from entering them. But none would be allowed to keep people from leaving them. Thus, the world at large would have an endless supply of diversity to prevent the homogenization of the human race - both genetically and culturally. But these enclaves should never be allowed to encroach on one another. The world at large would be globalist, of course. While each enclave would naturally be nationalistic. And it would be up to the globalist world at large to keep the enclaves separated.

Wow! A fellow believer. I had given up hope of finding one.

[chrisw]

I guess the closest is globalist. I was born in one country, live in another, have a company in a different country and do business in about 20 different countries. Breaking down borders seems to be the way forwards in my world.