Why do libertarians on here sympathize with nationalism...

Why do libertarians on here sympathize with nationalism? Don't they prefer immigration of high qualified individuals from around the world, totally disregarding white interests?

Whites should be free

But what if white profit oriented enterpreneurs want cheap or high qualified labor? What if brain draining the third world is a good business strategy?

Because they've been brainwashed by this shithole of a board

Destroying your homeland is not good business strategy

You cannot be a libertarian without being a bit of a nationalist, as with weak borders, people will come in and find a way to take your liberty. Therefore, in the same way the government exist to prevent any entity, including parts of itself from suppressing the liberty of people, it also exists to secure borders for the safety and liberty of its people.

Why should any business outside of real estate have any concerns about negative externalities on their homeland and environment? Also, if you take in massive numbers of East Asians your homeland may possibly still thrive but it won't be white anymore.

nationalism is fine

Any intelligent Libertarian understands he can't have libertarianism with a diverse country.

Even in the absence of a government, individuals have the right and a mandate to protect their society from those that would seek to destroy liberty as a means of peaceful conflict resolution. Border security is a relatively peaceful method. By not letting in the dregs, we prevent needless fighting from happening.

...

Paleo libertarians. Rockwell and Rothbard wrote about it in the 90's.

>high qualified individuals
>non-white

There are always outliers.

You can be a pragmatic libertarian that doesn't reject racial science because it an "impolite" subject even though it's truth

Actually, the official libertarian position, as espoused by rags like Reason, is that people should be able to move where they want, because ostensibly, skilled workers should be able to move easily to where they're of greatest use.

Ya gotta offset that by eliminating welfare apparatus and wealth redistribution, though.

Immigration and highly qualified aren't words you want near each other

>Don't they prefer immigration of high qualified individuals from around the world
When has that happened again? We brought over a couple pretty clever krauts after WWII, but since then it's been more along the lines of the wretched and tempest-tost and all that.

>pirate flag
Hello, kike.

But can it be state policy? You can't enforce restrictions based on race as a libertarian if people want to hire those rare pakistani programmer geniuses.

That still doesn't guarantee racial homogenity. Chinese instead of Mexicans would flood the country.

But that's a reality in places like Singapore or Canada.

I know that, but racial homogeneity is not part of the Libertarian platform.

That was also my understanding, but somehow there are some anons who seem to have synthesized their contradicting world views. Or they're just confused.

An excellent question that is often overlooked. The reason why former libertarians such as myself now oppose non-white immigration is the biological law of regression to the mean. To dramatically paraphrase, this means that those with abnormal characteristics will, over a few generations, have their progeny regress to what is average for their bio-group. This is important, because if you look at any IQ survey that tackles race and nationality, Europeans and East Asians are at the top. While everyone else is at least one standard deviation below the mean. This means that while we may have a Niel Degras Tyson wishing to apply for citizenship, and he IS brilliant. His kids will eventually be intellectual black holes for this kids they go to school with. Libertarianism requires a high IQ population and the other races cannot deliver it.

A society whose population respects private property rights, non-aggression, and voluntary association requires a high degree of trust amongst its citizens.

The fact is, there is higher trust between people of the same ethnic, cultural, and religious background than those of different ones. If I meet a fellow roman catholic polish-american, for example, I have a much easier time connecting with him off the bat than I do with, say, a Jamaican immigrant.

In knowing the former has the same ancestry and religion as I do, I can trust him to have the same values (e.g. the ten commandments), whereas I have no baseline for the Jamaican until I interact with him and find out what he values. Pragmatic prejudice.

That regression toward the mean stuff is a pretty nasty redpill, but still, it doesn't solve the east asian question (and the jewish one, for the more radical among us).

That seems agreeable, but can you call it libertarianism at this point if nationwide enforced homogenity is the best long term solution.

Because shit-skins don't understand liberty. Once they have voting majority the US is done.

I'm not really fond of state-enforced anything. Ideally that sort of homogeneity would be the consequence of voluntary action, specifically the exclusion of undesirables from private property.

I didn't read Hoppe but I believe this is his position. While I think there will be white ethnocentric enclaves in this scenario, it still doesn't guarantee that you won't be surrounded by New Bombay and Hapa county

>Don't they prefer immigration of high qualified individuals from around the world, totally disregarding white interests?

We do.
Fuck you buttblasted faggot stormniggers.