Who should actually “regulate” immigration, the authoritarian government...

Who should actually “regulate” immigration, the authoritarian government, the democratic decision of the racist society, or the ability of the immigrants to survive and be accepted in the community without government aid?

>this is what civic nationalists really believe

If you're allowing immigrants at all you've already failed

Three simple words:
National origins formula

And we don't need German National Socialism to accomplish that.

Civic nationalism is still government centric. It’s not capitalistic.

You don’t have to allow them to your property

Yeah that’s like, what you believe, but who should enforce the ‘filtering’ of society? The government who has its own body, the democratic voice of the racist peoples, or the nature of the market?

The government you fucking sperg.

>libertarian holds anti-civilizational views
neat.jpg

Is the existence and power of the government, correlated to the growth of a civilization? Was the first car ever invented by the government?

>Is the existence and power of the government, correlated to the growth of a civilization?
To an extent.
>first car
No.

How did you even think that i’m anti-civilizational?

Letting the free market determine which immigrants enter the body politic doesn't protect the nation. It allows it to be subverted and overtaken.

But there shouldn’t be any body politics. Also i believe that politicians should be citizens. And in order for someone to be citizen, he can’t have government aid in order to survive.

>there shouldn’t be any body politics
Why? Are there any thriving civilizations without one? To my knowledge there never has been one. Human beings are naturally tribal. Tribes are just large familes and that family's environment, genetics, culture, and religion inform its political makeup.
>can't have governmental aid
Roads. Common defense. Cultural memory.

>Why? Are there any thriving civilizations without one?
I can understand tribes. And they’re many and very decentralized. You can’t and shouldn’t centralize all of them in the first place. Also government is the remnants of monarchies and kingdoms, there has never been a revolutionary stage where the people actually built something from scratch, something that represents them. Just because you like the kind of society, doesn’t mean it’s the most ideal and the best. I don’t see any difference between you and democrats. They like government only when the government is giving them something that they like. It’s very shallow.

>Roads. Common defense. Cultural memory.
See, the only way you see this is “well government build roads, how am i gonna live without roads?” I know it’s very difficult to shift your mind when you’re already hardwired to the unideal thing. Government built roads BEFORE the people asked for it, and now after they’re used to it, they can’t imagine going to the right path where the demand for the road and the ability of paying for the road should determine the existence of the road and the quality of it. It’s like the government is bribing you. Or forcefully tying you to them

Roads are a symbol of the common good. I tend to trend towards monarchy in the capitol and quasi-anarchy in the countryside but the only way this is feasible is with a state church.

Lets say we do your hyper libertarian loan wolf experiment. What happens when China comes knocking? Theres a reason Bedouin tribesman don't have F16s.

Also. What exactly does the government prevent you from doing? You have freedom of exit. Leave. Unless you have blood ties to the soil (which everyome does somewhere) there is no logical reason not to leave.

How does common good even exist? Does it come from the collective demand from the people and the voluntary payment of them? I remember my father bought a car, he bought it with his own money, but called it “family car”. I didn’t share the emotional ownership of that car, but suddenly i’m responsible for washing the car etc etc because it was also “my car”. Is it what “common good” is?

>What happens when China comes knocking?
Elaborate on this please

Accepting immigrants to live in my property and pay rent to me. This is if i was local. But i’m a nonwestern nonwhite so yeah

>state church
Oh my god what does that even mean? The two words should never go together.

>Is it what “common good” is
Yes.
>Elaborate
Libertarian societies will always be overtaken my non libertarian foes.
>my property
You only own that which you can defend. Which as a lone wolf is not much. You're only solution is to form a monarchy or an aristocratoc republic which is government.

Yea it sure be a shame to conquer the world and invent philosophy, math, and art. Name one thriving society in all of history without a state enforced mythos.

>Yes
It’s not good and ideal. It will only lead to conflicts and strikes and protests etc etc. it will only lead to instability. But of course, your answer would be “stronger police and military to scare people off”.

>Libertarian societies will always be overtaken my non libertarian foes.
How do they even overtake? Explain in detail

>You only own that which you can defend.
So you’re for stealing and crimes? Something can be my property if i stole it? And yes what if i CAN defend my property?

They would still be able to be achieved without state enforced belief. Also what about state enforced progressivism? Should that be accepted as well?

>overtake
Guns and bombs. And if you can defend ypur property go for it. But you can't. Gow many armed men can you defend your family against.
Going for a drive. Try to respond when i get home.

Idk. I still think my mind and heart belongs in the west. There are outliers in every race and i’m not like “my people”. And i think the white society WOULD accept me. I’m tired of accepting what i’m uncomfortable with, i’m tired of thinking hard, finding moral jusitification for something that i wish to be true. I wish i could choose what i’m associated with.

Bump

I count Progressivism as a religion. And no it should not be accepted. And what is greece if not her city states? Philosophy puts order to things. Government is the natural state of man from birth. Every father a king to his children. Its just a matter of extending up from there. I have no great issue with libertarian principles. Most monarchies operated under them believe it or not. The issues I have is anti statism because its contrary to human nature.

what about white immigrants?

Why are ancaps so insistent on abolishing borders more than the welfare state?

I don’t disagree with what the alt right believes. I’m just saying that people should have freedom of association

They can. In freedom-of-associationstan. Go build it.

>Its just a matter of extending up from there
It doesn’t extend from there. People don’t look up to politicians. Old wise men don’t look up to younger president.

>The issues I have is anti statism because its contrary to human nature.
People stick to this system because they have no choice, they had no choice.

We’re insisting about both, but mostly about the state more than about immigration. Unless you’re a nonwhite nonwestern person who lives on the internet and feels as if you’re a natural american being trapped in your unwanted identity. Like me

It’s already built. You’re wearing its flag.

Only since 1965. And don't conflate politicians (jacobins) with all forms of government.

>no choice
This is life. Your system is pure idealism.

Look at the white neighborhood with one or two indian doctors and chinese entrepreneurs in it, do you honestly think those whites secretly want those perfectly assimilated indians and chinese to be physically removed?

The problem i have with yous is that you think people are as racist as you. I don’t think so. I think i’m very western and i CAN survive in the west, it’s literally the barometer for success of our education system, and there’s no reason to hate me as their new neighbor. If they don’t hate me and i don’t hate them and i don’t live on the expense on anyone, why should there be anyone else between our interactions?

I'm comfortable with limited non Western immigration. I think most people are. The issue is when the host country had declined birthrates and new comers, who are coming en masse, have much highet birthrates. Limited skilled immigration is fine by my book. We don't need all of South America to move north.

What should be the immigration policy though? It certainly can’t be race. It can’t be like “sorry, you can’t come, you’re black”.

Also most people don’t share your sentiment.

I don't much care what most people think. The Mob is retarded. I see no reason it can't be based on race. Again, it was until 1965.

But the regulation should be the face of what people want. A country, the interaction between me and the consenting immigrant, is NOT the property of the state. And the state is disconnected from the spirit of the nation. The state is basically just an organization with lots of big guns, having their own ideas that don’t go with what the natives of the homeland. The race based policy was a mistake because no other country has ever implemented it because it’s dead retarded. Also the race policy was also NOT the face of the people, the natives of the homeland. With your version, a government is just a big strong invader, NOT coming from inside the homeland. They have their own mind that is forced onto the people, the natives of the homeland.

I’ve come this far. And i’m not going back. I’m not lowering my position in the intellectual/ideological hierarchy. The only right step forward is to move out to the society that has the same potential as me. I want to be rewarded accordingly. The reward is being associated to the society that i feel naturally belonging to, that believes in the same thing as me, that i can feel satisfied living in, around the people that i can be proud of walking and mingling with.

I can’t go back to “my root”, after being awakened by the truth, about race, about values, etc.

Bump

100% trap

What do you mean by that?

Bump again until you come

The second one, but with guns rather than votes.

How would that happen?

any of the above, as long as it allows the rate of immigration to a level that doesn't destabilize the nation due to civil unrest or the burden of welfare programs

Shoot the wogs

*democratically, of course. It would be like voting, but faster.

Immigration is a classic collective-action problem. Trying to manage it at anything BUT a state-level is silly. That's because only a state-level actor will have actual control over the totality of its own borders.

The racist society