In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
My comment was said already perfectly by N.H. in the comments under your article,
ReplyDelete" As I understood it (may be mistaken), ethno-nationalism is nation as defined by ethnicity; a common ethnic ancestry. The central significance of that shared ethnic heritage is exactly what distinguishes the term from simple nationalism – which defines nationhood by common citizenship."
It kind of figures that you would jump on the juiciest misinterpretation of what I wrote!
DeleteI very specifically said what *I* meant by it. And the next day, Marie Le Pen, supposedly one of the leading ethno-nationalists, said (from memory) "This has nothing at all to do with race: it is about being French culturally. Anyone who comes here should plan on becoming French."
But I guess some people just have race stuck in their heads!
You said, "“Ethno-nationalism,” as I understand the term, asserts only that we, who are living here as citizens, are Americans, and that the foremost end of our government is to protect us and our rights."
ReplyDeleteThis is a nice idea, but that is not the definition of ethno-nationalism.
From wikipedia "Ethnic nationalism, also known as ethno-nationalism, is a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity." From Stormfront.com (a white nationalist site): "Ethno-Nationalist. I believe every nation, every ethnicity and every culture the right to a homeland to preserve their heritage. With that, I believe a multicultural state has the right to exist independent of the nation's from whence the people came. Whether a nation of multiculturalism can survive an Ethno-Nationalistic world, is unknown. But, being that everyone has a right to hold their own view, an independent multicultural state is necessary to preserve real freedom. That multicultural state should exist with out waging war on other states/nations for holding different political views and for not participating in national genocide. I believe every ethnicity should be governed by one of their own, in their own state."
From faithandheritage.com "Ethno-nationalism is a belief system that affirms a traditional Christian understanding of families, tribes, and nations. Ethno-nationalism holds that nations are defined and rooted in common heredity, and that the foundations of a nation are based on common ancestry, language, culture, religion, and social customs."
So while I like your point, I don't think that is what the term means in common usage.
Common usage is disputed. Marie Le Pen is supposed to be a leading ethno-nationalist. She just said her position has *nothing* to do with race.
DeleteI am *putting forward* a definition, and contending that this is what the term *should* mean. I would uses "racial nationalist" for the examples you cite.
Maybe my definition will lose out. But you can't "refute" my definition by saying someone else has another one.