So you think people should put the needs of their government before their owns needs, the needs of their family, or the needs of their interest groups?
Discussion
huh?
basically zero nationalists of any color put the needs of their government before their own needs and the needs of their family.
Are you sure? What about soldiers that die for their country and leave their families fatherless?
No one actually dies for their country. They die to grow the wealth of the ruling class. Believing that they are dying for their country doesn't actually mean they have died for the benefit of anyone in that country. No pleb in America benefited from a single soldier's death in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There seems to be confusion between the actual definition of a nationalist and what people think nationalists are.
Afghanistan and Iraq are cherry picked though. I don't think you can say the same for every war throughout history. Yeah maybe I have a more idealised version of nationalism.
Every war since America's "independence," has been a bankers war as far as I understand. Certainly every war since WW1 has been to serve the interests of the ruling class and to harm the citizens.
I agree with that. But still a small section of history. And some people, like the Palestinians, are justly fighting back. Deaths in resistance to the bankers are for the people
They're fighting back for their homes and land. Not necessarily for a flag. Sure their cultural roots are similar and so they take pride in a shared identity. It's human nature to be tribalistic. But nationalism is a relatively new phenomena. People didn't always have national pride in the past.
I don't think whether or not the wars were organized and instigated by bankers it means the people that fought and died in them weren't nationalists.
"I read your responses but I don't actually have the courage to respond to you directly" 😂
Well yeah. Otherwise I could justify stealing from my neighbour to feed my family. I still believe in society and government to some degree. There needs to be rules that people agree on and follow. And it helps if those people are ethnically similar, and therefore have the sake values, which goes back to my original post.
So you don't think there is another way to prevent neighbors from robbing each other without having a government rob everyone?
Well if rather the government be more like America 100 years ago than America today. Both are still governments. But one is better and robs citizens less. I don't believe we can go to literally zero government. Especially not in the short term.
So you believe that in order to achieve a peaceful and healthy society, we need to give a group the power to rob and murder us?
No. But we need to follow rules. How can we decide on the rules without some sort of governance? Bitcoin is technically a government that enforces rules. I mean it more in that way.
You can establish rules peacefully in your neighborhood without the need for taxation and a police force. HOAs do this all the time. They have security, even if it's just a gated community. They have certain rules that can lead to fines or eviction when violated. In a free market, you can find the type of neighborhood that fits your needs. If you need less security because you have guns and dogs, then you can save money. If you have a family, then maybe you wanna pay more for a more secure neighborhood with a security car driving around. I've lived in a community with a security car patrolling at night. Whatever service you need, you can find it cheaper and more efficient in the open market.
I agree totally. But fines and evictions are basically the same as taxation and policing. So just decentralised government?
But it's voluntary. You aren't forced to live there. When you move in to that neighborhood, you agree to their rules. In the world today, you don't agree to anything. It's forced upon you simply based on where you were born which you have no control over.
Oh well we want the same thing then haha