Re: Ethno-Nationalism, or Racism, or Whatever??? ( was Re: a discuss

--- david_russell_watson <liberty@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

. . .

> > > Of course, but why should the rest of us care?
> I don't like
> > > nations myself, and would love to see them
> collapse every one.

A nice thought until the rich and powerful step in to
fill the vacuum of power. Government may well be
legally constituted mafias but they are the only thing
standing between us and universal murder and mayhem.
If you can come with an anarcho-socialism that works,
you might have a point but if you kill the state,
you'd better kill the rich and powerful as well or you
will be their slave.

> >
> > Would you like the one you live in right now to
> collapse like
> > Yugoslavia did?
>
> Better that than Yugoslavia had remained under
> communist rule,

Communism wasn't the problem. Communism never even
existed in Yugoslavia, it was a one-party thugocracy
that benefited the bureaucratic class. Communism, in
fact, was much better than Milosevic and Tudjman.

> I think. Sometimes an old building must be
> demolished before
> a new one can be put up in its place. However
> remember that
> the mayhem in Yugoslavia took place precisely due to
> the tribal
> mentality about which I've complained. After the
> weakening of
> central authority ethnic groups strived to carve out
> ethnic
> states for themselves, each striving to make sure
> that their
> own group ended up with as much land after the smoke
> cleared as
> possible, as well as to kill off as many of their
> traditional
> enemies as possible, with little or no concern for
> human rights
> or even human life.

No, that's a misreading based the nonsense that the US
press spouted. Milosevic and Tudjman, inter alii,
decided to carve up Yugoslavia and inflamed
nationalism through mutual atrocities. They worked
together and their armies worked together to keep them
in power. There were no greater latent hatreds than
most places in the world. Milosevic also put the
screws to the Albanians and magnified the importance
of Kosova/o to Serbia. The political leaders and their
mafias were to blame. They deliberately destroyed the
state to create anarchy in the knowledge that they
were in a position to fill the vacuum.

> So all you've done is to cite a perfect example of
> the evils of
> ethno-nationalism.

Actually of actually existing anarchism. You remember
the term "actually-existing socialism", used by the
former Soviets, don't you?
Gilles Deleuze singled out "small government" or
government that does nothing but protect the rich and
powerful as the true totalitarian state --and he
picked out Chile under Pinochet in particular.

> > In the previous paragraph you were talking about
> the world at
> > large. Make up your mind.
>
> In the previous paragraph I was responding to
> comments of yours,
> which were about the world at large.
>
> > > And the whole would probably be better off as
> one big nation,
> > > with such things as language, culture, and
> religion a purely
> > > private matter, as is proper for all states.
> Better yet, let
> > > the whole world be so united. Ethnic groups
> don't have the
> > > inherent right to monopolize regions, I don't
> believe.

But politicians are very good at finding enemies and
playing people against one another. The Republican
Party in the US successfully used racism as its
calling card in one election after another. And as
racism against Blacks became taboo, they started after
Hispanics and gays. And I see the Democrats as
marginally better for failing to fight back.

> >
> > So this analogy: 'No question about bias comes up
> when one hauls
> > a trespasser out of his own house, does it? We
> accept that one
> > may invite into his own house, or exclude from it,
> anyone he
> > pleases and on any basis he pleases, do we not?'
> doesn't apply
> > to regions?
>
> Certainly not. You, just as the vast majority of
> people I come
> across, make the enormous error of equating a state
> with a human
> individual. Is it really necessary to explain that
> a "region"
> and a human being are two very different things?

I agree that borders need to be rethought. If capital
can pass through any border without being stopped, the
same needs to be true of labor. And we need world
standards and they need to be backed up effectively.
As far as idiots who refuse to learn how to behave
when they arrive in a new country or learn the local
language --don't hire them and don't give them
benefits. Anyone who goes to another country and
harrasses people because of gender, origin, religion,
beliefs, orientation, etc. Any organized group that
does so needs to be cut off from tax exemptions, etc.
and if they persist, be banned as a hate group--and
that includes Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims
and anyone else who makes claims that X is going to
hell and that only Y is going to heaven.

>
> > Is that a general principle, or do you make
> exceptions?
>
> Understanding that these are the rights of a human
> individual
> over his own person and property, not the rights of
> nations,
> states, or other such collectives, then I do make no
> exceptions.
>
> > > I strongly resent others presuming to set up
> borders between
> > > me and potential employers, employees, or
> business partners;
> > > landlords or tenants; teachers or students;
> providers of raw
> > > materials, arts, crafts, services, or
> entertainment; or mates,
> > > friends, or sex partners.

I agree to the point that just as you have no right to
abuse your partner. Employers have no right to abuse
employees though dangerous and hostile working
conditions and pay so low that it's impossible to make
a living. In the case of the US, they need to deport
employers who pay less than a living wage instead of
undocumented employees.

> >
> > Presumably you don't lock your door either and
> have no firewall
> > on your computer?
>
> Of course I do, because my house and my computer
> belong to me,
> and borders put up by me around person and my
> property are
> perfectly proper. However borders put up between
> you and me
> by a third party when neither of us want them, and
> maintained
> by violence and threat of violence, are certainly
> not.
>
> Did you not understand the reality behind my
> paragraph, quoted
> above, about access to products, services, etc.
> across borders?
> That is a real problem, especially here in the U.S.
> where the
> government daily interferes with U.S. citizens
> trying to employ
> citizens of Mexico. Many, probably the majority, of
> Americans,
> under the popular delusion of group rights, believe
> they somehow
> own any job opportunites that come into existence
> within U.S.
> borders. Naturally they do not, for any job belongs
> to the
> would-be employer alone, and the labor belongs to
> the would-be
> employee alone, and no third party has any right to
> interfere
> with their freely entered exchange.

There's your problem --a desperate person driven by
hunger or bankrupcy has no choice and is incapable of
a free entered exchange. So about half the US
population lives in wage slavery and can not dictate
laboral conditions.

> There are countless other examples now and
> throughout history
> of states similarly interferring with the rights of
> individuals,
> as I'm sure you well know.
>

. . .
=== message truncated ===
Well, that's that. Anarchism would be fine if it were
possible.