/liberty/ - Liberty

>>87337

>big government incentives migrants with welfare and banning of discrimination

>lol the answer is bigger government!!!1!

people naturally divide amongst themselves when given freedom. this is a problem of government forcing incompatible people together.

>>87338

>Why on earth would you consider this a bad thing?

uh, read the rest of the sentence?

>Secession from an overbearing state is liberty in its purest form, doublenigger.

only if you assume the new government will be more libertarian than the previous. there is no reason think this when the reason for succession is cultural difference. if anything, homogenous states will be able to introduce more authoritarian policies as there is greater agreement on values.

>So are you worried about communities becoming ingrown or are you worried about ethnic conflict? Because the two are mutually exclusive

what the fuck are you talking about, ethnic conflict is exactly what arises from ingrown communities that have their backs turned on each other. they come to regard themselves as belonging to a localised community rather than a national one. this is exactly the conditions for ethnic conflict.

>>87343

without government there would still be huge wage differentials which are as large if not larger than differences in benefits

>>87343

also many people argue discrimination is impossible in the free market because companies will continually rise up to steal the old customers.

>>87347

Groups that are incompatible with eachother will start conflicts, which will force them away from eachother. therefore causing seperation.

And if they are compatible then there's no problem, just let it happen.

Secessionism is liberty. That's like saying my lunch is threatened by the rise of sandwiches.

>>87346

If the secessionist movement is statist, that just means they're cutting themselves off from the rest of the country, making it more libertarian.

The French have a warped version of what liberty is, to them it's just a fancy word they throw around because people love the way it sounds. To the French, "liberty" is basically banning everything they disagree with, so in essence, it's just regular statism, it's not liberty.

>>87366

>Secessionism is liberty.

this

I don't think anybody has a problem with the adage "Your right to swing your fists ends where my face begins." In this sense, it is necessary to restrict liberty in the absolute sense to protect the basic rights of everyone else. I don't have the right to go 100mph in a residential area because it endangers the property and safety of that community and like examples.

It is generally in the best interests of a nation to write immigration policy that discourages secession and enclave formation as this would represent relative newcomers cordoning off space previously open to the free access of long-standing natives. However, I will also offer that full assimilation is not necessarily in the best interests of a host community. Many successful and helpful minority groups like the Ashkenazi Jews, the overseas Chinese, the Lebanese in diaspora, the Gujarati Indians, the Azerbaijanis, the Armenians, the Japanese in South America, and the black West Caribbean emigres become successful because they do not fully integrate into the ways of their surrounding neighbors. If they had the same attitudes towards work, thrift, and ambition then they wouldn't have the low time preference and penchant for real savings that lift their communities into prosperity over a few generations. That isn't to say they shouldn't learn the language, participate in local customs, and obey the common laws, but integrating in these fundamental manners while keeping their work ethic and family center are also assets in their economic advancement.

>>87387

You don't need a government to keep that from happening. 100mph in a neighborhood is an obvious NAP violation

>>87349

>Groups that are incompatible with eachother will start conflicts, which will force them away from eachother. therefore causing seperation.

that's what you hope would happen. i think le pen's argument is the break up of the state is a threat to liberty (presumably because smaller countries are more vulnerable to being 'swallowed up' by expansionism, either violent or in the case of eu achieved through economics)

>>87350

he said immigration / diversity was a problem caused by government, which it isn't, at least not completeely.

>>87367

not if both halves are able bring in more authoritarian policies as a result of having a more homogenous community.

or if both are equally authoritarian

>>87389

what about drunk driving? what about flying a plane with a 0.001% chance of sudden engine failure which would cause deaths on the ground?

>>87406

drunk driving yeah

how well have you maintained the engine?

use your brain

>>87405

Nowadays a single person has so much firepower war is getting too expensive, or at least it would be, if not for the fed and friends.

>…or in the case of eu achieved through economics

The EU would not be advantageous in a free society, they're powered by not nice things, same as the UN.

If you aren't willing to make the change of separating from another group you don't deserve to separate from that group. You are not allowed to commit violence for the sake of convenience.

>>87387

>because it endangers the property and safety of that community and like examples

Only direct damage to the property can be counted as a crime. You can explicitly create such limits in a certain community, but it can never become a universal principle, as it basically creates the state, imposing regulations on everyone to partially reach a certain group, while damaging everyone else many times more. Look at the gun bans, loss of privacy, despotism and totalitarianism in the end.

>>87389

>100mph in a neighborhood is an obvious NAP violation

No it's not, it can be violation of the rules of the owner(s) of the road or a community, but it is not a NAP violation in itself right untill the moment you damage someone's property. Driving fast increases chances of it, but the chances are present in practically any speed driving, it does not mean that you are not responsible for the damage you inflict.

>>87418

>how well have you maintained the engine?

there's a 0.001% chance of it failing. is it a NAP violation?

>>87420

>Nowadays a single person has so much firepower war is getting too expensive

too expensive for whom? more firepower would benefit warmongers i'd expect

>The EU would not be advantageous in a free society

and small states are less able to resist it.

relevant quote btw:

Danes have a high level of trust in the state, including as a central shaper of children’s ideology and beliefs, he said. “The Anglo-Saxon conception is that man is free in nature, and then comes the state” constraining that freedom, he said. “Our conception of freedom is the opposite, that man is only free in society.''

replace 'in society' with 'under a strong state'

>>87389

I am saying the policy makes sense with or without government.

>>87425

There's nothing wrong with a universal principle against reckless endangerment. Waiting for people to cause a disaster with negligent behavior is silly.

>women

>right

>ever

Yes.

No one has right to anything, the weak get devoured. If it wasn't the goberment that you virgins hate so much you would have already been pedovored and enslaved long time ago, you autistic, weak bitches.

>>87452

>There's nothing wrong with a universal principle against reckless endangerment.

Ever heard of victimless crimes, bro? Though you are a statist, so you'll be fine with it, i guess.

>>87337

Who knows if she is right or not? I mean my first reaction is that she is wrong, the freedom for individuals is the only meaningful kind of liberty. But she's being so vague, you could exchange "freedom" with "good" or "happiness" and the sentence would have the same meaning, individual and small group bad, everyone good. But I must ask, why is the former bad and the latter good?

>>87387

>because it endangers the property and safety of that community

what if a feminist says that you endanger her safety be having a dick and muscles?