So I had a chat with with the distributist, and there were a few fundamental principles that I could not convince him of: 1.The state defines what makes a citizen. 2. The purpose of government is to increase the well being of its citizens and maintains its land borders, thus a Nationalist government best fits this role. 3. Finally is a government bound by the same morality as individuals? Specifically this is getting into if a government doesn't uphold the rights of non-citizens, is this an immoral act?
Holla Forums what do we think about these principles?
Evan Green
...
Chase Jones
While true in reality, not quite sure I'd agree with it in principle given that it's very easy to redefine who and who isn't a citizen, such as millions of arab or mexicans being German and American overnight
No, why would it be? A government should be serving the people that create the nation
Levi Thompson
His argument was that if we took control of the U.S. government and defined American citizens and needing to be white, the government would be acting immorality because it was violating citizens rights by just changing what it meant to be a citizen as a proxy to do so.
Ayden Gomez
Another self bump
Brody Turner
...
Jace Taylor
No. A government exists to uphold the rule of law as established by its foundng citizenry. If the founders of a nation sought to have white people on top, then it is the government's job to uphold this law. Much like how it is the US govt's job to uphold the Constitution. If you seek morality, then historically you look toward the Church and clergy. And since it is a Governments job to protect its citizenry, then it has no moral obligation to cater to non-citizens.
Isaiah Reyes
even the stock market should be deregulated and put in the hands of multiple ones, so the markets compete.
Xavier Garcia
Fine, just give up already and stop trying to fight against nature.
Bentley Hernandez
To further expand on this (and because I'm excited to have such an interesting thread); morality in government is the dilemma we've been facing today. Thanks to the fedora Atheist movement, we have less people today than ever that believe in God. This has lead to them looking for morals elsewhere. Typically leaving the government to fill that void, which in turn leads to a much more socialistic liberal government like we saw under the Obama administration.
Hudson Watson
You're preaching to the choir when it comes to domestic policy. Think external, think economics. Free Trade? Free movement of goods and people? Do you engage in protectionism when it comes to the businesses of your citizens? Do you automatically get rid of businesses your country can easily produce, while at the same time keeping the businesses that offer products not specific to your country (ex. hardware, food that cannot grow on your lands, certain services such as flying companies etc.)? What will you do with speculators (ex people like Soros)?
These are the questions we should focus on now. We've been circlejerking on domestic policy for ages.
Bentley Foster
Absolutely. Competition is nature's driving rule of law. The only way the government should interfere in the economy is to prevent a monopoly, which is anti-competitive. If I remember correctly, the NatSoc government of the Third Reich even upheld this because it leads to a healthy economy.
Christian Wilson
In addition, what good is a well defined domestic policy if you keep getting external elements (laws, treaties, agreements, embargos, military occupation etc.) disrupting your path to success?
Jack Perez
No and it cannot be. The state must hold the monopoly on violence, or at least the loyalty of the people, to secure its existence. If there existed some individual that would judge and execute his own law or spread anti-government thoughts then the power of the state, and its ability to defend its citizens and protect their futures, would be at risk. Now, what to do when the state is subverted is another problem and outside the range of this discussion.
Non-citizens have no rights nor privileges.
He is technically correct. What you are proposing could be considered a reforming of the law. Any reformation of the law would necessarily hinder one part of society or another. If it didn't, you wouldn't be making the change. However, the underlying assumption your friend is making is that that is a bad thing. It is not. While we are all citizens, we are not one people. A government must look after its citizens, but those citizens should be just its people. You can argue that the competition of cultures requires either the white side to win and become the sole citizens of America or the colored side to win and become the sole citizens of America. If so, then the citizens of America are already in a war with each other(and this is easy to prove through various civil rights groups). Since it is the governments duty to keep the peace, it is not wrong to remove the offenders. Even if those offenders make up 40% of the population.
Nolan Peterson
The particular context of this point was that, if we make whiteness a requirement of American citizenship than the non-whites here who don't have citizenship elsewhere, the only solution left is genocide. Thus you are removing the citizenship of citizens to legalize a genocide.
Dominic Price
Yes. It is necessary to keep the peace. Governments have to make hard decisions and sometimes that means people die. Maybe even a lot of people, but that's why we can't judge government like we do people. The only way to judge the moral actions of government is If it does then it is justified, if it doesn't then it is not. That's all. Everything, even murder, extortion, theft and so on, is OK for a government if it benefits the people.
Mason Murphy
The term citizen should never mean what the state decides citizen should refer to the native people of a region and country if you dont have a genetic ancestor buried in the ground beneath your feet at least a century old you shouldnt be there the government should exist to serve as a manner with which the people can centralise organisation of the affairs of the nation it is not the government should not be a father or a mentor or a nanny to its people it should be a physician to excise cancerous tumours when they grow in the land and the people, to give relief and quiet to sick minds and enlightenment to uninformed ones
Michael Howard
This would justify the current situation where the state imports people who are directly opposed to the people's interests. It seems that it makes much more sense for a nation state to be defined by the nation, the decedents of a specific tribe. This is ontological, you are a part of the nation because your ancestors were from that nation. The state ought to conform herself to this, and cannot define it.
This seems very reasonable, and obvious after reflection. I really really like a metaphor that's common along these lines that the state ought to act as a father.
The state ought to care about the well being of her citizens, as a father ought to care for the well being of his children. Not only is it eminently immoral for a father to harm his children it is also immoral for a father to neglect them, whether that is not providing food and shelter or not correcting their moral failings. Similarly, the state ought to work with the church (as a father works with his wife, the children's mother) to provide for the poor. The state also ought to ban and enforce bans on degeneracy and materials that are degenerate, like porn.
I should say that I don' think the state should be directly involved with the welfare "state" it leads to political calculations that should not be done with charity, and then the situation we currently have with an underclass reliant on the state, that the state has an incentive to maintain as such.
TL;DR the first one ignores what makes up a nation, the others seem just.
James Hughes
A Nationalist country must have a moralist Judaical system more than legalistic. This is to ensure the prosperity of morals within and between the people of said country. Without fundamental morals instilled from the sovereign figure, people will roam freely and degrade themselves gradually. A Nationalist country should also be economically independent as much as it can. Economic protectionism is a must to strengthen the labor force, stimulate employment, weed out weak businesses or shill businesses, stabilize a fiat currency (if you choose so, but I think a gold/silver standard currency would be ten fold better, labor based economy is a divine plan). Free trade is not going to help a Nationalist state, it will utterly harm it. Free trade is Kryptonite to any Nationalist state. Education, Health care, Media and Banking should be government programs. Here's why: 1) Education: To teach the young and the builders of future the ways of the country, and to teach them pride and loyalty to named state. They will also learn science. Real science. Not (((science))). 2) Health care: Where all pay taxes and the rich pay slightly more, but all get the same health care. That is to produce maximum ability from both the poor and the rich. 3) Media: When outsiders get a hold of your media, things go awfully wrong. Your people are divided, uncertainty fills the void of reporting, and bias grows on all branches of the media. That's why a government owned/oriented media is superior. 4) Banking: To prevent artificial increase of interest rates, and to eliminate investor whales, banking systems shouldn't be open to (((them))). We have all seen their "planned economy" and how dysfunctional it is. We've all seen how they milk an economy dry then run off with the milk unnoticed.
Liam Fisher
A Nationalist country must have a moralist Judaical system more than it is legalistic. This is to ensure the prosperity of morals within and between the people of said country. Without fundamental morals instilled from the sovereign figure, people will roam freely and degrade themselves eventually. A Nationalist country should also be economically independent as much as it can be. Economic protectionism is a must to strengthen the labor force, stimulate employment, weed out bad businesses or shill businesses, stabilize a fiat currency (if you choose so, but I think a gold/silver standard currency would be ten fold better, labor based economy is a divine plan). Free trade is not going to help a Nationalist state, it will utterly harm it. Free trade is Kryptonite to any Nationalist state. Education, Health care, Media and Banking should be government programs. Here's why: 1) Education: To teach the young and the builders of future the ways of the country, and to teach them pride and loyalty to named state. They will also learn science. Real science. Not (((science))).
2) Health care: Where all pay taxes and the rich pay slightly more, but all get the same health care. That is to produce maximum labor from both the poor and the rich.
3) Media: When outsiders get a hold of your media, things go awfully wrong. Your people are divided, uncertainty fills the void of reporting, and bias grows on all branches of the media. That's why a government owned/oriented media is superior.
4) Banking: To prevent artificial increases of interest rates, and to eliminate investor whales, banking systems shouldn't be open to (((them))). We have all seen their "planned economy" and how dysfunctional it is. We've all seen how they milk an economy dry then run off with the milk unnoticed. It must stop now and they can't stay in it.
Daniel Cox
...
Owen Diaz
Bump
Joseph Reyes
One must make a distinction between state and nation.
Jordan Lee
I define nation as the people, state as the government, and country as the geographic location.
Colton Carter
Exactly
Grayson Mitchell
A citizen and a national are not the same thing. Ideally no one would be born with citizenship and only nationals worthy enough to earn it would have it.
Lincoln Nelson
English version?
Samuel Rivera
Just google translate it. Not that much text.
Adam Edwards
Agree on the first, as the state is comprised of the most powerful men, they can enforce a standard of morals, (like ethnocentric heterosexual monogamy, for example). Second point is fine. I don't think the government is bound by the same rules, if you mean direct transfer of rights. But in regards to your specific point, yes, it is immoral if the government becomes indolent and betrays its people by not upholding their rights/freeing them up for plunder.
Connor Barnes
A state should live by the motto: the common interest before self interest. So some individual freedoms must be restricted. The sine qua non for, and basis of, the state is, always will be; the authority embodied in the will to maintain the state.
Dominic Phillips
Holla Forums is centered around these principles Gov is upheld by the ethics of it's citizens, which may stem from individual morals
Dominic Sullivan
The nation is defined on ethnic terms. The nation state needs a people and a place. In the US White, in the UK British, in Israel Jewish, etc. In order to be an independent and healthy nation you need 4 things.
1. Numerical superiority A safe and sustainable majority of the populace. Israel is 75% Jewish and has been for 70 years.
2. Cultural dominance You need to own academia, entertainment, and the public discourse. With a demoralized populace it can be subject to nearly anything.
3. Political dominance The constitution, statutes, courts, and lobbyists need to affirm the values of the nation.
4. Economic dominance The nationstate needs to make its own currency, set its own fiscal policy, and be in control of its own business sector.
