Questioning nationalist language and "self"-determination


  Sorry to hear that you are missing some of the posts sent to the list;
that seems very odd. I hope that someone more tech-savvy than myself
can figure out why this is happening if you don't manage to solve the
problem yourself.

  The earlier post I was referring to is copied below. To further
elaborate -- it's difficult (impossible?) to speak about life without
using a frame of reference. But I feel that a national frame of
reference is just about the worst one we could choose. Why? Because
communicating in a particular frame of reference will strengthen that
worldview in people's minds.

  Given that the worst problems in the world are due to the actions of
national governments, the last thing we ought to be doing is using a
nationalist frame of reference that reinforces their hegemony.
Nationalism is the lifeblood of national governments. Without the sense
of allegiance that "their" peoples tend to feel toward them, what power
would they possess?

  Libertarianism also holds that if such things as rights exist, they
exist universally, i.e. we do not believe that rights are created by
governments. If they exist, they must exist naturally in each of us.
But the nationalist (as opposed to a globalist or universalist) frame
of reference undermines this view of the inherent and universal nature
of rights, and suggest that what rights you have ought to be a function
of which government's jurisdiction you fall under.

Yours in liberty,
              <<< Starchild >>>