Saying that liberalism has nothing to do with nationalism shows that you lack second-order concept.
Nationalism is a direct consequent of the ideas of liberalism of self-determination and equality before the laws. Why you may ask? Because for a people to be able to take part in the political process, they have to speak the same language and act through the definition laid down by the elite, and as you can see, taking part in the political process through democracy made the people feel responsible for their nation, to not forget education that enforced the history of said nation. However this supposed nation is completely different from the one of the Ancien Régime.

No nationalism is not organic or natural at all, it is an synthetic in that it was created by the state or institutions based on a supposed "social contract" as opposed to the natural evolution of social bonds.
Never been an assimilation of a group? Once again, the French Revolution and the modern French nation is a great example on how it assimilated the historical provinces.

My main beef with nationalism is how it ruin traditional nations by homogenizing historical peoples as opposed to having several national identities.

Free market is a subset of capitalism. Yes, there have been many depressions but I am talking about major ones, because they are documented, and they had a large effect.
Protectionism is like creating a wall around house. You cannot go out and make use of opportunities, but you also prevent risk of bad people hurting you. In Free Marketers' or Liberalists theory, somehow there are no bad people.

And also, I don't think Bible says that a man confused about his sexuality, wearing tattoos and ornaments in an attempt to look like what he is not, could hex anything.

@名被盜 Tribes existed, common identity existed, always, there is a reason we to this day have distinct populations. History disagrees with you on this point.

Nationalism: That the native population have sovereignty (important here) over the homeland, and maintaining a shared identity.

-> sovereignty allows for self determination, people can choose to live under a monarchy they can and have had nationalistic ties. Monarchy is not necessarily antithetical to nationalism and never was. This is also part of self determination. Nationalism does not mandate any equality in the eyes of the law.

(Takes 2 examples -> This is nationalism reee) No its not, Nationalism maintains that there is some form of homogeneity and it does enforce it, yes, however just because nations that were rather diverse originally exacted this idea, not in the name of nationalism necessarily, does not mean nationalism is against the nation itself. For example Polish nationalism did not lead to the extermination of Kaszubians, or Silesian dilects and cultures or genetic groups. They exist and are doing quite well.

You are trying to argue a monarchistic view on nationalism that is brutally skewed, you are denying human nature by doing so. The things you describe is not assimilation it is, as I said, extermination. Assimilation and integration are the greatest lie of the 21st century, literally this is an almost impossible feat. If I have to go and force people to speak the same language, to think the same way, its no longer assimilation. Its convert or die, and usually these regions maintain some sense of autonomy and difference. Bavaria is another example of this incapacity for assimilation. Also the sorbs etc.

nationalism is -> Bigger tribalism. It is the natural consequence of a growing population. It is the idea of a culture that spans a massive region and the natural consequence of a culture doing this. Notice how for example in Poland you have so many sub identities that still consider themselves polish. Those are the descendants of the Lechite tribe, forming smaller tribes however they understand themselves as Polish rather than say, Pomorzanie or Silesians exclusively.

liberalism also necessarily breaks apart the nation and nationalism and any common identity, what we see today and call liberalism is largely a result and logical conclusion of the original liberalism.

@名被盜 Even if self-determination is your definition of nationalism (which is not a bad definition, by the way, it's somewhat of an accurate one), your point still fails.

What we know as nationalism originated from the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, yes, but the concept of self-determination has existed long before that. Do we need to go over examples of this in history? Nobody rebelled against someone else so their people could enjoy self-determination and national sovereignty? Really? The wars Jews fought against the Romans were examples of this?

"Nations has existed yes, but that does not mean nationalism did... "
Funnily enough, I never said this. Unless it's a response to the other guy. I'm sorry but I'm not responding to the majority this, there's nothing of value here. Just silly semantics and you trying to make yourself look like you know more than you actually do.

You're telling us we have a poor understanding of the subject while you argue using a definition that disproves your own point and lends more credibility to your opponent.

gay

no u

gay

no u

gay

no u

no u

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***(Spooky) Koninos#1229 was muted***

gay

no u

no u

gay

no u

@everyone Daily Question 🔖

Should age caps/limits be imposed on congressmen?

Unless they are in bad mental state i would say they are fine to serve, more experience even

Preferably yes, I think it should cap at 80

Beyond 80 it's just awkward

They're too old to have perfect motor function

Eh, I'm of the opposite opinion. No cap, but the minimum should be raised.

Why raised?

To what age?

25 year olds don't have enough stake in society (usually).

Isn't it 30 for rep

Cap at 70

And 35 for Senate

Minimum should be like 30 or something

I just looked. 25 for rep, 30 for senator

Ah

Up those by 5 each

And you have optimal age

Imo

Age is really not of my concern. You could be 50 for all I care and you should have no right to vote or hold office. If you don't have stake in the collective future of your nation, then you shouldn't be telling others how. You should be required to have children, really.

>you must have children to get your rights

Seems genius

Maybe that would be useful in social democracies but not in America