On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 05:46:12 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't try to deny that it would be possible to design a society that is more free than what we have.
No doubt things could be better, but I wouldn't word it that way. I am not into designing societies, something that doesn't sound too different from central planning.
> At any rate, it's quite absurd for any consistent (that is
anarchist) libertarian to defend the STATE'S borders. Even advocates of 'limited' statism don't have any legitimate argument to defend the state's borders.
The issue isn't "defending the state's borders".
I think it completely is. A couple of messages ago you stated "This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea. " Just in case it is not obvious enough : you are either for open borders, or not. And if you are not for open borders, then you are supporting the absurd, wholly anti-libertarian claim that a gang of thieves and murdereres - the state - has 'jurisdiction' over land and people.
The issue is, how do we improve society?
Again, I wouldn't put it that way. I am not an utilitarian nor a socialist. 'Society' is a rather blury concept if seen from the point of view of individuals are their natural rights.
It is possible to make changes which are good, which will make things better, which fall short of complete perfection. But it is also possible to imagine making changes which will make things worse. If you are really trying to achieve a free society (or a freer society),
You would never defend the state's borders, or lend the slightest support to the idea that the state can create a concentration camp - and that's what borders are for.
can you imagine that letting in a few hundred million people, mostly from societies that have little or no respect for rights, might make things worse?
You can't be seriously saying that. No respect for rights? you mean fucking american psychos from the baking mafia and the military, who are raping the whole world? Again, are you and cantwell going to DEPORT all your jew-kristian religious fanatics who also happen to be pure blood 'legal' 'american' 'citizens'? I'm hoping you won't ignore this little problem and show some consistency.
If you can't imagine that, you're the problem.
Actually, considering what you are saying, you and cantwell are the problem...Especially cantwell.
I mostly agree, though I don't think it's OK to use any amount of force to stop any crime. Force has to be proportional.
This amounts to you saying that YOU would prefer that "force should be proportional".
Yes, BUT, I would prefer that force be proportional because it is the only reasonable and justified aproach. It's not a matter of arbitrary, 'subjective' preference. So force SHOULD be proportional as a matter of 'objective' morality.
The NIOFP doesn't require proportional force. You are entitled to state your preferences. You are not entitled to force your preferences on everyone else.
"The NIOFP doesn't require proportional force." Did you get that from the bible? Or any other 'authority'? Actually common sense morality DOES require proportionality. It should be self evident...
Though in the case of attacks by state agents, they are likely to escalate so ultimately the only form of self-defense might be to kill them.
Exactly.
But that's in the case of state agents, not a general rule.
Libertarian philosophy generally has, at its heart, the Non Initiation of Force and Fraud Principle (NIOFP). Above, Jody adds the peculiar limitation to self-defense: "According to Jody Underwood, only violence in immediate defense of life or limb actually counts as self-defense." Adding the portion "in immediate defense of life or limb" is the trick.
> The wording may be muddled, but I assume she is referring to > proportional self-defense. You know, for instance, you can't > execute on the spot your neighbor's kid if he steps on your > lawn.
But the NIOFP doesn't restrict the level of force. YOU would do that.
Of course basic moral and 'libertarian' principles restrict the level of force. Even yourself acknowledge that, despite arguing for the opposite nonsensical position here. Or are you saying that you are going to pull a gun on anybody who you *think* is attacking you? If somebody tries to cheat you by any means or amount, you are going to execute him on the spot? Are you that crazy?
Libertarian philosophy doesn't restrict self-defense of physical force against a human body; theft of his property is plenty to allow self-defense.
> Yes, you can defend yourself against theft, but you can't > automatically go around killing people even if they are > thieves.
Who says?
I and any sane person do. So you are stating that you are a trigger happy psycho, out of a hollywood movie, or out of the americunt army?
Let me point out that if the NIOFP was so obviously limited and flawed,
What is obviously limited and flawed is your understanding of the so called NAP. If you don't use proportional force then YOU become the aggressor.
libertarians would have long ago modified it to include an explicit set of restrictions. I have heard of none. And looking at the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle , I see virtually no discussion of that issue.
So your understanding of libertarianism comes from wikipedia's 'authority'? That would explain a lot...
Not in general. Just do a reduction ad absurdum. Are you saying that if somebody 'threatens' to swindle you for, say, 20 dollars, you can use 'lethal self defense' against him?. Even if somebody *actually* swindles you, you can't kill him in 'self defense'.
Are you saying that YOU get to decide that limitation for ME, and everyone else?!?Please tell us who died and made you king.
I get to decide the limitation for ME. That is, you cannot attack ME (or anybody else) with the crazy and criminal excuse that you are 'defending' yourself. Then again, that's typically american isnt eh? You murder everybody in a 'preemtive strike' as 'self defense'.
I consider that non-libertarian government,
There's no such thing as 'libertarian' government anyway.
Not currently, but it's not impossible in theory.
It IS impossible in theory and your stating otherwise shows that your understanding of libertarian theory is...flawed.
A government which didn't violate NIOFP would constitute
It would not be a government in any sense of the word. But of course, given your (lack of) understanding of the NAP, you probably would allow your 'libertarian' government to attack anywone who 'threatened' it. People who didn't respecet 'copyright' would be executed, for instance?
a "libertarian government". I'll let you think about how that might be possible.
It is you who should be doing a lot of thinking about libertarian principles.
I'm not defending the FSP. Maybe they are simply trying to improve on society, and not holding it to extreme standards which they don't think are possible.
You are defending cantwell who was a member of the FSP until he was kicked. Thing is, they are all statists, despite any alleged intention to 'improve society'.
But anyway, I thought the topic was open borders. So to sum up. Anybody who defends the state's borders is NOT a libertarian. Does cantwell argue against open borders? So he is NOT a libertarian.
A person who advocates an improvement to today's society can do so without claiming that such an improvement achieves perfect libertarianism. It's you who set up that strawman.
lolwut? I didn't setup any 'strawman' - I simply dealt with the groundless, anti-libertarian claim that open borders are not libertarian. They are, and anybody who opposes open borders is NOT a libertarian. Cantwell being a perfect example of a right wing, pro-state, anti-libertarian idiot. J.
Jim Bell