Which is
apparently what you say when you're planning to
misrepresent things.
> In his article, cantwell correctly describes and
acknowledges
> the libertarian position and then DISMISSES it
and REJECTS it as
> 'not practical'.
And you
misrepresent it by referring to it as "THE libertarian
position". (emphasis mine).
It's
quite the opposite, so I wonder if you really read
Cantwell's essay, or whether you are simply deliberately
misrepresenting things.
The
truth is that Cantwell makes clear his opinion is that
some people are MIS-representing the 'open-borders'
position as being the ONLY "libertarian" position.
As Cantwell states:
" But open
borders in the presence of a command economy and
welfare state is decidedly anti-market, anti-freedom,
and anti-peace."
> "But the (good) libertarian will tend to put
principle first,
> no doubt"
> Or perhaps that was meant in a mocking tone,
which would be
> further proof that cantwell is his own parody.
I
see nothing wrong with presenting this
'pro-open-borders' position in a mocking fashion.
> Then he embarks on a pseudo-economical tangent
(conservatives
> like to pretende they know 'economics') and
introdudes the
> laughable lie that immigration to the US is
driven by state
> 'welfare'.
Depends
a lot on what you mean by "driven by". I'd say,
instead, it is "affected by state 'welfare'". In other
words, don't imply that the only factor affecting
immigration is 'welfare'. It's just a big factor.
> So cantwell knows what the libertarian position
should be and
> rejects it.
Not
at all. Cantwell knows what a SIMPLISTIC 'libertarian'
position looks like, notices the inconsistencies, and
rejects it. Not the same thing.
>
He then lies about immigration
How
does he lie about immigration?
>,
and doesn't even
> have the balls to explicitly admit that he's
nothing but the
> cheapest conservative DEFENDING THE STATE'S
BORDERS.
If
'public property' were eliminated, it would be possible
to eliminate "state's borders", converting them to
private borders. What we now know as "illegal aliens"
could be excluded not by things called "governments",
but instead by agreements among private individuals to
block entry by those people.
> Just in case : libertarianism and the state are
'incompatible'.
Libertarianism
and 'public property' are more clearly 'incompatible'
than that pair. The inconsistency is that generally,
people who advocate 'open borders' do so with the
conceit that they are maintaining a 'welfare state' and
'public property' (both non-libertarian principles, at
least not without voluntary agreements) while
simultaneously eliminating 'state borders'.
> It painfully follows that no libertarian worth
his salt would
> defend such crass statist device as the state's
borders.
I
advocate private borders upon America's adoption of
libertarian principles. That, of course, may eliminate
the concept of 'America' as a monolithic entity.