Juan, I'm still waiting for you to justify your claim that Christopher Cantwell isn't a libertarian.  Your merely pointing to his assertion that libertarians shouldn't be (or need not be) in favor of open borders, simply highlights which side of the argument you are on:  It doesn't say that Cantwell is necessarily wrong.   It would help your position immensely if you could point to a substantial number of positions Cantwell has taken which libertarians would generally agree that contradict libertarian philosophy.
I suggest you read  https://christophercantwell.com/2015/12/06/why-libertarians-are-hopeless/    which I include a segment of, below.   I suspect you are exactly the kind of problem that Cantwell is referring to:  People of the left who are simply pretending to be "libertarian".  

×

             Jim Bell

[partial quote below]

Why Libertarians Are Corrupted By The Left

I should again explain, I am discussing libertarians, not libertarianism. The following critique would rightly be met with complaints by well read Rothbardians as containing a great many falsehoods. I have made these complaints repeatedly myself.
In their efforts to grow their numbers, and in the face of perpetual frustrations in getting wolves and rabbits to shrug off their evolutionary psychology, libertarian groups have resorted to recruiting non-libertarians into their ranks. This presumably was perceived as a competitive advantage in a political system which favors numbers over reasoned arguments or factual correctness.
In the course of so doing, it is my perception that leftists are particularly more prone to swing toward libertarian social circles than rightists, due primarily to a lack of ingroup preference. It is not that they become libertarians or suddenly shrug off their rodent like evolutionary psychology. They are simply more prone to novelty seeking ,and lack any group loyalty or attachment to any particular idea. They are still rodents, but they realize they can have a higher social status in this smaller group than in their larger openly left wing group. A left libertarian blogger may become the envy of his left libertarian peers, but would accomplish absolutely nothing when competing against the vast expanse of mainstream liberal media.
The rightist on the other hand is less prone to novelty seeking, has a higher ingroup preference, and is more averse to radical changes in the existing social and economic order. Additionally, he is aware that his inferior numbers make his absence in a democratic contest far more consequential than that of the leftist. So he is far more averse to radically altering his thinking, his social circles, or his political activity to favor a more libertarian order.
Thus, while libertarianism as a well thought out philosophy would be more appealing to the rightist than the leftist, the leftist gains undue influence in the libertarian social and political scene. That leftist influence dilutes the body of thought as left tainted media is produced and distracts from the writings of the Rothbards and Hoppes of the world. They focus on equality and diversity, which are not libertarian goals in the slightest. They will favor recruiting women and non-whites into libertarian scenes, even as these demographics tend to work against libertarian goals. More leftists are attracted to the left tainted libertarian media, and so more leftists are introduced into the social and political circles and thus the cycle perpetuates itself to a point where economics are barely even part of the discussion, and instead it descends into senseless race baiting, feminism, and dare I incur the ire of my regular readers by saying it, irrational hatred of military and law enforcement.

[end of partial quote]


From: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com>
To: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>; cp <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: "right" vs permission, to immigrate - "Japan: No Muslims, no terrorists"

From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>



On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:22:45 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Sorry, but I very much disagree.  Based on the limited amount of
>> information I've read, from
>> http://morelibertynow.com/fsp-cantwell/    he is more accurately a
>> libertarian than those who expelled him from the "Free State
>> Project".  

>    Thay may be the case. A 'free' state is pretty much a
>    contradicion in terms. But hasn't cantwell joined that
>    contradictory organization? 


I don't try to deny that it would be possible to design a society that is more free than what we have.

 >   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".  The issue is, how do we improve society?  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), 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?  If you can't imagine that, you're the problem.
 
>> Quoting  the article:   "Just a few days after this news broke, Chris
>> wrote a blog post in which he said that “the answer [to things like
>> the Bearcat issue], at some point, is to kill government agents” and
>> “any level of force necessary for anyone to stop any government agent
>> from furthering said coercion [tax collection in the context of
>> funding the salaries of all government employees] is morally
>> justifiable.” Nothing wrong with that, from a Libertarian
>> perspective.  


>    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".
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.


>    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.
    

>> 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.


> 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?   Let me point out that if the NIOFP was so obviously limited and flawed, 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.  
   

>>  And I see no legitimate restriction that such a threat must be
>> "immediate", at least not if it credible.In other words, if a
>> government agent threatens to later come to you, with his buddies,
>> and kill you if you don't pay your taxes, the FSP apparently believes
>> it is somehow to be considered a violation of NIOFP if YOU kill him.
>>  Somehow, you're obligated to let HIM show up, with dozens of his
>> colleagues, at which point self-defense amounts to suicide.


>    Well, state agents are in a category of their own, true.
   
   

>> In my
>> view, a credible threat of use of force or fraud against a person
>> amounts to the use of force against him, and justifies whatever level
>> of self-defense (including lethal self-defense) he chooses to employ.


>    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 consider that non-libertarian government,

>    There's no such thing as 'libertarian' government anyway.

Not currently, but it's not impossible in theory.  A government which didn't violate NIOFP would constitute a "libertarian government".  I'll let you think about how that might be possible.


>> merely by its existence,
>> amounts to such an ever-present threat of force.   Christopher
>> Cantwell, far from not being a Libertarian, is actually much more
>> accurately a libertarian

>    Actually ALL government including fake 'libertarian' government
>   operates on that principle. But notice that the fake
>    libertarians of the free STATE project, cantwell included until
>    he was kicked out,  seem to have problems with very basic
>    logical consistency.

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.


>    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.


                           Jim Bell