On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 21:17:27 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:21:27 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea. https://christophercantwell.com/2015/09/28/open-borders-or-market-immigratio...
So, to wrap this 'issue' up : Which is apparently what you say when you're planning to misrepresent things.]
I am not misrepresenting anything. So now you are just outright lying, like cantwell eh.
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".
Again, I am not misrepresenting anything. Perhaps YOU need to really read the article. cuntwell is the the typical "but-who-will-pick-the-cotton" 'practical' advocate of slavery. Or state borders in the case.
(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.
I am not misrepresenting anything. Your saying so obviously doesn't make it so.
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.
Respect for individual rights is indeed the only libertarian position. Support for the fascist american state (cuntwell's position) is the exact opposite of the 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."
That's yet another mental vomit from cuntwell. His stating that sort of nonsense doesn't make it true though.
"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.
cuntwell is mocking the principled libertarians because they are not 'practical' - Did I mention that cuntwell subscribes to the "but-who-will-pick-the-cotton" variety of political anti 'philosophy'?
> 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'".
And you'd be parroting cuntwell's lie.
In other words, don't imply that the only factor affecting immigration is 'welfare'. It's just a big factor.
You parroting conservative propaganda only means that you parrot conservative propaganda.
> 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.
Sure, the real 'consistent' libertarian position is to lie and support the borders of the fascist american state. Hey Jim you really are an 'anarchist' eh. And what really makes you a real anarchist is your support for the current american state. So, the principled and libertarian rejection of state borders is according to you 'simplistic' and not really libertarian. Pathetic.
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,
The idea that every single square foot of land is going to be owned by americunt fascists is nonsense at so many levels. And notice how you go from whining about real principled libertarianism not being 'practical' to invoking a complete utopian or I should say dystopian scenario. But in the real world there's unowned land and common land. And lots of land WRONGFULLY owned by 'private' criminals.
it would be possible to eliminate "state's borders", converting them to private borders.
Houses have private borders. Not countries.
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'
No, public and UN-owned land are not incompatible with libertarianism at all whereas the state is, fuckingly obviously, the quintessential enemy of freedom. But at this point your game is pretty much over.
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.
At this point, I don't really give a damn about what you advocate. It's rather clear that your understanding of libertarian philosophy is null and void.
That, of course, may eliminate the concept of 'America' as a monolithic entity.
Oh yes. It would replace the american state with a conglomorate led by google and general dynamics, among other Heroes of the Free Randroid Fascist Market. Jim Bell