"right" vs permission, to immigrate - "Japan: No Muslims, no terrorists"
I've heard at least one "libertarian utopian" position that movement of humans, i.e. emmigration and immigration, ought be by the free will of the individual human(s). Japan is a useful information point in this debate, and the following article lays out the Japanese experience with respect to immigration to Japan, and in particular, Japan's treatment of Islamic immigration to Japan. In an era where many in the West proudly proclaim that race and cultural heritage are nothing but social constructs, Japan provides a compelling counter point to what some might term "neo-liberal hogwash". In the past, attempts to engage this particular discussion come up pretty short, with flippant rejection of the 'cultural desires' of large portions of the population of many countries; certainly we live in interesting times.. Japan: No Muslims, no terrorists https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2016/01/04/japan-no-mu... There is a simple reason we never read about jihadi attacks in Japan. There are no Muslims there. No Muslims, no terrorists. This is a significant data point in the public debate over Muslim immigration. Donald Trump, of course, has famously proposed a suspension of Islamic immigration until we can figure out a way to screen out jihadis, and Franklin Graham is backing that suggestion to the hilt. The primary God-given role of government is to keep us safe. According to Romans 13, this involves the use of lethal force, when necessary, to administer justice and to protect our national security. The number-one fear today among the American people is a Muslim terror attack. It is our government's chief responsibility to enact whatever public policies are necessary to reduce that fear and eliminate the threat. This means there is much we can learn from Japan, which has been virtually free from Islamic unrest. Simple demographics tell the story. Dr. Mordechai Kedar, writing in The Jewish Press, offers some of the details (emphasis mine throughout): This country keeps a very low profile on all levels regarding the Muslim matter: On the diplomatic level, senior political figures from Islamic countries almost never visit Japan, and Japanese leaders rarely visit Muslim countries. The relations with Muslim countries are based on concerns such as oil and gas, which Japan imports from some Muslim countries. The official policy of Japan is not to give citizenship to Muslims who come to Japan, and even permits for permanent residency are given sparingly to Muslims. Japan is a nation of roughly 126 million people. And yet, according to Dr. Kedar, there are only 10,000 Muslims in the entire country. This represents less than one hundredth of one percent. (Other estimates are higher, but none suggest a number above 100,000.) Muslim immigration is officially and culturally discouraged, and a Japanese woman who marries a Muslim man becomes a social outcast. Contrast this with many European nations who have allowed Muslims with their death-to-the-West ideology to reach 5 to 10 percent of their populations. In France, authorities were relieved disaffected Muslim teenagers only torched 804 cars on New Year's Eve, down from over 900 the year before. These young devotees of the religion of peace also managed to blow up a public Christmas tree in between firebombing automobiles, and the mere threat of a Muslim terror attack shut down a huge fireworks display in Brussels. Islamic proselytization is forbidden in Japan, it is very difficult to import Qur'ans into the country, and there are very few mosques. In Japan, Muslim men are expected to pray at home, not in mosques or in the middle of the street as they do in France. Islamic organizations are not allowed, so the Japanese do not have to deal with the incessant stream of propaganda coming from pro-jihadi groups like CAIR. There is only one imam in Tokyo, a city of over 13 million people. Virtually the only Muslims who are in Japan come as employees of foreign companies. And even that is the exception rather than the rule. "The official policy of the Japanese authorities is to make every effort not to allow entry to Muslims, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region." The Japanese have a patriotic pride in Japanese exceptionalism, Japanese culture and Japanese traditions, and instinctively recognize that enculturating Islam threatens all that because its value system is so antithetical to what makes Japan Japan. The resistance to Islamic infiltration is universally shared by the populace at large. "Japan manages to remain a country almost without a Muslim presence because Japan's negative attitude toward Islam and Muslims pervades every level of the population, from the man in the street to organizations and companies to senior officialdom." What's more, because the Japanese are proud of who and what they are, and because of their allegiance to their own cultural values, they are utterly unapologetic about their resistance to Islam. "The most interesting thing in Japan's approach to Islam is the fact that the Japanese do not feel the need to apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they relate to Islam." Geert Wilders, the Dutch Parliamentarian who has led the worldwide effort to tell the truth about Islam, has said that Western nations must rediscover the vast superiority of Christian civilization over Islamic civilization, and take a justifiable pride in the Christian heritage of their own country before they are swept beneath the waves of the Muslim tsunami now sweeping over Europe and America. Concluded Dr. Kedar, "Japan is teaching the whole world an interesting lesson: there is a direct correlation between national heritage and permission to immigrate: a people that has a solid and clear national heritage and identity will not allow the unemployed of the world to enter its country; and a people whose cultural heritage and national identity is weak and fragile, has no defense mechanisms to prevent a foreign culture from penetrating into its country and its land." Taking humble and grateful pride once again in what God has done to make America the most exceptional nation in history is not only the right thing to do, it is the safest thing to do. -- * Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R) * Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning * Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values: http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a... * How Liberal Lefties view the world: http://bbs.dailystormer.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/0/4/042cb95724339d5...
Or perhaps it's simply because Japan's efforts in the middle east are limited to Humanitarian aid. Makes it far harder to find victims willing to get angry at the Japanese when they're not dropping bombs. And "no terrorists" is taking it a bit far. No jihadi's maybe, but Japan has had it's own share of terrorism in the past. On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
I've heard at least one "libertarian utopian" position that movement of humans, i.e. emmigration and immigration, ought be by the free will of the individual human(s).
Japan is a useful information point in this debate, and the following article lays out the Japanese experience with respect to immigration to Japan, and in particular, Japan's treatment of Islamic immigration to Japan.
In an era where many in the West proudly proclaim that race and cultural heritage are nothing but social constructs, Japan provides a compelling counter point to what some might term "neo-liberal hogwash".
In the past, attempts to engage this particular discussion come up pretty short, with flippant rejection of the 'cultural desires' of large portions of the population of many countries; certainly we live in interesting times..
Japan: No Muslims, no terrorists https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/ 2016/01/04/japan-no-muslims-no-terrorists
There is a simple reason we never read about jihadi attacks in Japan. There are no Muslims there. No Muslims, no terrorists.
This is a significant data point in the public debate over Muslim immigration. Donald Trump, of course, has famously proposed a suspension of Islamic immigration until we can figure out a way to screen out jihadis, and Franklin Graham is backing that suggestion to the hilt.
The primary God-given role of government is to keep us safe. According to Romans 13, this involves the use of lethal force, when necessary, to administer justice and to protect our national security.
The number-one fear today among the American people is a Muslim terror attack. It is our government's chief responsibility to enact whatever public policies are necessary to reduce that fear and eliminate the threat.
This means there is much we can learn from Japan, which has been virtually free from Islamic unrest. Simple demographics tell the story.
Dr. Mordechai Kedar, writing in The Jewish Press, offers some of the details (emphasis mine throughout):
This country keeps a very low profile on all levels regarding the Muslim matter: On the diplomatic level, senior political figures from Islamic countries almost never visit Japan, and Japanese leaders rarely visit Muslim countries. The relations with Muslim countries are based on concerns such as oil and gas, which Japan imports from some Muslim countries. The official policy of Japan is not to give citizenship to Muslims who come to Japan, and even permits for permanent residency are given sparingly to Muslims.
Japan is a nation of roughly 126 million people. And yet, according to Dr. Kedar, there are only 10,000 Muslims in the entire country. This represents less than one hundredth of one percent. (Other estimates are higher, but none suggest a number above 100,000.) Muslim immigration is officially and culturally discouraged, and a Japanese woman who marries a Muslim man becomes a social outcast.
Contrast this with many European nations who have allowed Muslims with their death-to-the-West ideology to reach 5 to 10 percent of their populations. In France, authorities were relieved disaffected Muslim teenagers only torched 804 cars on New Year's Eve, down from over 900 the year before. These young devotees of the religion of peace also managed to blow up a public Christmas tree in between firebombing automobiles, and the mere threat of a Muslim terror attack shut down a huge fireworks display in Brussels.
Islamic proselytization is forbidden in Japan, it is very difficult to import Qur'ans into the country, and there are very few mosques. In Japan, Muslim men are expected to pray at home, not in mosques or in the middle of the street as they do in France. Islamic organizations are not allowed, so the Japanese do not have to deal with the incessant stream of propaganda coming from pro-jihadi groups like CAIR. There is only one imam in Tokyo, a city of over 13 million people.
Virtually the only Muslims who are in Japan come as employees of foreign companies. And even that is the exception rather than the rule. "The official policy of the Japanese authorities is to make every effort not to allow entry to Muslims, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region."
The Japanese have a patriotic pride in Japanese exceptionalism, Japanese culture and Japanese traditions, and instinctively recognize that enculturating Islam threatens all that because its value system is so antithetical to what makes Japan Japan.
The resistance to Islamic infiltration is universally shared by the populace at large. "Japan manages to remain a country almost without a Muslim presence because Japan's negative attitude toward Islam and Muslims pervades every level of the population, from the man in the street to organizations and companies to senior officialdom."
What's more, because the Japanese are proud of who and what they are, and because of their allegiance to their own cultural values, they are utterly unapologetic about their resistance to Islam. "The most interesting thing in Japan's approach to Islam is the fact that the Japanese do not feel the need to apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they relate to Islam."
Geert Wilders, the Dutch Parliamentarian who has led the worldwide effort to tell the truth about Islam, has said that Western nations must rediscover the vast superiority of Christian civilization over Islamic civilization, and take a justifiable pride in the Christian heritage of their own country before they are swept beneath the waves of the Muslim tsunami now sweeping over Europe and America.
Concluded Dr. Kedar, "Japan is teaching the whole world an interesting lesson: there is a direct correlation between national heritage and permission to immigrate: a people that has a solid and clear national heritage and identity will not allow the unemployed of the world to enter its country; and a people whose cultural heritage and national identity is weak and fragile, has no defense mechanisms to prevent a foreign culture from penetrating into its country and its land."
Taking humble and grateful pride once again in what God has done to make America the most exceptional nation in history is not only the right thing to do, it is the safest thing to do.
-- * Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R) * Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning * Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values: http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish- pornography-used-as-a-weapon-against-gentiles/ * How Liberal Lefties view the world: http://bbs.dailystormer.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/0/4/ 042cb95724339d5df43eab11e5e714e506dadc7e_1_600x329.jpg
-- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Ben Tasker <ben@bentasker.co.uk> wrote:
Or perhaps it's simply because Japan's efforts in the middle east are limited to Humanitarian aid. Makes it far harder to find victims willing to get angry at the Japanese when they're not dropping bombs.
Oh, you know, our tradition is being bombed, not drop the bombs! ;) And "no terrorists" is taking it a bit far.
Sincerely? An article that mentions "No Muslims, no terrorism" in its title and defends this racist idea, this disgusting kind of prejudice, was completely too far, not just a bit far.
No jihadi's maybe, but Japan has had it's own share of terrorism in the past.
Correct, we had some terrorist attacks in Japan in the past and some of them were pretty cruel because they used chemical weapons in closed places with few chances of escape, like the subway, and tried to attack the buildings where the Japanese government is located. Sad... :(( Oh, Lord, Zzz was able to send to our list a fascist article which last paragraph is: " Taking humble and grateful pride once again in what God has done to make America the most exceptional nation in history is not only the right thing to do, it is the safest thing to do." Yeah, copying a idiot and very racist Japanese concept ('Sakoku', in nihongo/Japanese language) will really help God to make the USA "the most exceptional nation in History". The racist moron who wrote this article is so stupid and disgusting as the prejudiced jerk who sent this small-minded and intolerant garbage to a cypherpunk list.
Just a little fun and pretty OT observation... ;) All the times when I criticize Zzz's racist posture or lack of intelligence in this list, an interesting 'coincidence' always happens: - I receive much more spam than usual. At least three times more, usually. :) It always makes me smile because it means he read my message, felt the burn and is showing me his true colors. Always coward anonymous attacks, because has no _rational_ arguments to justify his own ideas in public and no courage to talk to me. Why are all the racists so coward?
An article that mentions "No Muslims, no terrorism" in its title [...] racist ...
Islam is not a biological race (though after 1350 years it probably is). As with all religions, what it *is* should make you laugh... in particular at the ridiculous ways in which they all are adopted, followed, hypocritized and twisted by their claimed believers, adherants, judges, proselytizers and executives, executioners and tax collectors, etc.
On Dec 22, 2016 3:59 PM, "grarpamp" <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
An article that mentions "No Muslims, no terrorism" in its title [...]
racist ...
Islam is not a biological race (though after 1350 years it probably is).
Sorry, dear, you are very correct and I can explain my strange mistake. :P Here, in my country, we use the adjective 'racist' only when happens discrimination against a race. When we talk about discrimination against creeds or origins, we use the adjective 'prejudiced'. In the last months, because of all the Trump news, I was finding a lot of texts in English using 'racist' to make reference to any kind of discrimination, against Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, LGBT, etc. It doesn't make much sense in Latin languages, but when I asked about it to a North American friend whether this use was correct, he said it was pretty usual to call 'racist' an anti-semitic person, for example. Until I know, prejudice against Jews is terribly stupid, but it is not racism. The same about prejudice against Muslims. It is not racism, but a horrible prejudice against a creed. Prejudice against someone's origins (Mexicans, for example) is not racism too. :P Sorry for the confusion and thanks for the lesson, my dear! Now I learned how to express correctly my revolt against prejudiced people, aww... Pretty sweet of you! <3 On Dec 22, 2016 3:59 PM, "grarpamp" <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
An article that mentions "No Muslims, no terrorism" in its title [...] racist ...
Islam is not a biological race (though after 1350 years it probably is). As with all religions, what it *is* should make you laugh... in particular at the ridiculous ways in which they all are adopted, followed, hypocritized and twisted by their claimed believers, adherants, judges, proselytizers and executives, executioners and tax collectors, etc.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
Pretty sweet of you!
Not really, because I failed to note that even defining biological race is hard. The real term is just people being assholes to other [loosely] definable groups of people. But no worries, we all do it, it's in the DNA. Which is what makes the hypocrisy of SJW a bit silly. And the wars among worlds peoples often happen. And makeout sessions while in the shower with someone different all the more hotter.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 02:31:19PM +0000, Ben Tasker wrote:
Or perhaps it's simply because Japan's efforts in the middle east are limited to Humanitarian aid. Makes it far harder to find victims willing to get angry at the Japanese when they're not dropping bombs.
And "no terrorists" is taking it a bit far. No jihadi's maybe, but Japan has had it's own share of terrorism in the past.
Speaking of the middle east, a quote that resonates personally: "Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." - John Sheehan, S.J. (Jesuit priest) URL with photo of this man and quote: http://bbs.dailystormer.com/t/retiring-from-the-forum/74918/115
On 01/04/2017 08:35 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 02:31:19PM +0000, Ben Tasker wrote:
Or perhaps it's simply because Japan's efforts in the middle east are limited to Humanitarian aid. Makes it far harder to find victims willing to get angry at the Japanese when they're not dropping bombs.
And "no terrorists" is taking it a bit far. No jihadi's maybe, but Japan has had it's own share of terrorism in the past. Speaking of the middle east, a quote that resonates personally:
"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." - John Sheehan, S.J. (Jesuit priest)
URL with photo of this man and quote: http;//bbs,dailystormer,com/t/retiring-from-the-forum/74918/115
The Jesuits are the military and spying wing of the Vatican. A hella set of credentials. The Jesuits and Israel are on EXACTLY the same page. Catholicism is Christianity's Zionism. A Fascist socio-politcal leech on an ostensibly spiritual religion. Much as Neonazis are leeches on whatever host society they infest. Rr
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 21:11:07 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
The Jesuits and Israel are on EXACTLY the same page. Catholicism is Christianity's Zionism. A Fascist socio-politcal leech on an ostensibly spiritual religion.
What a sick piece of shit you are rayzer - why don't you join some commmie 'religious' 'community'? That would the sort of 'spiritual' fascist cesspool where the likes of you thrive. You could run a concentration camp in soviet russia...or cuba.
Much as Neonazis are leeches on whatever host society they infest.
speaking of leeeches...
Rr
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 03:06:28PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:56:29 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
The primary God-given role of government is to keep us safe.
fuck you.
To be sure, I agree with you, that was a quote of course. I am not the author of that article. -- * Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R) * Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning * Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values: http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a... * How Liberal Lefties view the world: http://bbs.dailystormer.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/0/4/042cb95724339d5...
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
I've heard at least one "libertarian utopian" position that movement of humans, i.e. emmigration and immigration, ought be by the free will of the individual human(s).
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... Jim Bell
On Dec 20, 2016, at 4:21 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
I've heard at least one "libertarian utopian" position that movement of humans, i.e. emmigration and immigration, ought be by the free will of the individual human(s).
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...
Jim Bell
"Fuck The Border" A friend of mine dropped me a line, it said, "man, I gotta run to the USA. I got no money, got no job." She skipped out of Mexico to stay alive. You've got a problem with her living here, but what did you do to help her before she fucking came? What did the country do? What did the people do? I stand not by my country, but by people of the whole fucking world. No fences, no borders. Free movement for all. Fuck the border. It's about fucking time to treat people with respect. It's our culture and consumption that makes her life unbearable. Fuck this country; its angry eyes, its knee-jerk hordes. Legal or illegal, watch her fucking go. She'll take what's hers. Watch her fucking go. Fuck the border.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:31 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
*"Fuck The Border"* A friend of mine dropped me a line, it said, "man, I gotta run to the USA. I got no money, got no job." She skipped out of Mexico to stay alive. You've got a problem with her living here, but what did you do to help her before she fucking came? What did the country do? What did the people do? I stand not by my country, but by people of the whole fucking world. No fences, no borders. Free movement for all. Fuck the border. It's about fucking time to treat people with respect. It's our culture and consumption that makes her life unbearable. Fuck this country; its angry eyes, its knee-jerk hordes. Legal or illegal, watch her fucking go. She'll take what's hers. Watch her fucking go. Fuck the border.
https://youtu.be/x3eQv9YC6NI :) http://propagandhi.com/lyrics/empires/ "*Some people have to stay and fight for survival in the country they live in while others have to leave to survive. Corporations cross international borders all the time in search of people to exploit for profit and no one stops them. They call it globalization. On the other hand, the victims of corporate domination are told that they can’t cross borders in search of better lives, and are forced to stay and deal with the social, economic and environmental messes the companies leave behind when they inevitably move their operations to places with even more “favourable business climates” (re: lower wages, lax environmental laws, tax breaks). Looks like capitalism and human-rights don’t mix."*
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 04:31:34PM -0500, John Newman wrote:
On Dec 20, 2016, at 4:21 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
I've heard at least one "libertarian utopian" position that movement of humans, i.e. emmigration and immigration, ought be by the free will of the individual human(s).
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...
Jim Bell
"Fuck The Border"
A friend of mine dropped me a line, it said, "man, I gotta run to the USA. I got no money, got no job." She skipped out of Mexico to stay alive. You've got a problem with her living here, but what did you do to help her before she fucking came? What did the country do? What did the people do? I stand not by my country, but by people of the whole fucking world. No fences, no borders. Free movement for all. Fuck the border. It's about fucking time to treat people with respect. It's our culture and consumption that makes her life unbearable. Fuck this country; its angry eyes, its knee-jerk hordes. Legal or illegal, watch her fucking go. She'll take what's hers. Watch her fucking go. Fuck the border.
So subtle and well reasoned, as allways (((John Newtman))). Phone us when you're in Somalia saving the poor black blighters over there.. -- * Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R) * Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning * Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values: http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a... * How Liberal Lefties view the world: http://bbs.dailystormer.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/0/4/042cb95724339d5...
On Dec 20, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 04:31:34PM -0500, John Newman wrote:
On Dec 20, 2016, at 4:21 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
I've heard at least one "libertarian utopian" position that movement of humans, i.e. emmigration and immigration, ought be by the free will of the individual human(s).
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...
Jim Bell
"Fuck The Border"
A friend of mine dropped me a line, it said, "man, I gotta run to the USA. I got no money, got no job." She skipped out of Mexico to stay alive. You've got a problem with her living here, but what did you do to help her before she fucking came? What did the country do? What did the people do? I stand not by my country, but by people of the whole fucking world. No fences, no borders. Free movement for all. Fuck the border. It's about fucking time to treat people with respect. It's our culture and consumption that makes her life unbearable. Fuck this country; its angry eyes, its knee-jerk hordes. Legal or illegal, watch her fucking go. She'll take what's hers. Watch her fucking go. Fuck the border.
So subtle and well reasoned, as allways (((John Newtman))).
Phone us when you're in Somalia saving the poor black blighters over there..
Eat a dick, "Zen". I understand you like white meat.
-- * Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R) * Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning * Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values: http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a... * How Liberal Lefties view the world: http://bbs.dailystormer.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/0/4/042cb95724339d5...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:21:27 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
I've heard at least one "libertarian utopian" position that movement of humans, i.e. emmigration and immigration, ought be by the free will of the individual human(s).
This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea.
cantwell is not a libertarian
https://christophercantwell.com/2015/09/28/open-borders-or-market-immigratio...
Jim Bell
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:21:27 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
I've heard at least one "libertarian utopian" position that movement of humans, i.e. emmigration and immigration, ought be by the free will of the individual human(s).
This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea.
cantwell is not a libertarian
https://christophercantwell.com/2015/09/28/open-borders-or-market-immigratio... Jim Bell
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". I can already read evidence of their errors in the article above. It is easy to make the error of thinking that use of force by government agents doesn't qualify as "initiation of force", simply because in most cases it is 'merely' the credible threat of use of force. They claimed Cantwell was "promoting violence" when what he was actually doing was simply advocating self-defense against the continual and credible threat of force by government agents. 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. Also, from the article: "Whereas the FSP Board believes this view exceeds the right of self-defenseWhereas the Policy and Procedure for Removing Participants (passed 7/11/04) states:"Participants may be removed for promoting violence, racial hatred, or bigotry. Participants who are deemed detrimental to the accomplishment of the Free State Project’s goals may also be removed."Therefore, according to the Policy and Procedure for Removing Participants, the FSP Board removes Chris Cantwell as a participant and declares him unwelcome to attend FSP-organized events.[end of quote]The clueless person, apparently George Donnelly, who wrote this article said: "His statements also went beyond what is apparently the very limited view of legitimate defensive violence held by a number of FSP trustees. According to Jody, only violence in immediate defense of life or limb actually counts as self-defense."Aha! See the trick? 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. Libertarian philosophy doesn't restrict self-defense of physical force against a human body; theft of his property is plenty to allow self-defense. 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. 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. I consider that non-libertarian government, 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 than those of the FSP who expelled him. They expelled him simply because Cantwell's understanding of libertarianism was more accurate than theirs was.I don't know whether Christopher Cantwell has ever said anything showing him to be a non-libertarian, but so far I haven't seen it. Jim Bell
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? 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.
I can already read evidence of their errors in the article above. It is easy to make the error of thinking that use of force by government agents doesn't qualify as "initiation of force", simply because in most cases it is 'merely' the credible threat of use of force. They claimed Cantwell was "promoting violence" when what he was actually doing was simply advocating self-defense against the continual and credible threat of force by government agents.
Cantwell got that part of the theory right. But that's not an argument against open borders, is it?
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. 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.
Also, from the article: "Whereas the FSP Board believes this view exceeds the right of self-defenseWhereas the Policy and Procedure for Removing Participants (passed 7/11/04) states:"Participants may be removed for promoting violence, racial hatred, or bigotry. Participants who are deemed detrimental to the accomplishment of the Free State Project’s goals may also be removed."Therefore, according to the Policy and Procedure for Removing Participants, the FSP Board removes Chris Cantwell as a participant and declares him unwelcome to attend FSP-organized events.[end of quote]The clueless person, apparently George Donnelly, who wrote this article said: "His statements also went beyond what is apparently the very limited view of legitimate defensive violence held by a number of FSP trustees. According to Jody, only violence in immediate defense of life or limb actually counts as self-defense."Aha! See the trick?
There isn't necessarily any trick.
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.
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.
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'.
I consider that non-libertarian government,
There's no such thing as 'libertarian' government anyway.
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. 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.
than those of the FSP who expelled him. They expelled him simply because Cantwell's understanding of libertarianism was more accurate than theirs was.I don't know whether Christopher Cantwell has ever said anything showing him to be a non-libertarian, but so far I haven't seen it.
You just quoted it in your previous message "This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea. " If cantwell isn't for open borders he is not a libertarian. Cantwell's article only destroys the idea that cantwell is a libertarian. He's just a typical right wing conservative trying to pose as libertarian. cantwell objects to : " the importation of millions of communists, socialists, and religious fanatics " Is cantwell going to kick out all the commies and religious fanatics who came in the mayflower, or their descendants? Of course not - he's a dumb clown. But if he were half consistent he should be 'deporting' all the millions of, white, american, kristian nutcases that are 'legally' born there and 'legally' live there. Then again, basic logic isn't cantwell's strong suit. J. Jim Bell
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
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
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 19:23:22 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Juan, I'm still waiting for you to justify your claim that Christopher Cantwell isn't a libertarian.
As luck would have it I replied to your previous message literally 10 seconds before you sent this one. So my reply should be just arriving =P
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.
It doesn't matter if he got 7 out of 10 positions right but still tries to justify anti-libertarian aberrations like state borders. 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".
Right back at you. You and cantwell are right wing/conservatives pretending to be libertarians. Which is actually quite common in the 'libertarian' movement because it's kinda easy to dishonestly twist libertarianism into a defense of the status quo. You know, all those poor big business who pay too much taxes, let's bail them out again. × Jim Bell
[partial quote below]
Why Libertarians Are Corrupted By The Left
Spare me the typically RIGHT WING, mccarthist nonsense. Haven't you learned yet that libertarianism is not left wing NOR right wing? cantwell should be talking abou how libertarianism is corrupted by right wingers like him. Then again, thanks for illustrasting that cantwell is a RIGHT WINGER or CONSERVATIVE, not a libertarian.
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]
On 12/21/2016 11:52 AM, juan wrote:
right wing/conservatives pretending to be libertarians. Which is actually quite common in the 'libertarian' movement
ROTF NO! Rr
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 19:23:22 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Juan, I'm still waiting for you to justify your claim that Christopher Cantwell isn't a libertarian. As luck would have it I replied to your previous message literally 10 seconds before you sent this one. So my reply should be just arriving =P
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.
It doesn't matter if he got 7 out of 10 positions right but still tries to justify anti-libertarian aberrations like state borders.
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".
Right back at you. You and cantwell are right wing/conservatives pretending to be libertarians. Which is actually quite common in the 'libertarian' movement because it's kinda easy to dishonestly twist libertarianism into a defense of the status quo. You know, all those poor big business who pay too much taxes, let's bail them out again.
× Jim Bell
[partial quote below]
Why Libertarians Are Corrupted By The Left
Spare me the typically RIGHT WING, mccarthist nonsense. Haven't you learned yet that libertarianism is not left wing NOR right wing?
cantwell should be talking abou how libertarianism is corrupted by right wingers like him.
Then again, thanks for illustrasting that cantwell is a RIGHT WINGER or CONSERVATIVE, not a libertarian.
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]
On 12/21/2016 11:23 AM, jim bell wrote something I was grokking until I got to...
Rothbardians
...in some context to 'left' of anything, and threw up a little in my mouth. It's easy to see, empirically in my life, and in ur irl, that US 'libertarians' are absolutely right wing republicans with a socially liberal streak ... "Socially liberal" in a 'fratboy date rape' sort of way if you were describing their relationship with others in the society. Rr
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....
Redacted with malice aforethought.
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:29:04 -0800 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
It's easy to see, empirically in my life, and in ur irl, that US 'libertarians' are absolutely right wing republicans
just like you are a commie. Left and right, both enemies of freedom. You as a castro's cock sucker are even a more glaring example of totalitarian scumbag than the repuglicans.
with a socially liberal streak ... "Socially liberal" in a 'fratboy date rape' sort of way if you were describing their relationship with others in the society.
Rr
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....
Redacted with malice aforethought.
Your message below implies that it was me who typed "Rothbardians". I didn't. You need to be more careful about what you type. Further, you demonstrate yourself to be a clueless leftist dweeb when you said, "US 'libertarians' are absolutely right wing republicans with a socially liberal streak".From my earliest acquaintance with libertarianism in the mid-to-late 1970's, "libertarians" were described as "socially liberal" and "economically conservative". So, referring to them as "absolutely right wing Republicans" shows that you are entirely unaware of, or at least strongly mischaracterizing, libertarians as a group. Jim Bell From: Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 5:29 PM Subject: Re: "right" vs permission, to immigrate - "Japan: No Muslims, no terrorists" On 12/21/2016 11:23 AM, jim bell wrote something I was grokking until I got to... Rothbardians ...in some context to 'left' of anything, and threw up a little in my mouth. It's easy to see, empirically in my life, and in ur irl, that US 'libertarians' are absolutely right wing republicans with a socially liberal streak ... "Socially liberal" in a 'fratboy date rape' sort of way if you were describing their relationship with others in the society. Rr 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.... Redacted with malice aforethought.
When I quote something I take responsibility for 'writing' it. In the context you used it, which you set up thusly:
People of the left who are simply pretending to be "libertarian".
And then using some guy who wasn't even Left at the time he was contemporary except among liberal democrats like my 90 year old mother (who btw also had a copy of Rand's Atlas Shrugged on her bookshelf) as example of 'left'? ... you own it guy.
Further, you demonstrate yourself to be a clueless leftist dweeb when you said, "US 'libertarians' are absolutely right wing republicans with a socially liberal streak".
From my earliest acquaintance with libertarianism in the mid-to-late 1970's, "libertarians" were described as "socially liberal" and "economically conservative". So, referring to them as "absolutely right wing Republicans" shows that you are entirely unaware of, or at least strongly mischaracterizing, libertarians as a group.
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. You mis-characterize "Left". Rr
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
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 : In his article, cantwell correctly describes and acknowledges the libertarian position and then DISMISSES it and REJECTS it as 'not practical'. "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. 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'. So cantwell knows what the libertarian position should be and rejects it. He then lies 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. Just in case : libertarianism and the state are 'incompatible'. It painfully follows that no libertarian worth his salt would defend such crass statist device as the state's borders. J.
Jim Bell
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.
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. Jim Bell
On 12/23/2016 01:17 PM, jim bell wrote:
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.
As I've been saying Libertarians are feudalist pieces of shit and need to meet the same fate as fascists. Rr
*From:* juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:21:27 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com <mailto: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.
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.
Jim Bell
From: "Rayzer@Riseup" <Rayzer@Riseup> On 12/23/2016 01:17 PM, jim bell wrote:
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 those people.
As I've been saying Libertarians are feudalist pieces of shit and need to meet the same fate as fascists. Rr That outburst simply shows that you don't believe in the concept of 'private property', which is often defined as 'the right to exclude others'. Ironically, Communists (of which you are obviously one) believe in the concept of public, or collective, ownership.
Nations such as Venezuela are doing so well these days due to the wonders of Socialism. Jim Bell 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.
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. Jim Bell
On 12/23/2016 04:07 PM, jim bell opined:
That outburst simply shows that you don't believe in the concept of 'private property', which is often defined as 'the right to exclude others'. Ironically, Communists (of which you are obviously one) believe in the concept of public, or collective, ownership.
Nations such as Venezuela are doing so well these days due to the wonders of Socialism.
Jim Bell
You aren't talking about "Collective" anything because collectives don't "Exclude" anyone in the sense you mean it... and not-so-ironically I don't believe you're anything more than a right-wing Republican. Obviously. There are at least 35 million homeless citizens in the US. That's about ten percent of the total population. Many of them are working and living in cars and shelters. Many of them are children. AmeriKa is doing well ... If you're RICH WHITE AND MALE ... so what's your point ... White Male Republican? I KNOW you aren't really interested in anyone upsetting your rotten-apple cart of a belief shitstem but if you need the laugh see this AP Diplo reporter literally crack up over a State Dept hack alleging the US isn't destabilizing Venezuelan society and it's economy. As far as my politics... Keep guessing. I need the laugh. Rr
"Photo: Associated Press reporter Matt Lee laughs at a US State Department Spokesperson’s contention the U.S. is NOT involved in the recent Venezuelan coup attempt"
Crooks and Liars:
Which brings us to the laughing stock State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki became yesterday when she claimed [VIDEO] in response to Maduro’s accusations:
As a matter of long standing policy the United States does not support transitions by non-constitutional means. Political transitions must be democratic, constitutional, peaceful, and legal.
We’ve seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela. These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces.
The Associated Press reporter, Matt Lee, immediately jumped in with quite reasonable incredulity saying “I’m sorry. Whoah, whoah, whoah. The US has a long-standing practice of not promoting [coups] – how long-standing would you say?” Lee continued audibly scoffing and laughing “In particular in South and Latin America that is not a long-standing policy.”
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/press-laughs-after-us-ambassador-claims-we
From: Rayzer <Rayzer@Riseup.net> On 12/23/2016 04:07 PM, jim bell opined: >>That outburst simply shows that you don't believe in the concept of 'private property', which is often defined as 'the right to exclude others'. Ironically, Communists (of which you are obviously one) believe in the concept of public, or collective, ownership.
Nations such as Venezuela are doing so well these days due to the wonders of Socialism. Jim Bell
You aren't talking about "Collective" anything because collectives don't "Exclude" anyone in the sense you mean it... If a "collective" doesn't take the position that a given property is owned by everyone in the world, it is "excluding" the rest.
and not-so-ironically I don't believe you're anything more than a right-wing Republican. And you are pretending to be unaware that for 40+ years, libertarians have been viewed by lefties as "right-wing Republicans", and have been viewed by righties as "left-wing Democrats". Your saying what you think libertarians are classifies you as well as anything.
Obviously.
There are at least 35 million homeless citizens in the US. That's about ten percent of the total population. Many of them are working and living in cars and shelters. Many of them are children. And there are probably 20+ million illegal aliens in America.
"Photo: Associated Press reporter Matt Lee laughs at a US State Department Spokesperson’s contention the U.S. is NOT involved in the recent Venezuelan coup attempt" I notice that anti-government Venezuelans control about 2/3s of its legislature, and are following the law to have Maduro removed from power, but they are being illegally and unconstitutionally thwarted by Maduro and his cronies. Jim Bell
On 12/23/2016 05:27 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Rayzer <Rayzer@Riseup.net>
On 12/23/2016 04:07 PM, jim bell opined:
That outburst simply shows that you don't believe in the concept of 'private property', which is often defined as 'the right to exclude others'. Ironically, Communists (of which you are obviously one) believe in the concept of public, or collective, ownership.
Nations such as Venezuela are doing so well these days due to the wonders of Socialism.
Jim Bell
You aren't talking about "Collective" anything because collectives
don't "Exclude" anyone in the sense you mean it...
If a "collective" doesn't take the position that a given property is owned by everyone in the world, it is "excluding" the rest.
Collective. Let's say I'm a carpenter who makes furniture with political leanings towards anarchism and the collective I meet is within those parameters. In an anarchist society you wouldn't be "Excluded" from that collective. You may not have decision making rights until some other criteria are met, but you ARE part of that collective. Exclusion IS NOT an Anarchist ethic. You don't carry a card. Some collectives a larger and more encompassing... For instance the IWW and more recently CrimethInc.
and not-so-ironically I don't believe you're anything more than a right-wing Republican.
And you are pretending to be unaware that for 40+ years, libertarians have been viewed by lefties as "right-wing Republicans", and have been viewed by righties as "left-wing Democrats". Your saying what you think libertarians are classifies you as well as anything.
In the US they are right wing republicans. Whereas there's a great deal of confusion about what left means because anything to the 'left' of ... Oh let's say Donald Trump, is 'left'... But Libertarian has definable parameters that are easily observed in the US. White. Middle Class. Socially Liberal with a NOT SO LIBERAL economic belief. Use words like Communist, Marxist, Anarcho-Syndicalist, etc if you want to define what you mean by left because a Dixiecrat Democrat (constituting the majority philosophical underpinning of the Democratic party whether they're from "Dixie" or not) is not to the left of anything socially or economically.
Obviously.
There are at least 35 million homeless citizens in the US. That's about ten percent of the total population. Many of them are working and living in cars and shelters. Many of them are children.
And there are probably 20+ million illegal aliens in America.
Eaten any good strawberries or lettuce recently? Actually, I mis-speak because I drove truck from the fields of California and they ALL had green cards. Every single one of them I ever met. Which is good. Because you wouldn't have any strawberries or lettuce without them seeing as white people have an aversion to hard labor that won't make the rent pay-wise. So where exactly are the illegal aliens? Doing nudie photoshoots without work permits and marrying Donald Trump. Working at an Armour meat packing plant in Iowa after the company arranged to have them brought directly there. Making US military supplies at a Pentagon contracted factory in Maine (the company was allowed to keep the contract too) In other words, rich white males hire them, and a LOT of those RWMs would consider themselves libertarian too! And you still haven't responded to the contention below that the Venezuelan "Socialist" government isn't the primary reason for their economic woes, albeit a dependence on a very volatile oil market isn't helping, OR Saudi Arabia's failing economy for that matter, that Venezuela is continually being destabilized by direct US covert operations and it's surrounding US Satrap nations like the narco-state Colombia. The Cuban economy is doing quite fine... Has done quite fine over the last half century despite the fact that CIA gusanos dropped diseased chickens on the island and wiped out their poultry industry etc. You'd be a fucking idiot if you think the CIA isn't doing that sort of thing to Venezuela. Rr
"Photo: Associated Press reporter Matt Lee laughs at a US State Department Spokesperson’s contention the U.S. is NOT involved in the recent Venezuelan coup attempt" I notice that anti-government Venezuelans control about 2/3s of its legislature, and are following the law to have Maduro removed from power, but they are being illegally and unconstitutionally thwarted by Maduro and his cronies.
Jim Bell
On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 01:27:33 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
And there are probably 20+ million illegal aliens in America.
Only the most crass statist believes in the concept of 'illegal alien'. By the way Jim you and cuntwell never explained what you are going to do with the 'legal' 'american' 'citizens' who don't really belive in rights. Are you going to deport them? Or you think they don't actually exist?
On Dec 23, 2016, at 4:17 PM, 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.
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.
The suffering of others is certainly amusing to some people, of a certain ilk. The elimination of artificial economic zones and their endemic poverty, all enforced at the barrel of a gun, makes for great "mocking" material ;) The so called libertarian party in America is a true fucking joke. Gary Johnson is an affable buffoon. I wouldn't mind smoking a bowl with him, I guess. But otherwise he and his compatriots and those who vote for them are a total and complete waste of space.
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.
Jim Bell
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
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...
"For a libertarian, the answer may at first seem quite obvious, open borders." "Governments obtain everything they have from coercive violence, and thus have no legitimate claim to control what are commonly considered public spaces." That is the libertarian position. It is then REJECTED by cuntwell because it is not 'practical'. "A practical and strategic problem then presents itself." So I hope that now Jim won't misrepresent what I say and won't pretend that I'm misrepresenting cantwell. Notice also how there's an obvious LIBERTARIAN patch for the alleged problem. Have open borders and don't give any 'welfare' to immigrants. Oddly enough, arch-clown cantwell 'forgets' to mention that option. But even the likes of cantwell can't be that stupid. PS : Let me know when you Jim and cantwell start deporting statist but 'legal' americans. There must be some >250 millions of them? J.
participants (11)
-
Ben Tasker -
Cecilia Tanaka -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
John Newman -
juan -
Rayzer -
Rayzer＠Riseup -
Razer
-
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness