On 01/30/2017 05:13 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On 01/29/2017 06:08 PM, #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ wrote:

...

This is getting ridiculous, Trump must be stopped before he turns America into a White nation - he is shockingly close now to being Literally Hitler!!!

What can we do? This is why I voted for Hillary.

Let me explain something you seem to be overlooking Shawn. The reason Trump is even ABLE to purport a rationale for the immigrant ban is because HILLARY CLINTON facilitated the destruction of Libya, and attempted to do the same to Syria. Trump's Executive Order rests on laws and codes that Obama put in place.

But it is nothing new that the citizens of those countries are targeted with U.S. visa restrictions. It was Obama who introduced https://mic.com/articles/166845/the-list-of-muslim-countries-trump-wants-to-... such in 2015 and 2016. The Trump order links directly to them. It does not name any country but refers to them as http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/read-draft-text-trump-executive-order-mu... "countries designated in Division O, Title II, Section 203 of the 2016 consolidated appropriations act."

U.S animosities against these countries is even older. According to https://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annota... the former general Clark, plans were made to wage war against six of the now named seven countries back in 2001. Yemen was later added while Lebanon was (temporarily?) taken off the list. The administrations change, the selected "enemies" stay the same.

In 2011 Obama stopped processing Iraqi visa requests for six month http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-process.... That move was quite similar to Trump's current one. Where was the outcry in 2001? In 2011, 2015 and 2016? Is it only bad when Trump restricts visits for certain people from certain countries?

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/01/outrage-about-trump-exposes-librul-hypo... If any part of your resistance to Donald Trump involves Democrats, you are not a resister you're a collaborator. Any questions? See below.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 06:45:55PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

On 1/31/2017 12:29 PM, Razer wrote:

...

The reason Trump is even ABLE to purport a rationale for the immigrant ban is because HILLARY CLINTON facilitated the destruction of Libya, and attempted to do the same to Syria.

Trump's Executive Order rests on laws and codes that Obama put in place.

Trump's executive order on Muslim migrants is Obama's 2011 order on steroids, and his list of countries that are problem sources of terrorism is Obama's list of countries that are problem sources of terrorism entirely unchanged.

That the entire world is going batshit insane over Trump's order, while no one noticed Obama's order is not because there is any huge difference between the orders, but Trump Derangement Syndrome.

TDS is a legitimate medical condition - I hear the only known solution is coal burning. That and screaming. Oh ok, and thumping a brick wall.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 07:13:47PM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On 01/29/2017 06:08 PM, #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ wrote:

...

This is getting ridiculous, Trump must be stopped before he turns America into a White nation - he is shockingly close now to being Literally Hitler!!!

What can we do?

This is why I voted for Hillary.

What can we do, you ask?

If you're in the US, call your Representative and Senators, especially if they happen to be Republicans, and say you want to see Trump impeached. If they actually do their damn jobs, the probable cause for an impeachment is damn near staring them in the face.

If you aren't? Not sure on that one.

I guess a valid question is what is a reasonable ratio of various "races" - the libertarian position is no borders, no citizens, no government. Government, when it exists, "ought" be a strength of collective position. The counter position to this is that government can never be more than the tyranny of the majority. "The majority" in this case invariably accept some form of rulership (government, monarch, etc) in order for ("perceived") safety. At the family level, an argument can be made for example that every household ought accept one African migrant family to live with them, and were this policy in place and imposed upon the people (besides some folk reacting/ protesting in response), others would undoubtedly say this is a good thing, and undoubtedly a good 300 million Africans would immigrate into the USA. Is there anything wrong with this picture? Is there anything right with this picture?

From a purely objective viewpoint you must understand, we can ask the following questions:

- what ration of "whites" / other races is "acceptable"? - should the "White invaders" into USA be deported back to Europe? - should 'no borders' be imposed upon the majority? - should the ratio of races in any country be imposed to be according to global population stats ratio? Open borders at the household level would probably be violently rejected by the vast majority. - Just as we "defend our literal homes", why then isn't it reasonable to likewise "defend the national border"? The only moral argument I can conceive is one of assumed guilt - the "majority" have acquiesced to the tyranny of their respective governments and therefore ought suffer the tyranny of having to copy with personally 'handling' foreigners from some random country that has been invaded by ones host country. I don't support that particular argument. I say families have a right to keep anyone and everyone out of their homes/ properties. Similarly, I extend that argument to the nation, as an entirely reasonable position for humans to take, and indeed easily considered as a moral position - a moral imperative in fact. The ultimate answer to "what can we do about Trump's 'Whitening' of the USA" is to deport White Americans from the USA. The follow on from this is How many to deport? This is the question of ratio asked above - some would (I assume) set that ratio at 'zero Whites to remain in America'. - Is 'zero Whites to remain in USA' unreasonable? - if so, what ratio is reasonable? Far from ironic, these various questions are sincere, and genuine questions which appear to be before people. It's all very well to rail frantically against "Trump, who's literally Hitler" - but such emotive reactions won't cut the mustard. So, choose your ratio today :) Don't be shy, be bold - own your position. If you don't own your position, no one else gonna own it for you, except those who disagree with you. Speak, or forever hold your peace! Zenaan

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:13:02 +1100 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

- the libertarian position is no borders, no citizens, no government.

well at least you got that one right.

- should the "White invaders" into USA be deported back to Europe?

well, that's the sort of question *you* should be asking yourself. As in. you should be heading back to england.

- should 'no borders' be imposed upon the majority?

Don't twist it. Freedom is not an impostion. The question is : should fucking statist nazis be imposing anything on their neighbors? Rhetorical question.

- Just as we "defend our literal homes", why then isn't it reasonable to likewise "defend the national border"?

I think you used to realize that there's a right to free movement of people. What THE FUCK is wrong with you now?

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:45:21 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

From: juan To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:41 PM Subject: Re: Trump will NEVER turn America into a White nation!

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:13:02 +1100 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

...

- the libertarian position is no borders, no citizens, no government.

...

   well at least you got that one right.

I disagree.

You are of course free to disagree all you want. But I already made minced meat of your STATIST non-arguments, so... =)

 I believe the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  

Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders.

Private property still rules.  And anything which is currently "government property" should become quasi-private

False. Not to mention, you just made up a new ad-hoc kind of 'property'.

once the government(s) is/are eliminated. Jim Bell

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:07:07 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

 I believe the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  

  >  Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And   >  vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders.   Well, maybe you're playing word-games.  I used the term "borders" to refer, generically, to any demarcation of ownership or control over land.  borders = boundaries.    Topological separations.  

I didn't mean to play word games. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/border?s=t 2. "the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another; frontier line:" or 1. "the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer boundary. " I assumed we were using definition number 2, the political one. So my claim that (political) borders are a creation of the state pretty much stands. But, on second thoughts, I can agree with your quote below, for argument's sake : "the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders." So it clearly follows that the correct libertarian position on travel is *open* *government* borders. And so any sort of support for government restrictions on travel across government borders is not libertarian.

...

...

Private property still rules.  And anything which is currently "government property" should become quasi-private

...

   False. Not to mention, you just made up a new ad-hoc kind    of 'property'.

There is no reason that a given piece of property cannot be owned, jointly, by many people.

Actually, there is a general reason. And the more people, the bigger the reason. And the obvious reason is that controlling property in a jointly manner is a mess and a source of discord. On the other hand, let's say roads become 'quasi property'. Now, roads exist for people to travel. And there's no libertarian argument against people travelling. There are also other practical 'refutations' to the idea of recreating nation-state borders using 'private' property. 1) absent the state land allegedly owned by the state would revert to its original, unowned state, not to 'quasi-property'. 2) even the land that is legitimately owned can be used by people to enter the hypothetical 'country', if a handful of land owners allow it. Or even ONE land owner. 3) there are also big *free* seas and lots of coasts. And boats. 4) and finally there's air space and planes

 (Corporations own property, today.)

So? Mafias chartered by the state 'own' 'property'. The state creates more than a few legal devices to favor businesses. Big businesses today are the poster child for corporatism and mercantilism. Exactly the economic system that libertarians are supposed to oppose.

 Even, potentially, millions of people.  Currently, things called "government" claims to "own" what is referred to as "public property".  Get rid of the governments, and what happens?

What happens is that only real pople can own property. And what further happens is that the kind of property enabled by the state goes poof.

 Does that land simply evaporate?  No, it does not.

Right. But something surely does evaporate and that's the fake property titles granted by the state.

Okay, then, who owns or controls it?  

All the land 'owned' by the state is actually unowned land. It can be homesteaded by real, (honest) people. As a side note, even that isn't too straighfoward since what constitutes ownership in land is partly conventional and debatable, in libertarian terms.

That land contains roads, which people who own 'private property' often use to move around.  In order to avoid too much disruption, it is reasonable to continue things so that this previously-publicly owned property should remain useable by many people.

That is, it should remain...public - public meaning accessible to all.

 Absent a government, some sort of contract-driven group ownership of that land makes sense.

Of what land? Are you talking for instance about all the land usurped by governments and their cronies? As a matter of fact, 'contract' based ownership on that scale doesn't make sense. It sounds like an attempt at 'private' nationalism/tribalism.

 (What is the alternative?) So no, I didn't really make up a new kind of property.  I just expanded a previous form of property ownership by a group of people.

Jim Bell

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 15:19:53 +1000 "James A. Donald" wrote:

On 2/1/2017 5:03 AM, juan wrote:

...

So it clearly follows that the correct libertarian position on travel is *open* *government* borders. And so any sort of support for government restrictions on travel across government borders is not libertarian.

And if Islamic State drives five hundred technicals,

and if you go fuck yourself? But before going fucking yourself, why don't you explain why do you own jim.com?

From: juan On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:07:07 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

 I believe the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  

  >  Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And   >  vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders.  

...

Well, maybe you're playing word-games.  I used the term "borders" to refer, generically, to any demarcation of ownership or control over land.  borders = boundaries.    Topological separations.  

   I didn't mean to play word games.

 >   http://www.dictionary.com/browse/border?s=t

   2. "the line that separates one country, state, province, etc.,     from another; frontier line:"  Yes, that's one valid example.  I intended that, but also the one below.

  >  or  >   1. "the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer     boundary. "  That too.     >  I assumed we were using  definition number 2, the political  >   one. So my claim that (political) borders are a creation of the

   state pretty much stands.

   But, on second thoughts, I can agree with your quote below, for    argument's sake :

...

   "the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders." 

Since the presumption is that we will be getting rid of governments, things will have to change.  How they change, we will have to propose, debate, and ultimately decide.  

   So it clearly follows that the correct libertarian position on    travel is *open* *government* borders. And so any sort of    support for government restrictions on travel across government    borders is not libertarian.  I say there won't BE ANY "government borders".  But there will be property lines, a form of border or boundary.  And property which is currently thought to be owned or at least controlled by "government" has to be considered.

...

There is no reason that a given piece of property cannot be owned, jointly, by many people.

   Actually, there is a general reason. And the more people, the    bigger the reason. And the obvious reason is that controlling    property in a jointly manner is a mess and a source of discord. Living on a 2-dimensional (mostly) surface, plus the requirement that people have to move around requires that the ability to do that exists.  (exceptions are airplanes and helicopters, road overpasses, tunnels, buried pipelines, etc.  I don't see any need, or desire, to massively change how people go about their daily businesses after elimination (or minimization) of governments.

   On the other hand, let's say roads become 'quasi property'.  >   Now, roads exist for people to travel. And there's no    libertarian argument  against people travelling.  But the property previously referred to as "government property" (good example:  roads) isn't necessarily assumed to be owned by ALL world people.  

   There are also other practical 'refutations' to the idea of    recreating nation-state borders using 'private' property.

   1) absent the state land allegedly owned by the state would    revert to its original, unowned state, not to 'quasi-property'. I think more analysis is necessary than simply this.  That land would cease to be "government property", but it would still have to be maintained as method of movement for most people, at least those which were previously called "citizens".  People who, arguably, had a partial ownership and use right to that land.    Not just everyone in the world, equally.  Also, "roads" would have to be maintained, presumably by some sort of contract.  (This is typically the way things are already done:  "Government" doesn't necessarily do the actual work; it may contract with private entities to maintain the road surfaces.)

   2) even the land that is  legitimately owned can  be used by    people to enter the hypothetical 'country', if a handful of land    owners allow it. Or even ONE land owner. Presumably, "people" as a group will have to decide what agreement to come to.  That's why debate on the issue will be important.  Today, people don't know that such a decision will eventually need to be made.

    3) there are also big *free* seas and lots of coasts. And boats. In other words, people will be able to get into certain areas.  Whether they can travel will depend on the agreement reached by those deemed to have been part of the contract covering the roads.   >  4) and finally there's air space and planes  Yes, that will be open.    

...

 (Corporations own property, today.)

 >   So? Mafias chartered by the state 'own' 'property'. The state   >  creates more than a few legal devices to favor   > businesses. Big businesses today are the poster child for   > corporatism and mercantilism. Exactly the economic system that  >  libertarians are supposed to oppose. True, corporations are a legal fiction, a creation of a State.  Some substitute for this will have to be created.  

...

 Even, potentially, millions of people.  Currently, things called "government" claims to "own" what is referred to as "public property".  Get rid of the governments, and what happens?

 >   What happens is that only real pople can own property. Or groups of people.  Or some other entity that hasn't been thought of yet.

And what    further happens is that the kind of property enabled by the    state goes poof.

 Does that land simply evaporate?  No, it does not.

    Right. But something surely does evaporate and that's the fake     property titles granted by the state.

...

Okay, then, who owns or> controls it?  

   All the land 'owned' by the state is actually unowned land. It    can be homesteaded by real, (honest) people. As a side note,    even that isn't too straighfoward since what constitutes    ownership in land is partly conventional and debatable, in  >   libertarian terms. You are making assumptions.  More planning is needed.

...

That land contains roads, which people who own 'private property' often use to move around.  In order to avoid too much disruption, it is reasonable to continue things so that this previously-publicly owned property should remain useable by many people.

   That is, it should remain...public - public meaning accessible    to all.

That depends on what you mean by "all".   Don't try to sneak in an interpretation that "all" MUST include non-current-US Citizens, if a more limited definition of "all" is at least equally plausible.  If you believe the former, justify it with a credible argument.  There are MANY possible interpretations, including all (current) State citizens, all county citizens, all locals, all local property owners, etc.  Don't just assume the answer.

...

 Absent a government, some sort of contract-driven group ownership of that land makes sense.

   Of what land? Are you talking for instance about all the land  >   usurped by governments and their cronies? As a matter of fact,    'contract' based ownership on that scale doesn't make sense. It    sounds like an attempt at 'private' nationalism/tribalism. We can't change the past.  And we have to plan the future based on what we know.  If we accept the concept of "private property", and if we accept the idea that people can contract with each other, all that will influence the rest of the plan.  

               Jim Bell

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 19:03:32 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

...

   "the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders." 

Since the presumption is that we will be getting rid of governments, things will have to change.

Looks like you changed the topic somewhat. I think the topic was : current travel policies dictated by current governments or political mafias. In that regard, the libertarian position is clear : open borsers. hope you finally see that all the borders of all nation states are completely illegitimate =) And so are the states themselves, of course.

 How they change, we will have to propose, debate, and ultimately decide.  

...

   So it clearly follows that the correct libertarian position on    travel is *open* *government* borders. And so any sort of    support for government restrictions on travel across government    borders is not libertarian. 

I say there won't BE ANY "government borders".  But there will be property lines, a form of border or boundary.  And property which is currently thought to be owned or at least controlled by "government" has to be considered.

I did that in my previous message.

...

...

There is no reason that a given piece of property cannot be owned, jointly, by many people.

...

   Actually, there is a general reason. And the more people, the    bigger the reason. And the obvious reason is that controlling    property in a jointly manner is a mess and a source of discord.

Living on a 2-dimensional (mostly) surface, plus the requirement that people have to move around requires that the ability to do that exists.  (exceptions are airplanes and helicopters,

Yes, as I already mentioned, that is one of the many facts that show that a 'private' 'country' system doesn't work (though the biggest problem is that it can't be morally justified)

road overpasses, tunnels, buried pipelines, etc.  I don't see any need, or desire, to massively change how people go about their daily businesses

Oh I agree with that, as far as free travel is concerned. Usually people can freely 'travel' inside, say, a city using 'public roads'. Well, in reality they can be stoped by cops and 'checkpoints' etc, but let's pretend that the police state is not there. In a 'normal' city people move freely using public roads. And there's absolutely no reason to change that. Rather, that sort free movement of people should be extended to the whole world. That is what libertarianism is about.

after elimination (or minimization) of governments.

...

   On the other hand, let's say roads become 'quasi property'.  >   Now, roads exist for people to travel. And there's no    libertarian argument  against people travelling. 

But the property previously referred to as "government property" (good example:  roads) isn't necessarily assumed to be owned by ALL world people.  

Roads don't need to be owned in the same way you own your house. Roads should be open to everybody regardless of what kind of *convetional* ownership system is used. The LAND used for roads can certainly be 'unowned' or 'collectively owned' by all people, if you insist in putting it in 'propertarian' terms.

...

   There are also other practical 'refutations' to the idea of    recreating nation-state borders using 'private' property.

...

   1) absent the state land allegedly owned by the state would    revert to its original, unowned state, not to 'quasi-property'.

I think more analysis is necessary than simply this.  That land would cease to be "government property", but it would still have to be maintained as method of movement for most people,

Land isn't 'maintained'. It just exists. Paved roads need to be mainained, true. So users will have to pay some sort of toll. But the very important thing is : you pay the toll, you are free to use the road, no questions asked. Like, you know, the way crypto anarchist networks are supposed to work or even the internet works. "Net neutrality".

at least those which were previously called "citizens".  People who, arguably, had a partial ownership and use right to that land.    Not just everyone in the world, equally.

As far as the right to use roads for travel, yes, everyone in the world. Basic libertarian principle : freedom. You are just taking for granted statism and nationalism and using it as premise. But your premise is not valid.

 Also, "roads" would have to be maintained, presumably by some sort of contract.  (This is typically the way things are already done:  "Government" doesn't necessarily do the actual work; it may contract with private entities to maintain the road surfaces.)

Yes. So a voluntary economic arrangement would have to replace the current fascist/corporatist partnership between state and 'private' contractors.

...

   2) even the land that is  legitimately owned can  be used by    people to enter the hypothetical 'country', if a handful of land    owners allow it. Or even ONE land owner.

Presumably, "people" as a group will have to decide what agreement to come to.  That's why debate on the issue will be important.  Today, people don't know that such a decision will eventually need to be made.

I'm not buying this, at all : ""people" as a group will have to decide" I am not a collectivist or 'groupist'. People exist and act as individuals. And that's one of the obvious philosophical foundations of libertarianism. How would "people as group" decide how to re-implement anti-libertarian 'private' statism? By 'democracy' aka mob rule? What happens to the people who don't agree with the fucking "group" ?

    3) there are also big *free* seas and lots of coasts. And boats.

In other words, people will be able to get into certain areas.

In other words, the concept of 'country' which is nothing but a totalitarian creation of the state goes poof.

 Whether they can travel will depend on the agreement reached by those deemed to have been part of the contract covering the roads.

I 'disagree'. That's an attempt at recreating 'private' statism and cannot be justified. It is more restrictive than what we already have. And notice that you previoulsy said "I don't see any need, or desire, to massively change how people go about their daily businesses " but now you are proposing a system which does change that and in an undesirable direction, especially from a libertarian point of view.

  >  4) and finally there's air space and planes 

Yes, that will be open.

So travel by sea and air clearly negates the statist, artificial concept of nation state and nation state borders. You are only left with a half baked attempt at controlling SOME roads, which doesn't work either.

...

...

 Even, potentially, millions of people.  Currently, things called "government" claims to "own" what is referred to as "public property".  Get rid of the governments, and what happens?

 >   What happens is that only real pople can own property.

Or groups of people.  Or some other entity that hasn't been thought of yet.

The only realy entity is the individual.

...

   All the land 'owned' by the state is actually unowned land. It    can be homesteaded by real, (honest) people. As a side note,    even that isn't too straighfoward since what constitutes    ownership in land is partly conventional and debatable, in  >   libertarian terms.

You are making assumptions.  More planning is needed.

I don't think I am making assumptions. I am applying libertarian principles. And I am certainly not a central planner planning a 'private' 'country'. You are making a lot more assumptions than me and they are loaded assumptions that apparently seek to preserve the status quo. You just mentioned a collective "entity that hasn't been thought of yet." That looks like a very vague, daring and non individualistic 'assumption'.

...

...

That land contains roads, which people who own 'private property' often use to move around.  In order to avoid too much disruption, it is reasonable to continue things so that this previously-publicly owned property should remain useable by many people.

...

   That is, it should remain...public - public meaning accessible    to all.

That depends on what you mean by "all".   Don't try to sneak in an interpretation that "all" MUST include non-current-US Citizens,

Come on. You have been trying to sneak statism and nationalism all along. And keep doing it. Just read what you wrote : "US Citizens" What? You mean SUBJECTS of the US nazi state? There is no such thing as citizens. There are only hostages to a criminal organization. Looks like it's time for you to give up the political premises of your own enemies? Why on earth would you consider them valid?

if a more limited definition of "all" is at least equally plausible.  If you believe the former, justify it with a credible argument.  There are MANY possible interpretations, including all (current) State citizens, all county citizens, all locals, all local property owners, etc.  Don't just assume the answer.

Well, you just proivded yet another argument against your case. "MANY possible interpretations, including all (current) State citizens, all county citizens, all locals, all local property owners" Exactly. There are many CONFLICTING interpretations on which 'private' statism can be based. That's why 'private' statism is illogical nonsense. How is your ill-defined 'group' of right wing nationalists going to agree? And what happens to the rational people who don't agree anyway.

...

...

 Absent a government, some sort of contract-driven group ownership of that land makes sense.

...

   Of what land? Are you talking for instance about all the land  >   usurped by governments and their cronies? As a matter of fact,    'contract' based ownership on that scale doesn't make sense. It    sounds like an attempt at 'private' nationalism/tribalism.

We can't change the past.

And? Are you saying that as a flawed 'justification' for any unlibertarian scheme? Let's say A steals stuffs from B. The past can't be literally changed but sure as hell A can be forced to return B's stuff.

 And we have to plan the future based on what we know.  If we accept the concept of "private property", and if we accept the idea that people can contract with each other, all that will influence the rest of the plan.

For the record, the political philosophy known as liberalism, now rebranded libertarianism is called LIBERALISM or LIBERTARIANISM because it's focused on LIBERTY.

               Jim Bell

The image illustrates collectivism. Not formal government. The deer collectively agreed that route was the easiest path to water, food, antler scratching trees, or whatever. Ps. a town down the road initially put it's streets where the cows walked because cows tend to walk on the most level ground making it easy, in the 1800s, before industrialization and it's machinery 'came to town', to pave.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:45:21 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

 I believe the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  

A government (or state, same shit) is a group of criminals who 'grant' themselves 'jurisdiction' over a geographical area. In turn a geographical/geometrical area has 'boundaries' or borders. So, no government, no political borders. Of course, your house will still have 'borders' but that has nothing to do with free movement of people. However there's also something called the american government and those psychos think they own the whole world. So for the american government there actually are no borders...though they also 'enforce' borders when it suits them. Then again, the lack of logical consistency of the US gov't doesn;t prove anything.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:13:02 +1100 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

- the libertarian position is no borders, no citizens, no government.

well at least you got that one right. Or almost right. "citizens" is not the right word. The right word is SUBJECTS. "Citizens" is of course a hypocritical euphemism.

I hope you don't consider my comment trolling John. I'm quite serious. The democrats and republicans do not exist as separate ideological entities. They are in collusion with each other. Because 'Merican Exceptionaism uber alles'. US Libertarians have that social disease too, and are no different than the other two mainstream factions of US government. Further... If you or anyone else reading this finds THAT offensive, I also have a VERY harsh view of what passes for US immigration policy. In a nutshell. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me," It doesn't say give us your HIRED THUGS and people who interpreted the CACI tortured screams of their fellow countrymen in a CIA secret prison, does it? It doesn't say give me your economic elite and the people who have corporate connections to fast-tracked H1-B visas.... Does it? I elaborate: https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/825901439729942528 Still at the top of the pile ... scroll down a bit, then up. Rr "What is to be abolished is not the reality principle; not everything, but such particular things as business, politics, exploitation, poverty." -Herbert Marcuse On 01/31/2017 07:22 AM, John Newman wrote:

...

On Jan 30, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

...

On 01/29/2017 06:08 PM, #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ wrote: This is getting ridiculous, Trump must be stopped before he turns America into a White nation - he is shockingly close now to being Literally Hitler!!!

What can we do? This is why I voted for Hillary.

What can we do, you ask?

If you're in the US, call your Representative and Senators, especially if they happen to be Republicans, and say you want to see Trump impeached. If they actually do their damn jobs, the probable cause for an impeachment is damn near staring them in the face.

If you aren't? Not sure on that one.

-- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com

Dude, don't feed the trolls ;).

He does not care about your earnest response to what is clearly a setup he's designed to "trigger" those "liberal lefties" ..... *big fucking groan*.

I hope someone punches me in the dick if use those phrases again.

On Jan 31, 2017, at 5:31 PM, John Newman wrote: I'm totally on board with your analysis of American politics. I think Trump is a slight outlier, not really possessed of any ideology but his own ego, and almost honest about it with his visceral moronic outbursts.

Of course, that's not to say he hasn't surrounded himself with some people with a real fucking ugly ideology (Bannon, etc), results of which we are already seeing play out...

John

...

On Jan 31, 2017, at 10:59 AM, Razer wrote:

I hope you don't consider my comment trolling John. I'm quite serious. The democrats and republicans do not exist as separate ideological entities. They are in collusion with each other. Because 'Merican Exceptionaism uber alles'. US Libertarians have that social disease too, and are no different than the other two mainstream factions of US government.

Further... If you or anyone else reading this finds THAT offensive, I also have a VERY harsh view of what passes for US immigration policy.

In a nutshell.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,"

It doesn't say give us your HIRED THUGS and people who interpreted the CACI tortured screams of their fellow countrymen in a CIA secret prison, does it? It doesn't say give me your economic elite and the people who have corporate connections to fast-tracked H1-B visas.... Does it? I elaborate: https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/825901439729942528

Still at the top of the pile ... scroll down a bit, then up.

Rr

"What is to be abolished is not the reality principle; not everything, but such particular things as business, politics, exploitation, poverty." -Herbert Marcuse

...

On 01/31/2017 07:22 AM, John Newman wrote:

...

...

On Jan 30, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On 01/29/2017 06:08 PM, #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ wrote: This is getting ridiculous, Trump must be stopped before he turns America into a White nation - he is shockingly close now to being Literally Hitler!!!

What can we do? This is why I voted for Hillary.

What can we do, you ask?

If you're in the US, call your Representative and Senators, especially if they happen to be Republicans, and say you want to see Trump impeached. If they actually do their damn jobs, the probable cause for an impeachment is damn near staring them in the face.

If you aren't? Not sure on that one.

-- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com

Dude, don't feed the trolls ;).

He does not care about your earnest response to what is clearly a setup he's designed to "trigger" those "liberal lefties" ..... *big fucking groan*.

I hope someone punches me in the dick if use those phrases again.