"right" vs permission, to immigrate - "Japan: No Muslims, no terrorists"

[Rayzer at 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 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 at gmail.com>
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:21:27 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987 at 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-immigration/
>
>
> >    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
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 13323 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20161223/d7897761/attachment.txt>