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

juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 24 01:14:03 PST 2016


On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 21:17:27 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>  From: juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>
> 
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:21:27 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <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.]


	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 
>    



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list