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

[jim bell]

 From: juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:21:27 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>  From: Zenaan Harkness <zen at 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-immigration/
>                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


   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 15026 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20161220/45b459f8/attachment.txt>