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

juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 20 18:50:21 PST 2016


On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:22:45 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at 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
> 
> 
>    




More information about the cypherpunks mailing list