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

[juan]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 05:46:12 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:



> I don't try to deny that it would be possible to design a society
> that is more free than what we have.

	No doubt things could be better, but I wouldn't word it that
	way. I am not into designing societies, something that doesn't
	sound too different from central planning.


> 
>  >   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. 

> The issue isn't "defending the state's borders". 


	I think it completely is. A couple of messages ago you stated

	"This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the
	"libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea.  "
		
	Just in case it is not obvious enough : you are either for open
	borders, or not. And if you are not for open borders, then you
	are supporting the absurd, wholly anti-libertarian claim that a
	gang of thieves and murdereres - the state - has 'jurisdiction'
	over land and people.


> The issue is, how
> do we improve society? 

	Again, I wouldn't put it that way. I am not an utilitarian nor
	a socialist. 'Society' is a rather blury concept if seen from
	the point of view of individuals are their natural rights. 



> It is possible to make changes which are
> good, which will make things better, which fall short of complete
> perfection.  But it is also possible to imagine making changes which
> will make things worse.  If you are really trying to achieve a free
> society (or a freer society),

	You would never defend the state's borders, or lend the
	slightest support to the idea that the state can create a
	concentration camp - and that's what borders are for. 


> can you imagine that letting in a few
> hundred million people, mostly from societies that have little or no
> respect for rights, might make things worse?  


	You can't be seriously saying that. No respect for rights? you
	mean fucking american psychos from the baking mafia and the
	military, who are raping the whole world? Again, are you and
	cantwell going to DEPORT all your jew-kristian religious
	fanatics who also happen to be pure blood 'legal' 'american'
	'citizens'?  I'm hoping you won't ignore this little problem
	and show some consistency.



> If you can't imagine
> that, you're the problem. 

	Actually, considering what you are saying, you and cantwell are
	the problem...Especially cantwell.



> >    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.

> This amounts to you saying that YOU would prefer that "force should
> be proportional". 

	Yes, BUT, I would prefer that force  be proportional because it
	is the only reasonable and justified aproach. It's not a
	matter of arbitrary, 'subjective' preference. So force SHOULD
	be proportional as a matter of 'objective' morality.



> The NIOFP doesn't require proportional force.  You
> are entitled to state your preferences.  You are not entitled to
> force your preferences on everyone else.

	"The NIOFP doesn't require proportional force." 

	Did you get that from the bible? Or any other 'authority'?
	Actually common sense morality DOES require proportionality.
	It should be self evident...

> 
> >    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.

> Exactly.


	But that's in the case of state agents, not a general rule.

>     
> 
> >> 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.

> But the NIOFP doesn't restrict the level of force.  YOU would do that.

	Of course basic moral and 'libertarian' principles restrict the
	level of force. Even yourself acknowledge that, despite arguing
	for the opposite nonsensical position here. 

	Or are you saying that you are going to pull a gun on anybody
	who you *think* is attacking you? If somebody tries to cheat you
	by any means or amount, you are going to execute him on the
	spot? Are you that crazy?



> 
> 
> > 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. 

> Who says?  


	I and any sane person do. So you are stating that you are a 
	trigger happy psycho, out of a hollywood movie, or out of the
	americunt army? 


> Let me point out that if the NIOFP was so obviously
> limited and flawed, 

	What is obviously limited and flawed is your understanding of
	the so called NAP. If you don't use proportional force then YOU
	become the aggressor. 



> libertarians would have long ago modified it to
> include an explicit set of restrictions.  I have heard of none.  And
> looking at the Wikipedia article
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle  , I see
> virtually no discussion of that issue. 


	So your understanding of libertarianism comes from wikipedia's
	'authority'? That would explain a lot...




> 
> >    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'.

> Are you saying that YOU get to decide that limitation for ME, and
> everyone else?!?Please tell us who died and made you king.  

	
	I get to decide the limitation for ME. That is, you cannot
	attack ME (or anybody else) with the crazy and criminal excuse
	that you are 'defending' yourself. 

	Then again, that's typically american isnt eh? You murder
	everybody in a 'preemtive strike' as 'self defense'.



> 
> >>  I consider that non-libertarian government, 
> 
> >    There's no such thing as 'libertarian' government anyway.

> Not currently, but it's not impossible in theory.


	It IS impossible in theory and your stating otherwise shows
	that your understanding of libertarian theory is...flawed.


> A government which
> didn't violate NIOFP would constitute 

	It would not be a government in any sense of the word. But of
	course, given your (lack of) understanding of the NAP, you
	probably would allow your 'libertarian' government to attack
	anywone who 'threatened' it. People who didn't respecet
	'copyright' would be executed, for instance? 


> a "libertarian government".
>  I'll let you think about how that might be possible.

	It is you who should be doing a lot of thinking about
	libertarian principles.


> I'm not defending the FSP.  Maybe they are simply trying to improve
> on society, and not holding it to extreme standards which they don't
> think are possible.

	You are defending cantwell who was a member of the FSP until he
	was kicked. Thing is, they are all statists, despite any
	alleged intention to 'improve society'.

> 
> 
> >    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. 

> A person who advocates an improvement to today's society can do so
> without claiming that such an improvement achieves perfect
> libertarianism.  It's you who set up that strawman.


	lolwut? I didn't setup any 'strawman' - I simply dealt with the 
	groundless, anti-libertarian claim that open borders are not
	libertarian. They are, and anybody who opposes open borders is
	NOT a libertarian. Cantwell being a perfect example of a right
	wing, pro-state, anti-libertarian idiot. 


J.








> 
>                            Jim Bell