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

[juan]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:29:04 -0800
Razer <rayzer at riseup.net> wrote:

> 
> It's easy to see, empirically in my life, and in ur irl, that US
> 'libertarians' are absolutely right wing republicans 


	just like you are a commie. Left and right, both
	enemies of freedom. You as a castro's cock sucker are even a
	more glaring example of totalitarian scumbag than the
	repuglicans. 


> with a socially
> liberal streak ... "Socially liberal" in a 'fratboy date rape' sort of
> way if you were describing their relationship with others in the
> society.
> 
> Rr
> 
> 
> > Juan, I'm still waiting for you to justify your claim that
> > Christopher Cantwell isn't a libertarian.  Your merely pointing to
> > his assertion that libertarians shouldn't be (or need not be) in
> > favor of open borders, simply highlights which side of the argument
> > you are on:  It doesn't say that Cantwell is necessarily wrong.
> > It would help your position immensely if you could point to a
> > substantial number of positions Cantwell has taken which
> > libertarians would generally agree that contradict libertarian
> > philosophy. I suggest you read
> >  https://christophercantwell.com/2015/12/06/why-libertarians-are-hopeless/  
> >  which I include a segment of, below.   I suspect you are exactly
> > the kind of problem that Cantwell is referring to:  People of the
> > left who are simply pretending to be "libertarian".  
> >
> > ×
> >
> >              Jim Bell
> >
> >
> >     [partial quote below]
> >
> >
> >     Why Libertarians Are Corrupted By The Left
> >
> > I should again explain, I am discussing libertarians, not
> > libertarianism. The following critique would rightly be met with
> > complaints by well read Rothbardians as containing a great many
> > falsehoods. I have made these complaints repeatedly myself.
> > In their efforts to grow their numbers, and in the face of perpetual
> > frustrations in getting wolves and rabbits to shrug off their
> > evolutionary psychology, libertarian groups have resorted to
> > recruiting non-libertarians into their ranks. This presumably was
> > perceived as a competitive advantage in a political system which
> > favors numbers over reasoned arguments or factual correctness.
> > In the course of so doing, it is my perception that leftists are
> > particularly more prone to swing toward libertarian social circles
> > than rightists, due primarily to a lack of ingroup preference. It is
> > not that they become libertarians or suddenly shrug off their
> > rodent like evolutionary psychology. They are simply more prone to
> > novelty seeking ,and lack any group loyalty or attachment to any
> > particular idea. They are still rodents, but they realize they can
> > have a higher social status in this smaller group than in their
> > larger openly left wing group. A left libertarian blogger may become
> > the envy of his left libertarian peers, but would accomplish
> > absolutely nothing when competing against the vast expanse of
> > mainstream liberal media.
> > The rightist on the other hand is less prone to novelty seeking,
> > has a higher ingroup preference, and is more averse to radical
> > changes in the existing social and economic order. Additionally, he
> > is aware that his inferior numbers make his absence in a democratic
> > contest far more consequential than that of the leftist. So he is
> > far more averse to radically altering his thinking, his social
> > circles, or his political activity to favor a more libertarian
> > order. Thus, while libertarianism as a well thought out philosophy
> > would be more appealing to the rightist than the leftist, the
> > leftist gains undue influence in the libertarian social and
> > political scene. That leftist influence dilutes the body of thought
> > as left tainted media is produced and distracts from the writings
> > of the Rothbards and Hoppes of the world....
> >
> >
> 
> Redacted with malice aforethought.
> 
> 
>