DRAFT version of Federal "Justice" Shutdown Project

[jim bell]

    On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 10:57:35 AM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina at gmail.com> wrote:  
> 
>> I am not in support of borders and i support people's right to
>> travel
> without "Papers".
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that you don't distinguish between public (government)
> borders and private (private property) borders.  Why is that? I
> oppose government borders.  But I believe in the concept of
> private property, which amounts to the right to exclude others from
> that property.  We live on the surface (2 dimensional, more or
> less) of a sphere (Earth) and we desire to travel and have goods
> (and information) brought to us.  That will require that roads and
> other utilities be constructed and maintained, and that costs
> money.  The people who finance such construction will therefore
> have rights.



[stuff deleted]


>> For what it's worth, I also oppose it when government requires
>> people to show some sort of identification in order to travel.  But
>> I believe I cannot prohibit it if a private (non-governmental)
>> company such as an airline decides, for itself, that it will insist
>> on identification in order to allow passengers to travel.  The risk
>> to fellow passengers has become too great (hijacking, bombing, etc)
>> to avoid this, sadly.  I COULD choose to take airlines that DIDN'T
>> require people to identify themselves.  Presumably, such airlines
>> will exist when that is allowed.


[stuff deleted]


>Most libertarians are opposed to collectivism. The idea that a
neihborhood or country is privately owned by the members who then
can keep anyone out or kick people out can become rather nightmarish
form of collectivism.

Maybe you need to think things through.   We are, indeed, stuck on a 2-dimensional surface.   Currently, it is as if all roads are owned by some kind of government, a major example of collectivism.  Generally, libertarians tend to support organization (where it exists) at the lowest practical level, as opposed to higher levels.  Is there some reason that you think it's better that a city government over, say, 250,000 people to have control, rather than a neighborhood agreement by the owners of, say, 250 houses?   Or of 25 houses?


>I tend to support voluntary associations except when they become
repressive and totalitarian.


A person's control over his own property and assets might be (humorously) described as "repressive and totalitarian".    Remember the comic movie, "History of the World Part 1" by Mel Brooks:   "It's good to be the King!".As I see it, the alternative to private property is collective ownership, which quickly turns into Socialist and Communist control and oppression.  (And I consider Naziism to merely be another version of Socialism, see the Wikipedia article on Benito Mussolini.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini  ×


> Heck, even homeowner associations sometimes
become repressive. ...which is why i live out in the sticks where you
don't even need a permit to build things.


Perfectly good reason.  But maybe a better solution would be to ensure that "homowner associations" have no more power than they need, to do whatever they were originally intended to accomplish.  .  
                Jim Bell


  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6288 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20180322/c081c154/attachment.txt>