Assange's Case

Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 punks at
Wed Aug 11 19:15:26 PDT 2021

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 01:17:17 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at> wrote:

>  >   You are clearly not a libertarian. Just go to the archives and read, for instance, your  repulsive defense of the borders of the US state.
>   >  It starts here
> I'm not in favor of GOVERNMENT borders.  I am very much in favor of PRIVATE borders.  

	The discussion was about immigration to the US (and other states) and you and cantwell were against it. It's all in the archives.


>     >From jdb at  Tue Dec 20 13:21:27 2016
>   >  "This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea."

> You are pointing to something that seems to no longer exist.   Yes, I vaguely recall it.  

	No, I'm quoting your own  words : 

	"This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea" 

	But that idea, which you clearly disagreed with, has never been 'destroyed' and can't be destroyed. For completness sake you can get cantwell's article here,

	Though again, the  point is that you were rejecting a basic libertarian position : "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" - because you are not a libertarian. But maybe now you're saying you 'changed your mind' and you realize that indeed 

	"libertarians must be in favor of open borders" ? 


>    > To make things even more funny look at who the 'libertarian philosopher' you invoked actually is  
>    >
>    > Now to state the obvious, libertarians support the extermination of the state, including of couse, the state's borders.
> And I am no different.  Government borders, no.   Private borders, yes.  

	Except, you and the white supremacist cantwell were talking about STATE borders. 

	Also, when you say private borders, what do you think you're talking about exactly. Private borders (say the borders of the plot of land where your house is located) have nothing to do with immigration. And they are not even called borders as far as I know. 

	I'm of course well aware of the right wing nutcases who think whole 'countries' should be 'privatized' and owned by musk and joogle, but of course those right wing nutcases are 1000% anti libertarian...

> >> The problem, briefly stated, is "How do you defend a country based on anarchistic or libertarian principles, if they cannot tax themselves to put on a defense?".
>  >   notice the absurd idea that such a thing as an anarchist 'country' can exist. If you were a libertarian you'd know that countries are a creation of the state.
> As you should well understand, in the English language (and probably most other languages) words are used with multiple meanings.

> I'd like to see the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) and its myriad definitions.  
> I use the term "country" to mean "a region of land (usually) populated by people".

	Yeah so any region with some people on it can be called a 'country' but that's obviously not the sort of country that was being discussed. 

	We were talking about 'countries' created by governments, and their government 'enforced'  borders.


> Notice that I didn't use the term "nation", which would have (at least) implied a government operating to control that region of land.  

	OK so your last comment was just  self-advertising based on a mostly meaningless use of the word "country". It was a side issue anyway. The main topic being your anti-immigration, pro state-borders view. 


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list