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

[jdb10987 at yahoo.com (jim bell)]

 From: juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 21:21:27 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>> This essay by Christopher Cantwell pretty much destroys the
>> "libertarians must be in favor of open borders" idea.
>> https://christophercantwell.com/2015/09/28/open-borders-or-market-immigration/


> Â  Â So, to wrap this 'issue' up :
Which is apparently what you say when you're planning to misrepresent things.

> Â  Â In his article, cantwell correctly describes and acknowledges 
> Â  Â the libertarian position and then DISMISSES it and REJECTS it as
 >   'not practical'.
And you misrepresent it by referring to it as "THE libertarian position". Â (emphasis mine).It's quite the opposite, so I wonder if you really read Cantwell's essay, or whether you are simply deliberately misrepresenting things.The truth is that Cantwell makes clear his opinion is that some people are MIS-representing the 'open-borders' position as being the ONLY "libertarian" position.

As Cantwell states:
"Â But open borders in the presence of a command economy and welfare state is decidedly anti-market, anti-freedom, and anti-peace."
> Â  Â "But the (good) libertarian will tend to put principle first,
 >   no doubt" 

> Â  Â Or perhaps that was meant in a mocking tone, which would be
 >   further proof that cantwell is his own parody. 
I see nothing wrong with presenting this 'pro-open-borders' position in a mocking fashion. Â 

    
   > Then he embarks on a pseudo-economical tangent (conservatives
   > like to pretende they know 'economics') and introdudes the
  >  laughable lie that immigration to the US is driven by state
  >  'welfare'.
Depends a lot on what you mean by "driven by". Â  I'd say, instead, it is "affected by state 'welfare'". Â In other words, don't imply that the only factor affecting immigration is 'welfare'. Â It's just a big factor. Â 

    
 >   So cantwell knows what the libertarian position should be and
> Â  Â rejects it.
Not at all. Â Cantwell knows what a SIMPLISTIC 'libertarian' position looks like, notices the inconsistencies, and rejects it. Â Not the same thing.

> He then lies about immigration
How does he lie about immigration?
>, and doesn't even
> Â  Â have the balls to explicitly admit that he's nothing but the
>    cheapest conservative DEFENDING THE STATE'S BORDERS. 
If 'public property' were eliminated, it would be possible to eliminate "state's borders", converting them to private borders.  What we now know as "illegal aliens" could be excluded not by things called "governments", but instead by agreements among private individuals to block entry by those people. 

 >   Just in case : libertarianism and the state are 'incompatible'.
Libertarianism and 'public property' are more clearly 'incompatible' than that pair.  The inconsistency is that generally, people who advocate 'open borders' do so with the conceit that they are maintaining a 'welfare state' and 'public property' (both non-libertarian principles, at least not without voluntary agreements) while simultaneously eliminating 'state borders'. 

> Â  Â It painfully follows that no libertarian worth his salt would
> Â  Â defend such crass statist device as the state's borders.
I advocate private borders upon America's adoption of libertarian principles. Â That, of course, may eliminate the concept of 'America' as a monolithic entity.
            Jim Bell
  
   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 8974 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20161223/e38c69dc/attachment.txt>