tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post3729020282236720611..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Jacob Hornberger Carries Sheldon Richman’s Waterbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-77166245303422611322017-04-02T06:08:53.967-07:002017-04-02T06:08:53.967-07:00You completely mis-state my position and then decl...You completely mis-state my position and then declare ME confused?<br /><br />You are rather obnoxious, but I knew this was coming given the feigned humility shown in your opening sentence.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-43440213184344847672017-04-02T02:56:00.245-07:002017-04-02T02:56:00.245-07:00As a newcomer to libertarianism, here is what I un...As a newcomer to libertarianism, here is what I understand:<br />Firstly, Sheldon Richman: you have to allow immigration to be a consistent libertarian. It is a matter of True Social Justice, i.e. advancing and upholding property rights. Let us make Justice so that the World does not perish. Also, it will bring about good results, of the same kind of all deregulation. <br /><br />Secondly, Walter Block: To be a libertarian means to measure everything by the non-aggression axiom. All State actions are in violation of that axiom. This includes prohibition of migration, forced migration, and any kind of regulation or "social program" that tries to prevent humans from making their own decisions and be responsible for them. Therefore, you should not favor State regulation on migration and call yourself a libertarian.<br /><br />Thirdly, Bionicmosquito: Our superior western culture is about to be anihilated due to the continuous aggression of the State, one of whose modes is "open borders globalism". We need even more aggression of the State against us in order to prevent the State from destroying us by aggressing against us in the first place (!?!?!?!?!). <br /><br />As a newcomer, I believe that Richman and Block, and Hornberger and Ebeling, and Mises and Hayek, are all much better libertarians than Bionicmosquito and Hoppe. <br /><br />You guys are confused or obnoxious. Probably both. Please, go back to square one: Henry Hazlitt. And compare. Just compare where we are and where were them.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-31904118319799302532017-03-25T07:18:18.459-07:002017-03-25T07:18:18.459-07:00Unhappy Conservative. I'm a Rothbardian ancap....Unhappy Conservative. I'm a Rothbardian ancap. There is nothing in your post that I disagree with. Just a thought. Is it natural for a "refugee" from the ME or Africa to go to Oregon or freezing Minnesota? If there was a war in Kansas, would Kansans go to Sweden or would they go to Oklahoma or Texas? These people are purposely being sent to Western countries to destabilize them. It's orchestrated!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-39257774342649937402017-03-14T12:39:15.079-07:002017-03-14T12:39:15.079-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-67013183339542895082017-03-14T06:39:48.689-07:002017-03-14T06:39:48.689-07:00"And what of brining in people for whom liber..."And what of brining in people for whom liberty is literally a foreign concept?"<br /><br />Well, it's been my experience that brining usually helps the flavor of most meats. I've never tried humans, so I'm not sure if certain political affiliations vary in taste but, if there is a difference, brining would help.<br /><br />The cannibalization of the libertarian movement, however, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe that's what libertarianism is: an ideological mindset for the sake of argument. Brutushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06885083535036422093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-24384351622556639182017-03-13T22:52:51.472-07:002017-03-13T22:52:51.472-07:00Brutus,
Indeed. And what of brining in people fo...Brutus, <br /><br />Indeed. And what of brining in people for whom liberty is literally a foreign concept? Especially when they can vote themselves goodies from the pockets of people for whom they feel no affinity, and may even despise. Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-72981752306052444302017-03-13T18:25:28.812-07:002017-03-13T18:25:28.812-07:00"winning tribe"
I like that. More and m..."winning tribe"<br /><br />I like that. More and more it seems like the tribes aren't even a majority but a plurality. <br /><br />I also like a tribe's ability to stick together and move forward. Perpetual debate is starting to wear thin on me. Is the concept of liberty too high-minded and divisive to be the basis for a viable system in place of big government? Brutushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06885083535036422093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-82199883277937042272017-03-13T09:59:55.289-07:002017-03-13T09:59:55.289-07:00BM, it was in response to Patrick Szar’s remark: ...BM, it was in response to Patrick Szar’s remark: “open-borders "policy" in the real world as it exists today is a de facto NAP violation.” Such a use of the term NAP renders it meaningless. Further, aggressions are actions (like what ICE does), not inactions or less action, as a more open national borders policy would have.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18259730262288807964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-14867701627928566962017-03-13T07:37:41.282-07:002017-03-13T07:37:41.282-07:00And yet, libertarian principles allows for volunta...And yet, libertarian principles allows for voluntary associations, even to the establishment of community of like-minded libertarians, to the exclusion of non-libertarians.<br />With which people/persons do you think you have a higher likelihood of having a common set of principles, an European or a Huaorani?JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-46732060729354980572017-03-13T07:14:49.118-07:002017-03-13T07:14:49.118-07:00Jack, I am sure you have a point and I would like ...Jack, I am sure you have a point and I would like to understand it. To whom is your comment directed, and what, exactly, are you getting at?bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-30489692823879606312017-03-13T01:58:03.575-07:002017-03-13T01:58:03.575-07:00The NAP applies to individuals, not groups. The NAP applies to individuals, not groups. Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18259730262288807964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-5315401685694817922017-03-12T21:40:18.959-07:002017-03-12T21:40:18.959-07:00So true BM..Especially when we are dealing with Un...So true BM..Especially when we are dealing with Un-elected Supranational governing bodies and or Groups of Men aligned (sometimes) that have many nation states in their back pockets already with the insolvent Central Banking Scam. <br /><br />The old Privileged Classes don't play by text book realities or in this thread's discussion of theoretical Libertarian framework. This tyranny is much more sophisticated than just a Hunnic tribe fixing to sweep down from mountain and wreak havoc on the village. Multifaceted and very deceiving form of Evil we have here.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09731498839869076790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-38590470190287276172017-03-12T16:40:40.971-07:002017-03-12T16:40:40.971-07:00I appreciate your thoughts and your time, busy as ...I appreciate your thoughts and your time, busy as you are answering the many comments. <br /><br />However, the border under consideration is not an open border; rather it is a border controlled by politicians, who are including some while excluding others. This is the unjustifiable favoritism/discrimination you are protesting. Last century, Christians and Jews were included, Muslims excluded. Europeans were included, the rest excluded. This century, it is the reverse. Even illegal immigration is a politically controlled permission, not a universal freedom, impervious to withdrawal. <br /><br />The comments prove to me that the issue underlying all these issues is government vs. anarchy. Who should control property and its corollary borders …autonomous people who earn the profits or an authority controlling all property and people. The word “should” requires a goal…if one’s goal is NAP complacent peaceful prosperity, there can be no one in a position using legal, socially acceptable aggression. <br /><br />A majority acceptance of aggression as means to peaceful prosperity will fail, as that is a relationship in which the greatest profits are not those of enrichment via exchange and charity, but enrichment via political favoritism and redistribution of tax dollars. The incessant clamor for favoritism, usually fulfilled as every politician’s only purpose is to favor some by exploiting others, ends with the 100% control of totalitarianism or revolution. <br /><br />Your greatest objection seems to be discrimination, yet discrimination is necessary to all state relationships, as the only justification of a state is the defense of the politically decided acceptable from the politically unacceptable, inevitably accomplished in whatever way power mongers see as the most personally profitable.<br /><br /> “…have you thought about the possibility that open borders could serve as a catalyst for Americans to repeal the entire welfare state, including public schooling?” Yes, and concluded that despite world wide, historical and current attempts to create differences by which to redistribute profits, human minds are much alike, susceptible to propaganda when its results are profitable, either in an improved self image or greater wealth. jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09018815829884467223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-88916873696282047222017-03-12T15:47:24.303-07:002017-03-12T15:47:24.303-07:00Jacob, since you ignore everything written, I will...Jacob, since you ignore everything written, I will repeat here what I wrote a few months ago. It directly deals with your claim that border enforcement is the worst violation of liberty possible.<br /><br />Of course one of the reasons that most libertarians demand open borders is because they refuse to accept that the cascade of NAP violations that results from the open borders are in fact NAP violations. On the other hand their sense of NAP violation is highly tuned when it comes to the state turning away a foreigner with a criminal record for murder at the border - how dare the government violate the rights of this poor man! <br /><br />This leads me to believe that their highest value is the undermining of Western civilization, and they believe that libertarianism is the way to get to that goal, just as some socialists believe that socialism/communism is the way to achieve that goal. To summarize, libertarianism is the means of ending western civilization, not the end.<br /><br />There is a difference between the nation and the state, although the cultural Marxist libertarians conflate the two just like the statists. The nation state came about as peoples (biologically and culturally related people, AKA nations) demanded states that represented their interests, states controlled by and for the benefit of the nation. Before that nations would often be ruled by foreigners (at least in Europe). <br /><br />So what you see is "libertarians" supporting the state in betraying the nation. What a coincidence that you have libertarians that just happen to support current state policies, and even demand such policies be ramped up. <br /><br />What is to be done about libertarians that work against the nation? To my mind you treat them exactly the same as the traitor state. If you betray your tribal affiliation you get exiled or otherwise forcibly removed from societyMatt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-56187255871220057212017-03-12T13:46:14.575-07:002017-03-12T13:46:14.575-07:00While I lean towards restricting immigration, I am...While I lean towards restricting immigration, I am under no illusions that it is just one unpleasant trade-off for another. What is particularly unpleasant is dragging away perfectly respectable people who came here is children and who are now fully Americanized. In law, there is a defense called “laches” due to the expiration of significant time before complaining about an issue.<br /><br />Further, I’m never comfortable attacking other libertarians on much of anything (not that they don’t deserve it), especially when there are people around like “Vox Day” towards whom I should direct my energies:<br /><br /><i>“YOU ARE NO EUROPEANS"<br /><br />They are not. And they never will be. That's why they have to go back.<br /><br />********************<br /><br />It's time for the God-Emperor to tell the 80 million post-1965 Not Americans the same thing. They are not Americans and they never will be. America desperately needs its own Reconquista while Europe launches its version 2.0.<br /><br />600,000 Mexicans were stripped of their US citizenship and deported by President Eisenhower. So don't even try to claim it's not possible or that it's not Constitutional. It is possible, it is legal, it is Constitutional, and there is legal precedent for both naturalized and natural-born citizens. And most of all, it is absolutely necessary for the survival of the USA, the American people, and Western civilization.<br /><br />You may not like to hear that. But history clearly dictates that the two most likely alternatives are a) continent-wide war or b) the end of Western civilization.</i><br /><br />http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/03/you-are-no-europeans.html<br /><br />Tribalism is a serious problem for a social democracy because the government controls most everything and the winning tribe thus claims and has control of everything. It’s now quite a problem even between White Euro left “progressives” and White Euro social conservative Trump “progressives” under our ever increasing social democracy. Under laissez faire, it’s not such a problem because people tend to purchase value, not tribalism. <br />Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-10929196846641664182017-03-12T11:41:08.841-07:002017-03-12T11:41:08.841-07:00Thank you, Patrick, for your last sentence. There...Thank you, Patrick, for your last sentence. There are so many points Jacob raises, from a pure NAP standpoint, with which I cannot disagree - and I have told him so.<br /><br />However, there are many points I raise, from a pure NAP standpoint, with which Jacob cannot disagree (if he would be honest). He has found it impossible to recognize this.<br /><br />There is no pure NAP answer in a world with state borders. If one asks me my position from a pure NAP standpoint, this is all I can say.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-50425753383801496422017-03-12T10:55:39.214-07:002017-03-12T10:55:39.214-07:00The only point I'm seeing pleaded that's l...The only point I'm seeing pleaded that's likely to move the conversation anywhere is Decentralization, but last I understood Jacob isn't entirely on board with it - Maybe Sheldon isn't either, now it's about "Extreme Cosmopolitanism", which sounds like a new attempt to sell globalism. <br /><br />A decentralized world might allow Jacob to explore this theory to it's absolute limits.Black Flaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04264200450145227142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-40674349969098604322017-03-12T10:37:07.802-07:002017-03-12T10:37:07.802-07:00Jacob,
You said:
"What I am simply saying is:...Jacob,<br />You said:<br />"What I am simply saying is: No libertarian should ever support any infringement on liberty or use other infringements on liberty to serve as an excuse for supporting infringements on liberty. Libertarians should adhere strictly to principle and always stand for repeal of any and all infringements on liberty."<br /><br />Through this entire exchange I believe the point you are not acknowledging is, open-borders "policy" in the real world as it exists today is a de facto NAP violation. As BM has repeatedly said, there is no libertarian answer to the borders question in the real world *as it exists today*.P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-45804649901853698812017-03-12T07:22:36.719-07:002017-03-12T07:22:36.719-07:00To Unhappy Conservative:
You are absolutely righ...To Unhappy Conservative: <br /><br />You are absolutely right that some immigrants commit violent crimes, just as some Americans commit violent crimes. But most immigrants, like most Americans, don't commit violent crimes. Where is the justice in imposing a collective guilt on all immigrants (or all Americans)? Why not simply prosecute those immigrants for assault, rape, theft, and the like, just as we prosecute some Americans for such crimes? <br /><br />We will have to agree to disagree on what an invasion is. I continue to hold that it entails what the U.S. government has done to Iraq and what it did to Vietnam. Massive death and destruction through state violence. That's not what the European refugees are doing. I question your assertion that it's all part of some vast left-wing conspiracy for Muslims or Arabs to take over the world. If the Middle East were not aflame in death and destruction, much of it rooted in U.S. interventionism, there never would have been a refugee crisis in Europe. <br /><br />You are incorrect in your assertion that "this country was for Europeans until 1965." Throughout most of the 19th century, there were no immigration controls except for a cursory health inspection as Ellis Island. Also, when you say "Europeans" let's keep in mind that there was extreme prejudice against Italians (they called them wops) and also against Irish immigrants. In the Southwest, the borders were complete open after the U.S. stole the northern half of Mexico in the Mexican War. Not even cursory health inspections. People were free to cross back and forth across the U.S.-Mexico border. On the west coast, completely open borders, which enabled millions of Chinese and Japanese to come to America. They were not Europeans--they were Asians. See Chinatown in San Francisco. See the WW2 concentation camps for Japanese-Americans. In fact, the first immigration control law wasn't enacted until the late 1800s--the Chinese Exclusion Act, which marked the beginning of the statist era in America (eg, socialism, interventionism, eugenics, fascism, militarism, and imperialism).<br /><br />JacobAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18041542998873125525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-82092075650144910902017-03-12T07:08:18.573-07:002017-03-12T07:08:18.573-07:00To Jr: I don't ignore the welfare state aspect...To Jr: I don't ignore the welfare state aspects of immigration, including public schooling. What I am saying is: We libertarians should focus on ending that wrongdoing, not adding to the wrongdoing by letting the statists maneuver and manipulate us into joining up with them by supporting any of their infringements on liberty. Anyway, there is such a prejudice against providing welfare for foreigners, have you thought about the possibility that open borders could serve as a catalyst for Americans to repeal the entire welfare state, including public schooling? Moreover, there is also the fact that Congress has the power to enact a law that says: No welfare for foreigners. The states also have the power to exempt foreigners from public schooling (which would be the greatest thing that could ever happen to their children). Also, studies have shown that the net benefit that immigrants bring society is on the positive side, given their strong work ethic and energy. Moreover, many of them pay Social Security taxes for years and then return home without ever claiming Social Security. Regardless, let us libertarians adhere to principle by showing why public schooling, welfare statism, imperialism, the drug war, and the like should be repealed rather than endorse more infringements on liberty. Otherwise we become like them. What could be worse than that? <br /><br />JacobbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18041542998873125525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-65425132449060252942017-03-12T06:59:44.605-07:002017-03-12T06:59:44.605-07:00To Tony: No one is asking you to shrug off any gov...To Tony: No one is asking you to shrug off any government infringements on liberty. What I am simply saying is: No libertarian should ever support any infringement on liberty or use other infringements on liberty to serve as an excuse for supporting infringements on liberty. Libertarians should adhere strictly to principle and always stand for repeal of any and all infringements on liberty. If statists succeed in inducing libertarians to join up on some statist programs (e.g., drug laws and immigration controls) by enacting other statist programs (e.g. Medicaid, welfare for foreigners), then they will have won. They only chance that libertarians have for achieving a free society is by sticking to their principles by standing for a repeal of all infringements on liberty.<br /><br />JacobAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18041542998873125525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-60189574140356761922017-03-12T06:59:30.450-07:002017-03-12T06:59:30.450-07:00One more thing and then I'll shut up. The diff...One more thing and then I'll shut up. The difference between immigration and invasion warrants further discussion.<br /><br />Say Mohammedan hordes wielding AK-47s land on the shores of Sicily. After a campaign of rape and plunder, vigorously resisted by the Italian government and armed local militias, they institute (freelance) Sharia law at the point of their guns. <br /><br />Now say unarmed Mohammedan hordes swarm the shores of Sicily. After a campaign of rape and plunder, dutifully ignored when not enthusiastically subsidized by the oh-so-tolerant Italian government, they seize the machinery of democracy and vote themselves (government-payroll) Sharia law. <br /><br />What's the lesson here? That Sicilians and "their" government ought not to resist the armed invaders because the Mohammedans can just as "peaceably" seize the machinery of democracy and vote themselves (government-payroll) Sharia law? <br /><br />Left-libertarians get right-libertarians all wrong. We don't want to enlist the government to keep our ancestral homelands free of alien and hostile elements. We don't even trust it to do that. We want separation of borders and state. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05242683448708605585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-58334681370506485802017-03-12T06:51:04.780-07:002017-03-12T06:51:04.780-07:00To Tony: you're missing my point. To clarify, ...To Tony: you're missing my point. To clarify, let's say the government is infringing on freedom in four ways: foreign wars, welfare state, drug laws, and immigration controls (all forcibly funded through taxation). <br /><br />Libertarians would naturally oppose all four infringements on liberty as being violative of the libertarian non-aggression principle.<br /><br />Let's say one is asked whether any of those four infringements on liberty should be repealed. The libertarian would naturally say: "All four should be repealed!"<br /><br />But let's say that we are close to getting only two of them repealed--drug laws and immigration controls. <br /><br />What then? The conservative would respond: "We can't legalize drugs until Medicaid is abolished because drug addicts will go on welfare, which will cause the rest of us to pay higher taxes. As soon as Medicaid is abolished, we can abolish drug laws."<br /><br />The libertarian would say: "Abolish drug laws now, regardless of Medicaid and taxation. They constitute a horrific violation of the principles of liberty."<br /><br />Suppose one is asked the same question with respect to immigration controls. The conservative would respond: "We can't repeal this infringement on liberty because of welfare and foreign wars. As soon as foreign wars and welfare are ended, we can end immigration controls"<br /><br />The libertarian says: "Immigration controls (like drugs laws) are such an eggregious infringement on liberty that they should be abolished immediately, regardless of welfare and foreign wars. Then, we'll focus on ending the rest of the infringements on liberty.'<br /><br />If we make repeal of some infringements on liberty dependent on repealing other infringements on liberty, the free society becomes a never-never proposition. And as I have previously stated, if we libertarians permit statists or statist programs to manuever or manipulate us into endorsing the continuation of statist programs, then how are we libertarians different from liberals, conservatives, and other statists?<br /><br />JacobAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18041542998873125525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-25375267178527237092017-03-11T22:01:11.149-08:002017-03-11T22:01:11.149-08:00Jacob,
There are so many lies here it is hard to ...Jacob,<br /><br />There are so many lies here it is hard to know where to start.<br /><br />When "immigrants" violently attack police at European borders they are obviously just peace loving entrepreneurs. The "immigrants" who raped 1400 children in Rotterdam were just sexual entrepreneurs. <br /><br />You will not accept the category of invaders to describe millions of fighting age men hostile to Europe being imported according to a plan devised by billionaire globalists like George Soros and Peter Sutherland. It doesn't look like Iraq because the real war, the race war, hasn't started yet. The coming European War is going to make Iraq look like a picnic.<br /><br />The idea that these people are all fleeing warzones is another lie. Some of these wars have been going on for over a decade and this is happening now because it is coordinated and planned by the oligarchy. It is a population replacement program designed to destroy the European nations.<br /><br />You act like you are proposing a solution by sticking to your anti-war talking points. The same SCUM who are responsible for these wars are the ones pushing for, and funding, "refugee" resettlement. It is a political weapon imposed on a subject population against their will. Dissent is silenced with jail or a gang of communist thugs with baseball bats.<br /><br />Believe it or not I wouldn't have a problem with real refugees provided the following:<br /><br />1. They are not state funded and have a private sponsor.<br /><br />2. They commit ZERO crimes (and if they do commit violent crimes, both they and their sponsor need to hang).<br /><br />3. They return home when the danger has passed.<br /><br />Obviously this is not the situation we are dealing with. Quite the opposite.<br /><br />I have experience with Somali "refugees" in Oregon. Lowest filth I have ever encountered. If you have children and are ok with your daughter around these animals then you are a terrible father. These people would regularly travel back and forth between Somalia. So much for certain death.<br /><br />"That was in fact the foreign policy of the United States for its first 100 years: no going abroad in search of monsters to destroy and open immigration for anyone wishing to flee those monsters"<br /><br />False. This country was for Europeans until the 1965 Immigration Act was rammed down our throats, largely due to Jewish influence (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/immigration.pdf).<br /><br />Lastly, since you went to bat for Sheldon Richman, will you do the same for his buddy Charles Johnson?<br /><br />"National borders are a bloody stain on the face of the earth. Burn all nations to the ground." (Johnson, https://c4ss.org/content/21916)<br /><br />You would be forgiven for thinking that was quote from Leon Trotsky.Unhappy Conservative (2.0)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05647440445427537430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-54533594300999038272017-03-11T21:51:25.985-08:002017-03-11T21:51:25.985-08:00Open-border libertarians exhort closed-border libe...Open-border libertarians exhort closed-border libertarians to shrug off the mass-immigration subsidies and forced-association laws, neither of which would exist in the absence of the State, and welcome the migration of alien and hostile cultures in their midst. <br /><br />Closed-border libertarians can just as justifiably exhort open-border libertarians to shrug off the barriers to migration, which also wouldn't exist in the absence of the State, and welcome the movement to end mass-immigration subsidies and forced-association laws.<br /><br />The default migration position in a fully privatized social order is no trespassing, not massive trespassing. It's not closed-border libertarians' fault government has created a tragedy of the commons with its seizure of wide swathes of property. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05242683448708605585noreply@blogger.com