[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Trump will NEVER turn America into a White nation!



On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 19:03:32 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 AT yahoo.com> wrote:


> 
> >>    "the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders." 
> 
> Since the presumption is that we will be getting rid of governments,
> things will have to change. 

	Looks like you changed the topic somewhat. I think the topic
	was : current travel policies dictated by current governments
	or political mafias. In that regard, the libertarian position is
	 clear : open borsers.

	 hope you finally see that all the borders of all nation states
	 are completely illegitimate =) And so are the states
	 themselves, of course.


	
> How they change, we will have to
> propose, debate, and ultimately decide.  
> 
> >    So it clearly follows that the correct libertarian position on
> >    travel is *open* *government* borders. And so any sort of
> >    support for government restrictions on travel across government
> >    borders is not libertarian. 

> I say there won't BE ANY "government borders".  But there will be
> property lines, a form of border or boundary. 
> And property which is
> currently thought to be owned or at least controlled by "government"
> has to be considered.


	I did that in my previous message.
	

> 
> 
> >> There is no reason that a given piece of property cannot be owned,
> >> jointly, by many people.
> 
> >    Actually, there is a general reason. And the more people, the
> >    bigger the reason. And the obvious reason is that controlling
> >    property in a jointly manner is a mess and a source of discord.

> Living on a 2-dimensional (mostly) surface, plus the requirement that
> people have to move around requires that the ability to do that
> exists.
> (exceptions are airplanes and helicopters,


	Yes, as I already mentioned, that is one of the many facts that
	show that a 'private' 'country' system doesn't work (though
	the biggest problem is that it can't be morally justified)


> road overpasses,
> tunnels, buried pipelines, etc.  I don't see any need, or desire, to
> massively change how people go about their daily businesses 


	Oh I agree with that, as far as free travel is concerned.
	Usually people can freely 'travel' inside, say, a city using
	'public roads'. Well, in reality they can be stoped by cops and
	'checkpoints' etc, but let's pretend that the police state is
	not there.  In a 'normal' city people move freely using public
	roads. And there's absolutely no reason to change that. Rather,
	that sort free movement of people should be extended to the
	whole world. That is what libertarianism is about.


> after
> elimination (or minimization) of governments.

> 
> 
> >    On the other hand, let's say roads become 'quasi property'.
>  >   Now, roads exist for people to travel. And there's no
> >    libertarian argument  against people travelling. 

> But the property previously referred to as "government
> property" (good example:  roads) isn't necessarily assumed to be
> owned by ALL world people.  

	Roads don't need to be owned in the same way you own your
	house.

	Roads should be open to everybody regardless of what kind of
	*convetional* ownership system is used. The LAND used for roads
	can certainly be 'unowned' or 'collectively owned' by all
	people, if you insist in putting it in 'propertarian' terms. 

	

> 
> >    There are also other practical 'refutations' to the idea of
> >    recreating nation-state borders using 'private' property.
> 
> >    1) absent the state land allegedly owned by the state would
> >    revert to its original, unowned state, not to 'quasi-property'.

> I think more analysis is necessary than simply this.  That land would
> cease to be "government property", but it would still have to be
> maintained as method of movement for most people, 


	Land isn't 'maintained'. It just exists.

	Paved roads need to be mainained, true. So users will have to
	pay some sort of toll. But the very important thing is : you
	pay the toll, you are free to use the road, no questions asked.
	Like, you know, the way crypto anarchist networks are supposed
	to work or even the internet works. "Net neutrality". 



> at least those
> which were previously called "citizens".  People who, arguably, had a
> partial ownership and use right to that land.    Not just everyone in
> the world, equally. 

	As far as the right to use roads for travel, yes, everyone in
	the world. Basic libertarian principle : freedom.

	You are just taking for granted statism and nationalism and
	using it as premise. But your premise is not valid.



> Also, "roads" would have to be maintained,
> presumably by some sort of contract.  (This is typically the way
> things are already done:  "Government" doesn't necessarily do the
> actual work; it may contract with private entities to maintain the
> road surfaces.)


	Yes. So a voluntary economic arrangement would have to replace
	the current fascist/corporatist partnership between state and
	'private' contractors. 



> 
> >    2) even the land that is  legitimately owned can  be used by
> >    people to enter the hypothetical 'country', if a handful of land
> >    owners allow it. Or even ONE land owner.

> Presumably, "people" as a group will have to decide what agreement to
> come to.  That's why debate on the issue will be important.  Today,
> people don't know that such a decision will eventually need to be
> made.

	I'm not buying this, at all :

	""people" as a group will have to decide" 

	I am not a collectivist or 'groupist'. People exist and act as
	individuals. And that's one of the obvious philosophical
	foundations of libertarianism.

	How would "people as group" decide how to re-implement
	anti-libertarian 'private' statism? By 'democracy' aka mob
	rule? What happens to the people who don't agree with the
	fucking "group" ?



> 
>     3) there are also big *free* seas and lots of coasts. And boats.

> In other words, people will be able to get into certain areas.

	In other words, the concept of 'country' which is nothing but a
	totalitarian creation of the state goes poof. 


>  Whether they can travel will depend on the agreement reached by
> those deemed to have been part of the contract covering the roads.

	I 'disagree'. That's an attempt at recreating 'private' statism
	and cannot be justified. It is more restrictive than what we
	already have. And notice that you previoulsy said 

	"I don't see any need, or desire, to  massively change how
	people go about their daily businesses " 

	but now you are proposing a system which does change that and
	in an undesirable direction, especially from a libertarian
	point of view.



> 
>   >  4) and finally there's air space and planes 

> Yes, that will be open.

	So travel by sea and air clearly negates the statist,
	artificial concept of nation state and nation state borders. 

	You are only left with a half baked attempt at controlling SOME 
	roads, which doesn't work either. 




> 
> 
> >> Even, potentially, millions of people.  Currently, things called
> >> "government" claims to "own" what is referred to as "public
> >> property".  Get rid of the governments, and what happens?
> 
> 
>  >   What happens is that only real pople can own property.

> Or groups of people.  Or some other entity that hasn't been thought
> of yet.


	The only realy entity is the individual. 




> 
> >    All the land 'owned' by the state is actually unowned land. It
> >    can be homesteaded by real, (honest) people. As a side note,
> >    even that isn't too straighfoward since what constitutes
> >    ownership in land is partly conventional and debatable, in
>  >   libertarian terms.

> You are making assumptions.  More planning is needed.

	I don't think I am making assumptions. I am applying
	libertarian principles. And I am certainly not a central
	planner planning a 'private' 'country'. 
	
	You are making a lot more assumptions than me and they
	are loaded assumptions that apparently seek to preserve the
	status quo. 

	You just mentioned a collective "entity that hasn't been thought
	of yet."  That looks like a very vague, daring and non
	individualistic 'assumption'.


> 
> 
> 
> >> That land contains roads, which people who own 'private
> >> property' often use to move around.  In order to avoid too much
> >> disruption, it is reasonable to continue things so that this
> >> previously-publicly owned property should remain useable by many
> >> people. 
> 
> >    That is, it should remain...public - public meaning accessible
> >    to all.
> 
> That depends on what you mean by "all".   Don't try to sneak in an
> interpretation that "all" MUST include non-current-US Citizens,


	Come on. You have been trying to sneak statism and
	nationalism all along. And keep doing it.

	Just read what you wrote : "US Citizens" 

	What? You mean SUBJECTS of the US nazi state? There is no such
	thing as citizens. There are only hostages to a criminal
	organization. 

	Looks like it's time for you to give up the political premises
	of your own enemies? Why on earth would you consider them
	valid? 

	

> if a
> more limited definition of "all" is at least equally plausible.  If
> you believe the former, justify it with a credible argument. 
 There
> are MANY possible interpretations, including all (current) State
> citizens, all county citizens, all locals, all local property owners,
> etc.  Don't just assume the answer.

	Well, you just proivded yet another argument against your case. 

	"MANY possible interpretations, including all (current) State
	citizens, all county citizens, all locals, all local property
 	owners" 	
	
	Exactly. There are many CONFLICTING interpretations on which
	'private' statism can be based. That's why 'private' statism
	is illogical nonsense. 

	How is your ill-defined 'group' of right wing nationalists going
	to agree? And what happens to the rational people who don't
	agree anyway. 


> 
> 
> >> Absent a government, some sort of contract-driven group
> >> ownership of that land makes sense. 
> 
> 
> >    Of what land? Are you talking for instance about all the land
>  >   usurped by governments and their cronies? As a matter of fact,
> >    'contract' based ownership on that scale doesn't make sense. It
> >    sounds like an attempt at 'private' nationalism/tribalism.

> We can't change the past. 

	And? Are you saying that as a flawed 'justification' for
	any unlibertarian scheme?

	Let's say A steals stuffs from B. The past can't be literally
	changed but sure as hell A can be forced to return B's stuff.
	


> And we have to plan the future based on
> what we know.  If we accept the concept of "private property", and if
> we accept the idea that people can contract with each other, all that
> will influence the rest of the plan.

	For the record, the political philosophy known as liberalism,
	now rebranded libertarianism is called LIBERALISM or
	LIBERTARIANISM because it's focused on LIBERTY. 



> 
> 
>                Jim Bell