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

2017-02-04 Thread Marina Brown
On 02/01/2017 12:19 AM, James A. Donald wrote:
> On 2/1/2017 5:03 AM, juan wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> And if Islamic State drives five hundred technicals, one hundred armored
> personnel carriers, and one hundred tanks across the border?
> 
> In general, what do libertarians do when the other guys organize
> collective violence on the basis of race, religion, or ideology?
> 
> It is not just actual states, like Islamic state.  Any cohesive religion
> or ethnicity can and frequently does do stuff that is somewhat like what
> a state can do.  As for example recent drastic reversals of
> gentrification by black people collectively engaged in activities that
> are rather close to ethnic cleansing of whites.
> 
> Conversely, any functional state is held together by a ruling tribe,
> ethnicity, religion, or ideology, and if the ruling tribe loses
> cohesion, or people lose faith in the ruling ideology or religion, the
> state is apt to fall apart.
> 
> Orthodox Jews have enclaves in places where most nonblacks would find it
> difficult because they can engage in collective defense against blacks
> without being deemed nazis and fascists.
> 
> Cohesive groups can predate on incohesive categories and frequently do.
> If you find a cohesive group is predating on you, what are you going to do?
> 
> 
> 
http://crustpunks.com/images/followyourleader2.png



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


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

2017-02-02 Thread juan
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:15:06 -0800
Razer  wrote:

> The image illustrates collectivism. Not formal government.

so you are free to both think whatever mental vomits you want,
and also to promote them huh?

> 
> The deer collectively agreed 

Sure sure.  They even signed a social contract.



> that route was the easiest path to water,
> food, antler scratching trees, or whatever.


Yes agent rayzer. You are the Master of Whatever. 




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

2017-02-02 Thread Razer
The image illustrates collectivism. Not formal government.

The deer collectively agreed that route was the easiest path to water,
food, antler scratching trees, or whatever.

Ps. a town down the road initially put it's streets where the cows
walked because cows tend to walk on the most level ground making it
easy, in the 1800s, before industrialization and it's machinery 'came to
town', to pave.




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

2017-02-02 Thread juan



I'm reposting this quote, perhaps Jim B. has something to say
about it.

See also attached picture 

"The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a
nation" to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an
extensive territory --- each gifted by nature with individual
freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body
of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own
happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and
his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal
liberty of others; authorized also, by that law, to defend his
own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the
assistance and defence of any [*10] of his fellow men who may
be suffering any kind of injustice --- how do millions of such
men come to be a nation, in the first place? How is it that
each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given
rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and
consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw;
with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he has
no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt? How does he become
subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature,
had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and
forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he
their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were
the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel
him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment,
and death?

Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both." 




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

2017-02-02 Thread juan
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 19:03:32 + (UTC)
jim bell  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
> 

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

2017-02-01 Thread juan
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 18:16:11 -0500
John Newman  wrote:

> I found the following gem on his blog, at which point I stopped
> reading, having reached my revulsion limit:

I find it somewhat entertaining in a sick kind of way.

Here's another nugget

"If we actually had anarcho capitalism, we would not have
borders, but we would not have welfare either, and likely we
would have the death penalty for most crimes typical of the
underclass, and serfdom or slavery for vagrants and sturdy
beggars. Let us introduce the death penalty for everything,
abolish voting, at least for the poor and the stupid, and
reintroduce serfdom or some similar way of getting people
disinclined to work out of circulation, and then we can open
the borders." 




> https://blog.jim.com/politics/open-letter-to-scott-aaronson/
> 
> 


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

2017-02-01 Thread Zenaan Harkness
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 07:03:32PM +, jim bell wrote:
> >>  (Corporations own property, today.) 
> 
>  >   So? Mafias chartered by the state 'own' 'property'. The state
>   >  creates more than a few legal devices to favor
>   > businesses. Big businesses today are the poster child for
>   > corporatism and mercantilism. Exactly the economic system that
>  >  libertarians are supposed to oppose.
> True, corporations are a legal fiction, a creation of a State.

> Some substitute for this will have to be created.  

This is a statement which may go south.

Humans have instinct to cooperation, for mutual or "tribal"/ group
benefit.

That instinct to cooperation would likely lead to creative external
expressions of "working together", some in contract by paper, some by
handshakes, some merely cooperation whilst expedient and or personally
beneficial, depending on the nature of the individuals involved.

I guess the point is, and I'm sure you'd agree, in the absence of a
State, these expressions would occur "naturally" without the artificial
impositions "mafia protections" by the state, and would not "have to be
created". It is very easy to use language from the old context (in this
case, government/ mafia think).


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

2017-02-01 Thread jim bell


 From: juan 
   
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:07:07 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:


> > I believe the correct libertarian position is no
> > GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  
> 
>   >  Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And
>   >  vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders.
 
>> Well, maybe you're playing word-games.
>> I used the term "borders" to
>> refer, generically, to any demarcation of ownership or control over
>> land.  borders = boundaries.    Topological separations.  


>    I didn't mean to play word games. 

 >   http://www.dictionary.com/browse/border?s=t

>    2. "the line that separates one country, state, province, etc.,
    from another; frontier line:" 
Yes, that's one valid example.  I intended that, but also the one below.

  >  or 

 >   1. "the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer
    boundary. " 
That too.  


  >  I assumed we were using  definition number 2, the political
 >   one. So my claim that (political) borders are a creation of the
>    state pretty much stands. 

>   But, on second thoughts, I can agree with your quote below, for
>    argument's sake : 

>>    "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.  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.


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

>    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, 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.  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.)

>    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.

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

  >  4) and finally there's air space and planes 
Yes, that will be open.

    
>>  (Corporations own property, today.) 

 >   So? Mafias chartered by the state 'own' 'property'. The state
  >  creates more than a few legal devices to favor
  > businesses. Big businesses today are the poster child for
  > corporatism and mercantilism. Exactly the economic system that
 >  libertarians are supposed to oppose.
True, corporations are a legal fiction, a creation of a State.  Some substitute 
for this will have to be created.  

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

2017-02-01 Thread juan
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:11:02 -0500
John Newman  wrote:

> https://blog.jim.com/
> 
> much more reflective of the garbage he's posted here.
> 

Oh, I see. Thanks. So he's a full time conservative troll
posing as 'libertarian'. 

> --
> John
>


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

2017-01-31 Thread juan
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 15:19:53 +1000
"James A. Donald"  wrote:

> On 2/1/2017 5:03 AM, juan wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> And if Islamic State drives five hundred technicals, 



and if you go fuck yourself? But before going fucking yourself,
why don't you explain why do you own jim.com? 





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

2017-01-31 Thread James A. Donald

On 2/1/2017 5:03 AM, juan wrote:

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.


And if Islamic State drives five hundred technicals, one hundred armored 
personnel carriers, and one hundred tanks across the border?


In general, what do libertarians do when the other guys organize 
collective violence on the basis of race, religion, or ideology?


It is not just actual states, like Islamic state.  Any cohesive religion 
or ethnicity can and frequently does do stuff that is somewhat like what 
a state can do.  As for example recent drastic reversals of 
gentrification by black people collectively engaged in activities that 
are rather close to ethnic cleansing of whites.


Conversely, any functional state is held together by a ruling tribe, 
ethnicity, religion, or ideology, and if the ruling tribe loses 
cohesion, or people lose faith in the ruling ideology or religion, the 
state is apt to fall apart.


Orthodox Jews have enclaves in places where most nonblacks would find it 
difficult because they can engage in collective defense against blacks 
without being deemed nazis and fascists.


Cohesive groups can predate on incohesive categories and frequently do. 
If you find a cohesive group is predating on you, what are you going to do?





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

2017-01-31 Thread Razer


John Newman:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 31, 2017, at 5:31 PM, John Newman  wrote:
>> I'm totally on board with your analysis of American politics. I think Trump 
>> is a slight outlier, not really possessed of any ideology but his own ego, 
>> and almost honest about it with his visceral moronic outbursts.
>>
>>
> 
> Of course, that's not to say he hasn't surrounded himself with some people 
> with a real fucking ugly ideology (Bannon, etc), results of which we are 
> already seeing play out...
> 
> 
>> John

He wants us to pay attention to him while Bannon, who someone wittier
than I described as "Co-President", and the other cronies do the dirt.


Rr

>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2017, at 10:59 AM, Razer  wrote:
>>>
>>> I hope you don't consider my comment trolling John. I'm quite serious. The 
>>> democrats and republicans do not exist as separate ideological entities. 
>>> They are in collusion with each other. Because 'Merican Exceptionaism uber 
>>> alles'. US Libertarians have that social disease too, and are no different 
>>> than the other two mainstream factions of US government.
>>>
>>> Further... If you  or anyone else reading this finds THAT offensive, I also 
>>> have a VERY harsh view of what passes for US immigration policy.
>>>
>>> In a nutshell.
>>>
>>> "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe 
>>> free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, 
>>> tempest-tossed to me," 
>>>
>>> It doesn't say give us your HIRED THUGS and people who interpreted the CACI 
>>> tortured screams of their fellow countrymen in a CIA secret prison, does 
>>> it? It doesn't say give me your economic elite and the people who have 
>>> corporate connections to fast-tracked H1-B visas Does it?
>>> I elaborate: https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/825901439729942528
>>>
>>> Still at the top of the pile ... scroll down a bit, then up.
>>>
>>> Rr
>>>
>>> "What is to be abolished is not the reality principle; not everything, but 
>>> such particular things as business, politics, exploitation, poverty." 
>>> -Herbert Marcuse
>>>
>>>
 On 01/31/2017 07:22 AM, John Newman wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
>>
>> On 01/29/2017 06:08 PM, #$%

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

2017-01-31 Thread John Newman


> On Jan 31, 2017, at 5:31 PM, John Newman  wrote:
> I'm totally on board with your analysis of American politics. I think Trump 
> is a slight outlier, not really possessed of any ideology but his own ego, 
> and almost honest about it with his visceral moronic outbursts.
> 
> 

Of course, that's not to say he hasn't surrounded himself with some people with 
a real fucking ugly ideology (Bannon, etc), results of which we are already 
seeing play out...


> John
> 
>> On Jan 31, 2017, at 10:59 AM, Razer  wrote:
>> 
>> I hope you don't consider my comment trolling John. I'm quite serious. The 
>> democrats and republicans do not exist as separate ideological entities. 
>> They are in collusion with each other. Because 'Merican Exceptionaism uber 
>> alles'. US Libertarians have that social disease too, and are no different 
>> than the other two mainstream factions of US government.
>> 
>> Further... If you  or anyone else reading this finds THAT offensive, I also 
>> have a VERY harsh view of what passes for US immigration policy.
>> 
>> In a nutshell.
>> 
>> "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe 
>> free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, 
>> tempest-tossed to me," 
>> 
>> It doesn't say give us your HIRED THUGS and people who interpreted the CACI 
>> tortured screams of their fellow countrymen in a CIA secret prison, does it? 
>> It doesn't say give me your economic elite and the people who have corporate 
>> connections to fast-tracked H1-B visas Does it?
>> I elaborate: https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/825901439729942528
>> 
>> Still at the top of the pile ... scroll down a bit, then up.
>> 
>> Rr
>> 
>> "What is to be abolished is not the reality principle; not everything, but 
>> such particular things as business, politics, exploitation, poverty." 
>> -Herbert Marcuse
>> 
>> 
>>> On 01/31/2017 07:22 AM, John Newman wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
> 
> On 01/29/2017 06:08 PM, #$%

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

2017-01-31 Thread John Newman

On Jan 31, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Ray Cis  wrote:

>> On Tue, Jan 31 2017 07:59:35 -0700
>> "Razer"  wrote:
>> I'm quite serious. The democrats and republicans do not exist as separate
>> ideological entities. They are in collusion with each other.
> 
> Republicrat, Democran, one-party system.
> 
> But John knows that,  hee works for the DNC.

Lol. Only when I'm not pimping your tired old momma, you fucking dummy ;)

> 
>> "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe
>> free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the
>> homeless, tempest-tossed to me,"
>> 
>> It doesn't say give us your HIRED THUGS and people who interpreted the
>> CACI tortured screams of their fellow countrymen in a CIA secret prison,
>> does it? It doesn't say give me your economic elite and the people who
>> have corporate connections to fast-tracked H1-B visas Does it?
> 
> Rayzer is right; kick ban 'em all !
> 


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

2017-01-31 Thread John Newman
No man, I was talking about Zen. Shitbag that started this thread.

I'm totally on board with your analysis of American politics. I think Trump is 
a slight outlier, not really possessed of any ideology but his own ego, and 
almost honest about it with his visceral moronic outbursts.


John

> On Jan 31, 2017, at 10:59 AM, Razer  wrote:
> 
> I hope you don't consider my comment trolling John. I'm quite serious. The 
> democrats and republicans do not exist as separate ideological entities. They 
> are in collusion with each other. Because 'Merican Exceptionaism uber alles'. 
> US Libertarians have that social disease too, and are no different than the 
> other two mainstream factions of US government.
> 
> Further... If you  or anyone else reading this finds THAT offensive, I also 
> have a VERY harsh view of what passes for US immigration policy.
> 
> In a nutshell.
> 
> "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 
> the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, 
> tempest-tossed to me," 
> 
> It doesn't say give us your HIRED THUGS and people who interpreted the CACI 
> tortured screams of their fellow countrymen in a CIA secret prison, does it? 
> It doesn't say give me your economic elite and the people who have corporate 
> connections to fast-tracked H1-B visas Does it?
> I elaborate: https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/825901439729942528
> 
> Still at the top of the pile ... scroll down a bit, then up.
> 
> Rr
> 
> "What is to be abolished is not the reality principle; not everything, but 
> such particular things as business, politics, exploitation, poverty." 
> -Herbert Marcuse
> 
> 
>> On 01/31/2017 07:22 AM, John Newman wrote:
 On Jan 30, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
 
 On 01/29/2017 06:08 PM, #$%

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

2017-01-31 Thread juan
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:56:49 -
"Ray Cis"  wrote:

> > On Mon, Jan 30 2017 21:41:24 -2100
> > "juan"  wrote:
> >
> > well, that's the sort of question *you* should be asking
> > yourself.  As in. you should be heading back to england.
> 
> And you to Spain, or Portugal.


I should, if I were a supporter of state borders. But I am
not...


> 
> You white motherfucker.
> 
> Check your privilege !
> 



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

2017-01-31 Thread juan
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:07:07 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:


> > I believe the correct libertarian position is no
> > GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  
> 
>   >  Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And
>   >  vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders.
 
> Well, maybe you're playing word-games.
> I used the term "borders" to
> refer, generically, to any demarcation of ownership or control over
> land.  borders = boundaries.    Topological separations.  


I didn't mean to play word games. 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/border?s=t

2. "the line that separates one country, state, province, etc.,
from another; frontier line:" 

or 

1. "the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer
boundary. " 


I assumed we were using  definition number 2, the political
one. So my claim that (political) borders are a creation of the
state pretty much stands. 

But, on second thoughts, I can agree with your quote below, for
argument's sake : 

"the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders." 

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. 


 
> 
> >> Private property still
> >> rules.  And anything which is currently "government property"
> >> should become quasi-private 
> 
> >    False. Not to mention, you just made up a new ad-hoc kind
> >    of 'property'.

> 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.


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. 

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'.

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.

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

4) and finally there's air space and planes 


>  (Corporations own property, today.) 

So? Mafias chartered by the state 'own' 'property'. The state
 creates more than a few legal devices to favor
businesses. Big businesses today are the poster child for
corporatism and mercantilism. Exactly the economic system that
libertarians are supposed to oppose.



> 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. And what
further happens is that the kind of property enabled by the
state goes poof.


> Does that
> land simply evaporate?  No, it does not.

Right. But something surely does evaporate and that's the fake
property titles granted by the state.


> Okay, then, who owns or
> controls it?  

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.



> 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.


> 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.


> (What is the alternative?) So
> no, I didn't really make up a new kind of property.  I just expanded
> a previous form of property ownership by a group of people. 

Jim Bell
> 
> 
>



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

2017-01-31 Thread Razer
I hope you don't consider my comment trolling John. I'm quite serious.
The democrats and republicans do not exist as separate ideological
entities. They are in collusion with each other. Because 'Merican
Exceptionaism uber alles'. US Libertarians have that social disease too,
and are no different than the other two mainstream factions of US
government.

Further... If you  or anyone else reading this finds THAT offensive, I
also have a VERY harsh view of what passes for US immigration policy.

In a nutshell.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the
homeless, tempest-tossed to me,"

It doesn't say give us your HIRED THUGS and people who interpreted the
CACI tortured screams of their fellow countrymen in a CIA secret prison,
does it? It doesn't say give me your economic elite and the people who
have corporate connections to fast-tracked H1-B visas Does it?

I elaborate: https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/825901439729942528

Still at the top of the pile ... scroll down a bit, then up.

Rr

"What is to be abolished is not the reality principle; not everything,
but such particular things as business, politics, exploitation,
poverty." -Herbert Marcuse



On 01/31/2017 07:22 AM, John Newman wrote:
>
>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/29/2017 06:08 PM, #$%

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

2017-01-31 Thread John Newman


> On Jan 30, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
> 
>> On 01/29/2017 06:08 PM, #$%

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

2017-01-31 Thread Zenaan Harkness
Some serious entertainment at the moment:


16 Muslim nations ban Israeli passport holders from entering,
so where's the "outrage" over this?:
http://theduran.com/here-are-is-a-list-of-the-16-countries-that-ban-israelis-from-entering-their-country-where-is-the-liberal-left-outrage/



Islamic State Supporters React Angrily to Trump’s Temporary Refugee
Halt:
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/01/30/exclusive-islamic-state-supporters-react-angrily-trumps-temporary-refugee-halt/



Photos of Saudi Arabia’s air-conditioned tent city, that can house 3
million refugees, now sitting empty:
http://theduran.com/here-are-photos-of-saudi-arabias-modern-air-conditioned-tent-city-that-can-house-3-million-refugees-now-sitting-empty-where-is-the-liberal-left-outrage/
More Lefty outrage? not a chance!
(The outrage is Soros funded, and anyone thought he'd bankroll outrage
against such hypocrisies from himself? like duh!:
http://theduran.com/george-soros-is-the-man-behind-news-stories-and-protests-surrounding-president-trumps-executive-action-on-immigration/
Soros even has Obama on his payroll:
http://theduran.com/obama-returns-the-community-organizer-is-calling-for-more-protests-and-chaos/
)



And this is as hair brained as it gets - one woulda thought such self
deceptive irony had limits, but no:
Liberal left NGO, angry with Trump’s executive order, argues US is “not
responsible for the crisis in Syria”
http://theduran.com/liberal-left-ngo-angry-with-trumps-executive-order-argues-us-is-not-responsible-for-the-crisis-in-syria/



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

2017-01-31 Thread Zenaan Harkness
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:08:15AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> This is getting ridiculous, Trump must be stopped before he turns
> America into a White nation - he is shockingly close now to being
> Literally Hitler!!!
> 
> What can we do?


For anyone who missed the memo amongst all the emotional howling and
didn't quite grok James' common sense, here's some more of the adult
discussion:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/29/trumps-immigration-pause-sober-defenses-vs-hysterical-criticism/

Here's the TL;DR:
1. It is NOT a “Muslim ban.”
2. The order is based on security reviews conducted by President Barack
   Obama’s deputies.
3. The moratorium is largely temporary.
4. Obama banned immigration from Iraq, and Carter banned it from Iran.
5. Trump’s refugee caps are comparable to Obama’s pre-2016 practices
6. The Executive Order is legal
7. This Executive Order is a security measure, not an arbitrary
   expression of supposed xenophobia.



(Brought to you by The Rubber Boys, Master of the Drop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-UXVx_K6Xs
)


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

2017-01-31 Thread Zenaan Harkness
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 06:45:55PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
> On 1/31/2017 12:29 PM, Razer wrote:
> >The reason
> >Trump is even ABLE to purport a rationale for the immigrant ban is
> >because HILLARY CLINTON facilitated the destruction of Libya, and
> >attempted to do the same to Syria.
> >
> >Trump's Executive Order rests on laws and codes that Obama put in place.
> 
> Trump's executive order on Muslim migrants is Obama's 2011 order on
> steroids, and his list of countries that are problem sources of terrorism is
> Obama's list of countries that are problem sources of terrorism entirely
> unchanged.
> 
> That the entire world is going batshit insane over Trump's order, while no
> one noticed Obama's order is not because there is any huge difference
> between the orders, but Trump Derangement Syndrome.

TDS is a legitimate medical condition - I hear the only known solution
is coal burning. That and screaming. Oh ok, and thumping a brick wall.


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

2017-01-31 Thread James A. Donald

On 1/31/2017 12:29 PM, Razer wrote:

The reason
Trump is even ABLE to purport a rationale for the immigrant ban is
because HILLARY CLINTON facilitated the destruction of Libya, and
attempted to do the same to Syria.

Trump's Executive Order rests on laws and codes that Obama put in place.


Trump's executive order on Muslim migrants is Obama's 2011 order on 
steroids, and his list of countries that are problem sources of 
terrorism is Obama's list of countries that are problem sources of 
terrorism entirely unchanged.


That the entire world is going batshit insane over Trump's order, while 
no one noticed Obama's order is not because there is any huge difference 
between the orders, but Trump Derangement Syndrome.


When the Democrats repealed filibuster, and Obama abused the power to 
issue executive orders, Republicans said "Hey, it is going to be our 
turn next."


And now it is Trump's turn.



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

2017-01-31 Thread jim bell


 From: juan <juan@gmail.com>

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:45:21 + (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> From: juan <juan@gmail.com>
>  To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 
>  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:41 PM
>  Subject: Re: Trump will NEVER turn America into a White nation!
>    
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:13:02 +1100
> Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote:

> >> - the libertarian position is no borders, no citizens, no
> >> government.
 
> >    well at least you got that one right.


> I believe the correct libertarian position is no
> GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  

  >  Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And
  >  vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders. 
Well, maybe you're playing word-games.  I used the term "borders" to refer, 
generically, to any demarcation of ownership or control over land.  borders = 
boundaries.    Topological separations.  


>> Private property still
>> rules.  And anything which is currently "government property" should
>> become quasi-private 

>    False. Not to mention, you just made up a new ad-hoc kind
>    of 'property'.
There is no reason that a given piece of property cannot be owned, jointly, by 
many people.  (Corporations own property, today.)  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?  Does that land simply evaporate?  No, it does not.
  Okay, then, who owns or controls it?  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.  
Absent a government, some sort of contract-driven group ownership of that land 
makes sense.  (What is the alternative?)
So no, I didn't really make up a new kind of property.  I just expanded a 
previous form of property ownership by a group of people.
        Jim Bell


   

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

2017-01-31 Thread grarpamp
Borders often define the boundaries of failing and failed states,
to prevent exit and continue enslavement of its people, and as often
are arbitratily drawn and enforced upon the earth by such states
themselves without permission and to detriment of others.

Some history on related Abrahamic, restrictive, slave skill retention,
nasty dehumanizing things here among other places you could
search for...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport
https://papersplease.org/
https://hasbrouck.org/


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

2017-01-30 Thread juan
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:45:21 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:


> I believe the correct libertarian position is no
> GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  

A government (or state, same shit) is a group of criminals who
'grant' themselves 'jurisdiction' over a geographical area. In
turn a geographical/geometrical area has 'boundaries' or
borders. So, no government, no political borders. Of course,
your house will still have 'borders' but that has nothing to do
with free movement of people.

However there's also something called the american government
and those psychos think they own the whole world. So for the
american government there actually are no borders...though they
also 'enforce' borders when it suits them. Then again, the lack
of logical consistency of the US gov't doesn;t prove anything.
 




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

2017-01-30 Thread juan
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:45:21 + (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> From: juan <juan@gmail.com>
>  To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 
>  Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:41 PM
>  Subject: Re: Trump will NEVER turn America into a White nation!
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:13:02 +1100
> Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote:
> 
> >> - the libertarian position is no borders, no citizens, no
> >> government.
> 
> >    well at least you got that one right.
> 
> 
> I disagree. 


You are of course free to disagree all you want. But I already
made minced meat of your STATIST non-arguments, so... =)


> I believe the correct libertarian position is no
> GOVERNMENT borders.  Not no borders at all.  

Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And
vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders. 


> Private property still
> rules.  And anything which is currently "government property" should
> become quasi-private 

False. Not to mention, you just made up a new ad-hoc kind
of 'property'.

> once the government(s) is/are eliminated.
> Jim Bell 



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

2017-01-30 Thread jim bell


From: juan <juan@gmail.com>
 To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org 
 Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:41 PM
 Subject: Re: Trump will NEVER turn America into a White nation!
   
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:13:02 +1100
Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote:

>> - the libertarian position is no borders, no citizens, no
>> government.

>    well at least you got that one right.


I disagree.  I believe the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT 
borders.  Not no borders at all.  Private property still rules.  And anything 
which is currently "government property" should become quasi-private once the 
government(s) is/are eliminated.      Jim Bell
   

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

2017-01-30 Thread juan
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:13:02 +1100
Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

> - the libertarian position is no borders, no citizens, no
> government.

well at least you got that one right.

Or almost right. "citizens" is not the right word. The
right word is SUBJECTS. "Citizens" is of course a hypocritical
euphemism.





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

2017-01-30 Thread juan
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:13:02 +1100
Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

> - the libertarian position is no borders, no citizens, no
> government.

well at least you got that one right.



> 
>  - should the "White invaders" into USA be deported back to Europe?

well, that's the sort of question *you* should be asking
yourself.  As in. you should be heading back to england.


> 
>  - should 'no borders' be imposed upon the majority?

Don't twist it. Freedom is not an impostion. The question is : 
should fucking statist nazis be imposing anything on their
neighbors? Rhetorical question.



>  - Just as we "defend our literal homes", why then isn't it reasonable
>to likewise "defend the national border"?

I think you used to realize that there's a right to free
movement of people. What THE FUCK is wrong with you now? 








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

2017-01-30 Thread Zenaan Harkness
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 04:13:02PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

>  - what ration of "whites" / other races is "acceptable"?

s/ration/ratio/

> governments and therefore ought suffer the tyranny of having to copy

s/copy/cope/



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

2017-01-30 Thread Zenaan Harkness
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 07:13:47PM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 01/29/2017 06:08 PM, 

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

2017-01-30 Thread Cecilia Tanaka
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Shawn K. Quinn 
wrote:

> On 01/29/2017 06:08 PM, #$%