That’s what this is about. So, you would agree with me then that all migration controls and borders merit abolition and one cannot rationally justify their enforcement in the present? If so, welcome to the evil pinko liberal “open borders” side! If not, then you’re going to have to bend libertarian principles into meaninglessness in the attempt to justify a state-enforced migration restriction policy.
You’re stretching it now. Polycentric orders are simply ones with multiple sources of authority, between which one can choose, including the option of “no authority”. A libertarian society will be “monocentric” compared to a socialist one in that it will adhere to the NAP uniformly. So what? That isn’t what polycentricity focuses on.
-Jon
Explain what is inconsistent with the NAP about voluntarily dissociating, alongside others, from individuals one wishes to do little more than trade with. "Nothing"will be the answer. Keep it up with the red herrings, strawmen, character assassinations and flame-baiting. It’ll only bring you one step closer to being banned. Consider that a warning.
-Jon
And what would this “agenda” be?
-Jon
Yes, I agree with you that migration controls merit abolition, and are entirely inconsistant with libertarian principles, and that in this regard Ron Paul and his campaign have been rather damaging.
Let’s not do this dance again. Juan and I have been discussing via email, and despite your earnest desire to belong to the conversation, sadly you may not grasp the nuances of where we are at in the debate.
Whom are you threatening ?
You seem to have a problem with bigotry, which is fair enough, but it’s nothing to do with libertarianism.
No I don’t, that’s a straw man.
As I have already said, you seem to have a problem with racism, and assume because I support the rights of those who non coercively exclude minorities I’m a racist, as opposed to a consistant libertarian.
When did I say anything remotely similar to this? I said within the context of a free society, groups on individuals would be well within their rights not to associate with whomever they please.
There’s a button called “In reply to”. Learn to use it. I obviously meant you.
-Jon
As de Havilland noted this will to exlude and separate is vastly and blatantly overrated.
ROTFLOL moneyquote:
Something along the lines of white nationalism, to be more precise.
Provided they stick to the NAP, where is the problem?
-Jon
Not at all. I think it is very libertarian to support the right of others to discriminate or not to discriminate.
I also support this position.
I’m not using the threaded version of the site - your assuming everybody does is wrong. As to your threaten…what’s the matter ? Since you know you can’t win the argument you’ll resort to metaphorical violence ?
I find this very akward. I critisize coercive migration restriction, and the response is to continually make property rights and free association arguments that are irrelevant to the context. I’m talking about migration in the here and now in the context of the current political system. You’re talking about a theoretical future free society. Don’t you see how we’re talking past eachother in this regaurd? I also find it odd that one would be threatened with banning merely for maintaining a minority opinion at the board and being an anti-racist.
No, it’s merely a clear warning to the effect that: continuation of flamebaiting, ad hominem attacks/character assassination &c. will get you banned. They’re extraneous to the arguments at hand, and I have already warned both LS and BP to cease such activities elsewhere. You’re by no means exempt. And what “argument” is it that I cannot win, precisely?
-Jon
It would be awkward, except it is intended for Juan. I don’t waste time quoting because of the “in reply to” function.
-Jon
An inherent problem arises by definition, since white nationalism is not voluntary per se.
They’re loose with how they define nation. So that’s something to consider. Many of them consider a nation to be little more than a community of a particular ethnic composition. Statists are obviously disqualified.
-Jon
So, you’ve just declared that I’m guilty of such ‘charges’ ? Because you say so ?
Your opinion. The idea that my ‘style’ must conform to what you think is right is far fetched. Calling a racist a racist is forbidden by ‘your’ rules ?