-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 03/22/2018 04:41 PM, jim bell wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 12:30:10 PM PDT, juan > <juan....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:43:27 +0000 (UTC) jim bell > <jdb10...@yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10...@yahoo.com>> wrote: > > >> I notice that you don't distinguish between public (government) >> borders and private (private property) borders. Why is that?I >> oppose government borders. But I believe in the concept of >> private property, which amounts to the right to exclude others >> from that property. We live on the surface (2 dimensional, more >> or less) of a sphere (Earth) and we desire to travel and have >> goods (and information) brought to us. That will require that >> roads > > >> Come on Jim. I already refuted your right wing, fake > libertarian garbage. > > > > Utter and complete nonsense. > > > >> And it's quite funny how an engineer isn't > aware of the fact that there is AIR TRAVEL and SEA TRAVEL and that > right-wing fake 'anarchists' haven't claimed to own the SEA and the > SkY, at least YET. > > > > I was not including air travel and sea travel because I didn't > consider it relevant to the current discussion. > > > >> So, please stop defending STATE BORDERS like you did and stop > wholly misrepresenting libertarian philosphy. > > > > I think I already said that I opposed government borders. > > > >> For what it's worth, I also oppose it when government requires >> people to show some sort of identification in order to travel. > > Do you really? But that's what happens when ICE DOES ITS JOB eh? >
For someone who supports freedom of travel and who opposes the requirement of papers - what legitimate "job" does ICE do ? Honestly, TSA and ICE just look like jobs programs to me. Jobs programs to satisfy authoritarians. - --- Marina > >>> But I believe I cannot prohibit it if a private >>> (non-governmental) company such as an airline decides, for >>> itself, that it will insist on identification in order to allow >>> passengers to travel. > >> lawl - didn't your mommny teach you not to lie? You actually >> don't object to the police state as long as you can pretend it's >> 'private'. > > > > If you don't believe in the concept of "private property" say so. > But don't pretend that everybody has the same opinion as you. > > I am aware, of course, that SOME anarchists oppose the idea of > private property. See > http://www.infoshop.org/an-anarchist-faq-b-3-why-are-anarchists-agains t-private-property/ > > > > I consider that essay foolish, because it pretends that there is a > valid distinction between two forms of property: > > > "B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and > possession? > > Anarchists define /“private property”/ (or just /“property,”/ for > short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or > privileges which are used to control and exploit others. > /“Possession,”/ on the other hand, is ownership of things that are > not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a > toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either > property or possessions depending on how they are used." > ==================== You will also notice that in that essay, the > author grandly used terms like "anarchists believe" and "anarchists > define". One of the most foolish forms of debate is that in which > a party effectively tries to define his position to be true, or his > opponent's position to be false, or make grandly sweeping > statements that over-state or mis-state reality. Pretending that > no possible anarchist can believe in private property (including by > conveniently defining it away) is nonsense. I consider there to be > a major problem with that stance: What is the alternative? If > there is essentially no private property, then the most obvious > alternative is collective ownership. But that implies the need for > a big, controlling, and ultimately abusive government. But > really, that's not surprising: The label "anarchist" is more than > occasionally used by people, describing themselves, who really want > to set up a big, abusive, controlling government. They just find > the term "anarchist" and "anarchism" to be stylish. > > Jim Bell -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBCAAGBQJatDN1AAoJEPn/Y5FXPbRCzTsMAI8rVe/HkMcaqUK4cuSNUGn8 CZ0ErN1R9lJSWsfZ26Ah5hheMQ34xDQZiOgBvnuvd5kl9w02yZ/SVfF132pQxInO aGMiwQK1hxAnYgdw6kGFAEWCTzmxv8HPuu5W1KE3KI7gnitKZvRwlWhZnxRgnRdF m6iswwkxk1CIP9MOfm3cIreV7I75fqhI5mubsVvPRmHfHomND2a8jSm72xu+UwrC GzdI7GSALZnIGLO0cxuo7h+pB3iqNTPhg7NqW2DeTZNznOEPOLuHYTQySalk7FSv 0jdfeqNLxaZQEBKQfnB4hL8dDPWoJjlwhwLKMZgJaCXQTJKMAARbVQ2LNwYe6PLw 4OzO+WyPG6vRgyLMnPUdILEGRFbmhb/TMeu91mSH5N7ms3RcoFLkdj7/+suSWyS/ kPXenLhehYFST5XXND3gc+5txKctYc2BZj8JUi9a+Ddi5iY35bjCOiR9QEeYV/Qy 2Wxy8Ws+34e2zcAKeu0yRy8LBfcILFAoOKzzLrJs+w== =CjVf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----