[ExI] Just some thoughts, nothing new really

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Sun May 19 07:29:07 UTC 2019

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 8:52 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:15 PM Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > *### There is no level of organization at which I lose my right to
>> exclude others.*
> So you have the right to exclude anyone you don't approve of from
> inhabiting the planet Earth, your "home".

### Yes, obviously.


>> *> **So let me ask you the question again - according to you, at which
>> level of organization do I lose the right to exclude others?*
> Level 42.

### Ah, yes, all this sound and fury, the moral certitude, the supercilious
comments, but when I ask you a simple question about your moral rules, you
refuse to answer.

Since engaging you in a discussion didn't work, let me then briefly explain
my reasoning to those others who might be still reading the discussion:
Libertarian moral intuitions and the high-level rules we derive from them
differ from collectivist intuitions primarily in denying a moral value to
any specific form of social organization or existence aside from the value
derived from desires of individuals. Individuals give value to collectives,
not the other way round. This is why we say the only duty we have to each
other is the duty to leave each other alone. That's why we uphold the
freedom of association. That's why we base legal legitimacy on the notions
of self-ownership, and the primacy of private property and contract.

This is why we do not feel free to compel association with others by force.
We do not condone theft, trespassing, extortion and collusion to commit

By freedom of association we have the right to coordinate with others to
protect ourselves from the above harms. We may hire constables to keep
criminals from our domain, and we may do so as individuals or as a group.
Of course, being smart and reasonable people, we know that coordination is
difficult, and the higher the number of parties to an agreement, the higher
the risk of diverse dangers, including an out-of-control enforcement system
that turns against us and becomes a lethal parasite. This is why we
distrust large organizations, especially ones that can use violence,
propaganda and intimidation. But then on the other hand, even large
organizations are not illegitimate, as long as they remain bound by the
desires of individuals that consented to their formation. The libertarian
opposition to the state is not a moral issue, a value judgment, but rather
a pragmatic attitude that comes from knowing the state is a poor servant
and a terrible master, to be feared and distrusted in most situations but
not rejected outright.

We also know that we, peaceful individuals, are always at risk of being
attacked by groups of other people. It is a simple observation, obvious and
inescapable to anybody, even children as long as they have not been exposed
to modern American political propaganda. This is why we hang together, so
as not to be hanged separately. We also recognize that the state we
distrust relies in its decision-making on the inputs from us. We realize
that if groups that are inimical to us or incapable of producing reasonable
inputs threaten to take over, we are in grave danger. Jews, Armenians,
Chinese immigrants and countless other groups were slaughtered by
out-of-control states.

Therefore it is a legitimate libertarian position to support persons,
movements and organizations that can protect us against a deterioration of
social decision-making. We distrust but we know that all too often the
alternatives are even worse.

I do not know the future. I do not know that illegal immigration is going
to destroy America as we know it. I do not know if the economy will
flourish insanely thanks to AI, or if it implodes in the runaway
debt-and-tax spiral before the AI can save us. However, I do know that many
illegal immigrants are less intelligent, more violent than the current
majority of Americans, and/or are ideologically hostile towards us, based
on racist, class-related, religious and nationalistic sentiments. It is not
an accident that the tone and content of mainstream political discourse has
been shifting towards positions that are inimical to the basic tenets of
the American society - towards open class warfare, institutionalized
racism, and factionalism. It is not an accident that gibbering, fanatical
clowns like Ms' Occasional-Cortex and Ill-han Omar have been elected

It's stupid to have illegal immigration that biologically and culturally
replaces our society. It goes against the libertarian principle of freedom
of association.

It's smart to have a legal immigration program that helps keep America
great, by choosing the best people we manage to attract to become our
fellow citizens. This is an expression of freedom of association.

It's easy then to understand why I, a libertarian, oppose the former and
cherish the latter.

> And you still haven't answered the question I've asked several times,
> before Trump started talking about it did you consider illegal
> immigration the great problem we need to focus on when we think about the
> future?

### And again you are trying to bring the discussion down from considering
questions in moral philosophy to the level of simple politicking.

As I told you, I will not engage in a political discussion with you. If
Trump polemics is the only thing you can do, you have to find another
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20190519/f1e438aa/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list