[ExI] very informative

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Dec 28, 2020, at 6:37 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> On Behalf Of Anton Sherwood via extropy-chat
> Subject: Re: [ExI] very informative
> 
>> On 2020-12-28 17:11, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote:
>> Let's look at the question of how many races are there?  A nuanced  >
> approach fails, for that answer is either 1 or more than 1, and it  > is
> presumably an integer.  I go with 1 on that.
> 
>> ...Now I'm thinking about how to count fuzzy sets...
> 
> {8^D
> 
> Fuzzy or otherwise, we liberals find that question pretty easy: it's 1.  Any
> fuzzy answer to that question looks suspicious and leads to logical
> contradictions.  We can easily observe that modern society is up to its
> eyeballs in logical contradictions.
> 
>>> Is nationalism a good thing?  I will go with good on that.
> 
>> ...Why?
> How do you define it?
> 
> A country is nationalist if it keeps and enforces its borders.  Its citizens
> pay taxes and have privileges that visitors do not have.
> 
>> ... > I favor immigration, assuming legal immigration.  To have legal  >
> immigration, there must be some means of defining legal immigration.
> 
>> ...Do you trust politicians to make a good definition?
> We got along for a century without one...  Anton
> 
> I don't trust politicians for anything.  I see too few of them who I
> consider trustworthy.
> 
> The days when we could get by without immigration enforcement of some kind
> came to an end with income tax.  As soon as that came about, entitlements
> resulted.  With that, there must be some means of insuring that entitlements
> are not collected by those not entitled to them.

Why the fuck would migration controls bear on this? You could simply, if you believe entitlements are sacrosanct, not provide them to migrants. Typically, though, libertarians don’t use the welfare state’s existence to justify restricting freedom. Would you argue that since there’s entitlements to medical care, that there should be restrictions on guns and other weapons? After all, people get injured using them and taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for that stuff, right? (I’m guessing you won’t want that. If so, apply the same logic to moving across a national border.)

To wit, crossing a national border per se doesn’t generate any rights issues for anyone. Nor does having a handgun per se. Or watching porn per se. Or engaging in sex work per se. Etc. But if you want to argue along the lines of someone doing these might go on the dole or harm others, then be prepared to surrender all freedom. 

Regards,

Dan