From: Randy Smith (randysmith101@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Dec 31 2001 - 12:40:15 MST
>From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Re: ExI: Announcing Extropy Institute's Transhumanist FAQ version
>0.7
>Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:23:03 -0800 (PST)
>
> > Proposed FAQ question:
> >
> > Since the Extropian movement is heavily invested in libertarian
> > philosophy, which purportedly stresses individual rights and property
> > rights, how do the Extropians reconcile the "open borders" philosophy
> > advocated by Extropians, with the fact that most American citizens
> > oppose open borders (even before 911WTC numerous polls showed that
> > 55-65% of Americans wanted less immigration, which is certainly a long
> > way from open borders). Seems as if Extropians would wish to trample
> > the individual rights of most Americans by implementing open
> > borders--not to mention taking the food out of the mouths of working
> > class Americans by lowering wages with immigration...or perhaps a
> > weight reduction plan for the working classes is part of the Extropian
> > philosophy :-)
>
>I don't understand your confusion: where's the contradiction?
>Libertarian politics implies open borders (or rather, that the
>government not restrict people's movements). The majority of
>Americans disagree--as would be expected, since the majority of
>Americans are not libertarians. The idea that advocating open
>borders in some way infringes the rights of those who don't
>believe in them gets it exactly backward: it is the act of
>excluding people that is a violation of rights; if individual
>Americans don't want to allow immigration /on their own land/,
>a libertarian government would enforce their property rights.
>If others wanted to allow unlimited immigration on /their/
>land, a libertarian government would not interfere. In that
>way, /everyone's/ rights are protected, even the isolationists.
>If the isolationists don't want to allow immigration to /other
>people's land/, then it is they who are overstepping their power
>and imposing their will on others. It is not the business of
>a libertarian government to support people who would violate
>the rights of others to do what they want with their own land.
>
>--
It's an overly simplistic viewpoint. Earlier, someone posted a list of URLS
showing libertarian viewpoints that opposed opne borders; I had not been
aware of that faction, and found those URLS very interesting reading. My
impression is that although the libertarian writers listed on those URLs all
had EXCELLENT credentials (e.g., academic, etc), and at least one of them
was arguably a "founder" of libertarianism, it might said that they had been
marginalized -- or had become unfashionable -- in recent years; in fact, I
suspect that mainstream business adopted one faction of libertarianism, and
made that faction mainstream libertariansim and they (the libertarians who
opposed open borders) were not in the adopted faction.
Basically, my viewpoint is that there are both rights and properties that
are *intangible*. Our legal system very clearly recognizes this. Anyone
with a passing interest or familiarity with the law must agree. Also,
standard business doctrine and practices also recognize that there are
*intangible* business assets. Anyone with a passing interest in business
must agree.
So, I ask, for *starters*, where is the "mainstream" libertarian recognition
of the *intangible* aspects of property and rights?
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:57 MST