<p>
</p>
<p>Firstly, is the Constitution necessarily the most libertarian contract? In the past, it has allowed slaves and the prohibition of suffrage to women … so the Constitution isn’t just by being the Constitution. Minarchists and anarcho-capitalists wonder whether the State is even necessary. </p>
<p>As a libertarian, you have been pretty inflexible about the nature of the State, and taken the existence of States as a given and you act all shocked when I put forth an argument that questions their existence. At this moment, many libertarians view the State as a necessary evil – it’s just problematic to get rid of it at this very moment, though we eventually want to work towards a stateless society. It being a necessary evil, there’s no reason to endorse principles that would only augment and amplify that evil.</p>
<p>Again, why is the US “collective private property”? The US consists of a social contract among Americans, that also provides for a mutual defence and security …</p>
<p>So thus, you may screen migrants for purposes of defence and security, public health and so forth – but there is no libertarian basis for restricting immigration any more than that.</p>
<p>Even the site of the Libertarian Party you quoted to me supports my measure.</p>
<p>If you know of geolibertarians, you know one of their primary charges is that since land is a resource you cannot make more of, it is a special type of property that requires especially different treatment … in this case, public land especially cannot be treated like collective private property.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I must apologise for my behaviour in this thread. This is an issue that easily gets me worked up and angry (and I am normally a quiet person in real life), so I do have a tendency to reply as a knee-jerk reaction and “to the gut”. So I have been more abrasive than I would like to be (in retrospect), especially to the posters who assert “X have no rights.” Arguments about whether a group of people have legal rights or not can draw sharp reactions from me, so you must forgive me. </p>
<p>I think Ernie H has posted the most rational arguments of the opposition so far, so I ask him not to take my knee-jerk retorts personally as I know he has been the most patient of the posters so far. I am however a bit frustrated how he takes certain things as an unconditional given for libertarianism [other than its central tenets], such as the idea that we should continue working towards strengthening sovereign nation-states, rather than slowly working to break down national barriers. </p>
<p>Btw, I did use the issue of my left libertarianism for one of my essays, so maybe you can console yourself with the possibility that my school might have known what they were getting into.</p>
<p>Anyway, maybe I shall post a more coherent/cogent summary later. I’m going to take a break and walk under the stars. :)</p>