... Kevin, Well, at this point we'll need to separate out at least three issues -- (1) content of the policy; (2) enforcement *capacity*; and (3) actual

... Well, for some people, yes; for other people, no. The 1950s -- the age of Jim Crow, J. Edgar Hoover, Urban Renewal, the military Space Race, and the

Scott Haley:

What is not being recognized by many is how the new Fascists fit into the Globalization phenomenon. The goal is the virtual elimination of national borders …

Man, I wish they’d hurry up on that one. Somehow even with all this effort to virtually eliminate nation-state borders, my undocumented (“illegal”) friends here in Las Vegas are still living in fear of nighttime knock-on-the-door raids from all those virtually eliminated ICE agents, and “Ihre Papiere, bitte” treatment from the virtually eliminated U.S. Border Patrol (whose expansive notion of the virtually eliminated U.S. borders apparently includes the Greyhound station at Lake Mead and LVB). I hear there are some other folks in similar predicaments. Meanwhile, my own efforts to get outside of those virtually eliminated national borders for a scant two weeks have cost me over $200 and a few months of calendar time solely for government paperwork processing — not including all the hidden costs and administrative red tape built into my airline tickets, etc.) If those globalist fascists want to virtually eliminate the despicable and dehumanizing institution of arbitrary nation-state borders, then that’s at least one good thing you can say for them. However, if that is what they want, they’re not doing a very good job of getting it, are they?

James Madison Fan:

I would offer the staunch support of illegal immigration by the advocates of the right to “free movement” that write prolifically for the Freeman such as Becky Akers are playing into the hands of Globalists that Mr. Haley warns of.

I agree that “illegal” immigrants are undermining national sovereignty. That’s why I like them. “National sovereignty” is a statist code word for massive government surveillance and violence against peaceful and productive people, on the basis of arbitrary political boundaries drawn on the basis of statist conquests, and all of it enforced by means of a “Papers, please” border-police state that affects all of us, immigrant and native alike — from I-9 forms, to interstate and bus-terminal checkpoints, to endless Customs and Immigration queues, to increased demands for IDs and proof of citizenship at everything from basic travel to college applications, along with government’s ever-increasing demands for even more rigorous forms of National ID (for “security,” natch). People who violate such manifestly unjust and destructive laws are to be praised for their courage and their practical contribution to routing around the damage created by nation-state collectivism.

If borders are arbitrary and national sovereignty a fiction then title is too

I agree that land titles which derive from feudal land grants and statist conquests are a fiction, and ought to be abolished. Those which derive from honest labor and homesteading are not, and ought not be.

How much this will affect any given person’s land ownership depends on how much they have honestly worked the land they are on, and how much they have simply depended on the government’s arbitrary claims to a political Land Monopoly to exclude other potential homesteaders.

The authority to purchase the land is the same authority that allows them to divide it, sell it, grant title to it, and regulate access to it, including removing an uninvited guest from your living room if I choose to ignore your “arbitrary” property line the same way foreign nationals choose to ignore our [sic] “arbitrary” national borders.

Of course, nobody objects to you being able to remove uninvited guests from your living room. What I object to is your claim that you, through the United States government, has a right to remove invited guests from my living room, if they don’t meet your approval, based on the government’s borders. (They’re not my borders; I never wanted them. Maybe you’ve decided to adopt them as yours, but if so you ought to speak only for yourself.)

I did know of a few others in town — the two-story classroom building at the high school had one, for ADA compliance purposes; I just never rode on it, as far as I can recall. I presume there are probably similar elevators for accessibility purposes in some of the other two-story buildings around town. I guess the new football condos that they built during the real-estate bubble probably also have elevators for the tenants, although I’ve never visually confirmed that.

... The article is O.K.; certainly, it's better than immigrant-bashing or pro-Border Patrol articles. But, in the interest of constructive criticism, I'd say

... Well, there is making sense, and there is making sense, isn't there? There are many kinds of "making sense" other than some sort of generic naturalism

... Jeff, Is that how you normally use the word "reasonable"? I mean, if you say that someone has a reasonable opinion about the age of the earth, or the

Anonymous,

So, just so we're clear, your primary complaint against ALL is our acronym? If we had maintained the same attitude towards communist Anarchism, but chosen to call ourselves, say, the Alliance of Left-Wing Market Anarchists or League of Individualists, Mutualists, Agorists, Et Cetera, rather than "Alliance of the Libertarian Left," you wouldn't be complaining about this?

Anon: This can mean only one thing: ...

Oh, I doubt that.

Anon: the ALL does not consider anarcho-communists to be of the libertarian left,

I have no idea what the ALL hive mind considers anarcho-communists to be, but I can say that I think the terms "libertarian" and "left" have many common uses, and that among them there is a very long-standing sense of "libertarian left" that does encompass anarcho-communists. But ALL's name was not selected in order to suggest an alliance among absolutely everybody who could be said to be "of the libertarian left", in that one particular sense of the term.

Do you also complain that the Libertarian Workers' Group didn't actually include all libertarian workers, but rather limited itself to workers who were not only libertarian, but also syndicalist and communist?

Lorraine: Now I finally finally see why it is this market socialism leaves a funny aftertaste.

Well, O.K. Just for the record, you shouldn't take my formulation of these things as a definitive statement of what people who believe in "market socialism" believe in. I'm a weird guy with idiosyncratic positions, in what is already a weird fringe movement. I'm happy to defend my own take on the matter, but it may not be representative of anyone else's understanding.

Lorraine: I consider hierarchy a form of aggression.

O.K., so what significant differences do you think that this reversal of the formula makes?

Do you think that there are other, different forms of aggression which are non-hierarchical? If so, what are they?

(Just to briefly explain myself, the reason I listed aggression as "a form of" hierarchy is because I think there are other forms of hierarchy which aren't aggressive. As an Anarchist, I object to all forms of hierarchy; aggression among them.)

Do you think that it affects the kinds of tactics that can legitimately be adopted in the effort to resist forms of dominance which I would have classified as oppressive, exploitative or vicious, but not as physically aggressive (e.g. racist hate speech, authoritarian "management" of workplaces, sexist paternalism or double-standards, manarchist glorification of movement cred through street violence, etc.)? If so, what kind of tactics do you think it makes legitimate, that would not be legitimate if these were not being classified as "aggressive"?

Or is there some other kind of difference this makes, which I'm missing?

Neil:

I’m assuming this was at the university due to the original question, but I am aware that there are elevators elsewhere in the world, …

Elsewhere in the world, maybe, but not elsewhere in Auburn, Alabama. Town doesn’t specialize in tall buildings.

(I lived in Auburn for about 10 years growing up, and in all seriousness I can’t remember even a single time I rode an elevator anywhere in town other than on Auburn University campus.)

... Jeff, What do you mean by "reasonable" here? Normally when we talk about more or less "reasonable opinions," about, for example, the age of the earth or