A Libertarian Paradox

This time, frequent comment poster russn8r, whose conclusions about the destructive results of "amnesty" I happen to agree with, crosses swords with my friend Bruce Krafft in addressing "no borders" libertarianism as endorsed by another friend, L. Neil Smith. See comments under the linked article. [More] 

I agree that, assuming we're not on the cusp of a new dark age, governments, which are a form of social technology, can evolve to the point where the advantages of voluntary and contractual associations and self-government, with private enforcement via positive and negative incentive mechanisms, would replace what is currently being haphazardly and unjustly done through coercion and force.  Once we had tribal chiefs, then kings, and now, evidently, sorcerers. Perhaps there will come a time when we can rule ourselves without interference, and render those who would control us lunatic curiosities and pariahs .

That said, I don't see how we are to get from here to there by opening the floodgates to the system currently in place and occupying the same territory with disparate cultures, especially with the next step in that plan apparently being civil war by selective assassinations after the political consequences some of us are warning against actually occur. I didn't see that point denied.

As I've noted before, and will repeat here again, if anyone has actual data -- not opinions or wishful thinking-- to refute the documented observation that the millions of illegal immigrants the Obama administration says "have earned the right to be citizens" will not politically identify overwhelmingly with the Democrats and the gun-grabbers, present your evidence.  That's the dispassionate discussion I am offering once more.

But do me a favor and present your views over there.  That's where more people need to see the conversation, plus I'm overwhelmed with work today and will make comment moderation here a lower priority than getting my primary tasks done.