Whenever a liberty advocate points out the folly or the evil of the state, some pitiful creature will always respond with a "but my child was killed" story.
That is sad, but does not excuse the existence of the state. Obviously if your child died from an act of non-state aggression, the state's liberty-crushing efforts did not prevent it. Why sacrifice my children on the altar of tyranny? Is this your idea of "an eye for an eye"?
Whether it is "sobriety checkpoints" or victim disarmament schemes, children still die.
There are thousands upon thousands of draconian, immoral, unethical, stupid, and evil "gun laws". They don't stop death from happening, and in many cases actually empower the attackers. They give renegade federal agencies permission to destroy gun owners.
Those disgusting checkpoints don't stop drunk driving; they destroy an absolute human right to travel unmolested. They also give the Liberty Eradication Operatives (LEOs) "exciting" new ways to snoop and intimidate normal, peaceful people. That may be their real purpose: to desensitize formerly free people to living under the boot of the police state. Even if that is an unintended consequence, it is enough to condemn such abominations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the state vanished tomorrow (I can dream can't I) and all property became private would you still claim a "right to travel"?
ReplyDeleteDon't I, the property owner, have absolute right over my land, including closing it to travelers or putting in my own checkpoints?
PS. I've agree with all you other writings, but I don't understand your concept of "right to travel" - please share as I'm open to changing my understanding.
No one has a right to trespass. If all property became private, and no one allowed anyone else to travel across their property, humans would become extinct pretty quickly, wouldn't they?
ReplyDeleteIf someone refuses a right-of-way through their property, that is their right. However, they would then open themselves up to equal treatment by others, and risk being shunned. Unless their property could meet all their needs (which is very unlikely), they might want to consider making agreements with adjoining property owners.
I have never had a problem with people passing through my property, as long as they do no damage. Trash my property, and you might want to take another route next time.
Tomorrow's blog will have more to say on the topic of "right to travel" from a slightly different angle.