How do borderists believe "we" can "protect our borders" without a huge police state (and the attendant expense met through "taxation")?
This is a question I have asked many times over the years and have never gotten a real answer to. For that matter, I have almost always had the question completely ignored, as if I never asked.
And, how do they believe a State powerful and omnipresent enough to "secure our borders" will not (eventually, if not immediately) use that power and omnipresence against them in ways they wouldn't like?
That's another question I have never gotten a real answer to.
I suspect that's because the real answers are too uncomfortable for the borderists to contemplate.
What do you think?
.
but, but, but
ReplyDeletebut if only the Berlin wall had been built and manned by the right people...
What, my government violating my rights when I'm not harming anyone? Absurd. Oh wait... the so-called war on drugs. My bad.
ReplyDeleteYour question: “And, how do they believe a State powerful and omnipresent enough to "secure our borders" will not (eventually, if not immediately) use that power and omnipresence against them in ways they wouldn't like?”
ReplyDeleteLoyalist answer: “Becuz this is Amurrica an we got a cons-tee-too-shun.”
I am a sovereign state. That statement has been challenged by "anarchists" a time or two, each declaring that I cannot be a state because a state must have "borders". But I do have borders -- across which you must not step. Or, I wish you wouldn't. I'm getting old and feeble, not as capable as I once might have been at defending those borders.
ReplyDeleteThe only non-tyrannical state is that with a population of one. Sam