I believe in private property, and I think shooting someone for trespassing is sometimes the right thing to do. I would never want to second guess a person who shoots a trespasser- especially an adult trespasser. Or a trespasser who is littering and damaging the property, or threatening the owners. Trespass should come with a price high enough to discourage it.
I would not sit still for people moving into my house and declaring they will live there. But I don't own your house and I know I have no say in who you invite into yours. To pretend otherwise is a form of theft.
I do not want to see "others" move into the area until they outnumber me and begin to push me around. In the same way, I don't like that I am outnumbered and surrounded by people who follow religions I find abhorrent even now. Religions very popular with mainstream America, including the world's most popular religion: statism. But, the only legitimate say I have in that ends at my property lines- even if I don't like it.
I do believe some religions are worse than others, and some cultures are sick and twisted.
I do not believe "The Country" negates private property of those living inside the government's imaginary borders, but that this belief directly violates private property rights in the most evil way imaginable- by utterly ignoring or denying them. Just like those the borderists want "government" to protect them from.
I do not believe violating your property rights to make myself more comfortable is right. I don't believe using the force of government to dictate who you can allow onto your property, or rent to or hire, is the answer. It is wrong.
I do not advocate stealing from you ("taxation") to finance a gang to patrol the "borders" and to molest people both along the "borders" and well away from those "borders". Theft is theft, and everything such a gang does- except in rare instances- is an initiation of force, and is founded upon theft. You can't do good through committing evil.
All government "jobs" are welfare. Money is stolen from the owners and handed out to people doing harmful busy-work the market won't fund. Those "jobs" are used to directly violate the life, liberty, and property of the people forced to pay. This is even worse than the migrants' (largely exaggerated) use of welfare. End all welfare- including government paychecks. Or be hypocritical and hate some people's use of welfare while celebrating those on other forms of welfare.
Borderism is socialism. Sometimes it is even communism. It is always collectivism, theft, and aggression- which is what statism is.
If those setting up an armed guard to repel trespassers are acting as though they believe in their own property rights, but advocating "borders" and "immigration control", they are acting as though they don't believe in anyone's private property at all, but only collective property administered by a State. In that case, what are they trying to protect? Is it "property for me, but none for you"? Their behavior makes me see them as being contradictory and deluded. I would gladly help protect my neighbor's property from invaders, using force or arms, unless he advocated taking my property from me under the guise of "government". In that case, he isn't acting as though he believes in my property rights, so why endanger myself protecting his?
If that's what you advocate, own it. Stop complaining when I or others point it out. If your position is right, why be ashamed and why get angry?
Rightful Liberty leaves no room for Borderism or other forms of communism- not even if you really, really want them. Protect and defend your personal property lines, and help your neighbors if they ask- I would- but keep your hands to yourself when it comes to stealing money to fund gangs to violate life, liberty, and property in the name of your State.
-
GoFundMe?
.
Appears you're in good company: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260665/soros-national-borders-are-enemy-matthew-vadum
ReplyDeleteAgree with most of your disdain for statism.
However, a 'nation' without borders is just an area where tribes are locked in an eternal turf battle.
Hasn't worked out well for 'areas' like Afghanistan.
Also why they haven't gone much beyond the stone age for centuries.
Again, if property lines were respected, any "immigration" problem would go away. Since governments are the biggest enemies of property lines, I don't understand how you can expect them to solve the problem they cause. It simply isn't in their interest to respect property lines, other than those they pretend to draw.
Delete"Borders" are simply where two gangs of thugs got tired of fighting. They don't actually even separate cultures. If they did there would be a "national border" around my private property. Instead I am lumped in with people who stand for everything I am against, and who are against everything I stand for. This isn't my culture. Yet, I am not locked in eternal turf battles with the statists around me, because in their personal lives they act like libertarians (for the most part). That is the real solution.
I understand your fears. There has got to be a solution that doesn't involve handing your property rights over to the biggest enemy of property rights. And you and I both know what it is, and it has nothing to do with governments or their "laws".
Your article presents some undeniable facts that should be remembered and considered by the anti-immigration borderist. I agree with you largely. However when you make no distinction between National Government borders and State Government borders, we part company. We part company because immigration control (and many other powers that the National Government exercises.) violate the Declaration of Independence's description of God given, unalienable rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. (Natural Law, not statutes or written law.) State Governments promise no such guarantees. Our National Government gets its power from the consent of the governed. State Governments gets its power from Statutes or written law. This is not all together a bad thing, because States do not have a monopoly power over its citizens, like the National Government has, That is why when the States created the National Government the powers they granted were few and well defined, while the States powers were many and broadly defined. This means people can move to another States when their State laws become too oppressive.
DeleteI don't consent to any government or "State", and whoever is violating anyone's Rightful Liberty is the enemy, no matter what they call themselves.
DeleteA "national government" is really no different than a "state government" in any substantive way. Both depend on aggression and theft for their very existence. Both impose and enforce counterfeit "laws" (which result in aggression and theft). I don't care if you call yourself The Book of the Month Club- if you "tax" or impose "laws" based on anything other than initiation of force or property violations, you are the enemy of Rightful Liberty. There are only two kinds of "laws": the unnecessary and the counterfeit- and all counterfeit "laws" are harmful.
Texas and Colorado are just as foundationally based upon that superstitious belief in "authority" as the fe(de)ral government is.
Statutes/written "law" have no actual power and can't grant "states" anything. Because collectives can have no rights; only individuals can. And we don't need anything written to "give" us those rights.
If "states" created the national government, in that act they demonstrated why "states" are just as bad an enemy as any "national government".
I don't believe you should be required to move to another place just because a gang of bullies is imposing bad rules on you. That hands the bad guys a win.