Given that the concept of a nation is an idea so stable and necessary it is literally the foundation of every civilisation ever to exist, I don't believe for a moment that calling for no borders is even an argument. At the very least, it is a point of view so bankrupt of sensibility and sense in general as to not even deserve a detailed refutation. National borders are a thing that must exist if we are to have a society at all. I do wish people would think from time to time, to leave fantasy land for the briefest of moments to check they're not shouting absolute twaddle.
You can find plenty more examples of this guff by searching youtube for "no borders protest". You'll note that this claptrap has been going on for quite some time. My own country, the UK, sees over 200,000 migrants enter into it every year. This situation is dramatically changing the country, straining public services and the welfare state to breaking point. There is no, I repeat no, mainstream political or media narrative which opposes this mass immigration. This is nothing short of a desire to see their own countries altered beyond recognition. Here's a German politician being remarkably frank about the matter:
The markets know no boarders, but that due to international trade. With so many cultural, language, religious differences, and open conflict of varying degree we're not ready to be a single global community.
The economic inequalities between people and nations also undermines global unity.
The markets know no boarders, but that due to international trade. With so many cultural, language,
Well there's some here that want ICE agency disbanded. But there May's soft Brexit that's bugging a lot of Britons, and the E.U. aspiration of open boarders between member states for labor and good trades.
Well there's some here that want ICE agency disbanded. But there May's soft Brexit that's bugging a
Much of the ICE hate comes from how extremist and jackbooted they've become since the beginning of the Age of Entropy and the rise of the Dissonant Movement. That doesn't equal a desire to get rid of all borders, nor does it mean we shouldn't enforce our border or immigration laws.
That's the dangerous thing about the Dissonant Movement. They build up a fleet of strawmen and fill the air with so much goddamn chaff, and have fully immunized themselves from reality that there is no sense of rational discourse anymore. And before you say anything, the Dissonant Movement is a nonpartisan phenomenon.
Much of the ICE hate comes from how extremist and jackbooted they've become since the beginning of t
I'm not familiar with Dissonant movement. But the issues facing our boarders and immigration has nothing to do with a unneeded wall of xenophobia. We have allowed so many work and travel Visa holders to go unaccounted for decades.
Removing all is impossible, the problem when there are millions. But efforts need to go into finding them, giving them the citizen test so they are protected under our constitution and preventing their status from being used to exploit them.
This is the humane and legal thing to do. If Republicans were smart, they'd push this as path to citizenship and gain millions of new votes that actually share their social views.
But they rather cling to the racism and bigotry that makes up evangelical and baptist Christian.
I'm not familiar with Dissonant movement. But the issues facing our boarders and immigration has no
1: The Dissonant Movement is a phenomenon where people become completely immunized to any outside factual evidence, metaphorically cutting out their lying eyes and listening only to either the insanity in their own head, or someone else's. Combine this with runaway sensationalism and irrational hatred and intentional cruelty, and you get the current sociopolitical climate.
2: Anyone with a brain knows that the undocumented immigration issue is a highly nuanced one that requires many different, equally nuanced solutions for the various aspects of it, but that requires people in power with a brain that aren't bought by special interest groups that are keen on exploiting undocumented workers for cheap labor (or blackmailing/threatening those workers behind the scenes to stop them from reapplying for their work visas). It also requires people who haven't forcefully convinced themselves that everyone coming across the border in whatever fashion is an MS-13 gang member.
4: The overwhelming majority of the Republican Party has demonstrated for years now that they are absolutely hypocritical and antithetical to their own ideology. Now it's coming to its logical conclusion.
1: The Dissonant Movement is a phenomenon where people become completely immunized to any outside fa
When conversation is a struggle in and of itself consensus governance is near impossible.
A lack of uniformed application of constitutional rights is to be expected when enough people aren't aware of a ruling back in 1896.
As for Republicans, they are not to be trusted with anything with their current lack of integrity or self respect. They sold out completely and the only ones willing to speak up are on their death beds or on the way out the door.
When conversation is a struggle in and of itself consensus governance is near impossible. A lack of
I looked into it. Word association brought me to a lot of hard right-wing websites and a quote from the Entropy. That raises a ton of suspicion that it's a straw accusation.
That aside, there is a 10+ year old UK group that is trying to abolish all borders everywhere, but they're an extreme fringe.
I looked into it. Word association brought me to a lot of hard right-wing websites and a quote from
Give it a decent google. Look at it on sites like CNN and the Washington post. There's a bill making its way up right now to abolish ICE as well. It's very dishonest of you to proclaim that it's a strawman when you have clearly not searched for information properly. Ignorance is no excuse.
Give it a decent google. Look at it on sites like CNN and the Washington post. There's a bill making
What you need to understand is that ICE is not tasked with the job of protecting the borders of the U.S.; that is Customs and Border Protection's job. ICE is tasked with raiding a bunch of communities of illegal immigrants (regardless of their peacefulness and productivity) and either deporting them to a city they probably have never been to or incarcerating them indefinitely.
What you need to understand is that ICE is *not* tasked with the job of protecting the borders of th
I think the fact we have distinct nations with their own cultures and heritage is something to be largely celebrated. A world of one country would be dull, in my view. I'd like to see all the nations enjoying liberty and prosperity, however.
I think the fact we have distinct nations with their own cultures and heritage is something to be la
It would not only be dull, it would be a New World Order...That's mentioned a lot in the Book of Revelation.
I feel this way about nation's borders...Anyone should be able to freely travel anywhere in the world they want, and not have to go through getting a passport. However, these stipulations should still exist:
1. Someone visiting a different country abides by the laws of the country they are visiting. It's like you don't set down your own rules in someone else's home...The old saying goes, "When in Rome, do what the Romans do".
2. If the country you are visiting speaks a different language, you can still travel there if you can't speak the language, but don't expect it to be a given that the locals will speak your language. If you can't speak the language, then deal with the communication barrier if you go there.
3. Social programs such as; welfare, food stamps, chapter 8 housing and free medical are for the citizens of the country that offers them...If you are not a citizen of that country, those services are not yours. Going to a different country and taking from social programs that are not yours to take is equally as shameful as; stealing from the Shriners, stealing from St. Jude's Children's Hospital, stealing from the Widow's and Orphan's Fund, stealing someone's social security check out of the mailbox or stealing from the VFW fund for disabled veterans.
4. You can seek employment as a foreigner, but the hiring priority must go to the local citizen. Exceptions to that would be understandable, such as; A company is hiring for a skilled position, and out of all the applicants, the only one who has the qualifications for the position is a foreigner...Or if it's a job no local wants.
5. You can rent an apartment, buy land, a house, a car and open a business as a foreigner...However, no foreign fortune 500 corporation should be allowed to go into another country and buy up all the land.
6. You can stay in another country as long as you want...but keeping in mind, if you have resided in the country with a physical address, and maintained employment or been in business for 7 years, and during that 7 years you never left the country, you then qualify as a citizen of that country...After all, someone who has been paying taxes for 7 years had put enough into the system to be eligible for services offered by that country.
7. A country's option of deportation should remain in place for those who caused a lot of trouble and continually engaged in criminal activity. The only other people who a country should be allowed to arrest or send back upon entering the country are; Those who's names are on the International Terrorist Registry. And someone who is fully aware they are presently carrying an extremely dangerous disease such as leprosy and Ebola.
8. Refugee status should still be kept in place...But ONLY for those who are truly refugees, such as persecution and genocide...not for 200 people packed aboard a homemade boat because they don't like their own country, then show up on the beach saying, "Feed us". Those 200 people can still stay, but the rules apply.
It would not only be dull, it would be a New World Order...That's mentioned a lot in the Book of Rev
I am an American and I'm not proud of it, I really wish I was born in Europe or South America or certain parts of Asia rather than in the USA. The downside is that I would find the internet and learn English, leading to reading all of the shit that makes me so angry.
Immigration and Emigration policies are very important but we now live in a very toxic climate where both sides sound like idiots. It makes me what to strike myself down to becoming deafblind so I never have to hear or read about all of this cancerous bickering ever again.
In other news, I quite often wonder what kind of accents these cute political animals would have. Would it be one of the English accents or could it some other variant that I haven't heard of yet. I'd love to hear great voice actors dub these someday.
I am an American and I'm not proud of it, I really wish I was born in Europe or South America or ce
This falls flat as a "political comic" to me as it relies far too much on "telling" rather than "showing". Removing the art wouldn't remove or change the message-- so what is the point of having the art?
This falls flat as a "political comic" to me as it relies far too much on "telling" rather than "sho
So there's more to look at than just text XP. The characters are indeed decorative. I draw this stuff mainly as stress relief in between commissions so I don't try to make the art itself substantive. Perhaps I will in the future with other things but for this I couldn't be arsed XP. Basically, I wanted to make a simple point and thought it would be nice to put some cute furry bois in there too.
So there's more to look at than just text XP. The characters are indeed decorative. I draw this stuf
I wouldn't use the world "brilliant". I'd rather say instead they're necessary. It's one of the thing I wish didn't have to exist in the ideal world, but it can't be done. :P There's a lot other things in the world I wish that didn't exist, such as mosqutos for example. but I'm afraid they won't be going anywhere! X3
I wouldn't use the world "brilliant". I'd rather say instead they're necessary. It's one of the thin
Looks like you've been looking at too much propaganda. Nobody is advocating for "no borders". ICE was also established after 911 and there have been border fences along key places of the southern border for years. Also statistically immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than natural board citizens.
Looks like you've been looking at too much propaganda. Nobody is advocating for "no borders". ICE wa
Only two people call for no borders _in this day and age_, people who don't know better, and people who are trying to steal your home out from under you.
The second group should all be executed. Life is not as precious as any person would like to believe their own is, and people who believe everyone else exists as a resource for them to exploit for personal gain should be killed. If you kill _all those people_ you would ease the burden of territorial disputes. Kill two birds with one stone.
Only two people call for no borders _in this day and age_, people who don't know better, and people
I hate borders so much I had the front door removed. I hate them so much I withdrew all my money from the bank (where they're protected by physical, or more likely digital, border) and spread them out on the ground.
Just kidding. :) Individuals should of course be allowed to put up borders. Anything else would be silly. Such borders are super important for the rich (yea yea for the poor too, but we have to accept that I guess). But countries shouldn't be allowed to have borders. Because such borders are mainly beneficial for normal people.
I hate borders so much I had the front door removed. I hate them so much I withdrew all my money fro
I normaly don't post on political art but I agree. Society can not function without borders. After all there are more borders then just between countries. What about State, County, City, National Park, Political, or Property borders?
I normaly don't post on political art but I agree. Society can not function without borders. After a
Nice to see that you take things out of context again. Its not really about removing borders completly but how you implement them. The no border chant is basiacly political rethoric you know like "we are the people" (despise being probaly only 10% of them) or "Make america great again" (while doing the exact opposite of that).
But let me ask you something. I hear alot of you guys scream "We need a strong border for a strong Country" but may I ask you to be honest and how many corpses are supposed to build the fundation for that?
In this half year around 1400 people drowned in the Mediterranian Sea and over 600 alone this June. Man Woman and Children that left their countries because there they would either be killed in a civil war, dissapear because of a oppressiv regime (witch is mostly funded by us) or starve because our companies robbed them their basis of living (ask for example Monsanto how that is done)
So again I ask you how many human lifes is a border worth? tousand? hundret-tousand? a million? Or does it have to be the case that there is a corpse washed on the shore of some popular holyday beaches before we start to care?
Tell me a number there. You said here to face the reality so please face the reality that this stance will cause human deaths.
And as a german the next time you reference my country please get some proper sources and not something from a right-wing conspiracy website who cant even get context right. The "replacing of the german people" is basiacly the biggest Bullshit I have ever heard in the recent years. And by the rate our populists scream out half-truths and lies this means something.
Nice to see that you take things out of context again. Its not really about removing borders complet
Are you honestly implying that the deaths of people trying to sneak their way, illegally, into countries they have nothing to do with, is to be blamed on having a border? What do you mean how many deaths would it take? The vast majority of these people are able-bodied migrants, not refugees. Tens of thousands of actual refugees end up in the first safe port of call and are given asylum, which is generally Turkey. They then leave that safe place to move to a better place, in western europe. They are no longer refugees once they leave that first safe country.
I'm not sure what you're even trying to say. That because people die trying to force their way into a country they don't deserve to be in....what? That they should be let in and the border shouldn't be enforced? That is a direct advocacy for the elimination of a national border in all but name and you come to me accusing me of being dishonest. You're a snake, with no business even mentioning other people's "lies".
As for your country, have you or have you not recently admitted in excess of 1 million migrants over the past few years? If flooding a country with migrants isn't an effort to change the demographics of a nation then what the hell else is it? Either way that is precisely what actually happens. Get your own head sorted out.
Just in case you want to try guilt-tripping me about migrant deaths again, their deaths are down to their own actions or in paying thousands to people traffickers. Want to stop those deaths? Don't encourage fucking migration and they wont make the trip in the first place. They don't belong in the countries they move to, they have no right to be there. End of story.
Are you honestly implying that the deaths of people trying to sneak their way, illegally, into count
Im not trying to guilt trip you just trying to comfront you with the reality.
And again nice seeing you being a 1 trick pony again and taking things out of context. I didnt say that the concept of borders causes this deaths but how we use this concepts at the moment.
At the moment we do as follow. No harbor actually admits boats anymore and people who actually safe people from drowning (does the name "Lifeline" ring a bell) are now up for prosecution because the netherlands suddenly revoked their flag status (after being totaly fine with that for the past few years and months) directly after the EU agreed for a harder stance. What a conididence.
And again nice to see you getting facts wrong. Most of these boats dont land in Turkey (thats just the place most syrian refugees land) but either in italy, spain, malta or greece.
And this actually started this crisis to begin with. This Countries had to take all thís people that came over the sea and stockpiling them in camps while the rest of the EU just didnt give shit. And after a while this countries became frustrated about that asking the other countries to also take some of the burden. And this lead to what we now call the "refugee crisis" (because shortly afterwards the syrian civil war started witch than lead many refugees from the middle east to come to the EU)
And I actually agree at one thing with you. We shouldnt encourage migration. But perhaps instead of digging ourselves in and letting people drown , witch is like telling a bank robber to just shoot the hostages, we should target the cause of the migration witch is Poverty. Poverty witch is not rarley caused by us.
Does the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) say something to you? Probaly not because it was not very much talked about generaly. The EPA is a free-trade "agreement" ( you know like TTIP witch everyone found so unfair) between the EU and African countries but in reality its basiacly nothing more than colonalism 2.0. This agreement basiacly enables us to import african goods to a very low price while flooding the african markets with basiacly low price products and enabling private investors to basiacly do whatever they want. This basiacly lead to many people there to loose their basis of living. Little farmers for example lost their land because big global firms bought put them out of buisness and then bought their land. Monsanto mentioned earlier also (who now is a part of the german pharma company Bayer) also does something similar. They basiacly patented certain sorts of seeds and if a farmer uses one of them they basiacly sue them for everything they have or enable cotracts that basiacly screws the farmer over even more. And why did the African countries signed such a aggrement? Well because when some of them refused to sign we basiacly denied them access to the european market and put massive tariffs on their goods till they signed.
And when this happens people have two options. Either I stay here with a good chance of me and my family starving or I go somewhere else and try my luck there. And it baffels me honestly that people dont really understand this concept because it actualy happened about a million times in human history (Ireland, Poland, the big tribe migration in ancient time to name a few)
And let a german tell you something about borders. Wall, fences and similar dont disencourage migration. People are way to stubborn for that especialy if they dont have anything to loose anymore. When the GDR built their wall here ( while actually seeling it as a protection from the bad influences of the outside) it didnt disencourage people to try to leave but just to get more creative to pass the wall. Because when people see a wall they dont think "I should get back theres a wall in my way." but "how can I get pass this wall". So again strong borders (again not borders at all) are not helpfull to disencourage migration but only to give you the illusion of saftey.
Im not trying to guilt trip you just trying to comfront you with the reality. And again nice seein
And to germany. well we take that much but here are somethings that your sides probaly dont tell you. About 36% of all application for asylum get denied right away. another 31% are up to a formal decision atm. So putting that into perspective this 1 million get alot smaller because most leave again. Second: While there was a peak of migration in 2015 there was a massiv dropdown in the following years. So basiacly we talk about a crisis at the moment that either ends soon or is even almost non-existent anymore. And third: You know I live in this country and where I live there is a mosque 1 min away from me by foot ( witch actualy stands here for about 10-15 years when not longer) and only 10 minutes away there is a refugee station (and another 10min there is also another bigger one) and in the small city I come from there was also another refugee camp. You know what changed in the recent years? Nothing. But hey why take it from a guy who actually lives here when you can just listen to sites that get basic facts wrong. Can still remember when sites like this claimed that refugees burned down the oldest church in Germany despite the fact that it was neither the oldest church nor was it burned down.
And to germany. well we take that much but here are somethings that your sides probaly dont tell you
Your screed is nonsense. Basic facts: people who die don't die at the borders of countries they're trying to enter, they die on the way, in haphazard, awful conditions under the stewardship of human traffickers who get rich off the proceeds. You place the blame for those deaths on the country these people are trying to get into. I'm not getting into a battle of essays with you when you just gloss over simple truths and bury them in a ton of word salad.
The countries migrants come from have to sort their own shit out, not expect the rest of the world to just keep taking in millions of people at the expense of the citizens already there. People don't pay their taxes to a representative government to have other motherfuckers from shitholes to show up for handouts. Hardly any of these people are fleeing war, it costs thousands of dollars to pay off a trafficker and here's you acting like all these people are refugees seeking asylum. They're in the middle east, dozens of muslim majority countries that aren't at war surround them, so where are they taken in? By the countries closest to them in geography and culture? No, they end up in fucking Europe and the west. Well I say they can piss off.
And none of this changes the basic fact that my cartoon brings up, that borders are necessary, does it? Yeah, so either way you're only here to try and start shit with me. Tata.
Your screed is nonsense. Basic facts: people who die don't die at the borders of countries they're t
My ideal world would have no borders as these divisions are still used as a cause for war. The world wars were predicated on them and the final war that will end humanity will also have these divisions as a cause.
I do think material like this on a paraphila fetish site is a troll attempt.
My ideal world would have no borders as these divisions are still used as a cause for war. The world
It isn't. I just love political philosophy and I like to draw cartoons about it. If people get upset by cartoons that make reasonable points they have something wrong with them.
It isn't. I just love political philosophy and I like to draw cartoons about it. If people get upset
Yeah, it's pretty much a pipe dream that human civilization is no where near ready for yet. It's a dream of utopia that's right up there with pure socialism. We only need to look to the internet to see proof of that. While it has done wonders for giving people a chance to meet people from other cultures, others have already abused it as a platform for inflicting their intelictual diseases on everyone else.
Yeah, it's pretty much a pipe dream that human civilization is no where near ready for yet. It's a d
I'd be fine with "no borders" (as in state borders, private borders should never be erased except by the same private hands that make them or have rightfully attained them) if there were no restrictions on guns (along with over 90% of people being armed at the point when the borders were erased), the free market and no social programs or taxes, but of course that's nowhere near what is the law for America now, nor will it be like so without massive revolt, and the modern superstate itself would be long dead by that point, since they rely on taxes and regulation.
Also a border wall, while a temporary evil for it's coercive funding, is a long term strategic advantage, like the gating of communities. While individuals afterwards can change what they like, they will have a large wall to build off of that makes it less chaotic for them.
I'd be fine with "no borders" (as in state borders, private borders should never be erased except by
Without a government to administer justice, which you can't have without taxation, it would be left to the public to administer its own justice. So you're looking at a state of constant warfare and the collapse of a nation. Tis why governments were invented. It is like proclaiming people should live without water.
Without a government to administer justice, which you can't have without taxation, it would be left
No, that's a state. A government is nothing but a type of business, and can be left to the market. Whether or not that's a "good idea" I never said anything about wanting or not wanting it with the exception that if "open borders" were permitted then the state and its regulations would have to fall with the borders.
No, that's a state. A government is nothing but a type of business, and can be left to the market. W
Same thing. A government without the ability to govern is not a government. State and government are inevitably interlinked. Pissing about with word definitions won't alter the facts one iota, societies require security and law, these things require the means to enforce and supply them. It isn't merely economical like a market is either, principles aren't a market and you need people to establish principles, not market forces. There is a reason governments are a thing and why nations without them don't exist. There's also a reason most of human history has been warring tribes tearing each other to pieces over bits of land. As soon as you have no government, you have no civilisation. You might be happy living like Mad fucking Max, which you have never, in any case, tried. Nobody else does.
Same thing. A government without the ability to govern is not a government. State and government are
No, and arguing based on "common knowledge" and referencing a dystopic film is not a real argument, so I'll skip the last half of your "response", since you seem keen on lecture instead of dialogue, and have a very bad problem in that you assume others' wants. I never said I "wanted to live like Mad "fucking" Max", for example.
Again, I never said anything about whether one is a good idea or not, because I am actually conflicted about it, though now that I know you care not for argumentative integrity, I will state my official position. I philosophically default to "anarchism" (I don't believe the word is appropriate, as hierarchy is needed, a king makes laws, the peasants obey them, for example, and in humans and all other higher life forms, there is never a moment without hierarchy, the stronger man is inherently better than a weak man, a smart man is inherently better than a retarded man, etc.) because I see no real, concrete need for a state, and never have found one.
A government either governs because a. it forces people to be under it or b. It competes in the market of governance and gains people who wish to live under it Private security is a governmental type, and they gain governance by others buying their services. The only way a government cannot govern is if it has 0 subscribers, nobody lives under their rule, forced or not, or nobody buys their rule.
"Pissing about with word definitions won't alter the facts one iota" And arguing from pure ideology and social myth-creation without evidence works any better?
States are coercive governments, that means they are interlinked only by that a state is a government, but not all governments are states. If I do not want to pay taxes to the federal government, I am locked in a cage, versus I do not want to hire police from Police4U, I'd rather arm myself, but they do not lock me in a cage, they merely are not getting my business. If they do throw me in a cage, I can contact a court and sue them for breaking the NIF, since they initiated force. Also that court is a private business, and to stay afloat it needs both money and a good reputation, so it is not coercive.
Societies do require law and security and a means to enforce and supply them, yes, but does it always have to be forced upon the citizen or can they voluntarily take it for themselves is what this is all about. I never said that there shouldn't be law or security, that's a strawman.
"principles aren't a market and you need people to establish principles, not market forces." I have no earthly idea what you are even talking about, hahahaha
Also, I had just remembered something. Even in a state, taxation is not actually necessary. The kings of medieval Europe before the end of the Hundred Years War and the rise of Absolutism after that only taxed the populace if their own funds were too low. Instead, the vast majority of the time, the whole of the suzerain's government would be paid for by profits off of personal landholdings and ventures, as well as tolls. So even with states, there are many non-coercive avenues for revenue, and with stateless societies, that is relied upon 100%. Of course. this all necessitates smaller governments, which, as I know you are a center-left liberal who does want extensive social programs and state-oversight (correct me if I'm wrong), do not want. I am merely, as usual, stating that there are other options...
There are many criticisms of "Anarcho"-Capitalism that I have myself, but I do not criticize it based on stereotypes about "Mad Max" and a High School level-understanding of social contract theory.
No, and arguing based on "common knowledge" and referencing a dystopic film is not a real argument,
You have no idea what I'm talking about with reference to principles? That is frightening. You know, principles? Don't complain to me about a lecture when you've come to me with one to begin with mate XP. Yes, I make a simple argument, because the matter is a simple one, that even a child can grasp. It takes real foolishness to weave a web of pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook to mask the inadequacies of the fundamental principles being applied. So, my pretentious "educated" friend, get buggered. Governments are required to safeguard the law, to see that it is applied to begin with. A border is also required to have a government. Why? Because governments can't represent or act on behalf of anybody if there is no way to discern who is a citizen and without citizenship there is no practical way of having any kind of voice. You talk to me about not providing evidence but you've done nothing but assert that borders aren't required and that states and governments are starkly different things. That you're in a cage by having to pay taxes. Yeah, you could have a gun to defend yourself without the police, but that puts you and everyone else in the situation of whomever is the most ruthless, murderous and devious ends up king of the hill. You know, like all of fucking human history prior to the invention of governments/states like the USA. Your referring to the federal government like it has imprisoned you is hyperbolic piss. An infantile temper tantrum with no sense of perspective. High school indeed.
You have no idea what I'm talking about with reference to principles? That is frightening. You know,
I know what a principle is, don't lie about me again. You made no sense in saying that "principles" and markets were different things and somehow believing that market forces do not require humans. A principle can only be accomplished by human action, yes, but markets are human action, therefore, a principle. What you said was completely pulled out of your ass and made no sense since it was completely inconsistent.
Again, a state is a government, but not all governments are states. I will not repeat why since you ignore it.
Also governments never represent nor act in the interest of the people, there is no such thing as "interest of the people". And you consider my views childish...
"Your referring to the federal government like it has imprisoned you is hyperbolic piss. An infantile temper tantrum with no sense of perspective. High school indeed." You are as uncivilized and dishonest as Antifa and communists, utterly shameful.
I made my original comment in good faith as fair debate, but this is just a frankly animalistic conversation, so I will stop. But because you have lied about me multiple times and debate in a dishonest and overly emotional way, disregarding other's arguments, and do not own up to it, that deserves a block. Get buggered yourself.
I know what a principle is, don't lie about me again. You made no sense in saying that "principles"
Market principles are not the same as legal principles, a market will not secure liberty, liberty is secured by law and law secured by government. Call me what you like but you don't have an argument, you only have hyperbole about the government being tyrannical overlords. And you can't get past the basic fact that you need an accountable government to administer law. Think a corporation could do it? United States of Apple, fucking iNation lol. My points are simple and succinct and you don't have an argument against them, so tough shit. My "emotions" have nothing to do with anything, you're still wrong lol.
Market principles are not the same as legal principles, a market will not secure liberty, liberty is
Quick note: While I agree with your general sentiment, not every civilization was built on the concept of a "nation", just every modern one. There have been plenty of civilizations and kingdoms and empires with territories and borders but without the concept of a cohesive nationality, and all the bells and whistles and identity and benefits that go along with and define that.
Quick note: While I agree with your general sentiment, not every civilization was built on the conce
