I have a fence around my property, and yet I have somehow still been able to abide by the NAP, how is that possible? What the NAP only people forget is that Natural Law is made up of TWO complimentary principles, the Feminine Non-Aggression Principle and the Masculine Self-Defense Principle. Healthy boundaries are the Self-Defense Principe, while respecting the boundaries of others is the NAP. Is it a violation of the NAP to exercise Self-Defense? How is exercising self-defense of my individual or group's property being aggressive? Is not their intrusion on my/our property the initial aggressive act?
Enough with the black and white, monological thinking. It's time to mature our ideas, use multilogical thinking, and look at things from other viewpoints and frames of reference, such as psychological, historical, cultural, economic, etc. If an individual has the right to protect their property with clearly delineated boundaries, then why wouldn't a nation of individuals also have the right to protect their group's property with clearly delineated boundaries? The data suggests that multiculturalism and wide open borders is psychologically harmful to all involved, and causes psychological contraction and introversion, and not expansion and connection to the greater community. Self-defense does not cause psychological harm to others, but protects oneself from psychological harm, aka, protects oneself from aggression. Therefore, multiculturalism is aggression, and a violation of my person and property.
I'm going to buy land on that magical border of yours and allow people to walk through it then. Why do you get to decide whether someone comes on my private property or not?
In other places of the world, people literally walk right across borders all the time without issue. You've been brainwashed into thinking we need to have walls, guards, etc. like a prison. How did that work out for the East Germans? How's that working for the North Koreans? The Palestinians? Walls are not just used to keep people out. They are also used to keep people in!
I guess the Native Americans should have built walls and stopped the early settlers from coming here then too, right? After all, how dare those people come here without visas and permission?!
It's pretty funny too that your go by "The Unity Process," but you are arguing to separate people by imaginary borders.
Requiring people to be peaceful is fine. Protecting private property rights is also fine. Restricting people's free travel is not though. I shouldn't have to get permission to travel from a government.
Again, the USA was founded on multiculturalism. It had wide open borders. Expecting people to abide by cultural norms, based on natural law, the NAP, and self defense, is a good thing. Preventing people from traveling freely though is tyrannical.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit