The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular Liberty.com

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: National liberty? what's

(See in situ)


National liberty? what's

National liberty? what's that? Is that where you pretend that the collective known as "the nation" has individual human rights?

Voting is not a right. Restricting that action to only certain people proves that it is a gov't granted privilege. IOW, it is illegal to vote without, first, obtaining the permission of the sociopaths who call themselves gov't.

The next paragraph exhibits a nice execution of a straw man. Of course no one wants their neighbor to spend their check. However, you didn't include the explanation of how acknowledging the rights of humans on the other side of the imaginary line would lead to you being robbed. No one has suggested that Mexicans should be allowed to rob other humans, so I guess you made that one up?

On to the third.... Ummm, when something doesn't exist in the physical world, but only exists in the minds of humans, it meets the very definition of imaginary. The line is, indeed, imaginary. Our system of laws contradict themselves. Which half do you support, lol? There is no unified culture in America, only in your specific neighborhood. As a southerner who lives in WI, I can tell that there is no unified language. When I first arrived, I didn't understand the white people, the white people didn't understand me, and I still can't identify the words that the Chicago runaways use as English.

Social contract? You must be joking!!!!! How many times does the supreme court have to tell you that that you owe no obligation to the gov't, and the gov't has no obligation to you, before you believe them? DAYUM!!!

Lastly, I don't respect your laws..... cuz, ironically enough, they are are immoral and completely unacceptable. THe fact that we have more slaves imprisoned here that ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD proves that Americans don't respect your laws. Which brings us back to the word I skipped, jurisdiction. There is no lawful jurisdiction over a human right. The gov't not having jurisdiction/power/authority over an action is what MAKES IT A RIGHT. Anything inferior to the gov't is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.

All of this comes to the one moral conclusion that is available. There is no justification for the anti-immigration view that can hold up to logical, economical, or moral scrutiny. It is an idea founded upon prejudice and collectivist "ism"s.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."