TexasCHLforum.com

snorri wrote:No but I will point out that crossing the border without authority is invading, even if you're not wearing a uniform.

Could you help me understand why politicians have the power to redefine empirically identical actions by drawing a line on a map? The justifications so far have included property rights, constitutions and voting. Addressing one of those or presenting a new one would be helpful.

C-dub wrote: Sort of. Mine was a lame attempt at saying we give them the power through our constitution and by voting for the ones we want to make those decisions for the whole country. If they make poor decisions we can vote them out of office. However, removing that power from them would be significantly more difficult if not impossible.

I couldn't agree more about the difficulty of removing that power. I believe it will be a multigenerational process and there are not very many working on it at the moment. As to the constitution it seems to me that it was a document created by politicians for politicians, and they never followed it any way... so i am not sure how it would be part of a argument that the state's relationship to the people is voluntary.

Voting is an interesting issue when it comes to voluntarism. Because in any other sphere of life that we consider voluntary we would never accept the voting model. For example, if the people of your town got to vote on who you would marry, we would never call that a voluntary marriage. Even if you were given the choice to not marry, or to leave the town it would still be clear that this is an unjust imposition.

C-dub wrote:Because we give them the right and vote the one's we want to make those decisions.

To be clear, it is voluntary then, like giving someone power of attorney? I just want to make sure i understand your position.

Liberty wrote:I would freak out if my neighbor moved into back yard, Its my back yard and the property line isn't imaginary or arbitrary.

So the politicians do own the entire country? It seems that you are referring to property rights to justify it.

RPB wrote:Sometimes boundaries/imaginary lines are important if there are differeing rules on the other side, such as at secured areas of airports, boundaries at USACE properties, State lines which prohibit magazines over 10 rounds .... or, filling out paperwork to enjoy more benefits on the other side of the line ....

It was mostly a rhetorical question, but thanks for the response. In an attempt to stay vaguely on topic i will restrain my response to this: why is it that politicians get to "set the rules" for an entire geographic area that they do not own?

Kevinf2349 wrote:I guess Hilter's invasion of Poland was just him looking to move house?

Do i really need to point out that moving and invading are not the same thing?

Why is it that if i move across town it is called moving and no one cares, but if i move across an imaginary line drawn by politicians it is called immigration and everyone freaks out if i don't fill out some paper work?