Argument 2, Pt 2
If you have private property, then to varying degrees limiting access / freedom of movement is you right, and defending that is self defense.
Now, whether a govern-cement "owns" that property is up for debate.
Its like a city, the city owns downtown, definitely. The city owns the suburbs, pretty much, the city owns the rural sections, maybe. And so, any laws the city has are in effect in those areas. And so, limiting access / freedom of movement is well within their rights.
So, you will have to work out group private property rights, and then work out from there.
Its easy to say that in the middle of N. Dakota there are places man hasn't even been, so someone claiming that has their property is bullocks. But, this is one extreme, and dense cities are the other. Where do you draw the line?
Correct, the particulars are around private vs communal property. It is possible for a group of people to draw up a contract to collectively own a patch of land and limit access voluntarily. In such cases it would be trespassing to enter their property uninvited or against their will.
However, I don't agree that a Nation-State can decide for 3 million people via a majority vote not to let people cross borders. Individuals have property rights, groups can voluntarily own property, but a government shouldn't get to collectively own a territory and decide for everyone who lives within it's boundaries who it is going to let in and who it isn't.
So for me, national borders comes down to a question of should governments have collective ownership of a territory or not. My answer obviously is no. This leaves no borders except the border around every individual's rights to life, liberty, and property, including groups of individuals who want to draw up an actual physical contract to collectively own property such as patches of land.
Thanks for the reply, and share and resteem this post if you can!
Interesting times. This IS a MASS AWAKENING.