Great Video thanks for the post. Also very true.

The truth is throughout human history man has lived for death. A slow rotting death while living. America was the first place to say that men had that right to live for their lives, for life. We seem to have abandoned that idea.

Then enlighten me. Where do you find any place in the Constitution that says that its jurisdiction applies to non-citizens? It begins very clearly with "We the People of the United States of America". Even the author of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically excluded aliens and families of ambassadors from the effects of that writing.

I would also ask how one would propose to eliminate income taxes and revert back to import tariffs as the prime source of government revenue if borders are non-existent? In fact, how are you going to collect income taxes when there is no recognition and differentiation between those who are subject to such taxation vs those who are not?

The argument against borders has too many flaws to count.

Thanks. Where is it for me? That's a really good question.

Do no harm, all else is ok.

Any country is collectivist thinking. The Gulch in reality, a geographical place, would be collectivist thinking. Closing my front door or front gate would be collectivist thinking in that I and my family want to keep people out.

You cannot have a right to travel if you have private property. Private property, land ownership, by definition inhibits people from
freely traveling to a location.

All your talk about private property is moot when you trump it with other people's right to travel.

Yeah, yeah, context dropping. It kind of like saying racist to prevent a discussion.

collectivist thinking

A closed border is nothing more than the exercise of private property rights by a sovereign nation. I agree the questions you say they are asking are ridiculously unnecessary. I would think confirming who you are, that you have no criminal record or known affiliations with criminal groups, where your from, a basic idea of where your going, and when you intend to leave would be sufficient.

But then, this Ominstation is having doctors ask school children if daddy has guns at home. Not much surprises me these days.

maybe he should have stood in the congress when he spoke.

It was in reaction to everyone throwing a fit about passport changes a couple of years ago. Asking info like list everywhere you've lived for the past 15 years, what are all of your bank account numbers. They quietly withdrew many of the invasive questions, but instead you must now have a passport in order to fly across state lines. Why?

I am still back at the philosophical arguments for why closed borders would be moral. No, you did not say anything personal, but you argue against my freedoms. I know where it will lead-all I have to do is look at History. Here's how it will go. Terror attack on US soil-a lockdown of all international borders in the name of safety. Another war. China or Russia. All US citizens are restricted from travel to international countries deemed "unfriendly." It's not going to be good. but don't help them :)

Another good point.

I think its relevant to the ongoing debate. The idea that the 'public' land is open for anyone on the planet to use denies the right of a government to control the access to that land.

Some don't want to acknowledge governments but one of the primary purposes of governments is to provide and enforce title to property. You cannot have private property without a government of some sort.

We're talking private property and, as a consequence national sovereignty. In the context of this topic its all private property.

I did not say anything negative about anyone or any idea. I simply pointed out that the type of freedom of travel may never has existed and has no practical place in reality today, or any time since the dawn of civilization. For that I'm called evasive, dishonest and anti-freedom..fine, lets not keep it rational.

I'm not for the Patriot Act. As a permanent component of an immoral and unscrupulous government its the tools to deconstruct and tear down freedom.
TSA should never have been and should immediately be disbanded with a new president.
Illegal immigration is a serious issue (not going to list everything I've seen/experienced again) that needs to be addressed. I support the fence and using the National Guard on our southern border with border patrol more inland.

I didn't know about the star. I'm not sure how will help anything. I would be pissed too, stinks on hitler and his marking of the jews.

Good point, its likely that all that land was claimed by someone, native or european. Even so, a great deal of it was wilderness and barely populated.

they have a type of stewerdship. The framers never intended to distinguish between native born and immigrants. We wanted industrious people to come freely. and they have. The government has not been a worthy steward. They passed laws and Acts and Wars on this and that which draw moochers and looters across our border. but by all means let's have a big fence built that you won't be able to climb to gt out whenever you want

can we not say that logic and reason have a place here? Government is always trying to remove your freedoms. They tell you it is for your protection. They make sweeping laws that remove my freedom, but I'm not to get mad when people support them?
1. Patriot Act
2. TSA and Homeland Security. How many Conservatives backed the President as he swept away so many freedoms. btw-it is under the Patriot Act that federal law pertaining to asset forfeiture stepped up.
3. because of immigration reform and the war on terror, I have to have a star on my license to fly between states (starting Jan 1 2016)
4. support a big fence. They will tell you it's for your own protection. Then one day, you won't be able to leave.

FNA? Explain, or at lease define.

I'm not sure that there were large portions of unclaimed wilderness. Some nation claimed pretty much everything. When people claimed land, they did so subsidiary to the government's claim on it.

The idea of owning property, at least in recorded history, involves a chain of possession. Some authority which enforces the ownership.

It takes a rock star to point out the meaning of America. I wish he had the same forum as when U2 was at the top.

Initially the country was a huge mass of land, large portions of unclaimed wilderness and the population was infinitesimally small in comparison to the size of the land. The first time someone put up a house, created a livestock pen, or claimed a piece of land to farm freedom to travel was restricted. Was the Louisiana Purchase and the Homestead acts that followed, where people staked claim to privatize parcels of land, acts of fascism?

Within the borders of this nation people roam freely without chaperon or papers (unless you consider a drivers license fascist documentation). It's only when you are outside the border's of this massive nation, its 48 contiguous and two satellite states, that authentication is needed to enter. Restricting entry to the country is not fascism, its an act of national sovereignty (private property). Unless you are for open borders and one world governance - or no governance - I cannot see how you equate private property to fascism.

Aside from the early days of mankind, well before there was a significant population or the inkling to make a home or to farm the land, there was NEVER the type of freedom to travel that this argument projects. The moment society began to form, land was set aside for a group of people, freedom to travel, as the OP projects. all but died.

Sad - understood