Hollywood faggots

Nasty ho

Whats poppin fellow discorders?

@Fitzydog

Really for some mad discording

<:super_edgy:426099058466095119>

@Jabba's Soapbox Ey dude a legit serious question, if you are in favour of freedom why do you deny certain freedoms from certain people? ie Immigrants have their freedom of movement restricted by institutions you support like borders.

Because I have the freedom to limit who has access to my property/community

Freedom of association is the most important freedom imo

If you don't have the freedom to choose who you associate with, then who cares if you have freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech only becomes important in a society where people are forced to interact with people against their will.

I.e. I could talk about racist shit all day long with people I want to be around, but I only have to defend that speech when I'm around people by force who want to attack me for that speech

So at what point do your freedoms infringe with other people's freedoms?

And how do you justify this

Give an example

As you said, the freedom of who has access to you property (*country*) vs the freedom of others to move

Freedom of association

But you don't have the freedom to move wherever.

You have zero right to impose yourself on a group of people who do not wish you have you there

Just because you can out the words 'freedom of' in front of something doesn't make it a right

Human rights establish a freedom of movement for all people

No they dont

Can you defend your right to move through the use of violence without infringing on someone else's rights?

The only rights you have are the things you are willing to defend through the use of force

I disagree with that. There are rights that are intrinsically given to all poeples and ought to be. Rights that have to be constantly defended by force to enforce them is falling into barbarism, where there is no established covenant or charter of laws. Laws are decided and established by societies and are followed. Furthermore, moving into another territory is not a violent matter.

It only becomes a violent matter when the people of the host country become hostile to the movement, where you see the rights of one group infringe the rights of another

@Fitzydog I know many people in Texas that want to freely associate with Mexicans. If freedom of association is so important for your why are you stopping theirs?

Also free speech past government censorship is a spook

You can never protect all speech equality because some speech stops other forms of speech

@StevenStevens Because many people in Texas do NOT want to freely associate.

In this case, I would advise splitting it up.

But also, this new group of Mexicans from down south were introduced into the state against the will of the original inhabitants of Texas starting in the 60s

So we're back to square one of a centralized authority making decisions for a group of people against their will via the use of force

Well if two people want to associate with each other i don't see why you being against it should matter at all.

A centralised authority which was voted into power

If we are talking about "Original inhabitants" of mexico there will be loads of people leaving the US

@Capitán Alatriste Which gave itself extra powers that were not granted to it by the people, and made decisions on behalf of people against the purpose of their office.

Just because an authority has a power does not make that power legitimate or ethical

@StevenStevens go take an 8val test and show us how much of a fag you really are

Do ittttt

Post in <#586454472138555392>

Political campasses

Y I K E R S

either way i'm a right lib

¯\_(ツ)_/¯