[hitovst]

>I vote to defend the individual right of people to belong in the US even if they won't vote for "individual rights".

Those who don't vote are not the issue.

If one comes to a nation based on principles of individual rights, and they are not activists opposing the individual rights, they're just confused, and should be ignored as long as they don't violate the rights of others, but they are free (despite their opposition to it) to stay and be confused.

I made no claims about people who do not vote. I stated the truth; that voting is a mechanism to defend individual rights. There is no such thing as a right to vote to violate the rights of others.

If you are for individual rights, than you belong in a nation based on the principle of individual rights, whether you vote or not. If you oppose individual rights, you belong least of all on a nation based on the principle of individual rights, but your "vote" is illegitimate and should not be tolerated, as you'd be a saboteur.

Those who would be free have one nation on the planet meant for them. Cowards, tyrants, and willing slaves, have the entire rest of the planet to suffer. Those who oppose freedom don't reside in the one place meant to be free with good intention. If they just haven't left yet, they could easily find help leaving asap.

[ars]

It seems you are the one who is confused. The America you are describing does not exist. The idea you have, that people can stay as long as they don't oppose what "hitovst thinks is best" is pretty arrogant.

> There is no such thing as a right to vote to violate the rights of others.

Sure there is. I voted against a proposal to fund something I disagree with. I lost, and I have to pay it each year.

You can vote to add a restriction on where someone can built a car dealership.

You can vote to prevent someone from eating something he wants to eat.

You can vote to prevent someone from leaving his house at certain times.

You can vote to prevent someone from wearing an object he desires to wear.

Like I said, the America you imagine does not exist.

[hitovst]

>It seems you are the one who is confused. The America you are describing does not exist. The idea you have, that people can stay as long as they don't oppose what "hitovst thinks is best" is pretty arrogant.

Let's not misconstrue what I am saying. Considering that everyone who has influence in the political structure of the US, has the right and duty to use the system to protect the rights of the individual. This is accurate, and true. The fact that we don't have this is due to corruption, confused useful idiots, and criminals who betray their oaths.

There is no such "right" as the right to violate another.

The US is not a democracy, or tyranny of the largest group which is almost never a majority, for a reason. It is a Constitutionally restricted republic with the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the individual. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, but restrict government from violating them. There is no such thing as legitimate government anywhere that violates the right of the individual, but in the US the Law is officially recognized.

Do not let our lawless (by that I mean, "criminal" as the law of the land is very clear, just violated) society fool you. The United States is occupied and sabotaged. If Americans ever regained control, the saboteurs would be brought to justice, and removed. This won't happen.. but it should happen, and it was the design.

>Like I said, the America you imagine does not exist.

It's not my imagination. If you study the design, you will see what was meant to be. Had the intention been for tyranny of the largest group, or even another individual, it would have been designed as a democracy, or a monarchy, or any other system that already enabled such things.

However, we don't disagree about the criminal state of the US today, and the lack of justice for those who corrupt it. The fact that slavers/slaves won't allow a single lawful political region to exist anywhere one Earth should beg the question if it should exist, especially since the slavers have the useful idiot slaves paying lip service to the notion of "tolerance", and "pro choice", when it serves the herding. If only they understood, and believed, some of their claims.

[staticman2]

Yes let's pretend the constitution which endorsed literal slavery is all about freedom and the right of the individual.