Oh look, Cam being triggered and getting ever closer to 30 pages

So...it sounds like those hick retards were violating the NAP that you're so fond of. You can't be destroying wetlands willy nilly. That's a gross violation of our liberties.

Okay well that's pretty simple.

You do not have the right to own your own labor.

That would be called slavery...

Building a house on your own property isn't a violation of the NAP.

It is if your property constitutes "wetlands." Do you think you have the right to store nuclear waste on your property? Of course not. The same principle applies here. Those rednecks really should have done their homework but I guess that's what happens when your only education is Jesus Camp.

No, a federal government agency abusing their power and declaring part of your property a wetlands does not make building a house a NAP violation.
Who are they initiating aggression against?

What kind of people are building houses in swamps?

You know wetlands are important right?

Did they know they couldn't build there when they bought the land? Or is it one of those retroactive things?

There should be a way to build a domicile without creating such a huge environmental footprint so that things can stay nice, species alive, etc.

Would be a good goal of the market.

I think people should be able to homestead on any empty land, no matter who "owns" it. If you aren't using it then you have no moral claim over someone who will use it imo, and that includes the Fed Govt.

The Bundy's are a positive example of individuals asserting their rights against the government.

I will say this: Law exists and it changes. It only changes because it gets challenged. If laws do not get challenged they do not get any better and they do not grow. There has to be a balance between the preservation of nature and the preservation of American rights.

This post was edited by Skinned on Dec 7 2019 12:55am