TakeYouToTasker

The defining problem of our age is laid bare in The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray. To your point: we don't live in a free market, or capitalist if you prefer, society. Our economy is structured to be neo-mercantilist and empower duopoly. Capitalist societies only exist where economic advantage is not encoded into law which can be purchased by businesses or industries.

If I remember correctly, you're a doctor, yes?

That's hilarious.

"Health" isn't defined within the law to any degree of exclusivity, which makes in entirely subjective; which means it will be defined as broadly as possible upon interpretation because there were no legal limits placed on a broad definition. As to late term abortions for physical health reasons? There is no reason to kill a viable baby for the physical health of the mother. The baby is viable so you deliver it. This equally protects the life of the mother, and doesn't result in the unnecessary death of an infant.

Which is ridiculous because battered women are delicious.

I think it's time to revisit Roe.

Disgusting and evil.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emiliano_Salinas To give readers an idea of how deep the ties between the Mexican government and human trafficking are, I offer this for your consideration. This is the son of a former President of Mexico. From his Wiki:

For anyone who wants to take a tumble down a very dark path, this is at the very tip of what Greg has been talking about for two years now. When Greg states that there are individuals in Government who profit directly from human trafficking, and don't want that cash flow interrupted; this is what he's referencing. The Democratic Party has deep financial ties to the government of Mexico, which is inextricably tied to the cartels. The cartels funnel money to members of Congress through cutouts like ArizonaMafia, who then pursue policy agendas which are profitable to the cartels in order to enrich themselves.

That is ***** disgusting, and people should be in jail.

@Crayola64 To piggyback on this point, the easiest way to describe this is that the entrenched power structure has created the illusion of disagreement, playing both sides against the middle, for the purpose of enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. Division is the key to their game. Everything most people believe to be true is at least a partial lie, stacked ontop of falsehoods. The purpose is control. I encourage a reading of one of the most important books that no one knows about: The Image:  A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, it is instructive.

I'm sorry I challenged your belief structure and world view with facts, and critiqued the complete lack of precision and specificity with which you tried to discuss very complex ideas which led to you communicating entirely different ideas than you set out to express; and I'm also sorry that you can't understand the difference between attacking your ideas and attacking your character. I also find this phrasing to be very interesting: "and have interesting insights (even to me as someone who is very liberal)." Is your quest for truth generally subservient to your liberalism? I applaud your willingness to look outside of your world view as you've articulated above, but am wondering how difficult you find it, and why.

Same fight we're always had: monarchists vs republicans.

Then you have done a staggeringly poor job of communicating your ideas. Again, learn to be precise in your language. I have broken down your posts, and the ideas you are expressing, on a line by line basis to make it easier for both you and the reader; and I approach writing with exactness in order to make my points clear. This is absolutely tragic, because by your own account you didn't express any of the ideas you wished to articulate. Again, these are complex subjects, and you need to be precise. As an example, the idea of "the right to be safe" appeals to an entirely separate underlying philosophy from "the right to pursue safety". This is not a small distinction when speaking of rights theory and moral philosophy. Now, if you would, please feel free to either address the body of my post; or to attempt to clarify your own positions.

I've read Turtledove (and enjoy him). And to a degree that is correct, though it can also work against those whom are subject to external pressures to conform.

You've already undone yourself. You do, in fact, support human slavery and child sex trafficking. You may not like it, but you do. Your Pollyanna vision of the world does not align with reality. The United State's southern border is a global hub of human trafficking, and they are trafficked in exactly the way I've described. No one, save apparently you, even debates this. First, two articles, one from a left leaning site, one from a right leaning site: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ana-davila/drug-cartels-where-human-trafficking-and-human-smuggling-meet-today_b_7588408.html  https://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/02/the-trafficking-of-children-at-the-mexican-border-001504697.html Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Mexico  Various government and international organizations: https://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/library/2011/human-trafficking-sex-tourism-and-child-exploitation-southern-border   https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/protect/trafficking http://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Mexico.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/human-trafficking You are, with every post you make, demonstrating that my engagement with you was apt and informed. It is not my fault, nor that of anyone else but yourself, that you aren't precise enough in your use of language to convey what you actually mean when engaging about complex subject matter. The words you chose to use have a specific meaning. If you meant something other than what you said, that's your own damn fault. Do better, and don't blame others for your compromised literacy. Actually, the subject matter is incredibly complex; and I doubt there is anyone here more qualified to teach it. I'll start with the notion that, once again, you've betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights actually are; though I'll certainly make way for the possibility that you're a prisoner of your language, and don't understand how to properly convey the ideas you wish to express. With that said, I'm happy to hash this out with you, as I'm trying to understand your belief structure. Your beliefs must be structured in some logically consistent way in order to validate them, and that logical structure must have some foundational tenant on which your belief system is structured. What moral priori do you appeal to at the base of your belief structure? /sigh... It's very straight forward. Reread the sentence: "The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect property and culture by cordoning off territory and establishing law representative of the values and culture of the people therein." That is a fact, not an opinion, and is clearly articulated. You've posed an argument which runs counter to the entire purpose and history of the nation state. People are tribal, and different tribes have different and competing values. National borders protect heritage, culture, language, history, etc. Mass migration water those things down, and changes them in ways which creates internal instability and a loss of national identity (again, this is not an opinion, this is an historically observable fact). If you want to take this tact, please explain how I am wrong. Expose to /= saturation in. We can learn about other cultures, especially those that are incompatible with our own, in ways that do not sabotage our national heritage or violate our sovereignty. Simply because something else exists does not merit making it part of ourselves, and the fact of their existence does not make them desirable. There are better cultures and worse cultures, and our culture is the one which has driven the world to prosperity undreamed of because of it's foundational principals of self-ownership and the protection of property rights. To the rest, if you don't want your views challenged, then don't offer them. This place is an excellent resource for vetting political views and moral philosophies; and that's exactly what you should expect when you make an offering. You aren't being treated any differently than anyone else. You offered a view, I challenged it. Now it's incumbent on you to defend it. No, I grasp, quite clearly, that you have a very poor opinion, once again not grounded in reality. What I offered is not an opinion, it is a fact. The best illustration of this I have ever seen can be found here: Learn to be precise in your language. Stop communicating ideas which to do not intend to express.

It depends on the goals and the oppressors. Pacifism achieved remarkable results for both King and Gandhi. I believe it's yet another case of "Know your enemy, and use the tactics which will overcome them."

https://legalinsurrection.c... A compelling argument for Go-Pro body cameras if ever I saw one.

I've come around to Greg's way of thinking on this. Mueller may well be working for Trump, but as he uncovers actual incidents of criminality, he can't just take a pass on them. It also has the benefit of taking the establishment's eye off the ball.

In my adult lifetime I've never heard anything but reverence for Dr. King from conservatives or libertarians. What views are you speaking to specifically?

Perfectly summarized, Greg. Joe, I've never disagreed with you about the nature of the problem; my contention with your position is your insistence on the subversion of rights as a solution, where as I believe that the problem must be solved within the law, and preserving our Constitutional protections. Prosecute those who have committed crimes to the fullest extent of the law; but don't dismantle the achievements of the Enlightenment. The baby is far too precious to be discarded along with the bathwater.

The problem on the southern border isn't simply "illegal immigration", and the wall isn't intended to address that portion of the problem. The wall is, very specifically, intended to address human slavery and child sex trafficking. Human beings being covertly smuggled into the country happens overwhelmingly on unprotected and remote stretches of our border which are difficult to patrol for logistical reasons. This is different than regular illegal passage, as those simply seeking to immigrate here can try again and again as often as they like if apprehended. Slavers make use of these unpatrolled regions almost exclusively. The walls are being placed there in order to forcibly reroute the slavers away from these corridors, and into areas more easily patrolled. No, what's immature is putting you fingers in your ears, and pretending as if the policies the President is pursuing are somehow unrelated to the list I ticked off. The President supports the policies he does because they address the issues in question, the wall, as I mention above, specifically implemented to curb slavery. You believe in a human right to safety? That's an absurd rejection of reality. Life is not safe, because it is so fragile. And "the right to live in another country"? Another absurdity. You have the natural right to travel, but not into places which will not have you, and only as you meet their criteria for traveling into areas they own. You have the right to travel (as relates to you and your own confinement), but only the privilege to traverse that which belongs to someone else, and that privilege must be earned, and can be revoked. This is absurd. The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect property and culture by cordoning off territory and establishing law representative of the values and culture of the people therein. It is the peak of dictatorial immorality to insist a people live under law which disservices them and their culture. Explain, in detail, how new cultures, often incompatible with American culture, and diversity of immutable characteristics which don't matter, are a benefit to Americans. This is a non-sequitur, and also an absurdity. First, the views you are espousing do not equate with better outcomes for "people". Conversely, immigration from third world countries to America does immense harm to those individual's countries or origin, creating worse outcomes for those who remain there. Second, it implies that Americans are not people.

Translation: "Property rights and self-ownership are so passe'. Theft and slavery are all the rage."

As the economy becomes more automated it is putting unskilled, uneducated workers out of work, and on to the federal and state dole. There is no benefit to importing individuals, men of fighting age no less, who are not going to be able to earn a living. Conversely, there are many compelling reasons not to do this.

6 billions dollars out of a federal budget of 4.4 trillion for a permanent (partial) solution, which will still be in place when there is a new Congress, a new President, and an economic downturn; all of which can impact staffing levels and immigration policy. That's not sophomoric, that's forward thinking and problem solving. As to DACA, that's the role of Congress to address; the President is trying to force Congress to do their job, and legislate. For his part the President has put DACA on the table, and would sign legislation towards those ends as part of a compromise for wall funding. As to "a vast expansion of asylum immigration" and "an easily obtainable path to citizenship", to what ends? How does this benefit Americans?