!agree

The ultimate goal is UBI/Star Trek society, I think we’re just pushing it too quickly.

Like generations too soon, and resources way too soon.

The welfare system kills personal ambition, IMO. There’s not enough wealth (in any measure) to make everyone comfortable and also nurture ambition.

Ambition is natural.

General welfare clause as it’s interpreted disputes that.

Pieces of paper matter.

The issues that are always run into are how things have been interpreted. I think you have to start from here and move forward, not try to reargue settled arguments.

Libertarianism is perfect, except we’ve already got systems that work that conflict with their beliefs.

Arguing with a libertarian is usually a nightmare. Almost as bad as arguing with a communist.

Yes, communism can work. No, it can’t work in any practical sense today.

Their core beliefs are set up in a capitalist world. They’re not possible in a world where resources are scarce.

That is the issue.

There is zero chance a spacefaring society like a Star Trek world doesn’t become communist.

Communism is science fiction.

It’s not worth discussing until resources are plentiful.

And then it becomes colonial in real world senses.

Like the roads won’t become capitalist with asphalt and right of way becoming the capital.

The definition of general welfare is defined by the Supreme Court.

And pretending it doesn’t is mental masturbation.

There are states that are passing resolutions for a constitutional convention, as defined by the constitution. The error in their thinking is that the old people didn’t know more than us.

Any state convention would definitely lead to worse results.

Oof

People have the rights, the constitution should limit the government’s ability, not the people’s rights. The rights are within the people.

The people give up freedom to be governed.

The government doesn’t grant rights.

God.

Then use some other higher power.

Doesn’t have to be god.

A level above government grants them just for being people.

The rights god (or nature) grant is are all the rights we have except the ones we relinquish to government.

Capital is generally required to have copyright. Since you invested something into the idea.

If you can defend it, sure. You put money into circling it. Capital.

Capitalism.

Always funny how we go to the past for the reasons to move forward and ignore the present for reasons to do the same.

The wall is important politically and practically. People that argue against it do so on political grounds only. prove me wrong.

I'll allow exemptions for ground animal migrations.

Due to me agreeing.

non-huma

n

The general definition.

non human specifically.

If you're human, you apply.

They're non-human.

Doesn't matter for the purposes of my question.

If the response to a wall is "aliens" can we assume your path was pointless?

Let us assume that if the "actual" threat is extraterrestrial aliens, that we'll all instantly become commies and the entirety of our human efforts will become defensive.

The fact that "most" don't come from illegal crossings doesn't mean that those that do shouldn't be addressed. Yes/No?

It would seem to be logical, that if we controlled legal port of entry more stringently that illegal crossing would be more likely.

Meanwhile, purchasing and transporting a ladder is more difficult than just crossing, yes?

If you can't get in legally and overstay your visa, wouldn't you cross illegally?

Easier than no ladder?

Easier than no climbing?

It's like windows in a home. They're easy to break, yet an alarm stops a lot of robberies.

It's now that it's slow, it's that you need to bring something.

Nerdy is obviously trolling.

Still, it's a reasonable response.

In today's discourse.

Drones to what?

Let people know where to go?

A wall is something that is somewhat permanent. If you decide you like illegal immigration in the future, you need to explain why you've disregarded the wal.

That's the point.

It owuld.

perhaps.

Yes.

So, let's do a wall.

And we'll have drone too.

Wall is a piece of infrastructure, that's the point. It's a lasting testament to the idea that's what is currently happening isn't okay.

That money is nothing.

Laugh all you want.

Try to game theory what happens when someone decides not to maintain the wall.

Don't ignore my point.

Wall is there, it's broken. Explain to me why it's better not to fix it.

There is, since the wall is practical.

Trolling.

Go get your ladder.

You're blind.

This is like 1982

Like a wall?

Wall is more effective and cheaper.

Yeah, since patrol agents making $70,000/year each is more practical.

And drones are super cheap.

And let's not even approach what it costs to house people that cross.

This is a moronic argument.

I know you're trolling, but in most places your arguments are logical.

Still.

That's something that should be addressed.

Temporary symptoms aren't a way to diagnose a real issue? And I'm fairly sure that info is old.

Illegal immigration should be zero.

Do thay?

they?

Ah.

Could.

I'd also like the data on the fucking girls better stat.

And FOR LESS?

Studies, that, I'm sure are funded by corporations wanting cheap labor.

Well, I guess now's the time to provide proof.

Perhaps some of those studies.

Come with the links.