Will the last person leaveing Mexico please turn off the lights?

[sirs]

<<LOL....you're right there.  I'll endeavor to see reality vs hyperbole>>

Very funny.  Let me know when you finally see reality. 

Been there, done that. 

[Michael Tee]

<<Been there, done that.  >>

What, recognized reality?  When was the last time, Grade Ten?

[sirs]

<<Been there, done that.  >>

What, recognized reality?  When was the last time, Grade Ten?

As it relates to this thread alone, that'd be May 27, 2007, @ 10:09:11 PM

[Plane]

We really don't need more criminals in the US and hardly need to be importing them.

I was not aware we were shipping them in. Allowing open immigration does not equate to importing criminals.

Sometimes it does , it would be fair if we could export the same number and quality of criminals , but we don't seem to , anyone got the data on how many renegades go forth from here and pester the rest of the world?

During the Mariel Boat lift Castro solved his hemmorage of people problem by emptying his prisons of violent offenders and giveing them leave , this really hurt because it amounted to a goodly number of bad actors. Carter was forced to negotiate some limits on that.


It is Criminals that make Government seem nessacery , whether the petty sort that you want the local deputy to lock up till they are repentant even if only overnight  or the large scale raiders and ruiners that have to be resisted by maximum governmental efforts. If human nature did not make crime inevitable , who would want to have any government at all?

[Universe Prince]

Allowing open immigration does not equate to importing criminals.

Sometimes it does

No. It does not. I think perhaps you are confused about the meaning of the word 'import'. Allowing open immigration does not make people come here. They are not forcibly brought in by us. Thus they are not imported.

If human nature did not make crime inevitable , who would want to have any government at all?

The people who want to control others for the others' supposed own good?

Of course the problem with your argument is that government does not stop crime. For one, it cannot. For another, it essentially legitimizes for itself what would be a crime for anyone else. And for still yet another, it entrenches crime through onerous laws meant to control society. Which raises the question, if human nature makes crime inevitable, then why would anyone expect a government to stop it?

[Plane]

Allowing open immigration does not equate to importing criminals.

Sometimes it does

No. It does not. I think perhaps you are confused about the meaning of the word 'import'. Allowing open immigration does not make people come here. They are not forcibly brought in by us. Thus they are not imported.

It does too. A criminal ought to be incarcerated near his crime , have you any idea how many of these guys we are feeding ?

If human nature did not make crime inevitable , who would want to have any government at all?

The people who want to control others for the others' supposed own good?

Of course the problem with your argument is that government does not stop crime. For one, it cannot. For another, it essentially legitimizes for itself what would be a crime for anyone else. And for still yet another, it entrenches crime through onerous laws meant to control society. Which raises the question, if human nature makes crime inevitable, then why would anyone expect a government to stop it?

Government is a  tool of the people , it can be usefull to help cope with such problems , even as it causes othr problems nearly as bad.
There were people before there was government , why do you think we started putting up with the imposition?

[Universe Prince]

Government is a  tool of the people

Which people?

There were people before there was government , why do you think we started putting up with the imposition?

Because the strong beat up the weak?

[Plane]

Government is a  tool of the people

Which people?

The ones that use Government as a tool.

There were people before there was government , why do you think we started putting up with the imposition?

Because the strong beat up the weak?

That is true , protection is the origional promise government makes . So if the people feel threatened by something , what is the government to do? Even if the fear s unfounded the government must respond somehow.

[Universe Prince]

That is true , protection is the origional promise government makes .

Oddly enough, it is also the original promise that gangs and mafias make. I wonder if that means something.

So if the people feel threatened by something , what is the government to do? Even if the fear s unfounded the government must respond somehow.

Indeed. But propping up a fear hardly seems like the correct response. And bad decisions based in fear seem also unlikely to be the appropriate solution. But then it's never about finding the correct solution, is it? It's always about Doing Something Now. Solve the problem now. No long-term solutions allowed. Solve it now. Do it now. If it doesn't work out, we can always criticize those in the government later for not spending enough or not being tough enough or not being smart enough or, if all else fails, for being too short-sighted. But by god, fix it now.

So if the people feel threatened, what is the government to do? Like a good authority figure, it's supposed to make the boogyman go away. Only it can't because the boogyman exists more in our minds than in reality. And when even if the government can deal with one threat, we will find another. And another. We need to grow up and face our own fears.

[Plane]

That is true , protection is the origional promise government makes .

Oddly enough, it is also the original promise that gangs and mafias make. I wonder if that means something.



I would not be at all surprised if the early forms of government were entirely the same as gangs  , this seems to be a feature of human nature.

So if the people feel threatened by something , what is the government to do? Even if the fear s unfounded the government must respond somehow.

Indeed. But propping up a fear hardly seems like the correct response. And bad decisions based in fear seem also unlikely to be the appropriate solution. But then it's never about finding the correct solution, is it? It's always about Doing Something Now. Solve the problem now. No long-term solutions allowed. Solve it now. Do it now. If it doesn't work out, we can always criticize those in the government later for not spending enough or not being tough enough or not being smart enough or, if all else fails, for being too short-sighted. But by god, fix it now.

So if the people feel threatened, what is the government to do? Like a good authority figure, it's supposed to make the boogyman go away. Only it can't because the boogyman exists more in our minds than in reality. And when even if the government can deal with one threat, we will find another. And another. We need to grow up and face our own fears.

All of that is fair to say , but in practical terms there is no way to elemiate the political vaue of bogeymen other than the sort of education that will never be common.

[Universe Prince]

All of that is fair to say , but in practical terms there is no way to elemiate the political vaue of bogeymen other than the sort of education that will never be common.

Possibly. But it doesn't hurt to try.

[Plane]

All of that is fair to say , but in practical terms there is no way to elemiate the political vaue of bogeymen other than the sort of education that will never be common.

Possibly. But it doesn't hurt to try.

I expect it helps a lot to try , it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

I really ought to commend you on your willingness to discuss such a knotty problem poltely and at such length, I consider this to be a sort of generosity.

But be aware that perfection is the enemy of good , can you comproise and support something that is a step in the right direction even if a small one?

[Universe Prince]

But be aware that perfection is the enemy of good , can you comproise and support something that is a step in the right direction even if a small one?

That depends on whether I have some reasonable expectation that further steps will continue to be taken. A single step in the right direction followed by a dozen in wrong directions is not the sort of compromise that is going to help us. I'm not a big fan of compromise just to say something got done. Sometimes going only part of the way towards a goal can be as bad as doing nothing at all. A house is built gradually, step by step. But generally one doesn't build a corner of a house and promise to get back to the rest sometime in the future. The family that needs that house for shelter ends up still without a shelter. I'm not saying I expect or want dramatic changes overnight. Gradual progress in the correct direction is agreeable to me, so long as we commit to continue until we're done.

[Plane]

But be aware that perfection is the enemy of good , can you comproise and support something that is a step in the right direction even if a small one?

That depends on whether I have some reasonable expectation that further steps will continue to be taken. A single step in the right direction followed by a dozen in wrong directions is not the sort of compromise that is going to help us. I'm not a big fan of compromise just to say something got done. Sometimes going only part of the way towards a goal can be as bad as doing nothing at all. A house is built gradually, step by step. But generally one doesn't build a corner of a house and promise to get back to the rest sometime in the future. The family that needs that house for shelter ends up still without a shelter. I'm not saying I expect or want dramatic changes overnight. Gradual progress in the correct direction is agreeable to me, so long as we commit to continue until we're done.

Who and what, availible now, does this make you support?

[Universe Prince]

Certainly not the Republican Party or the Democrat Party. I'll vote for Ron Paul, if he is on the ballot come election time, but there is not one of the other Republican candidates that I really like as candidates. And so far the Democratic candidates leave me nonplussed. I support Libertarian Party more on the local and state level than the national level. I might support the national LP more if they ever got serious about raising money and trying to influence public opinion.