bmdrocks21

You said that government's responsibility is to its citizens, so how does it have the authority to tell them who they can or cannot hire?

The dysfunction is that supply of labour theoretically outweighs the demand, so that you are attempting to prop up the price by placing artificial limits upon the supply. Artificial scarcity causes deadweight loss, which means that maximum productive efficiency (market equilibrium) is not achieved. The burden caused by deadweight loss can be measured on a utilitarian scale, which is where the analogy to blindness comes in. Economic mobility is tightened by the pressure placed on the production cycle.

Historical revisionism is used by white supremacists to rewrite what occurred in Germany and state there is some sort of global conspiracy.

You said and I quote "We are unified in our culture". How is America unified when everyone doesn't support gun freedom if I accept your findings?

Unified: brought together as one

As one doesn't leave anything up. It is like if I said 1 + 1 together equals 2 but then later retract my statement and say 1 + 1 = 2 then - 0.21.

the "nuclear option" started the downward spiral on precedent imo thank Harry Reid who I can't say enough bad things about

Interesting. But no one refused to hold hearings to block the nomination. Also, Obama did pick a moderate that conservatives could agree to. The republicans still refused to hold a hearing.

Multiple counts of obstruction of justice, bribery, threatening witnesses, violation of the emoluments clause, violation of federal election law

Then you should support reforming the supreme court. That would mean liberals couldn't just cram it full of lifetime appointment far left wing judges to reinterpret the law. But i'm guessing you wouldn't support that because conservatives have already managed to do this. 

Oh please. most of the right wing only cares about the constitution when it is useful to them. The constitution was never meant to allow people who own automatic weapons either. But lots of right wing people argue that it should.

How does rotating the supreme court stack it? It just keeps people from picking a young, extremist judge to try to force the law in one direction against the will of the people? I don't know if that method is the best way to resolve the current problems, but something needs to be done to stop the current attempts to stack the court. 

Again, you make it sound like the constitution hasn't been changed 27 times already. It's not like changing it is in any way unprecedented. When something needs to be changed, it should be changed. The right is currently working hard to stack the courts with hard right wing judges so that the law will be reinterpreted in their preferred way, even though it is against what many of the american people want. That is a problem. If liberals were doing that you would up in arms about it. 

If laws need to be changed, they should pass laws to do it. They shouldn't use lifetime judge appointments to get their way in an anti-democratic fashion.

What does that mean? To my knowledge, no one had ever refused to hold hearings for a supreme court judge because a president was in the last year of their term. they even later acknowledged (and laughed about) that this reasoning had been a lie.

Donald trump is an unprecedented president. He has committed numerous crimes in office and his party has made it clear they will do everything in their power to prevent him being punished for it. If the normal method of dealing with an issue is completely blocked, then you have to use an irregular one. I'm not arguing that trump should be charged with a crime now, but I think mueller should have done it. 

It is unprecedented. But the constitution doesn't explicitly say you can't add a term limit. it says they "shall hold their offices during good behavior". Many interpret that to mean they cannot be removed for any reason. But that is only 1 interpretation. 

But even if it was unconstitutional, it's not like the US constitution hasn't been changed multiple times. I don't understand why some people think that the Constitution is set in stone. If what has been laid out in the constitution isn't working properly or is being abused, then amend the constitution so that it works.

Define culture.

What the majority does as in vote Democrat or Republican is group think.

True. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. It would be perfectly legal to do so. We live in an age where precedent means very little. Trump and the republicans wipe their asses with precedent regularly.

it's 

runs a large town 

In my view, laws should by decided by the people and not imposed by the state, but this is a different subject.

So they can't employ whoever they want?

If we could cure some people of deafness or blindness, there would be less deaf or blind people left in society. That would mean that those remaining deaf or blind people would have less power and influence in the culture. Therefore should the government step in to prevent the cure from being given? If we cured blindness, we would be taking power from blind people and putting it in the hands of non-blind people. In the same sense, if we improve the economy and make more people wealthier, this would in effect be also placing power in the hands of wealthy people. But in the long run, I am trying to expand the circle of people who have influence in society, and I believe that your solution would narrow it.

How is that relevant? Also, it is the purpose of a democratic republic to achieve just that.

If that is the case, if a citizen wants to let a foreigner live with them in their own house, who has the authority to stop them from doing so?

This is a totally subjective measure. If prices were simply paid to satisfy the interests of the recipient, we could not understand differences in price between the various products and services in the economy. These variations correspond to the differences in objective utility provided by the products or services offered in exchange.

In a corporate body, unlike other mere clubs, companies, or groups, power is consolidated into a single entity that enjoys rights usually reserved only for individual citizens. This is just what you are ascribing to the US when you invoke the idea that cultures can be violated, or that the desires or sovereignty of the "culture" of the US ought to be prioritized over those of the individual members of society.

Is the purpose of employment not the productive utility it adds to the economy? How is it not corruption if you have workers doing unnecessary or under-productive labour to create an inflated measure of their value?

These groups have a right to band together and form enclaves or clubs based on whatever culture they prefer. I fully respect the rights of individuals to join groups based upon common interests and to attempt to have these interests represented politically. However, their ability to consolidate their power into large corporate bodies should be curtailed. We live in a unipolar world, and for the US to feign a stance of self-enclosed egotism is naive when the balance of geopolitical influence is tilted so disproportionately in its own favor.

Why are workers paid a wage? It is a measure of their productivity, and the whole reason people are employed is in order to produce goods and services. You are proposing to impose limits upon the labor pool, effectively diminishing the productive capacity of that economy, in order to artificially bolster the bargaining power of the working class.

Instead, 3 of the 4 voted against Nixon while the fourth abstained, resulting in an 8-0 ruling that effectively doomed Nixon as president. 

Conquering our continent would be a terrible thing to do. And we wouldn't be justified in doing so. 

its history.com

The U.S. had already come up with these ideas of "all people are equal, all people deserve rights", and yet they still constantly killed and murdered Indians, shipped them out of their homes, I.e. Trail of Tears, and gave them smallpox blankets. The Indians did not have these Enlightenment concepts, and we did. Yet we still mistreated them. 

Even if you are willing to blame the Indians for their crimes, you still can't absolve the US of it's crimes. 

no first world country goes around shooting innocents after they win battles, and the nations that do are nationally and internationally prosecuted. And how is the Trail of Tears and such not genocidal? It was literally moving Indians out through intentionally disease infested land so Americans could take their own homes. 

Yes but clearly that "accomplishment" would be a disaster for the rest of the world. 

Imagine how they feel. They get kicked out of their homes and now they have these small little acres of land to live on. 

A two party inherently divides a country. One wants open borders another doesn't. The "cultural unity" can only be met under a one party system. Dictatorship, Monarchy and others I am missing. 

This could justify any acts of imperialism. If the UN didn't exist, would you invade Syria? The Congo? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? North Korea? Mexico? After all, we could use the land much more productively with our 1st world democracy, standard of living, and tech. 

Two wrongs don't make a right. We've given them so much crap (https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states). Is all that stuff justified just because they killed each other and attacked us? 

So if the Nazis won WW2, it's an accomplishment? 

Pre-emptively: I'm not calling anyone a Nazi, I'm drawing a comparison.

See this is your problem. You’re under the impression that there was a motive behind it — it’s a predisposed bias. A normal unbiased person would see Joe Biden as a problem worth investigating. 

We thought Iraq did have nuclear weapons.  It wouldn't be an invasion.  It would be a team of 20,000 UN workers or so making sure that there are no nukes in Israel.

I wouldn't kill them, but I´d send them to an isolated island with no transportation out of it but it would be a good island for them so they wouldn't want to leave and so when every one of them dies from natural causes, the knowledge of how to build nukes is gone.

The explosives in the book aren't nearly as dangerous as nukes.  I would personally want the book banned but I respect the court decisions that established it´s legalization.  Making explosives that injure a dozen people is nothing like a nuke.

We got lucky.  Even if the odds of a president launching nukes is 1/100 in their term, as time goes on, the collective odds of a president launching nukes gradually increase.  Nukes are too risky.  Getting rid of all nukes at once leaves us vulnerable, but if we gradually get rid of them, then it would prevent their explosion.  This is why there should be a high tax on nukes.  It forces countries to gradually get rid of them so they are no longer a threat.

How can they make a nuke if they don´t know how?  All the scientists that know how to make a nuke are on an island.  I don´t think the scientists would allow random people to get a nuke, so I doubt they would help out random people with making a nuke.  Since people currently don´t build nukes illegally, I don´t think they would get nukes in a nuke free world.

I'd send foreign UN officials to search Israel for nukes, just like what we did to Iraq.

By burning them if they are made of paper or by deleting them if they are online.

Why?

In order to discover it again and to build a nuke again, people would be prohibited from owning plutonium and uranium.  It would have to be done underground if it happens and if building a bomb gets caught, the people involved would be punished with life in jail without parole.  Currently, people aren't building nukes illegally, so I don't think it would happen in a nuke free world.  I'd want the nukes to get used for power to get rid of them and to provide energy.

The people being bombed would likely disagree. From their point of view, the christian americans are murdering their families. 

We have no way of knowing. There is nothing written about him until decades after his death and nothing was ever written by someone who had met him. He very well could have been a pedophile but that information didn't survive.