PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul Speaks Sanely on the Travel Ban - Morning Joe 1/31/2017




charrob
01-31-2017, 03:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeSBroiSRiA

CaptainAmerica
01-31-2017, 03:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeSBroiSRiA


at 1:52 the host almost said "President Obama" XD lol............

EBounding
02-02-2017, 11:54 AM
I can understand a pause in issuing new visas and allowing new refugees in. I just don't see the point of blocking people who have valid visas and permanent immigrant status.

juleswin
02-02-2017, 12:18 PM
Speaking sanely essentially means continuing the lie that people with student visas took down the towers on 911. And when he talks about "the problem" He still doesn't realize that the biggest problem is the fact that we create refugees every time we intervene in areas where we have no business intervening in.

The wave of big migration from Eastern Europe came in after WWII, the big wave in Vietnamese, Laotian, Thai immigrants came after the Vietnam war, Sudanese came in late 90s after the US secrete war to undermine the Sudanese govt, the Somalis came after US started their covert war with Al Shabab and so on and so forth. Just about every single one of those immigrant waves can be connect to a US intervention in that region. You cannot solve "the problem" if you do not even have the courage to speak about it on national TV.

Fact, there would have never been a wave of Syrian immigrant to US or Europe without the western back war on the country.

dannno
02-02-2017, 02:37 PM
Speaking sanely essentially means continuing the lie that people with student visas took down the towers on 911. And when he talks about "the problem" He still doesn't realize that the biggest problem is the fact that we create refugees every time we intervene in areas where we have no business intervening in.

The wave of big migration from Eastern Europe came in after WWII, the big wave in Vietnamese, Laotian, Thai immigrants came after the Vietnam war, Sudanese came in late 90s after the US secrete war to undermine the Sudanese govt, the Somalis came after US started their covert war with Al Shabab and so on and so forth. Just about every single one of those immigrant waves can be connect to a US intervention in that region. You cannot solve "the problem" if you do not even have the courage to speak about it on national TV.

Fact, there would have never been a wave of Syrian immigrant to US or Europe without the western back war on the country.

Holy crap, can't you ever get anything right?

At least one 9/11 terrorist did come in on a student Visa, and there were others here on other types of Visas.

Rand does talk about how our foreign interventions cause these problems on national tv, but right now we have a President who has said he is going to be reversing a lot of this foreign intervention nonsense so Rand was focused on the issue of the immigration. If we were talking about going to war with another country he probably would have brought that up.

juleswin
02-02-2017, 03:00 PM
Holy crap, can't you ever get anything right?

At least one 9/11 terrorist did come in on a student Visa, and there were others here on other types of Visas.

Rand does talk about how our foreign interventions cause these problems on national tv, but right now we have a President who has said he is going to be reversing a lot of this foreign intervention nonsense so Rand was focused on the issue of the immigration. If we were talking about going to war with another country he probably would have brought that up.

I know the govt line about the some of the so called hijackers coming in with student visas. My point is that people overstaying their visas is not the the problem and Rands idea of the govt being able to track all these people sounds more like the harbinger of a police state as whatever Trump is talking about.

If you want to talk about immigration, the first thing you should talk about if you want to get to the root of it is the policy of destabilization through war. Avoiding this topic is essentially lying my omission. Also I tried to listen to the whole thing and just the point where Rand started talking about the Iraqi that was trying to buy missiles while on govt assistance just made me tune him out. He is starting to sound like a crazy person.

How can anyone who even knows what a missile is believe this ridiculous story. So while he is on govt assistance and he had enough money to buy missiles? and did we even know whether he was also trying to buy the missile launcher or did he plan to just throw it up in the air when he got one?

Sorry but the man is not sounding very sane in that video. He sounds like someone who is trying to kiss Trump's ass and that doesn't look very good on him.

Krugminator2
02-02-2017, 06:39 PM
I
Sorry but the man is not sounding very sane in that video. He sounds like someone who is trying to kiss Trump's ass and that doesn't look very good on him.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/30542215/rand-paul-immigration-from-countries-with-radical-jihadist-movements-should-be-put-on-hold

Same topic. Same talking points long before Trump was elected.

juleswin
02-02-2017, 06:48 PM
http://www.wdrb.com/story/30542215/rand-paul-immigration-from-countries-with-radical-jihadist-movements-should-be-put-on-hold

Same topic. Same talking points long before Trump was elected.

Kinda sad right? I mean he was also talking about his idiotic idea to seize part of Syria and Iraq for the Kurds before Trump. This is to show that we should examine whatever policies they promote and not give them a pass just because they are right most of the time.

I mean he is talking about tracking people in the country and knowing what they are doing at all times. If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

fedupinmo
02-02-2017, 06:51 PM
Speaking sanely essentially means continuing the lie that people with student visas took down the towers on 911. And when he talks about "the problem" He still doesn't realize that the biggest problem is the fact that we create refugees every time we intervene in areas where we have no business intervening in.



What if he missed that speech his dad gave about that very subject?

Krugminator2
02-02-2017, 07:06 PM
Kinda sad right? I mean he was also talking about his idiotic idea to seize part of Syria and Iraq for the Kurds before Trump. This is to show that we should examine whatever policies they promote and not give them a pass just because they are right most of the time.

I mean he is talking about tracking people in the country and knowing what they are doing at all times. If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

No. Not really.

I could go either way with arming the Kurds. I probably don't support it. It can be argued logically. It certainly doesn't bother me if someone argues for it. And what do you mean tracking? If someone overstays their visa they should leave or renew their visa. That I completely support. The government should keep tabs on the whereabouts of a someone here from Saudi Arabia on a student visa. If a Saudi overstays their visa, that should be cause for concern.

juleswin
02-02-2017, 07:13 PM
No. Not really.

I could go either way with arming the Kurds. I probably don't support it. It can be argued logically. It certainly doesn't bother me if someone argues for it. And what do you mean tracking? If someone overstays their visa they should leave or renew their visa. That I completely support. The government should keep tabs on the whereabouts of a someone here from Saudi Arabia on a student visa. If a Saudi overstays their visa, that should be cause for concern.

What is the logic behind arming the Kurds? And does that same logic apply to the Fulanis of Nigeria and the dozens of other nomadic tribes around the world who have settled in countries that don't belong to them? Instead of making these people assimilate to the host country. Rand wants to fuel more unrest around the world leading to more refugees. Maybe he truly doesn't understand the immigration problem.

My issue with the whole tracking of people who over stay their student visas is this false belief that it someone made 9/11 possible. The truth is that the people who got them in would have used a tourist or medical or some other form of visa to get them into the country. 9/11 was an inside job but hear me out. I am not saying he should go around screaming it like Alex Jones. All he needs to do is support policies that would actually end the immigration crisis without pretending it is anything to do with people overstaying their visas.

Krugminator2
02-02-2017, 07:27 PM
What is the logic behind arming the Kurds? And does that same logic apply to the Fulanis of Nigeria and the dozens of other nomadic tribes around the world who have settled in countries that don't belong to them? Instead of making these people assimilate to the host country. Rand wants to fuel more unrest around the world leading to more refugees. Maybe he truly doesn't understand the immigration problem.

9/11 was an inside job but hear me out.

I think the logic of arming the Kurds was to fight ISIS. Someone has to defeat ISIS. Jordan is really the only other country in the region actively doing something about it but they don't the resources. The Kurds are fairly westernized and have an incentive to fight. I think Russia has been doing the heavy lifting so it doesn't seem like arming the Kurds is as important now.

Even you believe the United States government attacked the country on 9-11, is is an unreasonable for you to expect others to hold that view.

specsaregood
02-02-2017, 07:31 PM
I think the logic of arming the Kurds was to fight ISIS. Someone has to defeat ISIS. .

Or it could be that we royally screwed the kurds over twice already and maybe they at due some support. they have been our "allies" for over 2 decades and everytime we have left them hanging to get slaughtered.

juleswin
02-02-2017, 07:46 PM
I think the logic of arming the Kurds was to fight ISIS. Someone has to defeat ISIS.

I have to give it to you, you are a more sensible man than Rand. Rand's logic is to carve out the two countries for the Kurds. Rand is so a good guy that he is trying to help them when nobody asked for his help and before you say the Kurds asked for help, may I remind you that the Libyan rebels, Syrian rebels, Sandinistas all asked for the US help. So is every American dealing with a hard situation. Please tell me that we have no abandoned our policy of withholding welfare to help the kurds?


Jordan is really the only other country in the region actively doing something about it but they don't the resources. The Kurds are fairly westernized and have an incentive to fight. I think Russia has been doing the heavy lifting so it doesn't seem like arming the Kurds is as important now.

Why is being westernized a good thing? they are guests in a country that is in the east and somehow they being westernized is used as a positive. You know, maybe we should open our borders like the Syrians did to them instead of helping them attack their host country


Even you believe the United States government attacked the country on 9-11, is is an unreasonable for you to expect others to hold that view.

I think that last point just went over my head, i have no idea what you are trying to say. Btw, fuck the Kurds, this is the thank you one gets for letting nomads comes into their country. Maybe after finding a home for the Kurds, we should get a saw and carve up parts of France, Belgium and Germany for the gypsies. You know, they are way more westernized that the Kurds :)

EBounding
02-02-2017, 10:21 PM
Why did Rand say there was an attempted bombing in Bowling Green?

jmdrake
02-03-2017, 06:14 AM
Speaking sanely essentially means continuing the lie that people with student visas took down the towers on 911. And when he talks about "the problem" He still doesn't realize that the biggest problem is the fact that we create refugees every time we intervene in areas where we have no business intervening in.

The wave of big migration from Eastern Europe came in after WWII, the big wave in Vietnamese, Laotian, Thai immigrants came after the Vietnam war, Sudanese came in late 90s after the US secrete war to undermine the Sudanese govt, the Somalis came after US started their covert war with Al Shabab and so on and so forth. Just about every single one of those immigrant waves can be connect to a US intervention in that region. You cannot solve "the problem" if you do not even have the courage to speak about it on national TV.

Fact, there would have never been a wave of Syrian immigrant to US or Europe without the western back war on the country.

The student visa ban from "terrorist" countries is an idea Ron Paul first floated. Now personally I think that's something Ron wrongly emphasized. The problem wasn't your typical student visa carrier. The problem was the CIA waving through potential terrorists that were CIA assets.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw6YHij-aCU

Ron never felt free to talk about stuff like ^that even though he knows about it, but instead gave sound bite "red meat" arguments about terrorism and immigration that his target audience could understand and digest. Rand is doing the same thing. He is, and Ron was, afraid that the target audience just couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that the George W. Bush administration set this country up to be attacked either omission or commission.

One would think with how much Donald "All I'm saying is the towers came down on his (Bush's) watch" Trump flirted with 9/11 Trutherism enough for Rand to feel more free about the subject. But I think he's trying to position himself as the "sane" voice in the GOP.

As for our foreign policy causing the immigration policy, both Rand and Trump have criticized the U.S. intervention in Syria for that very reason. Maybe they need to speak about it more in connection with the travel ban though.


Holy crap, can't you ever get anything right?

At least one 9/11 terrorist did come in on a student Visa, and there were others here on other types of Visas.

Rand does talk about how our foreign interventions cause these problems on national tv, but right now we have a President who has said he is going to be reversing a lot of this foreign intervention nonsense so Rand was focused on the issue of the immigration. If we were talking about going to war with another country he probably would have brought that up.

Yeah but didn't all of those come in through the Visa Express program that Michael Springman criticized in the video I posted? If so the fix to the problem is to not do crap like Visa Express, where people from nutso countries like Saudi Arabia are waived through without scrutiny by a CIA controlled immigration desk, as opposed to banning anyone from that country.

juleswin
02-03-2017, 06:51 AM
Why did Rand say there was an attempted bombing in Bowling Green?
Story from 2013, also talks about the Obama 6 months ban on Iraqi refugees unlike the limp dick Trump's 3 month ban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG1ub9961vw

This is the story he was attempting remember. But he got it wrong, first the so called terrorists weren't trying to attack the US with missiles. Cos that is silly beyond belief, they were supposedly IED guys and as IED people, they would be looking for explosives not missles. Yes, missiles are in explosives but that is a very expensive and dangerous way to procure explosives for IED.

Secondly, they were accused of trying to buy weapons from the US to send to Iraq. To tell you how stupid that is, it would be like me buying Nigerian food in America to send to Nigeria. Buying automatic/war weapons in Iraq must be so much easier than some foreigner trying to do the same in their new home in America. But yet, that was that accusation.

This is the propaganda they have been using to keep us all scared but yet some people who should know better are still reacting to it.

juleswin
02-03-2017, 07:09 AM
The student visa ban from "terrorist" countries is an idea Ron Paul first floated. Now personally I think that's something Ron wrongly emphasized. The problem wasn't your typical student visa carrier. The problem was the CIA waving through potential terrorists that were CIA assets.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw6YHij-aCU

Ron never felt free to talk about stuff like ^that even though he knows about it, but instead gave sound bite "red meat" arguments about terrorism and immigration that his target audience could understand and digest. Rand is doing the same thing. He is, and Ron was, afraid that the target audience just couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that the George W. Bush administration set this country up to be attacked either omission or commission.

One would think with how much Donald "All I'm saying is the towers came down on his (Bush's) watch" Trump flirted with 9/11 Trutherism enough for Rand to feel more free about the subject. But I think he's trying to position himself as the "sane" voice in the GOP.

As for our foreign policy causing the immigration policy, both Rand and Trump have criticized the U.S. intervention in Syria for that very reason. Maybe they need to speak about it more in connection with the travel ban though.



Yeah but didn't all of those come in through the Visa Express program that Michael Springman criticized in the video I posted? If so the fix to the problem is to not do crap like Visa Express, where people from nutso countries like Saudi Arabia are waived through without scrutiny by a CIA controlled immigration desk, as opposed to banning anyone from that country.

Ron did it only during the campaign to try and gain the votes of the blood thirsty, simple minded voters that you need to win an election. Rand is doing it on a different level like he actually believes this crap. Couple that with his idiotic plan to fight ISIS by funneling more arms into the conflict. So this way, if ISIS captures Kurdish run areas they can get their hands on more American weapon.

Whatever strategy they are using, I just do not like it. Also as physicians, Rand should know that to get to the bottom of most diagnosis, you should try to treat the disease not the symptom. Rand with his insane plan for the middle east is not just going to make the symptoms worse by causing more unrest and more refugees. It is also going to cost us money we do not have.

Again, I am not saying they should go around saying "9/11 was an inside job" like Alex Jones but they should have that at the back of their heads when proposing policies to prevent terror. Another thing he keeps saying that triggers the hell out of me is when he says "the kurds are the best fighting force against ISIS". That is a lie, Hezbollah has been the best fighting force against ISIS but he cannot say that cos the Israeli lobby would bury him. But instead tell a lie, he shouldn't talk about the best fighting force at all.

EBounding
02-03-2017, 07:42 AM
This is the story he was attempting remember. But he got it wrong, first the so called terrorists weren't trying to attack the US with missiles. Cos that is silly beyond belief, they were supposedly IED guys and as IED people, they would be looking for explosives not missles. Yes, missiles are in explosives but that is a very expensive and dangerous way to procure explosives for IED.


Yeah I think he described it accurately in the past. He should really correct himself.

juleswin
02-03-2017, 07:56 AM
Yeah I think he described it accurately in the past. He should really correct himself.

Personally, I would prefer he avoid telling the official story anymore in the future. But did you read what Kelly Ann Conway said about it. he called it a massacre in Bowling Green. I hope this is not some alternative truth and she just happened to misspeak. But I am afraid they are ratcheting up this terror talk because they are preparing for another 9/11 type event.

Hope to God that just like the elections, I am wrong on this.

Btw, I meant to say explosives are in missiles not the other way around. I know missiles are not in explosives. Jules doing a typo once again :)

EBounding
02-03-2017, 08:46 AM
Personally, I would prefer he avoid telling the official story anymore in the future. But did you read what Kelly Ann Conway said about it. he called it a massacre in Bowling Green. I hope this is not some alternative truth and she just happened to misspeak. But I am afraid they are ratcheting up this terror talk because they are preparing for another 9/11 type event.

Hope to God that just like the elections, I am wrong on this.

Btw, I meant to say explosives are in missiles not the other way around. I know missiles are not in explosives. Jules doing a typo once again :)

I did see that interview; that's actually what made me go back and listen to what Rand said. Neither made any sense.

In Bowling Green 'Massacre,' FBI Agents Foiled an FBI Terror Plot (http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/03/in-bowling-green-fbi-foiled-fbi-plot)

Ender
02-04-2017, 12:18 PM
Holy crap, can't you ever get anything right?

At least one 9/11 terrorist did come in on a student Visa, and there were others here on other types of Visas.

Rand does talk about how our foreign interventions cause these problems on national tv, but right now we have a President who has said he is going to be reversing a lot of this foreign intervention nonsense so Rand was focused on the issue of the immigration. If we were talking about going to war with another country he probably would have brought that up.

Are you talking about the visas found conveniently on the streets after the explosions or the accused 9-11 perps that were found to be alive in the ME and were wondering why their names/IDs were being floated as dead terrorists?

jmdrake
02-04-2017, 03:44 PM
Story from 2013, also talks about the Obama 6 months ban on Iraqi refugees unlike the limp dick Trump's 3 month ban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG1ub9961vw

This is the story he was attempting remember. But he got it wrong, first the so called terrorists weren't trying to attack the US with missiles. Cos that is silly beyond belief, they were supposedly IED guys and as IED people, they would be looking for explosives not missles. Yes, missiles are in explosives but that is a very expensive and dangerous way to procure explosives for IED.

Secondly, they were accused of trying to buy weapons from the US to send to Iraq. To tell you how stupid that is, it would be like me buying Nigerian food in America to send to Nigeria. Buying automatic/war weapons in Iraq must be so much easier than some foreigner trying to do the same in their new home in America. But yet, that was that accusation.

This is the propaganda they have been using to keep us all scared but yet some people who should know better are still reacting to it.

Yes. That is pretty stupid. Rand I'm disappointed.


Ron did it only during the campaign to try and gain the votes of the blood thirsty, simple minded voters that you need to win an election. Rand is doing it on a different level like he actually believes this crap. Couple that with his idiotic plan to fight ISIS by funneling more arms into the conflict. So this way, if ISIS captures Kurdish run areas they can get their hands on more American weapon.

Whatever strategy they are using, I just do not like it. Also as physicians, Rand should know that to get to the bottom of most diagnosis, you should try to treat the disease not the symptom. Rand with his insane plan for the middle east is not just going to make the symptoms worse by causing more unrest and more refugees. It is also going to cost us money we do not have.

Again, I am not saying they should go around saying "9/11 was an inside job" like Alex Jones but they should have that at the back of their heads when proposing policies to prevent terror. Another thing he keeps saying that triggers the hell out of me is when he says "the kurds are the best fighting force against ISIS". That is a lie, Hezbollah has been the best fighting force against ISIS but he cannot say that cos the Israeli lobby would bury him. But instead tell a lie, he shouldn't talk about the best fighting force at all.

Rand went to far flirting with teoconism when he first ran for senator. I talked about it then but nobody would listen. Here's the difference. Ron safely won his congressional seat repeately without appealing to teocons. But Rand perceives, rightly or wrongly, that his senate seat depends on them.

Krugminator2
02-04-2017, 04:12 PM
Ron did it only during the campaign to try and gain the votes of the blood thirsty, simple minded voters that you need to win an election. Rand is doing it on a different level like he actually believes this crap. Couple that with his idiotic plan to fight ISIS by funneling more arms into the conflict.

What election are you talking about? Ron first started promoting visa restrictions for Saudi students in 2003. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr488

He ran unopposed for his Congressional seat in the 2004 race and won by 37 points in 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_14th_congressional_district

Seems like both are sincere.

osan
02-05-2017, 08:12 AM
My point is that people overstaying their visas is not the the [sic] problem

It is not the problem, but it is a problem that traces its status to the very basics of that upon which the nation purportedly founds. Let us for a moment ignore our ideals of perfectly free lands and consider the realities. We are, supposedly, a nation under the rule of law. Rightly or not, if that be the case, then if a law states that one cannot over-stay a visa, then over-staying is in fact a problem, at least from the standpoint of "rule of law". If we allow over-staying, then why have the law in the first place? Either enforce the law or get rid of it. Enforcement, IMO, should not mean going on witch hunts, but rather to apprehend and boot those who happen to be ID'd as in violation.

Empire brings all these problems to us, but the real culprit is, of course, us. Our choices have driven the world into its current state of gross degradation. The worst of it, I am afraid, it the savage mutilation of what it means to be a "nation of laws". Let me not go into one of my polemics here, but suffice to say that because we have chosen to institute non-law as law (i.e. statute-as-law), the very problems those false laws were intended to treat were not ameliorated, but rather exacerbated greatly in many cases. Our fundamental philosophy is all wrong. Here I refer to the fundamental, if tacit, tenet that removes the rights of men from certain classes of action. "Taking the law into one's own hands" has become perhaps the cardinal and unforgivable sin of all political sins in America. The main and (perhaps) unintended consequence of this basic structural component of American political life has been the renunciation of certain basic responsibilities, similar to the effect that the division of labor gone morbid has had. It has loused up individual thinking to the extent that we now find ourselves in our current general state of teetering political and cultural decay.


and Rands idea of the govt being able to track all these people sounds more like the harbinger of a police state as whatever Trump is talking about.

Here I agree strongly. Once you're in lawfully, you should be free, save under whatever conditions were agreed upon as conditions to entry. Once again, "monitoring" may (note MAY) not necessarily be a problem in theory, but in practice we all know how sideways this can go. The twentieth century has provided us with many first class examples of such surveillance states, and the twenty-first continues to refine that cluster-copulation. The UK is perhaps the prime example of this, worldwide, where a man cannot wipe his bottom without someone watching to make sure his sphincter has produced no contraband.


If you want to talk about immigration, the first thing you should talk about if you want to get to the root of it is the policy of destabilization through war.

But that has at least two dimensions, the first being one's own behaviors in that regard, the other being that of his neighbor's. If we are going to be a proper nation in that regard, we control only that which we do and are not to act in the capacity of our brothers' keeper.

That said, the behaviors of our global neighbor's are as likely to set off waves of immigration as our own. Therefore, checking our policies alone is insufficient to the problem, meaning that other measures must be taken to ensure we are not called upon to absorb millions of refugees.

Make you no mistake on this point: if Europe is successfully converted into an Islamic continent, the warring will continue and the resulting refugees will then endeavor to flee to America and the selfsame problem remains.


Avoiding this topic is essentially lying my omission.

It is a very hot potato. To address the problem is to invite suicide of one's career as a politician not much differently than where one speaks honestly and directly about the "black" problem, however statistical the voice, or that of any other similarly privileged raft of sacred cows. Those who would see America destroyed, for whatever the reasons, have been extremely effective in defending their erosive poisons by mounting wild and railing offensives against anyone so much as failing to praise the very venom that is reducing this land to political and cultural ash.


Also I tried to listen to the whole thing and just the point where Rand started talking about the Iraqi that was trying to buy missiles while on govt assistance just made me tune him out. He is starting to sound like a crazy person.

Do you know for a fact that it is not true? I've not heard of this before and cannot comment on its veracity.


How can anyone who even knows what a missile is believe this ridiculous story.

Methinks you are being a bit myopic here. You assume that the person purported to have attempted this knew "what a missile is". If you broaden your gaze a bit, you will quickly be reminded that some people do the most incredibly and stupidly ignorant things. Think "Darwin Awards". See? Right.

Also, what sort of missile(s)? Some are very small, stingers coming to mind immediately. Or are you meaning to imply something on the order of a Minuteman?


So while he is on govt assistance and he had enough money to buy missiles?

Zoom out one more time. Being on welfare could very well be a cover while having access to substantial funding.


and did we even know whether he was also trying to buy the missile launcher or did he plan to just throw it up in the air when he got one?

Having put this as a question, you implicitly state your ignorance of the facts in the given regard. How would this point even be an issue for you insofar as it contributed to the plausibility of the broader story?


Sorry but the man is not sounding very sane in that video. He sounds like someone who is trying to kiss Trump's ass and that doesn't look very good on him.

I've not watched it, so you may be right. But unless you have definite facts supporting your charge that it is ridiculous, perhaps you have not been quite sufficiently circumspect in your analysis, n'est pas?

presence
02-05-2017, 08:32 AM
There should be no visa, no refugees, no legal or illegal immigrants, and no vetting.

Non citizen residents should have a PRIVATE SPONSOR for job and home or GTFO

There should be a CRIME of THEFT or VIOLENCE else no need for Governance.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problem





In economics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), the local knowledge problem is the observation that the data required for rational economic planning are distributed among individual actors, and thus unavoidably exist outside the knowledge of a central authority. It is an instance of the Economic Calculation Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Calculation_Problem)

Friedrich Hayek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek) described this distributed local knowledge:

Today it is almost heresy to suggest that scientific knowledge is not the sum of all knowledge. But a little reflection will show that there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of general rules: the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active co÷peration. We need to remember only how much we have to learn in any occupation after we have completed our theoretical training, how big a part of our working life we spend learning particular jobs, and how valuable an asset in all walks of life is knowledge of people, of local conditions, and of special circumstances. To know of and put to use a machine not fully employed, or somebody's skill which could be better utilized, or to be aware of a surplus stock which can be drawn upon during an interruption of supplies, is socially quite as useful as the knowledge of better alternative techniques. And the shipper who earns his living from using otherwise empty or half-filled journeys of tramp-steamers, or the estate agent whose whole knowledge is almost exclusively one of temporary opportunities, or the arbitrageur who gains from local differences of commodity prices, are all performing eminently useful functions based on special knowledge of circumstances of the fleeting moment not known to others.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problem#cite_note-AER519-30-1)






It is only through INDIVIDUAL economic interaction that the value of products or people can be rationally discerned.




The only safety a free republic of free men needs is universal and ever-ready armament of the voluntary militia.