BSWPaulsen
Member

Your dad would have been right.

The youth are not the ones making these "decisions". Systematic brainwashing by parents, educators, and media are conditioning them to believe this is a good thing for them to do. Unfortunately, this is a possible outcome of people having freedom as freedom does not guarantee any particular outcome. Culture matters. American culture has degenerated to the point of an increasing number of individuals choosing to castrate themselves. Passing laws banning the practice is little different from trying to stop a water leak with one's thumb. It is an admission of a failure to uproot the evil that propagated the practice.

There is no question it is true for some of them. Whether it is most of them is an open question, but I will concede you may be correct on that front too. On the construction front, given I work construction here in Arizona, what you wrote about that industry is entirely true. English fluency is the exception and not the rule.

Yikes. My apology for the embarrassing mistake. It has been edited to correctly attribute it to you.

You are correct. I should have clarified that open borders libertarians are the ideological autists I was referencing. They are a group of people uniquely incapable of dealing with humanity's tendency toward Machiavellianism, and this is especially evident given how they would allow large numbers of people to subvert their societies without any notable opposition. As phill4paul correctly noted above, these same people would have welcomed the Huns. All of what you wrote is correct. Self-interested parties advancing their own personal or collective agendas can and do make terrific use of the opportunities afforded to them by their ignorant enablers. The very fact those self-interested parties can purposefully and beneficially work toward outcomes that will degrade the lives of their enablers is entirely lost on them. After all, when the only thing that matters is ideological purity, the outcomes are irrelevant, and that includes those outcomes tantamount to personal and cultural suicide.

Your point also serves as a way of destroying the argument that immigration would not be a problem if the welfare state did not exist. If enough immigrants arrive and overwhelm the existing population, then they are the ones that make the rules. Invaders absolutely can create a welfare state if they have the numbers to do so. Uncontrolled immigration is favored primarily by autists whose pursuit of philosophical and intellectual consistency is a personal quest entirely divorced from the nature of the species it would be applied to. Any personal philosophy that does not account for what humanity is instead of what one thinks it ought to be is one best consigned to the dustbin of history. Truthfully, such philosophies inevitably end up in the trash by virtue of its adherent either acquiring wisdom before it destroys them, or its possessor is disenfranchised or destroyed by the members of the species he enabled with his naivety.

Given corporations would not exist without special protections granted by the government in the first place, it is prudent to assume they function as proxies for the government. Following this logic, they should be treated as if they are the government and be subject to the same restrictions the government is supposed to adhere to. At that point, the distinction becomes, "The government is using its proxies to censor, and isn't that a violation of the first amendment?" Perhaps this is just me being some kind of conspiracy theorist, but I am of the belief there is a lot of collusion between corporations and politicians. Politicians receive corporate funding and corporations receive regulatory capture. Due to this, I do not believe drawing distinctions between the two as private or public entities serves much purpose other than to allow an unimpeded encroachment upon the rights of the common man.