The UN and Sovereignty

[Minister of Truth]

DING DING DING. We have a winner. It's not sourthern man. It's me. I argue with your stupid ass all day long then when I finally completely flip the script on your master race and blow your mind, all you can do is accuse me of being a troll? LahoooooZuher!

This is better trolling. The use of "DING" and Loser work well when being obtuse on a message board, 1-Up Boy...

 

[Damocles]

"FIrst the border" is a campaign trail talking point, used as a distraction by McCain to get out of talking about the rest of his vision. It's bullshit. I'm saddened to see you echoing it.


No. The point is to keep people away. To keep wages up here and protect our society from the Reconquista.

How about biochipping people? That seems to fit in with your "knowledge focused" solution.

Guys, Damo has been replaced, he's a simulant, one of them now.

You are the strawman king today. There is nothing in my argument about bio-chipping. And how is voting LP support of McCain? Did you take more classes in Reading Incomprehension from CK today?

If people are allowed in legally there is not "slave" wage any longer, wages will care for themselves.

 

[Minister of Truth]

You are the strawman king today. There is nothing in my argument about bio-chipping.

If people are allowed in legally there is not "slave" wage any longer, wages will care for themselves.

More 1-Ups outta the Ass...

 

[Kamala Trump]

You are the strawman king today. There is nothing in my argument about bio-chipping. And how is voting LP support of McCain? Did you take more classes in Reading Incomprehension from CK today?

If people are allowed in legally there is not "slave" wage any longer, wages will care for themselves.

From what I know of market forces, a glut of workers causes wage depression, or a steady stream of them keeps wages from advancing as fast as they would otherwise. Isn't that how labor markets work?

 

[Damocles]

test

 

[Damocles]

From what I know of market forces, a glut of workers causes wage depression, or a steady stream of them keeps wages from advancing as fast as they would otherwise. Isn't that how labor markets work?

It depends on growth rate as well. A dearth of workers limits growth and severely depresses wages because of the ensuing depression and/or recession.

 

[Timshel]

The difference is the Constitution doesn't say a ruling of the court is legislation, it does say that a ratified Treaty is.

Unresponsive. Been over this.

The Founders said that the Treaty cannot supersede the Constitution. In this case I explained how it does not. What you want to argue has already been answered by the SCOTUS working within the framework of what the Founders created.

No, at first you argued that it could supercede the constitution and that the founders were simply writing about how they wish they had ensured that it could not.

Again, previous decision by FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's court can be overturned.

Again with the court ruling. The main difference being, the Constitution directly states that a ratified Treaty IS law, it has no such statement of court rulings.

A court ruling is law. No doubt on that. It's not legislation. This has nothing at all to do with what the consitutution states. Again, legislation deals with details that are beyond the scope of a treaty or court ruling.

On the rest you continue to twist my argument against the propriety of these laws/rulings as being against the reality that they exist or that they are backed by the state power.

There are many ways to change things. We can sit and wait for hundreds of years hoping to sneak in a good court. That has proven pretty fucking worthless and not at all pragmatic as the court seems to get worse in many ways. Plus, if we do this without challenging the propriety of the rulings we wish to up end it's really not very likely we will create change.

Non compliance is far more effective at bringing change.

But whatever we do we will have to keep pointing out that the rulings are wrong, which is what you are criticizing me for.

I argue the drug war on many fronts. But the biggest problem right now is the centralization of the issue and seperating it from the voters by placing the power in the hands of federal bureaurats. And now you would have it placed in the hands of international bureaurats. You can convince 75% of the population that the drug war is wrong. Nothing will change unless they are motivated to change it and even then it will be a battle to achieve through government channels alone.

Your monday morning activism and campaigning aside, libertarians have done far more than other groups on the drug war.

You think putting your faith in the hands of government officials unchecked by a philsophy of individual rights is pragmatic and I am here to tell you, you are fucking wrong. Your vision is a pipe dream and you will be lucky to keep their boot off your throat much less further any rights.

 

[Kamala Trump]

It depends on growth rate as well. A dearth of workers limits growth and severely depresses wages because of the ensuing depression and/or recession.

That's not happening. Though granted it is a dynamic that could occur. But on the hand, growth is of questionable value if you displace half of the population in the process.

 

[Damocles]

Unresponsive. Been over this.

Refusing to recognize what it says doesn't change what is. The reality is that a ratified Treaty has the power of law, it is WHY there is a 2/3 majority for ratification.

No, at first you argued that it could supercede the constitution and that the founders were simply writing about how they wish they had ensured that it could not.

I never argued that, it was your strawman. I said that a Treaty has the power of law, then explained why this particular issue would not be considered a conflict with the constitution and therefore would have the power of law. If it said what they say is says.

Again, previous decision by FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's court can be overturned.

Only by that same court. It isn't being overturned now, and won't be unless the court is changed. The only ways to do that is by either impeachment (not going to happen) or by appointment. If you are going to change the court under the current system you must do it by one of those two means. And if you do it by impeachment, you better have the right person in the office to appoint replacements.

A court ruling is law. No doubt on that. It's not legislation. This has nothing at all to do with what the consitutution states. Again, legislation deals with details that are beyond the scope of a treaty or court ruling.

However, the Constitution says that any previous legislation that is in opposition to the new treaty is no longer valid. If the Treaty's obligations are constitutional it is the law.

On the rest you continue to twist my argument against the propriety of these laws/rulings as being against the reality that they exist or that they are backed by the state power.

The state cannot supercede Treaty, it is what is written in the Constitution. What part of the constitution do you not understand?

Just repeating that I am defending it is ridiculous, I am stating what is reality. You may want to plug your ears and scream real loud but it doesn't make the real go away.

There are many ways to change things. We can sit and wait for hundreds of years hoping to sneak in a good court. That has proven pretty fucking worthless and not at all pragmatic as the court seems to get worse in many ways. Plus, if we do this without challenging the propriety of the rulings we wish to up end it's really not very likely we will create change.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with rulings, but thrusting your fist in the air has done nothing at all to change the situation. Either you deal with your reality or you repeat the same thing that has withered away what you believe to be right over decades and decades. There is one reality that you deny consistently by implication. What. You. Say. We. Should. Do. Has. Not. Worked. For. Decades. And. Decades. It. Has. Allowed. The. Slow. Decay. Of. What. We. Think. Is. Right.

And there is one more fact. You have presented no plan whatsoever to change anything at all while I have. Your idea is to say, "Look! That's Wrong!"

Thanks, you've done it. Feel better now?

Non compliance is far more effective at bringing change.

Where has your non-compliance stopped this change? You are delusional. I didn't say comply, I said work within the reality. Present your ideas far better, or simply live on the fringe and be a spectator. That's what you are doing now.

But whatever we do we will have to keep pointing out that the rulings are wrong, which is what you are criticizing me for.

No, you said that they were not constitutional. The reality is that they are. The constitution was not written for Libertarians, for Liberals, or for Conservatives. All ideologies can use that document to work their "magic". Many things can happen within that framework, including treaties that are bad, yet they still have the force of law.

I argue the drug war on many fronts. But the biggest problem right now is the centralization of the issue and seperating it from the voters by placing the power in the hands of federal bureaurats. And now you would have it placed in the hands of international bureaurats. You can convince 75% of the population that the drug war is wrong. Nothing will change unless they are motivated to change it and even then it will be a battle to achieve through government channels alone.

When did I say that the International Bureaucrats should enter the nation and do something about it? This is another strawman.

Your monday morning activism and campaigning aside, libertarians have done far more than other groups on the drug war.

They have been totally ineffective, except when they have worked within the framework of human nature. Such as Medical MJ. The Ls haven't passed a single law on the subject, because they can't get elected.

You think putting your faith in the hands of government officials unchecked by a philsophy of individual rights is pragmatic and I am here to tell you, you are fucking wrong. Your vision is a pipe dream and you will be lucky to keep their boot off your throat much less further any rights.

No, I think pretending that your presentation is perfect is the problem, and that such ineptness does hurt the Libertarians and keep them form promoting their ideas is what is not pragmatic.

Denying reality, such as a ratified Treaty superseding State Legislation that is in violation of the Treaty, is unrealistic. It's like shouting that wars shouldn't begin without declaration. It doesn't stop anything, or get anything at all done, nor recognize the reality that the constitution has no requirement on HOW war is declared, only that Congress votes on it. It doesn't even talk about numbers to vote for it....

When you sound like Chicken Little, even when the message is important, nobody will listen. When you deny things that are inconvenient, such as Treaty Law, then you sound like that.

Argue the right and wrong, do it well, stay on message, but don't deny what the document states or you turn everybody off to the message and provide the wedge they use to block the sound.

 

[Damocles]

That's not happening. Though granted it is a dynamic that could occur. But on the hand, growth is of questionable value if you displace half of the population in the process.

There aren't even enough Mexicans to displace half the population. It is ridiculous. The reality is if you don't allow for that growth you create stagflation and the deflation that caused the Great Depression. If people can cross legally and cannot find jobs they can cross again legally.

You make laws on how they can work, etc. and enforce them. I said "far more open" legal immigration, I did not say free immigration.

 

[Kamala Trump]

There aren't even enough Mexicans to displace half the population. It is ridiculous. The reality is if you don't allow for that growth you create stagflation and the deflation that caused the Great Depression. If people can cross legally and cannot find jobs they can cross again legally.

You make laws on how they can work, etc. and enforce them. I said "far more open" legal immigration, I did not say free immigration.

Utter bullshit.


employer based enforcement? That's letting the fox watch the henhouse. Your lies fail.

The point IS to keep people out, regardless of if you said "far more open" or "free".

 

[Kamala Trump]

Palestinians do the jobs jews won't do! Israeli Nationalism is harming their gdp! LOL.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Destroying borders and immigration policy because it's profitable doesn't make it right. GDP is a spurious measure. Increased gdp means shit when you're a carpenter or construction worker who has seen his industry go completely to mexican laborers.

 

[Topspin]

Jesus Christ I never thought I'd see the day when office depot asshat nails something perfectly.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Lots of things could boost gdp. A more relaxed attitude on cigarettes for children might be beneficial for the bottom line. Let's do that. IF you're against cigarettes for children, you're an ignorant populist.

 

[Kamala Trump]

To sum up the thread, The UN is opposed to sovereignty.

 

[Damocles]

Utter bullshit.


employer based enforcement? That's letting the fox watch the henhouse. Your lies fail.

The point IS to keep people out, regardless of if you said "far more open" or "free".

No, you are being disingenuous. Employers wouldn't enforce the laws.

You dislike anything that doesn't just send them all back, but it would wreck our economy and send us into a spiral we'd only recover from when we again allowed for the growth. The reality is we have had nearly full employment with them here illegally, it wouldn't change with them here legally, they'd just get paid more because it wouldn't be under the table.

 

[Damocles]

Destroying borders and immigration policy because it's profitable doesn't make it right. GDP is a spurious measure. Increased gdp means shit when you're a carpenter or construction worker who has seen his industry go completely to mexican laborers.

Enforcing the border and only allowing entry in the front door is not "destroying" a border.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Enforcing the border and only allowing entry in the front door is not "destroying" a border.

That won't happen. Border state governors will "certify" that the border is secure. The Liar Stamp of Approval.

But the fence issue aside, enforcing the border but massively raising quotas is also a problem for me, regarding the wage depression issue.

 

[Damocles]

That won't happen. Border state governors will "certify" that the border is secure. The Liar Stamp of Approval.

But the fence issue aside, enforcing the border but massively raising quotas is also a problem for me, regarding the wage depression issue.

And again, this would be far less of an issue because the "under the table" payments would cease. Even brown people demand more money when they are legitimate.

If you do not allow for that growth, and attempt to limit it, people won't have jobs at all because of stupid economic policy. And yes, immigration effects macro economics.