I’ve never advocated for right to carry either I guess. LOL!
I’ve never advocated for right to carry either I guess. LOL!
Not true. You can’t re-write you posting history unless you have gone back to your previous messages and clicked on “the little pencil.”
At one point you gave me a long lecture about “Natural Law” and how all of the illegal immigrants have an unrestricted right to come and stay in The United States. Your definition of “Natural Law” supported unrestricted immigration and superseded all other laws including the immigration statures. That’s open borders, written in the confusing style of liberal college professor gobbley-gook. When I pointed out that “National Law” considered the rights of citizens to be protected from criminal activity, you blew me off as usual.
Somehow one of AS’s ridiculous statements got attributed to DN in your quote?
it doesn’t, if it did, the black market price wouldn’t have continued to drop for drugs.
Yet that didn’t happen, their trade increased. So we got the cons of the war on drugs, with no real benefit to show for it.
Equally, drug campaigns have no means to fight additive manufacturing, and “creative” chemical engineering that make new, grey-zoned drugs on the fly.
Yes it did; alcohol use among teenagers heightened, people were dying, and organized crime soared.
It. failed. Milton Friedman was quite vocal about this too.
Nope. I said this 4 years ago. My position is Bracero.
I argued with YOU on this DN. Telling me you forgot?
Watch the Grover Norquist video I posted, is he saying there should be no enforcement?
I’ve offered in full what my position is. Bracero. I’ve stated here time & again so much that you are all sick of hearing it.
What, did you think I didn’t mean it?
Here’s one for you to refute. Milton Friedman said that open borders combined with a welfare state are untenable. Do you care to address that issue or duck the question?
Milton Friedman said in the same speech that Illegal immigration was good, and was only good so long as it was illegal.
I understand his point, do you?
You missed his point. If they come here to live off system, whatever benefits come more people are negated. Do you get the point?
There is no way that the Democrats will let them come here and not get on the dole. That’s how the Democrats plan on getting their votes.
I think you just did.
Why is he calling illegal immigration “good”? He says this right out; because it’s immigration to jobs.
The form of the immigration closest to “Pre-1914 immigration” (His term).
This impulse is something he wanted protected, and he signed onto a immigration reform letter in the 90’s that called for a way to legally funnel more foreign workers to work in this country.
It’s about as “turnkey” as Friedman ever got on the question.
BTW, in case RET tries to accuse I made up that he spoke contrary on Prohibition:
You are dead wrong on prohibition, the police did increase enforcement of many alcohol related issues early like they always do when new laws are passed in order to set a new standard and show that they will enforce the law; that is why “teen drinking” offenses increased in the early days of prohibition.
By your ludicrous analysis I guess you think every October in California the citizens decide to stop using seatbelts since the tickets written for that offense go way up? Of course those without an agenda that is indefensible would simply conclude that October is “click it or ticket” month.
And Friedman was wrong about Prohibition, he suffered from the same fallacy as many; that you cannot oppose an encroachment of government without claiming it was failure.
I do not desire a return to Prohibition but I also do not need to ignore the fact that it worked regarding what it was intended to do; your point that 100 percent success is required to call any policy that you cannot argue against on its merits a good idea remains an intellectually vacant opinion.
The evidence says otherwise; drinking abuses increased, so did deaths due to alcohol.
So did corruption, so did organized crime.
After an initial jump, the cost of Alcohol was falling from 1921 onwards; evidence that the black market was steadily routing its way around enforcement. The same way other drugs would 50 years later.
Further, Friedman said this RET:
“Moreover, if even a small fraction of the money we now spend on trying to enforce drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and rehabilitation, in an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to the users could be dramatic.”
This prediction has shown to be true. Switzerland, Portugal, and certain cities in Canada have all embraced Harm Reduction, cutting their drug use rates in half.
The War on Drugs has never seen this happen. You’re more likely to beat an addiction, by never having contact with the legal justice system.
I imagine that you know that correlation doesn’t equal causation.
I notice that you conveniently omitted from my quote (I’ll boldface it):
Playing the intellectual shell game as usual, I see.
Oh I remember your opinion of Bracero quite well. You still haven’t changed my mind about it, I just don’t like to waste time with you on the subject.
I seem to recall you fully in support of opening the border also. It sure seems you’ve been leaning that way with your arguments lately, to be generous.
If he embraced that axiom he would have no argument left on any subject, it is literally the foundation of every fallacy that he holds dear.
He has berated us with the idea that “Natural Law” demands the United States tolerate no hindrances regarding our borders; that we are obligated to allow free passage in and out of the country for anyone who desires to cross.
He has been destroyed as a heretic on this view of “Natural Law” just like all of his Leftist agenda items but he has most definitely tried to sell the open borders garbage multiple times.
Nope; raising legal immigration. I asked this before, 4 years ago; does Switzerland have open borders? No?
Then sticking me with Open borders as my solution to our current problem doesn’t follow.
Watch Grover Norquist, I posted him here 4 and a half years ago, that same interview. Is he saying no to enforcement?
I may be responsible for why you misunderstood me, and for that I apologize. But open borders have never been my position.
I defend it historically, and talk or paraphrase Barry Goldwater predicting it as an end state with Mexico. Not as a turnkey solution.
He hasn’t. He doesn’t want to prevent very many people from coming here to work - but he wants them registered. In essence, AS wants MORE Mexicans/various 3rd worlders here - and he doesn’t want to keep any check on their numbers. However, he does want them to have a registration process. And he supports refusal of re-entry if serious felonies are committed. Thus while the end result is essentially identical to “open border” it is technically different.
These are fallout effects. The rate of alcohol production and consumption reduced drastically among normal people. The fact that alcoholism also increased isn’t surprising. The illegal nature of it draws the person into a different setting, and the risk necessarily increases import. “Just going to get a drink down at the saloon” becomes a much bigger deal when you’re risking arrest, fines, jail, and loss of reputation. Thus you become far more invested in it. It literally becomes part of your identity. Something that casual drinking would rarely do.
The black market effects are of course predictable.
I would also like to point out that most of the organized crime syndicates that grew up during prohibition were recent immigrants(1st-3rd gen).
Rates started falling during the WWI Era, and we can see by comparing it, after an initial drop consumption in 1921, consumption returned to Pre-Prohibition levels during Prohibition:
By the 1930s, we were already on track to return to 1915 levels, even before the law was repealed.
Europe ( Denmark, Ireland, and Great Britain) saw the same decrease in alcohol usage in the 1910s, and continued a stable decline into the 1920s. They didn’t have Prohibition.
That’s an odd way to present the evidence. Why 5 year blocks pre and 1 year post?
I see a nearly 50% reduction in consumption. In 1920-1930 compared to 1910
And as long as it was in effect, it seems to have been well below the average numbers
Look at that on either side.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose prohibition, but suggesting it had almost no impact on drinking beyond the first two years is a very silly one that is demonstrably false.