We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
"I have spent much of my life among the poor or relatively poor. I can honestly say that it never occurred to me for a single moment that any one of them was not a true human being. Indeed, if they were not true human beings, their poverty would be nothing to worry about. I neither romanticized them as the fount of all goodness and wisdom nor saw them as mere objects."
... government is inherently corrupt. There is no way around it. That's just one of the reasons (although perhaps the most important one) why we are complete fools to entrust to the government more and more power to redistribute the wealth of society, supposedly to create more fairness and justice in the world. What this process actually creates is more corruption. And does this process create more fairness? If it did, why does Manhattan -- the jurisdiction with the highest taxes and the most extensive suite of progressive welfare and redistributive government programs in the whole country -- have the highest income inequality?
Well, that last question is not entirely fair to NYC. It takes a while for all of the new immigrants to get with the program but they get more help than NY immigrants of the past. The help probably slows them down. Plus NYC has large dysfunctional, dependent "inner city" "communities" which nobody knows what to do about except to give them stuff and get their votes.
The American colonies were doing well economically and the taxes and levies the King wished to impose were minor. Despite this economic realty, the colonies revolted anyway. It was early proof that homo economicus has always been nonsense. Humans as not rational and narrowly self-interested agents. Humans, individually and collectively, are biological.
When the Brits went to the polls and decided to leave Europe, they did not do so with economics in mind. That was part of it, but patriotism, identity, class and other non-economic factors were at the front of their mind. The winners were not waving the Union Jack because it happen to be handy. The Brexit forces were not talking about sovereignty and self-government by accident. Libertarians are so blinkered they could not comprehend what was so blazingly obvious. They remain convinced that humans are just moist robots.
Today’s open-borders agenda has its roots not only in economic factors—the need for low-wage workers who will do the work that native-born Americans or Europeans supposedly will not—but also in several decades of intellectual ferment, in which Western academics have created a trendy field of “borders discourse.” What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs, methods of marginalization designed by those in power, mostly to stigmatize and oppress the “other”—usually the poorer and less Western—who arbitrarily ended up on the wrong side of the divide. “Where borders are drawn, power is exercised,” as one European scholar put it. This view assumes that where borders are not drawn, power is not exercised—as if a million Middle Eastern immigrants pouring into Germany do not wield considerable power by their sheer numbers and adroit manipulation of Western notions of victimization and grievance politics. Indeed, Western leftists seek political empowerment by encouraging the arrival of millions of impoverished migrants.
The open borders cabal consists of those mind numbed liberals who believe their own propaganda and the many who want to loot the rich West and to reduce their power to resist eventual domination. Nothing more, nothing less.
Funny about the 'justify' article about Trump. Every day I find more and more reasons that cement my support for Trump. A few as of late:
1) His tax plan. Best one out there. Gives the most $$ back to Americans, which is how it should be. Helps small businesses like crazy.
2) The way Paul Ryan and other 'never trump' types treat him - STILL - even after he is the official nominee. Disgusting that these losers are more interested in their own butts and the monetary rewards they will glean from special interests and wealthy billionaires than the people they supposedly represent. Hoping Ryan loses his primary today. PLEASE!!!
3) The way the press had ramped up the absolute hate they have for Trump. They aren't even trying to be objective anymore. Have you looked at USA Today lately? I mean, my Lord, 5 or 6 anti-Trump stories per day...and/or tons of positive coverage for Hillary. And that's just ONE news organization. The NYT came out and SAID they felt it was their duty to 'stop Trump.' Since when does the press have a 'duty' to any candidate? Don't they have a 'duty' to report the news without bias???
And my final statement: SUPREME COURT. Please show up to vote in November for Trump. Thank you.