Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Free-market supporters should agree with open borders as a political aspiration. Distorting the free mobility of labour across national borders causes economic inefficiencies. By eliminating this source of market distortion, open borders would reduce international wage differentials and improve the economic efficiency of national and global economies.
None other than Ronald Reagan suggested during the 1980 U.S. presidential primary debate to "open the border both ways" between the U.S. and Mexico so that workers can enter the U.S. and pay taxes there.
For the record, I would disagree with President Reagan.

Huh? A borderless country is an oxymoron.

Reagan never advocated removing border controls. I believe in free flow of labor and goods. But not free flow of citizenship. You can have free flow of labor and border controls at the same time. But voter ID is required for that to happen.

[john61ct]

I am a strong advocate of open borders, the whole concept of nationality is suspect, and that of "race" even more so.

We are a stronger nation as a result of our diversity, 99% of us being invaders, occupiers, colonists & finally immigrants.

Being "white" has always been a moving definition, and hopefully the whole concept will go away sooner rather than later.

Same as being a "nativist" (ha!), but I suspect that will take a bit longer.

And yes, of course criminals should be able to vote, continuing to disenfranchise them after their release is downright shameful. Almost all aspects of our law enforcement and "justice" (ha!) apparatus is directly descendant from ex-slavery Jim Crow repression, and is still used towards the same ends.

But it really is capitalism au fond behind the worst injustices of our systems, and Democrats are just as complicit, maybe worse for their "centrist" hypocrisy in supporting corporate and 1% hegemony over all our power structures for the past 3-4 decades.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’m not as keenly focused on USA politics as others are (for good reason — it ain’t my country ), but I haven’t heard the Democrats advocate for the elimination of border controls. I’ve heard policy suggestions that discuss different controls, but I don’t recall anyone calling for the elimination of them.

Exactly right to your final point, so here’s my challenge to you. You claim the purpose of enhanced ID requirements is to instil confidence and security. From the perspective of those who believe what this really will do is disenfranchise more people and prevent them from voting, this action shakes their confidence and makes the whole system seem less secure. Now, you can either dismiss this concern out of hand, or you can try and look at it from their perspective.

On the ID demand side there are some examples of fraud, so it’s not zero. But on the disenfranchisement side there is a history of these kinds of laws and actions doing just what these people fear.

From what I can see, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. So once this issue gets wrapped up with group identity, it becomes impossible to solve rationally.

Many prominent democrats only 10-20 years ago were recorded in public advocating for stronger border enforcement because they felt lax borders hurt the average worker (a former constituent group). As soon as they figured out lax border enforcement helped their poll numbers they flip-flopped. And some went so far as to apologize for their earlier “uncaring position”.

It is illegal in the US to deny any non-felon citizen the right to vote. There are stiff penalties for doing that. It’s nonsense to suggest requiring the same identification for air travel as voting disenfranchises anyone. That too is a straw man argument. There is no recent history of any laws designed to disenfranchise any voter. That such claims are made does not make them true.

Both sides are not wrong on this issue. If the current lax voter fraud enforcement continues all sides will engage in more and more cheating. For example, this past US election there was well publicized voter fraud on the conservative side. It is amazing that liberals aren’t screaming their heads off about it. They can’t because they don’t believe voter fraud enforcement improves their poll numbers.and they are right. Those polls include many non-citizens who wish to vote.

Ironically, many liberals claim some kind of voter fraud got the current president elected. They don’t know how it happened but they are sure that it did. I would submit the real cause of their defeat was because they abandoned regular working people’s issues in favor of non-citizens and tiny fringe minorities. There is no other plausible explanation for losing in rust belt states.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Many prominent democrats only 10-20 years ago were recorded in public advocating for stronger border enforcement because they felt lax borders hurt the average worker (a former constituent group). As soon as they figured out lax border enforcement helped their poll numbers they flip-flopped. And some went so far as to apologize for their earlier “uncaring position”.

It is illegal in the US to deny any non-felon citizen the right to vote. There are stiff penalties for doing that. It’s nonsense to suggest requiring the same identification for air travel as voting disenfranchises anyone. That too is a straw man argument. There is no recent history of any laws designed to disenfranchise any voter. That such claims are made does not make them true.

Both sides are not wrong on this issue. If the current lax voter fraud enforcement continues all sides will engage in more and more cheating. For example, this past US election there was well publicized voter fraud on the conservative side. It is amazing that liberals aren’t screaming their heads off about it. They can’t because they don’t believe voter fraud enforcement improves their poll numbers.and they are right. Those polls include many non-citizens who wish to vote.

Ironically, many liberals claim some kind of voter fraud got the current president elected. They don’t know how it happened but they are sure that it did. I would submit the real cause of their defeat was because they abandoned regular working people’s issues in favor of non-citizens and tiny fringe minorities. There is no other plausible explanation for losing in rust belt states.

So, I guess you fail my challenge… you can’t put yourself in the other person’s shoes.

The Kahan paper really worth a read here. Or even consider the title of this thread .

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So, I guess you fail my challenge… you can’t put yourself in the other person’s shoes.



The Kahan paper really worth a read here. Or even consider the title of this thread .

Sometimes the only winning move is to not play the game.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’m not as keenly focused on USA politics as others are (for good reason — it ain’t my country ), but I haven’t heard the Democrats advocate for the elimination of border controls. I’ve heard policy suggestions that discuss different controls, but I don’t recall anyone calling for the elimination of them.

WOW, You really DO live under a rock. The democrats have been hollering about it for over a year.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’m not as keenly focused on USA politics as others are (for good reason — it ain’t my country ), but I haven’t heard the Democrats advocate for the elimination of border controls. I’ve heard policy suggestions that discuss different controls, but I don’t recall anyone calling for the elimination of them.

That's the democrats response to the wall------open borders.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Sometimes the only winning move is to not play the game.

It wasn’t a trap, or an effort to “win.” It was an attempt to try and explore the actual topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

That's the democrats response to the wall------open borders.

Quote me where this is stated as official Democrat policy. I’ve heard a lot of Republican speakers make this accusation, and I’ve also heard a lot of Democrat speakers state clearly that this is not what they are calling for.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It wasn’t a trap, or an effort to “win.” It was an attempt to try and explore the actual topic of this thread.



Quote me where this is stated as official Democrat policy. I’ve heard a lot of Republican speakers make this accusation, and I’ve also heard a lot of Democrat speakers state clearly that this is not what they are calling for.

I don't think we're likely to see either party make it "official," but it's no secret that some Republicans don't want more serious enforcement because of a desire for cheap labor, and some Democrats don't want more serious enforcement because they want the votes. Even the stalwart Democrat Chris Matthews admitted it.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...s_face_it.html

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't think we're likely to see either party make it "official," but it's no secret that some Republicans don't want more serious enforcement because of a desire for cheap labor, and some Democrats don't want more serious enforcement because they want the votes. Even the stalwart Democrat Chris Matthews admitted it.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...s_face_it.html

I don't think MSNBC's Chris Matthews sets immigration policy in the Democratic policy, or is actually privy to it. Just a hunch.


The real value of the "illegal" immigration issue has been its effectiveness as a wedge. It's a group long exploited by Americans and their businesses, and they are defenseless scapegoats for other economic problems - the different-looking "others" who can't fight back when they are vilified for votes in this current resurgence of populism. It's happening all over, not just the US.

[weavis]

Ok... now has moved firmly into politics.

We dont do that.... this is a cruising forum....