ty6853

"we should try to make conditions better for everyone such that fewer people are poor" and similar arguments is how the government scams you and everyone else into their racket. You always had the option to give to the poor, you didn't need a mob going in your pockets to do that.

"But muh roads and hospitals and police." Lol, that is covered by the ~0.5% of my salary I pay in property taxes and a little extra in use taxes and county and state sales tax. The federal portion, what do I get? Massive subsidies for people who stick their boot down my throat, military provocations that make us all far less safer, the worlds largest prison population (and near the top per capita). None of it makes sense -- the stuff that matters was achieved with the feds spending 2% of the gdp (and I might add, pretty much open immigration).

"Helping the poor" is one of the worst mistakes the USA ever undertook.

We escaped them because the tenth amendment and judiciary constrained federal powers in non war time to activity summing up to like 2% of the GDP and they needed an amendment to do anything outside of a little box. POTUS was fairly low stakes office in peace time, lower stakes to most than their governor and state legislators.

We tossed that all aside in the 1930s via threatening to pack the Supreme court. Federal powers are now everything because interstate commerce is now everything and without a functional 10A and with delegation to executive agencies POTUS approaches God level.

Miller is an excellent, quick witted entertainment and speech writer in his own way. What's astonishing is using what is essentially an entertainer for high level strategy.

It verifies the legal status of the documents submitted. Does little beyond encouraging identity theft of USCs that end up with unexpected tax liabilities.

I've never been in the military but I was in a civil war. Let me explain what a few days holed up does to a bunch of young dudes with automatic weapons: it makes them eager for an exciting break from the monotony.

The real danger of Kent State is it teaches in for a penny, in for a pound.

Lol at Katrina the police and guard were going door to door confiscating arms of occupied homes in blatant violation of the second amendment. There is a video if a guardsman bragging about something to the effect 'hoping he doesn't have to smoke someone coming around a corner."

As it turns out when you send a force trained only to kill and subjugate, that's what they do. A few guardsman stood down but most did not.

Fun fact, most every adult male citizen under the age of 45 is militia by statute.

I don't understand. Was the coast guard deployed? When national guard is nationalized (as is the case here when the state is bypassed), they become part of the army or air force.

If Newsom had deployed them instead of Trump, then your statement would be accurate.

Or they are insured, including against loss revenue. If your insurance payout included estimated revenue assuming there weren't riots, then it should be a net positive to operate and just let them burn until they hit their payout cap and then recall them.

The libertarian party is the only prominent party I can think of that employs anything close to that as a platform.

You're thinking of classical liberalism, which is something the dominating political factions are highly against. The contemporary meaning of conservatism has been hijacked by the Republican party which does not employ any of those goals.

Yes exactly. For example about half my family is naturalized and the other half are jus soli citizens.

The naturalized half, most of who don't have degrees and often tell me tales of their coworkers getting deported, are fiercely pro Trump's immigration policies.

The employers cast votes, illegals do not, seems like an easy calculus. Arrest the illegals to win the immigrant vote.

Rationally someone on HN is not going to want to understand this because it is not in their interest to understand it, because they benefit from illegal immigrants more than they don't.

And that's why they simply flagged my very valid point, no matter that it is well into the + and follows HN rules.

We're constantly pitted against one another. Ammon Bundy used actual armed militias to check the power of unelected bureaucrats who were constantly changing up the regulations against ranchers, and it actually worked.

Anytime something actually works, the first thing the establishment does is tell you they are on the right, or the left, or they're your enemy. No matter that Bundy actually was on the side of immigrants rights, and stood against Trump, nah all the people that have employed effective strategies are right wing or left wing loons who should be discarded.

The establishment has us all divided. The true enemy of the people is the unelected bureaucrats that snatch people off the street and impose ever changing demands with the power of law, all while bypassing constitutional rights.

Unfortunately this divide and conquer strategy is highly effective. Most 'sides' seem to think their guy will do better the next time and they are just protesting until the power can be used appropriately. The problem is that anybody's guy had the ability to do so in the first place.

People will pay whatever is necessary for water or a bite to eat as well, yet we don't see that phenomenon.

The federalists also intentionally slowed and interfered with the mail of anti-federalists to get an upper hand, at a time when it was crucial for their organization.

Ultimately, the federalists won. The last kiss of death was circa 1930s, when you see that before you needed constitutional amendments to regulate child labor (never passed) or to federally regulate intrastate alcohol (passed), after that they just totally dispensed with any of the constitutional provisions made to the anti-federalists and just rammed it all down our throats under the guise of interstate commerce.

This is why the civil rights act in the 19th century was found unconstitutional, but the mid 20th century version with many of the same provisions magically was. Or why they needed an amendment to ban alcohol, but magically did not need an amendment to pass the controlled substance act.

The bill of rights was grudgingly accepted by the federalists.

It makes more sense to view the intent of the bill of rights from the lenses of the anti-federalists that actually founded them rather than the founders in general.

You're essentially appealing to the natural right to self defense. I'll grant you the constitution isn't a suicide pact -- if people are in imminent danger of death or disability then they or anyone else has a natural right to swiftly and severely deal with the transgressor. Any society that doesn't will perish, this supersedes all laws written by man.

However, after that happens there will be judgement. And the judgement is finding that quite often these renditions without process were not so justified. If you are going to act without process, you damn well better be right, and if you are not you should be judged as if you acted violently lawlessly.

It's even more expensive when the government regulates it to hell and back, intertwines itself with insurance industry, and has an incestuous relationship with the AMA resulting in massively fewer number of doctors than would like to go through the education. And then those same doctors, who are usually on the same professional board as say PAs, use their leverage as a hammer against other high level practitioners to ensure they don't lose a handle on their racket.

The 10th amendment constrains federal powers to enumerated powers when acting within the states.

This act passed because in the seas the federal government was not so constrained (yes hospitals and offices are on land but the loophole is they are only requiring them once you go out to sea).

Congress in 1798 would have never went along with such actions on the inland populace, except perhaps in the territories.

There is a constitutional way to remove people, and an unconstitutional way. When the unconstitutional way is intentionally chosen, the agency doing it is an enemy of the USA and we don't have due process to ensure individual rights are protected.

The 'entire point' of the thing of the government is to protect the rights of individuals in our borders, and all else falls downstream from that.

As for secession, I agree the states should have that right, however the civil war and subsequent litigation established that states have no right to secession.

Or just more accessible, so the average person can get a piece of the benefits that cartels and megacorp executives already get.

These national guard are sworn to protect against foreign and domestic enemies. ICE and CBP have continually conspired to violate the constitution of the united states, and the orders of the courts. Therefore the action the officers and guard must take is to arrest ICE and let the prosecutor charge them with depravation of rights under color of law.

I don't know of anyone or any form of relativism that thinks dominating a monopoly game is relatively 'the same' as a round to the head, and it's hilarious seeing the 'yass queen' response sister comment had to that absurdity.

Interestingly, when the quote 'democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others' comes up this sham form of relativism you present vanishes from comments. And that is because democracy objectively is severely flawed, and only justified because it produces relatively better outcomes than many of the other systems that it replaced.

No you just assumed I did because there is a certain element of self-aggrandizing 'anti-racists' that have groomed themelves to believe anytime someone brings up the IQ test score gap based on skin color, that it's being used to present there is an intelligence difference. I wholly reject making that assertion, but anti-racist zealots lock on and have nothing of subsistence to offer beyond their pre-canned 'IQ is not intelligence' speech to the point they have deluded themselves into arguing it against people not even making the claim.

It's a nice attempt at smug moral superiority, but a total straw man attack. And that's why nowhere has anyone been able to quote me as saying IQ score indicates intelligence, so like you they just smugly and ignorantly declare I have out of pure ether.

You're mixing causation and correlation. Those with genotypes that produce black skin score lower on IQ tests on average but I never claimed the gene caused it and even disclaimed it above:

>> nor does it mean the gene itself causes that

So re:

>No, they don't.

Yes, they do, but you just jumped the gun straight to your strawman because you thought you were saying 'no' to something I didn't even say, maybe because of some political motive.

It isn't unscientific to hypothesize that if you give people a certain set of bunk questions that based on some arbitrary scoring system that the differences will appear correlated to genotype, and then test it and find out genotype results in some weak correlation of the results. In my case, the bunk questions I am referring to are those in one or two tests commonly referred to as 'IQ tests.' It might not be scientific to decide it measures intelligence, but it is scientific to test and observe the difference.

What you're attempting to do here is debase your argument to semantics, by excluding what you don't like out of science, which is quite typical on HN when you have nada for an argument. I simply unequivocally reject this sort of 'heads I win, tails you lose' redefinition of science.

You're arguing against a straw man here. No one here is arguing a higher IQ test score means a person or population is more intelligent.

Giving a nonsense test to people and recording a correlation between the nonsense score and genotype is science, even if the questions are bunk. Never once have I claimed that the actual test results mean anything in particular -- just that the measured score is lower on average in those with genes that express as black skin which is a scientific observation.