tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2625185956608884438..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: What about illegals?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6841213007170638432008-02-09T20:57:00.000-05:002008-02-09T20:57:00.000-05:00Game theory! you just gotta love it. it solves the...Game theory! you just gotta love it. it solves the problem here. U.S. social security demographic curve is problematic, after baby boom, therefore, exponential population growth from young, healthy hispanic youth,who have a very high fertility rate, will pull US out of its demographic disaster, (Europe is not so lucky, is in real bad trouble) so is eastern euro/former eastern bloc,allow guest workers with papers, utilizing the lorenz inverse demographic curve, the U/S. will do very well by obliquely "allowing" illegal immigration .and p.s it also allows us to be theological good guys!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3757671967228912232008-02-08T20:00:00.000-05:002008-02-08T20:00:00.000-05:00Alan,Tricky question. One difficulty is that our s...Alan,<BR/><BR/>Tricky question. One difficulty is that our social obligation sometimes tug in opposing directions. On the one hand, what is a dad suppose to do if a convicted child molester is slated to move into the house next door? He has a right to protect his kids. But he can’t keep them under house arrest. And he can’t escort them wherever they go. So we might contend that he has the right to protect his kids by burning down the house.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, arson investigators would naturally ask who had the most to gain by this action. And suspicion would naturally fall on the next-door neighbors as persons of interest.<BR/><BR/>If he were caught and convicted, then he couldn’t provide for his family. So his action would endanger the very rationale he had for contemplating such an action. Is it worth the risk?<BR/><BR/>But what if he could do this with impunity? Tempting question. <BR/><BR/>I would add, though, that this is not as much of a moral dilemma as it appears to be. We do live in a democracy. It’s possible for the electorate to demand stiffer penalties. But the electorate is too passive to demand that lawmakers fix the situation. So you get what you vote for. <BR/><BR/>Speaking for myself, if I were a juror in this case, I’d acquit the defendant.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27246707687266993632008-02-08T13:51:00.000-05:002008-02-08T13:51:00.000-05:00Rhology asked:---Would it be morally defensible to...Rhology asked:<BR/>---<BR/>Would it be morally defensible to DO the burning?<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>No. The only way this would be ethically permissible is if the state imposed it as a punishment for the child molester. An individual behaving in this manner is usurping the proper governmental authority, and thus it is no different from any other criminal. (Indeed, simply because a victim is also a criminal does not mean the crime against him is justified.)<BR/><BR/>In this case, I agree with Steve that the laws about child molesters are woefully unjust. However, it is still the responsibility of the state (and not individuals) to meet out justice. The only way such an action could be morally justified is if, in the process of protecting one's life or property, one engaged in this behavior. Even then, the ethical standard is that you are only justified in using the minimum necessary force to stop someone from committing a crime against you. It is difficult to see how intentionally burning someone's house down would qualify as morally justified here, even if emotionally satisfactory.<BR/><BR/>Again, the state is assigned the role of doling out punishment, and that includes depriving a person of his property. While it is sometimes morally justified to usurp the state's authority, it will always remain incumbant upon the one who breaks the law to demonstrate his just reasons for doing so. The presumption must be that his breaking of the law is evil; the burden of proof is not on the law to justify that it applied in this particular case.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49830627988920642202008-02-08T12:21:00.000-05:002008-02-08T12:21:00.000-05:00I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posting. What y...I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posting. What you write about responsible workers being taxed to pay for the lifestyles of the irresponsible - that is classic.<BR/><BR/>I want to add something to your dialog about illegals. Europe has a problem with illegal immigration. For decades Europe - especially France and Germany - have welcomed immigrants. Most of these immigrants are Muslims or poor Africans. What have European countries gotten for their trouble? Contempt. So many of these immigrants - and many of them were legal - are multigenerational welfare rotters. Some of them have become part of the terrorist problem facing the West. They won't integrate into society; they just take and take. <BR/><BR/>Whenever there is a class of people that thinks they are owed something, the rest of us end up with a problem. In Europe so many of the children of these immigrants feel they deserve a scooter, cell phone, apartment, and job just for having been born. In the US many lament that illegals are coming here "just to get a job." Well, jobs and opportunities are precious things. We are right to enforce immigration laws.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71830291810397779212008-02-08T10:51:00.000-05:002008-02-08T10:51:00.000-05:00"However, the Canadian border does pose a threat t..."However, the Canadian border does pose a threat to our national security—as well as Canada’s national security. Because Canada has such a lenient policy on immigrants, refugees, and citizens of the UK, it’s a haven for jihadis."<BR/><BR/>Whoa, whoa, slow down there. This may be true enough, but you forgot our primary countermeasure to prevent terrorists from getting a foothold in our nation. Even if they do get into the country, the Canadian government will tax them to death. They will die a slow death at the hands of Revenue Canada. Muahahaha!<BR/><BR/>Btw, the human rights commissions are ridiculous. They invert a basic principle of justice, assuming that the one who is charged is guilty, and the onus is on the charged to clear themselves. They shouldn't be confused with our normal courts -- and from what I've seen, as the article you provided illustrates, groups go to human rights commissions to BYPASS the normal judicial system. Remember, if its a human rights violation, and you speak against it, well, then you are an evil bigot who doesn't like the taste of our wonderful omnitolerant multi-cultural soup (note that Canadian omnitolerance is of course intolerant towards what it thinks is intolerance). You go to the human rights commissions to get some Salem-style justice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77044530348801008422008-02-08T09:59:00.000-05:002008-02-08T09:59:00.000-05:00Comment about the arson on the child-molester's ho...Comment about the arson on the child-molester's house - interesting.<BR/><BR/>Would it be morally defensible to DO the burning?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.com