ldrews

Enjoy! A list of the accomplishments of President Trump after the first 500 days in office. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/here-it-is-complete-list-of-president-trumps-historic-accomplishments-after-first-500-days-in-office/

And yet unemployment is at record lows, wages are rising, GDP is projected to be above 4%, North Korea is negotiating. Somebody must be doing something right.

You have got to be kidding! Trump has several balls in the air at the same time and doesn't even look like is he breaking a sweat. Give me a break! Now Clapper and Brennan, on the other hand, are looking very nervous.

I hope so. The world is relying on Kim being smart enough to make a good deal.

Just all part of the negotiation dance. Wait and see what happens. It is a pleasure to see a master negotiator at work.

Changes in the makeup or number of judges has occurred only a couple of times in US history. Are you waiting for such an event?

Can you provide a link to such observations? Or do you know of a counter-study that you can reference?

Well, I would prepare myself for a long wait. With Trump likely to appoint one or more additional Supreme Court Justices, and with the appointment of a slew of Circuit and Appeal Court justices, all of whom have lifetime appointments, I suspect the tenor of the interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are going to become even more conservative/textual. It seems to me the practical matter is that the legality of the right to bear arms is not going to change much. So I suggest we start looking for another type of solution. Assuming of course that you would like to see the problem solved in our lifetime. Of course one may continue to shout out against guns and gun ownership while people continue to be killed. That is a choice one has to make. Ideology or practicality. For example, it has been observed that almost all of the mass shootings have occurred in "gun-free" sites. Perhaps that approach isn't working.

Sounds like you are not interested in saving the most lives, but rather reducing or eliminating your fears. Eliminating ownership of weapons is, practically speaking, impossible. In the US you would have to amend the Constitution; good luck with that. And since 3D printers can manufacture a working gun quickly, you would have to impose draconian controls on the use of 3D printers, machine shops, etc. Even if you did that, a black market would arise to provide weapons to those willing to pay for them. You would quickly arrive at the situation where the only people having guns are those intent on doing harm. The targets would be helpless. Then there is the problem of national defense. Many of the soldiers arrive already knowing how to use weapons because of their ready availability in their homes, particularly rural or inner cities. As China has observed: invading the US is pointless because there is a gun behind every blade of grass. But why stop with guns and their derivatives. In London the ban has been extended to knives. Disregard the fact that knives are extremely useful tools. Boy Scout training even included the proper use of knives. And since terrorists are starting to use cars and trucks as killing instruments, one can make the argument that they should be banned as well. Then you would have to fear no more, right?

Or, we could ban all instruments that could result in the deaths of people. How about that?

I think you are on to something. Treat guns like autos. If you are over 16, have not committed a felony with a gun, can pass a basic competency test in gun use, then you will be entitled to carry a gun on public streets. We can require 70 year olds to retake the competency test.

I would not think so.

I fail to see how, if I put a gun to your head, we would have anything resembling a "free market".

Except that you ignore the use of force by one of the corporations to seize the other. In a world of angels no laws are needed. In a world of humans they are required. "Free markets" exist only as long as everyone behaves. Unfortunately that seems to be the exception.

It seems to me that one of the differences in the conversations stems from whether you believe the world is a collection of friendly family members or a collection of competing nations. Those are not mutually exclusive but do give rise to different premises. I hold to the latter view. From the view of competing nations, it is important to be able to effectively compete, economically and militarily. The steel and aluminum industries are considered essential to the ability to compete militarily and so must be supported/protected/encouraged via tariffs. So "national security" is not just a "pretext", it is primary factor.

Don't know why you think I am a late arrival; I have been a limited government libertarian for 50 years.

Don't know that it would, but it removes the distortions and complications of tariffs. Do you think it would not result in stabilizing that zero deficit. If so, why?

Trump's stated intent is to create "reciprocal" trade agreements, i.e., ideally no tariffs on either side. But until that can be achieved, the US can use tariffs to equalize the trade deficits. And businesses will be paying lobbyists billions regardless of what is done. They always try to be on the right side of legislation. We have the best government that money can buy!.

North Korea coming to the negotiating table, NATO nations starting to actually meet their obligations, multinational companies and money flowing back into the US, China helping with the North Korea situation. And since, as you say, nobody knows, why assume the negative?

As long as your aggregrate trade deficit is >0 you are in good shape. The US aggregate trade deficit is not in good shape. You example reminds me of the person who has one hand in boiling water and the other hand in ice cold water. On the average he is comfortable.

If the desire to live in a society where coercion is minimized is an "inane utopian vision", then yes, I am guilty. Apparently you do not subscribe to such a vision. However, that is irrelevant to the discussion. I thought we were discussing how to recognize what is a government. In Mexico in some regions it is the cartels. The Federales are nowhere to be seen, except for special missions. And existing as a sovereign nation is not the same thing as having a government. The cartels are not recognized as an official government, yet they control significant portions of the country. In those portions of the country the local politicians pay more attention to the cartels than the Federales. To me that is the practical definition of government.

As Trump has pointed out, when you are running a $500 billion/year trade deficit it hard to lose a trade war. And so far Trump's negotiation approach seems to be producing results. And all that minimum wage does is to drive out less qualified workers. It the product or service cannot sustain a higher wage, then the company simply cannot pay the higher wage, or else they go bankrupt. Then no one has a job.

Well, yes, changing to a skills/merit based immigration system will reduce the availability of cheap labor. Wages will rise until someone is willing to take the job. So we will exchange cheap tomatoes for livable wages. Seems like a bargain to me. Right now the US runs significant trading deficits with major trading partners. This is unsustainable in the long run. The new tariffs are an attempt to force renegotiation of those trade agreements, and to eliminate the back-door dumping of, in particular, Chinese production. In addition, the US needs certain basic industries to be viable from a security standpoint. If the cost of products and services rises by 20% while wages and prosperity increase proportionally or more, then all is good. This is the target of the new policies as I understand them.

I live in Mexico. A good portion of the country is controlled/run by cartels, not the official government of Mexico. So then the question is, in those parts of the country, who is the real government? From a functional point of view it must be the cartels. They are the ones who have the force to impose their views. Do the people have any say? Only by tacit consent. Many people see government as a good thing. I see it as a necessary evil. Without some form of "government" we would live in anarchy and be unable to live peacefully with each other. But sometimes the cure is worse than the disease (See Venezuela, Pol Pot, Nazi Germany, etc.). So you may be able to get prescription drugs at a reasonable price, but at what cost overall?

Governments exist because one or more people have more power/weapons/malice than others and seek to impose their will on those others. It is the "laws" of that small group that the rest of the society is "coerced" into obeying. It has only been recently in human history that the people have been consulted about those "laws", and not in every society. So I do agree with you, governments exist to coerce individuals into obeying the laws of society. But this avoids the question of the morality or appropriateness of those laws. It just indicates that some group that calls itself the "government" has the ability to use force on the rest of society.