If there was credibility for a Jewish ethnostate 70 years ago due to the Holocaust and global antisemitism, how do we get to say things are better now and take the country back. Especially with all the other ethnostates in the world.

Obviously there is a problem because the region had changed hands over the past 1-2000 years and had other ethnic groups when the country was established by the Allies. The idea of having taken the land from Germany instead of the area around l Jerusalem sounds like poetic justice, but ignores that they have a historic homeland. Anyone would want their historic homeland with their historic religious sites back over somewhere else.

It seems like Jews are treated as second class when it comes to that. Talk of giving Mt Rushmore back is because it was that tribes sacred religious site, and no one would be happy giving them another mountain in another state.

You indicated that anyone that is Zionist and anyone who has served in the IDF should be deported to wherever they came from or wherever their father’s family line last held citizenship. With the IDF being mandatory service, that is basically the majority of able bodied people.

You also said the same should happen with the US and Canada, which are over 200 years old, so I am not sure why Australia gets a pass. Better optics on treatment of aboriginals than first nations and native Americans?

Actual justice to you is deporting all people without sufficient/correct bloodline from Israel to Europe, and the Americas back to Europe, Africa, and Asia, to return those lands to their “correct” ethno states? I assume you would include Australia and New Zealand, and Africa as well. Very “sins of the father to the third and fourth generations”.

It seems that you are arguing that only the Jewish people who stayed or managed to return to the region prior to the 18 or 1900s count as “real” Jews, and those that came after the foundation of Israel are Europeans faking being Jews for the purpose of colonizing the middle east?

Ah, so as long as you push a people/culture out of a region long enough, they no longer count as having been there. Or are you saying that the Jewish people interbred with Europeans too much after the Roman diaspora and thus Jews are no longer of middle eastern descent? Is there an argument that the Jews originated in Europe or elsewhere and not from the region surrounding Jerusalem?

I am ignoring the entire subject of the state of Israel, I’m just trying to understand the logic on the Jewish people and culture not being “already there” in the region.

Have you seen children? Empathy is one of the last things to develop. There is a specific purity of cruelty attributed to children for a reason.

Civilization is conditioned into humans as a general rule, not the other way around, and needs consistent reinforcement. Humans are eusocial, but like chimpanzees and ants where war with other “tribes” is closer to a baseline than cooperation.

It only needs to be solved if the country is going to survive, so if that doesn’t matter then it doesn’t. There will be knock on results from that, because countries usually fall a grade or two when they fail, and with decreased affluence the number of children will increase again.

The reality is that if you do not have at least a replacement rate, retirement and social safety nets will fail as they become overwhelmed which leads to social unrest and upheaval. Immigration can help, but this comes with its own trade-offs. 8 billion people is also nowhere near an overstressor for the planet if fossil fuels and pollutants can be curbed, and even dropping the numbers of humans substantially will not help with unfettered greed continues to drive dirty industrialization

You are correct, as quality of life increases overall fertility rates decrease. That does need to be solved, and immigration is part of that solution. Unlimited/unregulated immigration is not.

Difficulty with legal immigration is generally the case for almost every first world country, the US is not abnormal or exclusive there. I do not meet qualifications to immigrate to Canada, or anywhere in Europe right now even as a tech sector worker, except possibly by having family history through my ancestors. I am not arguing that US immigration policy needs a lot of work, but it’s not fair how much the US gets singled out for it as if it’s the outlier here.

The invisible hand of the market is not all powerful, which is why regulation and safeguards are needed for a “free” market to function. Anti-monopoly laws, labor laws, etc. I lean libertarian, but do not embrace 100% laissez-faire economics. Immigration falls under this same framework.

The West has eliminated their manufacturing and blue collar base by outsourcing it overseas, which hurt large swaths of the working class. Outsourcing labor by importing labor from overseas to do the job cheaper here has similar results. See the agricultural sector in the US for this example. Everyone always says that the reason immigrants are needed is because Americans don’t want to do those jobs, but leave out “for the wages paid”.

Some regulation is needed, and we have had wholesale failure of meaningful regulation and complete regulatory capture by the oligarchy which started under Reagan and snowballed out of control since. Proper support networks and social safety nets have also failed, for the same reasons. Unrestricted immigration does not solve these issues, and with these holes in place does indeed hurt.

Things that aren’t a problem when everything is healthy and working as intended can definitely hurt when things aren’t healthy. Obviously the “health issues” need to be addressed to actually fix the problem, but ignoring symptoms while doing so doesn’t help.

https://www.theonion.com/gays-too-precious-to-risk-in-combat-says-general-1819594658

You are correct, everyone is a villain at that point. The problem with that, as horrible this is, is it incentivizes the action. For the same reason countries don’t negotiate with terrorists. If you prove that committing terrorist acts, or taking hostages, or using children as human shields works, you positively reinforce those acts. Its fucked up beyond belief, and all alternatives need to be exhausted, but at some level someone takes the responsibility for where the lines are drawn for the least damage in the long run.

Is it actually preferable to just give money to anyone who hijacks a bus load of people, or a plane, or a bank, etc, so that no hostages are possibly injured when that happens? It might be, and could be argued for. Is such acts becoming more frequent or commonplace because it works an acceptable price weight against innocent human life? Again, it very well might be. It’s only money. I am glad I am not the one making those decisions, but we can’t pretend that the calculus doesn’t happen and/or doesn’t matter.

America is a power bottom, and proud of it.

Damn, only three drinks to slurred? Dad’s a cheap date.

I haven’t argued anything before that post, but this conversation about the semantics of the word organization means is interesting to me. To answer your question, I’d say Yes? Deadheads were a group of people associating with each other under common interest and intent. They didn’t particularly have leaders or any hierarchical structure, but they gathered in locations of common interest (concert venues and the surrounding local) based solely on individual discussion and desire, participated in the event alongside and with the group, and almost everyone participating identified as a deadhead. I really don’t understand the problem with them falling under the edge of the umbrella of the term organization.

They were an organization when viewed as an association or society: in this case a voluntary association of individuals for common ends. Deadheads were a distinct subculture in and of themselves, and I don’t understand in what universe that wouldn’t qualify. Keeping with the musician fandom, I’d say the same for the Juggalo’s. Being on the outer edge of the Venn diagram is still part of the whole picture.

Organizations do not necessarily require structure, association is a synonym for a reason. Decentralized organizations and associations are a thing. Decentralized workers solidarity movements and co-op/community strengthening initiatives can be/are “organizing” even if no one is in charge. You don’t need to be a member of a union or an official neighborhood association to be part of an organization, there just needs to be general or vague common intention among a group and something of a shared identity. You might not get as much done a fast when not structurally organized, but you also don’t not exist if your not a card carrying member. I don’t understand the desire to divorce Antifa from being an organization or even existing. It’s like saying that the Deadheads aren’t a real thing because no one was directing the vast majority of fans who packed up and followed the band across the country.

If years of trolley problems have taught me anything, it’s that you can still kill all the pedestrians you want with your train as long as you make the right choices.

Your absolutely right. Trump gets a pretty failing grade on 2A rights and from a general libertarian measure, and shouldn’t even be run on republican tickets. As someone who wants more Democrat aligned things like universal healthcare, UBI, police reform, and tax reform, I want those things from a libertarian framestate where those things are the most effective way for the federal government to provide for the common good with the least amount of bureaucracy and government intrusion into citizen’s lives. This means I hold all of my constitutional rights in high regard, the 2nd among them.

I hate having my options being a “choose which rights you least want to lose” adventure game. Since taking the guns is a Democrat plank compared to at least lip service in support at the Republican party level, you get shills like Trump getting the pro gun vote cause he was quiet about it for long enough. Living in the flyovers, I have been voting for my not-anto-gun Democrat at the state level, but I wish i had those options at the House/Senate and Presidental levels too because without RCV my third party votes are basically protest votes. Further off topic, I am getting feed up with more and more libertarian candidates not being libertarian but Christian nationalist lite. The cancer is spreading.

I want limited government focused only on common defense, common good, and keeping the markets free. I feel this is best accomplished through a simple and loophole free tax codes that ensures the wealthy pay their fair share and that all wealth levels are engaged with skin in the game. I believe that this should include a land tax, and that a consumption/sales tax works better than income or wealth tax. These taxes should fund a UBI for all and centralized healthcare, replacing the bureaucratic tangle of our various social safety nets and welfare programs. All monopolies, duopolies, and oligarchies need to be crushed to keep markets free, because the invisible hand needs a paired visible hand to prevent regulatory capture by capital. Drugs should be decriminalized, 2nd amendment rights should be respected, reproductive control should be respected, the government has no business in who married who, religion should be kept to one’s self, and environmental regulation should just ensure clean water, clean air, and long term watershed protection. The market should drive pretty much everything else, with the understanding that unlimited growth is as bullshit as assuming a frictionless sphere in physics. All of these “socialist” programs actually result in functional limited government and maximum individual freedom. It’s not a communist utopia, but I consider it functional Utilitarian Georgist Libertarianism.

First, your username finally clicked and I feel slow for missing it for so long. I actually love it.

Nextly, to also be fair, the existence of a difference between private and personal property isn’t widely known, and China’s implementations of these concepts are even less well known unless someone has been more than toes deep into communist/socialist discussion. Even a lot of “communist” posters don’t have a good grasp on it and can’t really articulate the original intent behind “abolish private property”.

I would like to point out that there are currently enough homes in the US for everyone, and far more vacant homes than our entire homeless population right now. We have major density problems and collusery artificial scarcity that has long crossed over into being illegal and immoral, so we need to be building homes on the scale we did in the post war period. Houses should be much further down the commodity end of the commodity/investment scale, but until we reach a true post scarcity environment (Star Trek levels of post scarcity), I don’t foresee full decommoditization of housing working sustainably.

Lastly, while the communist state really isn’t coming for your toothbrush, obstensively communist countries have overshot going after the landlords and replaced most residential personal property with government landlords. Soviet khrushchevka blocks are a trope for a reason, even if overused.

And thank you for the actual engagement and conversation on this, I appreciate your insights.

Not to be pedantic, but you did write just the broader enforcement of property rights and not private property rights, and I approached it from that broader perspective. Under your clarification, your house does not cease to be your personal property when you leave it for work, but only if the government uses their monopoly of violence to enforce it. And yes, it was a stretch of rhetoric, but not made dishonestly.

The concern is that under this ideal scenario, what happens if you leave you house for a longer term? How does this take temporary moving into account? Examples: I get temporarily transferred for a year to a new city by my job and I fully intend to return to my home after this assignment. Rental homes/apartments aren’t a thing, so I must either buy a dwelling there for a year, or stay in a hotel for a year. If I buy a dwelling, I now own two properties as long as I can afford to pay both mortgages. More likely, I am forced to sell my long term home because I cannot rent it out for that year I am gone. If I do keep it, can I own two separate pieces of personal property or does one become private property because it is not in habitation? I have deprived someone of buying one of them by owning both, and ownership of empty dwellings is usually complained about just as much as renting them. Will my personal property rights be enforced on my vacant home for that year? Should the government allow someone to move in and use my house for that year without my permission or compensation, and only resume enforcing my rights when I move back in? Am I forced to sell and hope that I can rebuy my home when I return? A similar dwelling in an adjacent area may not factor against the sentimental value of a family or generational home. Are any of these parts different if I become temporarily disabled and move in to another person’s home for care. What about a year in the hospital or rehabilitation facility? I don’t think any of these concerns are all that absurd, even if they would affect a small percentage of the population.

You were also seemingly arguing that allowing non-residential private property rights would/should still be enforced so that the capitalist class gets to keep commercial property, unless you are classifying personal, private, and capital property as three distinct categories. Since generally the argument is that private residential property is being used as a rung of capital, I was viewing these as similar enough to be lumped together. It does seem that maybe you were hinting at this being a first step, keep the capital class from revolting while we take out the rentier class, and then move on the remaining private property in swallowable chunks as power is consolidated, which is another reason to view it at a somewhat extreme angle.