14 ms·

It's hearing things like this that make me regret having supported Luckey on his Kickstarter. I had followed him for a few years on the MTBS3D forum when he was

by cr0sh 7y ago

It's hearing things like this that make me regret having supported Luckey on his Kickstarter. I had followed him for a few years on the MTBS3D forum when he was experimenting with various HMD prototypes (usually modding the heck out of the Forte VFX-1). He just seemed like a kid with a dream, and the will and ability to make it happen - and potentially revive VR for "Round 2". I suppose he did do that, and while I didn't like the "sell-out" to FB and Zuck - I couldn't blame him, either. Then it seemed like things went downhill from there. I don't have any problem with someone being a republican or a conservative, but I can't and couldn't understand why someone would support a person like our current POTUS. To me, it would be similar to continue to voice support for Manson while saying "well, it isn't like he killed anybody himself, so it's ok" - umm, no - it's not ok. ...and now this. I sometimes wonder if we humans will ever get over this artificial border fetish we have. I don't have problems with property rights, to a certain level, but I'm not sure it has really worked well at the large scale level. All it has seemed to do is create some level of tension at best, and outright violence at worst. I am not certain that we as a species can continue on this path for much longer, not without some very terrible things occuring. So - while I would prefer a "monitored solution" to border control over physical imposing measures, my real preference would be for us to all work toward eliminating these national-level borders completely. Instead, it seems like we're going the opposite direction, even online, and erecting virtual barriers to separate us from each other, instead of working to understand each other and work together on solving our world problems.

luckylion 7y ago
> I sometimes wonder if we humans will ever get over this artificial border fetish we have. Sounds like you believe that humans are the only animals that get territorial.
- rmilejczz 7y ago
  Do you strive to be more animalistic? That doesn’t seem like a very noble pursuit for a human being
  - luckylion 7y ago
    My point is: if it's a natural phenomenon, it obviously isn't artificial. Animals do it, it wasn't invented by humans for some arbitrary reason. Pretending that it was leads to confused thinking.
_iyig 7y ago
>So - while I would prefer a "monitored solution" to border control over physical imposing measures, my real preference would be for us to all work toward eliminating these national-level borders completely. You sound like someone with the ability to live anywhere, who consequently has little stake in their current "somewhere." Lots of Americans (and people in other countries) don't have this flexibility. They are directly and inescapably effected by the de facto U.S. open border policy for low-skilled workers. For example: I have family in New England who ran an all-organic dairy farm. They had to shut down a few years ago, in part because they couldn't compete with the farms who paid undocumented workers under the table. At the same time, their rural community has been decimated by the opioid crisis. Most fentanyl in the U.S. comes in via the unsecured border with Mexico [0]. We've seen what happens when other countries adopt wholesale open borders policies. In Germany, the 2015 migrant crisis nearly brought the far-right "Alternativ für Deutschland" into power. That crisis only abated once the Balkan states took it upon themselves to secure the E.U.'s southern border. Finally, I also think it's likely that any compromise to solve the border crises will involve additional border security measure. We've come close enough before to know what such a bill might look like - remember when George W. Bush strongly supported the DREAM Act, amnesty, and a path to citizenship? [1]. Why not develop the necessary technology now? [0] https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-drugs-20190706-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-d... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Refo...
- akhilcacharya 7y ago
  > who consequently has little stake in their current "somewhere." As first generation American this is dangerously misguided and follows the debunked lump of labor fallacy. It reminds me of the "rootless cosmopolitan" slur.
  - _iyig 7y ago
    >It reminds me of the "rootless cosmopolitan" slur You have no idea how offensive and ridiculous that statement is to me. It’s the reality that if you earn more than a certain amount of money, and posses an advanced degree plus a certain amount of capital, your relocation options are vastly greater than someone with fewer credentials, less capital, and a smaller salary.
mc32 7y ago
It becomes a bit of a tragedy of the commons. People elect awful governments who promise paradise and country’s economy craters resulting in mass exodus (Venezuela). Why should Colombians or Chileans (or Americans) shoulder their poor choices of government and civil society? If some country wants to grow unsustainably and follow unhealthy land use habits and then have problems, why should others shoulder that (outside of unforeseen natural) disasters?
- jetrink 7y ago
  By that logic, should we not confine the residents of West Virginia to their home state as its coal-based economy collapses? Or should we allow them to move to other parts of the country to seek jobs so that they can lead happier, more productive lives?
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    No, we should try and fix the area and make it better. Throwing your arms up and saying "fuck it, we're leaving" is understandable on an individual level, but on a societal level the effects are devastating.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Fortunately, for West Virginia, they joined the union and as such we help each other out since they are under federal regulation and are taxed at the federal level.
    - yazaddaruvala 7y ago
      Would you be for Mexico joining the union?
      - mc32 7y ago
        If we let New Mexico in, why not? Obviously it would require harmonization in many regards, just as we’d require from Canada. Obviously it would have to go through whatever formal process they have in addition to our own process —which typically involves becoming a territory, etc. I don’t think I’d want to go beyond North America as then it would gather enough momentum to enable a one world government. I don’t think we need that. Nations should be free to follow self determination. A one world gov would not allow that. Now, Greenland, being a small pop., would be much easier to incorporate into the Union than a Canada or a Mexico.
hos234 7y ago
Everybody is a speech maker these days. It's basically a Trump tactic that everyone is blindly reusing. Which is why Trump will probably win the next election. Cause if the game is all about pandering, naming/shaming, blaming, guilt tripping and triggering people he is better that anyone else. Change the rules of the game please. Don't play the game he wants you to play.
lacker 7y ago
I don't have any problem with someone being a republican or a conservative, but I can't and couldn't understand why someone would support a person like our current POTUS. 88% of Republicans think that Trump has done a good job as president, so if you think supporting Trump is not okay, then you basically do have a problem with someone being a Republican. https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ra... 40% of the country is Trump supporters, so we shouldn't be surprised when one unicorn founder is a Trump supporter.
- cmorgan31 7y ago
  > 40% of the country is Trump supporters Why muddy things? His approval rating isn’t analogous to 40% of our population’s support. It’s the support of individuals who bothered to spend time entertaining the poll. He has a very consistent approval rating with his base but you sound like the PR announcement after one of his rallies with inflated attendance counts.
  - lacker 7y ago
    Polls are usually pretty good at correcting for response rates. Claiming he has a 40% approval rating is hardly the sort of statistic that would be at a rally!
deltron3030 7y ago
>I had followed him for a few years on the MTBS3D forum when he was experimenting with various HMD prototypes (usually modding the heck out of the Forte VFX-1). He just seemed like a kid with a dream, and the will and ability to make it happen - and potentially revive VR for "Round 2". He already worked in the military before the Kickstarter, I've seen posts on MTBS about his experimental VR stuff at Lockheed. He was 17 or 18 back then, most likely got the miltitary connection from a familiy member or somebody close. If you're young like he was your political views are mostly shaped by the people who surround you. From interviews it's known that he was homeschooled and didn't have many friends, so most likely no punk rockers, hip hoppers, skaters or other street dudes who could influence his views in other directions.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
stale2002 7y ago
> my real preference would be for us to all work toward eliminating these national-level borders completely I mean, ok, that means that you literally support open borders. It is fine for you to think that, but you should realize that the vast majority of the population does not support it. So it is not just "republicans or conservatives" that oppose open borders. It is instead basically everyone. This company is not deporting anyone. It is just putting cameras at the border.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  I think you might be surprised how many people support open borders.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    Oh, there might be quite a few in terms of absolute numbers, but as a percentage of the population they are most definitely in the minority. See this Harvard poll from last year: https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/news/caps-harris-poll-immigration-and-foreign-policy https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/news/caps-harris-poll-immigrati... Not only do the majority of Americans not want open borders, they want less immigration than is currently occurring.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      Oh, clearly they are in the minority but I was responding to a claim that indicates they are negligible it non-existent. I would argue that many people oppose open borders in practice but not in theory. There are good practical reasons why open borders are a bad fit for many situations. That does not mean that those situations can't be changed to make that no longer true.
      - lliamander 7y ago
        > Oh, clearly they are in the minority but I was responding to a claim that indicates they are negligible it non-existent. That's fair. I didn't necessarily read it that way, but I think we're more or less on the same page. > I would argue that many people oppose open borders in practice but not in theory. I'm not sure that we will see a practical set of circumstances where people would actually be OK with open borders. People have always had some reflex against migration (for cultural reasons, as well as perhaps an instinct fear of disease) and mass migration has historically almost always led to violence. On top of that, most developed countries have an established welfare state. Any sort of communal system needs a way to ensure that the contributions to the pooled resources is greater than the demand on those resources. If you don't have immigration control then you get a "tragedy of the commons".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
patthebunny 7y ago
They support the current president because they are republican or conservative. This is entirely consistent. Pretending otherwise is just that, pretending.
kikokikokiko 7y ago
Is everyone in silicon valley a flaaaaaming, communist level liberal? At least Hacker news is frightening so, and I believe a lot of commenters here live in California and work on the industry. I mean, I live in Brazil and it shocks me to see that the mighty US, the bastion of freedom and capitalism, can harbour such idiotic ideas.
prepend 7y ago
I applaud your honesty in expressing a desire for open borders. I think culture would benefit from more open and honest discussions on this topic as all the double speak makes it frustrating and boring to discuss, normally. I’m not really very interested in borders one way or the other but national borders certainly aren’t “artificial.” There are certainly some artificial aspects (lines of longtitude, etc) but borders are also created by geography and culture and saying that culture is artificial is odd to me. There are distinct peoples with different values. We also have lots in common as humans, but the border of France and Germany, for example, is very real and those countries have different cultures. I think the EU is a good example of improved relations between countries but it’s certainly fine and not some sort of mental disorder to think that Switzerland and Italy are different and it’s fine that they are different. If nations want to have distinct boundaries and populations then there should be an avenue to respect human rights and not resort to racism and undue nationalism. It’s also a good time to point out that immigration has been essential for major countries and is a very powerful positive force.
- zerr 7y ago
  The thing is, everyone should have a right to change countries/cultures as they want - it shouldn't be determined by the birth lottery.
  - neetdeth 7y ago
    The "birth lottery" is a metaphysical construct. There is no such lottery, in which souls are assigned at random to bodies. Each human being is a rooted thing with a multigenerational history which is (in the typical case) deliberately created. Some stochastic variability is at work in this process, but it is by no means random. Every nation must have the right to choose the people it wishes to assimilate and those it doesn't. I should not be allowed to go kicking in doors and demanding acceptance. This is the fundamental basis of sovereignty. The only exception is that a nation must accept those born to its own members, as stateless persons create a potential burden to others.
    - zerr 7y ago
ekianjo 7y ago
Eliminating borders is a recipe for disaster. You can't expect your country to remain the same if you let millions or dozens of millions of people freely coming in from different cultures and backgrounds. Immigration is all about "how much is still OK to let in (trade-off between risks and benefits)", and once you say "whoever wants to enter", it's hard to take this kind of opinion seriously.
- ndarwincorn 7y ago
  > it's hard to take this kind of opinion seriously The economic argument for free migration is identical to the one for free trade[1]. Do you find it hard to take free trade advocates seriously? [1]https://contexts.org/articles/the-economics-of-migration/ https://contexts.org/articles/the-economics-of-migration/
  - Strom 7y ago
    If free trade ends up being bad for a country, it's much easier to change that compared to deporting some insane amount of people. Especially when the migrant home country can't even be determined. Having a constant flow of immigrants is fine, however I think it's important to monitor how it affects the vitals of the country and not crash its welfare system etc.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    The risks of immigration (of any sort) include: - spread of disease - erosion of social trust due to conflicting cultures - erosion of other social capital if immigrant culture has a higher time preference than native culture - identity politics (people vote along ethnic rather than ideological lines) Now, there are certainly benefits to immigration as well, but they must be put in balance. I agree that trade and immigration have many parallels, but there is still a difference between an economic transaction at arms-distance vs. inviting someone into your home.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Is this like when the British settlers deliberately used smallpox-infected blankets to give diseases to the native Americans? Trying to associate immigration with disease is some vile rhetoric.
dannylandau 7y ago
You have short shrifted and belittled his views on this issue. Suggest you listen to this podcast where he expounds on his views, which are thoughtful and deep -- https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/turner-podcast-network/the-human-code-with-laurie-segall/e/58088888 https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/turner-podcast-network/the-...
golemiprague 7y ago
If you don't want America to have borders just run on this ticket and convince the majority of the population to vote for you and change the laws. People still want borders for their country and there is no reason not to use the most effective technology to enforce border control. You just want a dictatorship where things are decided by you against the will of the people. I don't like taxes but it doesn't mean that I will object the tax office to have the best software to do their job as defined by law.
megla_ 7y ago
> Umm, yeah sweetie :) your political opinion is shit and you're a mongoloid. We need to unpack your rage and intolerance.
oh_sigh 7y ago
Is it possible for a government to provide a high level of services to it's citizens while having no border?

by cr0sh 7y ago

luckylion 7y ago

> I sometimes wonder if we humans will ever get over this artificial border fetish we have. Sounds like you believe that humans are the only animals that get territorial.

rmilejczz 7y ago
Do you strive to be more animalistic? That doesn’t seem like a very noble pursuit for a human being
- luckylion 7y ago
  My point is: if it's a natural phenomenon, it obviously isn't artificial. Animals do it, it wasn't invented by humans for some arbitrary reason. Pretending that it was leads to confused thinking.

_iyig 7y ago

>So - while I would prefer a "monitored solution" to border control over physical imposing measures, my real preference would be for us to all work toward eliminating these national-level borders completely. You sound like someone with the ability to live anywhere, who consequently has little stake in their current "somewhere." Lots of Americans (and people in other countries) don't have this flexibility. They are directly and inescapably effected by the de facto U.S. open border policy for low-skilled workers. For example: I have family in New England who ran an all-organic dairy farm. They had to shut down a few years ago, in part because they couldn't compete with the farms who paid undocumented workers under the table. At the same time, their rural community has been decimated by the opioid crisis. Most fentanyl in the U.S. comes in via the unsecured border with Mexico [0]. We've seen what happens when other countries adopt wholesale open borders policies. In Germany, the 2015 migrant crisis nearly brought the far-right "Alternativ für Deutschland" into power. That crisis only abated once the Balkan states took it upon themselves to secure the E.U.'s southern border. Finally, I also think it's likely that any compromise to solve the border crises will involve additional border security measure. We've come close enough before to know what such a bill might look like - remember when George W. Bush strongly supported the DREAM Act, amnesty, and a path to citizenship? [1]. Why not develop the necessary technology now? [0] https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-drugs-20190706-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-d... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Refo...

akhilcacharya 7y ago
> who consequently has little stake in their current "somewhere." As first generation American this is dangerously misguided and follows the debunked lump of labor fallacy. It reminds me of the "rootless cosmopolitan" slur.
- _iyig 7y ago
  >It reminds me of the "rootless cosmopolitan" slur You have no idea how offensive and ridiculous that statement is to me. It’s the reality that if you earn more than a certain amount of money, and posses an advanced degree plus a certain amount of capital, your relocation options are vastly greater than someone with fewer credentials, less capital, and a smaller salary.

mc32 7y ago

It becomes a bit of a tragedy of the commons. People elect awful governments who promise paradise and country’s economy craters resulting in mass exodus (Venezuela). Why should Colombians or Chileans (or Americans) shoulder their poor choices of government and civil society? If some country wants to grow unsustainably and follow unhealthy land use habits and then have problems, why should others shoulder that (outside of unforeseen natural) disasters?

jetrink 7y ago
By that logic, should we not confine the residents of West Virginia to their home state as its coal-based economy collapses? Or should we allow them to move to other parts of the country to seek jobs so that they can lead happier, more productive lives?
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  No, we should try and fix the area and make it better. Throwing your arms up and saying "fuck it, we're leaving" is understandable on an individual level, but on a societal level the effects are devastating.
- mc32 7y ago
  Fortunately, for West Virginia, they joined the union and as such we help each other out since they are under federal regulation and are taxed at the federal level.
  - yazaddaruvala 7y ago
    Would you be for Mexico joining the union?
    - mc32 7y ago
      If we let New Mexico in, why not? Obviously it would require harmonization in many regards, just as we’d require from Canada. Obviously it would have to go through whatever formal process they have in addition to our own process —which typically involves becoming a territory, etc. I don’t think I’d want to go beyond North America as then it would gather enough momentum to enable a one world government. I don’t think we need that. Nations should be free to follow self determination. A one world gov would not allow that. Now, Greenland, being a small pop., would be much easier to incorporate into the Union than a Canada or a Mexico.

hos234 7y ago

Everybody is a speech maker these days. It's basically a Trump tactic that everyone is blindly reusing. Which is why Trump will probably win the next election. Cause if the game is all about pandering, naming/shaming, blaming, guilt tripping and triggering people he is better that anyone else. Change the rules of the game please. Don't play the game he wants you to play.

lacker 7y ago

I don't have any problem with someone being a republican or a conservative, but I can't and couldn't understand why someone would support a person like our current POTUS. 88% of Republicans think that Trump has done a good job as president, so if you think supporting Trump is not okay, then you basically do have a problem with someone being a Republican. https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ra... 40% of the country is Trump supporters, so we shouldn't be surprised when one unicorn founder is a Trump supporter.

cmorgan31 7y ago
> 40% of the country is Trump supporters Why muddy things? His approval rating isn’t analogous to 40% of our population’s support. It’s the support of individuals who bothered to spend time entertaining the poll. He has a very consistent approval rating with his base but you sound like the PR announcement after one of his rallies with inflated attendance counts.
- lacker 7y ago
  Polls are usually pretty good at correcting for response rates. Claiming he has a 40% approval rating is hardly the sort of statistic that would be at a rally!

deltron3030 7y ago

>I had followed him for a few years on the MTBS3D forum when he was experimenting with various HMD prototypes (usually modding the heck out of the Forte VFX-1). He just seemed like a kid with a dream, and the will and ability to make it happen - and potentially revive VR for "Round 2". He already worked in the military before the Kickstarter, I've seen posts on MTBS about his experimental VR stuff at Lockheed. He was 17 or 18 back then, most likely got the miltitary connection from a familiy member or somebody close. If you're young like he was your political views are mostly shaped by the people who surround you. From interviews it's known that he was homeschooled and didn't have many friends, so most likely no punk rockers, hip hoppers, skaters or other street dudes who could influence his views in other directions.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

stale2002 7y ago

> my real preference would be for us to all work toward eliminating these national-level borders completely I mean, ok, that means that you literally support open borders. It is fine for you to think that, but you should realize that the vast majority of the population does not support it. So it is not just "republicans or conservatives" that oppose open borders. It is instead basically everyone. This company is not deporting anyone. It is just putting cameras at the border.

shkkmo 7y ago
I think you might be surprised how many people support open borders.
- lliamander 7y ago
  Oh, there might be quite a few in terms of absolute numbers, but as a percentage of the population they are most definitely in the minority. See this Harvard poll from last year: https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/news/caps-harris-poll-immigration-and-foreign-policy https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/news/caps-harris-poll-immigrati... Not only do the majority of Americans not want open borders, they want less immigration than is currently occurring.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    Oh, clearly they are in the minority but I was responding to a claim that indicates they are negligible it non-existent. I would argue that many people oppose open borders in practice but not in theory. There are good practical reasons why open borders are a bad fit for many situations. That does not mean that those situations can't be changed to make that no longer true.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      > Oh, clearly they are in the minority but I was responding to a claim that indicates they are negligible it non-existent. That's fair. I didn't necessarily read it that way, but I think we're more or less on the same page. > I would argue that many people oppose open borders in practice but not in theory. I'm not sure that we will see a practical set of circumstances where people would actually be OK with open borders. People have always had some reflex against migration (for cultural reasons, as well as perhaps an instinct fear of disease) and mass migration has historically almost always led to violence. On top of that, most developed countries have an established welfare state. Any sort of communal system needs a way to ensure that the contributions to the pooled resources is greater than the demand on those resources. If you don't have immigration control then you get a "tragedy of the commons".

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

patthebunny 7y ago

They support the current president because they are republican or conservative. This is entirely consistent. Pretending otherwise is just that, pretending.

kikokikokiko 7y ago

Is everyone in silicon valley a flaaaaaming, communist level liberal? At least Hacker news is frightening so, and I believe a lot of commenters here live in California and work on the industry. I mean, I live in Brazil and it shocks me to see that the mighty US, the bastion of freedom and capitalism, can harbour such idiotic ideas.

prepend 7y ago

I applaud your honesty in expressing a desire for open borders. I think culture would benefit from more open and honest discussions on this topic as all the double speak makes it frustrating and boring to discuss, normally. I’m not really very interested in borders one way or the other but national borders certainly aren’t “artificial.” There are certainly some artificial aspects (lines of longtitude, etc) but borders are also created by geography and culture and saying that culture is artificial is odd to me. There are distinct peoples with different values. We also have lots in common as humans, but the border of France and Germany, for example, is very real and those countries have different cultures. I think the EU is a good example of improved relations between countries but it’s certainly fine and not some sort of mental disorder to think that Switzerland and Italy are different and it’s fine that they are different. If nations want to have distinct boundaries and populations then there should be an avenue to respect human rights and not resort to racism and undue nationalism. It’s also a good time to point out that immigration has been essential for major countries and is a very powerful positive force.

zerr 7y ago
The thing is, everyone should have a right to change countries/cultures as they want - it shouldn't be determined by the birth lottery.
- neetdeth 7y ago
  The "birth lottery" is a metaphysical construct. There is no such lottery, in which souls are assigned at random to bodies. Each human being is a rooted thing with a multigenerational history which is (in the typical case) deliberately created. Some stochastic variability is at work in this process, but it is by no means random. Every nation must have the right to choose the people it wishes to assimilate and those it doesn't. I should not be allowed to go kicking in doors and demanding acceptance. This is the fundamental basis of sovereignty. The only exception is that a nation must accept those born to its own members, as stateless persons create a potential burden to others.
  - zerr 7y ago

ekianjo 7y ago

Eliminating borders is a recipe for disaster. You can't expect your country to remain the same if you let millions or dozens of millions of people freely coming in from different cultures and backgrounds. Immigration is all about "how much is still OK to let in (trade-off between risks and benefits)", and once you say "whoever wants to enter", it's hard to take this kind of opinion seriously.

ndarwincorn 7y ago
> it's hard to take this kind of opinion seriously The economic argument for free migration is identical to the one for free trade[1]. Do you find it hard to take free trade advocates seriously? [1]https://contexts.org/articles/the-economics-of-migration/ https://contexts.org/articles/the-economics-of-migration/
- Strom 7y ago
  If free trade ends up being bad for a country, it's much easier to change that compared to deporting some insane amount of people. Especially when the migrant home country can't even be determined. Having a constant flow of immigrants is fine, however I think it's important to monitor how it affects the vitals of the country and not crash its welfare system etc.
- lliamander 7y ago
  The risks of immigration (of any sort) include: - spread of disease - erosion of social trust due to conflicting cultures - erosion of other social capital if immigrant culture has a higher time preference than native culture - identity politics (people vote along ethnic rather than ideological lines) Now, there are certainly benefits to immigration as well, but they must be put in balance. I agree that trade and immigration have many parallels, but there is still a difference between an economic transaction at arms-distance vs. inviting someone into your home.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Is this like when the British settlers deliberately used smallpox-infected blankets to give diseases to the native Americans? Trying to associate immigration with disease is some vile rhetoric.

dannylandau 7y ago

You have short shrifted and belittled his views on this issue. Suggest you listen to this podcast where he expounds on his views, which are thoughtful and deep -- https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/turner-podcast-network/the-human-code-with-laurie-segall/e/58088888 https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/turner-podcast-network/the-...

golemiprague 7y ago

If you don't want America to have borders just run on this ticket and convince the majority of the population to vote for you and change the laws. People still want borders for their country and there is no reason not to use the most effective technology to enforce border control. You just want a dictatorship where things are decided by you against the will of the people. I don't like taxes but it doesn't mean that I will object the tax office to have the best software to do their job as defined by law.

megla_ 7y ago

> Umm, yeah sweetie :) your political opinion is shit and you're a mongoloid. We need to unpack your rage and intolerance.

oh_sigh 7y ago

Is it possible for a government to provide a high level of services to it's citizens while having no border?