Bonam

Seems to me like America clearly needs low skilled immigrant labor for a variety of jobs, but has no viable legal mechanism for said immigrants to enter. Existing employer-sponsored methods of immigrating to America for work take up to years of processing and tens of thousands of dollars in application and legal fees and is only suitable for highly skilled professionals sponsored by major corporations. A fast-track system for low skilled labor should be implemented so people can apply and be approved within < 1 month at a cost of no more than a few hundred dollars total. This should not require employer sponsorship but should come with the requirement that the person finds employment and housing within 1 month of entering the country, and is required to leave otherwise. Temporary workers should have to get their stay extended every 2-3 years. After 5 years of continuous work in the US, they should be allowed to apply for a green card. The number of entry visas allowed under this scheme should be carefully controlled to match the demand for low skilled workers but not to flood the market and depress wages. During times of recession, the allowed number would likely fall to zero, while during times of prosperity it may be up to a few hundred thousand per year. For those already in America illegally, they should simply have to follow the same system as above, and they should be assessed a significant but not crushing one time monetary penalty in exchange for forgiveness of their prior illegal entry. At the same time as the above changes, significantly increase the enforcement against any future illegal immigration (since people will now be able to legally immigrate for legitimate purposes). Companies hiring illegal workers must be penalized very harshly so as to destroy the job market and thus the incentive for illegal immigration.

Yes, free trade IS good for everyone. But the US is pulling out of free trade deals and slapping on tariffs left and right. Restricted trade forces smaller nations to be more reliant upon large neighbors like Russia and China. The US is undermining its international position and playing into the hands of its rivals. Many of these allies don't seem particularly re-assured, in case you haven't noticed.

It's all irrelevant. Whether one's ancestor was British, Irish, Russian, or Chinese, whether one's ancestor was a colonist or a refugee, bears no relevance to the moral worth, responsibilities, or obligations of the current generation. People are people. They are individuals. And they (obviously) had no influence on events that happened before their lifetime and thus bear no responsibility for them. Period. Any ideology that seeks to fault people for the sins of their ancestors is inherently flawed.

No, it's very possible to discuss and criticize language without impugning motives. But when the motives are so damn obvious, why bother?

It's true that the cold war ended 27 years ago, but America benefited from being the center of a worldwide "rules based order" and being the "economic hegemon". America certainly has no obligation to fulfill this role, but abdicating on this role so long as it is still capable of fulfilling it is not likely to be in America's benefit. While the costs of maintaining the necessary military and diplomatic institutions are certainly high, the benefits are even higher. But perhaps America is just tired and wants to fade quietly (well, loudly with Trump at the head) into the background, like Europe did after the world wars. The interesting thing is that Europe got tired after millions of dead, cities destroyed, empires shattered... but America basically just got tired because it dropped from being unquestionably the best at everything to maybe having some rivals in certain things. Manufacturing can now maybe be done comparably well and slightly cheaper elsewhere. End of the world! The whining over trade deficits is particularly pathetic... stop whining and start building more things that other people want to buy! America today is like a player giving up at monopoly because it's used to having every property set and every hotel, but a rival finally managed to build their first house.

Sounds like a dumb term to me. Just more meaningless SJ mumbo-jumbo to try to make white people feel bad about themselves. See the definition below, doesn't sound like it's applicable to anyone living in populated areas of Canada today. Maybe people moving to the Yukon/NW territories/Nunavut?

Fortunately not the case if you take a real subject rather than liberal fluff. Good thing in math and science is there really are right and wrong answers, and you can always look at your tests and assignments and see how they were graded.

Personally I think this is a good idea. Canada, the US, and many European countries are drunk on deficit spending. Need to put an end to it.

I dunno, some public servants might be farsighted enough (especially if they are not near the end of their career) to realize that some modest cuts now to keep budget deficits from exploding is a better option than waiting for government finances to melt down in 10 years and having much more serious cuts happen then. For younger employees, cuts in a bloated organization can mean faster advancement to a higher position, which otherwise would be occupied by an overabundance of more senior employees coasting along for decades. Also, cuts can often be beneficial for people nearing retirement, as one way to cut your work force without firing anyone (which is always politically difficult) is to offer early retirement or buyouts to employees. I'm sure you're right that most public servants would vote for someone other than conservatives but there is likely a sizable minority that sees potential benefits or opportunities in a government that promises modest cuts.

Here in Seattle, businesses supported a proposed carbon tax, but the left shot it down because it didn't sufficiently redistribute money to social justice causes for their tastes. I think this narrative will repeat itself, as environmentalist organizations become co-opted by social justice people, who don't give a damn about the environment except for "environmental justice" which just means making sure white people suffer as much as others might.

Selling one another drugs doesn't generate wealth.

Social justice ideology destroys all it touches. In time, the world will learn. Until then, much will continue to be sacrificed on the altar of social justice. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, the rights of individuals, the presumption of innocence, science, reason, democracy, prosperity... all will be sacrificed to feed the beast. But as with fascism and communism, one day this new scourge too will be put to rest. GHG emissions will be solved through innovation in technologies like energy storage, electric transport, and solar energy naturally out-competing their predecessors. That is, if tech companies can get there before social justice people burn it all down because they don't like "tech bros".

Strange to focus on the technical details of scanning cards and facial recognition when your topic is "should we legalize all drugs". Seems like it could be assumed that the technical details of any solution could be worked out appropriately, and the thing to discuss is rather, whether more good or harm would be done by legalizing all drugs. Personally, I think that drugs that have a sufficiently high chance of doing serious harm even in "controlled" use should not be legal. Unless you want to legalize suicide without any restrictions, you pretty much have to draw the line at one drug or another. Further, it's strange to have a society that bans all kinds of useful products with a very slight chance to do harm, but legalizes the most harmful products imaginable.

Exactly! Canada has oil too, and yet has failed to manage the money for the benefit of Canada and Canadians in the way that Norway has. Sure you can blame Alberta's conservative governments, but Norway did things on a federal level and so too could have Canada. No party in Canada is a particularly prudent manager of the public purse. So why trust them with significantly more money? In Norway, prudent management of money by the government leads to increased trust in government and increased willingness to pay more taxes to receive more/better services from the government. In the US and Canada, government incompetence and corruption breeds contempt and distrust, and an unwillingness to pay more taxes that will end up misused and mismanaged. Well, the hypothesis on why innovation/entrepreneurship is sacrificed would presumably be because the potential rewards are reduced (if you do become wildly successful after years of very hard work, you will be taxed very heavily), because labor laws are tougher so you don't have the same flexibility (regarding things like overtime, off days, hiring people and then letting them go if they don't work out, etc) as a startup would in places like the US, and because the culture of having a strong social safety net means people are less "hungry" for financial success through entrepreneurship when there are so many other ways to have a very comfortable life. But those are all just the "standard" capitalist hypotheses, which you probably don't put much stock in. So what you have to look at is results. How many of the top innovative companies originated in Norway? Zero. Norway's top companies are various state owned/controlled utilities, resource companies, shipping companies, and telecoms. And unless you've specifically looked into it, you've probably never heard of a single one of them. Norway has some of the world's best infrastructure and education and yet has produced none of the new technologies that have reshaped our world. This is not to say anything bad about Norway, it's a beautiful country with a great culture and it seems like a fantastic place to live.

I just came back from traveling to Norway. Norway certainly does have tax rates and plentiful social programs. Everything is also very expensive, and people make higher salaries. Part of the reason Norway is able to do what it does is the wealth generated from oil. But a bigger reason is that it has a culture of good management of their national resources and money. They pay attention to the details and the numbers and don't let things get out of hand. It's a very different culture from what you have in Canada or America, where budgeting is done based on emotions and 3 second talking points, and the only time anyone cares about the deficit is when they can use it as a smear against the other party. High taxes and high services like in Norway can work, if you actually have the discipline and competence and culture to manage it well (this situation doesn't come close to existing anywhere outside Scandinavia and maybe Germany). The US has $21 trillion debt ($66k/person), Canada has a $1.4 trillion debt ($40k/person), but Norway has an accumulated government fund of $1 trillion rather than a debt, which works out to $200k/person. Pull that kind of money management off in Canada or the US and we can start talking about entrusting the government with more of people's money to provide better services. But even in a country as well managed as Norway, where "socialism" can work, it still comes at the price of sacrificing innovation and entrepreneurship compared to much messier places like America.

How far right have I moved? I mean, you probably know from these forums. I'm still firmly against what anyone in the US would call "social conservatism". Anything to do with religion and moralizing, count me out. But I guess on some issues like for example immigration, I used to be an open borders kind of person, whereas now I think it should be limited to probably lower numbers than now, and criteria strictly set for the benefit of the receiving country. I used to be 100% for environmentalism everything else be damned, but now I understand the importance of balancing conservation of the environment with economic realities and needs. I used to be all for change for the sake of change, whereas now I also understand the value of established traditions and institutions and the potential downside of disrupting them. For example, if you asked me 10 years ago about how I feel about Canada having a queen, I would have ranted at you about how the whole idea seems against the ideals of equality and democracy and what not, but today I'd just be like, well, it's worked pretty well for a long time so why change it?

Trump certainly does.

Virtual assistants and voice input are both still in the early adopter phase. Some people like it or just like to play with the latest tech for the cool factor. Those people are essentially beta testers, and companies will continue to improve on these products and services based on the feedback and experiences of the early adopters. Eventually, these technologies will work well enough to be practically useful to normal people doing everyday tasks, and then they will quickly proliferate.

Social justice ideologues hate to discuss Asians because they don't neatly fit the narrative of the evil white man keeping everyone else down. Except that in the case of Asians it results in higher educational and economic performance? Whereas in the case of blacks it results in lower? Talk about an unfalsifiable theory.

Socially, though, the (western) world has moved very much left, and you've moved with it. Personally I think over time I've moved to the left on economic issues and maybe slightly right on social ones (probably mostly as an allergic reaction to some of the absurdities of society's leftward social movement).

No, it's really not just a matter of syntax. Tell some laid off coal miner in America's rustbelt that he has "white privilege" and see how far you get trying to convince him about your point of view. This is why liberals in America are still puzzled over the 2016 election, they just don't get that throwing around words like "white privilege" instantly repels about half the population. On that we disagree. The term is a blatant attempt to invoke guilt and shame, it is its only real purpose, and the people who use it thrive on divisive identity politics and racial tension. Anyone who isn't already 100% brainwashed into social justice ideology will be instantly repelled by being told they have "white privilege" rather than empathizing. If there's someone out there who is genuinely trying to get someone to "empathize" with the difficulties minorities sometimes face by yelling at white people that they have "white privilege", they must be really puzzled by their lack of success in convincing anyone.

I think it's enough to discuss "racism" as it applies to certain minority groups. The idea that members of any particular group that doesn't face racism in the same way have "privilege" is not a useful idea to me. It adds nothing productive to the discussion and only breeds resentment, defensiveness, and division. What end is served by discussing "white privilege" that is not better served by understanding the impacts of racism on minority groups and trying to rectify those situations? One of the most common uses of the idea of privilege is to tell someone to "check your privilege". Have you heard that expression? It's literally a method to try to shame someone, based on their race or gender, into shutting up, trying to tell them that their opinion is not worthwhile to contribute. I.e. when a white male states an opinion about racism or sexism that is not in accord with the prevailing social justice ideological viewpoint, he will be told to "check your privilege" as a means of shutting him up and dismissing his opinion.

A privilege is a special advantage that a specific person or group enjoy. When the group in question forms a large majority of the population, it's not really a privilege to be a member of that group, it's just the norm. Imagine the extreme case, lets say everyone is treated equally, except 1 guy that everyone hates. It's doesn't make sense to describe the status of not being that one hated person a "privilege", but that one person clearly still experiences discrimination. The same is true if instead of 1 guy you have 2 people that everyone discriminates against, or even a few % of the population. A "privilege" is something that can be correctly used to describe the advantages one might get from being a member of a hereditary aristocracy, like a medieval noble, or someone born into riches, but not just for having the same rights and treatment as the vast majority of the population, even if there is some minority that faces worse treatment under certain circumstances. The very use of the word "privilege" is intended to try to guilt people into thinking they are beneficiaries of some undeserved advantage. But that is clearly not the case. White people in America have precisely the rights and responsibilities that all Americans are supposed to have as defined by the constitution and state and federal law (although, in some cases, those rights are infringed upon by various government agencies). If some groups are treated worse, which arguably they are in certain cases, then that is certainly a problem that should be rectified, but it has nothing to do with privilege.

Because they're different things?

Among my leftie Seattle friends, the name I keep hearing come up is Elizabeth Warren.