What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Major prewar battles in Middle East. Americans need their AR-15 assault rifles.Who says we don't need them?!

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
69,655
Reaction score
4,298
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.
This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.
Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...
If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.
Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
69,655
Reaction score
4,298
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
We need our AR 15s in case the terrorists or BLM attack us

Other than that, we need them to hunt squirrels
the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting
Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant for Individuals of the People specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
69,655
Reaction score
4,298
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
And no other rifle would work?
There's no logical reason to single out AR 15s for a ban or restrictions.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Weapons qualification should be a requirement.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
12,293
Reaction score
3,487
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
We need our AR 15s in case the terrorists or BLM attack us

Other than that, we need them to hunt squirrels

The main threat to any democratic republic is a police state from the military, police, or mercenaries.
All governments in all of history have always tended to corruption and had to be destroyed by armed rebellion, eventually.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
12,293
Reaction score
3,487
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
We need our AR 15s in case the terrorists or BLM attack us

Other than that, we need them to hunt squirrels
the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting
Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant for Individuals of the People specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.

But obviously any and all federal weapons laws are entirely and completely illegal.
No where is the federal government authorized to any weapons jurisdiction and the 9th and 10th amendments then say they are prohibited and jurisdiction.
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
6,880
Reaction score
2,295
Points
325
Let’s face it America

Nothing beats an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine if you want to hunt small School Children

View attachment 489953

They don't make a 50 round magazine.
It goes from the 30 round magazine, to the 100 round drum.

Really?



Seems to be a few 50 round mag options out there.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
69,655
Reaction score
4,298
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
We need our AR 15s in case the terrorists or BLM attack us

Other than that, we need them to hunt squirrels
the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting
Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant for Individuals of the People specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.

But obviously any and all federal weapons laws are entirely and completely illegal.
No where is the federal government authorized to any weapons jurisdiction and the 9th and 10th amendments then say they are prohibited and jurisdiction.
Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, or political fortitude.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

and,

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And
 

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
773
Points
928
Location
NC
Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.
This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.
Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...
If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.
Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.
 

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
773
Points
928
Location
NC
And no other rifle would work?
There's no logical reason to single out AR 15s for a ban or restrictions.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Weapons qualification should be a requirement.
When you say "qualification", do you mean training?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
69,655
Reaction score
4,298
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.
This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.
Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...
If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.
Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.
The concept and how it applies is relatively simple. Capitalism is about rational choices and opportunity costs. Capital must circulate under Capitalism; that is the End, goal, and objective.

The means is the majestic equality of the law:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and Labor must be able to afford it.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
69,655
Reaction score
4,298
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
And no other rifle would work?
There's no logical reason to single out AR 15s for a ban or restrictions.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Weapons qualification should be a requirement.
When you say "qualification", do you mean training?
Sure. Weapons qualification must include training with that weapon.
 

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
773
Points
928
Location
NC
Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.
This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.
Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...
If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.
Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.
The concept and how it applies is relatively simple. Capitalism is about rational choices and opportunity costs. Capital must circulate under Capitalism; that is the End, goal, and objective.

The means is the majestic equality of the law:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and Labor must be able to afford it.
Homelessness is largely a consequence of closing public mental health facilities in the 60s and 70s. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill and incapable of holding a steady job. Many of the same kind of people were involuntarily committed back in the 50s. If we could return to having a robust public mental health system, most of the problem would be solved.
 

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
773
Points
928
Location
NC
And no other rifle would work?
There's no logical reason to single out AR 15s for a ban or restrictions.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Weapons qualification should be a requirement.
When you say "qualification", do you mean training?
Sure. Weapons qualification must include training with that weapon.
What else would qualification entail?
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
109,142
Reaction score
43,951
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.
This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.
Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...
If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.
Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.
The concept and how it applies is relatively simple. Capitalism is about rational choices and opportunity costs. Capital must circulate under Capitalism; that is the End, goal, and objective.

The means is the majestic equality of the law:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and Labor must be able to afford it.
Homelessness is largely a consequence of closing public mental health facilities in the 60s and 70s. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill and incapable of holding a steady job. Many of the same kind of people were involuntarily committed back in the 50s. If we could return to having a robust public mental health system, most of the problem would be solved.


I can't resist pointing out that Democrats ended the mental health hospitals.


1." On Feb. 5, 1963, ... President John F. Kennedy addressed Congress on "Mental Illness and Mental Retardation." He proposed a new program under which the federal government would fund community mental-health centers, or CMHCs, to take the place of state mental hospitals. As Kennedy envisioned it, "reliance on the cold mercy of custodial isolations will be supplanted by the open warmth of community concern and capability."

2. Kennedy's proposal was historic because the public care of mentally ill individuals had been exclusively a state responsibility for more than a century. The federal initiative encouraged the closing of state hospitals and aborted the development of state-funded outpatient clinics in process at that time.

3. .... the feds funded 789 CMHCs with a total of $2.7 billion ($20.3 billion in today's dollars). During those same years, the number of patients in state mental hospitals fell by three quarters—to 132,164 from 504,604—and those beds were closed down.

a. .... CMHCs were not interested in taking care of the patients being discharged from the state hospitals. Instead, they focused on individuals with less severe problems sometimes called "the worried well."

4. ... this federal program failed because ... it did not provide care for the sickest patients released from the state hospitals. When President Ronald Reagan finally block-granted federal CMHC funds to the states in 1981, he was not killing the program. He was disposing of the corpse.

a. .... Medicaid and Medicare... Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance programs.... The federal takeover of the mental-illness treatment system was complete.

5. According to multiple studies summarized by the Treatment Advocacy Center, these untreated mentally ill are responsible for 10% of all homicides (and a higher percentage of the mass killings), constitute 20% of jail and prison inmates and at least 30% of the homeless. Severely mentally ill individuals now inundate hospital emergency rooms and have colonized libraries, parks, train stations and other public spaces. The quality of the lives of these individuals mocks the lofty intentions of the founders of the CMHC program.

6. ...the annual total public funds for the support and treatment of mentally ill individuals is now more than $140 billion. The equivalent expenditure in 1963 when Kennedy proposed the CMHC program was $1 billion, or about $10 billion in today's dollars.

7. Nor is President Obama likely to do anything, since his lead agency, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, has essentially denied that a problem exists. Its contribution to the president's response to the Dec. 14 Newtown tragedy focused only on school children and insurance coverage. And its current plan of action for 2011-14, a 41,000-word document, includes no mention of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or outpatient commitment, all essential elements in an effective plan for corrective action.

8. ... this federal experiment has failed, as seen most recently in the mass shootings by mentally ill individuals in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., and Tucson, Ariz. It is time for the federal government to get out of this business and return the responsibility, and funds, to the states." E. Fuller Torrey: Fifty Years of Failing America's Mentally Ill
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,257
Reaction score
2,221
Points
290
Location
GNO
We see a major escalation of middle East issues. Who says we don't need assault rifles to defend ourselves.?!!. This is why I oppose any bans on assault rifles. We have a major conflict brewing in Israel and the Gaza Strip.Many are armed with fully automatic AK-47 with 30 round magazines.!! Yet we have people saying in America that we don't need assault rifles.? How are Americans going to defend themselves without an AR-15 assault rifle? You gun control people answer this question.

 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
69,655
Reaction score
4,298
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.
This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.
Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...
If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.
Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.
The concept and how it applies is relatively simple. Capitalism is about rational choices and opportunity costs. Capital must circulate under Capitalism; that is the End, goal, and objective.

The means is the majestic equality of the law:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and Labor must be able to afford it.
Homelessness is largely a consequence of closing public mental health facilities in the 60s and 70s. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill and incapable of holding a steady job. Many of the same kind of people were involuntarily committed back in the 50s. If we could return to having a robust public mental health system, most of the problem would be solved.
With equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, persons would have an income with which to purchase some (mental) healthcare under our form of Capitalism.
 

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
773
Points
928
Location
NC
Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.
This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.
Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...
If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.
Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.
The concept and how it applies is relatively simple. Capitalism is about rational choices and opportunity costs. Capital must circulate under Capitalism; that is the End, goal, and objective.

The means is the majestic equality of the law:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and Labor must be able to afford it.
Homelessness is largely a consequence of closing public mental health facilities in the 60s and 70s. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill and incapable of holding a steady job. Many of the same kind of people were involuntarily committed back in the 50s. If we could return to having a robust public mental health system, most of the problem would be solved.
With equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, persons would have an income with which to purchase some (mental) healthcare under our form of Capitalism.
I think UBI would be a better system than that. We'd just need to get rid of all other welfare.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
69,655
Reaction score
4,298
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.
This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.
Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...
If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.
Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.
The concept and how it applies is relatively simple. Capitalism is about rational choices and opportunity costs. Capital must circulate under Capitalism; that is the End, goal, and objective.

The means is the majestic equality of the law:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and Labor must be able to afford it.
Homelessness is largely a consequence of closing public mental health facilities in the 60s and 70s. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill and incapable of holding a steady job. Many of the same kind of people were involuntarily committed back in the 50s. If we could return to having a robust public mental health system, most of the problem would be solved.
With equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, persons would have an income with which to purchase some (mental) healthcare under our form of Capitalism.
I think UBI would be a better system than that. We'd just need to get rid of all other welfare.
Why do you believe that? Unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State can accomplish the same thing in a more market friendly manner.
 

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
773
Points
928
Location
NC
Depends on how far we go with defunding and disbanding police.
This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘disbanding’ or ‘defunding’ the police.

Indeed, the reforms proposed actually benefit sworn officers by freeing them from addressing issues they’re ill-suited to address, such as mental illness and homelessness.
Actually Minneapolis voted to disband their police. There are other cities that have as well.

Oregon defunded her police decades ago ... 50th in the nation in officers per capita ... crime rates have crashed across the United States so we cut back on our funding for police services ...

If Minneapolis' police force is corrupt to the core ... then ditching the whole squad is the quickest way to clean out the racists ... the city is contracting with the local sheriff's office for police services until they can straighten out their problems ...
If Portland's crime has "crashed", then it's a matter of not charging people, not a lack of crime. This would match the dropping of various charges against Antifa protesters, for example.
Why do right wingers have a problem with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States? They make it seem like they would rather criminalize poverty than actually solve for the economic dilemma of simple poverty.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, but you'll have to give an example of what you're talking about.
The concept and how it applies is relatively simple. Capitalism is about rational choices and opportunity costs. Capital must circulate under Capitalism; that is the End, goal, and objective.

The means is the majestic equality of the law:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France

We should have no homeless problem in our first world economy and Labor must be able to afford it.
Homelessness is largely a consequence of closing public mental health facilities in the 60s and 70s. A lot of homeless people are mentally ill and incapable of holding a steady job. Many of the same kind of people were involuntarily committed back in the 50s. If we could return to having a robust public mental health system, most of the problem would be solved.
With equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation, persons would have an income with which to purchase some (mental) healthcare under our form of Capitalism.
I think UBI would be a better system than that. We'd just need to get rid of all other welfare.
Why do you believe that? Unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State can accomplish the same thing in a more market friendly manner.
It's because our current welfare system is grossly inefficient. The most market-friendly approach (short of not having any welfare) is UBI, because it involves the fewest federal employees while putting the burden on the feds rather than on employers.

Also, as far as mental health goes, expecting the mentally ill to make proper decisions on their own mental health is flawed. People with minor disorders can handle that, but you were talking about homeless people earlier, who typically are on the more severe end of the spectrum. A lot of those people can't really help themselves, which is why they need to be committed to an institution to protect themselves and the rest of society.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top