MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Self-Driving Car Not at Fault in Yesterday's Deadly Accident, Trump Congratulates Putin on Election Win, and the Senate Set to Vote on Yemen War: P.M. Links

  • Uber fleetKyodo/NewscomPolice say that the self-driving Uber vehicle is not at fault in yesterday's deadly collision with a pedestrian. The Washington Post's Megan McArdle argues it's far too soon to tell if self-driving cars are safer than their human-piloted alternatives.
  • Trump congratulates Putin on his election win, suggests the two will meet in "the not-too-distant future."
  • School shooter in Maryland injures two before being killed by armed school resource officer.
  • The Senate is set to vote on a resolution withdrawing U.S. personnel from supporting Saudi Arabia's intervention in Yemen.
  • Rep. Liz Cheney's sole Republican primary challenger in the race for the state's single congressional seat criticizes her for praising torture, saying, "We're a really red state. We're crusty, old conservative cowboys and miners, and we're rough and tough and opinionated, but we are not torturers."
  • California Gov. Jerry Brown says high-speed rail critiques are "bullshit."

Photo Credit: Kyodo/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    School shooter in Maryland injures two before being killed by armed school resource officer.

    Yes, but can we truly classify him as a "good guy" with a gun?

  • ||

    Hello.

    "School shooter in Maryland injures two before being killed by armed school resource officer."

    I'm guessing this won't make the shrill liberal media rounds, right?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This single-handedly destroyed the gun grabber narrative that armed staff in schools is a bad idea.

  • JeremyR||

    Not just liberal, remember Reason is against armed guards in schools

  • Zeb||

    But it did make the Reason media rounds.

  • Alcibiades||

    Not just liberal, remember Reason is against armed guards in schools

    What about giving teachers and school administrators the choice to concealed carry?

  • Conchfritters||

    When I was in school teachers drank while on the clock.

  • DiegoF||

    When I was in school teachers dank while on the clock.

  • Agammamon||

    You guys must be either really old or really young - when I was in school teachers smoked pot and popped uppers.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Where is this statement from Reason?

  • Agammamon||

    Reason is not against armed guards in schools.

    Reason is against unaccountable police who are used for every disciplinary infraction and abuse their authority.

    There's a difference.

  • Liberty Lover||

    In this particular incident, yes. He is not killing innocent people, at least not at this moment.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Trump congratulates Putin on his election win, suggests the two will meet in "the not-too-distant future."

    Was it Trump who did the ballot box stuffing for him? It would only be fair.

  • ||

    Was it Trump who did the ballot box stuffing for him?

    American Hackers.

  • damikesc||

    I thought Axelrod trying to shame Trump over it was humorous. As was pointed out, his former boss ALSO did so right after Putin invaded a US ally and all.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In Mother Russia, the ballot boxes stuff you.

  • Fancylad||

    IT WAS AMERICAN TROLLS ON RUSSIAN TWITTER AND FACEBOOK!!!!
    HILLARIVICH WON THE POPULAR VOTE IN MOSCOW!!!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Police say that the self-driving Uber vehicle is not at fault in yesterday's deadly collision with a pedestrian.

    Skynet starts as a victim-blamer, you know.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Autonomous cars are the new cops. Never at fault.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Uber makes an EVIL KKKorporat profit! Ergo, they MUST be to blame!!!!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Wall Street Journal publishes polygraph results backing Stormy Daniels

    A polygraph exam taken by adult-film star Stormy Daniels in 2011 supported her account of an affair she said she had with Donald Trump five years earlier, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

    The newspaper obtained reports of the exam, which Daniels took on May 19, 2011. The polygraph showed she truthfully said she had unprotected sex with Trump around July 2006.

    She also said Trump told her she would get on his television show, "The Apprentice," but the accuracy of that answer was inconclusive.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/ad.....ing-stormy

  • John||

    Trump banged porn stars before he was President. What are you trying to get him re-elected or something?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    It is wingnut hypocrisy at the zenith.

    Why did conservatives go ballistic over Gennifer Flowers?

  • John||

    NO. I love it that Trump banged porn stars. It is nice to have a President who banged someone after 8 years of Obama and his beard wife. NTTAAWWT

  • ||

    I love it that Trump banged porn stars. It is nice to have a President who banged someone after 8 years of Obama and his beard wife.

    Also relevant that, IMO, Obama only got his Senate seat because the guy he was losing to wanted to have sex with his wife in a private/members-only club.

    Whether this was done by democrats or conservatives depends on whether you think the IL-GOP is The Official Right-Wing Of The Illinois Democratic Party™ or not.

  • JWatts||

    "Also relevant that, IMO, Obama only got his Senate seat because the guy he was losing to wanted to have sex with his wife in a private/members-only club."

    This statement is incomplete.

    Obama got his Senate seat because the guy he was losing to wanted to have sex with 7 of 9 in a BDSM club. Which is completely understandable.

  • damikesc||

    Hey, PB, you won the fight. We don't care if the President fucks chicks on the side. Take your victory lap, son.

  • Mickey Rat||

    And back ib the 90s your side made broad rationalizations that such things were the politician's personal life.

    Who is being the hypocrite?

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    You know what Pee-wee Herman used to say: "I know you are but what am I?"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Clinton vs. America determined that the sex lives of presidents does not matter anymore.

  • Tony||

    How convenient. Of course it would have mattered if Obama had done anything. Right? Can you at least admit that? Can you acknowledge your own hypocrisy like a sentient being just this once?

  • damikesc||

    Oh lord, itd be a scandal if he fucked that Chewbacca stand in for a wife.

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    Why, oh why? Hand wringing over hypocrisy. Ha ha ha. Have you no decency?!?!?

  • ||

    Why did conservatives go ballistic over Gennifer Flowers?

    Lying. He publicly stated that he didn't have sex with her and she provided evidence refuting that statement. He then testified, under oath, that he did have sex with her. He was later convicted of perjury for saying he didn't have sex with another woman whom he had had sex with. I'm not aware of where all the alleged transgressions took place but I don't really recall adultery being on the docket.

    Has Trump ever publicly claimed to being faithful to his wife (vows?). It would be weird considering the overlap between previous wives. Not to laud Trump, but a consistent pattern of deceitful behavior, regardless of the banality of the underlying behavior, has plagued the Clintons since forever and it appears that repeated denials are not the key to dispelling it.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, ol' honest Trump they call him. Jesus Christ, do you even want to believe the things you are lying about believing?

  • ||

    Jesus Christ, do you even want to believe the things you are lying about believing?

    Again, not to laud Trump, but please point out the factual errors of what I've stated. The guy's just shy of being openly adulterous and the GOP's OK with it. As a gay man, this is part and parcel if not the hallmark of the society you, at the time Clinton was President, wanted. Trump could be routinely sleeping with men and the party is observing a de facto policy of DADT. Even in Clinton's time it was rather openly discussed that you wouldn't be able to convict/impeach him based on adultery.

    Read what I wrote above. Any small personal objections I had about Clinton's philandering (absent undue influence) evaporated when the IL-GOP booted Jack Ryan for wanting to have consensual sex with his wife in favor of Alan "Jesus Christ himself would not vote for Barack Obama" Keyes.

  • Cyto||

    This isn't the math though. The question isn't "Is Trump an awesome human being?". It is "would you vote for Trump, or Clinton".

    And yes, Clinton is that bad if you are not of the blue tribe.

    The next question is, would you vote for Trump or (Sanders, Booker, Warren, Harris....)?

    If you are a conservative republican the answer is a resounding Trump. It isn't even close.

    I heard an internet personality put it this way: If there were only two places to eat - and both were hotdog stands... One has really crappy hot dogs with stale buns and watery mustard. At the other stand the guy shove the hot dogs up his ass before serving them to you. Which one are you going to buy?

    If you then ask, "Why do you support those terrible dogs with the stale buns??" The answer is "I don't support them. They are terrible. But the other guy shoves the hot dog up his ass".

    This is the direction the MSNBC led Democrats seem to be headed.

  • Tony||

    No sane person could conclude that Trump was the better option for fucking president of the United States.

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    You sound angry and resentful that TrumpO busted up the monopoly on hypocrisy. It's now open for all to use, with or without prejudice.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Exactly. I don't give a shit about Clinton banging a groupie or a side-piece, I care about him lying about it under oath, and of course we should all care about the rapes and Hillary's role in intimidating his victims.

    -jcr

  • Bubba Jones||

    Why did you go ballistic over Stormy?

  • Fancylad||

    Gennifer Flowers
    Gosh, mentioning Flowers but not Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey or Paula Jones, PB? I can't imagine why.

  • Agammamon||

    We didn't.

  • Rhywun||

    There's also the small matter that polygraph tests are bullshit.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fine. A nice long court trial is appropriate.

  • damikesc||

    A court trial?

    Because he fucked a porn star?

    That's illegal now?

    Man, the Left turned into pilgrims.

  • JWatts||

    "That's illegal now?"

    Only when Republicans do it. Duh.

  • In Time Of War||

    They always have been. The Puritans did not tolerate alternate beliefs. Neither does the left. Look at sex work. What conservatives despise as immoral, the left despises as "sex trafficking victims". "My body, my choice" only exists for abortion, every other decision must submit to the tribe. I guaran-fucking-tee, when every state in this union finally legalizes marijuana, a leftist goal for 50 years...the left will slam it for "second-hand pot smoke" and start suing the evil MJ producers.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So, I believe her. I didn't really realize that whether it happened was the thing under dispute.

    But polygraphs are bullshit, and they do a disservice by giving them credit.

  • John||

    Trump was banging porn stars five years before he was President. I can't figure out why I am supposed to care about that.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Sure. I don't care either. I already know he's a scumbag, his moral failings are not really my business either.

    But polygraphs are bullshit, and it's an important thing that people should know.

  • John||

    Why is banging a porn star make you a scumbag? Unless he raped her, how is it anyone's business?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    There are many things. But cheating on your wife is scummy. And as I said, his moral failings are not my business.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And to be particularly clear, there are many things that make him a scumbag is what I meant.

  • John||

    It is between him and his wife. Would I do it? No. But I have my own moral failings like everyone else. They are just different.

  • Eidde||

    Was Trump still a New York Democrat at the time he banged the porn star?

  • Eidde||

    If we had better major-party choices in 2016 besides sleazy New York Democrats, I would be more indignant at Trump's election.

  • Eidde||

    I said "better," not "crappier."

  • Eidde||

    Rand Paul, but he dropped out early.

  • Paloma||

    Now if Melania Trump banged a porn star and Donald Trump threatened and harrassed the guy with government agents, then you might have a case.

  • Nardz||

    You assume he cheated on his wife.
    Melania is Slovenian. I don't know their marriage customs off-hand, but even in puritan USSA, not to mention libertine Europe (even the orthodox east relative to here), it's not unheard of for the wives of powerful men to allow them mistresses.
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happened with Melania's consent. She knows who she married.
    It is unfortunate that the NDA was disrespected and it's now public knowledge.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Trump is immoral. Vote Clinton!

    Lol.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "But polygraphs are bullshit, and it's an important thing that people should know." Agreed. and for WSJ to publish this crap without a disclaimer to that effect is bullshit.

  • damikesc||

    John, not 5 years. Ten. It happened in 2006.

    I guess that makes it worse.

  • John||

    Was he even married then?

  • Eidde||

    To whom?

  • John||

    To Melina.

  • Eidde||

    Look, like I said, my expectations of major-party presidential candidates are low enough that an affair with a porn star doesn't disappoint or surprise me.

    That doesn't mean I like it or consider it totally irrelevant, but the major parties are covered in murderous sleaze from head to toe and this stuff has stopped registering for me.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He had married Melania about a year prior.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, Melania was pregnant with the boy (not Uday or Qusay).

  • John||

    Obama never had a boy and was never married to Melania. You are confused again Shreek. And even though his girls spent their youth smoking weed and vacationing on the taxpayer dime, comparing them to Saddam's kids is a bridge too far. Jesus Christ you are a fucking racist.

  • damikesc||

    Melania and he were married in 05 (well, per Wikipedia), so yes. But, if she stuck around, it's not my job to care.

    We need to remember WHO PB would have rather had in the White House than Trump. I am betting THAT person was a paragon of virtue.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    We need to remember WHO PB would have rather had in the White House than Trump. I am betting THAT person was a paragon of virtue.

    Hillary would have been our first lesbian president, so there's that.

  • JWatts||

    I suspect Hillary was cheating on Huma.

  • S p a c e d o u t||

    Was he married? Do you play dumb, fucking christ, how do you, a political internet troll, not already have a basic understanding of the facts?

  • Rigelsen||

    He's supposed to care about the details of Trump's personal life? Pretty sure Trump's personal moral failings were background noise by the time the 90's rolled through. That's about when the major media stopped covering them.

    And "political internet troll"? Aren't you a special one?

  • Tony||

    Pretend he had a (D) after his name, douche.

  • John||

    And you would care then right? God you are stupid

  • DRM||

    Well, then, I'd write an op-ed in my high school newspaper suggesting that his proven dishonesty, above and beyond that of normal political dishonesty, disqualified him for the office of President. And then in the next election, first I was eligible to vote in, I'd vote Bob Dole.

    And then I'd go on to see half of America say a sitting President violating his oath of office by committing a felony to cover up his infidelity is no big deal because it was "just about sex", and when those same people tried to make an issue about someone with an R after his name just having an affair I'd just laugh at the fucking little hypocrites in their impotent fury.

    Scream on, Tony, scream on. It's twenty damn years too late to try to make an issue of Trump having had an affair, but your efforts at trying to do so are hilarious.

  • damikesc||

    I'm supposed to care about who Trump fucked in 2006...why?

    Your neo-Puritannical streak is amusing, but seems immaterial.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The left would not know moral behavior if they buried it in the Katyn Forest.

    The lefties just have nothing else to distract America from urging Trump to prosecute Hillary.

  • Juice||

    A polygraph exam...

    is debunked woo woo bullshit.

  • Cyto||

    It is a placebo designed to coerce confessions.

    The problem is that people allow it to be used as proof of lying. As in "you failed the polygraph". Unless you confess, reporting that as fact is slander.

    Also, reporting "passed a polygraph" is a problem, since all you have to do is not confess. If the examiner wants a pass, you get a pass.

  • Agammamon||

    So? Who the fuck takes polygraphs seriously in 2018.

    They've been debunked thouroughly - like 40 years ago.

  • Rat on a train||

    The government, for employment.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Mikey/Weigel's Cock Ring

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Mikey/John.

  • John||

    How is that Hillary for President thing going?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I'm kind of enjoying the mass retardation of conservatives with The Dotard here.

    He is a failure in terms of implementing his policy (unlike Bush). As long as that is true I like it.

  • John||

    But you were so sure she was going to win. Got any other predictions for us?

    Thank you for not depriving me of your sorrow. Your unhappiness and anger are just lovely. It makes me so happy to know how miserable you are.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bullshit. I believed the polls just like in 2012 when you predicted a Romney win.

    The polls had Hildog up 3 points (accurate) and Trump eeked out an electoral win with a larger popular vote deficit than Dubya.

  • John||

    I know. And Trump still won and is President. Isn't it great? Trump is President. Come on, don't deprive me of the pleasure of your butt hurt over that. Everyone on this board hates your guts and deserves the pleasure of your misery.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The polls had Hillary winning. As in absolute win for Hillary.

    Since the popular vote matters not in the USA, it is funny that lefties keep lowering Hillary's poll numbers to make it seem like she didn't get ass kicked.

  • Paloma||

    And she didn't even win the popular vote. 48% is not a majority.

  • Libertymike||

    Let's hope he doesn't predict that Loyola is going to win in the Sweet 16.

  • H. Farnham||

    Personally, I'm pulling for Loyola. If K-State can somehow manage to upset Kentucky, then I would much rather face the Ramblers in the Elite Eight.

  • John||

    Kentucky is the evil empire.

  • H. Farnham||

    Yep, though it's hard to deny how good they've been under Calipari (NCAA rules and guidelines be damned). Success breeds resentment.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Mikey for the win.

  • losmazeman||

    The Shikha entry is not in the same league as WCR. My vote is WCR.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Whoa. This is a tough one. Shikha is pretty vapid and a terrible writer, and it's not clear at all why she's associated with Reason in the first place, given the violent authoritarian viewpoints she's expressed elsewhere. Simple Mikey is aggressively stupid, given to paranoid fantasies about the identities of fellow commentors, and occasionally prone to bouts of Internet Tuff Gai syndrome that are actually more sad than anything.

    I'm gonna have to go with Simple Mikey. Trolling requires an element of intentional engagement, and there's little indication that Shikha knows or cares what the commentariat thinks. Mikey, on the other hand, has literally nothing else going on his life but Hit'n'Run, as a quick perusal of weekend threads will attest.

  • H. Farnham||

    Weigel's Cock Ring, for sure. Shikha Dalmia's just doing her job in expressing her views; Mikey seems very genuinely mean-spirited without even getting paid for it.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    just doing her job in expressing her views

    Is that what think tank employees are supposed to do, in theory or reality?

  • H. Farnham||

    It's what paid blog-site contributors are supposed to do. I'm not saying I agree with all or even most of her views, but she is doing her job.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    She's employed by the Foundation as an "analyst."

  • H. Farnham||

    That doesn't negate what I said. Citizen X goes into some pretty good detail right before my original comment.

  • Zeb||

    Well, they keep paying her, so someone thinks she's doing her job.

    Also, it is possible to have more than one job.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    It's nice we all agree that "Reason Foundation analyst" in fact means "fact-free bloviator/ third-rate propagandist."

  • H. Farnham||

    You can't qualify for the troll tournament after it's already moved on to the semi-final round. I assume that's what you're trying to do.

  • Rigelsen||

    "Shikha Dalmia's just doing her job in expressing her views..."

    Shame thinking through those views prior to expressing them were not in her job description.

  • SIV||

    Mike M. and Shikha aren't "the worst trolls", they're two of the best!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Why didn't you vote for yourself yesterday? Your vote could have made a difference.

  • Zeb||

    But not as good as you. For deliberate trolling (I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't actually completely insane), you are pretty high up there.

  • Eidde||

    WCR

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    You know, some of us around here actually are "open borders". And deporting thousands of people with SWAT teams throwing flashbangs in cradles, shooting Fido, etc., so that they can then be murdered by drug cartels is, in fact, at least a little bit like the FSA.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    And deporting thousands of people with SWAT teams throwing flashbangs in cradles, shooting Fido, etc., so that they can then be murdered by drug cartels

    So inhumane. We should invite the drug cartels here so people won't have to be deported before they're murdered.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Even assuming illegals committed crime at a higher rate than the native-born, which is a lie, at least we wouldn't be deporting 10,000+ US citizens a decade by accident in that scenario.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Point to where I said anything about the crime rates of illegals.

    we wouldn't be deporting 10,000+ US citizens a decade by accident in that scenario.

    BOOO

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    If illegals don't raise the overall crime rate in the US, but come from countries with much higher murder rates, they are, by definition, not bringing the drug cartel-inflated murder rate with them.

    And are you denying the number of US citizens deported by the FedGov over the last few decades, or just saying you don't care?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Are you insane? What does any of this have to do with open borders?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Open borders = no deportations, ever = no wrongful deportations of US citizens, and no deportation of illegals back to murderous, wait for it, shitholes.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Wait ... [scratches chin] ... [this can't possibly be]... are you assuming that under an open borders policy immigration would be more or less the same except people wouldn't be deported?

    That drug cartels are features of Nicaragua like beaches and mountains and thus can't cross our border?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Are you under the impression that our current border control regime actually stops drug cartel members from coming here?

    Who do you think builds those tunnels?

    The cartels are the one group that can move here with impunity. You'd have to do a lot more than build a wall to change that... and deport a lot more US citizens while you were doing it.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Are you in high school?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Do you have any response other than the classic "I'm so much smarter and more mature than you and now I'm going to invoke the Ad Hominem fallacy to prove it"?

    And do you think the people immigrating here via tunnel and visa overstay represent a less criminal cross-section of the Latin American population than the ones who are kept out by it?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    You're making the same argument liberals make about regulations and taxes not having any effects because the economy still exists. I'm not wasting my time with David Hogg tier arguments.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    This is hilarious. My whole point is that the border controls do have an effect, but those effects are far more negative than positive. Which, in case you weren't aware, is exactly the same argument used against taxes and regulations. You couldn't have more willfully misinterpreted my comments if you'd tried.

    The effect of the existing border measures is to keep out illegal immigrants who would be as or less criminal than the current batch. Potential immigrants who allow themselves to be stopped by our current half-assed measures cannot possibly be more inclined to crime than the ones that flaunt the law. Ergo opening the border will not bring in a "more criminal" batch of immigrants. I'm not saying the measures have no effect, I'm saying they DO and it's a bad effect, as should be perfectly fucking obvious.

  • Rigelsen||

    Are you one of those who thinks that Adam Smith was wrong and capitalism is a sham? Or do you just not care about all those who are forced out of the working population when the country drowns in cheap labor? (Never mind the intersection between between unmitigated unskilled immigration and social services.)

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    There is a certain refined irony in invoking the Father of Free Trade to condemn increasing American consumers' access to low wage labor. I salute you.

  • Rigelsen||

    "Even assuming illegals committed crime at a higher rate than the native-born..."

    Sure about this? If I recall correctly, prison population numbers don't support your proposition.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Prison population numbers at the federal level, IIRC, which comprise a disproportionate percentage of illegal immigrant convicts, and also sometimes include ICE detainees who committed no violent crime.

  • Agammamon||

    We could, you know, end the drug war which created and sustains the cartels?

    Is that option off the table so the only choice is in humanity?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Well yes, that is the idea behind legalizing drugs such that you go to a pharmacy (possibly a "recreational pharmacy") instead of a drug-dealer. Turn it into a legitimate business and folks are much less likely to get murdered over it.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Most libertarians are for open borders. That is why it is the editorial position of Reason. It is the default libertarian position, just like being pro-choice.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    LOL libertarianism in the current year

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Not in this comment section they aren't.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Most of the commenters here are conservatives, not libertarians. You can tell by the fact that they spend most of their time bitching about the left. Libertarians bitch about the left and the right about equally.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Didn't 80% of Gary Johnson's supporters go over to Trump, though?

    If it were really an even split, you'd expect it to be 40-40. Or 0-0, as they all decided to stay home.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Libertarians bitch about the left and the right about equally


    [Citation needed].

  • BigT||

    Only for people who have no respect for property rights. Open borders is decidedly anti-libertarian.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Closed borders putting restrictions on who I can allow on land are perhaps more anti-libertarian. One doesn't say anything about what private property owners are allowed to do. The other is closed border.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    who I can allow on land

    That's what immigration is. Foreigners on folks' land. Good job really getting at the heart of the issue.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And I'm saying in an open-borders scenario I can choose to disallow all of those damned foreigners on my property. In a closed-borders scenario there are many that I can't allow on my property at all. And so we have a scenario where my private property rights are also curbed. Beyond the fact that I also can't hire these people to do work for me among other associations that are disallowed (right-to-association is a libertarian ideal as well).

    Instead we have a system where a paternalistic force keeps away people with violent force, so that others can't make the decision of whether they interact with them.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    And I'm saying in an open-borders scenario I can choose to disallow all of those damned foreigners on my property.

    I didn't realize ya'll were doing the full dorm room autism thing. Carry on.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    In the sense that, like autists (in dorm rooms or otherwise), we're exhibiting a higher IQ than you, yes.

    Your freedom to shoot illegals that trespass on your property or break into your house is not in question. So what exactly are you worried about?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Foreigners on folks' land with their consent, being harassed and arrested by other folks.

  • H. Farnham||

    Deference to private property rights over public, collective interests would probably result in a much more open-border policy regarding immigration.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Lolwut?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Can someone define "open borders," and can both sides* actually stick to that definition?

    *let's say we can reduce it down to pro- and anti-

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Mikey all the way. Shikha isn't a troll...she's just in a higher caste than the rest of us and we aren't smart enough for the 4th dimensional Chaturanga.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    California governor Jerry Brown says high-speed rail critiques are "bullshit."

    Every reference to Jerry Brown should link to this.

  • John||

    It was just back luck that it is going to cost three times what it was supposed to. If it wasn't for all of the wreckers and saboteurs, things like that wouldn't happen.

  • Rhywun||

    I love that he said this at a meeting of union goons. They're not even pretending any more that infrastructure is anything other than a make-jobs program in exchange for votes.

  • John||

    They claim to love big government and worship FDR and all that but they are so fucking retarded and corrupt, they can't even get that right anymore. They can't even build a white elephant infrastructure anymore. All they know how to do is steal.

  • damikesc||

    John, is it funny that not only is the cost triple...they haven't even gotten to the really expensive part. The whole GETTING THE LAND part.

  • John||

    They will just need to confiscate it from the vicious kulaks who refuse to help the collective.

  • Rhywun||

    No, the really expensive part is the work crews that contain five workers for every job that needs one worker to do it.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Brown said the high-speed rail effort, with a newly escalated cost estimate of $77.3 billion to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco, was a small investment when compared with the scale of the California economy.

    ...

    "People say, 'How are you going to fund the railroad?' " Brown said. "I'll tell you how we're going to fund the railroad. We're going to take back the Congress and then a Democratic congress is going to put the high-speed rail in the infrastructure bill and then we'll get that trillion dollars and we'll put America back to work."

    Sounds like someone's expecting more cost overruns. Yo, Moonbeam, if the ever-increasing cost of your magic choo-choo is a small investment compared to the economy of Calizuela, why would you need to gouge money out of the taxpayers of the other 49 states?

  • John||

    its a small investment for something no one wants and even fewer will actually use.

  • damikesc||

    I know I, for one, cannot wait to pay for a CA railroad. Sure seems like a great use of FEDERAL funds to pay for a vanity project for politicians of a SINGLE STATE.

  • John||

    Police say that the self-driving Uber vehicle is not at fault in yesterday's deadly collision with a pedestrian. The Washington Post's Megan McArdle argues it's far too soon to tell if self-driving cars are safer than their human-piloted alternatives.

    Good for her. I honestly didn't think she had it in her. I figured her for the kind of maladjusted weirdo who is terrified of driving and would be all in on robotic cars. I guess you never can tell.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    McArdle is such a disappointment. A lot of her stuff can be read esoterically as insulting the entire media class. But she actually likes those people and thinks they need gentle corrections when they've all decided on a narrative with no research.

  • John||

    Suddernman just needs to get her pregnant, get a job at a more respectable publication and let her be the Washington soccer mom she has always dreamed of being.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    It's gotta be embarrassing for your wife to go from Bloomberg to WaPo while you're still writing video game reviews at Reason.

  • John||

    A little bit. But in fairness, Suderman is much less of a nitwit than McArdle. For the reasons you state and a few others, she grates on my nerves.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, just no.

  • Cyto||

    All-in or not, it is not really too soon to tell if self-driving cars are safer than their human-piloted alternatives.

    At least if we are talking of such cars as a concept, as opposed to one particular implementation that is on the road right now. They are already arguably safer than people driven cars, and we are not even to version 1.0 yet. We are not even in Beta yet. We are still at an alpha release, and they are probably quite a bit safer than the aggregate human driver. (given our propensity for driving while impaired, sleep deprived, distracted or just plain stupid.)

    Claiming that it is too soon to tell is just dumb - at least if you are proclaiming that as if it means something. In a few years when they are ready for the first truly public release, they'll unquestionably be safer than a soccer mom who had a couple of glasses of wine at her son's game and is driving home after midnight while reading her facebook wall. That's who you need to compare them to.... not the world's safest driver on a closed circuit. Because that's who gets into fatal accidents.

  • damikesc||

    It'll be safer...assuming all possible circumstances are entered into the coding. And the software cannot possibly be hacked. No reason to suspect our currently easily hackable internet will have CARS locked down as beyond that.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Senate is set to vote on a resolution withdrawing U.S. personnel from supporting Saudi Arabia's intervention in Yemen.

    They shouldn't have not failed to not authorize it in the first place!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    We're crusty, old conservative cowboys and miners, and we're rough and tough and opinionated, but we are not torturers...

    You only torture Indians and Mother Earth is all!

  • John||

    How about we get rid of political dynasties and stop electing the wives and idiot children of political figures, torturers or not?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    We could also just get rid of Wyoming.

  • John||

    Wyoming is a nice state. I can think of a lot of other states I would get rid of first.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    We can work our way down the list.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Also, I read it as Wisconsin. I also like Wyoming, but still the more potential sources of politicians we get rid of the safer we are.

  • Zeb||

    That's why we need Wyoming and the other states that only send 3 politicians to Washington. You have to start with the most populous states.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    New Jersey first, then the southern half of New York and Connectthecunt, which should really be one state separate from upstate NY. Then Cali, and the holy trinity of Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. The rest can stay.

  • Libertymike||

    Let me adjust:

    New York City, Long Island, Westchester County, all of CT, all of Mass, all of RI, except Newport, all of Vermont (such a shame), all of NJ, all of Maryland, all of DE, DC, Philly and its suburbs, all of Illinois, all of California.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Holy shit, how did I forget Maryland? Also, I mostly added Oklahoma because Tony lives there.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Haven't the Six Civilized Tribes suffered enough?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Wait, I thought the point of allowing privately owned nukes was so that we wouldn't have to make these sorts of choices anymore.

  • Libertymike||

    Couldn't Tony be forcibly repatriated to one of his beloved blue havens?

  • EscherEnigma||

    I dunno. Can we "repatriate" Shackford to anywhere outside of California?

  • Tony||

    So like 90% of the country's GDP.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Shackford is closer to 80% of our GDP.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I ate at Taco John's once in Cheyenne. Seemed inoffensive.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    My favorite place in Wyoming is Thermopolis.

  • JFree||

    Yellowstone itself is a lot better. Especially using the Chief Joseph byway to get into it and then out through Tetons/Jackson/Snake River

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Buffalo and elk from Wyoming are AWESOME.

  • Libertymike||

    Like California.

    Wyoming is way better than California. It has the great Rocky Mountain vistas and I was somehow accepted at the University of Wyoming's law school.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's not a very big school - his student ID number was 7.

  • Libertymike||

    It probably would have been. Alas, I chose to stay closer to home.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yeah, it's a beautiful state if you like big and empty. Which I do.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    That's Hihn's social security number!

  • Rhywun||

    OK, I laffed.

  • Rhywun||

    At the Hihn joke. Stupid threading.

  • colorblindkid||

    Powder River...

  • EscherEnigma||

    I'm actually in favor of a more flexible system for states being demoted to territories (and vice-versa) that would allow better representation. Of course, we would also need to more clearly define the roles, responsibilities and privileges of states vs. territories, such that a given state/territory would be able to make informed decisions on which status it preferred.

    If done properly, this would also resolve questions regarding Puerto Rico and DC.

    Or to put it another way... Wyoming is a fine place, but there's nothing really there. Based on population and economic activity, it should be a territory, not a state.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I fear there might be something perverse about downgrading the influence of small population areas ever further.

  • EscherEnigma||

    And I think there's something perverse with the rampant hostility among libertarians to the notion that all votes should be equal, but here we are.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "People living Over There should have less influence."

    -Person living Over Here

  • Bubba Jones||

    DC isn't supposed to be a state. 1/2 of it was already reannexed by VA. Why not the other 1/2 to MD?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Because politics.

    To put it simply, the population of DC is about 700,000. The people-to-Representative ratio in the House is about 700,000-to-1. So it's very likely that if the lion's share of DC was given back to Maryland, that Maryland would get an additional representative in the next reapportionment.

    So you wind up back in the old "why not break up Texas/ California/ whatever-your-state-of-choice-is", where folks stop thinking with "what's the best way to govern these areas and ensure fair and equal representation" and move straight into "does this protect or harm my party's political edge".

    Which is to say... personally, I'd be fine with that. But there are political reasons it probably won't happen.

  • colorblindkid||

    Wyomingites respect and understand nature far more than any coastal urban-living environmentalist.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    True dat.

  • Libertymike||

    Perhaps somebody should torture Liz Cheney.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    California governor Jerry Brown says high-speed rail critiques are "bullshit."

    Someone learned well from our president.

  • Eidde||

    I'd rather have Mary Cheney, the Sapphist, in Congress than Liz Cheney, the Sophist.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    School shooter in Maryland injures two before being killed by armed school resource officer

    Why the hell isn't this in the headline? Everyone else is gonna memory-hole this, Reason shouldn't give them any help.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm curious to see if they will do an article on this.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Probably will, but every little bit helps when you're trying to breach the surface of the prohibitionist media ocean.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I just imagine most people will just say "If guns were illegal they wouldn't exist and this wouldn't be necessary anyway." Because I see very few people on the gun-control side who are interested in practicality.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Sure they'll say that, but at least it undermines the "guns in schools never save lives" idea. Like forcing them to give up the outer walls and retreat to the inner keep.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I can only hope. God knows, that much of the media does it's damnedest to let any facts get into this argument.

  • John||

    http://twitchy.com/sarahd-3130.....d-lesbian/

    Cuomo crony calls Cynthia Nixon "an unqualified lesbian". Isn't that a Youporn Channel?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yeah, it sucks though. If I wanted to watch a film where someone can't figure out which hole is the right one I would just watch Shia LeBeouf's masterpiece.

  • BYODB||


    If I wanted to watch a film where someone can't figure out which hole is the right one I would just watch Shia LeBeouf's masterpiece.

    This is a pretty accurate summary of his 'body of work' if you know what I mean...

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If it wasn't before, it will be now.

  • Libertymike||

    Its hate-speech that would be banned by You-tube.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Seems like there are a bunch of people getting their licks in on Christine Quinn.

  • John||

    And notice how the first thing they did was go after her for being a lesbian, because Progs care so much about gays.

  • Libertymike||

    As for the prog on prog ruthlessness, its like the Hildebeast on Bill's bimbos. For a football friendly analogy, like Goose on Gannon.

  • John||

    The funny thing is that the woman who called her that, looks a lot more like a lesbian than Nixon does.

  • Eidde||

    How can she be a lesbian? She starred in a sitcom about heterosexual relationships!

    /sarc

  • John||

    Cultural appropriation.

  • Libertymike||

    I think Chris Noth is / was prettier than Cynthia Nixon.

  • Rhywun||

    Only because she considers herself a "qualified lesbian". Ah, NY politics.

    They showed the GOP candidate in the morning news cheering Nixon on. I laffed.

  • Paloma||

    I'd say she's very qualified to be a lesbian.

  • Mickey Rat||

    What are the qualifications to be a lesbian these days?

  • Fancylad||

    Rage.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Rep. Liz Cheney's sole Republican primary challenger in the race for the state's single Congressional seat criticizes her for praising torture, saying "we're a really red state. We're crusty, old conservative cowboys and miners, and we're rough and tough and opinionated..."

    "...and we're okay."

  • Eidde||

    Do they like to press wildflowers?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Do they like piña coladas?

  • Cyto||

    Ooh. Party foul!

    We were two references in to a Python checklist and you went all Rupert Holmes on our ass.

  • Libertymike||

    Okay, Sex and the City assessment time:

    Which of the four stars is / was the least attractive?

    For moi, hands down it was Cynthia Nixon, then and now.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    the horse head one, by a mile

  • John||

    I forgot about her. Yeah, I would probably take Nixon over her.

  • Cyto||

    She had an amazing physique though. And a pretty charismatic personality when she wanted to.

    In the immortal words of my college roommate who was from Viet Nam: "You American so stupid. Who give a shit what the face look like. You gonna turn out the damn light anyway. Look at that body! Sooooo nice!"

  • John||

    Nixon by a long shot. Kristen Davis was at least back in the day, smoking hot. Nixon always looked a bit dyky to me and never did anything for me. The other one just looked cheap. Davis was the only one worth writing home about.

  • Libertymike||

    Agree on Kristen Davis. Kim Cattrall was too slutty. Sarah Jessica Parker was too skinny (sorry, sarc). John, I know we make too much of your taste for ample women as just the other day you noted that you do like some thin women, but Sara Jessica Parker is a bridge too far on the chugging down the Dick Gregory Bahamian juice (yes, borrowed from Wesley Snipes in White Men Can't Jump).

  • sarcasmic||

    Sarah Jessica Parker was too skinny (sorry, sarc).

    Never noticed. I couldn't get past her face.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    literal lol at the last 5

  • Cyto||

    Seth McFarland has a real thing about her.

    Family guy has had a couple of shots at her... the famous "horse walks into a bar joke" bit and my favorite Peter aside of all time:

    "They let Sarah Jessica Parker's face on TV and she looks like a foot."

  • sarcasmic||

    Mister Ed.

  • Tony||

    Maybe Trump is going to go to Moscow and never come back, a la Snowden. It's all upside as far as I can see. They can afford to give him the lifestyle to which he's accustomed, and he can ditch those wretched children.

  • John||

    Maybe Obama will move to Iran. He grew up in a Muslim country and liked it. He gave Iran hundreds of millions of dollars in straight cash homey and called off the DEA for Hezbollah. So, they do owe him. I think retirement in Terran might be in the cards for Obama.

  • Tony||

    The problem with you John is that you know so much that ain't true.

  • sarcasmic||

    I never thought of you to be one to quote the Gipper.

  • John||

    I think when Iran finally tests a nuclear weapon, they should let Obama be there to push the button. It would be really appropriate for him to be there to see his only lasting legacy as President. And you know he would do it.

    Sorry Tony, but you can't send things down the memory hole.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/.....story.html

    The Obama administration is acknowledging its transfer of $1.7 billion to Iran earlier this year was made entirely in cash, using non-U.S. currency, as Republican critics of the transaction continued to denounce the payments.

    Straight cash homey. You can lie to yourself Tony, but stop lying to us.

  • Tony||

    Cash that belonged to them. In exchange for a halting of their nuclear program. If Trump kills the deal and they then develop a nuke, I understand that you'll blame Obama, but you're a lying cynical partisan asshole.

  • John||

    No, it was earmarked to pay the judgment to the victims of their terrorism. Beyond that, even if it was theirs", did it have to be given in cash? Not electronically? They wanted it in cash because that allows them to use it for their criminal enterprises and to fund terrorism. And Obama gave it to them. There are people in prison for doing that. And you applaud Obama for it. Iran murders gays every day. And Obama funded their regime. And you still suck his cock and think he is above reproach. You are the dumbest most suicidally ignorant person on earth. You really would let them murder you.

  • BYODB||

    Cash that belonged to them? Are you stupid?

  • John||

    Yes, he really is that stupid.

  • Tony||

    Sometimes I forget which horseshit FOX News conspiracy theories have been really drilled in. I understand that you've been completely misinformed on this matter, but it's your own damn fault for relying on bullshit rightwing fake news.

  • John||

    That is from the LA Times dipshit.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    You've never had a couple billion fall out of your pocket onto a C-130 on Diego Garcia?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Are ya'll really butt blasted about Trump calling Putin?

  • John||

    But Obama calling people like Castro when he was alive is totally different.

  • Tony||

    I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be to be honest. Are we in the habit of congratulating strongmen on their phony election victories? What about ones engaged in active hostility toward the US?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    "Are we in the habit of congratulating strongmen on their phony election victories? What about ones engaged in active hostility toward the US?" -- UN supporter

  • John||

    Yes we are. Obama did the same thing for the Mullahs in Iran. Or are they our friends now?

  • John||

    Well, the Iranians having the bomb is Obama's legacy. So, there is that.

  • Tony||

    We were inching closer to an easing of tensions until people like you including the guy in the White House decided that the nuclear deal was to be ditched because Obama negro bad!

  • John||

    only a racist would think giving the world's number one state sponsor or terrorism $1.7 billion dollars in cash that is totally untraceable once they had it.

    And only a racist would have a problem with a government that routinely executes homosexuals. Obama cares so much about gays Tony, he gave people who execute them billions in free cash. But don't worry, I am sure the Progs won't ever turn on you.

  • Tony||

    As flattered as I am that you cynical morons constantly use gays as political props to attack Muslims wherever they may be found, you really need to stop acting like an idiot on the Iran deal and look up the facts so that you know what the hell you're talking about. The money was owed to Iran from a 35 year-old settlement. It was their money. In exchange we got everything we wanted on nukes.

  • John||

    It wasn't their money. And we didn't have to give it to them. It si called sanctions you fucking moron. It is the same thing you are screaming about Russia today. If Trump got rid of the sanctions and gave them their money back you would not say anything?

    And Muslims want to murder you. You are such a fucking ignorant fuck, I think you want them to murder you. You think Obama will give a fuck when they do? No he won't. He gave Iran the bomb and helped fund their terrorism. That is what he did. It is his legacy. Either admit you support that or admit Obama was a terrible President. But stop fucking lying and acting like we are as dumb as you are.

  • Tony||

    The world doesn't work like a Donald Trump reality show. Deals actually require giving on both sides. You know how we gave them back money owed to them and we got them to cease nuclear production?

    It was a good fucking deal and you'd think it was the best thing since sliced Russian hookers if the president who did it had an (R) after his name. Does anyone here think otherwise? No.

  • John||

    And yes, I am sure Obama considers Iran to be friends. Why exactly you think his thinking that of one of the most oppressive regimes in the world is an interesting question. Maybe Obama isn't quite as gay affirming as you think? Maybe he thinks killing homos isn't so bad. Perhaps even it is a feature of the Iranian government in his opinion.

  • Tony||

    One is truly confused by the strategy of getting Muslim-majority countries to liberalize by constantly demonizing and ostracizing them. But I'm no foreign policy expert like you and John Bolton. Wait, are you John Bolton?

  • John||

    Tony wants war with Russia. A nuclear fucking war that would destroy the world. But he is totally okay with Obama subsidizing Iran.

  • Tony||

    Yes I want to see the world destroyed. John, master of the good-faith argument.

  • Tony||

    And you can sure as fuck save your crocodile tears given your party's intensely intimate relationship with Saudi Arabia.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    We were inching closer to an easing of tensions

    Gotta ease those tensions with Iran if we're gonna focus on that hot war with Russia.

    Obama negro bad!

    It's always projection with you people.

  • damikesc||

    I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be to be honest. Are we in the habit of congratulating strongmen on their phony election victories? What about ones engaged in active hostility toward the US?

    Obama congratulated the same strongman on his phony election victory after the strongman had invaded a US ally and Obama pulled missile defense from E European countries to make the strongman happy.

  • Nardz||

    It really interferes with the warmongers' plans

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Leave the nation without an executive? I don't know if NPR can take that kind of stress.

  • Tony||

    I'm tentatively in the "leave Trump where he is" camp because I'm terrified of Mike Pence and Trump is so incompetent he can't even get a repeal of Obamacare accomplished.

  • BYODB||


    Police say that the self-driving Uber vehicle is not at fault in yesterday's deadly collision with a pedestrian. The Washington Post's Megan McArdle argues it's far too soon to tell if self-driving cars are safer than their human-piloted alternatives.


    When there's a few trillion dollars involved, what's one person's life? Spoiler alert: if a vehicle was programmed to perfectly respect every traffic law it would kill a shit ton of people and it would be all those people's fault. Does anyone think this is meaningful when they say it's not the computers fault that it killed someone? Can an object be at fault?


    Oh, and what's the headline over at the linked article?


    Police chief says Uber 'likely not' at fault in pedestrian accident


    Jesus Christ, fire this intern or at least force him to read his sources.


    Tempe Police Chief Sylvia Moir told the San Francisco Chronicle that, based on footage from the vehicle's on-board cameras, "it's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how [the pedestrian] came from the shadows right into the roadway."


    I'll take 'what do light sources have to do with shit when it's using LADAR and presumably infrared, asshole' for a thousand.

  • John||

    +1 last clear chance doctrine.

  • BYODB||

    I just can't fathom how they think it's not the systems fault because the light was poor.

    THE LIGHT WAS POOR?!

    THE CAR DOESN'T USE VISIBLE LIGHT TO NAVITAGTE, ASSHOLES!

    The Tempe police is actively working with the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine who is at fault for the accident. "I suspect preliminarily it appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this accident," Moir stated. However, after the Chronicle's story, the Tempe Police Department issued a statement that said, "Tempe Police Department does not determine fault in vehicular collisions."

    So, yes, those trillions of dollars are going to be the determining factor. Go look into the intersection looking like a crosswalk and you begin to see that there is literally zero chance that the autodrive isn't what went wrong.

  • John||

    That cop's opinion means exactly jack and shit. They don't determine fault. Courts do.

  • BYODB||

    Yes, that is true, but that's rather the point in that it's clear Britches didn't read his source or is purposefully writing misleading links. Or it's just true that the staff don't give fucks about AM/PM links, which is probably the most likely thing of all.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Are we not supposed to deploy technology until it is perfect, even if it is better than the human alternative?

    From the article, video evidence and human testimony is that a human driver could not have avoided the accident.

    Poor lighting explains why the human safety driver did not intervene. Perhaps the intervening shrubs blocked the lidar. Perhaps robot cars will never be able to fully anticipate a human deliberately leaping in front of a car from the side of the road outside of a crosswalk.

  • JFree||

    robot cars will never be able to fully anticipate a human deliberately leaping in front of a car from the side of the road outside of a crosswalk.

    At 38 mph (the speed the car was going - in a 35 mph zone), the car is 55 feet away one second before impact. There was no 'deliberate leaping' onto a hood here.

    From the article, video evidence and human testimony is that a human driver could not have avoided the accident.

    Actually the technical issue is - the car itself did not apply its brakes. A human almost certainly would have if not drunk.

    The woman was walking her bike across the road. Almost by definition, that means she was too intimidated by the traffic speed to ride her bike. Tempe ain't gonna admit the posted traffic speed is too high or the lights are bad or the road design is poor. They ain't gonna be bothered with the enforcement of a REDUCED speed limit there. She was homeless on a road in Tempe which is near golf courses - which to most homeowning voters means 'good riddance - maybe that will prevent homeless people from sleeping on our golf course'. And Arizona is where most of the self-driving cars are being tested (600 cars on their roads vs 350 on CA roads) precisely because the Gov is jockeying to eliminate any onerous regs in order to get Uber to relocate there.

    So the real explanation here is - do the authorities side with Uber or a homeless person?

  • JFree||

    Edit - Waymo alone has 600 robo-taxis in the greater Phoenix area and their Robo-Taxi division is HQ'd in the next town over from Tempe (Chandler - where the largest employer is Intel who is also testing self-driving cars there)

    Any explanation here is all about the money not the truth.

  • JFree||

    came from the shadows right into the roadway

    Sounds like justifiable homicide to me. Pedestrians are just getting too damn uppity in this country.

  • Sevo||

    See what you can learn from daytime TV while having lunch at the bar?

    "Holy Cross Makes Decision To Change Mascot"
    [...]
    ""It is time Holy Cross apologizes for years of cultural and religious insensitivity involving our mascot. The crusader is simply too provocative to remain, and despite the fact that our college has already expressed a commitment to diversity, further action needs to be taken. For too long, white Catholic men have been lampooned by the Crusader image...."
    https://www.theodysseyonline.com/
    holy-cross-decision-change-mascot

  • John||

    Pathetic. Every once in a while the Catholic Church feels the need to remind me why I am not a Catholic.

  • ||

    idk...why exactly should anyone celebrate the Crusades?

  • John||

    Because it was justified response to centuries of Muslim aggression against Europe. They should also celebrate the Seige of Malta and the victory at Tours. And Napoleon's conquest of Egypt.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Because the Crusades in reality were a pretty important cultural exchange. It led to a lot of intermarrying, and those Western Europeans were finally able to get a hot bath.

    And no, I'm not kidding.

  • John||

    That is not true. Bathing fell out of fashion in the 14th Century because of the Palgue.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm trying to find that series of 90s era BBC documentaries with that excellent history professor who would pepper his narration with tongue-in-cheek comments.

    I remember he described the 'fall of Constantinople' as "The Nudge of Constantinople", talked about how no one was really interested in toppling anything because there was so much intermarrying that crusaders killing people were likely to be killing their 2nd cousins and... "Popping over to Constantinople gave them an opportunity to have a hot bath."

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    likely to be killing their 2nd cousins and...

    If I remember harder, I think he said "their mother in law".

    Great series... can't find it. Called, History of Everything or the something that changed the world... something like that. I googled for 20 minutes and couldn't find it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I appreciate you!

    Granted, I'll almost certainly never watch those videos and no one else here will either, so you're probably better off never doing this again and using the newly available time to ponder your poor time-allocation skills, but still, appreciated!

  • Sevo||

    "Good lord, took me over an hour of googling."
    You, sir are a wonder!
    I could link to some Amazon listings for books, but it ain't quite the same.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So, these are strange times, but I'm 99% certain that article is a joke.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The new mascot received incredible support from the online Holy Cross community. One alum stated, "I am so proud that my school has stepped up to the plate on this issue. Whenever I walked through the halls of that school I felt a nagging sense that an upper class, white Catholic man like myself would never truly be accepted at Holy Cross. The Plain White Square better represents an inclusive HC experience. Although I must say, I think white was an odd color choice for the square."

    That's the final paragraph. It's satire.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's hard to tell these days.

  • Sevo||

    "So, these are strange times, but I'm 99% certain that article is a joke."
    If so, it's wide-spread. I picked one of many outlets carrying it.
    BTW, shouldn't they drop "Holy Cross"? I mean has no one heard of the inquisition?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So, looking further the confusion on my part was that the underlying news that they are getting rid of their mascot is true, but the specific article you linked to is mocking that news.

  • Libertymike||

    I throw out all of the Holy Cross fundraising letters my wife gets.

  • Sevo||

    "So, looking further the confusion on my part was that the underlying news that they are getting rid of their mascot is true, but the specific article you linked to is mocking that news."

    To be honest, I just scanned the one I posted; it was just the first one on a Bing search.

  • Libertymike||

    There are lots of Catholics like me and my wife, who is a Holy Cross alum, who abhor this decision.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

  • Eidde||

    They are phasing out the knight imagery but keeping the name "Crusaders"

    "Themes like the importance of the intellectual life, critical thinking and reflective learning; the Jesuit and Catholic intellectual and spiritual tradition; and the dialogue between faith and reason are some of the reasons the Holy Cross community identify as Crusaders, Boroughs (the President) wrote.

    "There was a common understanding of the term Crusader to mean "a noble effort to support a cause, to right a wrong or to make a difference."...

    "...the visual depiction of a knight, in conjunction with the moniker Crusader, inevitably ties us directly to the reality of the religious wars and the violence of the Crusades. This imagery stands in contrast to our stated values.""

    Lame.

  • Eidde||

    "The logo and mascot will be phased out in the coming months, Boroughs wrote.

    "Instead, the school will look to its secondary athletics logo, an interlocking "HC" on a purple shield. That logo will be used for athletic teams, uniforms and advertising."

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The driver, Rafaela Vasquez, said that "it was like a flash," when the person abruptly stepped out from a center median in front of the car.

    Interesting conundrum here. I'm not disagreeing that the pedestrian is probably at fault, but it brings to mind the difference between humans and robots.

    I'm currently teaching my daughter to drive. There are places in my area where pedestrians are known to just step off medians where there are bushes and other obstructions. When we get on those, I tell her to slow down and when possible, move one lane over. One thing I constantly preach to her is: "Give the other [drivers/pedestrians] room to make a mistake".

    I keep hammering that into her head, to help her realize that she can avoid the accident-- not in a reactive way, but a proactive way.

    How do you tell a robot "Yeah, it's legal to drive in this lane and at the speed limit, but... uhm, there's a new homeless camp on the other side of the road and drunk people like to wander out, move into the middle lane..."

  • Longtobefree||

    You pretty much code exactly that.
    It knows where it is, it knows how many lanes there are, it knows the programmers are idiots. But it still cannot act on it's own; it needs a program instruction.

  • JeremyR||

    18 wheelers do this a lot. They will pull out into traffic knowing that anyone with sense will slam on the brakes and not hit them.

    But will robot cars?

  • Karl Hungus||

    Officer Mohammed Noor has been charged with the shooting death of Justine Damond:

    http://bit.ly/2HMViQE

  • John||

    Finally

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'll smile when we get a conviction.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Can we convict whoever invited Noor onto his land?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    No, because that's not how libertarian ideas about personal responsibility work.

  • Eidde||

    Get ready for journalists to deal the race card:

    "We refer our readers to the three weeks following the death of Justine Damon, when so-called anonymous sources identified Officer Noor as an unqualified Black foreigner, Islamic sympathizer, and affirmative action candidate at the police academy.

    "These statements have also been attributed to Australia's prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and to the family of Justine Damon. These very inflammable and prejudicial statements came to them from "anonymous" sources with "first hand" knowledge of Officer Noor's history, and of the training protocol of the Minneapolis Police Department. Thus, the possibility is high that one or more witnesses, in secret testimony, will say that Officer Noor is not a patriotic American, but rather hates and despises White Christians and White Americans.

    "The county attorney seems to feel that in this election year, he must satisfy his political and racial base, not his constitutional mandate to serve Lady Justice."

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I suppose they want to build a character case, but it seems wholly separate from the actual facts of the case.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    LOL

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Showing contempt for your opponents works better when paired with an actual response.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    If you buy a farm tractor and leave it running and it leaves your property and runs someone over, you're responsible, right?

    If you buy a Mohammed and he leaves your land and blows up, why are you not similarly responsible?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Because human beings are not the same as tools we own.

    I have to ask, are you being factitious with that comment? Because if not, I'm going to point out that considering humans to be tools owned by people is also not particularly libertarian.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    "These are different situations" is not an answer to "why are these situations different?"

    I'm going to point out that considering humans to be tools owned by people is also not particularly libertarian.

    I trust I can find you making this comment under some of the 100's of Reason blogs equating free trade with free movement of "labor."

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    If you buy a Bubba T. White Dude and he leaves your land and shoots 58 people at a concert, why are you not similarly responsible?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Because Bubba T is a citizen and is going to be in this country regardless of my actions.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Under an open borders regimen, immigrants would not need a citizen sponsor, and could acquire room and board from any of thousands of available venues.

    All of which serves as a distraction from the question of whether they commit mor or less murder, and how many civil rights are violated in the enforcement of deportation laws.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Europe recently had a short experiment with open borders. Ask them if crime increased.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Europe offers more welfare than America, attracting less productive personality types, while suppressing its citizens self-defense capacity to a greater extent than we do, and the majority of that crime is directed towards other immigrants, so the margin of increased danger for the native-born is smaller than it seems.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Open Borders: Good thing you got that arsenal, Sidd!

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "1 factor in my opponent's argument is all the factors!"

    And most self-defense advantage from gun ownership is community deterrence of home invasion and street attack, so barely any actual gunfire is needed for it to work.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    What do you think of Clemens estimate that open borders in the West would result in 1 billion immigrants to the US?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    That said estimate is self-evidently stupid. Even with no legal restrictions and massive capital infusion, the free market couldn't remotely create the housing and infrastructure needed for that growth unless it were over the span of centuries, in which case there would be plenty of time for assimilation.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    That's the number used by people who talk about "doubling world gdp" (currently the most prestigous argument)

    Corrugated steel is trivially easy to buy if you're making $1/ hour. That's a massive improvement for the projected 4 billion sub Saharan Africans in 2050.

    China's built cities so fast, some of them forgot to have people. Hard to see why we couldn't.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Steel isn't even remotely the only sort of infrastructure needed to sustain that. Houses, office buildings, schools, computers, roads, increased food production... Everything but the human bodies themselves, technically. Everything needed for a billion new residents of all income ranges, AND the billion new jobs needed to make them productive.

    Welfare can distort that in favor low-income migrants, of course. But American welfare benefits weren't enough to sustain the high illegal population in the mid-Aughts, when they started to self-deport for lack of jobs, so we don't seem to have Europe's problem of "charity magnetism" there. Even if we did, any open borders policy would have to get Republican approval, and so almost certainly would include restrictions on immigrant welfare harsher than the current set, as well as no automatic citizenship, so the preconditions needed to be "swamped by beggars", while not impossible, would be unlikely to occur here.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Steel isn't even remotely the only sort of infrastructure needed to sustain that.

    I was speaking to how houses in shanty towns are made of corrugated steel.

    Europe's problem of "charity magnetism

    The draw is a better life, however that's attained. (This American Values stuff is garbage. Americans don't even care about that). Until our standard of living is the same as Haiti, every Haitian wants to come here.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    But without charity, there are limits to how many can move here. If there were unlimited demand for cheap labor, why did those illegals start to self-deport in 2005? If America really had unlimited demand for cheap labor, you'd expect illegal immigration to continuously increase forever, economic downturns be damned. It certainly should have started to skyrocket again once the economy started to (wheezingly) grow again.

    Excess welfare is a legitimate problem with immigration in theory, but not for the USA in practice.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    why did those illegals start to self-deport in 2005

    Because there's a huge cost to living here illegally, employing illegal labor, etc. It's like you genuinely don't grok that costs aren't necessarily directly monetary.

    If America really had unlimited demand for cheap labor

    headdesk. This is such a failure of econ 101 it's hard to even know where to start.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Are you saying that enforcement of immigration law was the cause of that decrease? Because I've never heard anyone claiming that. All indications I've seen were that it was in line with market employment demand. ICE and CBP were increasing capture/deportation of too few immigrants and increasing arrests of too few business owners to raise the cost of immigration that abruptly.

    ...This is such a failure of econ 101 it's hard to even know where to start

    You do get that I was saying there isn't unlimited demand, right?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I'm saying that immigration laws make being an illegal immigrant/ employing illegal immigrants significantly less desirable than if such laws didn't exist. And the only reason I'm continuing with you is the fascination that there's somebody who genuinely doesn't understand this.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Of course there would be some increase. The point is that if the immigrant population decrease a decade ago wasn't caused by state intervention, than, however many costs were added on to immigration at that point, we must have been "full up" on immigrants at that cost level.

    And thus, while eliminating remaining restrictions would obviously lower cost of entry, there must be a bottom to that too. If America only wants X number of immigrants at cost X (and that cost must already be low, otherwise they wouldn't outcompete the natives), than at cost Y, we'd get Y number of immigrants, and because cost X is already at or below minimum wage, there probably wouldn't be that much extra room for lower-paid immigrants. Millions, maybe even 10 or 20 million, but not hundreds of millions. A lot of wealthy immigrants would have to move here as well for that to happen.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The point is that if the immigrant population decrease a decade ago wasn't caused by state intervention, than, however many costs were added on to immigration at that point, we must have been "full up" on immigrants at that cost level..

    There's a whole world outside the US. Those economies matter too.

    X number of immigrants at cost X ... cost Y, we'd get Y number of immigrants

    This is not how variables work.

    here probably wouldn't be that much extra room for lower-paid immigrants. Millions, maybe even 10 or 20 million, but not hundreds of millions

    This is far lower than any estimate by an academic open borders advocate, by at least a hundred million.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Thread is probably dead, so I apologize if this comes across as corpse-fucking.

    I stand by my point about there being a "bottom" for low-income immigrants, so long as there aren't also wealthier immigrants coming in with them. You'll note that I specifically said "A lot of wealthy immigrants would have to move here as well for that to happen"; I imagine those open-borders advocates are probably assuming that. You do remember I only brought this up as a response to the idea we'd be swamped by low-income immigrants, right? Which is why I said: so the preconditions needed to be "swamped by beggars", while not impossible, would be unlikely to occur here.

    if your vaunted enforcement raises the price of hiring an immigrant to, let's say, 9$ an hour minimum, and there's a limit on how many poor immigrants our economy needed at or above that cost level (about 11 million, apparently), then eliminating that enforcement such that the cost drops to, let's say, minimum wage, will not magically make the number of immigrants the market demands "infinite". Even if the minimum wage is widely flaunted so you have 1$ an hour wages, that just increases the "bag limit" without making it capable of sustaining hundreds of millions. The only way that changes is if wealthy immigrants expand consumer demand, which I specified.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Can we convict whoever rented apartments or offered paychecks to native-born criminals?

    You know, since they occur at about the same rate per-capita.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Somalis blow up at the same rate as everyone else, bigot.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Blowing up" is only a small fraction of "murders".

    Arguing that "terrorism" should be considered more important than "overall murder" is exactly the same as arguing that "mass shootings" with AR-15s should be considered worse than "random domestic murder" with steak knife.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Correction: 70 IQ Muslims commit "overall murder" at the same rate as everyone else, bigot.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The burden of proof is on you to prove that they do, because the only stat I could find showed that crime in Minneapolis has decreased during the time of the Somali influx.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    *prove that they don't

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The burden is on me to prove that the US is the only place on earth that Somalians aren't extremely shitty?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "All people of Somali descent are exactly the same everywhere"

    Okay, important safety tip, thanks, Egon.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    "All people of Somali descent are exactly the same everywhere"

    Nope, Somalis in America have the lowest unemployment in the world. USA! USA! USA! It was approaching 50% last I checked.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Approaching 50% from the north.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Goalposts transferred, sir!"

    "Copy that, Sidd Finch 2-1, return to base, over."

    static squawk

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    "Why won't you do the research I've asked you to do and that I, personally, refuse to do!"

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Add "basic principles of Western jurisprudence" to the list of "Things Sidd Finch Wrongly Thinks He Understands".

    The prosecution has to prove guilt. The defense doesn't have to prove innocence.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The prosecution has to prove guilt.

    Either way some people have a higher crime rate than some other people, dumbfuck.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Some people have the same crime rate as other people, too.

    And that is just as irrelevant an obsevation as yours.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Some people have the same crime rate as other people, too.

    such as?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Germany and Austria, Britain and Australia, France and Czechia... at least by murder rate. What's your point? Of course numbers are never perfectly exact, but they can be close enough to not matter. If the question of "do immigrants raise or lower the local murder rate" depends of the margin of error in your statistic, that should be your cue to maybe spend time and resources worrying about something else.

    And you do also realize that most immigrant victims are other immigrants, right? So the deaths that natives need to worry about are an order of magnitude fewer than the overall margin by default.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I was thinking of ... different people. e.g. Somalians and Swedes like our situation in Minnesota.

    And you do also realize that most immigrant victims are other immigrants, right?

    Murders, sure. I highly doubt that's true of other crimes.

    "do immigrants raise or lower the local murder rate"

    I don't ask questions like this because I'm not some immigrant worshipping fanatic asshole. It's pretty obvious whose committing the crimes, and the category "immigrant" isn't doing much work.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    As long as the immigrant murder rate is at or below the native rate, no additional natives are dying and your concerns should be satisfied. Minneapolis, not Sweden, is what we're discussing here. We already discussed the differences between US and Swedish/EU immigration policy above.

    I don't know why other crime would be different, since it's mainly a question of travel cost and police presence: crimes in middle- or upper-class areas get the cops swarming, and most criminals can't afford to range very far out of their neighborhood, ergo they commit crime in the ethnically homogenous community they live in: black, white, immigrant, or otherwise.

    And if you're not worried about "the category 'immigrant'", than why are we discussing immigrants at all?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    your concerns should be satisfied

    I'm allowed to have more concerns than the murder rate.

    I don't know why other crime would be different

    Because murders are usually crimes of passion.

    travel cost

    just stop

    And if you're not worried about "the category 'immigrant'", than why are we discussing immigrants at all?

    Because you want to invite the entire third world here.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Just remembered that the progs at Cato say that illegals have a lower crime rate than whites. But if you read the fine print, it's high school dropout whites.

    Were you referring to that data?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Nope. Stats I read said equal to general population.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Criminals have very isolated "territories", and cost of travel is a part of that. Why would a criminal spend 20$ on a taxi to take him to a convenience store or pedestrian he'll rob 100$ from? Or even take a couple of hours on a sibsidized public transport? The stores and passersby near him aren't going to run out. He has little reason to leave his home turf, so he doesn't.

    And if we are discussing immigrants, what the hell did this mean:

    I don't ask questions like this because I'm not some immigrant worshipping fanatic asshole. It's pretty obvious whose committing the crimes, and the category "immigrant" isn't doing much work.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Nope. Stats I read said equal to general population.

    Read the fine print. Nearly all stats like this by Cato and the like say "similarly situated" in the footnotes.

    And if we are discussing immigrants, what the hell did this mean:

    It's pretty obvious whose committing the crimes, and the category "immigrant" isn't doing much work.

    Nobody, as in literally zero people, ever looked at Arcadia and said "Man, I bet those schools are struggling with all those immigrants."

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Nope. Stats I read said equal to general population.

    Read the fine print. Nearly all stats like this by Cato and the like say "similarly situated" in the footnotes.

    And if we are discussing immigrants, what the hell did this mean:

    It's pretty obvious whose committing the crimes, and the category "immigrant" isn't doing much work.

    Nobody, as in literally zero people, ever looked at Arcadia and said "Man, I bet those schools are struggling with all those immigrants."

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I'll accept your concession on the "travel time 'gotcha'" that wasn't.

    I'm sure I could find a bunch of stats saying illegals do or don't commit crime at an equal or higher rate, but like I said at the start of all this: even if you can prove that the poorest immigrants are genuinely a threat, you have to prove that the degree of "spillover" from their crime rate on native communities (eg, the degree to which that crime isn't directed at fellow immigrants; if 1000 people are murdered by immigrants every year, and only 500 are native born, then it's only 500 murders that natives should worry about) exceeds the harm done to native civil rights by ICE, CBP and DHS's enforcement campaign: hundreds of US citizens deported annually, unconstitutional interior checkpoints, bystanders shot by SWAT teams during raids, et al. You don't even have to care about any harm done to immigrants; just to natives in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Nobody, as in literally zero people, ever looked at Arcadia and said "Man, I bet those schools are struggling with all those immigrants."

    Sooo... black people are the problem?

    If that's not actually what you meant, I'm sorry. But I don't really know what other metric you could be using there.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Can 'living in the US as a citizen' be meaningfully reduced to 'renting an apartment'?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Okay.

    Can we convict whoever rented apartments to, offered paychecks to, or failed to arrest on sight for the crime of "being near them without Proper Papers" native-born criminals?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    You answer my question first.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I did, by changing the terms to those you preferred. If there are any conditions relating to citizenship relevant to crime that I failed to list in my 8:49 comment, you are free to add them.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Can 'living in the US as a citizen' be meaningfully reduced to 'renting an apartment'?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Okay.

    Can we convict whoever rented apartments to, offered paychecks to, failed to arrest on sight for the crime of "being near them without Proper Papers", or otherwise treated in the manner of a lawful citizen native-born criminals?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Of course. Aiding and abetting, conspiracy, etc.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Employing someone who steals a car = aiding and abetting.

    Renting an apartment to someone who shoots up a school = conspiracy.

    The More You Know...

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    You really are stupid.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Whereas Ad Hominems are the mark of a logical mind.

    Albeit a mind incapable of actually producing a logical retort...

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Earlier you literally denied that supply and demand is a thing. I've long quit taking you seriously.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Where? You mean back when I said that the effect of border controls is to reduce immigration, but the immigrants kept out are probably as or less likely to be criminals than the ones who self-select as scofflaws?

    Was it that particular misinterpretation of my positions, or another?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The one where you said border controls had no effect on cartels.

    Are you under the impression that our current border control regime actually stops drug cartel members from coming here?

    Who do you think builds those tunnels?

    The cartels are the one group that can move here with impunity. You'd have to do a lot more than build a wall to change that... and deport a lot more US citizens while you were doing it.

    You're arguing that the demand to travel to the US is perfectly inelastic for (nearly?) every cartel member everywhere. That's how stupid people think.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Are you under the impression that somewhere, there's a cartel leader shaking his fist at his inability to move another 50 footsoldiers into Los Angeles?

    CBP catches maybe a quarter of immigrants on a good day, and the violent ones are the most likely to make multiple attempts. If the cartels wanted more personnel in the USA, they'd be here.

    And if your argument is that the non-violent immigrants would create more demand for cartel members (maybe it was?), then to that I say: you do realize that the main reason those cartels below our borders exist is to sell drugs to the people already living here, right? Immigrants would increase the drug consumer base to an extent, but they still make most of their money selling to middle- and uper-class native US citizens, so a bunch of poor Hispanics isn't going to increase demand for drug supply corridors or street pushers very much. And most of that stuff is contracted out by the cartels to local gangs anyway, which leads us right back to the point about low immigrant crime.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    You should've just said you were being hyperbolic. This is a terrible look.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Look at the murder rates in central America. You don't believe ANY of those guys would rather be in the US?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    there's a cartel leader shaking his fist at his inability to move another 50 footsoldiers into Los Angeles?

    It's not exactly easy for 50 20 year old Hondurans with face tattoos to get tickets to LAX.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Which is why they use the tunnels.

    Or hop the fence, or hide in an 18-wheeler, or take a boat, or...

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    If they're working for the cartel, they don't get to decide where they live.

    And if they're moving here "on their own time", then we're not discussing them in their capacity as cartel members any more, are we? We're discussing general immigration... in which case I ask, for the third time, why immigrants who currently allow themselves to be deterred by US immigration law, would somehow be likelier to be criminals than the ones who aren't deterred by it, eg our current, more-or-less crime neutral illegal population.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Did you watch something on Netflix?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Not a counter-argument.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The very same reason the Mariel boat lift people and Merkel's whathaveyous were so much more criminal.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The former were specifically "recruited" for being criminals by Castro, and the latter would have a hard time getting here even without legal restrictions, especially since we don't have Europe's welfare nets to snare them in. Neither is relevant to the Latin American immigrants that would form the bulk of an open borders influx (proximity + preexisting community to join).

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    If it was possible to prevent all future African migration by having open borders with north and south America, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Ah, so it is black people that's the problem for you. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

    Anyway, distance is a factor, but welfare is the real problem. Free money attracts the poorest and least educated of any country on Earth, but it's self-evident that US illegals aren't subsisting solely on welfare because if they were they'd never self-deport, much less self-deport in line with agricultural and construction market forces. If we gave out free stuff like the EU does, it wouldn't matter if it were Africa or Latin America that they came from; we'd get the dregs, whereas right now all newcomers have to at least gain some of their income from working and not going to jail.

    It's also worth noting that, if the US and EU had sufficiently severe punishments for violent crimes, it wouldn't matter much what kind of immigrants came in, because instead of the current revolving door of 3- to 5- year sentences for robbery and rape you'd have 1-strike-you're-out decades-long sentences that would both prevent and deter. America doesn't need missile defense systems to stop Russia or China from nuking us; deterrence is enough. Crime should work the same way.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The former were specifically "recruited" for being criminals by Castro

    They were willing to be criminals in Cuba(!!) but not enter into the weirdo US - intl waters thing?!?! How do you explain that !!!

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Gee, I don't know, maybe because Castro was going to shoot them or throw them back in prison if they didn't leave? Just a guess. Of all the examples you could pick, this is literally the weakest one.

  • Nardz||

    How do you define a country without borders?
    Will free access across these now non-existent borders be in both directions, or just one?
    In a government of, by, and for the people... who are the people?
    Where does one system of laws start and another begin? Will this apply to states as well?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    @Nardz

    If "open" borders meant "no" borders, we'd call it "no borders".

    Ideally it would be both directions; maybe reciprocity should be demanded. The same question as whether we should unilaterally abolish tariffs or sign free trade agreements, essentially.

    "The people" are the native born and children of immigrants on US soil. I can't speak for leftists, but I do not support extension of citizenship to 1st-gen immigrants without the current requirements for citizenship being met, only that they be allowed to live and work where they can.

    The laws still apply exactly where they always did.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "To lose a family member to violence is always wrenching and painful. But to lose it when she was acting as a concerned and caring citizen, and at the hands of the person she called for help, is inexplicable," Freeman said.

    I wouldn't exactly call it "inexplicable", Bob...

  • Longtobefree||

    I can tell you who/what will NOT be blamed for the traffic death splashed around the world; the damn commission that let that median get built! This is a textbook example of contributory negligence.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In all seriousness, it's a hoot to see how badly the city has endangered bicyclists by giving them their own lanes.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    AND PEOPLE STILL DON'T STAY IN THEM

  • Eidde||

  • Eidde||

    ALL-CAPS IN ORIGINAL

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'VE HEARD A LOT OF GOOD ABOUT 5TH EDITION BUT I HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO IT MYSELF

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I prefer Pathfinder, which basically locked in the 3.5 edition rules. A lot of the old time gamers considered the 3.5 rule set to be the best. 5th edition dumbed things down and put the focus more on story telling. The best way I heard the difference described is: Pathfinder is like playing a game and 5th edition is like telling a story.

    It boils down to how much you want outcomes to be controlled by fate (dice) vs. by an authority (the game master). Take a guess as to which one is more libertarian in spirit.

  • Eidde||

    Ah, yes, it's Large-Breasted Israeli Tourism Woman again.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't know how Google found out my preference for Jewish women. Perhaps my searches for Jenny Slate finally outed me.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Google knows you better than you know yourself.

  • Eidde||

  • Eidde||

  • SIV||

    That robot car should be lynched.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Don't you mean jacked?

  • Eidde||

  • Eidde||

    "Trump congratulates Putin on his election win, suggests the two will meet in "the not-too-distant future.""

    In a space station where they can watch and comment on movies together?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online