Open Borders

In a corporate body, unlike other mere clubs, companies, or groups, power is consolidated into a single entity that enjoys rights usually reserved only for individual citizens. This is just what you are ascribing to the US when you invoke the idea that cultures can be violated, or that the desires or sovereignty of the "culture" of the US ought to be prioritized over those of the individual members of society.

Is the purpose of employment not the productive utility it adds to the economy? How is it not corruption if you have workers doing unnecessary or under-productive labour to create an inflated measure of their value?

I don't know if writing and enforcing laws is something usually reserved only for individual citizens.

The government is an entity created by its citizens for the purpose of protecting its rights and providing for its interests. I do say that the US government has a duty to its sovereign people more than it does to people in Zimbabwe. That is the whole point of having a country.

Employment is for the mutual interest of the employee and the employer.

How is that relevant? Also, it is the purpose of a democratic republic to achieve just that.

If that is the case, if a citizen wants to let a foreigner live with them in their own house, who has the authority to stop them from doing so?

This is a totally subjective measure. If prices were simply paid to satisfy the interests of the recipient, we could not understand differences in price between the various products and services in the economy. These variations correspond to the differences in objective utility provided by the products or services offered in exchange.

I was giving an example of something not usually reserved for individual citizens. Something a GOVERNMENT must do. A democratic republic is a form of  government. A government has a responsibility to its PEOPLE, which are citizens within its BORDERS. 

A citizen can house a foreigner if they want. That foreigner doesn't have the right to take others' jobs or vote, though.

You are putting way too much power in the hands of business owners and taking it from workers.

In my view, laws should by decided by the people and not imposed by the state, but this is a different subject.

So they can't employ whoever they want?

If we could cure some people of deafness or blindness, there would be less deaf or blind people left in society. That would mean that those remaining deaf or blind people would have less power and influence in the culture. Therefore should the government step in to prevent the cure from being given? If we cured blindness, we would be taking power from blind people and putting it in the hands of non-blind people. In the same sense, if we improve the economy and make more people wealthier, this would in effect be also placing power in the hands of wealthy people. But in the long run, I am trying to expand the circle of people who have influence in society, and I believe that your solution would narrow it.

So you're okay with the elimination of the Native American culture, both North and South?

We are unified in our culture

not expressing group-think.

Define culture.

What the majority does as in vote Democrat or Republican is group think.

I feel like we argued this before.

It is shared history

attitudes

traditions

This isn't group-think.

History: We each accept American history as our own history. The Founding Fathers are important figures for us.

Attitudes: General sentiments most people share. Freedom is a big part of it in America. We like it. A lot of people like gun freedoms. To different degrees, yes, but in general we want to have them. European countries are quite different in that respect.

Traditions: Things we do annually. Christmas, Thanksgiving, and other holidays are examples of traditions. Our business etiquette is distinct.

Accepting this history as your own is part of being an American, whether you like the history or not.

Most Democrats still support more gun freedom than is allowed in nearly any country.

Our culture is a bit more divided that it used to be, but it is still rather intact. 

Them Mexicans need to stay in their broke ass country. We can’t be supporting no broke illegals and at the same time giving up jobs to people who grew up in America 

Within our borders, you cannot hire whoever you want. 

American workers aren't a disease. There is no deaf/blind influence at all.

Historical revisionism is used by white supremacists to rewrite what occurred in Germany and state there is some sort of global conspiracy.

You said and I quote "We are unified in our culture". How is America unified when everyone doesn't support gun freedom if I accept your findings?

Unified: brought together as one

As one doesn't leave anything up. It is like if I said 1 + 1 together equals 2 but then later retract my statement and say 1 + 1 = 2 then - 0.21.

You said that government's responsibility is to its citizens, so how does it have the authority to tell them who they can or cannot hire?

The dysfunction is that supply of labour theoretically outweighs the demand, so that you are attempting to prop up the price by placing artificial limits upon the supply. Artificial scarcity causes deadweight loss, which means that maximum productive efficiency (market equilibrium) is not achieved. The burden caused by deadweight loss can be measured on a utilitarian scale, which is where the analogy to blindness comes in. Economic mobility is tightened by the pressure placed on the production cycle.

Well, don't use revisionist history. That is why I said to accept the good and the bad. Revisionism is usually used to ignore or downplay the bad, but it can also be used to downplay achievements. Both are bad. Just accept what actually happened.

Well, that was because I said we don't all have to agree on everything to be unified.

Are you saying that, to be unified, we must all agree on everything? I think any good democracy needs to have its disagreements.

You said "Accepting this history" makes you an American. Is Nick Fuentes still an American if he deals with Historical Revisionism?

Give me a specific simple example that Americans are unified on something.

The conditions would be:

- Has to include every single American

- Unified as in everyone agrees on something.

If this is not met there isn't a single thing that all Americans agree on.

If you are going to say Christmas. Think about it and if you want to add that in again then do it but know that I already have a counter to that.

I don't know what Nick Fuentes said. If he is knowingly lying and wrong, I'd say that is rather anti-American of him.

There is nothing that every single American agrees on.

and it appeared you were saying that disagreements mean we aren't unified.

--> @Greyparrot  Countless cultures and civilizations were lost due to open/weak borders. Open borders only favors the stronger and more aggressive cultures.

--> @TheRealNihilist  What is so good about a culture or civilization if it can't survive against other more survivable cultures? 

How can Americans be unified if you can't point to a single example of unification of any kind? \

But isn't he still an American?

So your statement that Americans are unified cannot be substantiated?t

How can Americans be unified if you can't point to a single example of unification of any kind?