[jezclaremurugan]

This was a lightbulb moment, and I realized the contradictory stance I have - no oversight on social media but I believe in gun control/regulation. People and tools.. and what tools are dangerous enough to be regulated, the thing with social media regulation and censorship is that seems so closely tied with free speech and free market enterprise so any oversight is revolting to me, but given the effect fake news has - I realize it can be as dangerous, if not more, than guns.

[andromedavision]

> This was a lightbulb moment

I knew it from the get go. I also know most people here are left leaning but that people haven't really thought about why they take the positions they take. There is a lot of indoctrination. This is by no means an attack on OP or you personally. Survey most people here (HN) without bringing up guns and they will agree with what OP said; people are the problem and not the tools.

Bring up the issue of guns and because it is the 'progressive/liberal/democrat' thing to do, guns(tools) become the problem. If we weren't polarized politically and instead took time to think about issues for ourselves, then our convictions would be consistent and hold true across the board.

I am a black non-american who absolutely agrees with and loves Trump. I look at the data on economics and what he's done for America and wish more people could see the same and forget about what the media says about him. His policies on immigration are common sense and exactly what I would want for my country; people have to come in the right way and some places have to have more scrutiny than others. That doesn't mean I hate humans but rather that I understand that people are different and some worse than others.

[dcow]

I agree with you on the “people don’t examine their principles and hold consistent world views” thing. You see it everywhere but and it frustrates me so so very much. But I think the travel ban is actually was super immature and is actually an example of the right being inconsistent. You’re American until you travel to Iran then you’re subhuman? What! Come on. Of course we need to scrutinize people who enter even if that means closing our doors to refugees if we can’t handle the load, but a travel ban that applies even to US citizens... that’s inconsistent.

[andromedavision]

> You’re American until you travel to Iran then you’re subhuman?

That's obviously very ill informed (I'd like a link to this or a pointer to such incidents if you don't mind).

However, could there be more to the story? If there's a threat that the individual(s) might have been radicalized (and there are enough instances where this has been the case), then Americans might have to be smarter about whether they can allow you back into society without severe scrutiny or even detainment where evidence supports it (curious if there's sufficient legislation to resolve this though).

[dcow]

> But citizens of these countries who are legal permanent residents in the United States initially were held for long hours at airports, and those who have immigrant visas also were denied entry.

I know citizens eventually got back in but it could have been handled better.

[tempestn]

Of course people entering the country from some places require more scrutiny than others. But, it's not like that hasn't always been done. People coming from the countries on Trump's travel ban list face extreme scrutiny to get US visas. What Trump decided to do was ban anyone coming from those countries altogether. Including people who had already gone through that vetting process and obtained visas. Even including permanent residents of the US, initially! Even people fleeing from countries like Iraq, because their lives were in danger due to helping the US. There was already a common sense policy in place; Trump employed a policy sledgehammer. (With little to no evidence that it would even achieve the stated goal of increasing security.)

I would debate your other points as well, but I don't want to get too far into the weeds here. My main point is that often what is sold as a "common sense" policy is in fact an overly simplistic one—the policy already in place may have had a great deal of sense behind it, but the world is complicated, and so, so are most sensible policies. Taking rash actions like barring all travel from a list of countries is more likely to do harm than good. (As would an extreme policy on the other side, like opening borders completely. Again, the world is complicated, and difficult problems require thoughtful solutions.)

[andromedavision]

> Even people fleeing from countries like Iraq, because their lives were in danger due to helping the US.

Well obviously this isn't very useful and may need to be rethought if true. I don't know much about this claim though so I'll read more on it.

> Trump employed a policy sledgehammer

Look, these things aren't easy. May be it is a disproportionate response but I've lived through a period of fear when muslim terrorists bombed/shot up malls and universities in my country. In one incident, two armed civilians (an Israeli and a native) were able to shoot some terrorists and save some innocent lives. A once safe country ended up with us having to lock our offices during the day when business should be conducted. I am a lottle biased on the issue and that's why I took such a hardliner position on it.

[tempestn]

I'm sorry, that sounds terrible, and certainly does help explain the position. In a way, I see this as a mirror to our freedom vs security discussion down thread. In this case, I feel what's being given up in the name of security is too great. Most people in the world are decent. It does us harm if we learn to fear whole groups of people—or in the extreme case, all people who we consider outsiders to our group—due to the radical acts of a few. While there certainly are people who society needs to be protected against, and it certainly does make sense to carefully vet people coming from countries that are known to harbor terrorists or other enemies, I feel heavy handed policies like the iterations of the travel ban both encourage these feelings of fear and distrust in members of the population, and worsen feelings about the country from people on the outside (and even citizens who identify with people in the targeted groups). Ill will is increased on all sides, to everyone's detriment. Perhaps that would be justified if the security threat was sufficient, which obviously many Trump supporters feel it is. But the evidence doesn't support that. For example, here's an article from the Cato Institute demonstrating that the travel ban would not have prevented the entry of any terrorists since 9/11: https://www.cato.org/blog/new-travel-ban-wouldve-prevented-e...

[andromedavision]

> Most people in the world are decent

This Rousseauian vantage point on the general nature of people is something that's debatable to me. I think that under specific conditions this rings truer (or more false depending on how you look at it) than in other conditions. This whole debate leads to an even deeper rabbit hole that entails things such as the necessity of religion(not to be conflated with fundamentalism / fanaticism). I am more of a Maistrean in my view of humans i.e. that people aren't good at first but under the right conditions, people can behave in a desirable manner that ensures chaos is staved off.

> Cato

I no longer believe Cato represents true conservative ideology and it is not necessarily the most authoritative source on matters conservative policy. It is weak on a lot of issues and infiltrated by people who don't necessarily embody its founding principles. When it was formed by the Kochs, they eventually broke away from another group who thought that they(Kochs/Cato) had sold out their mission for more mainstream appeal. This group was led by Murray Rothbard, and I guess I could say I left with them(Miseseans).

Just concluding the book, Sons of Wichita, and despite the Kochs being viewed as the embodiment of conservative/libertarian ideology in America, I don't think they take it far enough. They're weak on immigration. Very weak. They've built an amazing corporation that their father, Fred, would have been proud of (despite the family feuds) but he most certainly would have disapproved of their politics. He of course came up in the era of communism and saw it as the greatest threat that existed at the time.

Anyway, Tempestn, been a great discussion. I'd like to continue this later via mail as per your profile so I'll be reaching out. You've been great; typically these discussions tend to get out of hand with a lot of name calling but there was none of that here. Kudos for the survivalist initiatives you've undertaken - I don't even know what to say about that except I hope you never need to employ them. :)

[tempestn]

Thanks, I was going to suggest continuing by email as well. I agree that it's nice to have a civil conversation with someone who comes from a very different point of view.

Regarding Cato, I'm more interested in the statistics themselves than the source. The travel ban obviously speaks to a real fear people have, and it's one I understand. My perspective though is that the policy itself, while it may serve to assuage those fears through bold action, doesn't actually do anything to reduce the risks that it is theoretically intended to target. I think the evidence given in that article (and others) supports that view. In fact, my belief is that if anything it increases them due to encouraging anti-US sentiment among targeted groups. It's a good thing that it makes people feel better and safer, but I feel that could be done in more positive ways, which wouldn't cause such hardship to good people planning to come to the US, and which might avoid the potential negative consequences in terms of anti-US sentiment as well.