How to decrease illegal immigration

 If any law-abiding citizen of a foreign country could come here legally in a reasonable amount of time, then there would be far less need for illegal immigration, and therefore less illegal immigration. If America didn't defund efforts to assist foreign nations in creating a more prosperity and safety in the home countries, there would be less illegal immigration. If we invested in adjudicators to decide asylum claims quickly and efficiently, there would be less illegal immigration. As a matter of justice, our leaders need to stop lying about prospective immigrants, and cut out the bald assertions that they are all out of prisons or asylums, or eating pets. We also need to stop discriminating against prospective immigrants based on country of origin (no Haitians, but Afrikaners from South Africa are free to come.) I have trouble seeing illegal immigrants as criminals when we have such Jim Crow immigration laws. Don't unjust laws deserve to be broken?

In defense of abortion, by Nathan Nobis

An argument in defense of early abortion. 

Deductive arguments

 Actually deductive arguments does not need to be based on facts. It just has to he structured in such a way that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be. For example, it is a valid deductive argument to say "Abortion is murder, murder should be legal, therefore abortion should be legal." However it' going to be tough selling people on the second premise.

Free speech is free speech-like it or not

If you think it’s dangerous for Florida’s legislators to have the power to police speech in public school classrooms, then you should find it equally outrageous for Colorado legislators to try to mandate what pronouns parents can use with their own children in their own homes or journalists can use when reporting stories.

Hitler's Crib

 There are cases when what maximizes utility contradicts a principle. What if you are in a position to kill someone you know will do great harm to the world. What if, for example, you are transported back in time and are standing over Hitler's crib. There is a pillow handy. Do you smother him, especially if you think you are going to return to 2025 forthwith?

Utilitarianism and tax policy

 If you raise taxes on the wealthy, you hurt some of those people, though they can afford to lose their thirteenth yacht. But presumably the money could be used to help more people. (Though I know there are debates about this.) Still, in this context, is it best to use utiilitarianism to decide what to do?

What principles do we use to determine tax policy?

Classroom advocacy

 I have often noted the disparity between the way in which religious advocacy in the classroom is treated and the way anti-religious advocacy is treated. It is as if they think that you can't violate the Establishment Clause if you attack religion in class, because atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a religion. So we can shove atheism down your throat all you want to, but if you advocate your religious views in class, there is an issue with the Establishment Clause. You ought at least to have the right to say in class "I'm a believer, here's why" or "I am an unbeliever, here's why." But your first job is to be fair in presenting the case on both sides. I've had atheist professors who were good at doing that. Others, not so much. One of my former teachers in grad school notice a cross on the blackboard. He then put his head down on the desk and said "I won't start class until somebody erases that."