With only ~5.5 billion souls here now, how many thousands or tens of thousands die every day from lack of food or clean water, malnutrition, 'turf wars' over limited space or resources?
It's more like 6.7 billion, and many people die due to fights over resources. You could probably make an argument that almost all disputes among human beings are disputes over resources - broadly defined.
Directly due to population pressures, how many eke out a bare existence, never rising, never even getting the opportunity to rise, to some level of an enlightened and fulfilling lifestyle in their time here?
Not that many. Almost all current famines, refugee camps, etc are caused by power struggles over the control of resources, rather than a simple lack of those resources. Zimbabwe is a prime example - a food exporter of a long time, but incredibly destructive government practices completely wrecked that, so now they not only import food, but have to get foreign aid in order to feed their own people. Since the country (quite recently) managed to survive on its own resources, it can't be a lack of them that's causing the problems.
I'm all in favor of government regulation when needed, but this is one instance where libertarian philosophy is sound.
I think you, libertarians, and I have the same basic philosophy - government where needed, but not where it isn't. It's just that standard libertarians have a very small list of things that are considered "needed".
You buy a car. You license it to drive it on the public highway. You buy a computer and, unless you write your own OS, you license it to use it.
Yes, if you're on public (government) property, or the property of another entity, they have the right to control what you do there, even kick you out - if you're on your own land, or get permission from the owner, you can do whatever you want (or whatever they allow). That seems reasonable to people because land has the exclusivity property (unlimited numbers can't use it simultaneously), while ideas are quite different.
You could write your own, or use one that was deliberately put into the public domain, or one that has an expired copyright, or...
The differences between a real license (with knowledge about the agreement before it becomes binding, signatures, all those common-law rules about how contracts work) and EULAs is vast.
Lastly driver's licenses are (presumably) about safety, while IP licenses are only about business arrangements.
Saying "if other people make money doing X, we're going to pass a law preventing you from doing X for free" never has good intentions.
Of course it does! Outlawing designated drivers forces people to use taxis, which helps the economy. Only allowing only professional movers to take furniture in and out of houses prevents injuries to out-of-shape people. And of course, making every babysitter get registered as a state-certified child care provider would reduce the risk of harm to the children, and would also keep for-profit day cares in business, which means more jobs.
Yeah, actually there are heaps of people who objected to the fencing off of common land, and now there are heaps of people who object to inheritance.
There are some people like that, called socialists.
I can't think of any good reasons for inheritance beyond a certain amount, and I fully support the community "inheriting" anything beyond that certain amount.
'Cause you're a socialist. The problem is that we live in a free society, and just because you can't think of a reason for doing something doesn't mean you get to stop others from doing it.
Just like the dead stop having rights when they die.
Uh, no. If you pre-pay for a nice burial plot, when you die I can chuck you in a mass grave with the rest of the suckers? Your life insurance is your property (you can cancel it, borrow against it, change the beneficiary, etc) - you want that going to the government upon your death as well, whether that's what you wanted or not?
Anyone who agrees with inheritance should also agree with reperations. After all, the slaves did work hard and their descendants should inherit money from the children whose white anscestors neglected to pay them.
First, as morally reprehensible as it is, slaves don't earn anything, so there's no back wages to pay, and if slavery was legal, there's no civil tort that can be brought. So what legal (as opposed to moral) argument would you make that the slave owners ever owed anything?
Second, there's no reason not to have a reasonable statute of limitations. It would be silly of me to sue someone (or demand their imprisonment) because their 12th century ancestor burned one of my ancestors at the stake or stole their money. If they did that yesterday it isn't as unreasonable.
Which would display a complete lack of appreciation of how population grows over time.
Which would be mirrored by your lack of appreciation of the difference between "is overpopulated" and "is almost certain to become overpopulated".
"Human overpopulation" does not mean "human saturation point" -- it means "humans placing an unreasonable burden on the environment in which humans must share with the life it depends upon for survival".
Even if we were to agree on that definition, different people's opinion of what an "unreasonable burden" is would vary so much that it's an almost useless one.
I wasn't saying it was a bad idea: I was saying it was a pointless comparison.
At the very least, can you give him credit for attempting to back up his argument with actual data?
Right now we use licenses, but there's no reason that we couldn't rent or sell frequencies - or do all three. We manage to do well with land held as private property, public property, and some as publicly owned but leased for specific purposes (mineral rights, etc). Why isn't it possible to do the same thing with the airwaves? (Whether it's desirable or not is a separate issue.)
let me ask you who they would buy it FROM - if not US? Oh, I guess you didn't think about that part.
I don't get your point. The government sells things all the time.
We HAD a corporate controlled country in the 1700s, and fought back and won.
We had a government that had too much power, and abused it to benefit the people that they favored - sounds like the FCC to me. Would it have been any better if royalty had given their largess directly to individuals rather than through corporations? I doubt it.
So you don't think we own our airwaves as a common resource.
That's how we treat it right now, but only a hard-core conservative would say that it's the only way to do it.
I suppose you also think We, the People have no right to the air we breath, water, health, etc.
What does that have to do with anything that's being discussed?
Before the government (We, the People) stepped in to license airwaves what we had was anyone with a transmitter broadcasting at any power level they wanted on any frequency they wanted. So the radio frequencies were pretty much useless, with those with the most money the only ones able to reach anyone. I suppose that's what you want to have again?
No, he was talking about selling spectrum rather than licensing it. No anarchy here.
I get it, you think there shouldn't be a government. Just some kind of corporate-controlled world. But We, the People think there should be. So we set up a governemt of our own and you might just have to move somewhere where there aren't other people if you really think this way. We are all just economic units, here to serve the corporate masters. If we have money to pay them for air and water, good. If not, too bad for us.
In blending the socialist ideals with the free-market mobility...
And even they are still primarily capitalistic. From what I can tell, as soon as your economy becomes more socialistic than capitalistic, it starts to fall apart.
And look no further than the decline of pollinators to see where mono-cultures generated through capitalism will get you. Or the wonders of the Ford Pinto, made for profit by salesmen, rather than for people to use safely by engineers.
So the USSR had no giant, collective, monoculture farms? And I think Chernobyl beats your Pinto, hands down.
It is not, in any way, inherently seeking the most efficient means of production, or the best final product.
Efficiency and quality are important factors in choosing products, but they compete with price, availability, environmental impact, positional effects (status that a good projects) and many others. That's just the way the world works.
If it were, they'd chop out advertising (does nothing for either the efficiency of production or the quality of the final product -- exists purely to increase sales)
Besides paying for things that are harder to make money on (free papers, broadcast TV and radio, etc), advertising gets people to try new things - that makes it easier for new products to enter a market. Also ads do help educate people, even if it is in a very biased way.
Capitalism seeks to control the means of production and then to artificially inflate prices to derive additional profit.
Capitalism doesn't "do" anything, it just means letting people make their own choices. Sellers try to maximize prices, buyers try to minimize them. Just like predator-prey relationships, things might not always be pretty, but they do balance out, and they also manage to quickly respond to changes.
You completely fail to grasp the point you replied to. Lets read that again shall we "Western economies in the early 21st century are more socialist than the USSR ever was in terms of wealth redistribution and state support of industry.". In other words, he's saying there's more equality in countries like the US than there used to be in the USSR. You effectively state your agreement when you write that the USSR "had two levels of wealth: none or all".
So whatever country has the most equality is the most socialist, so socialism leads to the most equality. That's a circular argument.
That makes the US closer to the Marxist idea of socialism that is centered on removing economic differences...
That's what socialism is supposed to do, but that isn't what socialism means. Socialism means state ownership (or at least direct state control). The reason that some of us are having trouble following you argument is that you're using a different definition of "socialism" than we are.
the usa is not a capitalist country, it is a socialist country. ever hear of medicare? welfare? as is much of the eu, as is all of the most developed nations, including canada, japan
Socialism is "state ownership of the means of production", none of those countries are socialist. They may have borrowed ideas from the socialist movement, but most people still work in the private sector, even most of the governments' spending goes to private companies that do the actual work.
like most problems in life, the answer is complex, and a mixture of both views, and the people who create all the real trouble are the loud, dumb, fundamentalists from the extremes of pure capitalism or pure communism
It's good to avoid putting all of our eggs in one basket, and blind adherence to any ideal is a bad thing. However, every country that has managed to pull itself up to first-world status has done so with a primarily capitalistic economy. We shouldn't forget that fact either.
Citing the low home price in "Hayfork" is likewise silly; how am I supposed to afford that house? With all that work you can get in Hayfork?
Some people manage to live there, somehow. They must be using magic, because "arstchnca" can't understand how they could possible do it using normal means.
A lot of us are trapped in the places we live - not everyone has your level of socioeconomic sovereignty.
So your trapped in an "overpopulated" place, how does that make the other 99.99999% of the world overpopulated?
Vietnam was clearly hamstrung by some fading power dropping a billion bombs, enough toxic chemicals to kill everyone on the planet and leaving landmines to cripple workers for the next 50 years.
Yes, that wasn't a particularly good example.
Ignoring the rest of your drivel,...
Ah, so you don't have a counter argument for the other two examples he gave.
Let's consider the Texas example for half a second: how do you get the resources in and the waste products out with that size of conurbation? Just imagine the sewage outfall! It simply could not work, so it doesn't bear further scrutiny.
He isn't saying a giant metropolis is a good idea, just that there isn't a lack of land to build on yet.
It is unrealistic to imagine that within 140 years we can reduce both energy demands and population growth to more manageable levels.
And in 140 years, he might agree that the world is overpopulated, but not right now.
Yep, if we lived like factory farmed chickens... And who's going to be farming the farmland?
I think you missed the point. He wasn't suggesting that actually creating a giant metropolis is a good idea, just that there are quite a bit of unused land (and other resources).
If this clap trap is typical of your contribution to the debate, then I sincerely hope you keep your trap shut in future.
Let's be clear here: the purpose of my post was to ask for realism about government's role, rather than...
No, that was not the purpose of your post. All you did was list some bad ideas held by one person, and use them to smear an entire group. That is neither a cry for moderation, nor is it a fair way to make an argument.
Your post before that one was even more insulting - libertarians hate Bush as much as liberals do, and Somalia has no government at all - how is that libertarian or republican?
Should not a society impose a tax that compensates the many for the opportunities taken by a few, or regulate how much stench and filth you can dump into others' air & water supply?
I don't know of any capitalist that thinks that people have a right to pollute other people's property. I think you're arguing against a straw man.
Take a drive thru Iowa & you'll begin to get the idea.
Some good insight all the way to the last paragraph, and then:
Yes, I am saying that any actual legislation on abortion is as bad as slavery...
Wow, there's metaphor, then there's exaggeration, then there's hyperbole, then there's whatever you were doing.
First, you're suggesting that legislation saying that surgical abortions must be preformed by licensed physicians is as bad as total ownership of a woman. That's absurd.
Second, limiting the people that have a say in a democracy is just a way of favoring one side in a debate. It's just as easy to say that since women are the direct beneficiaries of the right to abort, they can't be objective, and so shouldn't have the right to affect government policy on abortion.
Third, you're assuming that your point of view is correct - if it's assumed a fetus morally is a person (I'm not saying that true, just that it's a common point of view), then everyone else does have the right, maybe even a duty, to object.
Or would he prefer to live in a nation that enjoyed a capitalist accommodation to Hitler, as Henry Ford favored?
So one capitalist was in favor of a strategy that wouldn't have worked, so it's a "capitalist accommodation"? Going to war isn't that closely related to economic policy, so I'm sure that there were plenty of socialist, communists, anarchists, etc that were against the US joining the war as well. Hell, the Germans had to declare war on us before we responded.
If you want pro-war capitalists, though, there were plenty of free-market pro-war people in the US in the lead-up to the Iraq war, and Objectivists probably would have wanted to declare war the instant a German soldier crossed the border into another country.
Slashdot Mirror
With only ~5.5 billion souls here now, how many thousands or tens of thousands die every day from lack of food or clean water, malnutrition, 'turf wars' over limited space or resources?
It's more like 6.7 billion, and many people die due to fights over resources. You could probably make an argument that almost all disputes among human beings are disputes over resources - broadly defined.
Directly due to population pressures, how many eke out a bare existence, never rising, never even getting the opportunity to rise, to some level of an enlightened and fulfilling lifestyle in their time here?
Not that many. Almost all current famines, refugee camps, etc are caused by power struggles over the control of resources, rather than a simple lack of those resources. Zimbabwe is a prime example - a food exporter of a long time, but incredibly destructive government practices completely wrecked that, so now they not only import food, but have to get foreign aid in order to feed their own people. Since the country (quite recently) managed to survive on its own resources, it can't be a lack of them that's causing the problems.
I'm all in favor of government regulation when needed, but this is one instance where libertarian philosophy is sound.
I think you, libertarians, and I have the same basic philosophy - government where needed, but not where it isn't. It's just that standard libertarians have a very small list of things that are considered "needed".
You buy a car. You license it to drive it on the public highway. You buy a computer and, unless you write your own OS, you license it to use it.
Yes, if you're on public (government) property, or the property of another entity, they have the right to control what you do there, even kick you out - if you're on your own land, or get permission from the owner, you can do whatever you want (or whatever they allow). That seems reasonable to people because land has the exclusivity property (unlimited numbers can't use it simultaneously), while ideas are quite different.
You could write your own, or use one that was deliberately put into the public domain, or one that has an expired copyright, or ...
The differences between a real license (with knowledge about the agreement before it becomes binding, signatures, all those common-law rules about how contracts work) and EULAs is vast.
Lastly driver's licenses are (presumably) about safety, while IP licenses are only about business arrangements.
Care to make a donation? It would only be a fraction of your "pocket change".
Fallacy!?!?! That's the entire basis of my country's economic policy!
Saying "if other people make money doing X, we're going to pass a law preventing you from doing X for free" never has good intentions.
Of course it does! Outlawing designated drivers forces people to use taxis, which helps the economy. Only allowing only professional movers to take furniture in and out of houses prevents injuries to out-of-shape people. And of course, making every babysitter get registered as a state-certified child care provider would reduce the risk of harm to the children, and would also keep for-profit day cares in business, which means more jobs.
See, nothing but good intentions!
20 -24 are 8.4% but have 14.3% of accidents.
But does that take into account the distance they drive, the time of day or conditions they drive in, or the quality of their vehicles?
I mean if they drive twice as often as most people, then they're doing pretty good.
Yeah, actually there are heaps of people who objected to the fencing off of common land, and now there are heaps of people who object to inheritance.
There are some people like that, called socialists.
I can't think of any good reasons for inheritance beyond a certain amount, and I fully support the community "inheriting" anything beyond that certain amount.
'Cause you're a socialist. The problem is that we live in a free society, and just because you can't think of a reason for doing something doesn't mean you get to stop others from doing it.
Just like the dead stop having rights when they die.
Uh, no. If you pre-pay for a nice burial plot, when you die I can chuck you in a mass grave with the rest of the suckers? Your life insurance is your property (you can cancel it, borrow against it, change the beneficiary, etc) - you want that going to the government upon your death as well, whether that's what you wanted or not?
Anyone who agrees with inheritance should also agree with reperations. After all, the slaves did work hard and their descendants should inherit money from the children whose white anscestors neglected to pay them.
First, as morally reprehensible as it is, slaves don't earn anything, so there's no back wages to pay, and if slavery was legal, there's no civil tort that can be brought. So what legal (as opposed to moral) argument would you make that the slave owners ever owed anything?
Second, there's no reason not to have a reasonable statute of limitations. It would be silly of me to sue someone (or demand their imprisonment) because their 12th century ancestor burned one of my ancestors at the stake or stole their money. If they did that yesterday it isn't as unreasonable.
Which would display a complete lack of appreciation of how population grows over time.
Which would be mirrored by your lack of appreciation of the difference between "is overpopulated" and "is almost certain to become overpopulated".
"Human overpopulation" does not mean "human saturation point" -- it means "humans placing an unreasonable burden on the environment in which humans must share with the life it depends upon for survival".
Even if we were to agree on that definition, different people's opinion of what an "unreasonable burden" is would vary so much that it's an almost useless one.
I wasn't saying it was a bad idea: I was saying it was a pointless comparison.
At the very least, can you give him credit for attempting to back up his argument with actual data?
If the rights are exclusive you cant legally alter that. The duration or "limited times" is where the discussion needs to move.
Altering the punishment for violating those rights is also possible. And it is possible to alter the Constitution, even if it is difficult.
If you think someone can "OWN" a radio frequency,
Right now we use licenses, but there's no reason that we couldn't rent or sell frequencies - or do all three. We manage to do well with land held as private property, public property, and some as publicly owned but leased for specific purposes (mineral rights, etc). Why isn't it possible to do the same thing with the airwaves? (Whether it's desirable or not is a separate issue.)
let me ask you who they would buy it FROM - if not US? Oh, I guess you didn't think about that part.
I don't get your point. The government sells things all the time.
We HAD a corporate controlled country in the 1700s, and fought back and won.
We had a government that had too much power, and abused it to benefit the people that they favored - sounds like the FCC to me. Would it have been any better if royalty had given their largess directly to individuals rather than through corporations? I doubt it.
So you don't think we own our airwaves as a common resource.
That's how we treat it right now, but only a hard-core conservative would say that it's the only way to do it.
I suppose you also think We, the People have no right to the air we breath, water, health, etc.
What does that have to do with anything that's being discussed?
Before the government (We, the People) stepped in to license airwaves what we had was anyone with a transmitter broadcasting at any power level they wanted on any frequency they wanted. So the radio frequencies were pretty much useless, with those with the most money the only ones able to reach anyone. I suppose that's what you want to have again?
No, he was talking about selling spectrum rather than licensing it. No anarchy here.
I get it, you think there shouldn't be a government. Just some kind of corporate-controlled world. But We, the People think there should be. So we set up a governemt of our own and you might just have to move somewhere where there aren't other people if you really think this way. We are all just economic units, here to serve the corporate masters. If we have money to pay them for air and water, good. If not, too bad for us.
Did you take a class in hyperbolic ranting?
In blending the socialist ideals with the free-market mobility...
And even they are still primarily capitalistic. From what I can tell, as soon as your economy becomes more socialistic than capitalistic, it starts to fall apart.
And look no further than the decline of pollinators to see where mono-cultures generated through capitalism will get you. Or the wonders of the Ford Pinto, made for profit by salesmen, rather than for people to use safely by engineers.
So the USSR had no giant, collective, monoculture farms? And I think Chernobyl beats your Pinto, hands down.
It is not, in any way, inherently seeking the most efficient means of production, or the best final product.
Efficiency and quality are important factors in choosing products, but they compete with price, availability, environmental impact, positional effects (status that a good projects) and many others. That's just the way the world works.
If it were, they'd chop out advertising (does nothing for either the efficiency of production or the quality of the final product -- exists purely to increase sales)
Besides paying for things that are harder to make money on (free papers, broadcast TV and radio, etc), advertising gets people to try new things - that makes it easier for new products to enter a market. Also ads do help educate people, even if it is in a very biased way.
Capitalism seeks to control the means of production and then to artificially inflate prices to derive additional profit.
Capitalism doesn't "do" anything, it just means letting people make their own choices. Sellers try to maximize prices, buyers try to minimize them. Just like predator-prey relationships, things might not always be pretty, but they do balance out, and they also manage to quickly respond to changes.
You completely fail to grasp the point you replied to. Lets read that again shall we "Western economies in the early 21st century are more socialist than the USSR ever was in terms of wealth redistribution and state support of industry.". In other words, he's saying there's more equality in countries like the US than there used to be in the USSR. You effectively state your agreement when you write that the USSR "had two levels of wealth: none or all".
So whatever country has the most equality is the most socialist, so socialism leads to the most equality. That's a circular argument.
That makes the US closer to the Marxist idea of socialism that is centered on removing economic differences...
That's what socialism is supposed to do, but that isn't what socialism means. Socialism means state ownership (or at least direct state control). The reason that some of us are having trouble following you argument is that you're using a different definition of "socialism" than we are.
the usa is not a capitalist country, it is a socialist country. ever hear of medicare? welfare? as is much of the eu, as is all of the most developed nations, including canada, japan
Socialism is "state ownership of the means of production", none of those countries are socialist. They may have borrowed ideas from the socialist movement, but most people still work in the private sector, even most of the governments' spending goes to private companies that do the actual work.
like most problems in life, the answer is complex, and a mixture of both views, and the people who create all the real trouble are the loud, dumb, fundamentalists from the extremes of pure capitalism or pure communismIt's good to avoid putting all of our eggs in one basket, and blind adherence to any ideal is a bad thing. However, every country that has managed to pull itself up to first-world status has done so with a primarily capitalistic economy. We shouldn't forget that fact either.
Citing the low home price in "Hayfork" is likewise silly; how am I supposed to afford that house? With all that work you can get in Hayfork?
Some people manage to live there, somehow. They must be using magic, because "arstchnca" can't understand how they could possible do it using normal means.
A lot of us are trapped in the places we live - not everyone has your level of socioeconomic sovereignty.
So your trapped in an "overpopulated" place, how does that make the other 99.99999% of the world overpopulated?
Vietnam was clearly hamstrung by some fading power dropping a billion bombs, enough toxic chemicals to kill everyone on the planet and leaving landmines to cripple workers for the next 50 years.
Yes, that wasn't a particularly good example.
Ignoring the rest of your drivel, ...
Ah, so you don't have a counter argument for the other two examples he gave.
Let's consider the Texas example for half a second: how do you get the resources in and the waste products out with that size of conurbation? Just imagine the sewage outfall! It simply could not work, so it doesn't bear further scrutiny.
He isn't saying a giant metropolis is a good idea, just that there isn't a lack of land to build on yet.
It is unrealistic to imagine that within 140 years we can reduce both energy demands and population growth to more manageable levels.
And in 140 years, he might agree that the world is overpopulated, but not right now.
Yep, if we lived like factory farmed chickens ... And who's going to be farming the farmland?
I think you missed the point. He wasn't suggesting that actually creating a giant metropolis is a good idea, just that there are quite a bit of unused land (and other resources).
If this clap trap is typical of your contribution to the debate, then I sincerely hope you keep your trap shut in future.
Same to you.
Capitalism - the US, the EU - won. Communism - the USSR and China - lost.
...What did the US win? I'm a US citizen. Show me what I won.
The right to choose your own job, the right to be paid for your work, he right to own a business, the right to accumulate property, ...
...told him he didn't have the right to spy on other people ("But it's my place!" "Doesn't matter.")
Well, then, I'm going home!
Let's be clear here: the purpose of my post was to ask for realism about government's role, rather than...
No, that was not the purpose of your post. All you did was list some bad ideas held by one person, and use them to smear an entire group. That is neither a cry for moderation, nor is it a fair way to make an argument.
Your post before that one was even more insulting - libertarians hate Bush as much as liberals do, and Somalia has no government at all - how is that libertarian or republican?
Should not a society impose a tax that compensates the many for the opportunities taken by a few, or regulate how much stench and filth you can dump into others' air & water supply?
I don't know of any capitalist that thinks that people have a right to pollute other people's property. I think you're arguing against a straw man.
Take a drive thru Iowa & you'll begin to get the idea.
Guess which state I live in the exact center of?
Yes, I am saying that any actual legislation on abortion is as bad as slavery...
Wow, there's metaphor, then there's exaggeration, then there's hyperbole, then there's whatever you were doing.
First, you're suggesting that legislation saying that surgical abortions must be preformed by licensed physicians is as bad as total ownership of a woman. That's absurd.
Second, limiting the people that have a say in a democracy is just a way of favoring one side in a debate. It's just as easy to say that since women are the direct beneficiaries of the right to abort, they can't be objective, and so shouldn't have the right to affect government policy on abortion.
Third, you're assuming that your point of view is correct - if it's assumed a fetus morally is a person (I'm not saying that true, just that it's a common point of view), then everyone else does have the right, maybe even a duty, to object.
Or would he prefer to live in a nation that enjoyed a capitalist accommodation to Hitler, as Henry Ford favored?
So one capitalist was in favor of a strategy that wouldn't have worked, so it's a "capitalist accommodation"? Going to war isn't that closely related to economic policy, so I'm sure that there were plenty of socialist, communists, anarchists, etc that were against the US joining the war as well. Hell, the Germans had to declare war on us before we responded.
If you want pro-war capitalists, though, there were plenty of free-market pro-war people in the US in the lead-up to the Iraq war, and Objectivists probably would have wanted to declare war the instant a German soldier crossed the border into another country.
If there's room to carry extra batteries, why not just have them permanently wired in and increase the range of the vehicle?
You don't carry them with you, a 'gas' station would have them on hand. Swapping batteries is an exact homologue to filling up the tank.
And even if it wouldn't work for everyone, many people would like the $1 per gallon of gas equivalent.
Who says they broke the law? Congress?
Congress, lawyers, judges - there isn't a lot of debate about whether or not what they did was illegal.
They followed an executive order from the President.
Which has the legal value of a note from your mom.
You can disagree with that executive order, but that does not make it illegal.
If it wasn't illegal, why would they need immunity?