What's one area where you side with the other guys?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by vilk, May 17, 2016.

  1. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,403
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    I'm going to be the only one with my political opinions, so I'm not sure this thread applies to me. :lol:

    I'm libertarian. I have been since 2000. I agree with republicans on a little bit of stuff, with democrats with a little more stuff, and disagree with both on most stuff.

    Personal freedom: I think that if you aren't hurting anybody, you shouldn't be committing any crime. I think that if you wrong someone financially, you should make it right financially. If someone wants a gun, I think that the US constitution guarantees that they should be able to possess a weapon (if they live in the USA, obviously).

    Specifically about weapons: The reason the founding fathers of the USA and the framers of the US constitution placed language about bearing arms and maintaining a private militia into the Bill of Rights was to keep government in check. Obviously, our government in the USA went out of check long long ago. Also, in order for people to stand against a military who is armed with nuclear weapons, flamethrowers, bazookas, fighter jets, tanks, etc., would be to have a militia with nuclear weapons, flamethrowers, bazookas, fighter jets, tanks, etc., and that may seem silly, but a modernized interpretation might be that we need to have better checks on our military's weapons, or, simply, that since we are a nation founded on liberty and isolationism, we need not have stockpiles of such weapons kept on foreign soil where they could potentially be used against Americans, either by a tyrannical government, or, more likely, by falling into the wrong hands. As far as handguns and concealed weapons - you know, I know plenty of guys who carry concealed weapons, and none of them ever made me feel nervous about it. In fact, if they keep the weapon properly concealed, then there should be no reason anybody even needs to know. On the other hand, if a mobster carries around a tommy gun inside of a violin case for the purpose of assassinating someone, they will ultimately not keep it concealed. However, I would like anyone owning a firearm to take it as a serious responsibility to learn firearm safety and to always follow proper firearm etiquette. I know that my opinion on firearms is very controversial, since democrats would generally prefer gun control executed by the government rather than through personal responsibility.

    I think that church and state should remain absolutely separate: I think that putting mottos like "In God We Trust" or "Trust in God" on money or license plates stands as a strong statement from the government that they don't give a flying .... about that guarantee, and I think that's s...ty of them.

    I think that many social programs are helpful to the country, but I think we have too many of them and that they are too often abused. I think that the government should cut back on social programs, but not until after they cut back on prisons and foreign military bases.

    I think foreign wars are always a bad idea. If someone comes to the USA looking for trouble, it's one thing, but for us to invade durkastan or durkland or even durkovia to depose a dictator, or to blow up terrorists, or to find WMD or whatever, is stupid and wrong. I realize that opinion is also controversial. Whatever, I feel strongly about it, because it is a policy of our massive rich country that causes nothing but harm.

    I think the way we run elections in the USA is outdated and silly, and I think we should change it. As you could guess, I'd love most of all to see the two party system abolished. I hold no respect for bipartisanism, as, I believe, it only serves to a) polarize the people of the USA, making them more easily distracted and even controlled, and b) allows s...heads like Trump to get elected.

    Drugs: I think drugs should not be illegal. I still think people should be responsible. I think you should not take drugs unless a doctor or pharmacist urges you to do so, but I think that it's not the government's responsibility to enforce what I think is best for you, especially if it means sending you to prison as punishment. I think it is especially illogical and just weird that we punish addicts. It makes as much logical sense to me to jail a heroin addict as it does to jail a cancer patient, assuming neither of them hurt anyone other than themselves (obviously one is far less voluntary than the other, but that's beside the point).

    I think the EPA was a good idea. I don't think it's handled in the best way, or arguably even in a good way, particularly when big companies get away with stuff that small companies would be destroyed over. I reason that the EPA is necessary, because we all live in the environment, and anyone hurting the environment is causing financial and potential physical harm to other people.

    That's my political views in a nutshell. People will hate those views, but I firmly believe everyone is entitled to their own political views, even if mine are right and they are wrong :lol: JK

    I also think that people under oppression given perfect liberty will go through dangerous adjustment periods.
     
  2. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    331
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    It's always wonderful to have an opportunity to dust off my favorite quote about Ayn Rand:

    "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." (John Rogers)

    So thanks for that! Carry on, everyone!
     
  3. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,403
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Well, we almost made it 20 posts into a PC&E thread encouraging people to express their personal beliefs without incident. :lol:
     
  4. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    331
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Yeah, my bad. I'll see myself out.
     
  5. CapnForsaggio

    CapnForsaggio Cap'n (general)

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Location:
    Albany, OR
    You're so clever :) And it's "Captialism" not Atlas shrugged that we are discussing.

    BTW everyone, the person he quoted is a comedy writer by profession, and has the following educational accomplishments:

    "attended McGill University in Montreal. While at McGill, he wrote for the school's comedy magazine The Red Herring."

    I am sure this makes him an authority of economics, at least with regards to a person like Alan Greenspan, who co-authored the Rand book in question.

    Listen CelticElk, use comedians and quip all you want.... I will never try to change your ways. I very much doubt you have ever read the book(s) in question, or that you ever will, or that you'd understand them. That's fine.

    Some people are observant enough to not be statists..... There's room for everyone here.
     
  6. Science_Penguin

    Science_Penguin SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    172
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Location:
    Nowhere
    A lot of your post made sense to me. I guess if you want to call me the "other guy" on the technicality that I don't identify as Libertarian, that works.
     
  7. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    331
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Fact check: Greenspan was a member of Rand's inner circle, but there's no evidence that I can find that he co-authored Atlas Shrugged.
     
  8. CapnForsaggio

    CapnForsaggio Cap'n (general)

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Location:
    Albany, OR
    Again, we are talking about a book, "Capitalism" - not Atlas Shrugged.

    You can borrow my copy if you'd like.
     
  9. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    The 'personal belief' line might be the thinnest line we attempt to walk in this forum.

    I'll try not to de-rail the thread too much here, but we've had several topics in this sub-section of SS that tend to feature LOTS of discussion, plenty of citation, and decent reasoning from multiple angles, only to have a few people towards the end use an argument something along the lines of: "Well, we'll have to agree to disagree because everything I've said is my personal belief and you can't change that.". It has been most common in threads on faith and religion, but it also pops up in threads on welfare and a couple of the longer feminism / men's rights activism threads a couple of years ago.

    The whole purpose of public discourse is to both challenge the views of others and to have your views challenged, not in order to 'take down' others, but in order to elevate the conversation. The 'personal belief' line strikes me as being a cop-out, and the following is a perfect example of why:

    Why would a person participate in any conversation with this mindset? There's no way Capn would leave alone a line like "It is my personal belief that Socialism is superior to Capitalism; it is not my duty to explain to you why I feel this way.". When you make a claim, it is your duty to support it. I'm embarrassed for 'my side' of the religion debate when I see someone make an argument as flat, broad, and unsupported as "God doesn't exist; I'd tell you to read some Dawkins, but you probably wouldn't understand it.".

    In a thread that asks us to consider the arguments of people that we would normally oppose and highlight the strengths in their argument, offering a solitary 'concession' that can't be associated with a particular side ...

    ... and then throwing unsupported partisanism at most other contributions to the thread, while claiming to both be "open to challenge" but "uninterested in defending claims" ...

    ... shows why it's so damn difficult to have an open, serious, intellectual conversation about major social issues. Can we please dispel the myth of the 'personal belief' as a supportable / sustainable argument? The only thing it ever seems to offer is conflict, and the only concession it ever seems to make is that equally boorish personal beliefs are allowed on the 'other side'.

    The middle ground is looking better by the second.
     
  10. wat

    wat SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,001
    Likes Received:
    44
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Location:
    Tampa Bay Area, FL
    none.


    The other guys are bad people with bad beliefs.
     
  11. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    13,403
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    The trouble with getting too deep into any speculative discussion about government is that there is no perfectly objective data. I think we could agree that there are examples of where government intervention into social issues has gone well, and also examples where it failed. It's a little more subtle to see where government non-intervention failed or succeeded as policy.

    Because of this, I make the argument that different styles of government work to different degrees for different people with different priorities.

    Even authoritarian governments can work, in the case of a strong leader who has a strong agenda to lead his people to success, but such a leader will inevitably get old/sick/dead and be replaced, which, often times causes suffering.

    For example, Richard I of England was an authoritarian figure well loved in England, but after his rule, John I was despised. Another example was how Lenin founded the Soviet Union (using authority as necessary to bring about drastic change) and then died, leaving Stalin as his eventual successor.

    Where I get lost is how the USA was founded on concepts of minimal government involvement with personal activities and a great deal of respect for individual freedoms, liberty, blah blah blah, and now in this election cycle, we are looking at a choice between two figures who deploy cult-of-personality (even though neither has a desirable personality, ironically) and corruption to beat the other. I just feel like the nation started out ahead of the game, but forsook its ideals early on in order to make progress in the face of strong resistance from some s...ty people, and after the progress was made, never went back to what made the place unique and desirable, rather slipping further and further into becoming the overprotective but abusive big brother from which the founding fathers initially ran.
     
  12. Sumsar

    Sumsar SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    65
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Location:
    Copenhagen, DK
    Waut 2 pages in and this is already tl;dr

    Anyway my personal 'agree somewhat with the other side' story:
    I am almost as left as they come, bordering communism (It should be said that that is fairly normal here in Denmark), anyway people with the same political standpoint as me usually hates the police, wanna fight them and 'the system', yet I love the police. I think those guys are fücking heroes. Its only when some elected rightwing politician makes them do ....ty things that they are the bad guys, but 95% of the time they are really the good guys.
    Also alot of people seem to forgot that the police is very much part of the working class and as such are not in league with the wealthy.
    In fact I hope that when/if the revolution comes that the police will join the people :)

    Another thing (This was also stated by another earlier in this thread) I don't hate GMOs per default. It is very much not a black and white story.
    In some cases I agree that GMOs are bad, but in other cases they are a really good thing.
     
  13. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    [​IMG]
     
  14. TheStig1214

    TheStig1214 Mr. Tophat Jones

    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Location:
    Lawn Guyland
    I'm fairly liberal on all issues but I seriously can't wrap my head around the $15/hr minimum wage movement. Think about the absolute minimum amount of work someone can be employed to do, what is that worth?

    Yes, there is the argument that minimum wage hasn't followed inflation, but the people who push this issue (mostly fast food workers for what I've seen) seriously don't understand basic economics. One of three things will happen if a company's cost of operation goes up. They will: a) Reduce their cost of operation by cutting staff (possibly replacing them with automation), b) Increase their prices to compensate for lost profit or 3) Do nothing and go out of business.

    The US doesn't/can't regulate how exactly a company is supposed to budget themselves, so what is most likely to happen is the first option, then you have tons more people out of work. Plus, now all government employees need to be paid minimum wage, so taxes go up.

    Now obviously, I believe everyone who applies themselves and does the best job they can should be able to make a living wage, and often struggling parents have to take a low paying job because there simply isn't another option (and good for them for not just leeching unemployment/welfare).

    A $15/hr minimum wage will just cause more issues than it will solve. Hell, I started at a $7.25 minimum and after 5 years at my company I still don't make $15. If my boss had to pay all 12 of his employees $15/hr we'd be out of business pretty fast.
     
  15. WhiskeyPickleJake

    WhiskeyPickleJake SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    72
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    SE PA
    If we really did lose our revered constitution and the fallout was that carriers of pistols had to open carry them like the Wild West, we'd just be a more polite society anyway.
     
  16. Demiurge

    Demiurge Intrepid Jackass

    Messages:
    3,854
    Likes Received:
    304
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Location:
    Worcester, MA
    I'm with you on this, too. At some point the push for equal opportunity got mutated into the push for equal outcome, and it's damaging in the long run. Our goal should be creating & retaining jobs here, filling them with skilled laborers that make good money; simply forcing companies to pay unskilled laborers more money to make it look like the workers are succeeding and that the jobs themselves are worth more is not going to fix the problem.
     
  17. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,598
    Likes Received:
    587
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    But as robotics and technology rapidly advance, we'll eventually have to either do away with money or do away with the concept of having to work to get it, as eventually labor positions will practically not exist. What happens when all the truck drivers are drones, all the fast food workers are touch screens, every store clerk, every cashier, every cab driver, every customer service, every call center, every website, every accounting dept, even farm equipment can be made to work like a drone, just like in the movie Interstellar. These are all jobs that we might see fully automated within our own lifetimes.

    Are they all to become skilled laborers? Well, what will they do to put food on the table?Are we going to invent new jobs? Probably some as we switch to green energy. But not enough. We'll have to either raise wages+cut hours so that tons of people can work at the same place, or we'll have to just give people money simply for being alive. Or we'll have to move on from the monetary system.

    But for now, isn't 15$ an hour just a step towards a solution? I mean, doing nothing certainly isn't.
     
  18. TheStig1214

    TheStig1214 Mr. Tophat Jones

    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Location:
    Lawn Guyland
    Have you watched this video? Not that it offers any solutions it just explains exactly what you are talking about.

    I agree doing nothing certainly isn't the solution. However, we aren't at the point yet where people are unemployable, they're just unemployed or not making enough for their needs.
     
  19. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,598
    Likes Received:
    587
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    Thanks! I enjoyed that video. I've been talking about this for years, ever since I heard a Cracked podcast (which is funny because I don't read cracked and I don't listen to podcasts) where this economist was going on about post-sufficiency society. I thought Cracked was supposed to be funny, but it was just really deep and thought provoking.
     

Share This Page