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



## vilk (May 17, 2016)

I thought it might be interesting for us to talk about ideas normally associated with the "left" or "right" group we tend to identify with that we don't personally agree with.

For example: I'd say that in general, I'm a liberal. I'm very much for socialized health care single payer system, taxing churches, cutting down rich folk, racial integration, switching to renewables, etc. 

But one notion I don't agree with is taking away hunting rifles and shotguns. I'm not a hunter. Also, I've never been hunting. I've never killed an animal excluding insects and fish--and I ate the fish so that doesn't count in my book. But barring like animal torture or mass slaughter or anything that would harm a delicate ecosystem, I don't have any real problem with other people hunting and killing animals. Even cute ones. What does that make me?
Anyhow, that's not really why I want those things legal--rather, I just think we ought to be allowed to have guns. For the same reason as the second amendment, and for reason that in a disaster situation you never know what can happen. When Katrina hit New Orleans that city was a friggin apocalypse style brutal rape festival. Or like, if we got invaded by aliens. You can't definitely tell me that wont happen. 

Handguns are no good, for the reason that they're concealable. A gun holds a level of deadliness that has no reason to be hid. If you're going to use a gun, everyone should know that you're going to use it before you use it, barring like black ops missions and James Bond type scenarios. If you want to tote around a gun day and night to compensate for either your manhood or your inability to afford rent on a safe block, then it should be 3 feet long and you should strap it onto your back. Don't you suppose that would scare away the crooks to begin with? And also you'd know whether some thug was packing so you don't even walk past that alleyway. I don't have a gun, but since I moved to Chicago a couple years ago I've been really thinking about getting one. But for the principle reasons I've stated, I don't want a handgun. I'm thinking about getting a rifle. I also believe that a rifle would be more difficult for a child to understand and operate, probably causing a reduction in cases of children accidentally using firearms. But I am pulling that out of my ass, by the way. 

I think some people would be spooked to see a big ol' gun, but that's naive; they should be more spooked right now because they've got no idea who is and is not packing.

I used to live in Japan, where there was NO guns. It was very nice to feel safe even walking through a city park at night. Even if I got jumped, it's doubtful that I'd end up in a morgue if there are no firearms involved. I can't begin to fathom the variety of sociological reasons why homogeneous societies like Japan or Iceland are almost totally non-violent... but America is not that way, and I can't imagine a scenario where we're able to become that way. 


*I didn't make this thread to specifically talk about guns*. Unless you want to; are there any opposites of me? Righty-tighties that want to make guns illegal?? This is for any issue that you don't agree with the majority of the group you either self-identify with or are categorized under by default.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (May 17, 2016)

I'm mostly liberal as well, and I am all for social programs, especially health care but i am conservative in wanting to see stiff penalties or restrictions for those abusing social programs. It's a very difficult area to be both humane and effective at the same time I think.


----------



## vilk (May 17, 2016)

^for example the crisis in Greece, where there was an entire island of people collecting benefits for being blind even though they could see.


----------



## asher (May 17, 2016)

vilk said:


> ^for example the crisis in Greece, where there was an entire island of people collecting benefits for being blind even though they could see.



Which, while a problem, had nothing to do with the actual crisis.


----------



## vilk (May 17, 2016)

An entire island of people collecting tax money for no reason has nothing to do with an economic crisis that occurred in the same place? I don't actually know, but that seems counter-intuitive to me. I'll take your word for it I guess.


----------



## asher (May 17, 2016)

vilk said:


> An entire island of people collecting tax money for no reason has nothing to do with an economic crisis that occurred in the same place? I don't actually know, but that seems counter-intuitive to me. I'll take your word for it I guess.



Actually, yes.

Eurozone periphery countries were getting huge capital inflows from the core, both in terms of straight up bad loans (from most standpoints, they're ....ty debtors, giving them that much money isn't the most sound decision, see also US domestic lending issues) and stuff like German exports - significantly boosting Germany's economy. But they're exporting within the eurozone, which means everyone's on the shared euro currency. Which means that any given country cannot make any changes in monetary policy, because they do not control their own currency. So when the capital inflows fall off a cliff and creditors are calling, the normal course of action for that kind of crash - devalue your currency - is suddenly no longer available, and if you are not given any debt relief (because "fvck you" says core euro lenders) the only option available is massive spending cuts to find the money, which actually makes the core problem worse.

Yes, Greece's bookkeeping was awful and it has had huge problems with governmental corruption, and it maybe shouldn't have been let onto the euro in the first place. But welfare abuse isn't even close to why the crisis happened.


----------



## Dog Boy (May 20, 2016)

I'm for a large robust safety net especially for the elderly, handicapped and mentally ill but I'm also for lower taxes and a strong military...and you can marry a tree for all I care.


----------



## bhakan (May 20, 2016)

vilk said:


> I thought it might be interesting for us to talk about ideas normally associated with the "left" or "right" group we tend to identify with that we don't personally agree with.
> 
> For example: I'd say that in general, I'm a liberal. I'm very much for socialized health care single payer system, taxing churches, cutting down rich folk, racial integration, switching to renewables, etc.
> 
> ...


Came in to post this. Totally agree on all points.


Another thing, it seems that liberals are generally more against GMO's and such and I disagree with that. There's definitely instances of genetic modification having bad results, though many of the most popular studies that people throw around to support their negative effects have some serious issues, but some modifications going wrong are no reason to stop an entire field of science. It's like if when people were first figuring out chemistry, they dropped sodium into water and when it exploded decided that chemistry was evil and we should abandon the science all together. If we have a technology that can genetically modify crops to produce more food and help world hunger, or create bacteria that eat greenhouse gasses, why would we not look further into that technology?


----------



## cwhitey2 (May 20, 2016)

I'm pretty liberal as well. I'm a registered Democrat. 

One side of my family is left the other is right, so I get to see both extremes often.

I'm 100% pro gun, but I'm against welfare (unless the circumstances actually require it, don't bitch at me about how much of my tax money goes to welfare...I know how much).

I'm 1000% against corporate subsidies...pay your facking taxes like everyone else.


The 'city'/area I live in has a lot of lower income family's and has a higher crime rate than normal. My city has one of the highest welfare fraud rates in the state (someone actually drove their new Benz to the welfare office/social services place and was arrested for it). This could be why I'm against it...ALL of the violent crimes that have been committed in the last 2 years have been the work of someone from NYC. All the local are into drugs and not violence 


Churches NEED to be taxed. If a church has enough money/is big enough to be called a mega church, you can pay taxes. 


I'm 100 for a flat tax for every income level.

Healthcare should be free.

We need to spend less money on the military.

We need to spend less money on people outside of the US and focus on ourselves first. 


I try to associate with the middle anymore because both party's actually make me sick anymore.




I'm not sure whats more depressing...this election year or my dating life  




Sorry if that seemed like a rant or offended anyone...get over it, that's how i feel


----------



## vilk (May 20, 2016)

off topic, but is using the word "anymore" in that way some kind of New England thing? I heard someone else say anymore like that the other day and I was like what are you even telling me



cwhitey2 said:


> I try to associate with the middle anymore because both party's actually make me sick anymore.



I don't actually understand what you mean lol I'm sorry. You do or do not try to associate with the middle?




Also, regarding the content, how would you make the assumption that welfare is related to violence if you're saying that all the violent folk are from NYC, but your town has the highest rate of welfare fraud? Wait, is welfare fraud even related? 

You lost me, man. I'm all lost. Don't even mind it, just nevermind.


----------



## estabon37 (May 20, 2016)

bhakan said:


> Another thing, it seems that liberals are generally more against GMO's and such and I disagree with that. There's definitely instances of genetic modification having bad results, though many of the most popular studies that people throw around to support their negative effects have some serious issues, but some modifications going wrong are no reason to stop an entire field of science.



Is this 'agreeing with the other side', or just 'sometimes my side is as dumb as the other side'? 

I ask because apart from cringing when I meet 'those' people (listen to Tim Minchin's brilliant song 'Storm' for an example of what I'm talking about) I worry about the destructive nature of a social / political environment where people tend to think anybody that 'less left' than they are is obviously a neocon. We saw it in the Tea Party movement as well: people running for office got into heated arguments about being the 'furthest to the right' candidate and therefore everybody else was a leftie libtard.

It's better to be specific. I like Sam Harris. I think the dude has some brilliant things to say about ideas surrounding atheism and determinism, and even when I don't 100% agree with an argument he makes, I don't find myself opposing his stance because he articulates his ideas very well. 

For those that don't know, Sam Harris is the guy that Ben Affleck yelled at for being 'gross' and 'racist' on Bill Maher's show, making it obvious that Affleck either wasn't listening or didn't understand what was being said. 

Harris regularly mentions the problem of the regressive left; people who are so concerned about being sensitive to other cultures that they will tolerate bigotry and violence within those cultures in the interest of 'respecting a different lifestyle'. It's a tricky conversation because when he attacks lifestyles that include the oppression of women, genital mutilation, or the protection of serial violent / sexual offenders, he tends to be labelled racist. Weirdly, he is attacked by both the left and the right. 

So, importantly to the topic, I'm rarely left thinking 'the other guys are right'. On some topics, neither side is right. There's a happy middle ground that we could all pursue, but instead we have Tea Baggers, Anti-Vaxxers, Neocons, and Conspiracy Theorists destroying reasonable and rational public discourse from the extreme ends of the political spectrum. When I find myself reading an argument between a Rightie claiming we should bring corporal punishment back to the classroom and a Leftie claiming that 'trigger words' should be avoided at all costs in the classroom, I find myself wishing the middle ground had a movement to get behind.


----------



## vilk (May 20, 2016)

For the record, corporal punishment is still allowed in Indiana. I learned it in the Indiana law class they taught at my high school. Also, it is illegal to make a monkey smoke a cigarette. Hoosiers were Proto- animal rights movement. Lol. I wonder how many people got brought in on it


----------



## cwhitey2 (May 20, 2016)

vilk said:


> off topic, but is using the word "anymore" in that way some kind of New England thing? I heard someone else say anymore like that the other day and I was like what are you even telling me
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I mean I wish I was an independent and not a registered Democrat 


The whole 2 post system is a joke and ruins the whole political process for anyone not rich.


----------



## will_shred (Jun 1, 2016)

I'm a self described socialist, but I am definitely very pro 2nd amendment. I think that liberals don't understand with conviction the fact that the social structures we rely on every day, are not nearly as stable, and dependable, as we are led to believe. The fact of the matter is that the government could to awall and we would need to protect ourselves from it forcefully, or something could cause the social structure to collapse in which case people would need to hunt and use firearms to defend themselves. 

To quote John Maynard Keynes 


> "The power to become habituated to his surroundings is a marked characteristic of mankind. Very few of us realize with conviction the intensely unusual, unstable, complicated, unreliable, temporary nature of our economic organization"



He wrote that in 1920, just after the end of WWI. I still think it applies today, and why I believe in the 2nd amendment. I also hunt deer occasionally, and I think people have a right to hunt and defend themselves.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jun 2, 2016)

I feel like the idea of "the other guys" is part of the problem with political discussion. If someone says something smart or something stupid, I don't care what color their shirt is...

I will say, I tend to lean a little towards the liberal just because of my opinions on social matters (gays, transgenders, minorities, ect.) but, as far as government and economics, I'm for whatever works.

Sometimes I wish politicians would leave social matters out just so I wouldn't have to lean any direction... Oh, but we don't wanna do that, cos then people might actually try fixing this country. Clearly, we can't have that, it's broken just the way we like- let's distract everyone by stirring up debates on public toilets! Quickly, pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership Act while we still can, there's no telling how long this fight over gay marriage will last!

Sorry, I should save some of this for the conspiracy thread... if such a thing exists...


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 2, 2016)

I am a staunch fiscal conservative (usually associated "right") that believes in total campaign finance reform, including government controlled/limited campaign spending (usually associated "left", although I've never seen serious activity here).


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 3, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> I am a staunch fiscal conservative (usually associated "right") that believes in total campaign finance reform, including government controlled/limited campaign spending (usually associated "left", although I've never seen serious activity here).



I can't shake the feeling that 'fiscal conservative' and 'limited campaign spending' go hand-in-hand. The former is certainly associated with a 'side' of politics, while the latter isn't really associated with any particular kind of movement that I know of.

It's fairly understandable to desire campaign finance reform in the US, being that the major parties are spending billions where other countries manage to limit campaign spending to 'mere' millions. 

'Last Week Tonight' has been unraveling the various mysteries of American politics over the last few weeks, and it seems that a large part of the reason for the excessive spending is the complexity of the various voting systems. Every state seems to do things differently from every other state, and the lack of consistency forces them to design, implement, and enforce every stage of the process from scratch. 

Throw in the insane amount of advertising and you find yourself with a figure that would probably fund the kind of health care system that many in the US say is unsustainable. What a waste.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 3, 2016)

To me, it causes a bit of cognitive dissonance asking for MORE government intervention in campaign finance.... 99% of the time, MORE of government means increased spending, waste, and nepotism.... All things which I am vehemently opposed to.

I just don't see anyway around government limits to campaign finances. 

But, does this even matter when media whores seem to be the next wave of politician?! Kanye 2020!


----------



## celticelk (Jun 3, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> 99% of the time, MORE of government means increased spending, waste, and nepotism



[citation needed]

(I mean, obviously more government means more government spending by definition, but its inclusion alongside "waste" and "nepotism" suggests that you think that more government spending is morally bad, which is a position in need of some support.)


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 3, 2016)

celticelk said:


> [citation needed]
> 
> (I mean, obviously more government means more government spending by definition, but its inclusion alongside "waste" and "nepotism" suggests that you think that more government spending is morally bad, which is a position in need of some support.)



Sorry, I'm not going to wade into that one. It is my personal belief that government is unnecessarily wasteful. It is not my duty to explain to you why I feel this way. Hint: years of experience.

You want to change my thinking, fine. Try it. I do not feel the need to explain my personal beliefs to the internet.

Everyone here can read about my thoughts on free markets, and their superiority to socialized government programs. It's all in this thread. The summary goes something like this:

'Blah Blah Blah, Ayn Rand and Greenspan were on to something.... blah blah blah.'


----------



## bostjan (Jun 3, 2016)

I'm going to be the only one with my political opinions, so I'm not sure this thread applies to me. 

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  JK

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


----------



## celticelk (Jun 3, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> The summary goes something like this:
> 
> 'Blah Blah Blah, Ayn Rand and Greenspan were on to something.... blah blah blah.'



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!


----------



## bostjan (Jun 3, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> To me... I'm opposed to... I just don't see...





celticelk said:


> [citation needed]





CapnForsaggio said:


> ...personal belief...





celticelk said:


> ...Ayn Rand...



Well, we almost made it 20 posts into a PC&E thread encouraging people to express their personal beliefs without incident.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 3, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Well, we almost made it 20 posts into a PC&E thread encouraging people to express their personal beliefs without incident.



Yeah, my bad. I'll see myself out.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 3, 2016)

celticelk said:


> 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!



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.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jun 3, 2016)

bostjan said:


> I'm going to be the only one with my political opinions, so I'm not sure this thread applies to me.



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.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 3, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> 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.



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_.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 3, 2016)

celticelk said:


> 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_.



Again, we are talking about a book, "Capitalism" - not Atlas Shrugged.

You can borrow my copy if you'd like.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 3, 2016)

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Id...64994396&sr=8-12&keywords=capitalism+ayn+rand


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 4, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Well, we almost made it 20 posts into a PC&E thread encouraging people to express their personal beliefs without incident.



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:



CapnForsaggio said:


> Sorry, I'm not going to wade into that one. *It is my personal belief that government is unnecessarily wasteful. It is not my duty to explain to you why I feel this way.* Hint: years of experience.
> 
> You want to change my thinking, fine. Try it. I do not feel the need to explain my personal beliefs to the internet.



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.". 



CapnForsaggio said:


> And it's "Captialism" not Atlas shrugged that we are discussing ... 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.



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 ...



CapnForsaggio said:


> I am a staunch fiscal conservative (usually associated "right") that believes in *total campaign finance reform*



... 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" ...



CapnForsaggio said:


> You want to change my thinking, fine. Try it. I do not feel the need to explain my personal beliefs to the internet.



... 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.


----------



## wat (Jun 6, 2016)

none. 


The other guys are bad people with bad beliefs.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 7, 2016)

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.


----------



## Sumsar (Jun 7, 2016)

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.


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 7, 2016)

wat said:


> none.
> 
> 
> The other guys are bad people with bad beliefs.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Jun 7, 2016)

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.


----------



## WhiskeyPickleJake (Jun 7, 2016)

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.


----------



## Demiurge (Jun 8, 2016)

TheStig1214 said:


> 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?



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.


----------



## vilk (Jun 8, 2016)

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.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Jun 8, 2016)

vilk said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## vilk (Jun 9, 2016)

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.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jun 9, 2016)

https://scotterb.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/matt-taibbi-on-greenspan-rand-and-the-crisis/

How Alan Greenspan Helped Wreck the Economy | Rolling Stone


----------



## bostjan (Jun 9, 2016)

vilk said:


> 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.



Someone will always have to build the robots, fix the robots, etc. Even if you build robots to fix old robots, someone still has to build the new robot.

Automation helps everybody out in the long run.


----------



## Hachetjoel (Jun 9, 2016)

I never post in the political section, but I don't have a belief that's "the other side" I think the "us vs them" mentality is a huge issue. I wouldn't consider myself on either side so I can't say I have an opinion that crosses over into either one.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Jun 9, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Someone will always have to build the robots, fix the robots, etc. Even if you build robots to fix old robots, someone still has to build the new robot.
> 
> Automation helps everybody out in the long run.



This is true, but building/fixing robots does not provide enough jobs for nearly 10 billion people in 2050. 


Plus, there's nothing special about the human brain anyway. What's to stop us from making a software bot that can out-robot-design us and then we have better robots than we could ever build on our own.


----------



## Demiurge (Jun 9, 2016)

I'm pretty sure that once robots are able to do everything, there will be only one job: fighting in the Resistance against Skynet. /lowhangingfruit


----------



## bostjan (Jun 10, 2016)

TheStig1214 said:


> This is true, but building/fixing robots does not provide enough jobs for nearly 10 billion people in 2050.
> 
> 
> Plus, there's nothing special about the human brain anyway. What's to stop us from making a software bot that can out-robot-design us and then we have better robots than we could ever build on our own.



Then simply don't design AI that designs robots. Anyway, that's a fear you have regarding software moreso than industrial automation.

What are the measurable negative aspects of automation? Without any automation, there aren't any jobs anyway, and there has never been a period in history when there has been 100% employment (nor 0% unemployment), so I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Jun 10, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Then simply don't design AI that designs robots. Anyway, that's a fear you have regarding software moreso than industrial automation.
> 
> What are the measurable negative aspects of automation? Without any automation, there aren't any jobs anyway, and there has never been a period in history when there has been 100% employment (nor 0% unemployment), so I'm not sure what your point is.



I'd recommend watching the video I linked. 

Developing mechanical minds and mechanical muscles are pretty much one in the same. The future of automation is not big, complex, specific purpose robots like are used in the auto industry, it's general purpose robots/software that can do just about any basic task you can think of and eventually teach themselves to do it better than humans. 

There aren't measurable negative effects to automation as of yet, but once we reach the point where we can program just about any form of transportation to drive/pilot/command itself, that's just about the entire transportation sector out the window. Same can be applied to a lot of white collar labor as well. Software bots can scan through documents and files doing white collar work thousands of time faster than humans day and night. There are even automation engineers at companies designing software to replace their coworkers. We are already at the point where less than 1% of the population makes all the food thanks to automation, and there's even totally automated farms. There are very few jobs that can't be replaced by robots. 

I'm aware we've never been at 100% employment (unless you consider hunter/gatherer a job), but we also haven't been at a point where vast sections of the population were just _unemployable_ because there either are no jobs for them or their skills are no longer necessary. Farmers moved to factory work and factory workers moved to white collar jobs. Where do white collar workers go?


----------



## Drew (Jun 10, 2016)

Interesting question, and I'll go back and carefully read responses here when I have more time. 

But, quickly - corporate taxation. I'm a liberal, yet I'd love to lower corporate taxes. To be fair, I'd like to do it as part of a "grand bargain" where we add higher marginal brackets for personal income taxes, but as a liberal I don't get my party's fascination with taxing corporations. 

Two reasons. 

1) It doesn't do a thing for corporate excess - it's not like corporations are going out and flying on private jets and eating caviar. I'd rather tax their highest paid employees and remove some of the perverse capital incentives where some courses of action are attractive simply because they bring tax benefits. 

2) More importantly... I generally find the Laffer curve kind of BS for personal taxation - we're WAY below the revenue maximization point on that curve - but there's something to it for corporate taxation simply because it's very easy for corporations to relocate to lower tax environments, or keep entire lines of business offshore for favorable tax treatment (i.e - a US company creating a seperate "European" entity to break into the EU market, and incorporating in Ireland for a much lower tax rate, and keeping all earnings there rather than repatriating to the parent company). US corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the developed world, and this creates a strong disincentive for US companies to file any more earnings here than they absolutely have to. I think if we cut corporate tax rates, we very likely WOULD see higher corporate tax receipts within a couple years, and at the very least tax inversion deals would stop being a problem. 

Of course, to your average liberal, cutting corporate taxes is a "handout to big business" so this would be tough to swallow. But, as part of a broader deal where we added a couple new marginal tax rates over the existing ones... That just might work.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 10, 2016)

Exactly! If everyone who works for the corporation is being taxed on their income, who is the "corporate tax" really taxing?

Answer: they are taxing any profits that could be used to improve the business, pay dividends, etc. 

It becomes the very reason why corporations move out of this country, or turn the entirety of their profits back into the business. They aren't ALLOWED to run a profitable business, without giving 35% of those profits to the government, which is a stupid thing to do....


----------



## flint757 (Jun 11, 2016)

Everyone in politics nowadays is so easily triggered it's obnoxious. Both sides are so quick to jump to insults or talking down to opposing views as if they are dumb or unintelligible children, ignoring the more likely truth that they either have different goals/priorities or are simply missing key pieces of information and that's all.

I will say, as a liberal myself, it is really annoying that you can't criticize in any shape or form a person who identifies with a group that is considered disenfranchised without being immediately accused of being prejudiced, racist, or sexist. It's neither productive nor helpful and if the individual you are talking to is truly racist or sexist it will be more than apparent the longer the conversation goes on. To presume negative critiquing as immediately prejudiced is moronic and in itself prejudiced. 

I was talking with a woman on Facebook about the current election and she brought up the go to shtick nowadays where people create hypothetical scenarios that can't be tested as proof of facts that XYZ is racist or sexist ("If he were black", "if he were white" "if she were a man", "If he were a woman", etc.) and I said something to the effect of as a man of science I take umbrage with people posing a hypothetical as proof of fact that something is the case in reference to what really occurred. I said that she might be correct, but considering that isn't what happened she can't possibly know that for certain. 

Her reply was simply an appeal to authority and to take my phrase that triggered her and flipped it to say "As a 'woman of logic'" (implying I meant man of science as a dig at women I suppose ). How do we have a productive conversation with anybody anymore if this is how people are going to react. It's legitimately depressing.

The world is viewed through a black and white filter nowadays and people presume if you don't think something is racist or sexist then you're racist or sexist as well. 

I've said it in another thread a long time ago, but I really wish people were forced to take debate classes in school.


----------



## Demiurge (Jun 11, 2016)

flint757 said:


> Everyone in politics nowadays is so easily triggered it's obnoxious. Both sides are so quick to jump to insults or talking down to opposing views as if they are dumb or unintelligible children, ignoring the more likely truth that they either have different goals/priorities or are simply missing key pieces of information and that's all.
> 
> I will say, as a liberal myself, it is really annoying that you can't criticize in any shape or form a person who identifies with a group that is considered disenfranchised without being immediately accused of being prejudiced, racist, or sexist. It's neither productive nor helpful and if the individual you are talking to is truly racist or sexist it will be more than apparent the longer the conversation goes on. To presume negative critiquing as immediately prejudiced is moronic and in itself prejudiced.



That truly is the worst- when there is a supposed pretense about embracing diversity and plurality, shouldn't there be a drive towards camaraderie over common ground as well? There were certainly flashes of it visible in the GOP over these primaries, but the "circular firing squad" syndrome and witch-hunts for "bad allies" seems to plague a lot more left-leaning discourses.

The problem is that a lot of social and political ideas nowadays aim to satisfy "emotional truths", where the reasoning is almost like, "I believe in ______, so therefore anything said that favors ______- no matter how freaking outlandish it is- I will accept it." If you tell someone that they're nuts for saying that crossword puzzles are racist or that Obama is using healthcare reform to form death panels, you're either racist or you hate America, respectively.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Jun 11, 2016)

As someone who identifies more with the right than the left, I will say that I support gay marriage and also, I realize that there are people who do need government benefits such as welfare/SSI. There are some people who are not competent to work at all, and I think the benefits should be for those people. I don't have an issue paying more taxes to help people who truly cannot work for themselves. I do have a problem paying more supporting a load of bums who can work, but will not.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 13, 2016)

I used to live right across the street from the Amtrack station in Beech Grove, Indiana, which, supposedly, was the beta test site for the death camps. I'd get all kinds of people citing that place in their arguments, trying to convince me, despite the fact that I lived there.

I don't know what makes people that way, but it is too common, that people abandon logic entirely for their beliefs. And that's where we get extremists on every position in the field - people who place personal belief ahead of logic in any and every instance. I'm a firm believer in holding to your beliefs, but if your beliefs are proven wrong, it's time to move on, at the very least knowing that you will not be able to convince anyone else.

And as far as anybody who identifies political as middle of the road, at least in the USA, good luck. We are clearly headed toward binary politics: big government or no government, forget about an appropriately-sized government; totalitarian or anarchy.


----------

