The Political Thread

[tex]

<Snipped quote by tex>
Isn't that an appeal to accomplishment?

@catchamber

No, it is not. Rather, it implies the opposite.

1. Y person claims X is true.
2. Y person has insufficient knowledge on X.

---

∴ X is false.

Of course, in this case, one would have to argue that person Y is in fact lacking knowledge. I can see where your confusion comes up, though. What I am referring to are individuals who automatically assume that their arguments are correct, and criticize others for holding different stances. This is commonly referred to as being a twat. It's similar to the fallacy that you're referring to, except it's... It doesn't even try to make sense.

Claiming that an argument on economics for example holds any ground without presenting an adequate amount of evidence, which requires one to be sufficiently learned in the complex nature of wealth and how an entire country interacts with it, is a foolish and short-sighted claim to make. But despite this being a very common trend, people assume themselves to be in the right very adamently, hence the context of my earlier comment. The reason I dismiss most political arguments stems from the fact that I have no interest in the excruciatingly nebulous cluster fuck of conflicting ideas that all seem to hold weight on the political spectrum, and this is made even worse by the slews of morons who think they know anything about anything, and explicitly assert themselves as trustworthy sources of information.

People like that are toxic for three reasons.

1. They are charismatic.
2. They are often wrong.
3. People will believe them without thinking twice due to their charisma.

When I note a political background as something that implies a greater knowledge, I am in fact referring to an environment full of individuals who have a history in rigorous study of politics and economics, not some internet tough guy/girl who works at home-depot and occasionally reads biased news sources/biased articles in his spare time.

It seems that, most of the time anyways, you cannot trust a seemingly trustworthy body of knowledge when it often conflicts so heavily with another, especially in social politics. For every ten reasonably thought out theses on one side of an argument, there are ten equally reasonable papers on another side.

Then again, adamantly taking a 'side' in politics is in fact, outrageously ignorant.

[SleepingSilence]

The evidence that meshing the systems is effective is the existence of societies that prosper more by following both philosophies, compared to nations that just stick with one.

@catchamber

Could you provide some specific examples to what you might be describing?

When you build a car, you focus on making every part effective, because that's essential to the whole being effective. The same applies to groups, but groups are more flexible and comprised of individuals that can have many skills.

@catchamber

Making sure a car part isn't defective, is a lot easier than trying to figure out the various complications of a human being. Because not all humans can make a cohesive whole. But I feel the analogy falls apart even further considering battles for culture. Compelled speech or forcing members of society to dress a certain way. There isn't really a way to please everybody, like you could make sure a car is in perfect working order, which is inevitably what collectivism tries and fails to do...

Incomplete, inconsistent, or invalidated theories that might be viable with the right conditions. As far as I know, applied marxism/communism sought to forcibly end capitalism and transition into statelessness, but ended up violating individual liberties and promoting unprofitable authoritarianism that went right back to capitalism when it suited them.

@catchamber

This might just be an innocuous addition. But I noticed you often use unprofitable, as a slant against the political systems. Would the system you described be validated in some way, if it actually was financially sound?

Capitalism isn't bad, it's just that it can fail miserably and often does so. This failure is often when aspects of the system assume their worth is higher than the societies they comprise, which is incidentally the same reason why the populist forms of socialism, marxism, and communism during the 20th century failed so painfully.

@catchamber

So if a business, bank, or some sort of project fails to turn a profit and closes as a result. Do you consider that a failure of the political system?

Capitalism certainly isn't perfect. But do you feel, let's say America's Education System is a failure (no, arguing on that one) because we don't have a fully government controlled/taxpayer funded educational system? Which would be a failure, since it doesn't incorporate enough authoritarian control? Or, is it a failure because it's not actually one coherent system. But like many things not doing well in America, it's never truly free-market idea being presented. It's some bizarre mishmash of various systems that only fail spectacularly as a result?

If you acknowledge the latter, what problem do you think a 'mixed-bag system' solution would be useful for?

[Pepperm1nts]

- Ignore this, I didn't see there were new messages herp -

[Dolerman]

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

I would say I am something of a social democrat.

@Pepperm1nts

@Dynamo Frokane I guess I would consider myself a naturally left-leaning centrist with conservative values.

@tex

[SleepingSilence]

I would say I am something of a social democrat.

@Pepperm1nts

How exactly do you think social democrat differs from just -normal- democrat?

Are you suggesting you share the mainstream democrat position on most/all, social/cultural issues? (And perhaps, primarily/solely focus on said issues?)

Not for nothing. But every conservation I've had with you, makes you seem more fitting of a Progressive label. (To be fair perhaps, Progressive and mainstream democrat means closer to the same thing every day.) But is there something you would disagree with, that would distinguish yourself from that political party?

[Pepperm1nts]

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

How exactly do you think social democrat differs from just -normal- democrat?

Are you suggesting you share the mainstream democrat position on most/all, social/cultural issues? (And perhaps, primarily/solely focus on said issues?)

@SleepingSilence

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[4] Due to longstanding governance by Social Democratic parties and their influence on socioeconomic policy development in the Nordic countries, in policy circles "social democracy" has become associated with the Nordic model in the latter part of the 20th century.

Socially I am very liberal; I don't care what you do so long as it isn't hurting anyone; I don't think the government has a right to tell you what to do with your body, ect. In that sense I identify more with the democratic party, but that doesn't mean I like the party as a whole. The mainstream, establishment branch of the party is full of corporatist neo-liberals who are in a lot of ways closer to the right-wing than they are to being actual left-wingers; I don't think the mainstream Democratic Party goes far enough left (cue horror screams) when it comes to certain issues, as evident by the way they try to tear people like Bernie Sanders down whenever he tries to argue for free healthcare and college, and how they're trying to do the same to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Socially I think the party is mostly on the right track, at least compared to the right-wing who is still having temper tantrums over things like gay marriage.

[Dolerman]

Looks like Charlottesville 2: Civil War might be missing a cameo or two.

[Andreyich]

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

<Snipped quote>

Socially I am very liberal; I don't care what you do so long as it isn't hurting anyone; I don't think the government has a right to tell you what to do with your body, ect. In that sense I identify more with the democratic party, but that doesn't mean I like the party as a whole. The mainstream, establishment branch of the party is full of corporatist neo-liberals who are in a lot of ways closer to the right-wing than they are to being actual left-wingers; I don't think the mainstream Democratic Party goes far enough left (cue horror screams) when it comes to certain issues, as evident by the way they try to tear people like Bernie Sanders down whenever he tries to argue for free healthcare and college, and how they're trying to do the same to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Socially I think the party is mostly on the right track, at least compared to the right-wing who is still having temper tantrums over things like gay marriage.

@Pepperm1nts

Lol how are neolibs "right wing"

Hardmode: answer without referring to the cucking of Bernie Sanders

[Pepperm1nts]

Neo-liberals are for economic liberalization, which includes deregulation and free trade, which often times puts them in the same camp as conservatives. Modern-day neo-liberalism is associated very heavily with Laissez-faire capitalist ideas, which again, is more of a right-wing thing. "Hard" mode.

EDIT: And I didn't say neo-liberals are right-wing. I said they have a lot in common.

[SleepingSilence]

If my discussion with catchamber does anything, it more than proves, a wiki-page is not always a substitute for what somebody believes they stand for. Though going by the dictionary.com, it gives me a pretty straight forward answer.

So you believe in a socialist system of government achieved through 'majority rule'?

Socially I am very liberal; I don't care what you do so long as it isn't hurting anyone; I don't think the government has a right to tell you what to do with your body.

@Pepperm1nts

I know you're not fond of firearms. (Or I guess have been lead to believe such, is a more fair statement.)

Do you have any problems with drugs? (Assume not.) But if not, how far do you think that rabbit-hole should go? Decriminalization? Legalization?

How about food? Being socially liberal, would you oppose things like higher taxes on soda? Or banning certain fatty/high calorie foods? Like New York's soda ban for example.

Asking these just for a general clarification, on being socially liberal.

In that sense I identify more with the democratic party, but that doesn't mean I like the party as a whole. The mainstream, establishment branch of the party is full of corporatist neo-liberals who are in a lot of ways closer to the right-wing than they are to being actual left-wingers; I don't think the mainstream Democratic Party goes far enough left (cue horror screams) when it comes to certain issues, as evident by the way they try to tear people like Bernie Sanders down whenever he tries to argue for free healthcare and college, and how they're trying to do the same to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

@Pepperm1nts

Just from the sound of it, it's not really any particular or specific party differences. Like many consider of the republican party, you feel disconnected because they aren't accomplishing what you feel their platform is supposed to be? You don't disagree with the ideas, like pushing for equal outcomes over equal opportunity, you just believe most of their ideas should be cranked to the 11th? So to speak.

I suppose this is more off-topic, personal stuff that you don't need to engage with. But maybe it can lead to an interesting cordial discussion. Are you fond of either Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? How do you feel Alexandria has been displaying herself as of late? Do you feel her win shows that there's many on the far left who have similar opinions to you about the democratic party not going far enough? Or perhaps, something bigger? Or is it just because the jack-off didn't even acknowledge her and skipped a debate, and got a taste of karma? Feel free to take this discussion anywhere, or pass on it if you don't have an opinion on it/don't feel like sharing.

Socially I think the party is mostly on the right track, at least compared to the right-wing who is still having temper tantrums over things like gay marriage.

@Pepperm1nts

Just curious. Do you know any popular/well-known major conservative person who has "no/overturn gay marriage" as the focus of their platform? I can't think of any. Is there a specific example you have in mind?

[Pepperm1nts]

So you believe in a socialist system of government achieved through 'majority rule'?

@SleepingSilence

Mostly I am for a mixed economy. I think the best we can achieve in the US is a capitalist economy with strong social elements.

I know you're not fond of firearms. (Or I guess have been lead to believe such, is a more fair statement.)

I don't want to ban guns. I just think there should be more regulation. And I'm not talking about making it near impossible to get a gun. I'm talking about logical shit like universal background checks and waiting periods. Getting a gun shouldn't be easier than getting a driver's license.

Do you have any problems with drugs? (Assume not.) But if not, how far do you think that rabbit-hole should go? Decriminalization? Legalization?

I honestly think drugs should just be legalized, with very few exceptions like those drugs that literally rot your skin off. Legalize drugs, tax them, make bank, and simultaneously cripple illegal drug trade. I think a lot of the problems we see with cartels would probably go away if their product was made legal. Fighting the war on drugs is a waste of time and money and it's ruining people's lives over non-violent drug offenses.

How about food? Being socially liberal, would you oppose things like higher taxes on soda? Or banning certain fatty/high calorie foods? Like New York's soda ban for example.

I haven't really put much thought into this. I think Americans' diets are dogshit and I see why we would want to discourage unhealthy foods, but at the same time, it's up to the individual. If you want to drink soda until you're diabetic that's your business. I don't know if I'd go as far as increasing taxes on soda, but again I haven't really thought about it.

You don't disagree with the ideas, like pushing for equal outcomes over equal opportunity,

I don't think this is true; I think this is a right-wing meme. I don't know of anyone on the left who thinks everyone, regardless of education, financial success, ect should end up in the same place. I think when people on the left advocate for "equal outcome" it's not in all things. What they mean is everyone should be guaranteed a certain degree of *basic* means with which to live. A living wage regardless of who they are, healthcare, ect. They're not saying a poor person should be guaranteed a BMW. They're saying they should be guaranteed basic things.

you just believe most of their ideas should be cranked to the 11th? So to speak.

No, I think a lot of mainstream democrats are against left-wing ideas like free college and healthcare, among others. There are a lot of democrats who scoff at the idea and are more concerned with lining their pockets with donors' money to keep peddling corporatist policieswhile the average person struggles to put food on their table. Those democrats, I think, are more centrist than they are leftist. People like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, among others, but also people in media trying to push for a Biden candidacy are just ridiculous. They're out of touch. I think the party as a whole should lean more to the left and start working towards actually serving the people instead of special interests. I want fewer Hillarys and more Bernies. I don't think it's radical to want people to have access to higher education regardless of their economic background; I don't think it's radical to not want people to die because they don't have access to healthcare, or can't afford it. So I wouldn't say I want to turn it up to 11. I just think right now it's at like 4.

Are you fond of either Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

Yes.

How do you feel Alexandria has been displaying herself as of late? Do you feel her win shows that there's many on the far left who have similar opinions to you about the democratic party not going far enough?

I think she's doing alright. There are certain things I think she needs to work on, and I'm not fond of her calling herself a democratic socialist, because she simply isn't. She's a social democrat. I do think her win (and the subsequent uptick in people joining the Democratic Socialists of America) does show there are many people in the Democratic Party who think we should go further left. In fact, I think most politically active young people on the left do. I think she generated a lot of excitement and interest.

Or is it just because the jack-off didn't even acknowledge her and skipped a debate, and got a taste of karma?

That may have had an impact, but he was a 20 year incumbent, so I don't think she just got lucky. She did her job, ran a good campaign, and appealed to the interests of people in her district. She earned the win.

Just curious. Do you know any popular/well-known major conservative person who has "no/overturn gay marriage" as the focus of their platform? I can't think of any. Is there a specific example you have in mind?

I mean, literally the Vice President.

EDIT: "Focus" is a pretty narrow qualifier. I think we'd have to go down to like, religious fundamentalists to find someone who has made it their "focus" to overturn gay marriage. But I think a lot of people on the right are against gay marriage as a secondary thing that isn't their main focus. Pence being one of them. I literally googled "republicans who are against gay marriage" and found several results showing anti-LGBT legislation being passed (or attempted) by Republicans as early as last month in some states.

[SleepingSilence]

Mostly I am for a mixed economy. I think the best we can achieve in the US is a capitalist economy with strong social elements.

@Pepperm1nts

Well that certainly isn't what the Wikipedia article on what being a social democrat is. (If you get my earlier point.) Though, I feel that's kind of what we already have in many ways, and a lot of those social elements are very poorly handled. (I'm sure maybe that could be agreed upon, I suppose the divide would be how you'd fix those things.)

I don't want to ban guns. I just think there should be more regulation. And I'm not talking about making it near impossible to get a gun. I'm talking about logical shit like universal background checks and waiting periods. Getting a gun shouldn't be easier than getting a driver's license.

@Pepperm1nts

Well thankfully, you need a license to buy any gun. (Among other things.) But I'll leave that point be, since I don't wish to get sidetracked. In fact, I'll simply make a point in my next question.

I honestly think drugs should just be legalized, with very few exceptions like those drugs that literally rot your skin off. Legalize drugs, tax them, make bank, and simultaneously cripple illegal drug trade. I think a lot of the problems we see with cartels would probably go away if their product was made legal. Fighting the war on drugs is a waste of time and money and it's ruining people's lives over non-violent drug offenses.

@Pepperm1nts

Basically agreed with the latter half, the former I think decriminalization would be a considerable/negotiable step in the right direction. Because you'd be combating the biggest issues with drugs, while maybe not encouraging people to try harder ones. I mean, when microwaves have to tell people not to stick their cats in them...do we pull that trigger? I dunno.

But I digress, say in this scenario. Just picture if you will. You -could- potentially have the drugs and alcohol etc. But you'd need to be put in a drug/booze registry. Which will obviously cost money and require overhead. You'd need to give multiple reasons on why you'd want to take the drugs. You'd be required for a government inspection of your propriety to make a judgement if you'll be responsible with your drugs. You could only use a certain licensed amount, only use it yourself, don't use it in specific areas, or risk paying a hefty fine or prison time.

I could go on, doesn't this sound ridiculous? (I sure do hope so.) Is it just because their completely different? Well not entirely, they can harm you and those around you and be quite dangerous and self destructive...after all just in 2016. More people died from drugs than guns or cars. But there's so many people taking drugs, some put in prison for smoking in their home, is that something that should be allowed in hands of a responsible adult without big brother?

(Obviously, playful. Heroine ain't exactly in the Constitution, but I'm sure it would be if The Founding Fathers tried it.) But hey, food for thought. Pun intended, I'm shameless.

I haven't really put much thought into this. I think Americans' diets are dogshit and I see why we would want to discourage unhealthy foods, but at the same time, it's up to the individual. If you want to drink soda until you're diabetic that's your business. I don't know if I'd go as far as increasing taxes on soda, but again I haven't really thought about it.

@Pepperm1nts

Well I'm not fact checking anyone here. What do you think the problem is when it comes to people making poor health and lifestyle choices? Is it solely because of Capitalism and overabundance? Well, the U.K actually is the 6th 'fattiest' in population above the United States. So probably not. Cheapest food? (Kind of goes hand in hand.) So feel free to give me your speculation. (If you want...)

I don't think this is true; I think this is a right-wing meme. I don't know of anyone on the left who thinks everyone, regardless of education, financial success, ect should end up in the same place. I think when people on the left advocate for "equal outcome" it's not in all things. What they mean is everyone should be guaranteed a certain degree of *basic* means with which to live. A living wage regardless of who they are, healthcare, ect. They're not saying a poor person should be guaranteed a BMW. They're saying they should be guaranteed basic things.

@Pepperm1nts

I mean it's not a phantom theory. Diversity Quotas, and Affirmative Action, widespread ideas of 'Pay Gaps' and 'Wage Inequality'. It seems to already be in law in several forms and be apart the main talking points.

Who exactly decides what 'basic' things people need? We that be enough to satisfy creatures that desire? Okay, so now fancy car. Well, is transportation a basic thing? If not, why not? Everyone does it, everyone needs to do it. Right?

If so, where does that rabbit hole go? Free bikes? Probably cheaper and more environmentally friendly than cars, so yeah why not? How about people that can't ride or have no legs? Should they get a free robotic leg? Obviously, everyone -has- two legs. That's a basic thing. People born blind or deaf, they obviously need free surgery to get as close to normal as possible. Retarded? Hmm...didn't even scratch the surface, but it already seems rather complicated for 'basic things' right?

I think she's doing alright. There are certain things I think she needs to work on, and I'm not fond of her calling herself a democratic socialist, because she simply isn't. She's a social democrat. I do think her win (and the subsequent uptick in people joining the Democratic Socialists of America) does show there are many people in the Democratic Party who think we should go further left. In fact, I think most politically active young people on the left do. I think she generated a lot of excitement and interest.

@Pepperm1nts

I actually agree in multiple ways with that. I think at least the idea of disliking the establishment party has never been a stronger sentimental for the younger generations. I know you don't like Trump, but his win will bring forth people would normally turn their noses at. People with non-political careers. Younger sorts, perhaps even more diverse in the label sense and intellectually. I don't consider this a negative at all. I certainly think more politicians, and presidents will (or at least try) become successful by not playing the moderate or milquetoast game. The right, the left both farther on the spectrum. Thus the options, may very well feel like-choices. I sincerely hope more people like her, in general and specifically try for a political position. Maybe even have a third party getting enough votes to make both parties sweat bullets, and actually feel like they have to try to earn their civilians vote. A man can dream.

That may have had an impact, but he was a 20 year incumbent, so I don't think she just got lucky. She did her job, ran a good campaign, and appealed to the interests of people in her district. She earned the win.

@Pepperm1nts

#HackedByBots Hey, I'm not politically biased when it comes to working your ass off. I can't imagine how much stress all that puts on somebody. I don't want to come over like I think it was luck. I know it's a cliche, but most things happen for a reason. Though I'd say it certainly helped playing to a much further left demographic in New York, and I'm sure you could agree hubris/self-assurance is clearly something that looks embarrassing when you lose.

I mean, literally the Vice President.

EDIT: "Focus" is a pretty narrow qualifier. I think we'd have to go down to like, religious fundamentalists to find someone who has made it their "focus" to overturn gay marriage. But I think a lot of people on the right are against gay marriage as a secondary thing that isn't their main focus. Pence being one of them. I literally googled "republicans who are against gay marriage" and found several results showing anti-LGBT legislation being passed (or attempted) by Republicans as early as last month in some states.

@Pepperm1nts

I know the shocking gays meme is amusing. But do you know exactly where all that comes from? It was basically, him wanting to refuse funding for sexual advocacy with tax dollars for AIDS. (Which at that point, people pretended everyone could get...)

"All HIV/AIDS advocacy at the time emphasized that everyone engaging in unprotected sex was at risk for HIV infection. The Ryan White Care Act assisted all people with HIV who qualified for its financial assistance. As a Christian conservative, Pence’s preference for directing tax dollars towards organizations promoting sexual responsibility to reduce the spread of HIV is not particularly controversial."
Source

I know this could spiral into it's own thing, since this has been touched on before. But if we went on religion, the democrats wouldn't fair any/much better. Remember, stupid stuff like Prop 8 passed literally everywhere. If you google "Democrats that don't support gay marriage" you'll find things too...obviously religion does play a contributing part in that.

But I'll stand vehemently on the fact that this is primarily and old vs new thing. Hell sex in general is taboo in American for some reason. With marriage having it's own complications. And there's gays who were perfectly happy calling it civil unions. As much as I stand for gay rights/marriage. I'm not quite sure I'm on the same page. Also, I'm not googling it. So I wouldn't know. But the 'Anti-LBGT stuff', I would only assume the 'T' part would be more likely to be brought up. Since that is more of the 'hot button' issue. (If I'm incorrect, please share if you find anything particularly egregious.)

[Pepperm1nts]

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

Well that certainly isn't what the Wikipedia article on what being a social democrat is.

@SleepingSilence

Well, then read again.

From the article:

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy.

In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labor)[4] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[8][9][10]

Social democracy, at least the way it is often called for in the US, seeks to work within the framework of a capitalist society. Meaning it aims to put social/public policies in place, without completely getting rid of privatization. So much so that it is/was criticized by actual socialists for having more or less surrendered to capitalist ideas by aspiring to work within the capitalist system as opposed to completely destroying it like socialists want to do. Social Democracy is a compromise.

Well thankfully, you need a license to buy any gun. (Among other things.)

I didn't say anything about gun licenses. I said it's harder to get a driver's license than it is to legally get a gun.

Well I'm not fact checking anyone here. What do you think the problem is when it comes to people making poor health and lifestyle choices? Is it solely because of Capitalism and overabundance? Well, the U.K actually is the 6th 'fattiest' in population above the United States. So probably not. Cheapest food? (Kind of goes hand in hand.) So feel free to give me your speculation. (If you want...)

Bad food is cheap. Poor people buy cheap food. We have a lot of poor people. And yeah, to an extent I think it also comes down to shitty dietary choices. But I don't know, I'm just guessing.

Who exactly decides what 'basic' things people need? We that be enough to satisfy creatures that desire? Okay, so now fancy car. Well, is transportation a basic thing? If not, why not? Everyone does it, everyone needs to do it. Right?

I wouldn't consider a car a basic need, but even if we did consider it a basic need for the sake of argument, it's a problem that would be solved with better salaries. There's a lot of poor people out there who have so many things they have to pay (and barely have the money to) that a car, for a lot of them, is too much to get and maintain on top of everything else. A living wage is not just about paying people enough to live; it's about paying people enough to live comfortably and with dignity.

If so, where does that rabbit hole go? Free bikes? Probably cheaper and more environmentally friendly than cars, so yeah why not?

Again, pay people living wages so they aren't struggling with basic necessities and everything else (like transportation) becomes accessible to them as a result. If they want to get a car with the money they have left after the basic needs are covered, cool. A bike? Great. I don't think people in the richest country on earth should have to live with only just enough to survive. Ideally, I want people to have enough for their basic needs, but also something extra to put into the economy. I see a lot of people on the right who seem to find it outrageous to think people should have a little spending money. You hear it a lot from the "just save your money!" crowd and it's ridiculous. [incoming sarcasm] How dare people want to enjoy their lives a little? They should just pay their bills and save everything else even if it means living in an empty apartment. Spending money on furniture and TVs is sooo irresponsible. Oh, and their phones. How fucking dare they.

How about people that can't ride or have no legs? Should they get a free robotic leg? Obviously, everyone -has- two legs. That's a basic thing. People born blind or deaf, they obviously need free surgery to get as close to normal as possible. Retarded? Hmm...didn't even scratch the surface, but it already seems rather complicated for 'basic things' right?

You're doing something a lot of right-wingers do.

Someone says "hey, there's a problem with X" and they try to offer a solution, but if the solution doesn't solve literally every conceivable problem, it's a bad one. Life doesn't work that way. Sometimes we have to inch our way towards progress. You can't wave a magic wand and fix every aspect of every problem. Sometimes a solution only patches three out of four holes, but having three holes patched up is better than none.

I actually agree in multiple ways with that. I think at least the idea of disliking the establishment party has never been a stronger sentimental for the younger generations. I know you don't like Trump, but his win will bring forth people would normally turn their noses at. People with non-political careers. Younger sorts, perhaps even more diverse in the label sense and intellectually. I don't consider this a negative at all. I certainly think more politicians, and presidents will (or at least try) become successful by not playing the moderate or milquetoast game. The right, the left both farther on the spectrum. Thus the options, may very well feel like-choices. I sincerely hope more people like her, in general and specifically try for a political position. Maybe even have a third party getting enough votes to make both parties sweat bullets, and actually feel like they have to try to earn their civilians vote. A man can dream.

Well, color me surprised. I figured you'd hate her.

Also, I'm not googling it. So I wouldn't know. But the 'Anti-LBGT stuff', I would only assume the 'T' part would be more likely to be brought up. Since that is more of the 'hot button' issue. (If I'm incorrect, please share if you find anything particularly egregious.)

The first few results that came up for me were to do with regular gay marriage, not trans rights.

I think to an extent it's an old vs new thing, because even on the left there are people like Hillary who were anti-gay marriage until relatively recently, but I think the right is by far more anti-LGBT than the left. Like, it's not even a contest. Hands down, the Republican party is the anti-LGBT party. That may be slowly changing, but it still has a long way to go.

[SleepingSilence]

Well, then read again.

Social democracy, at least the way it is often called for in the US, seeks to work within the framework of a capitalist society. Meaning it aims to put social/public policies in place, without completely getting rid of privatization. So much so that it is/was criticized by actual socialists for having more or less surrendered to capitalist ideas by aspiring to work within the capitalist system as opposed to completely destroying it like socialists want to do. Social Democracy is a compromise.

@Pepperm1nts

Wikipedia has been wrong before. I think a lot of that first part was glanced over.

'I feel that's kind of what we already have in many ways, and a lot of those social elements are very poorly handled. (I'm sure maybe that could be agreed upon, I suppose the divide would be how you'd fix those things.)'

It seems that a lot of problems facing America currently have almost always not a free-market economy, but some horrible hybrid.

Could you provide some specific examples to what you might be describing? What problem do you think a 'mixed-bag system' solution would be useful for? Can we really pull random bits from other nations, and just stick them here? As people like Bernie Sanders may imply, when he talks about 'Literacy Programs' of Nicaragua. Is that what you believe will work?

I didn't say anything about gun licenses. I said it's harder to get a driver's license than it is to legally get a gun.

@Pepperm1nts

I know, I meant an actual photo I.D/driver's License to get a gun.

Bad food is cheap. Poor people buy cheap food. We have a lot of poor people. And yeah, to an extent I think it also comes down to shitty dietary choices. But I don't know, I'm just guessing.

@Pepperm1nts

I guess the only thing I'll say about that, since I want to keep this a general discussion, is that stuff like fast food certainly isn't cheaper than making it yourself which would almost guaranteed to be healthier. I'd say nearly everything comes down to choices.

I wouldn't consider a car a basic need, but even if we did consider it a basic need for the sake of argument, it's a problem that would be solved with better salaries. There's a lot of poor people out there who have so many things they have to pay (and barely have the money to) that a car, for a lot of them, is too much to get and maintain on top of everything else. A living wage is not just about paying people enough to live; it's about paying people enough to live comfortably and with dignity.

@Pepperm1nts

I wouldn't exactly want a free government car. Nor can I imagine how'd you'd implement such a thing realistically...

I think that clarification doesn't actually explain how'd you implement such things. I think it actually makes the stance even more vague...

"Basic things you need to live." It's debatable, but simpler at least.

But now, it's comfortably/'with dignity'. So again I'd have to ask, who decides that exactly? In a world with people's nature, who desire for more...

Again, pay people living wages so they aren't struggling with basic necessities and everything else (like transportation) becomes accessible to them as a result. If they want to get a car with the money they have left after the basic needs are covered, cool. A bike? Great. I don't think people in the richest country on earth should have to live with only just enough to survive. Ideally, I want people to have enough for their basic needs, but also something extra to put into the economy. I see a lot of people on the right who seem to find it outrageous to think people should have a little spending money. You hear it a lot from the "just save your money!" crowd and it's ridiculous. [incoming sarcasm] How dare people want to enjoy their lives a little? They should just pay their bills and save everything else even if it means living in an empty apartment. Spending money on furniture and TVs is sooo irresponsible. Oh, and their phones. How fucking dare they.

@Pepperm1nts

What's a living wage? Do you think that answer is the same across the board or that all people will be satisfied with the number you give?

I think there's a shred of truth to that, I think some people can turn their noses at people problems because they've not experienced the same struggles. The sorts that claim we can't afford houses because of avocado toast, are tools who the sensible can laugh at. Though yes, people that spend hundreds on a phone and expensive clothes and drugs and alcohol would do a lot better in the world saving their money.

You mentioned you don't agree with equal outcomes, but equal opportunity. But set basic incomes wages for existing...isn't that. And even that can be heavily exploited depending how it's implemented.

But I don't think anyone likes the idea of poverty. Something I'd like to see, is more people hiring, more jobs for people to make that wage themselves. That is an equal opportunity idea.

You're doing something a lot of right-wingers do.

Someone says "hey, there's a problem with X" and they try to offer a solution, but if the solution doesn't solve literally every conceivable problem, it's a bad one. Life doesn't work that way. Sometimes we have to inch our way towards progress. You can't wave a magic wand and fix every aspect of every problem. Sometimes a solution only patches three out of four holes, but having three holes patched up is better than none.

@Pepperm1nts

Rationalize positions?

Oh. I mean the "give everyone lots of money so that everyone is comfortable." is kind of a fairly simple sounding, widespread solution isn't it? It certainly seems to sound like an end all problem. Give people money every month to 'live with dignity', and the problems of gambling addictions and people bad with money, etc will be solved...

I was simply theorizing what "basic" means in such context. Since you weren't specific. But you even had to add the word comfortable, so okay...do you think someone should live without two legs? I can't imagine it's a comfortable life. So why not have free prosthetic limbs surgeries?

Well, color me surprised. I figured you'd hate her.

@Pepperm1nts

Well, to my knowledge she hasn't said white people don't know what it's like to be poor, so she has a leg up on Bernie Sanders. ;D

The first few results that came up for me were to do with regular gay marriage, not trans rights.

I think to an extent it's an old vs new thing, because even on the left there are people like Hillary who were anti-gay marriage until relatively recently, but I think the right is by far more anti-LGBT than the left. Like, it's not even a contest. Hands down, the Republican party is the anti-LGBT party. That may be slowly changing, but it still has a long way to go.

@Pepperm1nts

With not much to go on, or say otherwise. I'll take your word for it.

I simply don't agree with that assessment. I'd go as so far to say a lot of tactics used to label such things doesn't look good for the party in question. Since that's been their tendency recently, simply to demonize rather than really look to the individual.

Actually, I believe the cultural idea of accepting everything, actually has lead to some rather negative consequences, despite the noble idea behind it. It's simply a farce, because everyone has a line...(Even you, probably.)

[Pepperm1nts]

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

'I feel that's kind of what we already have in many ways,

@SleepingSilence

Some things are in place, like public education, but I'm talking about higher education as well, and healthcare.

and a lot of those social elements are very poorly handled.

Some of our social elements, like social security, are actually universally loved and approved of by people on both sides of the political spectrum. Are there issues here and there with the way we do certain things? Of course. Regardless of whether it's a social program or not. Nothing is perfect.

It seems that a lot of problems facing America currently have almost always not a free-market economy, but some horrible hybrid.

Like?

Could you provide some specific examples to what you might be describing? What problem do you think a 'mixed-bag system' solution would be useful for? Can we really pull random bits from other nations, and just stick them here? As people like Bernie Sanders may imply, when he talks about 'Literacy Programs' of Nicaragua. Is that what you believe will work?

I've already given some examples of things I'd like to see socialized. Healthcare and higher education should be free. If you want the option to go to a private school that you pay for, or want specialized healthcare that you pay for, those options should also be there. When I think of a hybrid system I am thinking about the Scandinavian way of doing things.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

I wouldn't exactly want a free government car. Nor can I imagine how'd you'd implement such a thing realistically...

I don't know if you misunderstood, but... I didn't say people should get free government cars.

But now, it's comfortably/'with dignity'. So again I'd have to ask, who decides that exactly? In a world with people's nature, who desire for more...

Jesus, man, it's simple. Comfortable doesn't mean you get a Jacuzzi. It means you have the basic things needed to live without having to worry about putting food on your table. It means not living paycheck to paycheck with no room for improvement because you're stuck in an endless loop where you're just barely getting by. Dignity just means you aren't living in the gutter. You're complicating things for no reason. Yeah, sure, people have desires. What's your point? I didn't say the government needed to pay for people's desires.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

What's a living wage? Do you think that answer is the same across the board or that all people will be satisfied with the number you give?

Basically what I said above. Living wage is actually somewhat well-defined:

A living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. This is not the same as subsistence which refers to a biological minimum.

It basically means enough to live in decent, standard conditions.

I think there's a shred of truth to that, I think some people can turn their noses at people problems because they've not experienced the same struggles. The sorts that claim we can't afford houses because of avocado toast, are tools who the sensible can laugh at. Though yes, people that spend hundreds on a phone and expensive clothes and drugs and alcohol would do a lot better in the world saving their money.

Drugs and alcohol, sure. Phones are pretty essential these days, though.

You mentioned you don't agree with equal outcomes, but equal opportunity. But set basic incomes wages for existing...isn't that. And even that can be heavily exploited depending how it's implemented.

I think we already talked about how equal outcome refers to basic things, and a living wage is, again, a means with which to provide those basic things. I don't see how these two things are at odds. If you have a higher education and are more successful, you are going to work a better job that pays more. No one is saying that even highly educated people should be limited to a living wage, or that a poor person with no education should be given a paycheck comparable to the one given to a CEO.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

Oh. I mean the "give everyone lots of money so that everyone is comfortable."

I didn't say lots. A living wage is not "lots of money." It's literally the minimum income necessary for basic needs.

Give people money every month to 'live with dignity', and the problems of gambling addictions and people bad with money, etc will be solved...

I definitely didn't say that. The closest thing I said to that is that if people aren't having to worry about basic needs they are more likely to be able to afford a car (even if cheap), so transportation becomes an issue that is fixed naturally by paying people a basic, living wage.

I was simply theorizing what "basic" means in such context. Since you weren't specific. But you even had to add the word comfortable, so okay...do you think someone should live without two legs? I can't imagine it's a comfortable life. So why not have free prosthetic limbs surgeries?

Comfortable doesn't mean you're completely free of inconvenience or that you live in luxury and have no problems whatsoever. It means you have all the basic needs required to live in decent conditions. Someone without legs can still live in a decent apartment that isn't falling apart around them while they worry about bills and food because they aren't paid enough to be able to juggle all the costs. Comfortably means you aren't worrying about those things because at the very least you have enough to pay the bills and put food on your table.

[SleepingSilence]

Some things are in place, like public education, but I'm talking about higher education as well, and healthcare.

@Pepperm1nts

It seems that a lot of problems facing America currently have almost always not a free-market economy, but some horrible hybrid.

@Me

Like?

@Pepperm1nts

See own previous statement for example?

Seriously though, School is one of those things.

Healthcare is too. You can't tell me those are a fully free-market.

Some of our social elements, like social security, are actually universally loved.

@Pepperm1nts

I've honestly never heard anyone claim that social security was loved. Every adult I've ever spoken with always complains that they're being screwed over when they retire. So you've gotten me to look through things...

news.gallup.com/poll/1693/social-secu… That is certainly not the case, even according to general polls

marketwatch.com/story/these-americans…

fool.com/retirement/2006/10/12/is-soc…

freemoneyfinance.com/2007/04/why_soci…

mises.org/library/social-security-mos…

mises.org/library/social-security-mos…

I won't get into a, is social security this or that, unless you'd like to. But the first link just goes into general polling on what people think of social security...and it isn't exactly being lauded with praise. Maybe you like the idea, more than the results? (Because those are pretty bad.)

I've already given some examples of things I'd like to see socialized. Healthcare and higher education should be free. If you want the option to go to a private school that you pay for, or want specialized healthcare that you pay for, those options should also be there. When I think of a hybrid system I am thinking about the Scandinavian way of doing things.

@Pepperm1nts

How would you go about implementing 'free' healthcare and higher education? Especially, without reshaping how many systems in America currently work entirely?

I won't dive to deep into Scandinavian countries not really being all their cracked up to be.

I don't know if you misunderstood, but... I didn't say people should get free government cars.

@Pepperm1nts

I didn't say you did. My comment was referencing I wouldn't -want- it. It's like being something used, the adage 'you get what you pay for'. I think steel metal death traps, would be something I'd care more for quality...

Jesus, man, it's simple.

@Pepperm1nts

If something is simple, you should be able to explain it. You have not. You've said a lot of what it isn't, rather than what it is. And the only clarifications you do make are easily refuteable/debateable. It's not for no reason, it's to point out a fundamental flaw in an idea. (Which is basically my whole point.)

It means not living paycheck to paycheck with no room for improvement because you're stuck in an endless loop where you're just barely getting by.

@Pepperm1nts

Which would obviously be different wages, based on what person you are, where you live, how many live with you, how many pets you have, etc etc. So you can not possibly make a universal dollar amount, but you would need to...to actually pass or propose anything solid aside from a phantom desire/dream...

Basically what I said above. Living wage is actually somewhat well-defined.

@Pepperm1nts

That couldn't have been a more appropriate oxymoron. 'well-defined' 'somewhat' (Kinda-sorta not really.)

Drugs and alcohol, sure. Phones are pretty essential these days, though.

@Pepperm1nts

Phones are a commodity in every sense of the word. You do not need phones to contact people. Also since you admitted phones are essential would that imply they'd be under 'the living wage'. What phone/service provider do they get?

I think we already talked about how equal outcome refers to basic things, and a living wage is, again, a means with which to provide those basic things. I don't see how these two things are at odds.

@Pepperm1nts

You're asking why is assuming a universally applied set income trying to push equality of outcome?

You are assuming that 'basic things' for people to (not even survive) but something that can literally only be quantifiable with pure opinion, like 'live with dignity and live comfortably' which absolutely can't be proven with facts. A universal truth/right. When my point is, you cannot possibly know what certain people 'basically' need to live. (Let alone, 'comfortably with dignity.') Your mixing feelings with something that would need clearly definable terms. This isn't a nitpick, it's a serious flaw when there's no follow through with implementation, and only what is basically a nice sentiment.

The rest I didn't include was basically just repeated ideas, things basic comfortable, dignified, won't actually solve anything, living wages. And more of what it wasn't, and how much it's clear. Without much actual clarification.

Ya know, I don't mind a, "I'm no economics expert, I don't know how to feasibly give a 'living minimum wage' as one set sum because standard and basic living expensive are literally different across all 50 states, the cities within those states and those communities with people within those homes. And how trying to make different free lump sums of cash would be so easily exploited, I couldn't possibly count all the ways in my head." AKA, I dunno. I'm not entirely, sure. But it sure sounds nice anyway. As an answer. If there is nothing more specific you have in mind/prepared/or expressed.

[Pepperm1nts]

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

<Snipped quote by Me>

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

See own previous statement for example?

Seriously though, School is one of those things.

@SleepingSilence

Healthcare is debatable, but the belief that public education is a bad thing is ridiculous.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

I've honestly never heard anyone claim that social security was loved.

Aight, let's just take away people's social security, then. No one will complain.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

How would you go about implementing 'free' healthcare and higher education? Especially, without reshaping how many systems in America currently work entirely?

Are you sitting down right now?

Tax the rich.

That's one thing we can do, anyway. But I also think we can cut back on wasteful spending in general. We wasted trillions of dollars in useless wars overseas. That's money that could have been used for the purpose of implementing these social programs. The idea that we don't have the money to do it, but fucking Montenegro does, is absolutely ridiculous.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

If something is simple, you should be able to explain it. You have not.

Dawg, I've given you examples of exactly what it is I mean multiple times. I've repeated myself so many times that I was honestly becoming self-conscious and beginning to wonder if maybe I was repeating myself too much.

You've said a lot of what it isn't, rather than what it is.

I have explained what it is and what is isn't, multiple times.

And the only clarifications you do make are easily refuteable/debateable.

Anything political and economic is debatable. As for refutable... well, you've yet to refute anything soo...

It's not for no reason, it's to point out a fundamental flaw in an idea. (Which is basically my whole point.)

But you haven't... All you've done is repeatedly misunderstand and miss the point, leading me to have to explain the same thing in multiple ways, multiple times to the point where I had to debate with myself on whether or not I'd like to keep replying to your comments because it's starting to become maddening.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

Which would obviously be different wages, based on what person you are,

Uh, no. This would be a set minimum wage, essentially.

where you live,

Maybe, sure. What's the problem? A living wage would be different in the UK, because living standards are different country to country. In the US, we can calculate what an appropriate living wage is state-by-state.

how many live with you,

???

No.

A living wage would account for the cost of utilities, transport, food, child care, ect, but it would not be based on how many people live in the house. Unless we're talking about children the person might have, in which case that falls under child care. If you have an adult living in your house who doesn't have a job, I don't think that's something that's going to count towards what the living wage should be.

how many pets you have,

lmao. No.

A pet would be something you chose personally to get and care for on the side. This is like saying that the living wage would be different based on how many TVs you have.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

That couldn't have been a more appropriate oxymoron. 'well-defined' 'somewhat' (Kinda-sorta not really.)

Okay.

You knew what I meant, didn't you? Shit's simple.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

Phones are a commodity in every sense of the word. You do not need phones to contact people. Also since you admitted phones are essential would that imply they'd be under 'the living wage'. What phone/service provider do they get?

No. You don't understand what a living wage is and this question right here proves it. This is mind-boggling.

Furthermore, I never said phones were a basic necessity that I would include in the definition. I said they're pretty essential these days so I would not fault people for getting one.

<Snipped quote by Pepperm1nts>

When my point is, you cannot possibly know what certain people 'basically' need to live.

Literally wat.

We absolutely know what a person needs to live. Food, shelter, utilities. In some places that might extend to healthcare, as well, but not here because we're still busy debating whether or not we should let poor people die when they get sick.

--

I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you wrote because it's basically you completely refusing to understand basic concepts and pretending like it's me that doesn't understand. Should have listened to myself when I thought about just not bothering to reply.

But for the record, no, I'm not an expert in economics and I never said I was or pretended to be. Thing is, neither are you, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped pretending like you know what you're talking about anymore than I do. I think we both have strong opinions on what we think would work. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me, and that's fine. But these are nothing more than our opinions and our own personal defense of what we think works or would work.

[Dolerman]

@Pepperm1nts

You should use facts when debating, not feelings you far left, communist, vegan, hippy, degenerate, flag burning libcuck.

[Pepperm1nts]

I am such a fact-based, unfeeling person that the sight of a burning piece of cloth sends me into a frenzy.

[Andreyich]

Get ready for "barstool economics" to be posted in 3... 2... 1...