Wonderful, I've actually been regarded as liberal on several occasions, granted, I've also been (wrongfully) regarded as a far-right neo-nazi, as well, so I'm not sure how much weight some of those claims may have. I also took that pipular political alignment test online, though it didn't give the option to skip some of the questions that you weren't familiar enough with and I think a decent number of the questions may have intepreted my answer incorrectly due to some technicalities. So I'd be greatly interested in your diagnosis.1. I don't know, remember, my integration and familiarity is rather casual. But I'd like to point out that someone can have a set of ideals and subscribe to its notion without knowing its origin. It can even be done without the person's knowledge. The nature of being a conservative, I assume, is what you think/what your ideals are, which can be independent of prior knowledge of others who agree or who may have popularized it.2. I don't know, but I'd assume on a very basic level, conservatism is the act of conserving your resources rather than being liberal with them. I'd imagine there has been more stereotypes lumped onto the term like anti-abortion and things of that nature.3. I don't know, lol. But knowing that liberalism derives from liberal, just like how conservatism derives from conserve, I'd assume liberalism, whether classic or not, pertains to being more liberal with your resources. Again, there may be more notions and ideas that typically accompany the term nowadays, but in essence, that should be what it is.As for the rest, I don't know. I'm not even sure I "know" the first three, but there you have it. But rather than testing my political knowledge, could ask me about concepts, notions, polciies, etc, so that you could determine my political alignment?
Please be assured, I was not trying to figure out your political alignment. Rather, what I was driving at is that politics is more complicated then people tend to assume. (Indeed, the notion that a spectrum test would tell you where you stand is rather funny when you think about it.)As the political philosopher Michael Oakeshott has noted, "The pedigree of every political ideology shows it to be the creature, not of premeditation in advance of political activity, but of meditation upon a manner of politics. Political activity always precedes ideological reflection and comprehends it..."However, that is where it starts and not where it ends. The point being that as likely as not what you think you are is not likely what you are. The words don't mean what you think they mean and as likely as not you are playing out ideas of which you are only dimly aware and therefore whose consequences and implications you do not fully grasp.Not a sin, by the way, just a fact.Anyhow, to finish out, and to save space here, I offer my answers to four basic questions that appeared on this site. (The answers appear under my "Nightdrot" nom de guerre.) They will give you some insight into the answers to the questions I posed to you and with luck, if you are interested - no crime if you are not - get you to explore the questions and issues more deeply.1) Are you a conservative or a liberal? ↗2) Republican or Democrat: Which one are you? ↗3) Politics: Left, Right, Middle, etc? ↗4) Who else agrees it's time for a new American political party to rise up and destory both the Republican and the Democrats? ↗
I'll be sure to check them out, thanks. But just out of curiosity, do you think you'd be willing to devote the time to trying to determine my political alignment?
Sure, if that is what you want. More likely I would find various strands in your thinking and could point them out to you.The problem being that since people often do not think through their ideas nor understand how they relate to one another, there usually ends up being some inconsistency and, as I say, each side tends to be surprised at the unintended consequences of their own ideas. (Example, American conservatives tend to underestimate the negative effects of their individualism on the family and traditional institutions they support. American liberals tend to be surprised that their support for centralization and government action harms the "little guy" and empowers the wealthy.)At any rate, my suggestion is that you read the answers to the questions above. Reflect a bit, then get back with me if you choose. Also, we can do so by private message if you choose to "follow" me. (As I understand it, I cannot follow you as you are "anonymous.")
I'd prefer to do it here, if you wouldn't mind. And perhaps I will be inconsistent, perhaps I won't sufficiently understand, but I'd like to indulge regardless. I've read the first two of your links thus far, and while some of it was beyond me, I still feel as though I related more so to your idea of conservatism. But I guess we'll find out, huh? However, I suspect that thorough clarification/explanation may be to come, and if that gets too tedious for either of us, we may have to call it quits, because I feel as though this could potentially become a very time-consuming ordeal.
That being said, feel free to ask my questions on my thoughts, preferences, etc.
Sure. That is fine. All I ask is that you take some time to think on it and feel free to ask more questions yourself.Also, I am perfectly to answer here - although we are somewhat limited by the 2,000 character limit.Further, I am a political consultant and work from home - lockdowns or not - plus I have a family so I may be slow in responding. In fact, I am getting off the site now. So I apologize in advance that my replies may be delayed. Please be patient.Finally, if I might. Take the time to write out completely a summation of your views and we can take it from there. Let's not try to do this by 20 questions - especially given that 2000 character limit.
No worries, take your time in responding, I'm in no hurry (also, I assure you, I wouldn't be offended if you felt as though your time would be better spent doing something else).And actually, I was hoping you did have a set of questions pertaining to my views, ideals, etc. Memory is not my strong suit, and sometimes when asked certain questions, my mind goes blank, or at least I'd only be able to find a few examples.But I guess to provide at least a little, I think individual deservings should be valued and respected more so than providing comfort (not necessity) to those in need. I think it's wrong if someone works harder than someone else, then doesn't reap nearly all of the benefits from that harder work.Also, if you have the time, you may be able to get an idea of my thoughts by reading the comments I've made to the others on this post. (Though I'm not sure the questions or notions presented would be up to your standards, but perhaps it's worth a look).
Got some time so let me briefly reply as - and I do not mean to offend - you just handed me a bunch of cliches. (Not well written, either. I was hoping for real paragraphs with properly structured sentences, syntax and punctuation. No offense, but you really did not deliver.)So you asked for some questions - let me start out with the basics, and I mean the VERY basics:1) Is human nature basically good or evil? Pursuant to that, what does the word "nature" mean to you?2) From that question: What is natural law? What are natural rights? Do they exist?3) Do we have the knowledge and tools to "fix" social problems? Can we re-shape society according to some a priori plan?So there are three VERY basic and fundamental questions that are the STARTING POINT for determining the nature of your political views. This before we get to later questions of policies and issues.Finally, if I might, let me suggest to you three books:1) George F. Will's "Statecraft as Soulcraft" - in which he describes classical conservatism.2) George F. Will's "The Conservative Sensibility" - in which he describes the American brand of conservatism.3) Jonah Goldberg's "The Suicide of the West."Now to be fair, both writers come from a variant of conservatism so be aware of that if you read them. However, I commend them to you because they will give you a RELATIVELY easy to read sense of the development of Western political thought. This being easier than having you read Aristotle, Aquinas, Burke and so on.Also, FYI, Will's "Statecraft as Soulcraft" was highly influential in the development of my own thinking, though in the latter book he walked away from what he wrote in Soulcraft.
P. S. By the way, I hope I do not come off as sounding harsh. That can be a problem in such forums. You strike me as a generous courteous fellow and I am more than happy to correspond with you. However, given my job and obligations to my family, I am going to ask that if I take the time on this that you put forth a serious effort to think about the questions you are asking and to put a bit more effort into them.If you are looking for something more superficial, then just tell me things like if you favor more or less government, higher or lower taxes, are more or less traditional on social issues. Give me a generic position and I will give you a generic answer.However, I can - if you wish and are willing to make the effort - to go deeper than that. Because politics, properly understood, is actually more complicated than people - as portrayed in the media - think.
I'm not offended, but I wasn't exactly expecting to have to proofread and correct my response. I hope it's not an issue but going forward, I dont exactly plan to, either. I was of the impression we were having a casual conversation, rather than something akin to writing a formal letter to a superior.I don't think good and bad is actually intrinsic or inherent to anything. Good and bad didn't exist when intelligent life wasn't a thing. I believe good and bad are abstract labels we've made up to define how acceptable things are. But to answer the question in the way I think you were hoping for, I think humans are naturally both good and bad, but I think we are inclined more so towards good than bad. The word nature, to me, at least in the context that you're using it, means the inherent qualities of something.I'm not sure what natural law would be. Natural rights are percieved or considered to be so policies or considerations that something inherently deserves to have. I do not believe they exist. I think the rights people regard as natural rights are often good and I'm glad we have them, but I dont believe they're natural or intrinsic to life or being.We have the knowledge and tools to reliably fix some social problems, while others, I'd imagine, are beyond our current ability, but I'd imagine most if not all are or will be within our ability to fix eventually. And I'm not familiar with the phrase "a priori" but I do believe it is possible for a strong enough force to re-shape society.
And I greatly appreciate the recommendation, and I'll be sure to keep them in consideration, but I'm not sure I intended to devote that much time to this.And no worries about sounding harsh, it's not easy to offend me. I'm not entirely certain how much effort you would prefer I have for these questions/this conversation, but if the above does not suffice, perhaps it would be best if we end things here. I'm more than willing to read what you have to say, but if you are sacrificing time from your obligations, perhaps this isn't time well spent (and again, that wouldn't offend me. If anything, I'd be glad your spending your time doing something you need to do or value more). Not to mention, your familiarity is clearly well above mine (as expected, given your occupation), and it's fairly likely that some of the notions or concepts you may present will be above my pay grade, for lack of a better term.As for the superficial things, I favor small but not too small governmenr. I'm not sure to what extent I would like taxes to be, but I there are some things in which I think taxes shouldn't be used government. I'm not sure if I'm traditional on social issues. I, myself, partake in many aocjally traditional things, but I oppose very little non-traditional social happenings of toxay. today.And yes, I'd imagine politics is a hell of a lot deeper than I thought it was prior to this conversation.
I want to play, this game looks fun. I'm going to get a bunch wrong1) Define classical conservatism. Who are its progenitors and most important thinkers and philosophical precursors in history? Not sure. Jefferson, Madison, possibly. 2) Outline the tenets of classical conservatism. How does it compare to what Americans call conservatism? Not sure. American conservatism is about resisting moving away from Constitutionality and founding principals. 😌 What is classical liberalism and how does it compare to what Americans call conservatism? In that connection, what is the difference between classical liberalism and what Americans call conservatism? Classical liberalism is akin to what Americans call libertarianism. Libertarianism isn't about raising social change, but conservatism is.4) Pace the above, what is the "radical" tradition of liberalism? How here is the term "radical" being used? What is its relationship to American liberalism? 5) What is populism and is it conservative or liberal? (Be careful - a trick question here.) 6) What is the nature of political parties in the United States? How do they differ from political parties in Europe? In Europe there are many parties with roughly equal clout. In America there are only 2 parties with real clout, there are several parties that have no real power. 7) By historical and comparative standards, is party discipline in the United States strong or weak? Why is this so? In this connection, what are the core constituencies of each party? Weak in the republican, strong in the Democrat. Probably because the democrats are actively trying to force change, and Republicans just exist.10) What is the underlying ideological idea between the New Deal and the Great Society? What links the two together beyond that both came out of the same party? They both are part of the shift from natural rights to needs and wants based rights.
@Sixgun77 Very brief replies - 1) Jefferson? You could not be more wrong. Madison has some elements but is not really seen in the tradition either.2) You answer here is looking at symptoms and effects and not causes.3) Almost bang on here. Though the problem is that we have different words for a reason. So what is the difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism? So partial credit on this one. (Oh, I am not sure about your point on conservatism vs. libertarianism, but I think a type-o here may have muffed your message. Not going to give you the answer, but you are on the right track.)4 - 6) No answers provided so no credit.7) Actually not necessarily. However, the question was about the nature of BOTH parties. Again, as I do not want to give the answers away until the questioner responds, I cannot answer this. However, your focus was too narrow and your answer is not actually the case while not necessarily being wrong. Hint - how do you think Joe Manchin gets along with Elizabeth Warren? Ditto Susan Collins and Ted Cruz?10) Nope. Got this one wrong.Tip of the hat for trying. As I say, I would provide the answers but I don't want to give them away to the questioner. Still, I am impressed that you gave it the old college try. Not bad.
My opinion of the Republican party, as in the civilians, is rather positive. My only dislike would be religious aspects of a great number of them. To clarify, I don't have any issue with religion, but I do have an issue with it when it obstructs policies or science. As for the Republican media, I feel fairlt negative towards it. In my experiences, many of them seem abrasive to extents that I find off-putting, I wish there were more civil, less combative or confrontational Republican media outlets. As for the Republican politicians, I'm unfortunately not familiar enough to develop a proper opinion, I was only starting to get into politics when Obama was in office, I'm familiar with very few Republican politicians.It's hard to definitively state what my values are built upon in cohesive way, but I suppose a concise way to put it is I value conservation, and I value individual deservings. But that's not to day I don't support aspects of welfare.I do consider USA to be a successful example of conservatism, if by that you mean the financial definition of conservatism.To preface the following, you're free to disagree with me, but keep in mind that a debate is likely something I'd be unable to do considering how many people will likely be commenting on this, I can't have a full-fledged discussion with them all. But I do welcome a response if you'd like.
Oh dear.. this is not going to be an easy conversation to have. I happen to be Swedish. I know that Americans are very insular and often only know about their own perspective. I am not sure how aware you are of how the world sees USA and Americans from an outsiders perspective, but its not good. My opinion of people like you is at best degrading and at worst the height of insult and ridicule.Just keeping this conversation civil is going to be an olive branch stretched to the absolute limit I can do but I think its important for you to realize just how different my view on both American conservatives and USA as a whole actually is.Where you see a successful example of conservatism I see a nation on the brink of imminent collapse. I will however do my best to not argue about anything regarding out incredibly different world views for the sake of this conversation.You mentioned your dislike in how religion drives many aspects of conservatives. How do you think Muslim Americans are being represented in the Republican party?Why do you not support aspects of welfare?Why has other developed countries deviated away from American conservatism if USA has demonstrated a successful example?
I can really feel the predisposition eminating from this response. I'm entirely certain it is within your ability to have a civil discussion.As for how the world views America, over the past decade I would have assumed it was exactly what you seem to be implying. But one day not too long ago I was curious and asked on several different platforms if the hatred I see towards Americans was properly reflective of what foreigners feels, or if what I'm seeing is simply the outspoken minority. Nearly every said that doesn't reflect their views of the USA. On each platform, I could count on one hand how many people said what you are inplyin, and I got a dozen or two (if not more in some cases) of people saying that is not how they feel. I'd presume it could simply be the company you tend to surround yourself with in combination with the confirmation bias. But if somehow I am wrong, I still wouldn't be surprised. It won't be pleasant to hear, but America is the most prosperous and desired country to live in, and some people like to hate the people who are doing better than them.So you think I am somewhere between degrading and the height of insult and ridicule, could you explain as to why you may feel that way?(Response continued below to avoid character limit)
You say you don't see a successful example of conservatism, but rather you see a nation on the brink of collapse. Could you explain why you think we are on the brink if collapse? And just for future reference, when you make a claim or provide an opinion, could you please provide support or explanation directly afterwards so that I won't have to ask you? It really slows things down. But since it's my turn to respond I might as well tell you why I think the USA is a successful example of conservatism. 1. We have the highest net profit in the world. 2. We have the highest GDP in the world (or at least we did before this pandemic, I'm not sure if it is at the momeny). And our economy is predominantly capitalistic, rather than socialistic.I'm not sure what you mean by rwpresnted Muslim Americans, but if you mean regarded, they're regarded just like anyone else. You're thinking of the far-right extremists, very few people are blindly hateful towards people.(Response continued below to avoid character limit)
And some aspects of welfare are taken too far. I think having that safety net is a good thing, but there was a point when someone could have a baby and not be able to financially support it, so she gets resources. Then she has another and still isn't able to support it, so she gets resources. Then this happens 5 more time, and we give her resources for it? This isn't someone being down on their luck, this is someone exploiting the system. I personally believe that after two kids, we shouldn't provide you with any more resources for any kids you end up having after the second. If you do, you can go find a way to support it. If you don't, you made the right choice. If we don't give people the option to have us pay for 7 children, deslite them not being able to financially support the first one, they won't have 7 children. It's not fair that others have to work harder or pay more for someone who is so careless, selfish, and uncontributing.And other countries have deviated away from American conservatism because their civilians simply didn't want it, why else? And if American conservatism isn't successful, what do you call the highest net wealth in the world (https://en. m. wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth) and the highest GDP in the world? (https://www. worldometers. info/gdp/gdp-by-country/). Is that not literally, intrinsically, inherently more successful than other economic systems?(Response continued below to avoid character limit)
(That was actually the last response, I didn't mean to paste the "response contined below" part in the last response)
This is really not as easy as you might think even if we put aside real world distractions such as pets dying, packages I ordered being sent somewhere else, attempting to buy a new house and all the other delightful surprises 2020 has to offer. You see, we do not agree on basically anything so factual evidence is a hard ask.I could for example point out income inequality as a really bad economic sign. There is also a good argument for why Billionaires should not exist yet because the economy is not large enough to naturally support them. Strictly speaking we do not live in a world where we lack resources yet there is people suffering because of how we distribute it. I am not talking about communism here, no need to go so far. We have enough so that the successful can live in opulent excess with plenty to spare on everyone else.We can also look at the shortcomings that the covid19 crisis has exposed. I mean there is no reason you would get such high unemployment numbers if there was not something seriously wrong with the system beforehand. I mean I know it would be expected to rise and I know the Trump administration failed the response but we are talking about 16% unemployment right now.. and its probably going to get worse.
This is not mentioning that USA does not actually count everyone in the first place, they have always tried to do trickery with the definitions and such to produce numbers that looks good for the administration. To put it into perspective, you got more unemployment than Greece and they had an economic meltdown if you remember.Question is, do you believe a single word of what I am saying? Even if I provide the numbers, do they mean anything to you?As you said yourself you see USA as the most prosperous and desired country to live in and you probably also think that USA is best in the world on a bunch of other things or at least very close to the top. There are certainly evidence you can provide that would even support this view to some degree such as the high GDP you mentioned.Even if I am hypothetically completely right you have enough plausible deniability to deny everything I say and refute every evidence I provide. I can not have this conversation if we are only going to speak from your point of view.
My condolences, and I'm sorry to hear about your other conveniences, as well. Considering the situation you're in, I'm willing to drop thie conversation considering its negative nature. I'd imagine if I was in your position, a confrontational, oppositional conversation like this would be the last thing I'd need. That being said, if you do still wish to continue this conversation, I'd still be willing to. And for the record, I've had my mind changed due to others on plenty of occasions. Nobody is always right, and it would be silly to say that I'm the exception.
I do not mind conversations like these. They are rare and while sometimes really hard its not in an unpleasant way but in a way that you find yourself searching for the best way to express yourself and put words to what you believe in where as before it was very hard to define.
Alright, let's get right back into it, then. Before I respond to the added statements from your last response, could you go through my response that precedes your second most recent response and address the inquiries I presented? I went into some level of detail when regarding them, so I'd rather you go back and read them, rather than me paraphrasing them here (because I feel as the average person would respond to the compressed, paraphrased version rather than the properly articulated version, of which could yield insufficiency and subsequently clarification, all of which is unnecessarily time-consuming). And if I may ask, I'd greatly appreciate you addressing them all. I feel as though if we're going to have a proper discussion, we need to take responsibility for our words and not be selective with what we want to acknowledge. If you don't address them all, I will request it of you in the following response, so for simplicity sake, I hope I won't need to. And if my following response doesn't address your newly added comments, feel free to remind me as I may have simply forgotten (memory is not my strong suit).
Could you elaborate on what you mean by reproductive rights? I'm not sure if you're regarding abortion, who you are and aren't allowed to have intercourse with, where you're allowed to have intercourse, etc. (I think you mean abortion but I'm simply not certain).
Apologies for the lack of clarity. These are what I’m talking about. Abortion access Birth control access Sodomy laws Etc
No worries. The rest of this paragraph will be a copy-and-paste of a response I have to someone else. I support early abortions, I oppose late-term abortions, and I'm unsure of at what point a clump of cells becomes something that would be considered wrong to kill. My sperm cells die all the time, nobody cares. And once my sperm cell enters an egg, all it is is a sperm cell inside of an egg. The "moment of conception" is not a baby or a human and I don't care if it dies. But in the other side of the argument, those who claim a baby is not a baby/human and can be aborted at any point prior to birth are astonishingly concerning. To say that a baby 1 hour prior to birth is not a baby, but a baby 1 hour after birth is a baby, that's just silly. But I'm not a medical doctor nor a philosopher, both of which I'd need to be in order to definitively tell you at what point throughout pregnancy it is no longer morally acceptable to abort the baby. And if you ask me, I'd suggest people err on the side of caution.As for birth control access, I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the process of certain forms of birth control to develop a proper opinion. I'd imagine you're asking about the forms of birth control other than condoms and how they should or should not be provided by the government and paid to some extent by tax payers. But to answer definitively, I don't think any rights are inherent, there is no such thing as humans rights by nature, that's not intrinsic. But that doesn't mean I think nobody should have rights, I'm just saying nobody is inherently entitled to anything. But if birth control was provided, cool, I'm not sure the pros and cons of it, I'm not sure how much it would cost. So ultimately, I don't know. But condoms are cheap and a girl can just go out and buy one pack of each size and I'd imagine she'd be fine for the most part.As for sodomy, I won't get into the details but I fully support sodomy and I oppose any laws that try to combat sodomy.
Thanks for the answers
You're more than welcome. Thank you for the questions
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I defend cops because they recieve unwarranted criticism from, what I consider to be, unfamiliar (that's a euphemism), emotionally inclined people. As for your remarks of enforcing what is allegedly unjust laws, the police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, thus, your issues are with lawmakers, not law enforcement. Imagine a world where cops were able to selectively choose which laws they would enforce. That world would be a nightmare, and it would heavily incentivize bad, corrupt people from trying to become police officers.I actually don't support the NSA spying like they do. I think any public information is fair game, like a public Facebook profile, but anything private is, well, private, and should remain that way. That being said, it does make it easier for bad people to plan bad things. And if you were to ask me where the balance should be, I'd tell you I don't know. But as I stand now, I'm not a fan of the spying that is going on.(Comment continued below to avoid character limit)
And taxation is a real tough subject at times. I entirely agree that it's just imposed on someone against their will. They didn't have a choice as to whether or not they lived in a country that imposes taxes on them. They were simply born there. But I can't give you a better alternative. I can't say that I think people should be given an option to pay taxes, because then a great number of people wouldn't. Unfortunately, that's just the world we live in. It's the price of society. If you have a better idea, I'd be more than happy to hear you out and provide my thoughts. But taxes are most definitely justified. I'd be surprised if you were to tell me you think that government jobs, production, and services weren't needed. I mean if we didn't have government services, those services would then be taken by private industries. Suddenly you have law makers and police forces that don't work for the people, they work for their employers/themselves. They can make any law they want, and they can enforce any law they'd like. They can attack anyone who disagrees with them. This would be terrible. Not to mention, some things like the production and maintenance of roads would become private industry, too, and there's a chance an oligarchy forms, which could cause prices to raise significantly. (Samsung, for example, is doing this today with electronic manufacturing, imagine if someone did this with necessities like food).And I'm not familiar enough with the congressmen/women to provide a definitive answer, though there are some that I like whose face I recall but whose name I do not, and even then, I'm not familiar enough to comfortably tell you that I'd want them as a president.
Actually, cops do get to choose which laws they enforce. They get to choose between enforcing all laws and enforcing none by choosing any other career. That is why, as far as I'm concerned, any cop who chooses to be a cop while there are unjust laws is complicit in such laws, and thus evil. ACAB. The better alternative to taxation is abolishing the state and living under a stateless society that respects non-aggression and private property rights. You are correct that I don't think any government services are needed. As a conservative, you are surely partial to the argument that the free market generally serves the best interest of the consumer because private companies are bound by competition. As an anarcho-capitalist, I maintain that this is not just generally true, but absolutely true. In a stateless society, police would be replaced by private security agencies whose service could be purchased by anyone, and whose prices would driven as low as possible by competition. We already have such agencies in addition to police, and these agencies have been shown to outperform police in nearly every measure, and the best part about them is that they only have the authority to remove people from the private property they were hired to protect, not to arrest them and lock them in a cage, though in a stateless society, private security agencies could perform this function as well for people who are too dangerous to simply be removed from private properties. Also, you worry that private citizens could order their private security agencies to attack other private citizens. This is unwarranted, as both citizens would have either the same private security agency or two different ones. In either case, the agency/agencies have every incentive to settle the dispute peacefully, as the alternative is war which is the most costly thing they could possibly engage in for a multitude of reasons. (continued)
If people had the option to pay taxes, they would cease to be taxes, and would instead be either private charity or the financing of goods/services/utilities that others benefit from. I think what you're getting at is the "free rider problem" otherwise known as "positive externalities". I would argue that the "free rider problem" is simply not a "problem" at all. For instance, if there are no taxes levied in order to fund building roads, someone must pay for the roads. All private citizens need the roads, but they enter a stalemate over who will pay for them. Well, the stalemate won't last long because those who have the most disposable income (ie the rich) will break first and the poorest among us would break last (because they can't afford to break at all). This same phenomenon would occur in all instances, and the result would be that all public utilities would be funded almost in full by the richest among us. I would wager that this natural phenomenon would even be more effective in flattening income inequality than any progressive income tax--and without the coercion of taxation. Fully voluntary. You have no need to fear monopolies are oligarchies either, because as a conservative, you should know that at the root of every monopoly/oligarchy is government intervention. Without government, no monopoly or oligarchy could ever form.
I think that's silly to say. If a casual person holds half of the views that a well-integrated conservative does, and would share nearly all the views of that well-integrated conservative had they been just as integrated, are they not inherently a conservative? Is conservative a badge or title you get upon doing something physica by nature l? Or is conservarism a notion that is inherent to a set of concepts or ideals? Not to mention, I'd argue prefacing as I have does quite the opposite. It's no secret that people have varying levels of political integration, and to demonstrate that I'm aware of my positioning in that regard shows that I'm not trying to get in over my head and tackle something that is beyond my current understanding. I think you're overstepping, here.
I could vote for any of the three. The first two I wouldn't have a single modicum of doubt, but the last one I would to some extent. I personally believe someone should be able to express themselves in any way that they'd like (within reason, of course), that includes how transgender people tend to express themselves. My issue comes from some of the people of that community who believe gender is a real thing, rather than a social construct. That being said, no nominee is every perfect. Even if the trans person feels as though gender is real and tried to implement policies stating such, I could still vote for them if our other ideals and notions aligned. (I also fully support gay marriage, if that was a curiosity of yours).
Typical senseless identity politics.
I have to agree with Girther, here. Their identity should have nearly nothing to do with their position as a nominee.
Typically twice a day. I'll wear socks and sneakers when I work out in the morning, and I will remove them before I shower afterwards (obviously) and then I will get a new pair once I dress myself after the shower. But on days when I don't workout, I'll shower in the morning and then put on a pair of socks afterwards and I won't change them throughout the day.Is it normal to change them twice a day even if you haven't been wearing socks for a workout?
I'd say totally normal.:) :)
Glad to hear it 😄
Because the idealogy is still inherently conservative, regardless of what a politician ends up doing behind that label.
See? That’s what I mean... #ignoranceisbliss
Am I misunderstanding the situation, or did you, Girther, block me and then proceed to bad-mouth me on my own post in hopes that I wouldn't be able to defend myself? Scrolling through my post, it will say someone who has blocked me has commented, but upon hitting the "reply" button on mobile, it open up a window of the entire comment, rather than the post, of which I'm then able to see the person, and their comment, who allegedly blocked me. Could you elaborate on my alleged ignorance? As a conservative civilian, what would you suggest they do if the options they have to vote for won't conserve to their liking? You can't force someone else to run, they can't stop their life and run themselves, and if you attempt to vote for the independent party, the party that directly opposes you would simply gain traction. So tell me how my statement of conservatives are conservatives regardless of what a politician does is incorrect?
I support early abortions, I oppose late-term abortions, and I'm unsure of at what point a clump of cells becomes something that would be considered wrong to kill. My sperm cells die all the time, nobody cares. And once my sperm cell enters an egg, all it is is a sperm cell inside of an egg. The "moment of conception" is not a baby or a human and I don't care if it dies. But in the other side of the argument, those who claim a baby is not a baby/human and can be aborted at any point prior to birth are astonishingly concerning. To say that a baby 1 hour prior to birth is not a baby, but a baby 1 hour after birth is a baby, that's just silly. But I'm not a medical doctor nor a philosopher, both of which I'd need to be in order to definitively tell you at what point throughout pregnancy it is no longer morally acceptable to abort the baby. And if you ask me, I'd suggest people err on the side of caution. As for war, I'd greatly prefer avoiding it, but sometimes it's necessary, and those who signed up for it know what they were signing up for. But again, I'd rather our people not go to war and die if reasonably possible. And I don't support people getting shot by racist police, that's just a silly question to ask. But nearly every case that I've personally seen that was a "racist cop wrongfully shooting an innocent black guy," it was entirely justified and it was not wrongful, the black guy was not innocent, and he physically engaged the police officer. There have been some, though, I'm not blind to it. But they're exceptionally uncommon.
It's intellectually stimulating
Well, the democratic party consists of many different people. So I'll break it down.I think many democratic politicians are financially reckless and I think they're inconsiderate of people's hard work. I think they're okay with making/letting people be dependent on the system as long as it furthers their power (a harsh way to put it, but I couldn't quite think of a kinder way to phrase it, my apologies).The democratic media is biased to genuinely surprising and concerning extents, and I think it will be very difficult to return things to their proper order, considering how wide-spread the issue has become.As for democratic civilians, I think most of them simply are acting through compassion for those less fortunate than them. And there's another portion that is rather large who are simply lazy and want other people to work for them so that they don't have to. I know the following can be controversial and likely not well-received, but I think many democratic civilians have their actions governed more by emotion than logic. Not to say many of them are illogical, emotion and logic can work side-by-side, but I think their emotion has more weight in regards to how they determine their decisions.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by bodily autonomy? It's a very broad phrase.
Simply that people have a right over what to do with their bodies. I’m pretty libertarian in that belief.
I agree for the most part. But, for example, the way in which your appendages move would fall under bodily autonomy. But I can move my arm in a way that punches someone, pulls a trigger of a gun, etc. So there are extents in which bodily autlnomy becomes problematic. And I don't think people should be able to say "you can't hold me down and apply handcuffs to my wrist because you'd be restricting my right to my bodily autonomy" because arresting someone in that way can often be entirely necessary. Not to mention, there is debate as to what your "body" is. For example, some people believe that the baby inside of them is their body, rather than the baby's body. It's a complicated subject. And just to further emphasis that complete, 100% bodily autonomy could never be achievable, if I wanted to extend my arm outwards, but there was someone in my way, I wouldn't be able to do what I wanted to do with my body because someone is obstructing the path in which my bodily autonomy would take. But if I forced them to move so that I could partake in my desired bodily autonomy, I'd be forcing their body to do something, which would be a violation of their bodily autonomy. A silly example, but it shows you how you can't just blindly say "bodily autonomy should be an uninfringed right." It does have its limits.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!