Supported Democrats my entire life. Voted Obama twice and HRC.
Latest regressive left ideologies made me move to Libertarian.
Support equal opportunity. Support fiscal responsibility.
Supported Democrats my entire life. Voted Obama twice and HRC.
- Amazon / EngWRyY10But how can you be against diversity and equality? You must be racist. -Every liberal.
- Lyft TrexPrimeJustDGAF, spot on. I think most liberals are well meaning, they just don't realize how problematic and divisive it is to think of people as members of a group first and individuals second. They try to recognize and empathize with other people's experiences (as everyone should) in an effort to be inclusive, but they do so in a way that subverts the individual experience to their narrow understanding of that group's experience. It's why you see them ostracize those who don't fit within the confines of their narrative/identity politics, like Kanye West (a black Trump supporter), Peter Thiel (a gay conservative), etc. A turning point for me was realizing that generally the conservatives in my life were the ones who were always open to debate any idea on their substance/merit, while liberals would resort to shaming and bully tactics if your viewpoints conflicted with theirs. They do not tolerate true ideological diversity. Notice how here on blind when liberals are confronted with this point, they will often resort to shaming the person for being a dumb/racist/xenophobic Trump supporter instead of having an honest, civil conversation about the topic with no name calling or shaming. Any individual or group that derives its power from shaming as opposed to the merit of its own ideas is the fascist one. Thankfully, many people are finally realizing this.Jun 29, 20184
- The problem is not that liberal see "groups" first, it is that we ALL do, in many cases subconsciously. Racism isn't always a concious. And of course conservatives are always open for debate, the status quo is fucking easy to defend. Why should I have an honest/heartfelt conversation with someone who doesn't think I have the right to a family, a right not to be fired for being gay?
- That is way to broad. Also, you came up with your own definition here.. in a functioning society, all people need to agree on that. But if individual’s right is paramount, then each one will have a different definition of what is peaceful and honest. Some people will think that selling heroine on the streets is peaceful and honest. The buyer as an individual should have the right to choose. Some will think no that fucking inflicts harm on a fellow individual, who might get addicted. So who arbitrates and sets a common frameworkJun 28, 20183
- Libertarianism does not scale to the level of society. Maybe it would work more in a small town in Alaska where you have a small close knit community but in a city and a cluster of cities it's kind of hard to maintain without a functioning government.
- US was Libertarian.
The federal government had 17 enumerated powers, and numerous other countries copied that model in 1776 and 1787.
Our Constitution was meant to be liberating from government, and demonstrated that government was to be very limited and serve primarily to protect our lives and liberty. However, now we have the Bill of Rights being trampled on nearly every day.
We are not as free as (most) Americans were in 1787, but we still live damn good lives. American quality of life is still the highest in the world. One day, unless we restore sound principles to government, it will not be, but for now, let us enjoy the prosperity that was built off the backs of capitalism.
- I'd say most agree with some libertarian stances since libertarians have some liberal and some conservative views.
I know many people who are hard party line and can't fathom that a decent person could be from the other party. Even some of my friends who can't vote, like myself, still stick their values with a party line.
- What's your view on the freedom for Christian businesses to discriminate against LGBTIQ or to impose their values on them? And should racists have the freedom to verbally abuse minorities in public?
- Selling off-the-shelf cakes to LGBTIQ individuals should be required. Customizing a cake in a manner that conflicts with the employee’s religious beliefs should not be mandated.
Racism of all types should be tempered. Innuendo or supposition of intent is more nuanced and should be dealt with responsibly.Jun 28, 20183
- Two provocative ways to ask those questions, no?
Freedom for any business to only produce what they choose? It's not discrimination to refuse to be required to do something for someone... Requiring work is called slavery or servitude. It IS discrimination if a business refuses to provide what they have. It's not servitude to make a business do work they do or sell what they make available.
Really not hard to come to terms on and the U.S. making a scandal out of this is why so many Americans are further and further apart from the another.
You can make me sell what I have to anyone. You can make me provide what I provide.
You can't make me work to provide something I don't. It's that simple.
I bake a cake and Hitler wants to buy it, I have to sell it. I bake cakes and a gay couple wants to buy one, I have to make them one. BUT... When the table turns and the customer requires I make something I don't want to make... That's the line. For any reason.
That's not even a discriminatory issue, it's common sense: forcing someone to do labor inconsistent with what they do is immoral. Forcing them to sell what they have or provide what they can is not.
If they decide to be a jerk and not MAKE a cake with Hitler and Marilyn Monroe, or a Gay Couple, a pregnant teen holding a shotgun marrying her cousin, or a stereotypical heteronormative couple, they have every right to do that If they wouldn't normally do so in the course of THEIR business.
Should anyone have the freedom to say anything to anyone? Yes. Unequivocally. Period. End of discussion. There can be no arbiter of what is hate speech, it's a subjective idea.
- Who defines asshole? Is saying the N word sufficient? Illegal you're suggesting... So jail time? Or does intent matter? Tone? What If I say it nicely between friends but someone overhears it and reports me?
Maybe it's not a word, you're saying verbally abusive so there's some length of phrases that would have to be considered, no?
And lawmakers would determine these for us right?
Maybe they decide verbal abuse against Hispanics is wrong but they don't include Asian slurs because hey, 'while a minority population wise, that minority isn't disadvantaged are they?' /s ;)
But that's notable, you said against minorities so not white people? That's okay.
- Classy wNYq00What made you change you views? I’ve dabbled in libertarianism when I was younger but as someone who will eventually age and retire, I want strong Medicare for myself. And am pro quite a few safety nets, especially since over 80% of welfare recipients are disabled or caring for a disabled loved one. I worry about what will happen to those people if we eliminate government resources. I also thing our trend to lower taxes over the last few decades (baby boomers!) have left our bridges in a compromising state and many of our roads look like they belong in a third world country, not the US.
- I believe govt should efficiently invest in mandatory public services like: military (although smaller than current), infrastructure, and basic social services.
Wasteful spending and the exasperated bureaucratic process tend to be an ineffective use of taxpayer funds.
- Passionate Libertarian here too. Stay out of my economy, stay out of my personal life. Really troubles me that so many Americans don't agree with that.
Here's my question though, and it's one J genuinely have... How do you think our country might ever shift to these liberties when we already depend on the government for so much? Will it happen or are we just a political party?
- LGBT are individuals. Live the life that suits you, but don’t impose your view on others. It’s your life, I have no say in how you live it.
Abortion is tricky.
In the less than 9% of cases where the mother’s health is in jeopardy (or rape/incest) mother has full control over her body. In the majority of healthy cases mother and father’s consent should be considered.
More legal immigration. Bring more skilled workers from India & China. But less illegal immigration.Jun 28, 20185
- Netflix BudmoundHow do libertarians tackle the big problems without immediate business interests? Environmental protections, space exploration, etc.
- How do you think externalities should be handled, for example climate change due to co2 output?
- Over hunting or fishing to the detriment of a species should have regulations.
Regarding fisheries, however, due to the vast amount of sustenance needed to feed a population (and healthy food nonetheless) fisheries help mitigate destruction of natural habitats.
- If businesses really have the power to pay everyone as little as possible, what is your explanation for the fact that only a small proportion (3%?) of workers earn minimum wage or less? (Let alone 350K TC)
- IMHO, there's a decent libertarian argument for the benefits of natural resources going generally to the people; e.g., as Alaska distributes oil royalties. Most libertarians agree with the Lockeian conception of property (self-ownership, property rights derived from the right to product of one's labor), but natural resources are arguably part of what Locke referred to as "the common" that belongs to everyone and is the product of no one's labor (or the resultant economic value vastly exceeds extraction costs).
- Lobbying/spending database, FDA
Lots of detail here: (don’t believe all of it, but illustrates some good points)
However, utilize global resources/budgets, shift investment priorities to rapid testing, decentralized ledgers, shared global technologies.
Reduces total spending per country. Gives participating nations first use.
- Do you agree with the idea of farm subsidies? Do you think that price stability in foods is worth the interference with the free market?
- Tough one.
One one hand I’m inclined to let the free market sort out the price, but knowing full well the implications on a broader populace may have dire consequences.
Due to our land mass I’d look into international trade tariffs first to find other ways to reduce government spending.
- With a low or nonexistent minimum wage, businesses will pay as little as possible because they know hungry people are desperate for jobs and will take anything. So unskilled workers are forced to take 2-3 jobs to support themselves and their families, and they can't improve their situation because they don't have time outside of work.
Do you think that's fair?
- While there should be some level of worker protections, the challenge with the current minimum wage debate is that it’s mostly an emotional platitude for votes in larger urban areas.
Wages are relevant to expenses. Expenses vary depending on zip code dramatically.