Why are you a Republican or Democrat?

[NineSpine]

Going to need some citations, so far it is opinion vs opinion.
Nice straw mans, though.

I don't need to cite self evident things. You can't have a market without property rights. That is logically impossible.

[May90]

Vermont does have a progressive party, pushed heavily by the producers of The Young Turks(TYT) and others, but hasn't picked up very much movement.
The Green Party has been gaining a lot more movement lately, currently Green Party nominee Jill Stein received 1000X more donations once Sanders was not the Democratic nominee. Personally don't believe a third party has a chance this or the next election run, but people are starting to recognize their views as legitimate, threatening the 2 party system.

Indeed. I personally couldn't side with The Green Party though, too much "ecological extremism" to my taste, and, from what I've read, their social policies are a bit too extreme too. Although, it seems like a better choice than the two mainstream parties still.

[Faenskap]

I am neither I wish the bloody Americans could elect their president already, so we can discuss some new and refreshing topics, such as feminism, male circumscision and how to modernise the English language because some words are just stupid with "s" "c", and "k"

[zenkai]

What do you do when you don't fit in? XD

No party affiliation either.

Yay, another rational thinker

[Green Mountain Boys]

There is no such thing as a free market. All markets are products of government organization. You need an entity to define and protect property rights to have any kind of market.

A government does not make a market, it regulates markets. Individuals make the market. Did the US make Pokemon Go or video games in general popular. Did the governments make parts for the hardware a needed thing to the public?

It is the individuals who push the need that develop markets. It is the businesses that provide for that market. THen it is the government that regulates that market so that the product can be easierly accessible. When governments do not interfere you get something like the playstation war, but there is a free market when there is government interference as markets will still exist because it is developed by individuals and provided by businesses. The only time this is not the case is when the government owns all the businesses.

All factually inaccurate.

Describe how these are not true? He is describing his opinion, not facts. Show him the facts.

Sweet, can I buy some C4 and some uranium tipped missiles to defend my property? No? You mean you don't support my right to arm myself?

That is not arming yourself as defined by the 2nd Amendment. Your argument is a straw man.

The country was founded by francophiles who spoke numerous languages and believed nationalism was a bad thing. Also, the constitution says slaves are 3/5ths of a person.

They did not believe nationalism was a bad thing, they believed in being an empire, monarchy/oligarchy was a bad thing. While you are right that the 13th amendment is wrong, most of the original are relevant to today


You haven't stated things that are inherently true, just your opinion with little explanation why those are true.

[May90]

Hardly anything has changed since then, a completely rational thing to think!

Still makes more sense than thinking that books written many centuries ago describe the Universe well though.

[NineSpine]

A government does not make a market, it regulates markets. Individuals make the market. Did the US make Pokemon Go or video games in general popular. Did the governments make parts for the hardware a needed thing to the public?

It is the individuals who push the need that develop markets. It is the businesses that provide for that market. THen it is the government that regulates that market so that the product can be easierly accessible. When governments do not interfere you get something like the playstation war, but there is a free market when there is government interference as markets will still exist because it is developed by individuals and provided by businesses. The only time this is not the case is when the government owns all the businesses.

You are begging the question. You keep pretending that the government didn't design and enforce all of the property rights that allowed that market to be in the first place. You can't have a market until a government does two things:

1. Design property rights.
2. Design currency.

Describe how these are not true? He is describing his opinion, not facts. Show him the facts.

I believe that working hard promotes upward mobility, not government programs

Stronger social safety nets correlate with better social mobility, not worse.

I believe that small businesses are the creator or jobs, not government programs

See what I said about about government's role in markets. Also, the idea that small business creates the jobs just ignores the MASSIVE role of large business in the modern economy.

I believe that in order for small businesses to compete, they need lower taxes

If you and I have the same tax rate, lowering it doesn't make either of us more competitive against each other. That doesn't make sense.

That is not arming yourself as defined by the 2nd Amendment. Your argument is a straw man.

The second amendment says "arms", not "guns". Another word for nuclear weapons is nuclear ____. When nations build up weapons to fight each other they call it an ____ race.

They did not believe nationalism was a bad thing, they believed in being an empire, monarchy/oligarchy was a bad thing. While you are right that the 13th amendment is wrong, most of the original are relevant to today

As an historian, I disagree, and I'm not going to argue that point, because it's not germane to the more important preceding points. The founders loathed national identity. That's what being a nation of laws instead of a nation of men meant.

[Bushtuckrman]

In the context and purpose of the statement, it is more accurate to say sexist. But racism and sexist are very close twins. And both is illegal in the US. Not the feeling or opinion, but the application of the most important parts of our society when it comes to judgement, hiring and firing.

Sure he is entitled to his opinion. As we all are. I will stick with mine on this. You can disagree or not reply. Whichever.

Yes there are laws that cover anti-discrimination and they exist in all first world countries. That is the only similarity between racism and sexism, the fact that they are both discriminatory. That's it. You cannot interchange these words ...oh who am I kidding, the left have deluded once powerful words like racism into mere buzzwords with no meaning. I guess I am wrong in this age, everything's racist and everybody you don't agree with is literally Hitler in current year.

[May90]

Yes there are laws that cover anti-discrimination and they exist in all first world countries. That is the only similarity between racism and sexism, the fact that they are both discriminatory. That's it. You cannot interchange these words ...oh who am I kidding, the left have deluded once powerful words like racism into mere buzzwords with no meaning. I guess I am wrong in this age, everything's racist and everybody you don't agree with is literally Hitler in current year.

His point went completely over your head, lol. You seem very emotional, for someone who accuses "the left" in all sins.

[BannedForViews]

You mean amazing things like weekends, and paid time off, and safe food, and clean(ish) air, and a (relatively) stable banking system, and lead-free paint? Norway and Switzerland's GDP would love to take up your challenge about the dangers of market regulation, so lets stop being silly with the absurd country comparisons.


This is a great example to demonstrate why your perspective is flawed. The ability of athletes to obtain staggering salaries is partially about hard work, true, but the only reason the talents they have cultivated have any value is dependent on society, and shear, dumb luck. A person's ability to be rich is only minorly dependent on how hard they work, or how well they cultivate their talents. What actually determines their value in our present system is how much society currently demands that person's abilities. To stay with your example, let's look at Michael Jordan. Absolutely dominant athlete, a prime example of someone that worked hard, cultivated his natural abilities, and profited immensely from it. But you wouldn't even know his name if we hadn't invented basketball and he was stuck with his baseball career. Michael Jordan was incredibly gifted, and worked incredibly hard, but was still only successful because of the society he was raised in, so trying to argue that his ability to cultivate his talents is what determined his success is pretty empty.

The dichotomy Republicans promote is simply flawed. It is not about punishing success or rewarding failure. It's about leveling the playing field so that hard work is actually a larger determining factor in success that simply the luck of the draw. Our society would be far stronger if we rewarded long term thinking, instead of short term scheming for quick gains; or if we stopped allowing big money to beget bigger money by manipulating markets, instead of actually adding value. As a society, we have let corporations reap all of the benefits of improved productivity, productivity we all contributed towards, and instead of society as a whole being rewarded, only a few people have been rewarded and everyone else is being told "tough luck, you didn't work hard enough".



We're not really arguing about the same thing here, so it's hard for me to accept that my opinion is wrong when you clearly didn't understand it in the first place. Additionally, your ethereal evidence (even assuming you're completely right about it) doesn't actually support your claim. Sure, 2 parents are better than 1. I wasn't disputing that. Two parents provide two incomes, twice as many people to look after the children, and twice as many life experiences to educate them with. This isn't rocket science. I would guess households with 3 parents would be even better (but I bet Republicans are opposed to that as well). I would also wager that households with two cars are better for raising children than households with one car (indicative of higher earnings, likely better education, easier access to events for children, etc.). My point, and the point that needs addressing, is that unfortunately not everyone has two cars. We can't solve that problem without solving a lot of other problems first. But the fortunate part is that if your public transit system is awesome, it makes life a heck of a lot better for the children whose families don't have two cars.

I was pretty clear what I meant by community. If you have adequate local, regional, state, and federal programs in place (like public transit, daycare, early childhood education, etc.), then a lot of the burdens of single parent households are alleviated, and we as a community benefit by raising our children better. It is a disgusting notion to me that Republicans tend to couch this issue in terms of demonizing single mothers, and punishing absent fathers, and fail completely to address the actual issue, which is raising the children. There are plenty enough cases where single parent households exist for reasons unrelated to the choices of the parents (death, illness, etc.), focusing on the fact that this situation is sub-optimal does nothing to improve it. We need to focus on making the best of what is, instead of stamping our feet and shouting about what we think should be.


This is meandering off into Republican propoganda speak now. Whenever I read taxes labelled as "theft of production" I sort of die a little inside as it reaks of absurd Randian Objectivism. I guess its good that you acknowledge that classical liberals could also view taxes as theft if we looked at this from Locke's perspective, but really, this is only useful as a thought exercise, and is incredibly boring in terms of practical application.

The simple fact is taxation is necessary because we can accomplish infinitely more by pooling our resources than we can separately. I mean seriously, if we were planning to build all of our highways by suggesting that everyone build their own little piece we'd have to be insane. The other option is what we've currently done with telecom and let a few large congolmerates privatize all of the infrastructure, and now the US has some of the slowest connection speeds in the world, and pays the highest prices for them. So that clearly hasn't gone any better. A combination of socialized necessities, with privatized or heavily regulated "luxuries" has worked incredibly well for most of the developed world. By not following suit for things like healthcare and communication, the US is really just cutting off its nose to spite its face. Capitalism is a good system, but the realities of the world and of human nature mean that it does need to be tempered with pragmatic control.

All those things you listened are not here because government exits, but because of the industrial era and massive gains in technology. I understand that liberals think it is their right to claim ownership of these things, but it isn't. Technologies get better over time. They are first designed to fill a need and the refined to better provide that need. Your clean air would be here with or without a government law, and there is plenty of evidence to support this if you take the time to look. As for Norway and Switzerland, they are two of of the most unequal nations in Europe, so it's pretty funny you try to cherry pick them. Switzerland especially derives so much of it's GDP from international banking, money that doesn't come anywhere near the lower classes.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-so...4-10?r=US&IR=T

there's something to look at. And before you try and throw the end of back at me like it means something, government services are not your wealth because you do not possess them. These people can't sell their government homes, they just live in them until the time they do not anymore. There is nothing to pass on. Contrast that to nations with lower taxes where people can afford to accumulate and buy those things and actually own them, and if you can't see a difference well that's on you.

To your MJ spiel. I pointed out it was an easy example, not that it was the only one. I could have used doctors or lawyers, computer scientists, engineers, authors, artists, anything. There is a component of natural gifts to be sure. There is also a component of society placing value on what it is you are exceptional at, but these things don't just fall into your lap, you need to work hard for them. You may be brilliant, or you may have an extremely specific talent that is nonetheless incredibly sought after, but if you don't actively try to benefit from it it won't happen on its own.

For your third paragraph I bolded the important part. Everything after it is a diatribe whose foolishness speaks for itself. As to the bold though, this is not how life actually works. I've very familiar with this flawed premise, but there is no leveling the playing field. As it stands, work IS the most important factor. Sure, there are some assholes who inherit a lot of money, but that doesn't actually hurt you. They will, by in large, spend that money, and end up broke. There is once again a lot of evidence for this. Thomas Sowell has documented how through each generation, the 400 wealthiest families drastically shifts. I'm sorry it doesn't happen overnight like liberals would like, I guess, but it does happen. Hard work is valued the most in our society (Maybe not with these young millennials, but they will pay in the long run for that).

As far as the family thing, my argument was that studies have shown the most important factor on raising well adjusted children is there are married parents. Not two cars, not lots of money, not tuitors or nannies or buses or any other bullshit. Married parents. in fact married parents is more important than having those other things with only one parent.

http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-p...tates/0086.pdf
http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/P...e-Married.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-parents.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-poverty.html

I could go on but if you want more find it yourself.

"This is meandering off into Republican propoganda speak now. Whenever I read taxes labelled as "theft of production" I sort of die a little inside as it reaks of absurd Randian Objectivism." What is the propaganda? If you don't like Rand (who I'm not quoting in anyway no matter how much you'd like to think I am) then attack her ideas, or attack mine for that matter, but claiming it is propaganda and absurd "Objectivism" doesn't really prove anything other than you don't like my words but can't challenge them beyond your emotions.


It is a widely held believe by classical liberals, as well as some anarchists, that a level of government is needed even if it is undesirable. Things like roads are the quintessential reason for government, so good job picking exactly the wrong example to prove your point. As far as telecom, it was done that way because it was deemed more desirable than having 10x as many wires through the sky and in the ground. I'm not sure if I agree with that, but it was the rationale, but you again confuse correlation and causation ( a common theme for you). You go on to claim that the system has worked well so far. Well compared to what? Communist Russia? Nazi Germany? The ancient Romans, or Serfdom in the middle ages? Talk about setting your sights low. What classical liberals desire has never actually been tried because of constant interference by those who "know better" and "are needed to help you." Take your propaganda somewhere else.

"Capitalism is a good system, but the realities of the world and of human nature mean that it does need to be tempered with pragmatic control." Prove this. What reality? What "pragmatic controls?" Who are these people that we NEED to control things for us? Worked wonders in the USSR, North Korea, China even. I mean, Europe is SOOO far more advanced than the US right? Or how about the fact that Argentina was in a better economic position at the turn of the 20th Century than the US was, and I'm not sure if you've been there (I have) but Buenos Aires doesn't really look anything like New York. You have very strong opinions, but unfortunately you haven't tried to (because I know you can't) defend them with any evidence.

Have a good day.

[NineSpine]

All those things you listened are not here because government exits, but because of the industrial era and massive gains in technology. I understand that liberals think it is their right to claim ownership of these things, but it isn't. Technologies get better over time. They are first designed to fill a need and the refined to better provide that need. Your clean air would be here with or without a government law, and there is plenty of evidence to support this if you take the time to look. As for Norway and Switzerland, they are two of of the most unequal nations in Europe, so it's pretty funny you try to cherry pick them. Switzerland especially derives so much of it's GDP from international banking, money that doesn't come anywhere near the lower classes.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-so...4-10?r=US&IR=T

there's something to look at. And before you try and throw the end of back at me like it means something, government services are not your wealth because you do not possess them. These people can't sell their government homes, they just live in them until the time they do not anymore. There is nothing to pass on. Contrast that to nations with lower taxes where people can afford to accumulate and buy those things and actually own them, and if you can't see a difference well that's on you.

To your MJ spiel. I pointed out it was an easy example, not that it was the only one. I could have used doctors or lawyers, computer scientists, engineers, authors, artists, anything. There is a component of natural gifts to be sure. There is also a component of society placing value on what it is you are exceptional at, but these things don't just fall into your lap, you need to work hard for them. You may be brilliant, or you may have an extremely specific talent that is nonetheless incredibly sought after, but if you don't actively try to benefit from it it won't happen on its own.

For your third paragraph I bolded the important part. Everything after it is a diatribe whose foolishness speaks for itself. As to the bold though, this is not how life actually works. I've very familiar with this flawed premise, but there is no leveling the playing field. As it stands, work IS the most important factor. Sure, there are some assholes who inherit a lot of money, but that doesn't actually hurt you. They will, by in large, spend that money, and end up broke. There is once again a lot of evidence for this. Thomas Sowell has documented how through each generation, the 400 wealthiest families drastically shifts. I'm sorry it doesn't happen overnight like liberals would like, I guess, but it does happen. Hard work is valued the most in our society (Maybe not with these young millennials, but they will pay in the long run for that).

As far as the family thing, my argument was that studies have shown the most important factor on raising well adjusted children is there are married parents. Not two cars, not lots of money, not tuitors or nannies or buses or any other bullshit. Married parents. in fact married parents is more important than having those other things with only one parent.

http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-p...tates/0086.pdf
http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/P...e-Married.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-parents.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-poverty.html

I could go on but if you want more find it yourself.

"This is meandering off into Republican propoganda speak now. Whenever I read taxes labelled as "theft of production" I sort of die a little inside as it reaks of absurd Randian Objectivism." What is the propaganda? If you don't like Rand (who I'm not quoting in anyway no matter how much you'd like to think I am) then attack her ideas, or attack mine for that matter, but claiming it is propaganda and absurd "Objectivism" doesn't really prove anything other than you don't like my words but can't challenge them beyond your emotions.


It is a widely held believe by classical liberals, as well as some anarchists, that a level of government is needed even if it is undesirable. Things like roads are the quintessential reason for government, so good job picking exactly the wrong example to prove your point. As far as telecom, it was done that way because it was deemed more desirable than having 10x as many wires through the sky and in the ground. I'm not sure if I agree with that, but it was the rationale, but you again confuse correlation and causation ( a common theme for you). You go on to claim that the system has worked well so far. Well compared to what? Communist Russia? Nazi Germany? The ancient Romans, or Serfdom in the middle ages? Talk about setting your sights low. What classical liberals desire has never actually been tried because of constant interference by those who "know better" and "are needed to help you." Take your propaganda somewhere else.

"Capitalism is a good system, but the realities of the world and of human nature mean that it does need to be tempered with pragmatic control." Prove this. What reality? What "pragmatic controls?" Who are these people that we NEED to control things for us? Worked wonders in the USSR, North Korea, China even. I mean, Europe is SOOO far more advanced than the US right? Or how about the fact that Argentina was in a better economic position at the turn of the 20th Century than the US was, and I'm not sure if you've been there (I have) but Buenos Aires doesn't really look anything like New York. You have very strong opinions, but unfortunately you haven't tried to (because I know you can't) defend them with any evidence.

Have a good day.

The idea that capitalism automatically corrects for environmental problems is fundamentally deluded and anti-reality.

[Pantupino]

Not 'Murican but I am a Republican

[BannedForViews]

The idea that capitalism automatically corrects for environmental problems is fundamentally deluded and anti-reality.

Environmental problems? You need to be specific. I assume you mean mother nature though.

"Is fundamentally deluded and anti-reality" is not evidence, it is a baseless opinion. You can't even be bothered to specify what in my long post you were referring to though so I shouldn't be surprised that your "evidence" is as equally vague and meaningless.

[NineSpine]

Environmental problems? You need to be specific. I assume you mean mother nature though.

"Is fundamentally deluded and anti-reality" is not evidence, it is a baseless opinion. You can't even be bothered to specify what in my long post you were referring to though so I shouldn't be surprised that your "evidence" is as equally vague and meaningless.

Is government regulation requires to prevent environmental destruction, such as reduction in air quality or pollution of rivers?

[BannedForViews]

Is government regulation requires to prevent environmental destruction, such as reduction in air quality or pollution of rivers?

I know you didn't bring this up both the last guy did and they are similar in the point.

"In 1908, the first five-day workweek in the United States was instituted by a New England cotton mill so that Jewish workers would not have to work on the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.[1]

In 1926, Henry Ford began shutting down his automotive factories for all of Saturday and Sunday.

In 1929, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America Union was the first union to demand a five-day workweek and receive it."

Government did not give us the weekend, but it appears that greedy capitalist ford helped usher it into reality.

As to your loaded question about air quality. No government intervention is not required.

It is suprisingly difficult to find anything about air quality that approaches facts. Most graphs have nothing to do with it at all, are about climate change not the clean air act, or are very narrow in their scale, for example only showing from 1970 on, not before the CAA was passed.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...0-2050/282928/

That is not a conservative outlet by any means but it does show that air quality that humans breath has been decreasing continuously over time. Air quality was increasing before the government got in the way of it. Unfortunately it is impossible to prove what did not happen, that is that the government had no effect on it, because they did pass laws. But here is the real issue. It is not nearly as difficult or impressive to tell someone to do something as it is for them to actually do it. It's very simple for people to say "clean air" but very difficult to get this to the market at a cost that is paletable. The government didn't provide solutions, only demands.

http://www.perc.org/blog/environment...ality-pre-1970

"Most reports on air quality trends typically begin with 1970, with the passage of the first Clean Air Act and the beginning of systematic monitoring of emissions and ambient levels of air pollution. Data from early monitors and evidence from air quality models, however, show that many forms of air pollution started to decline—in some cases rapidly—before the Clean Air Act of 1970.

For sulfur dioxide, data from 21 urban monitors show that the average ambient level fell approximately 40 percent between 1962 and 1964 (as shown above). This set the stage for progress after the Clean Air Act; the national average dropped 66 percent since then. Local data for New York City show that ambient sulfur dioxide fell by almost 50 percent between 1964 and 1970, as shown in Figure 2. Fragmentary data also show that carbon dioxide levels were falling in the mid-1960s."

[Nazrark]

I am pretty sure I would be branded as a heretic and put on a raft to Cuba.

Because both parties are just awful. They are making no attempts to fix it either.

But on the US spectrum I would be an independant. Your country needs people with the political capital to start a third national party.

[Elestia]

What political shit did I shoot, and how do you know I don't know anything about the issue at hand? I'm willing to compare my knowledge of the issue to yours. And you don't owe me anything, but when attack people over the internet instead of challenging their views you look like an asshole. But why should I be shocked, that's how the internet works isn't it. You all love to pretend like you have authority without providing any evidence. If you want to debate some science, I'll poke holes in your opinions all day long, but I doubt that's what you're interested in.

Who said I attacked you? If memory serves it was you that unabashedly challenged my post over climate change - something I didn't even mention in my post, but something that is one of many points of contention with regards to science which Republicans refuse to allow.

Let me reinterate. I'm responding to the OP. I don't owe you anything. Take your impenitent questions and responses elsewhere. Sorry I don't have time to hold your little hand.

[kail]

Frankly, it's out of my caring. If we want minimal care for people on the bottom of the barrel, fine. I just know I want to be able to be successful for myself and for my family. It isn't my fault some people end up where they are.

It's not your fault, no (unless you scammed someone). It's just a fact that the with the current job market, income replicates a pyramid. On the bottom of the pyramid is where majority hold the lower incomes. There's nothing that can really be done by this proportion, more labor is needed than management. You won't find a retail store where there are more managers than part-time workers.

So with that established, there is plenty the country as a whole can gain if the weakest link (which makes up more Americans than the res) is in the position to still live happily and not having to constantly worry about making rent on time. We shouldn't implement "survival of the fittest" in our economy, but rather "luxury for the ambitious/smart".

[Manabomb]

I'm neither frankly. There are enough differences between my ideals and the both sides I tend not to associate myself with one party or another. However, the realistic portion of me tends to lead toward Democrat because in my experience they have been far less publicly idiotic. Not to mention the rampant fear of globalization and the asinine idea that more strict gun laws means the government is taking your guns tends to force me to lean toward a party that can come up with facts to support its arguments, rather than feelings.

That's the problem with the current Republican party and the Trump campaign. They make their reality with beliefs and feelings, instead of evidence and facts. It's hard to beat belief with fact to a believer.

[Bushtuckrman]

The idea that capitalism automatically corrects for environmental problems is fundamentally deluded and anti-reality.

And this reply to a well typed argument with links etc is why you don't engage lefties on this forum seriously.