7
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2177 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So what's one good conservative position?
I agree with some conservative positions like Americans have an individual right of freedom. I can and should be able to live my life in manner that I want to without the government forcing me to live it another way. I view things like LGBTQ rights fall under this surprising core conservative belief. Now most conservatives would view it as individual freedom mean they can be a racist bigot and discriminate, but that isn't individual freedom.
I also agree with the concept of limited government, but from the view that government even in its best state is a necessary evil. It should not govern our everyday lives but it must serve the people. Government isn't a power, it is a service that ultimately serves the people.
That's not a conservative position. Proof: Conservatives don't want women to have the freedom to end their pregnancies (or just get basic prenatal care in general apparently). They also don't want universities to have the freedom to choose who they admit based on race (trying to undo historical racism or to prevent a single race from taking over).
In Florida the conservative government removed the freedom of local government to decide how they handle a great many things from elections (can't have them using ranked choice voting) to what they teach in schools (e.g. teaching about historical racism).
In other states with conservative governments they are banning books, limiting citizens right to sue for damages, making it harder for minorities to vote, and generally reducing the people's power to change how their government is run. They're very anti-democracy lately (it was talked about in the article).
What individual freedoms are liberals trying to take away? The historical record here is vastly in liberals favor.
This is silly analysis. They're religious nuts and that supercedes their views on human rights. People refuse to use a consistent or sane definition of conservative. If you're just gonna say "proof: thing that violates the very premise of their presumed identity" then fucking give up. You're not criticizing any coherent model of thought, you're engaged in shit slinging.
Bro, that's exactly what liberals want.
The government is a tool to ensure the good will, safety, and prosperity of the people. What we can't achieve on our own gets done through the collective power of the government.
Liberals aren't trying to force government on people, they're trying to ensure that the rights of everyone take precedent over someone's perceived "right" to discriminate.
Do you consider a business employing people to mutually ageed standards moral?
Business aren't moral entities and it should never be assumed that they will act as such. In fact, the basis by which one should assume a business will operate is on profits and profits alone.
Therefore, if you want to make business behave in any sort of moral fashion their behavior must be regulated and businesses with a history of societal harm must be highly regulated.
Based on these truths one must view with a highly skeptical eye anyone who wishes to broadly remove regulations without specificities as to which ones they want to remove and why the regulation is unnecessary. The belief that regulations are bad--generally speaking--is an inherently unethical and immoral position.
Yeah. So literally using police to force shit is just bros being bros. Hiring someone to paint your fence, oppression. Got it.
What a completely dishonest and bad faith response.
Just being reductionist doesn't make it bad faith. I do appreciate your response and I'm sorry I just wasn't into digging into weeds of justification.
It doesn't really do any good to go back and forth and call our views when we have wild deviations at a very basic level.
What makes it bad faith is that you made no attempt to respond to what Riskable said, and instead said something silly to try and steal a win in the convo.
If you agree police should exist, then you also agree that the government sets the rules about what they enforce. If someone paints my fence with some hyper toxic paint, then it should be illegal. Riskable was implying that businesses will reliably degrade quality and safety until the legal minimums and sometimes we need to put effort into regulating some basic standards.
Now, on the other hand, conservatives are usually INCREASING regulations that the police follow, doing the closest things to genital checks and hauling people away to prison for having a now illegal abortion as bad examples.
Conservatives say they want less regulation, when you guys are the ones in power maxing out regulations against existing in harmless ways.. we just want toxic paint banned, or the real example.. we don't want a climate apocalypse, we want PFOA style chemicals banned and forced incineration of all odd chemicals, we want basic human and animal rights, we want the last ecosystems for natural non human life preserved... and conservatives just want the last checks and balances that protect us removed while adding ten times more regulation against people you hate and yourselves in the process.
I was trying to get an idea of their ideas. I asked a simple question and got a huge response that just veered wild. I apologized for them putting in that effort.
I'm not a conservative I just believe in individual rights. I mentioned it elsewhere, but there's no coherent definition of conservative to be found. If you want to call a dude with pro-choice and trans stickers on his wallet conservative, you do you.
I'm going to let you in on a secret mr ancap. Ancaps, conservatives, fascists, libertarians and nazis are all the same group. None of those types have looked into their own views. They all have contradictory silly rhetoric which boils down to "I say whatever i think wins me the conversation, because my view is correct because it's my view"
I'm an anarchist and am tired of ancaps pretending to be related to me by ideology. Oxymoronic
That's too bad. I tend to get on well with syndicalists and mutualists.
Sorry for the late and lackluster reply. My wrists feel like they have axes wedged through them. Hooray for RA.
No syndicalist or mutualist would agree with the pro-capitalist groups views about capitalism, only destruction of hierarchies such as capitalism and the state. What you said is the bog standard "i have black friends, i cant be racist". This is what i mean by pro-capitalist group people being the same and using language just to score points. You've still not refuted anything in any meaningful way.
As for your RA, if you really have it then i hope it gets better, which is kinda why I'm an anarchist. Clearly capitalism wont allow the state to funnel resources into research in any meaningful scale to actually cure disease and only at best offer temporary relief. I guarantee capitalists know the causes and triggers of disease and if they sell a temporary relief they would also be spending money on increasing sales of the causes of your suffering.
They come to some of the libertarian/ancap subreddits for more than just trolling. I'm not really a propertarian. I don't believe In retributive justice. When it comes down to it, I'd choose to live in a leftist community. I help friends and family and strangers when I can and I believe we have an ethical obligation to do so. We should end corporate liability protections and destroy our corporate structures that make top heavy multinationals a thing, much less a profitable thing. Also, IP is theft.
I'm not willing to force you, or anyone else, to do what I want with violence and that's why I'm an ancap, not a leftist.
It sounds like you really are against capitalism as we know it. Capitalisms main trait is that it'll force any reformed system back into a capitalist ran false-democracy. We already have the libertarian/ancap system but with an illusory democracy and a barely meaningful state. You could say as the system gets worse, we get closer to a true ancap/libertarian system. If you think things are getting worse as capitalists weaken the government, then you disagree with ancap ideology.
Liberal ideology is about reforming capitalist systems so that they don't end up controlling the government and ruining the ecosystems. Socialist ideology is about democracy in the workplace, which i think would correct many problems and reduce dependence on NEEDING govt regulation as the workers would rarely vote to pollute their own community.
I don't really know why you call yourself an ancap. The freedom parts of ancap ideology are stolen by the capitalist part, which is why anarchists like myself reject capitalism as mutually exclusive with any form of freedom at the individual level. Remember that standard capitalism is about totalitarian work structures, literal wage-slavery.
I think your views on this subject are good, but the ideology you call yourself by doesn't match most of your actual views.
And without a doubt, IP law is some of the most fucked up law to exist. ugh
I'm of the belief police should be disarmed and laws put in place that gun violence of any kind is a minimum 50 year sentence. Select police can be armed, but not everyday peace officers.
I mean 2 for 5 ain't too bad I guess. I'm out here trying to defend you fucks and you come out with this idiocy.