Random Political Thoughts without Memes

Dirius said:

The goverment doesn't give handouts. The taxpayers does. The money doesn't come out from the democrat's pockets. What you are doing is forcing citizens to give away their money. That is compulsion. If people wanna give money away on their own accord to help others, they can use charities to hand out money. That is the model republicans promote. What republicans oppose is the goverment stealing money from citizens. You have no right to do that. The idea of taxation is that the tax payer recieves something in exchange (ex: you pay taxes to have a police force to protect you).

People responsible for children are the parents and their family. The state only steps-in when a child has no immediate family, and because he is under-age and has no adult that can support him, and becomes a ward to the state. But this should only be in case of emergency, when the child has no family (which is actually very rare).

Click to expand...

We're all tax-payers if we're earning a good living. So, can a wealthy Democrat opt out of paying tax money for Trump's stupid Wall? Republicans generally favor taxation for war, but not for the Safety-net.
Here's an example of theory versus pragmatism: There was a Socialist (someone who doesn't believe in private enterprise with taxation of income--wants the Government to own and distribute EVERYTHING) who was living in an impoverished area with ongoing drug-related "drive-by" shootings. Innocent bystanders were being killed, and he said it MUST be stopped somehow. I took the Libertarian position that if the drugs were as legal as Alcohol and tobacco, the gangs would be out of business, and the drive-bys would stop. His Socialistic response was, "no", because then private enterprise would profit from the sales!

david starling said:

We're all tax-payers if we're earning a good living.

Click to expand...

We're all taxpayers even if we're not earning a good living. Everyone, regardless of their income, pays sales taxes at the very least. And taxes on their home: if they rent, there's a renter's tax, which the landlord pays but typically passes on to the tenants as part of their rent. If they own, they pay property tax. Plus, there are gasoline taxes and vehicle registration taxes if you drive, which the majority of Americans do. If you ever travel and stay at a hotel, there's hotel tax. If you're at all employed, even if it's low level, low income employment, you might get your income tax withholdings refunded, but you still have to pay Social Security, Medicare, etc., taxes, and there's no refund on those. Just to name a few.

While some of these taxes vary from one state to another, there's no place in the U.S. where you could live without ever paying any taxes at all. Even if your income is too low to owe income tax, there's still some form of tax that you pay.

david starling said:

We're all tax-payers if we're earning a good living. So, can a wealthy Democrat opt out of paying tax money for Trump's stupid Wall? Republicans generally favor taxation for war, but not for the Safety-net.
Here's an example of theory versus pragmatism: There was a Socialist (someone who doesn't believe in private enterprise with taxation of income--wants the Government to own and distribute EVERYTHING) who was living in an impoverished area with ongoing drug-related "drive-by" shootings. Innocent bystanders were being killed, and he said it MUST be stopped somehow. I took the Libertarian position that if the drugs were as legal as Alcohol and tobacco, the gangs would be out of business, and the drive-bys would stop. His Socialistic response was, "no", because then private enterprise would profit from the sales!

Click to expand...

All citizens get a benefit from funding security. You may be against war, or against the police, or whatever, but you are still getting a benefit out of it. The wall works the same way: whether the idea can be good or bad in practice (which is a totally fine point to discuss), the wall's aim is to benefit every citizen by increasing security. So its not that your taxes are being used for something that will not benefit you from the theoretical stand-point.

I have a much harsher stance in the war against drugs, because I believe that if they were not selling drugs, they would be doing something illegal anyway. Narcotics are just the "current" activity they engage on, but mafias have existed since forever. So I want to see crime destroyed, not just displaced. That being said, I do accept the libertarian position as valid, because as I said before my position might be wrong in practice (and trust me I have thought about that for a while) and I do think libertarians make a logical point. Now the socialist position in your example, is just dumb, but that is to be expected.

Dirius said:

All citizens get a benefit from funding security. You may be against war, or against the police, or whatever, but you are still getting a benefit out of it. The wall works the same way: whether the idea can be good or bad in practice (which is a totally fine point to discuss), the wall's aim is to benefit every citizen by increasing security. So its not that your taxes are being used for something that will not benefit you from the theoretical stand-point.

I have a much harsher stance in the war against drugs, because I believe that if they were not selling drugs, they would be doing something illegal anyway. Narcotics are just the "current" activity they engage on, but mafias have existed since forever. So I want to see crime destroyed, not just displaced. That being said, I do accept the libertarian position as valid, because as I said before my position might be wrong in practice (and trust me I have thought about that for a while) and I do think libertarians make a logical point. Now the socialist position in your example, is just dumb, but that is to be expected.

Click to expand...

So, not having starving families raising impoverished children with resulting mental and physical impairment doesn't benefit all citizens?
I don't believe the Wall WILL make us safer, so that argument doesn't work for me.

Dirius said:

All citizens get a benefit from funding security. You may be against war, or against the police, or whatever, but you are still getting a benefit out of it. The wall works the same way: whether the idea can be good or bad in practice (which is a totally fine point to discuss), the wall's aim is to benefit every citizen by increasing security. So its not that your taxes are being used for something that will not benefit you from the theoretical stand-point.

I have a much harsher stance in the war against drugs, because I believe that if they were not selling drugs, they would be doing something illegal anyway. Narcotics are just the "current" activity they engage on, but mafias have existed since forever. So I want to see crime destroyed, not just displaced. That being said, I do accept the libertarian position as valid, because as I said before my position might be wrong in practice (and trust me I have thought about that for a while) and I do think libertarians make a logical point. Now the socialist position in your example, is just dumb, but that is to be expected.

Click to expand...

Just curious. Can you elaborate on your perspective on the war on drugs? How do you think crime could be destroyed rather than displaced?

moonkat235 said:

Just curious. Can you elaborate on your perspective on the war on drugs? How do you think crime could be destroyed rather than displaced?

Click to expand...

Well, gambling and casinos are legal in most countries, yet a lot of illegal gambling houses still operate in numerous places worldwide. Prostitution is legal in some areas, and in other areas its illegal but some women still practice out of their own will... and even so when its both legal and some women choose to practice it, the mafia found a way to force women they enslave into prostitution. Firearms are legal in most countries (and in the U.S. they are widely available), but illegal gun traffic still exists.

Then there are other areas of crime, such as when mafia and gangs engage in which can't be legalised, such as human traficking into other countries or child abuse rings. You also have abuse against animals, such as "cock fights", so we should legalize that for example?

Criminals are criminals. They engage in whatever is profitable for them. So criminals won't stop being criminals just because we remove their business, they will just switch to another type of activity. So you can displace them and just have them turn to another activity.

Or you can end crime, by making more jobs available for people, engaging in a strong sense of community by applying values that have been lost today, and finally punishing with force those that would still commit crimes.

david starling said:

So, not having starving families raising impoverished children with resulting mental and physical impairment doesn't benefit all citizens?
I don't believe the Wall WILL make us safer, so that argument doesn't work for me.

Click to expand...

Having families with jobs and incomes, which take care of each other, and a strong community sentiment that helps each other willingly, solves that.

Having a state that steals money from citizens, hands it out inefficiently, and stumps economic growth making the population dependant on the goverment instead of letting them work, does not solve anything.

Dirius said:

Well, gambling and casinos are legal in most countries, yet a lot of illegal gambling houses still operate in numerous places worldwide. Prostitution is legal in some areas, and in other areas its illegal but some women still practice out of their own will... and even so when its both legal and some women choose to practice it, the mafia found a way to force women they enslave into prostitution. Firearms are legal in most countries (and in the U.S. they are widely available), but illegal gun traffic still exists.

Then there are other areas of crime, such as when mafia and gangs engage in which can't be legalised, such as human traficking into other countries or child abuse rings. You also have abuse against animals, such as "cock fights", so we should legalize that for example?

Criminals are criminals. They engage in whatever is profitable for them. So criminals won't stop being criminals just because we remove their business, they will just switch to another type of activity. So you can displace them and just have them turn to another activity.

Or you can end crime, by making more jobs available for people, engaging in a strong sense of community by applying values that have been lost today, and finally punishing with force those that would still commit crimes.

Click to expand...

Do you think non-violent offenses should be punished harshly then? Like I've done a lot of drugs and one time I got caught with a bunch of weed and got thrown in jail. lol I got it off my record, but my family's well off so it was easy to get a lawyer. Plus, the cops were way nice to me and only gave me possession rather than 'intent to sell' as my charge. With the amount I was caught with, I definitely should've gotten 'intent to distribute', but the cops liked me. I guess I just don't see what I did wrong. Like I didn't hurt anybody.

I mean, a lot of people do drugs where I'm at right now and they're still functioning contributing members of society. Like when I did drugs, I worked hard for the money to do a ton of them. I don't think throwing people in jail is necessary or that doing drugs is actually all that wrong.

I see how the issue of drug trafficking is a problem for society though. Gangs and cartels and sh*t, but like several of my friends were in gangs in Chicago and that's just their way of life. If you made it to 28, you're old af. How would you suggest overhauling the gang subculture?

Edit: Sorry for being kinda scatter brained. My attention is divided.

Mostly, I'm just curious why we should keep drugs illegal. Like what does that serve?

moonkat235 said:

Do you think non-violent offenses should be punished harshly then? Like I've done a lot of drugs and one time I got caught with a bunch of weed and got thrown in jail. lol I got it off my record, but my family's well off so it was easy to get a lawyer. Plus, the cops were way nice to me and only gave me possession rather than 'intent to sell' as my charge. With the amount I was caught with, I definitely should've gotten 'intent to distribute', but the cops liked me. I guess I just don't see what I did wrong. Like I didn't hurt anybody.

I mean, a lot of people do drugs where I'm at right now and they're still functioning contributing members of society. Like when I did drugs, I worked hard for the money to do a ton of them. I don't think throwing people in jail is necessary or that doing drugs is actually all that wrong.

I see how the issue of drug trafficking is a problem for society though. Gangs and cartels and sh*t, but like several of my friends were in gangs in Chicago and that's just their way of life. If you made it to 28, you're old af. How would you suggest overhauling the gang subculture?

Edit: Sorry for being kinda scatter brained. My attention is divided.

Mostly, I'm just curious why we should keep drugs illegal. Like what does that serve?

Click to expand...

I have no problem with people using drugs in the privacy of their own homes. My problems comes when people, under the influence of drugs trespass on the rights of other citizens. While under the influence of drugs, you are not capable of rational decisions. I have the same problem with alcohol, just so you know.

Also my target isn't really consumers. You asked me why not displace instead of destroy crime, my answer was that displacing crime, just creates other sort of crimes. As for drug legalization, I have no real problem with it. As long as we as a society can enforce a controlled way in which people won't disturb others while under the influence. And through the data we have gathered by alcohol induced deaths, that won't change.

As for gangs, like any other criminal organization, enforce laws and arrest them. Its very simple. Prevention of young people joining gangs is not the responsability of either law enforcement or the state even. Its the responsability of the parents. The state's only role there is to not stand in the way of parents being able to raise their kids properly.

Dirius said:

I have no problem with people using drugs in the privacy of their own homes. My problems comes when people, under the influence of drugs trespass on the rights of other citizens. While under the influence of drugs, you are not capable of rational decisions. I have the same problem with alcohol, just so you know.

Also my target isn't really consumers. You asked me why not displace instead of destroy crime, my answer was that displacing crime, just creates other sort of crimes. As for drug legalization, I have no real problem with it. As long as we as a society can enforce a controlled way in which people won't disturb others while under the influence. And through the data we have gathered by alcohol induced deaths, that won't change.

As for gangs, like any other criminal organization, enforce laws and arrest them. Its very simple. Prevention of young people joining gangs is not the responsability of either law enforcement or the state even. Its the responsability of the parents. The state's only role there is to not stand in the way of parents being able to raise their kids properly.

Click to expand...

Cool on the first two paragraphs. I see that perspective. I never really disturbed other people, except making the whole apartment complex smell like weed. lol I don't think I disturbed anyone, except the police, when I was doing drugs. The only person I disturbed was myself. The cops just had a problem because of the smell.

As to the third paragraph. It's not that simple in my mind. When there are generations and generations of parents in gangs, then how is the gang violence to ever stop? Are we to incarcerate the majority of people from one neighborhood (most probably of the same minority race)? I feel like most of my gang-affiliated friends were raised in and by gangs, so without some sort of radical cultural paradigm shift, I just think your concept leads to incarcerating a large number of people.

I mean, I think creating more jobs is great and all, but most employers would probably require a clean record to get positions. Most kids realize they can make more money dealing drugs and engaging in gun trafficking. Hitting a lick makes you richer instantly. They look up their parents and siblings who are doing the same thing already.

Sorry I'm chillin with a friend right now and my attention is split, so I'm not sure if that articulated what I wanted, but here it is anyway. lol

moonkat235 said:

Cool on the first two paragraphs. I see that perspective. I never really disturbed other people, except making the whole apartment complex smell like weed. lol I don't think I disturbed anyone, except the police, when I was doing drugs. The only person I disturbed was myself. The cops just had a problem because of the smell.

As to the third paragraph. It's not that simple in my mind. When there are generations and generations of parents in gangs, then how is the gang violence to ever stop? Are we to incarcerate the majority of people from one neighborhood (most probably of the same minority race)? I feel like most of my gang-affiliated friends were raised in and by gangs, so without some sort of radical cultural paradigm shift, I just think your concept leads to incarcerating a large number of people.

I mean, I think creating more jobs is great and all, but most employers would probably require a clean record to get positions. Most kids realize they can make more money dealing drugs and engaging in gun trafficking. Hitting a lick makes you richer instantly. They look up their parents and siblings who are doing the same thing already.

Sorry I'm chillin with a friend right now and my attention is split, so I'm not sure if that articulated what I wanted, but here it is anyway. lol

Click to expand...

There won't be a "radical cultural paradigm shift". Because there are no magical solutions. You can't just wish gangs away. I get your point, some people grow up in that situation and gang life is all they know. But a sad life story is not a justification to harm other citizens, and we do not have to feel pity for them.

What stops criminals from getting rich and embracing that life (of stealing, raping and murdering the innocent) is putting them behinds bars. That is the only solution. Some may find it harsh, but its just the truth.

Now, we can have a talk about reforming the jail system, so it can reform criminals rather than simply lock them away for some time and make them worse. But that is another argument, about what we do once they are behind bars.

Dirius said:

There won't be a "radical cultural paradigm shift". Because there are no magical solutions. You can't just wish gangs away. I get your point, some people grow up in that situation and gang life is all they know. But a sad life story is not a justification to harm other citizens, and we do not have to feel pity for them.

What stops criminals from getting rich and embracing that life (of stealing, raping and murdering the innocent) is putting them behinds bars. That is the only solution. Some may find it harsh, but its just the truth.

Now, we can have a talk about reforming the jail system, so it can reform criminals rather than simply lock them away for some time and make them worse. But that is another argument, about what we do once they are behind bars.

Click to expand...

Yeah yo, I see your point.

I really like the idea of reforming the prison system. I mean recidivism rates I hear are pretty terrible, so something is inadequate about it.

When I was in jail, I turned to my cell mate as we watched re-runs of Good Morning America, and I said, "So...what're you in for?" To which she replied, "I had a five year old warrant out for my arrest and the SWAT team came and got me." I was like, "Okay...you win." lol

Anyway, that was a side note. On some real sh*t, prison f*cks people up worse, traumatizes them and solidifies a need to perpetuate gang affiliation. If you're not affiliated with a gang, you wind up dead or wishing you were dead. That's what I hear anyway.

moonkat235 said:

Yeah yo, I see your point.

I really like the idea of reforming the prison system. I mean recidivism rates I hear are pretty terrible, so something is inadequate about it.

When I was in jail, I turned to my cell mate as we watched re-runs of Good Morning America, and I said, "So...what're you in for?" To which she replied, "I had a five year old warrant out for my arrest and the SWAT team came and got me." I was like, "Okay...you win." lol

Anyway, that was a side note. On some real sh*t, prison f*cks people up worse, traumatizes them and solidifies a need to perpetuate gang affiliation. If you're not affiliated with a gang, you wind up dead or wishing you were dead. That's what I hear anyway.

Click to expand...

But that is because gangs have too much freedom within the prisons system. I don't believe in long penalties, but I do believe in harsh ones (that is, in a scale of what crime has been committed). Many criminals that end up in jail for small offenses do serve time in the same prison as mass murderers. That should not be the case.

But crime does need to be punished. I prefer if criminals serve shorter, yet more effective penalties. I would also suggest dividing prisons more. Just like minimum-security prisons exist for bankers and lawyers that embezzle money, different maximum security prisons should exist for seperate types of criminals.

As for prevention, the only thing you can do is allow people to be able to earn a good living, and have a way out of the gang culture. Let the parents get a job, so they can teach their kids gangs are not the way. Let police enforce laws and lock criminals away. Allow business to flourish in the area.

Dirius said:

But that is because gangs have too much freedom within the prisons system. I don't believe in long penalties, but I do believe in harsh ones (that is, in a scale of what crime has been committed). Many criminals that end up in jail for small offenses do serve time in the same prison as mass murderers. That should not be the case.

But crime does need to be punished. I prefer if criminals serve shorter, yet more effective penalties. I would also suggest dividing prisons more. Just like minimum-security prisons exist for bankers and lawyers that embezzle money, different maximum security prisons should exist for seperate types of criminals.

As for prevention, the only thing you can do is allow people to be able to earn a good living, and have a way out of the gang culture. Let the parents get a job, so they can teach their kids gangs are not the way. Let police enforce laws and lock criminals away. Allow business to flourish in the area.

Click to expand...

Yeah I can dig all of that. On a personal note, I'll admit, I have very little interest in politics. I feel like this is true of a lot of places, but the politics in the US really elicits an apathetic reaction in most people my age. Some of my peers get up in arms over social issues that effect them, but very few pay attention at any level - local, state, national.

I think the only way real reform of anything will occur is if people just care enough to pay attention, educate themselves, and act. It's hard though, because I don't think most of my peers trust the news. I certainly don't.

It's interesting to me that you're so passionate about politics. What made you so? It makes me wonder what made so apathetic.

moonkat235 said:

Yeah I can dig all of that. On a personal note, I'll admit, I have very little interest in politics. I feel like this is true of a lot of places, but the politics in the US really elicits an apathetic reaction in most people my age. Some of my peers get up in arms over social issues that effect them, but very few pay attention at any level - local, state, national.

I think the only way real reform of anything will occur is if people just care enough to pay attention, educate themselves, and act. It's hard though, because I don't think most of my peers trust the news. I certainly don't.

It's interesting to me that you're so passionate about politics. What made you so? It makes me wonder what made so apathetic.

Click to expand...

I like history. And we are living it. I also experienced how politicians have destroyed my country with little hope of repair. I know they are the enemy. And when you look at history, true historical data, not just the short-version that is given in school, you get to the truth.

Look at the example of the allegation of the "southern strategy" and how racists switched to the republican party. Its taught in most schools in that way, in a short condensed version that republicans are now racists. But then you look at the data, of the local elections in southern states during that period of time. You look at the influence of the democratic party with southern nvoters. You listen to the speeches of elected governors of the time. The data does not match the narrative.

Look at history, look at historical data and not just the textbook or what your teacher says. And you get to the truth. So many historical nonsense has been made up over time just to hurt western values. Take the crusades as the perfect example of a false narrative devised just to make western values look bad. Most historians know the truth, but the condensed narrative is:"WHITE MEN BAD THEY CONQUER" - because it serves a political purpose to say those things, which is producing guilt in european descenants for having a christian background.

Dirius said:

I like history. And we are living it. I also experienced how politicians have destroyed my country with little hope of repair. I know they are the enemy. And when you look at history, true historical data, not just the short-version that is given in school, you get to the truth.

Look at the example of the allegation of the "southern strategy" and how racists switched to the republican party. Its taught in most schools in that way, in a short condensed version that republicans are now racists. But then you look at the data, of the local elections in southern states during that period of time. You look at the influence of the democratic party with souther nvoters. You listen to the speeches of elected governors of the time. The data does not match the narrative.

Look at history, look at historical data and not just the textbook or what your teacher says. And you get to the truth. So many historical nonsense has been made up over time. The crusades is the perfect example of a false narrative devised just to make western values look bad.

Click to expand...

Hm...I see. A lot has happened since I studied politics in school. I think the last time I really sat down and took a history or political science class was high school actually, but my teacher was inspirational. Her goal was to equip us to argue from any standpoint regardless of our beliefs. I think I was lucky in that she wanted us to do a lot of outside research and come to our own conclusions as well. I'll admit, I haven't directed these skills towards politics in a long time though.

I guess, I just see so much polarization in politics that it deters me from seeking to know more. It's one way or the other and that negates the possibility of open dialogue and actionable results. I think we're not all going to agree on everything and I'm thinking back to a business class I started to take a while back. It was a negotiations class. We discussed negotiation didn't have to be about compromising. It could be about finding common goals and developing new creative strategies for achieving them that satisfies most if not all parties involved.

I wonder if we could just get actual conversation flowing, if new solutions could be reached. Emotions just tend to run high in these conversations, and everyone wants to win, because they think their right is the only right, but I just wonder what it would take to get a real discussion going.

moonkat235 said:

Hm...I see. A lot has happened since I studied politics in school. I think the last time I really sat down and took a history or political science class was high school actually, but my teacher was inspirational. Her goal was to equip us to argue from any standpoint regardless of our beliefs. I think I was lucky in that she wanted us to do a lot of outside research and come to our own conclusions as well. I'll admit, I haven't directed these skills towards politics in a long time though.

I guess, I just see so much polarization in politics that it deters me from seeking to know more. It's one way or the other and that negates the possibility of open dialogue and actionable results. I think we're not all going to agree on everything and I'm thinking back to a business class I started to take a while back. It was a negotiations class. We discussed negotiation didn't have to be about compromising. It could be about finding common goals and developing new creative strategies for achieving them that satisfies most if not all parties involved.

I wonder if we could just get actual conversation flowing, if new solutions could be reached. Emotions just tend to run high in these conversations, and everyone wants to win, because they think their right is the only right, but I just wonder what it would take to get a real discussion going.

Click to expand...

It won't because politicians have an interest in having the division be eternal. Thats how they stay in power and get more money. That is why they promote false outrage.

So why the hell do we need 500 people that can't even agree on things, when we can just vote it up ourselves? The idea of representation was good for the 18th and 19th century, when comunication and travel took weeks or months. So we elected officials to represent us in the capital of our respective countries. Now days, any citizen can go to any voting station on weekends, and cast their vote on every single law that was introduced that week, and results can be delivered in less than one day. No congress, no parliament, no senators. No more leeches earning 200k a year at the taxpayer's expense, and spending lots of money in expensive trips that serve no purpose to the taxpayer.

But politicians, they want us to keep engaged. That is why they change history, promote false narratives, create false outrages. They want to keep people fighting. Why? They want bigger goverment, which means more power to them, and money for them.

And the younger generations goes along with it, because young people lack purpose and they want to devote themselves to a cause that seems "good for everyone" when it isn't. The left tells students that conservatives are racist evil white men, so the young men of the left who seek purpose in life are given someone they can hate and can blame them for all the problems. Now here is the question: are these men really racist evil white men?

In the US, the founding fathers did a lot to keep democracy out of the hands of the people, because that leads to mob rule. So there's some democracy, but the US is a republic. That's to help preserve individual rights.

I think they had the right idea. The divisiveness there scares me a lot, the same here, and the way the left is not only eating itself, but going after everyone else these days. Scary violent people don't tend to engage in dialogue, as we've all seen of late.

Oddity said:

In the US, the founding fathers did a lot to keep democracy out of the hands of the people, because that leads to mob rule. So there's some democracy, but the US is a republic. That's to help preserve individual rights.

I think they had the right idea. The divisiveness there scares me a lot, the same here, and the way the left is not only eating itself, but going after everyone else these days. Scary violent people don't tend to engage in dialogue, as we've all seen of late.

Click to expand...

For sure, Odds man. Idk... I think this is why I'm pretty apathetic to politics and why a lot of other people are too. It just seems hopeless, like it'll suck up energy better used elsewhere, but also everyone thinking that makes it really hopeless.

Oddity said:

In the US, the founding fathers did a lot to keep democracy out of the hands of the people, because that leads to mob rule. So there's some democracy, but the US is a republic. That's to help preserve individual rights.

I think they had the right idea. The divisiveness there scares me a lot, the same here, and the way the left is not only eating itself, but going after everyone else these days. Scary violent people don't tend to engage in dialogue, as we've all seen of late.

Click to expand...

That is true. However in my country the biggest problem has been an uncontrolled power in national congress, which keeps passing laws that benefits them. For example, they can determine their own salary. And of course each year it gets higher.

However I think the diference lies on american's bill of rights. Which are unbreakable rights. In my country, rights are broken all the time. At the pleasure of goverment. And as far as you have told me, it is the same in Canada.