Explain to me the political compass. What does left-right mean? What does the authoritarian-libertarian line represent? by IamCleaver in politics
[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 23 days ago (0 children)
Are you drunk?
[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 24 days ago (0 children)
BTW, what do you mean by hierarchical
Ok, fair enough. I like that.)
[–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun - 24 days ago (0 children)
True. Are you saying the bottom part is "authoritarian"? What does that mean?
It was hard to tell which one is which.
[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 24 days ago* (0 children)
Which was exactly where I ended up... BTW, what do you mean by hierarchical?
Not all answers were mutually excusive. Sometimes I had a hard time picking an answer when two answers seemed to fit.
So, according to your model, can you be both communal and hierarchical without being libertarian?
[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 24 days ago (0 children)
Ok. This is interesting. So you apply the term "left" and "right" to all spheres of life, both economical and social?
Do you prefer the triangle over the compass?
I took you test and here is where I ended up.
Just as a comparison, here is where I stand on the traditional 2D compass.
Given that I consider myself a conservative socialist, I expected to end up on the left. How do you define right and left?
Explain to me the political compass. What does left-right mean? What does the authoritarian-libertarian line represent?
24 days ago by IamCleaver to /s/politics from self.politics
Reddit is a hellscape. by Seraphim in Introductions
[–]IamCleaver 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun - 27 days ago (0 children)
This is exactly why I switched to this platform. The issue isn't only about free speech. The issue is with the whole moderating culture. Some rare subreddits are ok, but many have literally pages of vague posting rules that are ridiculous to read and impossible to follow.
Where are all the conservative socialists in the West? by IamCleaver in politics
[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
Again, that is why we need the state to control it.
[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 1 month ago* (0 children)
"When you say "less fortunate", or otherwise claim that fortune is the reason someone has more, then YOU are saying they didn't earn it."
No I don't. That is a false conclusion you drew so it would fit your argument. I largely don't care how worthy somebody is of having wealth. All I care is that he, being wealthier then others for whatever reason , would help others improve their well-being.
If he isn't going to share his wealth with the rest of society, what need does the society have for him? Why shouldn't the society simply expropriate everything? If he isn't serving his function in the society, if he doesn't want to be a part of it, if he doesn't want to share, if he os not part of the team WHY should the society provide him with security and protection???
Of you are not part of the group, you are an outsider, and if you are an outsider, what moral reason dors the society have not to simply take everything away from you???
To prevent all that from happening, we have welfare where the "strong" take care of the "weak" and try help them get stronger.
You are putting words into my mouth. I don't care whether they "earned" it or not. They have more, therefore they can afford to share more and that is all I care about.
That is what every capitalist thinks until an angry mob reminds him of his true place with a pitchfork.
If it wasn't for the society, he would be in Savannah chasing his week's meal. If it wasn't for the society, anybody with a bigger stick would be able to take everything away from him. We are social creatures. We live in a civilization without which we would be nothing more than hairless apes walking on back legs.
Stealing is taking in secret something that doesn't belong to me. Until the wealth has been taxes it isn't yours. The society (represented by the state) takes the share it deems fair in the form of taxation, and lets you keep the part that is now yours. Feel free to do with it what you want.
I don't see how it is relevant. A thief breaks tho society's rules.
I don't need to because I don't see how it is relevant. It could be one or the other or a mixture of both. The point is that I still believe that those who are better of owe it to those who are less fortunate.
Depending on what you mean by "lazy" and "provide". I believe that food, shelter, basic education, security and healthcare are human rights that every citizen must have access to regardless of anything. If a person simply doesn't want to work then he should still be provided with food and a bed in a clean and safe environment. If your economy can afford it, then swap "bed" for "room". Healthcare includes psychiatric help and education includes helping someone find a job.
Other then that I say the society shouldn't needlessly waste resources on those who simply refuse to give back despite being able to.
A lot of things that a society should provide isn't direct support of individuals. We should be building fairer cities that can be navigated without a car. Mixed neighborhoods that prevent the growth of economic segregation, cheap, high quality public transport etc.
But it is not free and you are deluding yourself by using that language.
But it is not free and you are deluding yourself by using that language.
You are the one deluding yourself. Free is something you don't pay for. There is no other definition.
"working harder" Or is perhaps lucky. Regardless, we are all part of the same society and must provide for the less lucky. Those who want to hoard the wealth for themselves with delusional thoughts that they earned it themselves should to jail and lose their ill-gotten gains.
"The reality is that rich people avoid taxes" As I said, the US has a terrible taxation system. That is not an excuse to stop taxing at all. I would primarily tax corporations - not private individuals.
I am not from north america, but even then not everyone is eating healthy where you live. You have terrible urban environment, very unequal education, NO FREE HEALTHCARE!!!!. In the 21 century it is ridiculous. As long as some person doesn't have access to free healthcare you should bleed the greedy bastards with taxes.
"make something of themselves" The society allowed that him to grow wealthy. No it is time for him to repay his debt.
We agree on something. I guess now we only need to agree how much freedom and where is too much.
"Your birthright is that which your father provides you, and citizenship. That's it." Sincerely disagree with that. I was born into the society and it owes me as much as I owe it. A society that owes me nothing is a society that I will not be part of.
First, I don't turn my nose away from private initiatives (charities?). I am all for them as long as they are in addition to and not instead of the state programs. You see, a charity is just that: a charity. It can help you but it forces you to rely on other people's kindness. That is degrading. If I am in need I the help is my right. I shouldn't come begging to some charity. I should be able come proud banging my fist on the table. I am a member of the society and I am in need - it should be the state's duty to help me.
"They simply want as much freedom and autonomy as possible" I am not sure that is what I want. Freedom is good, but too much freedom in wrong areas may lead to chaos and social anarchy. That is not what I want.
"Why do you call it free when it isn't free?" I am not paying for it therefor it is free for me. The people who are paying for it are those who can afford to (at least that is how it should be). A rich person isn't going to starve if you tax him so there is nothing immoral in making him share his wealth with those who need it more. A rich person is a part of the society. A society that has allowed him to get rich. He owes that society for that.
Marxists-Leninists would say that we ought to take away all his riches and redistribute them equally. I am more liberal in this regard. I say that as long as the richer people do their duty and support the poorer ones by paying taxes, they should be allowed to keep their wealth as a "reward" for having generated it. Everyone must do their duty for the good of the society as best they can. The poorer ones do their duty by working and the richer do their duty by by managing wealth production and paying taxes.
"forcing one person to pay for the benefit of someone else" If this someone else needs it more, it is our duty to make the rich person share instead of hoarding his wealth for his greedy self.
"Not providing all your wants" My state provides me with most of what I believe is my birthright. It could be of higher quality and that is worth trying to achieve, but at least it is something.
"It's the fact that the government always provides a very poor value for the money that is taken which makes for the most compelling argument to limit government as much as possible, not to expand it with infinite welfare programs." That is the most ridiculous argument I have heard. If the state is inefficient at helping people then we shouldn't help people at all? If you were in need, would you rather you were helped inefficiently or not helped at all? The whole point of having a government is to redistribute wealth. Tax the rich, support the poor. It is its primary function, this and law enforcement. Besides, a lot of inefficiencies can be easily removed with better planning.
"very poor value for the money" If you know a better way of redistributing money to the needy I would be glad to hear it.
"The only apparent difference in what we have and what you want is the amount of welfare and wealth redistribution." Of cause. Welfare is key. How the wealth is created is irrelevant. Free healthcare, free (yet meritocratic) education, accessible housing, high quality (preferably free) public transport. What is the point in supporting the state if it doesn't support you back as best it can?
I am not sure what you were trying to say in your first paragraph. Are you saying that what I want isn't socialism but some form of capitalism? In which case, I really don't care how someone calls it - I care about the substance. What would you call it?
With that attitude you wouldn't get far in life
I am not talking about Luke. I am talking about how I dislike how autocratic leaders are being automatically assumed to be evil.
"It's not society that should make those decisions, it's the mall owners." Ok. Replace the mall with the park. BTW, I say the mall owners should have no say in how their customers dress. That is not their business.
"No good will come from it. " A healthy society with healthy families and a healthy population growth. The total sum of human happiness increases.
"Some are good, some are pointless, and some are bad." Who are you to decide which ones are which?
"be proud of your nation" Let me rephrase it for you: be a patriot.
"nor is it even close to worth what was taken from us." It is not for us to put a price on our duty.
"My mere existence does not affect you unless I start bothering you" True. Innocent until proven guilty. As long as I don't see or hear you breaking social norms I wouldn't care.
"I'm not surprised you hate Christianity too" Why should I like it? A antihuman religion of bronze age savages.
"Which is why capitalism is superior. " Capitalism refers to the control over means of production. Private or public. It has nothing to do with social norms.
I think that is the very definition of a political strawman. The emperor is evil as to make democracy look good. I myself despise (liberal) democracy.
The truth is not good nor bad. It is what it is.
The term isn't "conspiracy", the term is "conspiracy theory".
The emperor of star wars is a caricature of what liberal-democrats see as evil. I see liberal democracy themselves as the ultimate evil.
I know mine
Of cause you need that. Nobody says that the government should be able to come and take your property... just tax you out of existence if it deems so necessary.
As long as business has no say in politics, pays its taxes and adheres to government policies it should be left to its own devices.
"especially when they have not been wronged" Not following the socially accepted norms wronging others. You don't go naked to the mall even if it is a hot day. The society does not approve of it and you conform to that regardless of what you think of it yourself.
"morals or principles to live by" No morals or principals that you agree with you meant to say... My morals are simple and straightforward: perform your gender roles, support your family, respect your traditions, be proud of your nation, make sure everyone in you society does their part. In return, you nation owes you your basic amenities, security and protection when you need it.
I am not interested in anecdotal reports and conspiracy theories.
"Did you know it's illegal to live off the grid?" What? Not where I live.
"But what does order accomplish except to benefit the elites?" Benefits everyone else who are happy to live a quite life? To me, stability and predictability is the ultimate value. Stability is the soul of prosperity. Those who rock the boat damage that stability threaten that prosperity: my prosperity.
"I also find it interesting how you are almost exclusively obsessed with gays and "men dressing like women"." This is what bothers me most in the West. Those kinds of abominations. I would also want to eradicate Abrahamic religions, but given the choice of one, I would prioritize preventing LGBT/feminism etc.
"A city is made up of thousands of separate properties" What has property to do with anything? It is a city of thousands of INDIVIDUALS you wanted to say? I agree. It is not only up to me to decide. It is up to the whole crowd. If the crowd (society) agrees on something then the few non-conformists should go fuck themselves.
"nfiltrators, false flags, and other ways they can manipulate you into being their tools of oppression." What?
That would entitle me to form a tribe and try to take you out. THAT is out natural state. Do you want that?
"Fuck all intolerance" Tolerance is weakness.
The truth is the truth. It is what it is. We should accept it and act accordingly.
"tax payers are paying for it" Good. If they have the money to spare they should pay their taxes which could be used to help the needy.
"And it is a distraction not a tool they use to better themselves." Another conspiracy theory? You are using it right now.
Can you explain please. I never meant to.
"Wrong because it's responsible for evil and corruption and causes us to dehumanize others" Bullshit.
"Stalin" What is YOUR problem with Stalin? I have some but overall I respect him. I want to here why you compare him to Hitler (btw, comparing Stalin to Hitler is a crime where I live)
"What makes them bad and you good when you do exactly the same thing?" Nothing. I never said it anything about good and bad. There are no good and bad. Just your friends and your enemies. Those part of your society who share your values and the outsiders.
" I said they shouldn't be allowed to beat one up and murder him." I never said anyone should murder anyone. I am against the death penalty (at least for my fellow citizens). I said that if you are the minority, get conform or face the wrath of all others. For example, where I live the constitution bans gay marriages. It was passed on a referendum in a landslide. There is a small minority that think they have the "right" to gay marriages, but the society at large thinks otherwise. The society beats the desires of a minority.
[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
"Suffering for the rest of your life" More like for a day or two with a slight fever. I trust my country's ministry of healthcare.
because society owns that too
because society owns that too
Yes you can. Nobody would care if you live in the wilderness.
"Which should change. Why do you like tyranny?"
No it shouldn't. What is tyranny to you is order to me. What is liberty to you is disorder and chaos to me.
"Or we can agree to disagree and if two parties can't manage to get along they should avoid each other. "
Sure, that is a great idea...only what if the issue is so contentious and fundamental that you cannot avoid each other? Like what if some ring of perverts decides to organise a gay parade in my city, and I would rather the city were to turn into ashes then have them desecrate its ground.
Good like fighting nature. I prefer to embrace it.
Why? Since internet is something everyone uses it should be a free service. Obviously you should put a cap on how much someone should be able to use for free a month like 30GB or so, but everyone should be able to freely access it.
"There is no "free market"."Very true. That is why I support tight government regulations.
"No, we should drop our pride and stand against it because it's wrong." Wrong because you dislike it?
"love your neighbor rather than hate your enemy," You should do both. Love those who are part of your family, your community. Hate the outsiders who wish you harm.
"Imagine an enemy takes over tomorrow and institutes their norms" Then I would go to war and try to reinstall my norms. I would not mingle with the enemy and take up his. He would probably follow my advice and try to force everyone to conform. Just because someone could use a gun against you doesn't mean you shouldn't use it against them.
"No, it's society's problem for not being able to tolerate someone different from them in even the tiniest matters." No, because the society is many and someone is ONE. One is less then many. Seven don't wait around for one.
"Why should I?" Because if you don't - go live in the woods alone. If you are part of the group follow the rules.
"Or they can peacefully coexist" No they can't. If you are breaking the rules I hold dear there will be no peaceful coexistence.
"You clearly have a cold heart. What meaning do you find in this?" What do you mean what meaning? If you are in a minority on an issue, you should accept the majority's decision and adhere to it. Those who are in the minority should also accept you decision when you are the majority. Democratic centralism: we first agree on something and everyone sticks to it.
fuck all non-conformists
fuck all non-conformists
Yes, fuck them. They are the ones who are deharmonising the society. Particularly if they are doing it on-purpose
"Being free from conformity." In which case those people are rightfully angry.
Guns? What would civilians need guns for? Weapons should be very tightly controlled. The state must keep its monopoly on violence lest everything turns to chaos.
"Not everyone is able" Most are.
"or willing" if you aren't "willing" than it is YOUR problem, not mine.
I repeat my question: "What is it you are doing that makes everyone so angry"
I don't envy you. I value security and stability above short term personal freedom. You seem to have a fetish with "liberty" and "democracy". I myself would much rather if the president (or the emperor if you like) weren't elected my the masses, but appointed by the previous ruler. In the US, you constantly have unpredictable elections that could go either way adding much anxiety. Not only that, but the winner usually wins within a margin of error. Honestly, if you think that a president should be elected by the people, then nobody who gets under at least 2/3 of the votes has the legitimacy to rule over others.
I wouldn't mind it that much. I would take the vaccine tomorrow if I were to get at least a hundred dollars for it. Not having access to free healthcare and having to take loans to go to university is a much bigger deal for me.
What programs do you have that you don't like?
Time to try again. This time, lets keep it civil.
You blind faith in the market is unsettling.
[–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
Somehow, ALL European countries have handed their medical power to the government and are doing just fine.
"here are no limits set in your system" There is: if you take too much the business will go bankrupt. That benefits nobody.
"everyone knows that if the government has the power to take everything then they will take everything" I don't "know" that. That is just libertarian bullshit.
"All businesses provide a benefit or they go out of buisness." If by benefit you mean somebody wants them then yes. This is not how I define "benefit". A drug dealer is a beneficial business by your definition. I say that the community has the right to decide whether a particular business is beneficial and therefor has the right to exist. If it benefits a minority at the expense of the majority then it should cease existing.
Of cause we should control business. Without tight government control, private enterprise is just a merciless money-making machine that stops at nothing to increase its profit. May I remind you that social media giants are businesses and require VERY tight government control.
So what is wrong with the government? I AM a statist
Capitalist? I don't usually use this term but the opposite of socialist. Free market. Reducing government involvement in the economy. Against social welfare, free healthcare etc.
Liberal? Somebody who puts the freedoms and needs of an individual above social norms, traditions and needs.. Supports LGBT, feminism, gender non-conformism...
[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
I disagree. It can get out of control under certain conditions, but usually it doesn't. Humans are naturally tribalistic. We are adapted to fitting into the society we live it.
Where I live it isn't mandatory.
"Ripe for rampant abuses." How so? Most countries manage to do with a single, nation-wide legal system just fine.
"...collectively..." That is what the national parliament is for.
Oh. I am sorry. I assumed you were American. I am Russian BTW.
"you can only allow a central government to be strong if the nation has a strong, nationalist leader." True. The system should promote strong nationalist leaders.
Because it isn't taking ALL the profit. Just as much as it can get away with while still making the business a valuable asset for its owner. Let me clarify if: I was probably a bit too harsh. A business can provide benefit for a society in multiple ways. Taxes is the most obvious one but others include providing jobs, providing necessary services that a government is unable to effectively provide, etc. The point is: business should exist for the benefit of the society, not the other way round. If the business is not socially valuable in any other way, then at least it should be milked for taxes. Just because somebody is making a profit doesn't mean the business is socially valuable.
If a welfare program is being exploited by those who don't need it it is a badly designed welfare program. That should have been accounted for before its implementation.
A good example of a safeguard would be giving out food instead of hard cash. Or giving a card that can only be used to buy particular products.
From Google's dictionary: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR regulated by the community as a whole"
That is at least on of definitions. By this definitions, businesses might not be directly owned by the government, as long as the government is keeping them in check. I believe in strong government regulation of (mostly) privately owned business. If you support a stricter definition of "socialism" then you have that right, but for now, the term fits my meaning, at least in sensu lato.
Our taxes? It isn't our taxes. I might not be paying any taxes because I am a hobo on the street. What good would it be for me if the government were to stop collecting taxes from people and entities who can afford to pay them?
Corporations should only exist for the purpose of producing taxing them. They are the milking cows. When your cow stops producing milk you slaughter it and eat it.
First, no. Secondly I said you should respect the values and customs.
"Socialism is government ownership of business." That is a narrow deffiniton. That isn't what I mean when I say "socialism". The businesses can be owned by anyone (unless it is a strategically important business, in which case the government should indeed have the majority of the shares), but the government should make sure that they are producing as much taxes as possible and that those taxes are benefiting the whole society and providing help for the needy.
Are there any Socialist conservatives? I don't see a contradiction between socialism and conservatism.
[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 1 month ago* (0 children)
"Tyrants." Sounds like a straw man.
"How's this suit you?:" Not really. I would want to live in a unified nation. I would prefer something like this:
If I were American, I would want unify the criminal code for all states and hand the authority over it to the central government. Same for education standards. Healthcare, universities and highways should be handles by the States, but that is pretty much it.
Russia. It is a pretty common world view here. It seems to be almost absent in the West from what I have gathered.
I the people like you rare in the US? Are there any influencers who fall in this camp?
"Yeah, tell me about why you chose to be born. Oh right, you didn't, nor did you choose where, from what parents, your sex, your genetics, your looks, your talents, or anything." Well, If you don't like being born than go hang yourself (don't! I am not promoting suicide, just making a point). If you were born and raised in a society then you should have automatically picked up on its traditions and norms. Respect them.
"They will attack me for not being identical to them" Unless you really stand out in a way that is unacceptable nobody cares. What is it you are doing that makes everyone so angry (a genuine non-rhetorical question, you got me intrigued)? If you are not causing anyone discomfort then nobody should attack you.
" A collective is merely the sum of its individuals, thus the individual is what matters." I don't get that leap of logic. The collective is indeed the some of its individuals. It is the mean opinion of all its members on all matters important to them. Unless you have a very divided, unhealthy society, the majority of people should share the majority of values. The minority conforms to that collective majority.
Obviously, those few who really stand out in a way that the majority sees as unacceptable, would not like this arrangement. But they are just that. The few; the minority. Seven don't wait for one. If the majority finds it offensive for men to dress like women, then nobody should dress like a women.
"That really needs to stop." That is never going to stop because that is just how humans evolved to operate. We are social creatures who take up the traditions and customs of those around us. We should praise it and accept it.
"With humans, it always is." By your definition perhaps...
"For some people it is" But for most it isn't. The majority shouldn't conform to minority. If it is hard for you but fine for 90% others then tough luck. Seven don't wait for one as the saying goes.
What social norms are you so firmly against anyway. I never found it that hard to follow the norms of the society I grew up in and when I did it was my problem - not that of the society.
Ah. Yes. That does make sense. I just find this particular alignment weird.
"Keep saying that but someday its worst enemy Jesus will return and overthrow the power it unrightfully stole." Or maybe Zeus. Or perhaps Vishnu...it is hard to guess. I prefer to assume non of those guys.
"But I never joined society. I was forced into it, and so was everyone else. We were kidnapped. We are slaves." What? Maybe where you live that is the case, but I personally was BORN into the society.
"If no one can be themselves, if no one can live life, what's the point of living at all?" If by your standard, being yourself is breaking the rules then you are causing more damage to others then they are causing to you (since you are one an they are many). I have no trouble living without causing discomfort to others.
"And what's the point of having a society meant to improve peoples' lives if it ends up making it worse?" The way I see it, a prosperous harmonious society is the key to improving people's lives.
Yes, I understand that, but I was under the impression that you were saying that conservative socialism is somehow against human nature.
Well, if you grew up in it so you probably should share most of its values and customs. Respect them. Besides, unless it is a very unhealthy prescriptive society, it really isn't that hard to follow social norms.
Why is that evil? We live in a society. We are its members. The society is the source of morality (because there isn't anyone else). If there is a consensus that wearing a certain element of clothing is unacceptable then don't wear it publicly. Don't make people angry on purpous. As members of the society, I strongly believe it is our duty to conform to its norms. The more a society is homogeneous the less there is room for conflict, the more stable it becomes. Don't rock the boat unless it is absolutely necessary.
The issue is that this arrangement is unique to the west. Where I live, we have the total opposite situation: we have liberal capitalists and conservative socialists (the majority). The are some liberal socialists but I am yet to meet a conservative capitalist.
Can you not "enjoy" the society without going against it?
[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 1 month ago* (0 children)
"How do you define socialist?" In broadest terms, for me, a socialist is someone who believes that the economy should serve the society and not the other way round.
"This could range from GOP's minimum wage to communist tyranny." You can overdose on anything, communism is the extreme form of socialism which has been proven not to work. I am not a fan of minimal wage. Not because I don't am against minimal income but because it promotes illegal hiring to circumvent it. It is much better to tax the companies and redistribute the income through various means to the needy.
"Extremist far "Left" Social Justice Warrior cult." From what I have seen it seems that anyone who is economically a socialist tends to at least sympathise with these ideas. I would be glad to be proven wrong.
"This could range from the Moonies to all religions." What makes all religions better then the moonies? I have no hostility to Zoroastrianism, but when it comes to Abrahamic religions I see them as a huge burden on the society.
"What about corporate media and celeb "conservatives"?" What about them? I don't exactly know what you mean. I am not from the US.
What are you trying to say?
Municipalities with more freedom? I am all for it. One question though: who will help out poor communities? Who will guarantee that a rich community shares its wealth with the rest? Who will build high-speed trains and other large-scale infrastructure that benefits the whole nation? Who will maintain the military?...you get the point: we need a strong central government non the less. If I were American though, I would advocate for reducing the rights of States and increasing the rights of municipalities while keeping the central government intact.
Ok then. I am a SOCIALLY conservative socialist. I believe that the societal norms and traditions are above the wishes and freedoms of individuals. That doesn't mean that the individual is irrelevant, but one should not do what is considered socially unacceptable. You are free to express yourself as you wish as long as the society at large doesn't disapprove of it.
What do you mean by "corporations"? As in private commercial companies? I believe they should never be allowed to have any say in matters of politics and the society. Their sole function should be the generation of wealth that could then be taxed and used by the government for the good of the society. I completely agree that individuals should have more rights than corporations.
Family values. Societal norms above personal freedom. Respect for traditions. That is the gist. I can give a more detailed breakdown if you want.
[–]IamCleaver[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun - 1 month ago (0 children)
By your definition anyone who doesn't support Liberalism and is a socialist is a Nazi?
[–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun - 1 month ago* (0 children)
To you I wish to loose everything dime you have so you would have to rely on welfare to survive. I hope that might teach you a lesson on why we need it. If you do get welfare, you might recover and stand up back on your feet again. Without social welfare, you would probably starve...