-->
@RationalMadman
let's say I'm an ignoramus who doesn't know what Libertarians believe, set out your beliefs fully and I will tear to shreds every bit of hypocrisy and double-standards in it.
My beliefs are on my profile page.
I don't think any of the parties are 100% consistent
Posts
Total:
38
-->
@Double_R
The Democrats goal is not big government. Democrats believe government is how we come together to solve our problems, and in many cases it’s the only institution that has that ability. If say everyone stops spending on the heels of an economic collapse, government is the only institution with the means and motivation to spend so we can mitigate the damage. When this is your view of government, naturally your policies will amount to a big government. But that is the effect, not the point.
So, democrats are willing to have big government in order to as you put it "mitigate the damage". What is your definition of damage? If your definition of damage is lost of life, then wouldn't the democrats be pro life as well?
Immigration is a complex issue, but most democrats don’t want less restrictions, we want humane ones.
Pretty much all the humane restrictions are already in existence. Democrats tend to want less restrictions on immigration.
Owning a firearm puts the safety of everyone around you subject to your ability to carry it responsibly
So your saying the democrats are pro safety? If so, then with few exceptions, being pro choice and pro safety are contradictions. Pro choice means you have the freedom to do something. Being pro safety means that you don't want people to be allowed to do something because it's too dangerous. One could argue that abortions puts the unborn in danger, so if the democrats are pro safety, they would be against abortion. (Assuming people were 100% consistent), being pro life would by synonymous with being pro safety, and being pro choice would be synonymous with being pro freedom. Instead, we have the right being pro life/pro safety on abortion, and pro freedom/pro choice on guns, and we see the left being pro choice/pro freedom on abortions and pro safety/pro life on guns. Can't people either be consistent or justify their inconsistency?
But beyond that, cancel culture is about holding people accountable for the pain that they’ve caused others. I personally think it’s gone way to far, but there is no inconsistency here.
I'm glad you think cancel culture has gone way too far. However, cancel culture has caused more pain that it has reduces overall. It has destroyed careers and made people sacrifice their pride to go on welfare (pretty painful) in the name of trying to reduce the pain that others have felt for a few seconds when they were offended. If your an anti pain democrat, you ought to be against cancel culture because it produces more pain than it eliminates.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Doesn't consistency have to be portrayed or explained first?
You don't believe in pure freedom like a Libertarian so please explain that inconsistency.
-->
@TheUnderdog
So, democrats are willing to have big government in order to as you put it "mitigate the damage". What is your definition of damage? If your definition of damage is lost of life, then wouldn't the democrats be pro life as well?
Damage is whatever the opposite of a solution is. Again, democrats believe that government’s job is to solve problems. It’s that simple. No one values big government, that’s just where you end up when you have a lot of problems to solve.
Pretty much all the humane restrictions are already in existence. Democrats tend to want less restrictions on immigration.
Less is a relative term. Republicans wanted to spend billions of dollars on a wall to stop people from coming in via plane and smuggling drugs in via tunnels. Wanting less then that isn’t saying much.
So your saying the democrats are pro safety? If so, then with few exceptions, being pro choice and pro safety are contradictions.
They have nothing to do with each other. The abortion debate is about who has the greater right to a woman’s body, the child or the mother? No one wants the baby to die, but if you believe the woman has a greater right to her own body then you are forced to support her choice because the baby can’t live outside of it. Pro gun safety is about recognizing that your right to a firearm increases the danger to those around you. These are different things.
If your an anti pain democrat, you ought to be against cancel culture because it produces more pain than it eliminates.
This is like arguing that criminals shouldn’t go to jail because the victim is already dead, so all it does is increase the pain. Again, setting aside instances where it goes too far, this is about accountability. Should Rosanne Barr have lost her entire show over one joke? No probably not, but it does set a tone that this kind of disrespect towards black people is unacceptable, that is a clear attempt to reduce pain.
-->
@RationalMadman
You don't believe in pure freedom like a Libertarian so please explain that inconsistency.
My profile, as of the time of this comment, doesn't claim I'm a libetarian. It claims my ideology is, "Other".
I believe in mostly libertarianism, but I have a few ideas where I diverge, like what I stated. If you have any ideas on where else I diverge from a "pro freedom" ideology, state it and I could justify the inconsistency.
-->
@Double_R
The abortion debate is about who has the greater right to a woman’s body, the child or the mother?
The abortion debate is freedom(for the woman) vs safety (for the unborn child). It is about choice (for the woman) vs life (for the child). In this context, choice and freedom are synonymous, and safety and life are synonominous.
Pro gun safety is about recognizing that your right to a firearm increases the danger to those around you.
The gun debate is is freedom(for the gun owner) vs safety (for everyone around him). It is about choice (for the gun owner) vs life (for everyone around him). In this context, choice and freedom are synonymous, and safety and life are synonominous.
This is like arguing that criminals shouldn’t go to jail because the victim is already dead, so all it does is increase the pain.
Many liberals believe in Scandinavian justice, which is to punish the murderer as little as possible while making sure he isn't a threat to society anymore.
Should Rosanne Barr have lost her entire show over one joke? No probably not, but it does set a tone that this kind of disrespect towards black people is unacceptable, that is a clear attempt to reduce pain.
It doesn't reduce pain since she lost her show and has to maybe go on welfare because of a joke she made. This causes way more pain that the amount of pain a black person received from a joke about black people, as this pain is temporary, short lived, and honestly, less intense than losing your job.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Ah, so you admit you have a varied and inconsistent outlook? Welcome to politics.
13 days later
-->
@RationalMadman
I try to be consistent. I don't know how I'm inconsistent.