Political issues important to you

Author: Tejretics

Posts

Total: 71
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
- The gradual dissolution of republican governments in favor of near-absolute monarchies

- An increase in the Catholic Church's power over western nations, as well as internal changes to the Church itself

- An increased use of the death penalty and law enforcement

- Strict enforcement of anti-trust laws

- Subjugating big corporations to carry less power and influence over the economy and society

- A reversal of LGBT rights, pornography/obscenity consumption, feminist advancements, etc. 

- A general doing away of progressivism, hedonism, and social liberalism in favor of traditional values
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,222
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Tejretics
Interesting. I thought Gandhi was up there with Abraham Lincoln as national heroes.


ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tejretics
Yes, really. I prefer challenges.

You're replying to Plisken, not me. 

Are you Hindu or Muslim?

I'm an atheist.

I love how you're too scared to debate me.
Lol. Most people love the things they make up. But I've been debating you, and beating you, right here.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@triangle.128k
- An increase in the Catholic Church's power over western nations, as well as internal changes to the Church itself
Changes like what? Doctrinal or church structure?
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Ghandi was assinated by someone just like him. An Indian equivalent of antifa.
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@ethang5
Both, but ideally after reform occurs towards rooting out corruption, and removing its elements of modernism.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,222
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
Gandhi was assassinated by someone just like him. An Indian equivalent of antifa.
I suppose some Indians would prefer remaining a British colony than to admit Nationalism was a good thing.

Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot
I suppose some Indians would prefer remaining a British colony than to admit Nationalism was a good thing.
It's debatable whether the nationalist aspect of the independence movement was essential to getting independence.

However, even if it was, nationalism then was a strategic calculation to unify people. In modern day, it's used to divide people and causes oppression on ethnic/religious lines. 

Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@ethang5
Ghandi was assinated by someone just like him. An Indian equivalent of antifa.
No, Gandhi was assassinated by a far-right extremist. The polar opposite of Antifa.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,222
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Tejretics
Nationalism divides cultures, not people.

Not all cultures are created equal.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,222
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Tejretics
It's used to divide people and causes oppression on ethnic/religious lines. 
Should evil cultures be oppressed?
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
strategic calculation to unify people.
MAGA

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,222
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Tejretics
nationalism then was a strategic calculation to unify people. 
Should people be unified and be required to assimilate into a national culture?

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tejretics
Ghandi was assinated by someone just like him. An Indian equivalent of antifa.

No, Gandhi was assassinated by a far-right extremist. The polar opposite of Antifa.
India is not the US. Ghandi was killed by a fanatic who wanted to "shout him down" using violence and intimidation. That is the definition of antifa.
KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@Greyparrot
"The eradication of socialism from the universe"

So nuke Cuba and Northern Europe?


KingLaddy01
KingLaddy01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 411
0
1
2
KingLaddy01's avatar
KingLaddy01
0
1
2
-->
@Tejretics
He did say "Antifa" after all, not left wing.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,222
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@KingLaddy01
Socialism nukes countries over time like Venezuela. No outside force is necessary.

It just needs to be eradicated from the schools so that people stop destroying their countries with archaic philosophies that don't work.

Wealth is created through investments and profits, and not manual labor as Marx stupidly stated.

I can punch a brick 24 hours a day for the rest of my life, and not generate a penny of wealth for anyone.

But it's LABOR DOH...LAAAYYBOOOOORRR...
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics

(1) I believe that climate change (i.e., global warming) exists, is human-caused, and is a significant threat. Therefore, I strongly support significant climate change mitigation policies, including a significantly higher gas tax, a tax on carbon emissions on all households and corporations (exempting some low-income and lower-middle class households), significant investment in clean energy, and stronger, enforceable international agreements to attempt to limit global land-sea mean temperature increase at 2.5 degrees Celsius at least.
Your proposed taxes are terrible ideas. I agree that we ultimately need clean energy prices to be lower than fossil fuel prices, but I don't see how that leads you to believe that we should be artificially inflating fossil fuel prices. It's not economically sustainable. Instead, invest in clean energy (through subsidization and further research) to bring its prices down below fossil fuel levels. We should also look more seriously into technologies that can directly scrub greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.


(3) I'm also very pro-immigration -- in particular, I would make it much easier for skilled immigrants to come into developed countries (at least if I'm assessing this exclusively from the perspective of what policies would maximize benefit to those very developed countries). I think unskilled immigrants are also generally an economic good, but that's something I'm much less sure about (due to effects such as lower trust in communities, economic effects like loose labor markets causing wage depression and unemployment for local workers). 
Immigration may be be economically beneficial overall, but I'm an immigration restrictionist purely for sociological reasons. Immigration is clearly damaging to social cohesion, regardless of whether it's "skilled" or "unskilled." For that reason alone, it needs to be kept to a bare minimum. 


(5) I support really strong animal welfare legislation. I believe nonhuman animals have much more moral worth than is accorded to them and the sheer amount of suffering inflicted by factory farming is despicable. I support really tough regulations to protect animal welfare and to reduce meat consumption, including ethical warning labels on meat packaging, potentially sin taxes on some forms of meat, and so on, complemented with significant subsidies for consumers of vegetarian/vegan products. This would reduce net suffering and help combat the effects of climate change and environmental destruction caused by meat consumption. Moreover, I support strong legislation to protect wildlife from human encroachment and devastation. 
It's subjective, so I won't comment on your moral premises, but I'm very amused by the idea that "ethical warning labels" will deter meat consumption.


(6) There are very real threats to democratic structures facing countries like the United States, including voter photo ID laws, limiting the number of voting days, attempting to make voting as hard as possible for low-income and minority individuals, gerrymandering,  and so on. Those are virtually authoritarian threats that need to be countered. Moreover, right-wing populism spreads rhetoric of hatred against minorities and actively blames them for unrelated societal problems and undermines critical democratic institutions such as the judiciary and the press. All of these threats to democracy and democratic values need to be fought in some manner (we could start by electing right-wing populists such as Bolsonaro, Duterte, and Trump out of office; creating independent commissions that control redistricting for elections; etc.). 
Voter suppression is certainly a problem, but the rest of what you said is nonsense. I can't speak for non-U.S. countries, but Trump is not responsible for the recent spike in hate crimes (which has been heavily exaggerated), nor has he done anything to meaningfully "undermine" the judiciary or the press.


On a personal level, though not by the same magnitude on a utilitarian level, I care about social justice issues (e.g., sexual harassment and the #MeToo movement, racist police brutality, racial and gender inequalities in general, affirmative action). However, these don't quite make the cut in terms of sheer importance. 
Eww. Identity politics is poison. I will never vote for any politician who buys into it.
spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics
As for my own priorities...

(1) Universal Basic Income. The American economy no longer generates enough good jobs for everyone. That has already been the case for the past few decades, and it's bound to get much worse in the following decades. I genuinely believe that this will cause the downfall of human civilization if left unaddressed. We need to fundamentally rethink the way in which resources are distributed throughout the population.

(2) Immigration Restrictionism. In order to preserve domestic social stability, U.S. immigration levels should be reduced to around 100,000 arrivals per year. Each immigrant should be selected on the basis of their potential for socioeconomic assimilation.

(3) Medicare-for-All. I've studied healthcare policy extensively, and I don't see any other way to ensure universal healthcare access.

(4) Criminal Justice Reform. You're correct in observing that our criminal justice system is a travesty on virtually every level (e.g. police brutality, war on drugs, lack of rehabilitation resources), and I support many of the same reforms as you. But I reject the notion that "institutional racism" is a significant problem within the system. The leftist tendency to racialize this issue is the #1 reason why it hasn't gained more traction.

(5) Rejection of Identity Politics. As I've said, I despise the leftist tendency to view everything as a conflict between various identity groups, making everything about racism, sexism, etc. It's not just delusional. It's socially destructive.

I also agree with you on the importance of preserving the Federal Reserve's independence, but I don't think it's seriously threatened at the moment.

Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@spacetime
I also agree with you on the importance of preserving the Federal Reserve's independence, but I don't think it's seriously threatened at the moment.
I agree, but my points were mostly country-neutral, and the independence of India's central bank is totally being threatened right now, it's a huge problem. 
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@spacetime
Your proposed taxes are terrible ideas. I agree that we ultimately need clean energy prices to be lower than fossil fuel prices, but I don't see how that leads you to believe that we should be artificially inflating fossil fuel prices. It's not economically sustainable. Instead, invest in clean energy (through subsidization and further research) to bring its prices down below fossil fuel levels. We should also look more seriously into technologies that can directly scrub greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.
I agree about researching climate engineering, though I'm skeptical about whether it's effective. I also agree with investing in clean energy. However, there's good evidence to suggest that a higher gas tax and carbon taxation (e.g., the $40/ton of CO2 emissions proposal) would be effective in reducing CO2 emissions. I don't see why these wouldn't be "economically sustainable." In fact, as far as I know, the majority of economists think gas tax holidays are bad policy and carbon taxes are good (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-tax-favored-by-most-economists/). In fact, the $40/ton proposal was created by conservative economists, who suggested that the tax be made roughly revenue-neutral by returning the proceeds "to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments." (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html) Artificially inflating fuel prices seems fine to me.

Immigration may be be economically beneficial overall, but I'm an immigration restrictionist purely for sociological reasons. Immigration is clearly damaging to social cohesion, regardless of whether it's "skilled" or "unskilled." For that reason alone, it needs to be kept to a bare minimum. 
I think immigration is probably damaging to social cohesion. I think the economic benefits of skilled immigration, nonetheless, outweigh those harms. I'm less sure about unskilled immigrants. I also think there are some evidence that racial diversity also has sociological benefits (e.g., contact hypothesis), but I haven't read the research on that idea and don't know enough, so I'll default to agreeing with you on "social cohesion." Another thing, though, is I'm also unsure, on a moral level, about what level of obligations countries have to noncitizens. People generally agree that development aid is a good thing. Should that principle extend to creating policies for the main reason that they would benefit the immigrants themselves? I agree that countries have a greater obligation to their citizens -- the question, though, is the extent of obligation they have to immigrants and weighing the benefits to immigrants against the possibility of harms to the nations themselves. 

Eww. Identity politics is poison. I will never vote for any politician who buys into it.
Why?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,222
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I love how some people want to put a "sin tax" on fossil fuels....fossil fuels that helped pull billions out of abject poverty and helped to save billions of lives....

Is it a sin to enrich the lives of people and  lengthen their lifespan? Or is Luddism really the future for humanity?

Alarmists would have humanity regress to avoid a sensational future whose prediction is in severe doubt. We have no clue about what the climate is going to be like in 100 years, nor do we know if a warmer planet is going to cause worse suffering to humans in 100 years than the documented suffering they experienced 100 years ago with limited access to fossil fuel.

I trust history over clairvoyants.

In truth, A Carbon Tax is a sneaky tax that turns out to be a levy on work, business and American consumption, a lever to pull down our standard of living while enlarging government even further. Is anyone for that? Maybe authoritarian Socialists willing to trade human enrichment for more authority.



ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Or is Luddism really the future for humanity?

God, we can hope!
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
You, like your pumpkin head defender of murder are confused. The real world is not listening to clairvoyants we are listening to scientists, the people who have saved many more lives than coal burning.
The intelligent people want to use natural resources and not the regressive past it's use by date old technology.
Remember your mantra of absurd hatred of progressives and progression, such an attitude doesn't bode well for one who claims to care about the future.
The future of this planet is in our hands, if you have children or grandchildren your regressive denial of the facts will kill them.
Ludditism is the only future regressives have to offer.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,222
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@disgusted
Oh you mean clairvoyant "scientists" like Rachel Carson?

The only real "Silent Spring" is the holocaust of 800,000 dead people she has helped to murder by banning the one thing that could have killed the malaria bearing mosquitos.


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,222
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
That's fine, the world can revert back to the feudal era when egalitarianism was a fantasy, and only the people in power would have fossil fuels and nice things.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
They say it is climate change, not global warming. But every time they talk, it's about warming.

Why are they afraid to talk about warming?

ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
That's fine, the world can revert back to the feudal era when egalitarianism was a fantasy, and only the people in power would have fossil fuels and nice things.
stop talking dirty to me, you little minx.


disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
But every time they talk, it's about warming.

Why are they afraid to talk about warming?

Ummmm. yeah.

spacetime
spacetime's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 206
0
1
3
spacetime's avatar
spacetime
0
1
3
-->
@Tejretics

However, there's good evidence to suggest that a higher gas tax and carbon taxation (e.g., the $40/ton of CO2 emissions proposal) would be effective in reducing CO2 emissions. I don't see why these wouldn't be "economically sustainable." In fact, as far as I know, the majority of economists think gas tax holidays are bad policy and carbon taxes are good
Economists have a bad habit of getting too caught up in their theoretical models, failing to remember how the world actually works on a practical level. Energy is a major expense for any household or business. It's very obvious how inflating the cost of energy would be harmful. Households will suffer from the reduction in disposable income. Businesses, especially those in energy-intensive industries, will respond either by charging higher prices or by hiring fewer workers (both of which exacerbate the harms to households). "Piglovian taxes" look great on paper, but the reality is that they make life harder for everyone.

In fact, the $40/ton proposal was created by conservative economists, who suggested that the tax be made roughly revenue-neutral by returning the proceeds "to the American people on an equal basis via quarterly dividend checks. With a carbon tax of $40 per ton, a family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year. As the tax rate rose over time to further reduce emissions, so would the dividend payments."
This is an interesting idea, which would mitigate a lot of the harm. But not all of the harm. And I also don't think it's politically realistic to believe that American politicians would choose to sacrifice a major source of tax revenue like that.



I think immigration is probably damaging to social cohesion. I think the economic benefits of skilled immigration, nonetheless, outweigh those harms. I'm less sure about unskilled immigrants. I also think there are some evidence that racial diversity also has sociological benefits (e.g., contact hypothesis), but I haven't read the research on that idea and don't know enough, so I'll default to agreeing with you on "social cohesion."
Social cohesion is an absolute necessity for the long-term sustainability of democratic governance (and autocratic governance too, for that matter). I don't see how it's worth sacrificing social cohesion for a decrease in consumer prices.

Another thing, though, is I'm also unsure, on a moral level, about what level of obligations countries have to noncitizens. People generally agree that development aid is a good thing. Should that principle extend to creating policies for the main reason that they would benefit the immigrants themselves? I agree that countries have a greater obligation to their citizens -- the question, though, is the extent of obligation they have to immigrants and weighing the benefits to immigrants against the possibility of harms to the nations themselves. 
I don't think countries have any obligations to noncitizens, other than to treat them with basic human decency (i.e. don't inflict gratuitous suffering upon them). Development aid is only good insofar as it advances our national security interests.



"Eww. Identity politics is poison. I will never vote for any politician who buys into it."

Why? 
Because it has no basis in reality. I see no evidence for the notion that racism, sexism, or other forms of oppression are widespread within American society. It's all just empty victimhood mongering. All it does is breed a delusional sense of resentment among women and racial minorities. It's a massive disservice to them and to society as a whole.