Total posts: 4,340
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Lets stop making veterans by not sending people to these horrible, horrible wars anymore because war is genocide (not pro life), it is not small government (not libetarian), and gives 20% of the vets involved PTSD (not anti pain).
Trump said he would get us out of the wars, and I supported him in this endeavor. Obama said he would end the wars, and he continued a bunch. Joe Biden said we would end the wars and we are currently bombing 7 different countries (Which countries is the US currently bombing? — Quartz (qz.com)).
We need a politician that will actually end the wars and the bombings, and I don't care if they call themselves a republican or a democrat. There are reasons for both parties to be anti war.
Created:
@RM
In any other highly developed nation, it would horrify everybody in the society that somebody as young as Kyle Rittenhouse could just so easily grab an AR-15 and, on the other end of the spectrum, that the rioters could all be possessing pistols fully able and ready to hurt people
In those highly developed nations, they value freedom less and safety more. It's why they have UHC. It's why they have gun control. It's why they have really restrictive immigration policies (because they are as scared about terror attacks as they are about mass shootings)
America cares about freedom way more than these beta European nations. We don't lock down our country because 10 old people died of covid today. We don't restrict immigration based on one murder done by one undocumented immigrant. We don't restrict gun rights based on very rare mass shootings when gun control doesn't significantly reduce homicide ANYWHERE it is enacted. Americans are a freedom loving people. We are therefore much more relaxed about extremely rare incidents, we worry less about mass shootings than we do about heart disease (makes sense because heart disease kills more people). Europe doesn't have this mentality. Europeans are upset by what the news says, not what is based in actual reality. Americans on the other hand, are a consistent people. They know that if one isn't upset by the 600,000 heart disease deaths that happen a year, it makes to sense to be upset with Sandy Hook or Parkland, combined killed only around 50 people.
Americans are alphas. Europeans are betas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
It's security of a FREE state. In order to keep a state free, the government and the police officers by extension need to be scared of an armed populace so they don't enforce tyranny.
If I dislike a policy by the state a little bit, the state isn't going to be gunned down over it. For instance, if taxes are raised by 10% among every income group to pay off the debt, people probably won't LIKE that, but it's not enough to start a revolution. It's only when the government does something absolutely HORRIBLE that is despised by huge portions of the population that the government is going to have to be scared people using their 2nd amendment.
The 2nd amendment won't prevent the government from doing something that is merely a little bit bad. For example, my state abolished the death penalty for murder. I disagree with this, but it isn't something so horrible that I start a revolution over it. The 2nd amendment is designed to prevent the government from doing something absolutely Horrible and it forces the government to come to a consensus not strongly despised by too many people within the place they are governing in order to prevent a revolution (by building consensus).
A country without gun rights can have a government that doesn't depend on consensus to get laws passed. Such a country can rely on one party rule and minor parties don't get much done. This is how California (a place where semi-automatic guns are banned) is able to achieve reliable one-party rule by locking down their entire state, and the citizens can't challenge the government because if every republican and every independent voted for the republican nominee, the democrat nominee would still win. Gavin Newsom can pass almost any piece of left wing legislation (no matter how radical) and the Californian populace can't do anything about it because they banned semi automatic guns. If Greg Abbott wanted to do something like significently restrict abortion, since Texas is way more gun friendly, democrat gun owners can protest with semi automatic guns to scare the government into giving people liberty.
But even Texan liberal women don't want to arm themselves, so Texas is going to become anti Roe V Wade and there is nothing that will happen because of it because the left is too cowardly to arm themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I was making a joke. It's often the right who uses the term, "libtard" to describe a liberal with retarted opinions (like anti 2A opinions). I'd figure I'd make a parody of that when Dr. Frankin thinks that females who get abortions, BLM supporters, and undocumented immigrants should be stripped of their 2nd amendment rights.
Conclusion: The right only supports the 2nd amendment for like minded conservatives. I support the 2nd amendment for any victimless circumstance, whether it's backed by the left or backed by the right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Notice how the security of the free state is compromised by the fact that many random citizens wield guns they use against other citizens and the police.
Free state, meaning freedom from oppressive and tyranical governments.
Not only conservatives have guns!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No, it doesnt apply to illegal aliens who arent citizens.No, it doesnt apply to BLM terroristsNo, it doesnt apply to females wanting an abortion, thats completely irrelevant
Why not? Are you a gun grabbing libtard now?
The 2nd amendment isn't only for conservatives to defend against tyranny. It's also for left groups to defend against tyranny, you gun grabbing libtard; trying to take people's 2nd amendment rights away from them because you don't like their politics. Sounds like something a communist would do. :)
Created:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
I run a small YouTube channel and if I see that someone dislikes my channel, I view it as freedom of speech. I have actually found it quite amusing as to why people have disliked my videos.
Ronald Regan's attempted killer let out of jail. - YouTube is an example of such a video. I made a video stating how the person that tried to kill Ronald Regean should be put to death because he's too much of a danger. The comments were laughable as to why people disliked my video:
YouTube censored the comments that were reasonable (even if you disagree with the content), "Murderers deserve the death penalty" was basically how it went.
The comments that were allowed to stay were the ones advocating the death of Ronald Regean was somehow justified. So (assuming they opposed the death penalty for murderers due to their left wing beliefs), they didn't want murderers killed,, but they wanted Ronald Regean killed.
Now granted, I think it's all freedom of speech. But YouTube doesn't think so. They think advocating the death penalty for murderers is hate speech but that advocating the death penalty for politicians that are backed by 60% of the populace is fine. I don't get it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If your gf doesn't want you to date other women, that's fine. You don't have to date other women. However, there are some women that are fine with polygamy and these women should be allowed to be polygamous with one man if everyone involved consents to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Clohera is a disease.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The 2nd amendment was written in case the government became tyrannical. There are left wing ways that the government has become tyrannical (such as with abortion restrictions, immigration restrictions, jailing people for weed use and police brutality) and there are right wing ways the government has become tyrannical (like vaccine mandates and jailing people for vaping). The 2nd amendment exists to prevent government from taking our freedom whether that freedom is backed by the left or the right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Where in the second ammendment is tyranny mentioned?
“A well regulated militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE …”. The all capped portion I think means to defend against tyranny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Illegal immigrants aren't citizens and therefore don't have second amendment rights lmfao.
The constitution states “The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
It the founding fathers wished to exclude non citizens, then they would have replaced the word people with the word citizens. Just like if they wanted to ban open carry, they wouldn’t have said, “The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms”.
You didn’t address the females that got abortions or BLM supporters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Civil unions are needed for families to reduce single motherhood. But if you don’t want kids, don’t marry.
Created:
Posted in:
I support freedom of speech, and these states don't:
I don't care if you support Israel. I don't care if you support Palestine. I don't care if you want the state of Israel to not exist. I don't care if you want the state of Palestine to not exist. I don't care if you favor a 2-state solution. I personally don't have strong opinions on Israel or Palestine as I think the US engaging in foreign conflicts is a waste of money.
I think you should legally be allowed to participate in any protest you want, especially in a country that has the first amendment.
Maybe I'm strawmanning this bill. If I am, I apoligize, but this is my understanding of the BDS movement.
If I'm wrong, then we will see what these bills propose. If I'm right, then the hypocritical "pro free speech" right wing now wants to censor views they don't like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Does this religion allow you to have 5 children with 3 different wives? I know Christianity does.
Polygamy ought to be a right as it is victimless and therefore something that ought to be legal.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's his freedom of speech. Grow a thick skin, you SJW!! :)
Created:
Posted in:
The shit in my butt has clohera in it.
Created:
Posted in:
Lets stop sending people to war only for the to die, get PTSD, and waste trillion of dollars.
War should not exist.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
I cannot fathom how you think the 2nd amendment would cover this, let alone the other things you mentioned.
The 2nd amendment would protect undocumented immigrants from tyranny.
If America had pro-life laws and someone wanted an abortion are you saying that shooting the cops down that enforce the law is 2nd amendment?
If someone gets an abortion illegally in this hypothetical America and the cops try to arrest the person, shooting the cops in self defense is using your 2nd amendment right to protect your freedom.
You need a gun to defend against lunatics who can legally and also easily illegally get guns in the US these days.
If this was the sole reason for the 2nd amendment, I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. For instance, murder is something endured by less than 1% of the US population. If your that worried about getting murdered, you should never drive a car again because your odds of dying in a car accident are higher.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The second ammendment does not justify using weapons against the police force enforcing the democratically forged laws of America.
The 2nd amendment exists to defend against tyranny. If that means shooting police officers who try to arrest you for an unjust law, so be it.
The second ammendment does not justify using weapons against the police force enforcing the democratically forged laws of America. One can't just call whatever law or system one dislikes "tyrannical" when the word has a precise definition.TYRANNY: a state under cruel and oppressive government.Does this sound like America? If not, then the second amendment does not support the use of guns against the american police.
It does for undocumented immigrants, females who get abortions (if abortion is banned), and black people if the police are trying to kill them.
If the government became tyrannical, any opposition would be slaughtered by the largest and most well-equiped military in the history of mankind.
The government currently is tyranical in Australlia because of their lockdowns. But they don't have the 2nd amendment, so they are able to enforce their lockdown and commit police brutality on their citizens.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
For citizens, it's kindof like a stock. For the government, it's a debt that they need to pay off.
But this is off topic. Should there be a wealth tax in the future?
Created:
Posted in:
I support the 2nd amendment.
This means if a female who got an abortion wants to use their 2nd amendment right to protect from tyranny, that's their right.
If a BLM supporter wants to use their 2nd amendment right to protect themselves from police, I would support their right to do that.
If an undocumented immigrant wants to use their 2nd amendment right to protect from a tyrannical government (like ICE), I would support that.
The 2nd amendment isn't just for conservatives to act all tough with their guns. The 2nd amendment exists to protect from tyranny. It just so happens that most of the groups that are enduring tyranny now are on the left generally.
So does the right support the 2nd amendment for these groups? Or are they going to be gun grabbing bootlickers to the government? Because bootlicking authority is unamerican.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't know if cryptocurrency will take off. But the stock market has a better track record than crypto, so I'd rather use the stock market to fund the government.
Created:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
I have been inching away from conservatism gradually. It's why I roast both sides now. Kyle Kulinski isn't that left wing. He's a free speech absolutist, and I respect that. He also doesn't give a crap about the culture war. He just wants medicare for all, free college, ending the wars, and a green new deal. Now granted, I don't agree with him on medicare for all, free college, or the green new deal, but he talks about policy, whereas pretty much everyone else left or right is too focused on the culture war. Ben Shapiro and the daily wire are too focused on the culture war.
As America is arguing over transgender bathrooms and whether the vaccine or masks are worth it and if BLM is a good organization, or if abortions should be legal, or if the LGBT community has gone too far, or if CRT is being taught in elementary schools, America is $29 trillion in debt by both people who are conservative on social and cultural issues and by people who are left wing on social and cultural issues. This is because while the American voter is usually well intentioned, the politicians they vote for (whether a D or an R is next to their name) are almost always curropt, they don't represent their base, and they end up serving the interests of their donors instead of the interests of their constituents. Kulinski calls out corruption from both sides a lot, and I respect him for that.
Created:
Updates: Billionaire Wealth, U.S. Job Losses and Pandemic Profiteers - Inequality.org states that billionaires have a total of about $5 trillion in wealth. The vast majority of this wealth comes from the stock market; which grows at 10% per year. A 10% wealth tax on the billionaires raises about $500 Billion every single year. The reason why I don't support a wealth tax right now is because if a wealth tax was implemented right now, then we aren't able to generate more money per year in the long term. Wait a year to implement the 10% wealth tax, and we are able to generate 10% more income the next year and every subsequent year. Wait another year, and we are able to generate 21% more revenue with the wealth tax per year. But this only happens if the wealth tax implementation is delayed by enough time. Also, tax the billionaires at a rate that is more than 10%, and it's unsustainable because their wealth would decrease in the long term which means the wealth tax can't be a permanent source of consistent revenue and will eventually lead to a worsened economy in the long term. I will only support a wealth tax when less than 10% of the wealth from billionaires would be enough to fund everything the government needs to function.
Our government spends about $5 trillion a year when the economy is in the shape it's in right now (about average; not as good as it was in 2016, but better than it was a year ago) (Current US Federal Government Spending (thebalance.com))
Assuming the government decides not to spend any more on any future social programs adjusted for inflation and assuming the wealth in the stock market increases 10% per year, a 10% wealth tax on billionaires would only fund the government's expenditures by the year 2046. Even implementing a 10% wealth tax in 2046 is dangerous because of 2 reasons:
1) No room for income growth. If the federal income is tied solely to the wealth tax and the stock market, then we aren't able to have the federal revenue base grow without an income tax, something that not even democrats want to pay, but they merely tolerate it more than republicans generally.
2) If the economy ever goes into a recession, the government will have to go into debt to pay it off, and there is no money for emergencies.
Because of these reasons, I wouldn't support a wealth tax in 2046 at 10% because it doesn't allow for economic growth and is dangerous if this country goes into a recession.
However, a 7% wealth tax implemented by the year 2055 (assuming things expand at their current rates) would give the US government the ability to do the following:
1) Reduce wealth inequality (something the left wants to do) since this idea targets the billionaires.
2) Eliminate the need for an income tax (something the right wants to do) since the government is funded by taxes paid for by virtually no Americans.
So there is a left wing and right-wing reason to support this idea.
There are some cons to a wealth tax that I don't think stand up to scrutiny. The Wealth Tax: Pros & Cons | taxlinked.net states some. They are:
1) Double taxation: I don't care. If I own stock in McDonalds, eat a burger there, pay a sales tax, and sell the McDonalds stock only to pay a capitol gains tax, that's double taxation. But nobody cares then.
2) Causes Capital Flight: The solution to this; tell every country in the world that by 2055 to implement a 7% wealth tax on all billionaires in their country and get every country to agree. The billionaires have nowhere to go to, as their wealth is in the form of electronic stock, and you can change citizenships of countries, but every country would tax your wealth.
3) It’s Tough to Calculate: No it's not. Whatever the value of their stock and cash assets are; tax them at 7% by 2055. They will probably make it back since the stock market rises at 10% a year, so they will be fine.
Thoughts DARTers?
Created:
Posted in:
I don't say, "Lets go brandon". I say, "Fuck Joe Biden". Fuck any president (republican or democrat) that does nothing about our $29 trillion debt. Fuck Donald Trump; Fuck Joe Biden; Buck George Bush; Fuck Obama; Fuck Ronald Regean. Credit to Rand Paul and Bill Clinton for at least trying to do something about the debt.
Created:
Posted in:
Kyle Rittenhouse was looking for the trouble.
I support the death penalty for murderers, and this includes this thug! Give him the firing squad.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
He used it sarcastically to a white lawyer of his and only to that white lawyer on texts between them, he used it without the hard R as a joke that clearly had absolutely nothing to do with race but I would not at all say there was no issue with him using it, there certainly was.
The left media didn't care that he used the N word in the context he used it (using it to a white lawyer). Would the media be fine with it if I said the N word to a white person as a joke? I thin the vast majority of the time people use the N word is in a joking context.
but this was a private text between him and his non-black lawyer
So I can privately call a white person, "n***a", it's fine?
I am not really sure what you mean with that there's nobody having an issue with Johnson's use of the term.
Nobody cared when Lyndon B Johnson said the N word(and right after segregation when it was more in everyone's minds). Otherwise we would have heard it in schools. Instead, the mainstream media loves Lyndon B Johnson for starting the war on poverty (even though it caused the poverty rate to stagnate after falling for decades and caused the single motherhood rate to skyrocket among blacks, which made their lives much worse than the N word ever did and this further contributed to the poverty rate)(Lyndon B. Johnson - Facts, Great Society & Civil Rights - HISTORY).
When he said, "I'll have them n***ers voting democrat for 200 years", he probably met, "Destroy the black family unit through welfare, create family destroying single motherhood, make black people poor, all to get their votes in elections". Fuck Lyndon B Johnson.
even Lincoln himself was a devout racist
This is off topic, but given that Lincoln made society better than he found it, I'd say Lincoln was overall decent.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Which other people?
Hunter Biden and Lyndon B Johnson. Nobody cared when they said the N word because they are on the left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
I think it's obvious. Eminem said a word that soudned a lot like the N word.
The other people that I have accused of saying the N word you haven't addressed.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
I thought he said the N word here and if I thought he said it, there are many others that thought he did.
No outrage from the radical left.
The other people that I have accused of saying the N word you haven't addressed.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
It's not. I'm American.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
OIP.0rYxaHwBaYJq9InxnfpMJgHaF7 (474×379) (bing.com) shows Biden sniffing a child.
Created:
Posted in:
I have change my mind on this issue and I would like to be public with that. Putting all the blue states in one country and all the red states in another would lead to mass censorship because if you disagree with your state, it's going to get viewed as treason. Then the 1st amendment would be dead. I want to keep the first amendment alive.
Created:
I don't like Trump, but I hate Biden. Biden sniffs the children of strangers without the consent of the children.
Created:
-->
@Bones
I would ban rape because it is immoral and unproductive for the maximisation of one's well being.
You measure immortality by 2 things that both have to be met:
1) Is a victim produced?
2) Is it rare?
If a victim is produced, but it is as common as meat eating, then it wouldn't be viewed by this hypothetical society as immoral. People should be judged by the standards of their culture, not ours. Otherwise, George Washington was an evil dude because he was responsible for the torture of the animals he ate and was responsible for owning hundreds of slaves. But this was a product of Washington's society, so that makes what he did understandable.
When your culture is 97% rapists, your going to advocate for rape being legal and your going to think it's moral. That's how culture works. In a culture where 97% of the population rapes regulary, it gets viewed as similar to killing animals for food. Anyone that objects in this society would get viewed similar to how we view militant vegans in this society. I'm just glad rape isn't that common so we all get to be anti rape. If 97% of men raped regularly, nobody would see it as immoral. You need to know the standards of your culture.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
If gays have sex and straights have sex, the striaght people would reproduce and the gays wouldn't. This causes the straight gene to spread and this causes the gay gene to die out.
With the exception of mutations, I don't know how homosexuality exists.
Created:
-->
@Bones
imagine the rate of rape was 97%, and no one was following the law. Does this mean we lift the law to allow rape?
If 97% of men were rapists, it would be political suicide for any politican to want to ban rape to begin with, and that politician would porbably be a hypocrite if they tried to ban rape because they would probably be a rapist. Thankfully rape is very rare so it can be banned, but frequency and harm of an action determines how illegal it can be.
The frequency of an action must be rare and the harm from the action must be intense to merit a punishment.
If rape (as harmful as it is) was done by 97% of men, then people trying to ban rape would be viewed a lot like vegans are viewed in a society where 98% of us are responsible for the death of animals for food. Banning rape in this hypothetical society would sound a lot like banning meat in this society. If rape was done by 97% of men, then these men would be arguing that they get the right to rape females and that female consent is irrelevent and that females don't have any value. They would argue women would be like animals. I'm not saying this view is right, but people act in accordance with their culture. If your culture has 97% of men that commit rape, then you are going to be fine with rape. Thankfully, that is not our culture.
If the harm is intense and the frequency is common, then banning it gets viewed like banning killing animals for food, where even the people not harming others by not raping would be fine with rape being legal because they would have been exposed to it. They may advocate for ending rape, but it rape was done by 97% of men regularly, then all the non raping men can do is not rape on a personal level.
If the harm is not intense, frequency is irrelevant. It can be legal.
It is only when harm is intense and frequency is rare that an action can be banned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
An 8.65% difference, resulting in a respective $380.60 and $1,209.88 extra in sales tax for those quintiles.
If that's how much it costs per year, that's like $2/day for someone who is an average earner. Whereas the income tax difference is about 3% of your entire income. If you make $100K/year, that is about $3000 saved by switching to Canada, or $8/day. Canada has lower taxes overall and I don't even notice the sales tax. It makes things slightly more expensive, but it's a bargain compared to the income tax.
Assuming Canada's and the US' rates are the same ten years down the line and both countries abolish all deductions, then sure, great idea!
All tax deductions are the government picking favorites and therefore should be eliminated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The very best way to prevent crime would be to immediately execute every human BEFORE they can commit a crime but that us not in keeping with my goal of human wellbeing.
You said your goal was deterrence, not human well being:
I just want to prevent future crime and our current system does the opposite.
There are things that matter besides the well being of murderers. Things like not being a burden to others, deterrence, and economic freedom are all additional things that should be weighed to the anti pain policy that you propose. All these factors must be considered when determining punishment.
I am even concerned with the wellbeing of murderers.
Their well being has to be considered, this is why we shouldn't burn them alive as punishment, even if deterrence is created as a result. However, I think executing them by firing squad is an acceptable punishment. It's quick, cheap, and relatively painless.
The well being of all criminals has to be considered, but it can't be the only thing that is considered.
Created:
-->
@Bones
If abstinence unless wanting to concieve was practiced by the vast majority of Americans, or even if it was preached by the vast majority of Roe V Wade opponents, then it could be argued to be decent advice.
However, we (assuming your American) live in a country where 97% of the population doesn't wait until marraige.
If seatbelts were only worn by 3% of the population, then it wouldn't be considered good advice to reduce accident rates because most of the advocates (assuming they were common as opponents of Roe V Wade) for encouraging seatbelt wearing would be hypocrites since most of them don't follow their own advice and wear seatbelts.
Just as I want all seatbelt advocates to wear seatbelts, I want all people advocating for abstinence to be abstinent themselves. Most of them aren't.
Created:
So, apperantly, 16% of Gen Z people are LGBT and this is significently higher than prior generations.
The argument for justifying this is that gay people were oppressed long ago and this caused people to be in the closect about it.
I think there is some truth to this, but if I were to ask, "Is homosexuality genetic?", most people woujld answer, "Yes".
How can this be the case? If straight people have sex, they produce a bunch of straight babies. Gay people don't reproduce, so I don't know how they are able to spread their genes to make homosexuality genetic.
I think the only other way homosexuality can be popped up is by mutations. However, there are 30,000 genes in the human genome, with an average of 60 mutations.
If the homosexuality gene was mutated the average number of times, this means .2% of the population is gay. Since this gene never reproduces if you get it, this means that due to evolution, the probability of being gay is probably much less than what it would be if homosexuality was an average mutation given the tens of thousands of years of evolution that has happened where the gay genes died out due to not reproducing and the straight genes carried on.
If homosexuality exists and is purely genetic, this means that less than .2% of the US population is gay. Instead, we are observing many more gay people in Gen Z. I therefore think that most people who think they are gay think they are gay because of a few thoughts about men sexually, but I think it's an illusion.
Either that, or the homosexuality gene will in time be replaced by the straight gene.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If the best way to prevent future crime were to have no consequences (which I don't believe I'm just making a point) then that is what I would be in favor of.
This isn't the case. The best way to prevent crimes is to have the death penalty for all crimes by the most painful way possible and to advertise this so people are scared of doing crimes. Not even I advocate this (although religion seems to for the purposes of deterrence). There are things that matter with punishments other than the prevention of future crimes.
I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with revenge.
It's proportional, although I know an eye for an eye for all crimes is a non starter. You can't rape a rapist and expect it to do anything decent. But you can execute a murderer and it prevents him from being a burden to the state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If I offered you a bite of a sandwich you might say "thank you I love sandwiches!" but if I offer you five dollars to take a bite of a sandwich you will probably think "well what's wrong with the sandwich?"
In this analogy, you don't know the contents of your sandwich. However, with jobs, people know what a job entails much more than they know whether or not a sandwich is poisoned so they pick the hard jobs to get paid the most.
If someone offers you $5 to eat one of your sandwiches, you have an incentive to make more sandwiches, feeding more people, and getting yourself rich in the process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
At the moment it is actually privatized prisons that both "mooch of the government" and profit from the slave labor provided by prisoners.
I'm unsure what I think of private prisons, but government prisons take money from the taxpayer as well, so prisoners need to do labor to pay for their living expenses and to pay for the harm they caused to others.
Funny I think you just described CEOs, land lords and bankers here too.
The CEO gets funded through their company. The land lord gets funded by the people he helps out by giving them a place to live. Taking away his house without compensation to give it to the poor is unconstitutional and ruins the whole point of buying multiple homes.
What debt? I don't care about fair. I don't care if they "pay for what they did". I just want to prevent future crime and our current system does the opposite.
All of the following must be considered for punishments:
1) Deterrance/preventing crimes from happening again.
2) Making prisoners pay for what they did in a proportional.
3) Not being a burden to the state
Caring solely about #1 leads to very harsh punishments. For example, if you make the punishment for drunk driving death, you would be preventing future crime. Yet this is a bad idea because it violates bullet points #2. Stricter punishments tend to lead to less crime for the same reason that high prices lead to less purchesing; when the penalty for buying an IPAD is $1000 instead of $500, you will have less people that do it. When the punishment for murder is death instead of a free college degree, you will get less of it, when you make the punishment for drunk driving death instead of a jail sentence, you get less drunk driving. However, the rights of the defendent must be weighed in addition to fairness, therefore we can't execute people for drunk driving, but murder is a crime worthy of the death penalty since it is a proportional sentence. Some places do tougher than proportional sentences (like Saudi Arabia executing people for gay sex), and other places do less than proportional punishments (most EU countries and about half of US states). I advocate for proportional punishments as a principle and slightly tougher than proportional punishment to save money. This means executing murderers and rapists, but not giving the death penalty for any other crime.
I don't care I don't care and we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment which I believe slavery qualifies for.
Whether or not slavery counts as cruel and unusual is entirely subjective, however I don't believe it is cruel and unusual. I don't want murderers living off the taxpayer while contributing nothing back to others. If they did contribute to others, this takes a job away from somebody else, and given that they are murderers, I would support the death penalty for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
So you believe in indentured servitude?
For crimes; yes; that is the law. The alternative is rapists and murderers getting free shit paid for by their victims. I don't want that. If your homeless but don't do any crimes, you only are allowed on government assistence for a certain amount of time. If yousteal from someone, your on government assistence for 20 years; it's ridiculus.
Do you have any moral compass?I would think people would want to fix that.
Everyone has a moral compass. I don't want prisoners leeching off of taxpayers for free. Forced labor is the only way they can pay off their debt.
Society supports the 13th amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So will prisoners be mooching off the government for their sentence? I don't want prisons taking a single tax dollar because prisoners serve no benefit to society whatsoever under our current laws. They are parasites to the government; they don't produce anything and prisoners just take without paying back to society. Enslaving them is how they can pay their debt to society. I don't know how else they can do it as them just sitting in prison doesn't benefit society at all (except for the prisoner threat being neutralized, but the prisoner threat shouldn't even exist and prisoners should not be given free lunch). It's unfair to the victims; it's unfair to the taxpayer, and prison labor is something that should exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Did you know that sales tax is 15% in everywhere but Ontario in Canada while our highest state is 9.55%? Shocker, I know, that there is more than just a federal tax. Also, they have a 5% value-added tax, and we don't.
Sales taxes don't impact the cost of goods much, so I don't care if a place has a sales tax. I don't want to pay an income tax.
Lmao, you're like 19 probably making minimum wage if you work at all.
I'll make more when I'm older. I want to be an actuary. Actuaries make a lot of money. High taxes on high earners is going to effect me once I'm an actuary.
Created: