general Liberal or Conservative?

[Krampus 197]

>Implying I follow the cuckold-left or the dickhead-right.

 

I'm centrist, baby! Both those "parties" have gone off the deep end in ideologies to the point of no return, and are so unwilling to compromise with each other, I find it stupid to be attached to such groups. They lack moderation. Their views are either too radical or too archaic to be considered worth my time. The old farts on the right are too arrogant and close-minded to do something "progressive" and the new age dipshits on the right are trying to turn everything into kumbya hugbox. Eventually they're both gonna start heading towards something close to fascism.

 

But...if I had to choose which party to go for during the Presidential Election, then I'd go Democrat, if only because they seem a little more up-to-date and I'm a bit of an idealist.

[Roketsune 388]

*muahahahas deviously as he rubs his paws together* Woohoo, a thread in which I can briefly describe my horrible political orientation!

 

Anyway, this Political Compass thing lies. I'm probably not far from where it says I am economically, but I strongly disagree with being on the Libertarian end of the spectrum. I'm much more authoritarian that regard.

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

 

I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, as they are both inferior belief systems. I would call myself a sort of liberal/permissive fascist and have very much turned against what we often call liberal democracy. Some of the hallmarks or ideas of fascism I am in massive agreement with, such as a need to save the nation from degeneracy with whatever means are necessary, curtailing voting and reproduction rights, and the development of a strong military. Of course, I'm also vehemently opposed to some of the things they became notorious for, like racism, imposition of gender and sexual mores, restrictions on speech and press, and blatant and irrational imperialism. I think a system that combines fascism and democracy- one that protects speech and press and expression, but limits reproductive and voting rights mercilessly and fairly- would be a superior system to the dog shit our species has come up with thus far.

 

[Kivil 1,721]

I guess I would say I'm a liberal but since I don't know what's what I'm gonna stay out of this

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

Far right in the Libertarian sense. I believe that the core flaw in democracy is that it leads to tyranny by majority. A free society demands the powers of the government must be kept sparse and small at all times. The rights of the individual, social or economic, should not be taken away just because the collective does not approve.

 

No cause, not equality nor safety; not purity nor tolerance; justifies the government's fist on the innocent, nor the creation of a crime with no victim. So-called "Liberals" seem opposed to this concept, which makes me question why they still keep the title.

[CT-1138 3,182]

Far right in the Libertarian sense. I believe that the core flaw in democracy is that it leads to tyranny by majority. A free society demands the powers of the government must be kept sparse and small at all times. The rights of the individual, social or economic, should not be taken away just because the collective does not approve.

 

No cause, not equality nor safety; not purity nor tolerance; justifies the government's fist on the innocent, nor the creation of a crime with no victim. So-called "Liberals" seem opposed to this concept, which makes me question why they still keep the title.

Because we believe in pure democracy. Sacrifice for the common good. Sometimes, you have to give something up for the benefit of mankind. The common libertarian adage is that "If the majority wants your bike, then it's no longer your bike". Well, that happened once in U.S. History. It's called the Emancipation Proclamation. The idea of slavery was deemed, by the majority, immoral. Thus, 620,000 men died preserving the idea of democracy. The South still calls is tyranny to this day, yet the fundamental idea of democracy still stands: that freedom is the right of all of mankind, and that freedom supersedes personal wants. That the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. Democracy, pure and unimpeded, is the logical and efficient form of governing masses. You can't make everyone happy, but you can try to benefit as many as possible. 

 

Interestingly, a Libertarian government was tried out, in Chile. And it failed miserably.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22374-the-failed-libertarian-experiment-in-chile

https://www.vice.com/read/atlas-mugged-922-v21n10

Why? Because it fell victim to the major fault of Libertarianism. Libertarian ideas are good natured and well meaning, but naive. It believes in the idea that people are naturally good. However, it does not take into account that people, many people, are greedy. That they can and will take advantage of good natured souls. It's why Democracy, with all its checks and balances, for the most part works. Libertarians believe that regulations are useless because, at their core, people are good. History has shown this not to be the case. People are generally very inward. They think of the benefits for themselves, their friends, and their family first, and think of the benefits of strangers second. Why? Biology. We're a hunting/gathering nomad species. We evolved to consider the benefits of small villages, not large cities, states, or even countries. Democracy worked best when it was a village of 50 or 60, and 10 of them were the "wise elders". It worked because it was simple. Monarchy, while long lasting, was also self-serving and so led to aristocracy. Aristocracy led to oligarchy, which would eventually be torn down for something that benefited everyone: republics and democracies. Libertarianism takes the ideas of Democracy, and tries to keep the good, while ignoring the bad. The problem is, society is constantly Yin and Yang. There is no good, without the bad. Evil must exist for us to experience the good. I guess, that's what you could call "necessary evil". Regulations are one such necessary evil. Yes, they limit the freedom of corporations, but this is for the benefit of the many. Without regulations, we go back to fingers in the sausages and toes in the ground beef. Sinclair's "The Jungle" is perhaps the best argument ever made for corporate regulations. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Dinos4Ever

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

 

 

Because we believe in pure democracy. Sacrifice for the common good. Sometimes, you have to give something up for the benefit of mankind. The common libertarian adage is that "If the majority wants your bike, then it's no longer your bike". Well, that happened once in U.S. History. It's called the Emancipation Proclamation. The idea of slavery was deemed, by the majority, immoral. Thus, 620,000 men died preserving the idea of democracy. The South still calls is tyranny to this day, yet the fundamental idea of democracy still stands: that freedom is the right of all of mankind, and that freedom supersedes personal wants. That the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. Democracy, pure and unimpeded, is the logical and efficient form of governing masses. You can't make everyone happy, but you can try to benefit as many as possible.   

 

 

Oh god... Please take a history class sometime.

 

For one, the Emancipation Proclamation had almost no legal authority. It declared that all slaves held in states currently in rebellion against the united states are to be freed. Legally, this didn't do anything at all. It didn't affect any Union slave states, and could not be enforced in Confederate states. All it was was a piece of propaganda designed to spark slave rebellions and damage the Confederate war effort.

 

The piece of legislation you are actually thinking about is the 13th amendment, which is what made slavery illegal nationwide. This was a constitutional amendment which superseded the democratically supported institution of slavery. For about 80 years by that point, Southern voters had voted time and time again to uphold slavery. Without fail, the majority always elected to impose this tyranny over their slaves... and their government supported it. If a slave escaped their servitude, then the government would hunt them down and punish them.

 

It was a similar situation with same-sex marriage until recently. Democracy overwhelmingly dictated in southern states that the government should not allow any union besides a man and a woman. The unelected supreme court struck this down with a dicey-yet-valid interpretation of the 14th amendment, which states that the government isn't allowed to discriminate.

 

No Libertarian society would permit slavery. This is because human beings are never defined as property in Libertarian teachings. Because there is a clear and identifiable victim, the practice would not be allowed by even the most permissive of societies.

 

So no, slavery does not function as a defense of majority rule, but as a fierce condemnation of it. In fact, at the risk of invoking Godwin's law, democracy also had no small hand in the rise of... well... you know who.

 

 

 

Interestingly, a Libertarian government was tried out, in Chile. And it failed miserably. http://www.truth-out...riment-in-chilehttps://www.vice.com...gged-922-v21n10 Why? Because it fell victim to the major fault of Libertarianism.

 

Really? Looks to me like it was simply extremely mismanaged.

 

 

 

They claim that Johnson traveled around with $250,000 of the investors' money in cash, which he kept in a backpack he'd sometimes leave in his jeep; that he drank in bars and gambled on roulette with their money; that he fed his dog imported salmon; that he may have been involved with scams to sell phony passports; and that he still refuses to disclose the full list of investors in the project.

 

Regardless of ideology, this man was purportedly the leader of this project. And a very poor leader he was. He didn't get anything sorted out in advance, and may even have been defrauding his cohorts.

 

But where have Libertarian concepts been implemented in the modern world? Piecemeal. There is currently no 100% libertarian society in existence, but there are a multitude of governments that have elements of it. The Index of Economic Freedom studies and ranks nations according to their adherence to the ideals of free market capitalism. Nations near the top may not have excellent social freedom, but when you look at the list you see an extremely clear trend. More economically free nations almost always have better living standards than those further down the list. Singapore in particular has a poverty rate approaching zero.

 

 

 

It believes in the idea that people are naturally good. However, it does not take into account that people, many people, are greedy.

 

Uh... what? Why are you trying to criticize an ideology without even knowing its premise?

 

Libertarianism does not pretend that greed doesn't exist, it embraces it. Greed, as the computer you are reading this on will testify to, has been a force for good since the beginning of life.  People want to build their own stake in the world, and when they do, they will naturally improve the world around them. This is tried and true. Everything you use, see, or have was built out of man's greed.

 

When man is hungry, he plants an apple tree. When he wants something more, he sells the apples. This is how we have driven technology, prosperity, and liberty forward for hundreds of years.

 

Now, obviously I say this as a general statement, not an absolute. It is easy to find cases where greed has motivated people negatively. When you steal from someone, it's because you greedily want something that they have.

 

Greed is like fire. It can and has been used for evil, but when you look at all the marvels of human life that would not be possible without it, that's a small price to pay.

[TheLeastEvil 50]

I tend to lean "conservative" on issues but I have beliefs I consider liberal and libertarian.

[CT-1138 3,182]

Oh god... Please take a history class sometime.

 

For one, the Emancipation Proclamation had almost no legal authority. It declared that all slaves held in states currently in rebellion against the united states are to be freed. Legally, this didn't do anything at all. It didn't affect any Union slave states, and could not be enforced in Confederate states. All it was was a piece of propaganda designed to spark slave rebellions and damage the Confederate war effort.

 

The piece of legislation you are actually thinking about is the 13th amendment, which is what made slavery illegal nationwide. This was a constitutional amendment which superseded the democratically supported institution of slavery. For about 80 years by that point, Southern voters had voted time and time again to uphold slavery. Without fail, the majority always elected to impose this tyranny over their slaves... and their government supported it. If a slave escaped their servitude, then the government would hunt them down and punish them.

Well, yes, the 13th Amendment came as a legal response to the Emancipation Proclamation. The EP was designated only as a wartime decree, which is why Lincoln needed assurance of the 13th, 14th, and 15th before formally ending the war.

 

And they voted for it, time and time again, until one cold November day in 1860, when the majority elected a president that would change the face of the country. The minority (aka, the South), however, acted like a bunch of sore losers. They risked Civil War for their own greed. Are you to say that it was a bad thing that the majority wanted a president that would consider abolition? That, by extension, it was a bad thing that people wanted to abolish slaves, somebody's property.

 

It was a similar situation with same-sex marriage until recently. Democracy overwhelmingly dictated in southern states that the government should not allow any union besides a man and a woman. The unelected supreme court struck this down with a dicey-yet-valid interpretation of the 14th amendment, which states that the government isn't allowed to discriminate.

So you're saying that it was a bad thing to give people equality? The southern states never would have given equal rights to gays without federal intervention. Just like they never would have given equal rights to blacks without federal intervention, nor would they have freed slaves without federal intervention. Once again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

No Libertarian society would permit slavery. This is because human beings are never defined as property in Libertarian teachings. Because there is a clear and identifiable victim, the practice would not be allowed by even the most permissive of societies.

 

So no, slavery does not function as a defense of majority rule, but as a fierce condemnation of it. In fact, at the risk of invoking Godwin's law, democracy also had no small hand in the rise of... well... you know who.

Oh, but it would. By libertarian ideals, the majority should not be able to take a persons property. Slaves are property, therefore according to libertarian thought process, a slave should not be allowed to be freed by a majority decision.

 

Also, Hitler was never elected. He was Chancellor placed into the position by President Paul Von Hindenburg, who was actually Hitler's political rival. Hitler, however, abused his power and his influence over the President to essentially make Hindenburg his puppet. When Hindenburg died, Hitler did away with the entire thing, naming himself Fuhrer over his new German Empire.

 

 

 

Really? Looks to me like it was simply extremely mismanaged.

 

 

Regardless of ideology, this man was purportedly the leader of this project. And a very poor leader he was. He didn't get anything sorted out in advance, and may even have been defrauding his cohorts.

Yes, precisely. It was greed. Greed undid Libertarianism.

 

 

 

But where have Libertarian concepts been implemented in the modern world? Piecemeal. There is currently no 100% libertarian society in existence, but there are a multitude of governments that have elements of it. The Index of Economic Freedom studies and ranks nations according to their adherence to the ideals of free market capitalism. Nations near the top may not have excellent social freedom, but when you look at the list you see an extremely clear trend. More economically free nations almost always have better living standards than those further down the list. Singapore in particular has a poverty rate approaching zero.

I do not deny that parts of libertarianism works. Heck, I agree with some of the ideas myself, including the isolationist foriegn policy. However, pure Libertarianism doesn't work any more than pure Communism works. Like Communism, Libertarianism assumes the best in people, and that's its downfall. 

 

 

Uh... what? Why are you trying to criticize an ideology without even knowing its premise?

 

Libertarianism does not pretend that greed doesn't exist, it embraces it. Greed, as the computer you are reading this on will testify to, has been a force for good since the beginning of life.  People want to build their own stake in the world, and when they do, they will naturally improve the world around them. This is tried and true. Everything you use, see, or have was built out of man's greed.

 

When man is hungry, he plants an apple tree. When he wants something more, he sells the apples. This is how we have driven technology, prosperity, and liberty forward for hundreds of years.

 

Now, obviously I say this as a general statement, not an absolute. It is easy to find cases where greed has motivated people negatively. When you steal from someone, it's because you greedily want something that they have.

 

Greed is like fire. It can and has been used for evil, but when you look at all the marvels of human life that would not be possible without it, that's a small price to pay.

Greed is not good, never has been, never will be. As shown above, greed undid the Libertarian experiment. Keep in mind, Gordon Gekko was the villain of that movie, and he went to jail for greed. 

 

What happens when the man then hires 5 farmhands to help him with his new orchard. He doesn't give two rats about those 5 farmhands, however, and because there's no regulations, works those 5 farmhands for 14 hours a day, no lunch, and pays them only 5 cents for a days work? They're tired, underpaid, and do not have the ability to unionize because they'll be fired if they try to form a union. They can barely feed their families, let alone themselves, and are constantly looking fingers in the apple sorting machine because, again, there's no safety regulations. Putting safety measure in place would cut into profits, and so the apple farmer does not implement them. Apple Farmer's business grows until he is the apple farming baron of the entire town. Nobody can compete with him. His 5 farmhands are miserable, underpaid, the apples are not commonly covered in blood because of the sorting machine the workers constantly cut themselves on, and people are getting sick from eating the only apples they have supply to. The people can't sue because Apple Farmer can not only afford better lawyers, but he can pay for their silence. There's nobody to stop him, because he can pay for silence from any local authority.

 

Then, somebody comes along: Theodore Roosevelt. He doesn't like having blood on his apples, and he doesn't like having other people eat blood on their apples. He wants a freer commerce, so that other people can make competing apple orchards. He implements something called the Pure Food and Drug Act, to ensure that people don't get blood on their apples. Then, he implements a series of antitrust litigation, and wins, and the economy does better for it. These things were called regulations, and the country was better for it, and has been since their implementation.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Dinos4Ever

[SilyGeny 369]

I'm quite liberal, though I don't get too involved in politics at all

[Krampus 197]

Anytime I hear of Libertarianism, I think of Senator Armstrong. Then I can't stop laughing because all I keep thinking of is "nanomachines, son.". Congrats, even Hideo Kojima is taking the piss out of you.

[ARagY 1,152]

Liberal-ish but not far by any stretch of the imagination

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

And they voted for it, time and time again, until one cold November day in 1860, when the majority elected a president that would change the face of the country. The minority (aka, the South), however, acted like a bunch of sore losers. They risked Civil War for their own greed. Are you to say that it was a bad thing that the majority wanted a president that would consider abolition? That, by extension, it was a bad thing that people wanted to abolish slaves, somebody's property.

 

Let me establish a ground rule, before we continue: Do not lie about my position, or what I wrote. The bolded text was lie #1. Address the arguments I make, not the ones you can twist them into. There's a lot of that going on in your post, and I'm asking you to cut it out.

 

Now, down to the meat of it. This depends greatly on how you classify "majority." Geographically, the majority is something different in every region of the world. Over in the middle east, the majority thinks that women are subhumans, and should not have rights. Does that make it okay? In many parts of Africa, the majority believe that homosexuals should be executed. Does that make it right?

 

Or, do you refer to the worldwide majority? In which case... Yeah, good luck getting any consensus there. The best you'll get is a plurality, and if that's what you want: a world where the largest mob rules, then say hi to our new Chinese overlords.

 

The case that occurred in the 1860s was just this question. How big do we expand the border to call our majority? To a single state, to a nation, or to the entire world?

 

In the case of a state, then majority rule would dictate slavery stays.

 

In the case of a nation, then majority rule would dictate that slavery stays in the newly-formed CSA, but is abolished in the US.

 

Or, in the case of the entire world... well, that'd be a hell of a vote to take.

 

In all cases, the abolition of slavery was undemocratic. Whether you choose to classify it as libertarian or authoritarian, the fact remains that it was not done democratically.

 

 

 

So you're saying that it was a bad thing to give people equality?

 

Lie #2

 

 

 

The southern states never would have given equal rights to gays without federal intervention. Just like they never would have given equal rights to blacks without federal intervention, nor would they have freed slaves without federal intervention. Once again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

You're missing the entire point.

 

Again, I am saying that moral good stems from individual liberty, not majority rule.

 

 

 

Oh, but it would. By libertarian ideals, the majority should not be able to take a persons property. Slaves are property, therefore according to libertarian thought process, a slave should not be allowed to be freed by a majority decision.

 

Lie #3... and boy is this a big one.

 

 

 

 

Also, Hitler was never elected.

 

His party sure was.

 

1928

1930

July 1932 (where they won plurality)

November 1932 (they lose a few seats, but retain plurality)

1933 (Majority get)

 

Now, I'm not saying that Democracy should be abolished. Not unless you can think of a better system. I am only saying that there need to be stricter limits as to what the government (even with majority backing) is allowed to do. In the US, we already have something similar to this. The constitution is a set of hard limits to governmental power, and can not be violated by a simple majority. Even if 55% of Americans want slavery reinstated, they can't have it, because the constitution says otherwise.

 

 

 

Yes, precisely. It was greed. Greed undid Libertarianism.

 

You can't just stare gross mismanagement in the face and label it as "greed."

 

 

 

I do not deny that parts of libertarianism works.

 

My point is that every core tenant of Libertarianism has been proven to work individually, if not yet collectively. Economic freedom chief among them.

 

 

 

What happens when the man then hires 5 farmhands to help him with his new orchard. He doesn't give two rats about those 5 farmhands, however, and because there's no regulations, works those 5 farmhands for 14 hours a day, no lunch, and pays them only 5 cents for a days work? They're tired, underpaid, and do not have the ability to unionize because they'll be fired if they try to form a union. They can barely feed their families, let alone themselves, and are constantly looking fingers in the apple sorting machine because, again, there's no safety regulations. Putting safety measure in place would cut into profits, and so the apple farmer does not implement them. Apple Farmer's business grows until he is the apple farming baron of the entire town. Nobody can compete with him. His 5 farmhands are miserable, underpaid, the apples are not commonly covered in blood because of the sorting machine the workers constantly cut themselves on, and people are getting sick from eating the only apples they have supply to. The people can't sue because Apple Farmer can not only afford better lawyers, but he can pay for their silence. There's nobody to stop him, because he can pay for silence from any local authority.

 

But seriously, there are several key points where your hypothetical falls apart.

 

 

 

What happens when the man then hires 5 farmhands to help him with his new orchard. He doesn't give two rats about those 5 farmhands, however, and because there's no regulations, works those 5 farmhands for 14 hours a day, no lunch, and pays them only 5 cents for a days work?

 

Then why don't they quit, or form their business with blackjack and hookers?

 

It's an age-old question. A man is given a choice between working 14 hours a day for 5 cents, and some unspecified second option. He chooses the first option. What does this say about how bad the second option is? This is a question that comes up a lot when the issue of sweatshops is brought up. If people are choosing to work in what is undeniably a terrible job, then their other options are probably far worse.

 

But you know what? I get what you're saying. Don't take away jobs, improve workin' conditions and all that jazz. This brings me to the next point:

 

 

 

They're tired, underpaid, and do not have the ability to unionize because they'll be fired if they try to form a union.

 

Unions are not required for collective bargaining. In fact, modern unions have grown extremely corrupt thanks to this misconception.

 

In reality, 14 hours for 5 cents with no safety standards isn't something that many people would agree to. While low wages will probably end up deflating the currency, and end up being worth more than we think, the safety issue can still be bargained out.

 

Strike, demand better hours, whatever. If you get fired, then spread information about the safety issues to force him to that bargaining table. If you're greedy for a higher wage, you can get leverage for that. No workers means no business.

 

And, of course, if he refuses to capitulate, then just go somewhere else. Let someone else "look" their fingers in the sorter because there are usually other, better businesses out there.

 

 

 

Apple Farmer's business grows until he is the apple farming baron of the entire town. Nobody can compete with him. His 5 farmhands are miserable, underpaid, the apples are not commonly covered in blood because of the sorting machine the workers constantly cut themselves on, and people are getting sick from eating the only apples they have supply to.

 

...

If your apples have fucking blood on them, then competing with you isn't going to be very difficult. Jesus.

 

Look, your story is an over-exaggerated blow-up of what I assume is meant to be Victorian London. There may have been a point to this in the 19th century, but in the 21st, even sharply deregulated economies (see the economic freedom index) don't have shit like this.

 

I can't believe I'm saying this, but... it's 2016.

Edited January 14, 2016 by PathfinderCS

[SolyWack 482]

I would think most (not all) bronies would be liberal, or else they are neutral (or don't care). The brony movement itself is very liberal and would support this argument.

 

From the stories I've shared with fellow bronies, most liberal parents largely supported or at least accepted bronies, while conservative parents largely were against bronies. It makes sense, grown men liking ponies isn't exactly "traditional".

 

Although it's hardly a scientific theory, from what I've seen of this topic, i'm not wrong.

 

I am liberal by the way, although if I see a conservative view I'd rather support (however rare), I won't hesitate to do so.

[Rainboom Dash 1,056]

I am a liberal person too, politically left. It's the general feel in the area I live in.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Rainboom Dash

[AccountNoLongerUsed 741]

I am a Feminist. That should tell you enough about my political leanings. I hate racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, etc. And yes, I am voting for Bernie Sanders because he seems like the best man for the job and I'm not afraid of "buzz words" like "Democratic Socialism". America has always had Socialism. Apparently its not a problem when its Corporations benefiting from the Socialism. But helping the poor? Le Gasp, we can't have socialism. (rolls eyes)

[MilesW1998 24]

I lean more towards conservative if anything else. 

 

My Political Compass:

 

Economic Left/Right: 2.5

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian:-0.26

[CT-1138 3,182]

Let me establish a ground rule, before we continue: Do not lie about my position, or what I wrote. The bolded text was lie #1. Address the arguments I make, not the ones you can twist them into. There's a lot of that going on in your post, and I'm asking you to cut it out.

 

Now, down to the meat of it. This depends greatly on how you classify "majority." Geographically, the majority is something different in every region of the world. Over in the middle east, the majority thinks that women are subhumans, and should not have rights. Does that make it okay? In many parts of Africa, the majority believe that homosexuals should be executed. Does that make it right?

 

Or, do you refer to the worldwide majority? In which case... Yeah, good luck getting any consensus there. The best you'll get is a plurality, and if that's what you want: a world where the largest mob rules, then say hi to our new Chinese overlords.

 

The case that occurred in the 1860s was just this question. How big do we expand the border to call our majority? To a single state, to a nation, or to the entire world?

 

In the case of a state, then majority rule would dictate slavery stays.

 

In the case of a nation, then majority rule would dictate that slavery stays in the newly-formed CSA, but is abolished in the US.

 

Or, in the case of the entire world... well, that'd be a hell of a vote to take.

 

In all cases, the abolition of slavery was undemocratic. Whether you choose to classify it as libertarian or authoritarian, the fact remains that it was not done democratically.

 

 

 

 

Lie #2

 

 

 

 

You're missing the entire point.

 

Again, I am saying that moral good stems from individual liberty, not majority rule.

 

 

 

 

Lie #3... and boy is this a big one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His party sure was.

 

1928

1930

July 1932 (where they won plurality)

November 1932 (they lose a few seats, but retain plurality)

1933 (Majority get)

 

Now, I'm not saying that Democracy should be abolished. Not unless you can think of a better system. I am only saying that there need to be stricter limits as to what the government (even with majority backing) is allowed to do. In the US, we already have something similar to this. The constitution is a set of hard limits to governmental power, and can not be violated by a simple majority. Even if 55% of Americans want slavery reinstated, they can't have it, because the constitution says otherwise.

 

 

 

 

You can't just stare gross mismanagement in the face and label it as "greed."

 

 

 

 

My point is that every core tenant of Libertarianism has been proven to work individually, if not yet collectively. Economic freedom chief among them.

 

 

 

 

But seriously, there are several key points where your hypothetical falls apart.

 

 

 

 

Then why don't they quit, or form their business with blackjack and hookers?

 

It's an age-old question. A man is given a choice between working 14 hours a day for 5 cents, and some unspecified second option. He chooses the first option. What does this say about how bad the second option is? This is a question that comes up a lot when the issue of sweatshops is brought up. If people are choosing to work in what is undeniably a terrible job, then their other options are probably far worse.

 

But you know what? I get what you're saying. Don't take away jobs, improve workin' conditions and all that jazz. This brings me to the next point:

 

 

 

 

Unions are not required for collective bargaining. In fact, modern unions have grown extremely corrupt thanks to this misconception.

 

In reality, 14 hours for 5 cents with no safety standards isn't something that many people would agree to. While low wages will probably end up deflating the currency, and end up being worth more than we think, the safety issue can still be bargained out.

 

Strike, demand better hours, whatever. If you get fired, then spread information about the safety issues to force him to that bargaining table. If you're greedy for a higher wage, you can get leverage for that. No workers means no business.

 

And, of course, if he refuses to capitulate, then just go somewhere else. Let someone else "look" their fingers in the sorter because there are usually other, better businesses out there.

 

 

 

 

...

If your apples have fucking blood on them, then competing with you isn't going to be very difficult. Jesus.

 

Look, your story is an over-exaggerated blow-up of what I assume is meant to be Victorian London. There may have been a point to this in the 19th century, but in the 21st, even sharply deregulated economies (see the economic freedom index) don't have shit like this.

 

I can't believe I'm saying this, but... it's 2016.

The quote system is going buggy on me, so I'll keep this short. It's called the Gilded Age, look it up. Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, it ain't pretty. Rampant capitalism was one of the most damaging times for American Democracy. Individual liberties were crushed, because theirs didn't matter. You want individual liberties, but you want corporate freedom. Well, somebody has to protect us from their abuse. History has shown time and time again that corporations cannot be trusted to self-regulate. Whether or not you want to ignore History in favor of your political idealism is your prerogative, but you're going to be wrong every time. 

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

"Conservative" and "Liberal" are very loaded terms, aren't they? Personally I would prefer the term "progressive" because there's too much about the status quo that needs changing and the only thing worse than that is going backwards. To me, "regressive" is a term used to insult someone.

 

To me, Iceland seems like the closest thing to "utopia" on this planet. Violence is so rare that the BBC wrote an article about it. No joke. Their electricity is fossil-free thanks to their geothermal and hydro-electric resources. I've even contemplated moving there.

 

If I had to pick my poison between the Conservative and Liberal, I would definitely pick liberal. Let's just say that conservatives have a reputation that they continue to trump.

[MelloSkitzo 57]

I'm extremely liberal and damn near the point of being socialist. Which I don't consider a bad thing...

[Twisted Cyclone 🚓 6,259]

I've always leaned more toward conservative but I do support some ideas that Democrats and liberals believe in. I will say this out of certainty. I am 100% Anti-Trump.

[pinkiepiebabe 87]

I support anything that makes racists mad in their small racist hearts. I try to be as well educated as possible, so buying into parties isn't very helpful, especially since I'm studying the history of the US party system. It's pretty bizzare stuff.

[jeray2000 111]

Socially, I am extremely far left. I am pro every social program, every sexuality, every type of gender, immigration, and am against every type of discrimination.

 

Scientifically, I think I'm left, in that I believe in mainstream science. No homeopathic remedies, creationism, or climate change denial for me. That might just be me thinking the party I vote for is smarter though, as is a natural reaction of pretty much everybody.

 

Economically, far left by American standards, central by northern European standards. I believe the type of thing Bernie Sanders is talking about is great, I think communism, socialism, fascism, anarchy, and free market capitalism with minimum government intervention is stupid. 

 

Militarily, I'm not sure where I stand, I haven't done enough research. On one hand, I've read a lot about how foreign intervention in the middle east essentially creates the next crisis there by making locals angry about foreign intervention. On the other hand, I can't see just standing by and letting genocide take place being the right action.

[Vox 870]

I'm apparently a left-leaning (on the social scale) Libertarian. I greatly value personal freedoms and a very limited government. Democracy is where people grant the government a "temporary license to exist" not vice-versa, i don't want a welfare state dependent on federal authority and would rather not have to pay up the ass for people who abuse social security and aid programs. 

[Cactus 155]

I used to be libertarian, but now I would say I'm mostly liberal. If it were a perfect world, I'd still be libertarian, but it's not.

[Shanks 10,816]

I would think most (not all) bronies would be liberal, or else they are neutral (or don't care). The brony movement itself is very liberal and would support this argument.

I have seen a lot of liberal leaning bronies but I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that many teens and young adults which make up the bulk of bronies tend to lean further left anyway on social issues with there being a bit of a mix on economic matters thanks to the rising libertarian movement having an influence and how much of it has to do with MLP attracting those kind of people? Bottom line is there are certain trends but it is also a very diverse group.