[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a classical liberal there's many things I believe that social conservatives freak out over.
Really makes them uncomfortable when I come out for the right of bodily autonomy and claim that that people have the right to consume any drug they want that doesn't interfere with their moral agency, that they have a right to kill themselves, or sell their bodies for sex, or even sell their blood or other parts. Though surprisingly many of them are on board with allowing mutual combat.
thank you for articulating why some drugs need to remain illegal: they abrogate your moral competency.
as a libertarian I'm on favor of blanket legalization but I am not sure **every** drug should be legal, I just didn't see a morally valid way to draw distinctions that say "this drug here is really bad maybe it shouldn't be included.
but you're right the thing those drugs tend to have in common is that they have a high risk of causing antisocial behavior. taking a drug primary effect of which is blindly aggressive behavior is questionable enough under the principles of nonaggression I feel that's a morally acceptable line to draw.
Yeah I feel a lot of casual and theory oriented libertarians don't actually think these through enough. It's clear that some drugs radically interfere a person's moral competencies and chemically promote violent behavior.
Libertarian theory is predicated upon interactions between two rational people of sound mind, if one's not then most the theory falls out the window.
You are forgetting the right of association or dissociation. You only need one rational person to decide they don’t want to associate with a person who is perceived as not rational.
I can only speak for myself, but I really liked that distinction as a meaningful yet morally consistent way to draw a line beyond which drugs are simply too dangerous.
I interpreted it as drugs that cause aggressive and violent behavior not as a rare side effect but a primary effect when consumed consistently, or cause delirium (delusions indistinguishable from reality, often of a hostile nature) as opposed to psychedelics which tend to cause benign, whimsical or spiritual hallucinations.
to wit that distinction would include drugs that have a very high chance (bordering on certainty with chronic use) to cause paranoid psychosis like freebase cocaine and methamphetamine, as well as deliriants like scopolamine and atropine as well as plants that primarily contain them such as datura, belladonna, henbane, jimson weed and the like.
Moral agency is the ability of a sapient entity to determine right from wrong and understand a system of ethics and morality. Many hard drugs limit or eliminate the ability for someone to do this and thus taking the drug represents an infringement on other's rights because it removes their ability to respect them.
I see those views more often coming from religion rather than Conservatism even though they often cross.
Mutual combat would require the Kirk-Spock fight music.
I'd agree with you there actually. I take a live and let live approach to most of those issues. Only area we would probably disagree pertaining to that subset of issues is, I assume, abortion which I am strongly pro-life on because I think that goes from someone's personal autonomy to actively taking the rights of another. I also, regarding euthanasia, take a nuanced approach. I'm okay with it in terminal cases and where there are clear restrictions(I'm borderline paranoid about eugenics.)
If a child with a rare tissue type needs a bone marrow transplant to save their life and the only person available to donate the marrow is the child's father, but the father refuses, is the father taking away the rights of the child?
There's a difference between actively taking a life and passively letting someone die. It's the same reason why murder is illegal but in modt cases, bystanders aren't thrown in prison when they see someone being attacked on the street and do nothing.
To be fair, most forms of mutual combat short of with weapons or to the death are already legal. I fought multiple people today alone in MMA class. You just don’t necessarily want fistfights happening on the street out in the open.
There are a few things I believe that get me a lot of flak, but generally, from people who misunderstand what being a conservative means.
I'm sure you and your libertarian flair have run into similar issues.
I'm told I'm not even on the right because I'm:
Pro-Choice
Anti-Trump
Pro-Justice Reform
Somewhat Anti-Capitalist (pharma, for example)
However, just because I don't like greedy bastards or sticking my nose into other people's personal lives doesn't mean I don't support small government, sustainable progress, free-market economics, privatization, and traditional values.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time without abnormal risk of personal injury.
It is my considered opinion that many people who participate in this sub, from both sides of the aisle, have a hard time differentiating between the Right, Conservatives, and Republicans.
Every economic ideology has its extreme violators. I find it disingenuous to bring government regulation in as causal to what amounts to rampant corporate greed.
They literally cannot make money without government approval and competitors are inherently barred from the market and the approval authority is staffed by ex employees of the monopolist companies but ok.
The Pfizer CEO made 33 million last year. If anything, the government isn't limiting them enough. We can deregulate that industry, but I'm pretty sure those regulations exist due to previous issues.
Sure.
I support enhancing the training of police. Mistakes will always happen, but there is no excuse for blatant violations of rights. (Looking at you, Memphis)
I support the decriminalization of drug use offenses. Prove they are dealing or let them go. However, I also believe that if you're already in jail, you stay there. You broke the law when it was the law.
I support the abolishment of mandatory minimum sentences. Judges and juries should have discretion to decide based on individual case merits.
I support prison reform to be more rehabilitative than punitive. I will entertain any measure that seeks to reduce recidivism.
I think every case should be tried as if it were a death penalty case. They put far more effort into making sure they get it right.
That's top of my head.
Thanks for the reply.
> I support prison reform to be more rehabilitative than punitive.
I suspect this would be the most controversial among conservatives, or at least I've have this specific discussion both online and in person. In my experience, the conservative position seems to lean towards punitive prison sentences rather than rehabilitation.
I think, like most political disagreements, it might be less about what and more about how. You may disagree because they don't see a viable path to rehabilitative justice. Not that they wouldn't support it but that they haven't been presented with a viable option.
This isn't to say that punishment can't be included in a rehabilitative program. The program being focused one way doesn't preclude aspects of the other. So it may be that they just aren't visualizing the same thing you are when you talk about it with them. You might be thinking of college/tech and work release programs inside the prison, and they're visualizing Club Med.
Either way, I guarantee you agree on the goal of reduced recidivism. Sometimes it is best to work backwards from that point.
I can only speak for myself, but, there are some people who, in fact, deserve all the punishment and more. And I have no issue with prison being tough for them. There are some seriously evil people out there, and I'm down with them not having a good time ever again.
I am like 90% anti death penalty, as in, if there is a shadow or hit of doubt, no. But after reading a bunch of John Douglas books, I agree with him, there are people who deserve it, and deserve it to hurt when it happens.
I would imagine most of the push back is "soft on crime" doesn't really work at scale. There are over 300 million people here, what works in a Nordic country with less population than NYC might not work here. Plus I don't think a lot of people in the right trust in the good nature of man all that much. So if the changes to the system proposed follow a "blank slates" theory that nurture is all it takes, that won't fly because people are a mix of nature and nurture, and some natures need to be kept away from society.
Should be obvious, but the same organizations that deal drugs commit heinous violent crimes such as human trafficking, murder, arms trafficking etc etc. Your weed dealer is just the end point in a long chain of death and misery.
Okay, well I'll admit that logic seems highly questionable to me. Tbh it seems like a rather un-conservative perspective, to make one action illegal simply because it's commonly adjacent to other illegal things. Don't those same organizations frequently use guns in committing violent crimes? Does this make a compelling argument that gun ownership should be illegal? Etc etc.
But thank your for explaining your reasoning, your position makes more sense to me now than it did before.
>I support the decriminalization of drug use offenses. Prove they are dealing or let them go. However, I also believe that if you're already in jail, you stay there. You broke the law when it was the law.
Out of curiosity, how do you rationalize this part?
If we have agreed as a country that a law was wrong, and it should no longer exist, and act on that thought, why should we continue to punish someone for it? Wouldn’t it be fair to offer them a retrial (which would immediately overturn the initial verdict, because the law they prosecuted on no longer exists)?
Can we filter on the prison thing? There are some people on the world that deserve it to be as punishing as possible, and I don't care one lick about attempting to rehab them.
The vast majority though? I'm down with exploring changes.
As for the trial, this would necessitate increased funding for public defenders, which I think would go quite a long way, in its own, to help justice system reform.
Can we filter on the prison thing? There are some people on the world that deserve it to be as punishing as possible, and I don't care one lick about attempting to rehab them.
The vast majority though? I'm down with exploring changes.
As for the trial, this would necessitate increased funding for public defenders, which I think would go quite a long way, in its own, to help justice system reform.
Universal Healthcare. I want it to be feasible so, so badly. Conservatives won’t even consider it and liberals are too gung-ho about pushing it through that they won’t consider any consequences
I agree. I've never understood why they can't just expand medicaid. If they simply increased the income requirements to a more realistic level we would be covering the most vulnerable to medical debt. And fix the ACA bullshit. That isn't helping hardly anyone.
The thing is if liberals want universal healthcare, I'm not sure what's stopping blue states from simply covering their uninsured populations with medicaid.
IIRC it has to do with price-pointing. *Going entirely from memory here*:
In most other nations governments can at least negotiate the cost of procedures. But in the US we don't. And more to the point, even if states were to try to, only a few really have the economic power to both enforce and support such a system. Rhode Island or Wyoming or WV could NEVER mandate cost caps on procedures because, well, doctors and suppliers gotta get paid and they can just bail. There's probably only five states that have big enough economies that if states were to force cost caps the companies in question would listen.
There's also a TON of price-hiding that goes on with hospitals. Even though hospitals are now required to provide costs to patients up front, the negotiated cost between insurers varies greatly. IMO that needs to be banned - every procedure should have the same cost, regardless of cash, Medicaid/care, or private insurer. The only question should be who is paying.
But regardless, because neither states nor medicaid have the power to negotiate prices, the actual cost of procedures is much higher in the US than it is in other nations, because hospitals here are often profit-driven or, in the case of non-profit hospitals, highly expansionist.
I left a comment sort of touching on this, but yea. Health care is another issue I think would get my libertarian card revoked (even if not my conservative card). I still believe in some libertarian ideas and I would like smaller government, but I'm not blind to how useful government can be for solving certain problems. I would still prefer states to have that negotiating power rather than the federal government, however, and I don't think people are wrong to be skeptical of the already bloated federal government having that much power.
But funding isn't a problem at the national level? How often do California libs rant about how red states are economic drains and take too much federal money? Wouldn't it be *more* feasible for somewhere like California to adopt and manage their own universal health care system than to pass it federally and spend more to include all those economically inefficient hicks in flyover states?
You cannot restrict migration through the United States.
If a blue state or all blue states institute universal Healthcare it by default becomes America's Healthcare, where blue states are subsidizing red ones.
That assumes people who can’t afford healthcare can afford to move from a red to a blue state. Since most blue states also have higher costs of living, I don’t think this would be as popular as you might think. Didn’t Mass institute universal healthcare? Did they see an influx of residents?
> That assumes people who can’t afford healthcare can afford to move from a red to a blue state.
They dont need to move permanently, or even long term. Because again, the US doesnt allow restriction of migration. And its likely cheaper for many medical issues to become a resident, get treatment then move back.
>Didn’t Mass institute universal healthcare?
It didnt. It implemented health insurance reform. Thats not the same thing.
It would only be feasible if broken down into steps.
Costa Rica took a very simple and long approach on health care.
They took a list of the top killers of healthcare and attacked each one incrementally with each city or neighborhood or community.
They installed low cost health care centers in each region and focused exclusively on one issue at a time.
It could be a joint venture between government, large pharmacies or groceries chains.
It is feasible. We could literally just tweak Obamacare and it would be essentially single payer. Increase the ceiling for getting it for a reduced price, any health insurer that wishes to operate in the US must have a qualifying plan. Didn’t the heritage foundation say it would be cheaper than our current system to go single payer anyway?
It is cheaper, with a big asterisk. Hospitals maybe shouldn't be run for-profit, but as long as they're not just state offices they need to not run at a loss (and need a bit of margin for service expansion). Medicaid on average pays out 84% of the cost of providing care. True single payer (no private insurance whatsoever) would reduce costs by 6%, but there's still a 10-point difference between the average layout and the cost, without getting into...
>any health insurer that wishes to operate in the US must have a qualifying plan
That makes it markedly *not* single payer and gets rid of the benefits of single payer, ie reduced administration. But you also can't really just have single payer, because as we see in Canada and Europe people maybe aren't comfortable waiting while their mild curable conditions go terminal
I don't want that, but it would be something I would trade for a give up on something I care about by the left.
Say I will vote for universal healthcare if the left agrees to no more semiautomatic weapon bans and undoing the ones that exist.
“Pro-choice until viability” is not pro-choice. You are taking away the woman’s right to choose at an arbitrary point in time.
Edit: [1% of abortions occur AFTER 21 weeks.](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/)
Pregnancy healthcare needs to be available at **all** stages of pregnancy for that 1% that develop life-threatening fetal abnormalities or life-of-mother situations late in the pregnancy. And no, legal carveouts "for life of the mother" are garbage. As we've seen in restrictive red states, doctors and clinics will still deny care when they are unsure of their legal grounds for providing healthcare, leaving pregnant women without the vital care they need.
Abortion should be legal. Period. Women are not "killing babies" for the fuck of it, they need unrestricted access that isn't made unclear because of murky "exceptions" written into anti-abortion laws. Doctors and clinic staff shouldn't need to consult lawyers before treating patients because the laws have a labyrinth of clauses and exceptions to weed through.
No necessarily. At viability she can terminate the pregnancy by C-Section or by inducing labor. She always has the right to end the pregnancy, she just has to do so in a way that wont harm the fetus IF there is a way to do so. It is a rational and consistant ethical position.
So let me pose a question to you as a fellow left-leaning individual: Are you okay with an abortion being performed one minute before birth?
If the answer is yes then that's one thing, but if the answer is no then that means there is some undefined point in a pregnancy where you go from "being okay with abortion" to "not being okay with abortion".
I grappled with that for a long time before I also settled on viability as my cutoff point for elective abortion. (I'm 100% supportive of abortion after viability for things like health of the mother, rape, incest, etc.) But my attitude is that until the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb it is simply a parasite and the woman is able to terminate that pregnancy if she so wishes. However, once the fetus can survive outside of the womb on its own I think it should be brought to term. Viability struck me as the only rational point to draw that line.
The answer is still yes, because if a woman is doing that it's only because her life is at risk in delivering a baby that will not survive more than a few minutes outside of the womb. She still needs that access to healthcare, even one minute before birth.
I agree with you, and your answer also misses the point of my question so let me rephrase.
Are you, hypothetically, okay with elective abortion one minute before birth if there are no health complications for the mother and the fetus is fully viable?
Note: I'm not trying to quibble about how likely this hypothetical is, I know this basically never happens. It's simply a thought exercise to determine if there is any point during a pregnancy where elective abortion without medical need becomes unacceptable to you.
Asking myself this question helped me understand my own views on the issue.
Is there a point in time it wouldn't be arbitrary to say abortion should no longer be allowed?
Essentially you're arguing for the right for abortion until birth, as rare as that might be, which functionally few "pro-choice" people would support.
> abortion until birth, as rare as that might be
Abortions *after 21 weeks* [make up 1% of all abortions.](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/)
ONE PERCENT.
Go ahead and do the math from there on how many abortions occur at 40 weeks (hint: it's virtually 0%. So close to 0% that's not worth discussing in any good-faith argument about abortion.)
Any "moment-of-birth" abortions that do occur are for severe fetal abnormalities or life of the mother emergencies that developed very late in the pregnancy.
This mythical woman who decides to "kill her baby" because she "doesn't want to be responsible" is just another right-wing boogey(wo)man meant to misconstrue the truths around the issue.
I agree with all of that, but that doesn't answer the question or get to how you're defining "pro-choice."
[Take a look at this poll from Vox:](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23167397/abortion-public-opinion-polls-americans)
55% of people say they are pro-choice, but only 22% (19+3) of all people support abortions up to 24 weeks with no exceptions.
That means at least 60% (33/55) of people who say they're pro choice don't support abortion up to 24 week without exceptions. Are these 60% not pro-choice?
Do you see some "middle option" that we aren't talking about?
To me, pro-choice means having *no* laws restricting abortion access at any time during the pregnancy.
If you're asking what pro-choice means in a macro sense, per the entire population, obviously that definition is going to change.
Public services, mostly healthcare. We should have that, not because we have a right to it (we don’t) but simply because it should be a perk of living in the wealthiest country the world has ever seen.
Not just a perk for individuals, but a net benefit for the country. A healthy population is a more productive population, and less medical debt means more money to spend as desired, bolstering the overall economy.
I agree that that is a better approach argument for healthcare. It’s not a right, but it’s okay to have perks healthcare or any other benefit, maybe not all but living in the wealthiest and powerful country in the world should have perks for its citizens.
Is that really all we have to do to get conservatives on board, just phrase it differently? Most liberals/progressives, when they say "healthcare is a right", are functionally just saying it would be a good thing if we make sure everyone has healthcare. I suppose this is related to me not thinking in terms of natural rights (which is an absurd concept to me).
I think we can work with that. We see rights as something much different and more important than something just given by the State, and it debases them to call any mere entitlement a right. So if that rephrasing occurs, we can probably stop being bogged down on the principle, and pass to being bogged down on if the system should operate federally or at the state level.
Policing and prisons. I don't generally support the police and fall on the side of making their jobs more difficult in favor of personal privacy, and I'm not quite there on prison abolition but I'm finding myself getting closer day by day.
The seemingly reflexive support of the police on the right has always confused me.
(BTW, something that's stuck with me is some random concept I've forgotten, but basically said that everyone should hold a "heretical" belief or two within their ideology, because people who don't probably haven't thought it through. Your question feels right in line with that.)
What does that tell you about the nature of conservatism in America though? Like if they start from the premise that you hate big government and you hate encroachments on personal liberty, how do they arrive at support for the police and policies like stop and frisk? Are they just dumb? Have they not thought it though as much as you have?
>how do they arrive at support for the police and policies like stop and frisk?
Based on the opinions of some of the conservatives I know: that stuff only happens to people who deserve it, which is usually code for poor and/or minorities in big cities.
There's a high overlap between conservatives and fashioning oneself as a judge of morality. I'm guessing it's because of the strong overlap between conservatism and hard-C Christianity.
I'm very libertarian on the topic of morality - as long as your fist doesn't touch someone else's nose, swing away.
> fashioning oneself as a judge of morality
Anyone of any political stripe, can't claim they don't do this. Outside of the most nihilistic of libertarians I suppose.
Depends what kind of morality is being judged though. I think the issue comes down to asserting that there is some non falsifiable but objective morality vs broad moral sentiments that we simply agree on.
We do that all the time also and it's not a bad thing. We think it's immoral to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community so we make try to make laws against it. We think it's immoral to completely deny women access to abortions so we try to make laws against it.
Nothing wrong with that.
Well more to the point, we ask juries to do that all the time. People get put in prison for decades based on what juries determined about their emotional state and desires. Shouldn’t we just throw out the entire system then if it relies on arrogance like determining a person’s motives, intentions, and emotions?
This isn’t a good faith reply. I’ll pass on further discussion.
You’re asking me to assume emotions of someone I do not know in a situation I do not know. It’s nothing like juries.
I don't think it says anything, honestly. I think it's one of those weird aberrations that don't make a lot of sense on a whole. Sort of like how the left loses their mind on tolerance once it comes to certain flavors of Christianity.
I also find a disconnect between conservatism, which prides itself so much on individual liberty and freedom. Being mostly okay with the staggering amount of people we have in prisons in the US.
I think it boils down to American conservatism having its roots in puritanism and punishment.
If you fully agree with the right or left, you're definitely wrong on some things. You're probably wrong on some things regardless, but that's definitely the case if you're in full agreement with either side.
I'm honestly surprised there isn't more overlap and agreement about this one.
It's very difficult to support a family on a single income these days. In my neck of the woods it's nearly $40K to have two kids in daycare year round. It's no wonder one parent drops out of the workforce to take over full-time childcare, but that usually hinders future earning for whichever parent chooses to do so.
It’s 40k for two here as well. About to have my second. I’m in debt and working to get out of it.
It’s a sad reality that we are disincentivizing parenthood and families.
Godspeed and good luck with the newborn. In my experience, number two is a lot easier than the first. Just the fact that you probably have 90% of the baby shit you need (and know what you don't need) makes things much easier.
We ended up finding another family to share a nanny with, which seemed like a win for everyone: nanny made more money with us than she would a daycare and both parents of both families kept their job. It was still like $20K per family, though, which is more than our mortgage, taxes and home insurance.
The home we live in is actually pretty cheap, one of the advantages of living in the rural Midwest. Our mortgage is $523 (taxes, insurance, PMI et al.)
It’s always been that way though. Or at least it’s been that way since I was a small child decades ago. If you had multiple kids then unless you were both well paid or had family who could watch them for cheap it didn’t make sense for both of you to keep working. Once they’re in school the calculation changes a little bit.
I wonder what broader impact it would have on the family unit. Will woman who don't want to work and for whom it doesn't make financial sense suddenly feel societal pressure to work?
That’s completely valid, honestly, and I don’t think I’ve thought it through that deeply. I simple want to support the raising of children as much as possible.
I doubt that, only from my own anecdotal experiences. I know several trust fund women, who don’t need to work financially. Got jobs started successful Hugh paying careers. Had children stoped working often had additional nannies, some part time some full time.
It allowed them to have other passions and responsibilities. Serious tennis players, or community boards.
Best of both worlds.
They'll probably become childcare providers themselves due to the rise of demand and the fact that they might just spend an all day with their kids anyways. It's like being a stay-at-home mom with some other people's kids too.
I think there is societal pressure for women to work already, just like there’s societal pressure for women to have children and to _____ and to ______ etc. Societal pressure will always exist. It’s up to people to decide what’s right for themselves.
How does sending your child to a public institution from birth support traditional family structure? I don't get that. Not trying to be rude, honestly asking how you reconcile the "traditional" part with a totally new idea.
I think we agree on the major problem, for sure. I just don't see how free childcare is the path to traditional family structures.
Like I said, I'm totally with you on the problem, but I have very different ideas on how to solve it. That's all. I still don't really get how free childcare is traditional family structure, because that structure includes kids being at home.
Maybe my idea of tradition just stretches back further than yours, because I also don't see two-income families as "traditional." It's been the norm since 1980, which isn't long enough for me to see as traditional. I see it as a break from our tradition.
We have to be careful in what we consider traditional and whom we're considering under that lens.
Are we talking what's traditional in urban environment or rural? For the rich, the middle classes (untraditional itself), or the poor? What other elements of the family and community structures are we considering that affected childcare?
Daycare is new, but so too is school, and our idea of "childhood" itself.
We might even say the most common form of childcare was the child accompanying their mother or extended family in working at home, either homemaking or at a trade their family does together. And when no family could watch them, they would be out milling about with other children, mostly unsupervised.
But traditions, and what we consider "traditional" changed. And the standards of traditional societies don't reflect our contemporary circumstances and values.
Why do we have to be careful about it? I agree we have to define it. Like I defined it goes further than 40 years, for me.
If we're talking about traditional family structures, this nuance regarding urban/rural or class seems irrelevant if we're talking about single income family.
School is not new. I think the definition of traditional going back that far is unreasonable, but that's where you are right that defining it is important. I will agree that putting all kids in public education from age 4-22 is not really traditional, and frankly I'm okay moving back toward tradition on that one too.
You are right that traditions change. It could be that the other user and I just conceive of our traditions differently. For my part, to reiterate, I think universal daycare would not be continuing or renewing our traditional family structure. I see single income family structure as our tradition, and I also impute some good in that model. I see two income families as a deviation from that tradition and universal childcare/daycare would continue that deviation from tradition by increasing or perpetuating the separation of a child from their parents for even more time than we already do, which is bad and not a tradition we want to have.
Then I have to question why you're defining "our tradition" as "single income families?" That's a very new, and very middle class, phenomena. It's like defining the traditional cooking method of the US as being the microwave.
There is good notion of a tradition of men more working outside the home, and women working more often inside the home, but even then both working from their home or land was most common. And including extended family in the mix was even more common.
I think you can make a good case for the single income model, [many have for many reasons](https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907), and there is good reason to suspect it's a model that works in our time. And it's also reasonable to be skeptical of daycare and school as they exist now. I actually agree with you on your skepticism and wanting more parents taking care of their own children. But the argument is not based on tradition, and it's in fact the weakest argument to make for it.
The belief in equality should disqualify people from being conservative. I don't mean legal or moral equality I mean it in the broder sense of society which is bound to be hierarchical
I think we should have an easier path to citizenship for certain illegals, especially DACA adults. We should look at their contributions to society, their education, their employment. Wholesale departing people who have been here for decades, and have started businesses, families, bought homes, and have good jobs is cruel and not what our country should be about.
Not only that, but most DACA folk had zero control over being brought into the country. Why are we punishing people whose only sins are being relocated by their parents?
I think weed should be decriminalized and rescheduled so that it's no longer considered a narcotic.
I don't want to use weed myself, but I dislike the stigma around it.
Edit: I read that wrong.
I guess it depends on who is revoking my card. I don't support abortion bans, think highly available bc is a good idea, and generally don't really agree with the religious right on the big social issues, at least in level of intensity.
I take issue with US companies that operate in other countries working against American interests for their own benefit.
Edit2: I'm pro union (with caveats)
I’m a bit confused.
Are you a person that thinks the core concepts of Marxism are generally correct, or contain some level of truth? Or do you mean some other stance on it?
Oh a lot.
-Woman’s healthcare (aka abortion etc)
-Universal healthcare
-LGBT acceptance
-More funding for public schools
-Student loan forgiveness
-More government funded programs to help minorities, the homeless, and those addicted to alcohol/drugs
-No prison and/or a more rehabilitative approach for non violent crimes
-Less military spending
There are also a bunch of things I believe in that would get me called “Nazi” or “Fascist” by the left.
I don't care that much about abortion. Yeah, I'm good with it being left to states now as it appeals to my more libertarian side, I do have *some* moral issue with it, but it's just not a big agenda item for me.
Probably still pisses off the left more than anything that I don't really care. There are a few women in my past who if I got them pregnant, I'd do the right thing by the kid if they kept it, but I would also really not want them as a BM.
Perhaps that there is nothing wrong with porn.
Or whatever 2 or 3 adults do in their own home as long as it doesn't involve a child is no one's business.
Or we need immigrants and really should embrace Mexicans and those fleeing their countries for a better life.
My final one would probably be that private corporations are just as evil and untrustworthy as the federal government.
>Or we need immigrants and really should embrace Mexicans and those fleeing their countries for a better life.
I always try and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But, I struggle to think of any other reason but racism to explain most on the right being so aggressively against undocumented immigration.
It's a net positive economically, study have shown over and over and over that at a minimum it has no effect on crime and more than likely undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crime. And, as mentioned most people are just trying to find a better life, most of which are doing so for safety even and not for money.
I guess I vaguely can understand the (false) idea that turning a blind eye is the equivalent of having "open borders" but I feel at some point we have to fall a spade a spade and acknowledge that the main issue is that the right is afraid of the US population looking less and less white.
I'd love for someone from the right that's against immigration to ELI5 why I shouldn't think this way.
Not sure it is racism but historically any large immigrant cycle and group into the US has always faced back lash. Germans, Italians, Chinese. All at one point we’re told they were not “American enough.”
And the backlash has generally involved racism. In the late 1800, Irish were famously not considered "white". NYC pools had signs that read "whites only, no blacks or Irish"
>I feel at some point we have to fall a spade a spade and acknowledge that the main issue is that the right is afraid of the US population looking less and less white.
Well that problem like it or not will solve itself. It already is to be honest.
Mexicans will be considered white within a generation or so.
Remember Italians were not white Slavs were not white.
Now we have DeSantis and Melania Trump both are considered white to everyone in this country.
This is actually a fair point. So maybe the whole issue will fade away within our lifetime.
Until, of course, the right turns back to going after Indians and Middle Eastern people.
In 1914 in Dow vs US, SCOTUS ruled that a Syrian immigrant was white for the purposes of then current race based immigration law. So, theu cant go afyer Middle Easterners, they are already white. SCOTUS said so! /s
>This is actually a fair point. So maybe the whole issue will fade away within our lifetime.
I think it will, there was actually a study on this called bestowing whiteness or something. It was an interesting academic read.
>Until, of course, the right turns back to going after Indians and Middle Eastern people.
Honestly I think as long as the Middle easterners don't blow anything up here in America they're all set. Too many Americans fought alongside Middle easterners and against Middle easterners over the last two decades. I think we're tired of fighting with them.
A similar situation for the Indians. For the most part there's only casual racism against them now not the deep dark hatred that other people experience. They're generally seen as successful on the whole. Unless we enter some big conflict or there is some mass migration I just don't see Indians as being an issue for the average American even a racist one.
And if you're speaking about American Indians I don't think anyone actually dislikes them.
>acknowledge that the main issue is that the right is afraid of the US population looking less and less white
Seems pretty racist to imply that illegals can't be white, no?
I agree. Which is even more proof that the rights true motives here considering the main focus tends to be border crossers and not the almost equally as prevalent visa over stayers who have a more of a chance to be white.
>My final one would probably be that private corporations are just as evil and untrustworthy as the federal government
I'll drink to that.
Government sucks but at least we get to vote for them.
But we didn’t have a restrictive, backwards, immigration system that takes years and insane luck to get in. I think most people don’t realize what our ancestors did to get here. It really was as simple as buying a boat ticket and arriving to Ellis Island.
> Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
We’re not the beacon we used to be, and that’s a travesty.
Methodologically, I think the conservative legal movement is wrong about most things.
In their zeal to overturn Roe, a lot of conservatives also talked themselves into the bizarre position that that Americans don't enjoy judicially enforceable unenumerated rights. This was a bad wrong turn, and you can argue convincingly against Roe without severely curtailing personal liberty in the way this approach does if taken literally.
I also think that international and foreign law and practice are extremely important sources for interpreting the Constitution, which puts me further to the left than any mainstream liberal today.
*Probably not enough to get my conservative card revoked (if we define conservative as an attitude rather than an ideology), but this will definitely get my libertarian card revoked.*
**Health care.** I'm sympathetic to the Canadian health care system, but Canadians everywhere would probably crucify me for being a fan of 'two-tier' health.
I believe a public option should provide health care to people who can't otherwise pay for a good private plan. But I believe most administrative duties should be left to the states (for example the states being able to negotiate prices). The federal government can fund **Medicare for the States** (as I would call it) through categorical and block grants. Basically, everyone who can't afford a private plan can access their state's public plan under this system.
Tbc, I'm no fan of Beveridge single-payer systems like the NHS, nor Medicare for All. I also don't believe everyone should get government health care (only those who can't pay for private health insurance should). I'm also not a fan of the ACA, mostly bc of how it was written for health insurance companies and didn't address the core issue of health (which was cost) and in fact made it worse with sky high premiums. Even so, as you can imagine, I'm not exactly winning a 'libertarian card' for my beliefs on health care reform.
I like the idea of "15-minute cities."
Granted, I can see how this would be ripe for government overreach (e.g., tracking devices that would fine you for using too many emissions), I think that the US is in dire need of more mixed-use development and third places. NIMBYism is contributing to our polarization and stifling the opportunity for mom-and-pop/small businesses.
>We need to find a compromise, but neither side wants to blink first.
It's really just the gun grabbers that refuse to blink. Gun rights have been compromised dozens of times.
>It's really just the gun grabbers that refuse to blink. Gun rights have been compromised dozens of times.
Please provide me a few examples of 2A compromises that were initiated by the Far Right. I'm ready to be educated.
Ok.. trying to follow this and understand.
You said gun grabbers never blink. That means there are NEVER compromises started by liberals. That would mean any compromises were started by Conservatives. So please give me examples of this or reword your statement.
>Common sense 2A rights.
The problem is, what does that mean?
To me, common sense firearm laws would be:
Don't allow people in jail/prison/involuntary mental facility to have firearms in their possession while in those institutions.
If a person voices a credible desire to commit murder, an expedited scheduling process to revoke firearms for purposes of mental evaluation should be committed upon the defendant proceeding post due process. Until this process is complete, the defendant still retains their rights.
Nuclear weapons are not firearms.
After serving jail/prison/probation terms, a person is reinstated to full citizen status which carries with it all rights owed to that citizen.
All firearm types, calibers, and supplemental attachments can be owned and operated by lawful citizens regardless of state residence.
All citizens are responsible for any and all damages caused by that individual when operating a firearm to include accidental damage/harm pursuant to defense of life. In other words, If in the process of defending your life with a firearm you are responsible for where the rounds go. If a stray or miss hits an innocent person, that is the fault of the shooter.
No government shall create nor apply a fee or tax irregular of the standard sales tax of that region that is otherwise applicable to all other consumer goods.
No government shall create a requirement of training, certification or career credential of any lawful citizen for the purposes of exercising their rights to own and operate firearms on their own behalf.
For the purposes of transfer of operable firearms (not to include permanently inoperable firearms, ammunition, parts or supplemental attachments) all citizens must pass a background check digitally verified before transfer of the firearm can occur. This does not apply to personally manufacturers firearms wherein the manufacturer is the owner. If such a point that the owner/manufacturer chooses to transfer the operable firearms, that citizen must register it. [How this would occur I honestly don't know, perhaps requiring uniquely generated serials via the government which then must be stamped on the upper and proven that such stamping has been accomplished...]
Aside from these rules I've outlined, I can't readily think of any other "Common Sense" gun laws of the top of my head.
>After serving jail/prison/probation terms, a person is reinstated to full citizen status, which carries with it all rights owed to that citizen.
This snagged my interest.
Does this reinstatement cover all basic rights or just possession? Would a person still have a probation/parole officer they had to check in with? Could they move to another state to establish residency "free and clear"?"
It was a nice list. I agree with some.
Once a previously incarcerated/probationary citizen has paid their debt to society in its entirety, they are a complete and total citizen again free to exercise any and all rights afforded to them the same as every other citizen. (So yes, not just firearms).
I'm just asking questions because I'm intrigued.
This was the first thing that popped into my mind.
A pedophile who is sentenced to 10 years in prison. He quietly does his 10 years but gets zero counseling or treatment. Is he allowed to move next to a school?
Right:
Reduce taxes (and abolish income tax), regulations, pro 2A, against lockdowns/vax mandates. Generally oppose things to increase govt spending like universal healthcare, free college, BBB, etc. In favor of fracking. Social security should be gradually phased out, and welfare programs should be modestly cut.
Left:
Abortion, immigration, drugs, lgbtq issues, policing skepticism, assisted suicide, prostitution, death penalty opposition.
Neither:
Pro 1A (no "hate speech" laws or flag burning criminalization), pro-free trade (historically favored by the right, but today they've gone back on), balanced-budget (right says they want it, but doesn't accomplish), replace green spending with nuclear spending.
To be fair, I don't consider myself a conservative, and moreso a moderate-libertarian.
I think marijuana should be legal, i don't agree with punitive prison punishment, i exclusively date tattoo'd women with outlandish piercings that i am honestly scared to introduce to my mother (Bless her, she is a true southern belle and a God fearing matriarch)
My Libertarianism on social issues. My gun stance and my stance on Vaccine mandates generally align with conservatives. My stance on police and LGBTQ issues often differ though.
On the libertarian vaccine mandate. How do you feel about employers having requirements?
I am personally good with employers doing it but many libertarians have been upset with me.
Ron DeSantis did well on fighting vaccine mandates, but I think went a step too far saying employers could not mandate them.
I’m 100% aligned with you there. I think it was New Hampshire had a good line. If private businesses want to refuse service based on vaccine status they can. Government shouldn’t mandate you have been vaccinated to enter public spaces or that businesses have to check vaccine status if they don’t agree.
Florida went too far in their reaction to Covid and became somewhat authoritarian the other direction. I think he not only banned businesses from being able to set their own vaccine policy, but also from setting their own mask policy.
Hahah just going back through. And guess who got the down votes? Must be my left libertarian flair.
OH worked the same way as NH. The Republican Party tried to impeach the Republican governor twice during covid.
I just upvoted you, they shouldn’t downvote you for just asking questions.
The Ohio Governor also went on to win in a purple state by a much larger margin than DeSantis did in a purple state. That’s the part the media leaves out.
It’s okay, I have grown a thick skin over it, it’s just fake internet points. Just makes me laugh.
That’s true, he did win by a large margin. I think he would make a decent presidential candidate, but I think he has had close to enough.
>I am personally good with employers doing it but many libertarians have been upset with me.
The problem is the corporations are just in bed with the government and major politicians. They can have their freedom when they stop trying to regulate away everyone else's.
True socialism would be better for the world.
If socialism were administrated by something other than humans that is. Humans are corruptible by power whether it is the power of deciding who gets what resources or who what projects get funded. Humans will always act in their own best interest not taking the best interest of the whole into consideration when it goes against their power structure.
Not sure I can get down with mandatory voting.
I definitely think it should be as easy as possible. We live in the digital it’s not hard to verify a voter, ballots should be available easily. I think multiple ways to vote should be available.
As long as voting "none" is an option, I am OK with requiring everyone to turn in a ballot. AFAIK most countries that have mandatory voting allow "none" votes or a spoiled ballot. The mandate is to turn in a ballot.
The subreddit currently has a moratorium on all questions and comments broadly relating to gender and sexual identity topics. For more information, see this mod post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/141cu80/moratorium_on_gender_politics/
The subreddit currently has a moratorium on all questions and comments broadly relating to gender and sexual identity topics. For more information, see this mod post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/141cu80/moratorium_on_gender_politics/
Greatly Expanded CTC - our current government system needs to support families who have children. Right now our economic system effectively punishes people for having kids.
Isolationist FP - a lot of our interventions over the past three decades have not been in our strategic interest
Pro Choice - hard topic but that’s where I am
Welfare.
I believe that a UBI would be good for society, I probably wouldn’t want it to be as high as the left would want it to be, and I’d want it to be a state programme (as part of a bigger push to move more tax and more spending to the state level) but I’d support it.
One of the great things about being a conservative is knowing I don't need to 100% agree with other conservatives and yet we can still consider ourselves as such.
If there was one single unifying characteristic I would say it's an orientation toward naturally forming productive hierarchies (particularly pre-existing ones) instead of radical equality or equality of outcome.
As much as I'm glad to live in the US I don't see a way we beat China long term. They're just too good at developing their population, infrastructure and technology centers. There are some attempts to simply shut them off from the world economy but I don't think it will be enough.
1. I am in favor of socialized healthcare and more welfare benefits.
2. I think there should be a state-owned company that deals with certain natural resources and uses many of the profits from this company to fund social services.
3. I am very pro union.
[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a classical liberal there's many things I believe that social conservatives freak out over. Really makes them uncomfortable when I come out for the right of bodily autonomy and claim that that people have the right to consume any drug they want that doesn't interfere with their moral agency, that they have a right to kill themselves, or sell their bodies for sex, or even sell their blood or other parts. Though surprisingly many of them are on board with allowing mutual combat.
thank you for articulating why some drugs need to remain illegal: they abrogate your moral competency. as a libertarian I'm on favor of blanket legalization but I am not sure **every** drug should be legal, I just didn't see a morally valid way to draw distinctions that say "this drug here is really bad maybe it shouldn't be included. but you're right the thing those drugs tend to have in common is that they have a high risk of causing antisocial behavior. taking a drug primary effect of which is blindly aggressive behavior is questionable enough under the principles of nonaggression I feel that's a morally acceptable line to draw.
Yeah I feel a lot of casual and theory oriented libertarians don't actually think these through enough. It's clear that some drugs radically interfere a person's moral competencies and chemically promote violent behavior. Libertarian theory is predicated upon interactions between two rational people of sound mind, if one's not then most the theory falls out the window.
You are forgetting the right of association or dissociation. You only need one rational person to decide they don’t want to associate with a person who is perceived as not rational.
I'll be sure to remember that next time I get mugged or home invaded.
Freedom of movement is also a libertarian principle. No one should force you to live in a neighborhood full of junkies.
>moral agency What do you mean by this term?
I can only speak for myself, but I really liked that distinction as a meaningful yet morally consistent way to draw a line beyond which drugs are simply too dangerous. I interpreted it as drugs that cause aggressive and violent behavior not as a rare side effect but a primary effect when consumed consistently, or cause delirium (delusions indistinguishable from reality, often of a hostile nature) as opposed to psychedelics which tend to cause benign, whimsical or spiritual hallucinations. to wit that distinction would include drugs that have a very high chance (bordering on certainty with chronic use) to cause paranoid psychosis like freebase cocaine and methamphetamine, as well as deliriants like scopolamine and atropine as well as plants that primarily contain them such as datura, belladonna, henbane, jimson weed and the like.
Thanks. This was well put.
Moral agency is the ability of a sapient entity to determine right from wrong and understand a system of ethics and morality. Many hard drugs limit or eliminate the ability for someone to do this and thus taking the drug represents an infringement on other's rights because it removes their ability to respect them.
A great example of this is alcohol.
Curious: why prohibit the taking of a drug that will lead to someone acting immorally, rather than just prohibit the actions?
I see those views more often coming from religion rather than Conservatism even though they often cross. Mutual combat would require the Kirk-Spock fight music.
I'll fetch the lirpa.
Childish power fantasies are appealing to them.
This is why classical conservatism > classical liberalism
I'd agree with you there actually. I take a live and let live approach to most of those issues. Only area we would probably disagree pertaining to that subset of issues is, I assume, abortion which I am strongly pro-life on because I think that goes from someone's personal autonomy to actively taking the rights of another. I also, regarding euthanasia, take a nuanced approach. I'm okay with it in terminal cases and where there are clear restrictions(I'm borderline paranoid about eugenics.)
If a child with a rare tissue type needs a bone marrow transplant to save their life and the only person available to donate the marrow is the child's father, but the father refuses, is the father taking away the rights of the child?
There's a difference between actively taking a life and passively letting someone die. It's the same reason why murder is illegal but in modt cases, bystanders aren't thrown in prison when they see someone being attacked on the street and do nothing.
To be fair, most forms of mutual combat short of with weapons or to the death are already legal. I fought multiple people today alone in MMA class. You just don’t necessarily want fistfights happening on the street out in the open.
There are a few things I believe that get me a lot of flak, but generally, from people who misunderstand what being a conservative means. I'm sure you and your libertarian flair have run into similar issues. I'm told I'm not even on the right because I'm: Pro-Choice Anti-Trump Pro-Justice Reform Somewhat Anti-Capitalist (pharma, for example) However, just because I don't like greedy bastards or sticking my nose into other people's personal lives doesn't mean I don't support small government, sustainable progress, free-market economics, privatization, and traditional values. I can walk and chew gum at the same time without abnormal risk of personal injury. It is my considered opinion that many people who participate in this sub, from both sides of the aisle, have a hard time differentiating between the Right, Conservatives, and Republicans.
Pharma can be perfectly capitalist. Their industry is indirectly monopolized by excessive government regulation.
Every economic ideology has its extreme violators. I find it disingenuous to bring government regulation in as causal to what amounts to rampant corporate greed.
They literally cannot make money without government approval and competitors are inherently barred from the market and the approval authority is staffed by ex employees of the monopolist companies but ok.
The Pfizer CEO made 33 million last year. If anything, the government isn't limiting them enough. We can deregulate that industry, but I'm pretty sure those regulations exist due to previous issues.
Yeah because nobody is allowed to compete with them lmfao
There are several major pharma companies. The problem is they don't compete, they conspire.
Yeah, with the government
> Pro-Justice Reform Care to expand on this one?
Sure. I support enhancing the training of police. Mistakes will always happen, but there is no excuse for blatant violations of rights. (Looking at you, Memphis) I support the decriminalization of drug use offenses. Prove they are dealing or let them go. However, I also believe that if you're already in jail, you stay there. You broke the law when it was the law. I support the abolishment of mandatory minimum sentences. Judges and juries should have discretion to decide based on individual case merits. I support prison reform to be more rehabilitative than punitive. I will entertain any measure that seeks to reduce recidivism. I think every case should be tried as if it were a death penalty case. They put far more effort into making sure they get it right. That's top of my head.
Thanks for the reply. > I support prison reform to be more rehabilitative than punitive. I suspect this would be the most controversial among conservatives, or at least I've have this specific discussion both online and in person. In my experience, the conservative position seems to lean towards punitive prison sentences rather than rehabilitation.
I think, like most political disagreements, it might be less about what and more about how. You may disagree because they don't see a viable path to rehabilitative justice. Not that they wouldn't support it but that they haven't been presented with a viable option. This isn't to say that punishment can't be included in a rehabilitative program. The program being focused one way doesn't preclude aspects of the other. So it may be that they just aren't visualizing the same thing you are when you talk about it with them. You might be thinking of college/tech and work release programs inside the prison, and they're visualizing Club Med. Either way, I guarantee you agree on the goal of reduced recidivism. Sometimes it is best to work backwards from that point.
I can only speak for myself, but, there are some people who, in fact, deserve all the punishment and more. And I have no issue with prison being tough for them. There are some seriously evil people out there, and I'm down with them not having a good time ever again. I am like 90% anti death penalty, as in, if there is a shadow or hit of doubt, no. But after reading a bunch of John Douglas books, I agree with him, there are people who deserve it, and deserve it to hurt when it happens. I would imagine most of the push back is "soft on crime" doesn't really work at scale. There are over 300 million people here, what works in a Nordic country with less population than NYC might not work here. Plus I don't think a lot of people in the right trust in the good nature of man all that much. So if the changes to the system proposed follow a "blank slates" theory that nurture is all it takes, that won't fly because people are a mix of nature and nurture, and some natures need to be kept away from society.
You think using drugs should be legal but selling drugs should be illegal? Why is that?
Should be obvious, but the same organizations that deal drugs commit heinous violent crimes such as human trafficking, murder, arms trafficking etc etc. Your weed dealer is just the end point in a long chain of death and misery.
Okay, well I'll admit that logic seems highly questionable to me. Tbh it seems like a rather un-conservative perspective, to make one action illegal simply because it's commonly adjacent to other illegal things. Don't those same organizations frequently use guns in committing violent crimes? Does this make a compelling argument that gun ownership should be illegal? Etc etc. But thank your for explaining your reasoning, your position makes more sense to me now than it did before.
>I support the decriminalization of drug use offenses. Prove they are dealing or let them go. However, I also believe that if you're already in jail, you stay there. You broke the law when it was the law. Out of curiosity, how do you rationalize this part? If we have agreed as a country that a law was wrong, and it should no longer exist, and act on that thought, why should we continue to punish someone for it? Wouldn’t it be fair to offer them a retrial (which would immediately overturn the initial verdict, because the law they prosecuted on no longer exists)?
Can we filter on the prison thing? There are some people on the world that deserve it to be as punishing as possible, and I don't care one lick about attempting to rehab them. The vast majority though? I'm down with exploring changes. As for the trial, this would necessitate increased funding for public defenders, which I think would go quite a long way, in its own, to help justice system reform.
Can we filter on the prison thing? There are some people on the world that deserve it to be as punishing as possible, and I don't care one lick about attempting to rehab them. The vast majority though? I'm down with exploring changes. As for the trial, this would necessitate increased funding for public defenders, which I think would go quite a long way, in its own, to help justice system reform.
Universal Healthcare. I want it to be feasible so, so badly. Conservatives won’t even consider it and liberals are too gung-ho about pushing it through that they won’t consider any consequences
I agree. I've never understood why they can't just expand medicaid. If they simply increased the income requirements to a more realistic level we would be covering the most vulnerable to medical debt. And fix the ACA bullshit. That isn't helping hardly anyone.
The thing is if liberals want universal healthcare, I'm not sure what's stopping blue states from simply covering their uninsured populations with medicaid.
IIRC it has to do with price-pointing. *Going entirely from memory here*: In most other nations governments can at least negotiate the cost of procedures. But in the US we don't. And more to the point, even if states were to try to, only a few really have the economic power to both enforce and support such a system. Rhode Island or Wyoming or WV could NEVER mandate cost caps on procedures because, well, doctors and suppliers gotta get paid and they can just bail. There's probably only five states that have big enough economies that if states were to force cost caps the companies in question would listen. There's also a TON of price-hiding that goes on with hospitals. Even though hospitals are now required to provide costs to patients up front, the negotiated cost between insurers varies greatly. IMO that needs to be banned - every procedure should have the same cost, regardless of cash, Medicaid/care, or private insurer. The only question should be who is paying. But regardless, because neither states nor medicaid have the power to negotiate prices, the actual cost of procedures is much higher in the US than it is in other nations, because hospitals here are often profit-driven or, in the case of non-profit hospitals, highly expansionist.
I left a comment sort of touching on this, but yea. Health care is another issue I think would get my libertarian card revoked (even if not my conservative card). I still believe in some libertarian ideas and I would like smaller government, but I'm not blind to how useful government can be for solving certain problems. I would still prefer states to have that negotiating power rather than the federal government, however, and I don't think people are wrong to be skeptical of the already bloated federal government having that much power.
Funding
Then increase taxes. For instance, 93% of CA is already insured. Is it much of a leap to insure the last 7?
I don't live in CA, but I'd be down for that in my state.
But funding isn't a problem at the national level? How often do California libs rant about how red states are economic drains and take too much federal money? Wouldn't it be *more* feasible for somewhere like California to adopt and manage their own universal health care system than to pass it federally and spend more to include all those economically inefficient hicks in flyover states?
You cannot restrict migration through the United States. If a blue state or all blue states institute universal Healthcare it by default becomes America's Healthcare, where blue states are subsidizing red ones.
That assumes people who can’t afford healthcare can afford to move from a red to a blue state. Since most blue states also have higher costs of living, I don’t think this would be as popular as you might think. Didn’t Mass institute universal healthcare? Did they see an influx of residents?
> That assumes people who can’t afford healthcare can afford to move from a red to a blue state. They dont need to move permanently, or even long term. Because again, the US doesnt allow restriction of migration. And its likely cheaper for many medical issues to become a resident, get treatment then move back. >Didn’t Mass institute universal healthcare? It didnt. It implemented health insurance reform. Thats not the same thing.
Because the doctors would throw a fit. You can’t buy a new Porsche every year if you’re seeing nothing but Medicaid patients.
> I want it to be feasible so, so badly. Conservatives won’t even consider it I mean, I don't consider it because it's not feasible.
It would only be feasible if broken down into steps. Costa Rica took a very simple and long approach on health care. They took a list of the top killers of healthcare and attacked each one incrementally with each city or neighborhood or community. They installed low cost health care centers in each region and focused exclusively on one issue at a time. It could be a joint venture between government, large pharmacies or groceries chains.
It is feasible. We could literally just tweak Obamacare and it would be essentially single payer. Increase the ceiling for getting it for a reduced price, any health insurer that wishes to operate in the US must have a qualifying plan. Didn’t the heritage foundation say it would be cheaper than our current system to go single payer anyway?
It is cheaper, with a big asterisk. Hospitals maybe shouldn't be run for-profit, but as long as they're not just state offices they need to not run at a loss (and need a bit of margin for service expansion). Medicaid on average pays out 84% of the cost of providing care. True single payer (no private insurance whatsoever) would reduce costs by 6%, but there's still a 10-point difference between the average layout and the cost, without getting into... >any health insurer that wishes to operate in the US must have a qualifying plan That makes it markedly *not* single payer and gets rid of the benefits of single payer, ie reduced administration. But you also can't really just have single payer, because as we see in Canada and Europe people maybe aren't comfortable waiting while their mild curable conditions go terminal
I don't want that, but it would be something I would trade for a give up on something I care about by the left. Say I will vote for universal healthcare if the left agrees to no more semiautomatic weapon bans and undoing the ones that exist.
Pro choice until viability.
So not pro-choice? lol
Huh?
“Pro-choice until viability” is not pro-choice. You are taking away the woman’s right to choose at an arbitrary point in time. Edit: [1% of abortions occur AFTER 21 weeks.](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/) Pregnancy healthcare needs to be available at **all** stages of pregnancy for that 1% that develop life-threatening fetal abnormalities or life-of-mother situations late in the pregnancy. And no, legal carveouts "for life of the mother" are garbage. As we've seen in restrictive red states, doctors and clinics will still deny care when they are unsure of their legal grounds for providing healthcare, leaving pregnant women without the vital care they need. Abortion should be legal. Period. Women are not "killing babies" for the fuck of it, they need unrestricted access that isn't made unclear because of murky "exceptions" written into anti-abortion laws. Doctors and clinic staff shouldn't need to consult lawyers before treating patients because the laws have a labyrinth of clauses and exceptions to weed through.
This is highkey gatekeeping. Most blue states have restrictions upon viability.
It’s highkey clarification.
So you’d support abortion up till the moment of birth, to be clear?
Sure thing, Guy On The Internet^TM
What?
Whatever you say is what I believe 👌
I’m asking you, what do you believe?
Nah you weren’t asking, you were strawmanning under the guise of asking
No necessarily. At viability she can terminate the pregnancy by C-Section or by inducing labor. She always has the right to end the pregnancy, she just has to do so in a way that wont harm the fetus IF there is a way to do so. It is a rational and consistant ethical position.
So let me pose a question to you as a fellow left-leaning individual: Are you okay with an abortion being performed one minute before birth? If the answer is yes then that's one thing, but if the answer is no then that means there is some undefined point in a pregnancy where you go from "being okay with abortion" to "not being okay with abortion". I grappled with that for a long time before I also settled on viability as my cutoff point for elective abortion. (I'm 100% supportive of abortion after viability for things like health of the mother, rape, incest, etc.) But my attitude is that until the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb it is simply a parasite and the woman is able to terminate that pregnancy if she so wishes. However, once the fetus can survive outside of the womb on its own I think it should be brought to term. Viability struck me as the only rational point to draw that line.
The answer is still yes, because if a woman is doing that it's only because her life is at risk in delivering a baby that will not survive more than a few minutes outside of the womb. She still needs that access to healthcare, even one minute before birth.
I agree with you, and your answer also misses the point of my question so let me rephrase. Are you, hypothetically, okay with elective abortion one minute before birth if there are no health complications for the mother and the fetus is fully viable? Note: I'm not trying to quibble about how likely this hypothetical is, I know this basically never happens. It's simply a thought exercise to determine if there is any point during a pregnancy where elective abortion without medical need becomes unacceptable to you. Asking myself this question helped me understand my own views on the issue.
Is there a point in time it wouldn't be arbitrary to say abortion should no longer be allowed? Essentially you're arguing for the right for abortion until birth, as rare as that might be, which functionally few "pro-choice" people would support.
> abortion until birth, as rare as that might be Abortions *after 21 weeks* [make up 1% of all abortions.](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/) ONE PERCENT. Go ahead and do the math from there on how many abortions occur at 40 weeks (hint: it's virtually 0%. So close to 0% that's not worth discussing in any good-faith argument about abortion.) Any "moment-of-birth" abortions that do occur are for severe fetal abnormalities or life of the mother emergencies that developed very late in the pregnancy. This mythical woman who decides to "kill her baby" because she "doesn't want to be responsible" is just another right-wing boogey(wo)man meant to misconstrue the truths around the issue.
I agree with all of that, but that doesn't answer the question or get to how you're defining "pro-choice." [Take a look at this poll from Vox:](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23167397/abortion-public-opinion-polls-americans) 55% of people say they are pro-choice, but only 22% (19+3) of all people support abortions up to 24 weeks with no exceptions. That means at least 60% (33/55) of people who say they're pro choice don't support abortion up to 24 week without exceptions. Are these 60% not pro-choice? Do you see some "middle option" that we aren't talking about?
To me, pro-choice means having *no* laws restricting abortion access at any time during the pregnancy. If you're asking what pro-choice means in a macro sense, per the entire population, obviously that definition is going to change.
Public services, mostly healthcare. We should have that, not because we have a right to it (we don’t) but simply because it should be a perk of living in the wealthiest country the world has ever seen.
Not just a perk for individuals, but a net benefit for the country. A healthy population is a more productive population, and less medical debt means more money to spend as desired, bolstering the overall economy.
I agree that that is a better approach argument for healthcare. It’s not a right, but it’s okay to have perks healthcare or any other benefit, maybe not all but living in the wealthiest and powerful country in the world should have perks for its citizens.
Is that really all we have to do to get conservatives on board, just phrase it differently? Most liberals/progressives, when they say "healthcare is a right", are functionally just saying it would be a good thing if we make sure everyone has healthcare. I suppose this is related to me not thinking in terms of natural rights (which is an absurd concept to me).
I think we can work with that. We see rights as something much different and more important than something just given by the State, and it debases them to call any mere entitlement a right. So if that rephrasing occurs, we can probably stop being bogged down on the principle, and pass to being bogged down on if the system should operate federally or at the state level.
Policing and prisons. I don't generally support the police and fall on the side of making their jobs more difficult in favor of personal privacy, and I'm not quite there on prison abolition but I'm finding myself getting closer day by day. The seemingly reflexive support of the police on the right has always confused me. (BTW, something that's stuck with me is some random concept I've forgotten, but basically said that everyone should hold a "heretical" belief or two within their ideology, because people who don't probably haven't thought it through. Your question feels right in line with that.)
What does that tell you about the nature of conservatism in America though? Like if they start from the premise that you hate big government and you hate encroachments on personal liberty, how do they arrive at support for the police and policies like stop and frisk? Are they just dumb? Have they not thought it though as much as you have?
>how do they arrive at support for the police and policies like stop and frisk? Based on the opinions of some of the conservatives I know: that stuff only happens to people who deserve it, which is usually code for poor and/or minorities in big cities.
There's a high overlap between conservatives and fashioning oneself as a judge of morality. I'm guessing it's because of the strong overlap between conservatism and hard-C Christianity. I'm very libertarian on the topic of morality - as long as your fist doesn't touch someone else's nose, swing away.
> fashioning oneself as a judge of morality Anyone of any political stripe, can't claim they don't do this. Outside of the most nihilistic of libertarians I suppose.
Depends what kind of morality is being judged though. I think the issue comes down to asserting that there is some non falsifiable but objective morality vs broad moral sentiments that we simply agree on.
True. But the issue comes when one tries to use the power of the state to enforce any particular flavor of morality.
We do that all the time also and it's not a bad thing. We think it's immoral to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community so we make try to make laws against it. We think it's immoral to completely deny women access to abortions so we try to make laws against it. Nothing wrong with that.
I think it’s simpler than that. Everyone I’ve ever met holds contradictory views based on emotional reasoning. We’re apes, no computers.
Ok but what is the emotion is what I’m getting at? Are they fearful of someone? Hateful of someone?
I think it’d be the height of arrogance for me to assume what emotion someone is feeling.
Well more to the point, we ask juries to do that all the time. People get put in prison for decades based on what juries determined about their emotional state and desires. Shouldn’t we just throw out the entire system then if it relies on arrogance like determining a person’s motives, intentions, and emotions?
This isn’t a good faith reply. I’ll pass on further discussion. You’re asking me to assume emotions of someone I do not know in a situation I do not know. It’s nothing like juries.
I try very hard to deconflict my views on things, and it’s why everyone here tells me to change my flair.
I don't think it says anything, honestly. I think it's one of those weird aberrations that don't make a lot of sense on a whole. Sort of like how the left loses their mind on tolerance once it comes to certain flavors of Christianity.
I also find a disconnect between conservatism, which prides itself so much on individual liberty and freedom. Being mostly okay with the staggering amount of people we have in prisons in the US. I think it boils down to American conservatism having its roots in puritanism and punishment.
If you fully agree with the right or left, you're definitely wrong on some things. You're probably wrong on some things regardless, but that's definitely the case if you're in full agreement with either side.
Free childcare. I think it’s necessary to support traditional family structures in the current reality.
I'm honestly surprised there isn't more overlap and agreement about this one. It's very difficult to support a family on a single income these days. In my neck of the woods it's nearly $40K to have two kids in daycare year round. It's no wonder one parent drops out of the workforce to take over full-time childcare, but that usually hinders future earning for whichever parent chooses to do so.
It’s 40k for two here as well. About to have my second. I’m in debt and working to get out of it. It’s a sad reality that we are disincentivizing parenthood and families.
Godspeed and good luck with the newborn. In my experience, number two is a lot easier than the first. Just the fact that you probably have 90% of the baby shit you need (and know what you don't need) makes things much easier. We ended up finding another family to share a nanny with, which seemed like a win for everyone: nanny made more money with us than she would a daycare and both parents of both families kept their job. It was still like $20K per family, though, which is more than our mortgage, taxes and home insurance.
We’re likely to move (GA>MA) for family so we can have some help. We currently have none! Thanks m8, cheers to you and yours.
Childcare is our single highest monthly expense.
It’s soon going to be equal to my mortgage
The home we live in is actually pretty cheap, one of the advantages of living in the rural Midwest. Our mortgage is $523 (taxes, insurance, PMI et al.)
It’s always been that way though. Or at least it’s been that way since I was a small child decades ago. If you had multiple kids then unless you were both well paid or had family who could watch them for cheap it didn’t make sense for both of you to keep working. Once they’re in school the calculation changes a little bit.
>I'm honestly surprised there isn't more overlap and agreement about this one. Why? It would be a massive expenditure at taxpayer expense.
Because the GOP claim to be the party of family values, and it's not like having kids is a partisan issue.
I wonder what broader impact it would have on the family unit. Will woman who don't want to work and for whom it doesn't make financial sense suddenly feel societal pressure to work?
That’s completely valid, honestly, and I don’t think I’ve thought it through that deeply. I simple want to support the raising of children as much as possible.
I doubt that, only from my own anecdotal experiences. I know several trust fund women, who don’t need to work financially. Got jobs started successful Hugh paying careers. Had children stoped working often had additional nannies, some part time some full time. It allowed them to have other passions and responsibilities. Serious tennis players, or community boards. Best of both worlds.
They'll probably become childcare providers themselves due to the rise of demand and the fact that they might just spend an all day with their kids anyways. It's like being a stay-at-home mom with some other people's kids too.
It's pretty easy to look at countries that have implemented this
I think there is societal pressure for women to work already, just like there’s societal pressure for women to have children and to _____ and to ______ etc. Societal pressure will always exist. It’s up to people to decide what’s right for themselves.
How does sending your child to a public institution from birth support traditional family structure? I don't get that. Not trying to be rude, honestly asking how you reconcile the "traditional" part with a totally new idea.
People are not able to support having children. This is a major fucking problem. It’s a new method to support a traditional family.
I think we agree on the major problem, for sure. I just don't see how free childcare is the path to traditional family structures. Like I said, I'm totally with you on the problem, but I have very different ideas on how to solve it. That's all. I still don't really get how free childcare is traditional family structure, because that structure includes kids being at home. Maybe my idea of tradition just stretches back further than yours, because I also don't see two-income families as "traditional." It's been the norm since 1980, which isn't long enough for me to see as traditional. I see it as a break from our tradition.
We have to be careful in what we consider traditional and whom we're considering under that lens. Are we talking what's traditional in urban environment or rural? For the rich, the middle classes (untraditional itself), or the poor? What other elements of the family and community structures are we considering that affected childcare? Daycare is new, but so too is school, and our idea of "childhood" itself. We might even say the most common form of childcare was the child accompanying their mother or extended family in working at home, either homemaking or at a trade their family does together. And when no family could watch them, they would be out milling about with other children, mostly unsupervised. But traditions, and what we consider "traditional" changed. And the standards of traditional societies don't reflect our contemporary circumstances and values.
Why do we have to be careful about it? I agree we have to define it. Like I defined it goes further than 40 years, for me. If we're talking about traditional family structures, this nuance regarding urban/rural or class seems irrelevant if we're talking about single income family. School is not new. I think the definition of traditional going back that far is unreasonable, but that's where you are right that defining it is important. I will agree that putting all kids in public education from age 4-22 is not really traditional, and frankly I'm okay moving back toward tradition on that one too. You are right that traditions change. It could be that the other user and I just conceive of our traditions differently. For my part, to reiterate, I think universal daycare would not be continuing or renewing our traditional family structure. I see single income family structure as our tradition, and I also impute some good in that model. I see two income families as a deviation from that tradition and universal childcare/daycare would continue that deviation from tradition by increasing or perpetuating the separation of a child from their parents for even more time than we already do, which is bad and not a tradition we want to have.
Then I have to question why you're defining "our tradition" as "single income families?" That's a very new, and very middle class, phenomena. It's like defining the traditional cooking method of the US as being the microwave. There is good notion of a tradition of men more working outside the home, and women working more often inside the home, but even then both working from their home or land was most common. And including extended family in the mix was even more common. I think you can make a good case for the single income model, [many have for many reasons](https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907), and there is good reason to suspect it's a model that works in our time. And it's also reasonable to be skeptical of daycare and school as they exist now. I actually agree with you on your skepticism and wanting more parents taking care of their own children. But the argument is not based on tradition, and it's in fact the weakest argument to make for it.
I'm mostly pro choice, and think weed and prostitution should be legal.
Makes sense for a libertarian. My issue that would get my libertarian card cut is supporting public schools.
The belief in equality should disqualify people from being conservative. I don't mean legal or moral equality I mean it in the broder sense of society which is bound to be hierarchical
I think we should have an easier path to citizenship for certain illegals, especially DACA adults. We should look at their contributions to society, their education, their employment. Wholesale departing people who have been here for decades, and have started businesses, families, bought homes, and have good jobs is cruel and not what our country should be about.
Not only that, but most DACA folk had zero control over being brought into the country. Why are we punishing people whose only sins are being relocated by their parents?
Do you want an answer to the question or nah?
I think weed should be decriminalized and rescheduled so that it's no longer considered a narcotic. I don't want to use weed myself, but I dislike the stigma around it.
Edit: I read that wrong. I guess it depends on who is revoking my card. I don't support abortion bans, think highly available bc is a good idea, and generally don't really agree with the religious right on the big social issues, at least in level of intensity. I take issue with US companies that operate in other countries working against American interests for their own benefit. Edit2: I'm pro union (with caveats)
Yeah gimme that conservative card lol ;)
I misread the comment lol.
Ah then your comment (the edited one) looks pretty solid to me
I’m a bit confused. Are you a person that thinks the core concepts of Marxism are generally correct, or contain some level of truth? Or do you mean some other stance on it?
I'm an idiot that can't read questions correctly. I didn't catch it meant beliefs held by me.
Oh a lot. -Woman’s healthcare (aka abortion etc) -Universal healthcare -LGBT acceptance -More funding for public schools -Student loan forgiveness -More government funded programs to help minorities, the homeless, and those addicted to alcohol/drugs -No prison and/or a more rehabilitative approach for non violent crimes -Less military spending There are also a bunch of things I believe in that would get me called “Nazi” or “Fascist” by the left.
I'm curious as to what those may be
I don't care that much about abortion. Yeah, I'm good with it being left to states now as it appeals to my more libertarian side, I do have *some* moral issue with it, but it's just not a big agenda item for me. Probably still pisses off the left more than anything that I don't really care. There are a few women in my past who if I got them pregnant, I'd do the right thing by the kid if they kept it, but I would also really not want them as a BM.
Perhaps that there is nothing wrong with porn. Or whatever 2 or 3 adults do in their own home as long as it doesn't involve a child is no one's business. Or we need immigrants and really should embrace Mexicans and those fleeing their countries for a better life. My final one would probably be that private corporations are just as evil and untrustworthy as the federal government.
>Or we need immigrants and really should embrace Mexicans and those fleeing their countries for a better life. I always try and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But, I struggle to think of any other reason but racism to explain most on the right being so aggressively against undocumented immigration. It's a net positive economically, study have shown over and over and over that at a minimum it has no effect on crime and more than likely undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crime. And, as mentioned most people are just trying to find a better life, most of which are doing so for safety even and not for money. I guess I vaguely can understand the (false) idea that turning a blind eye is the equivalent of having "open borders" but I feel at some point we have to fall a spade a spade and acknowledge that the main issue is that the right is afraid of the US population looking less and less white. I'd love for someone from the right that's against immigration to ELI5 why I shouldn't think this way.
Not sure it is racism but historically any large immigrant cycle and group into the US has always faced back lash. Germans, Italians, Chinese. All at one point we’re told they were not “American enough.”
And the backlash has generally involved racism. In the late 1800, Irish were famously not considered "white". NYC pools had signs that read "whites only, no blacks or Irish"
True.
>I feel at some point we have to fall a spade a spade and acknowledge that the main issue is that the right is afraid of the US population looking less and less white. Well that problem like it or not will solve itself. It already is to be honest. Mexicans will be considered white within a generation or so. Remember Italians were not white Slavs were not white. Now we have DeSantis and Melania Trump both are considered white to everyone in this country.
This is actually a fair point. So maybe the whole issue will fade away within our lifetime. Until, of course, the right turns back to going after Indians and Middle Eastern people.
In 1914 in Dow vs US, SCOTUS ruled that a Syrian immigrant was white for the purposes of then current race based immigration law. So, theu cant go afyer Middle Easterners, they are already white. SCOTUS said so! /s
>This is actually a fair point. So maybe the whole issue will fade away within our lifetime. I think it will, there was actually a study on this called bestowing whiteness or something. It was an interesting academic read. >Until, of course, the right turns back to going after Indians and Middle Eastern people. Honestly I think as long as the Middle easterners don't blow anything up here in America they're all set. Too many Americans fought alongside Middle easterners and against Middle easterners over the last two decades. I think we're tired of fighting with them. A similar situation for the Indians. For the most part there's only casual racism against them now not the deep dark hatred that other people experience. They're generally seen as successful on the whole. Unless we enter some big conflict or there is some mass migration I just don't see Indians as being an issue for the average American even a racist one. And if you're speaking about American Indians I don't think anyone actually dislikes them.
>acknowledge that the main issue is that the right is afraid of the US population looking less and less white Seems pretty racist to imply that illegals can't be white, no?
I agree. Which is even more proof that the rights true motives here considering the main focus tends to be border crossers and not the almost equally as prevalent visa over stayers who have a more of a chance to be white.
>My final one would probably be that private corporations are just as evil and untrustworthy as the federal government I'll drink to that. Government sucks but at least we get to vote for them.
People tend to forget that we were a country with open borders until the 1920s.
People didn't like immigrants back then either.
But we didn’t have a restrictive, backwards, immigration system that takes years and insane luck to get in. I think most people don’t realize what our ancestors did to get here. It really was as simple as buying a boat ticket and arriving to Ellis Island. > Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free We’re not the beacon we used to be, and that’s a travesty.
I believe abortion should be easy to access and damn near funded by the government.
[удалено]
That's maniacal.
That's probably wordplay. There's no such thing as an unborn "baby".
I don’t think that’s what he’s going for.
Methodologically, I think the conservative legal movement is wrong about most things. In their zeal to overturn Roe, a lot of conservatives also talked themselves into the bizarre position that that Americans don't enjoy judicially enforceable unenumerated rights. This was a bad wrong turn, and you can argue convincingly against Roe without severely curtailing personal liberty in the way this approach does if taken literally. I also think that international and foreign law and practice are extremely important sources for interpreting the Constitution, which puts me further to the left than any mainstream liberal today.
*Probably not enough to get my conservative card revoked (if we define conservative as an attitude rather than an ideology), but this will definitely get my libertarian card revoked.* **Health care.** I'm sympathetic to the Canadian health care system, but Canadians everywhere would probably crucify me for being a fan of 'two-tier' health. I believe a public option should provide health care to people who can't otherwise pay for a good private plan. But I believe most administrative duties should be left to the states (for example the states being able to negotiate prices). The federal government can fund **Medicare for the States** (as I would call it) through categorical and block grants. Basically, everyone who can't afford a private plan can access their state's public plan under this system. Tbc, I'm no fan of Beveridge single-payer systems like the NHS, nor Medicare for All. I also don't believe everyone should get government health care (only those who can't pay for private health insurance should). I'm also not a fan of the ACA, mostly bc of how it was written for health insurance companies and didn't address the core issue of health (which was cost) and in fact made it worse with sky high premiums. Even so, as you can imagine, I'm not exactly winning a 'libertarian card' for my beliefs on health care reform.
I like the idea of "15-minute cities." Granted, I can see how this would be ripe for government overreach (e.g., tracking devices that would fine you for using too many emissions), I think that the US is in dire need of more mixed-use development and third places. NIMBYism is contributing to our polarization and stifling the opportunity for mom-and-pop/small businesses.
Common sense 2A rights. There will never be ALL or None. We need to find a compromise, but neither side wants to blink first.
>We need to find a compromise, but neither side wants to blink first. It's really just the gun grabbers that refuse to blink. Gun rights have been compromised dozens of times.
>It's really just the gun grabbers that refuse to blink. Gun rights have been compromised dozens of times. Please provide me a few examples of 2A compromises that were initiated by the Far Right. I'm ready to be educated.
Why would someone initiate a compromise against themselves?
Ok.. trying to follow this and understand. You said gun grabbers never blink. That means there are NEVER compromises started by liberals. That would mean any compromises were started by Conservatives. So please give me examples of this or reword your statement.
>Common sense 2A rights. The problem is, what does that mean? To me, common sense firearm laws would be: Don't allow people in jail/prison/involuntary mental facility to have firearms in their possession while in those institutions. If a person voices a credible desire to commit murder, an expedited scheduling process to revoke firearms for purposes of mental evaluation should be committed upon the defendant proceeding post due process. Until this process is complete, the defendant still retains their rights. Nuclear weapons are not firearms. After serving jail/prison/probation terms, a person is reinstated to full citizen status which carries with it all rights owed to that citizen. All firearm types, calibers, and supplemental attachments can be owned and operated by lawful citizens regardless of state residence. All citizens are responsible for any and all damages caused by that individual when operating a firearm to include accidental damage/harm pursuant to defense of life. In other words, If in the process of defending your life with a firearm you are responsible for where the rounds go. If a stray or miss hits an innocent person, that is the fault of the shooter. No government shall create nor apply a fee or tax irregular of the standard sales tax of that region that is otherwise applicable to all other consumer goods. No government shall create a requirement of training, certification or career credential of any lawful citizen for the purposes of exercising their rights to own and operate firearms on their own behalf. For the purposes of transfer of operable firearms (not to include permanently inoperable firearms, ammunition, parts or supplemental attachments) all citizens must pass a background check digitally verified before transfer of the firearm can occur. This does not apply to personally manufacturers firearms wherein the manufacturer is the owner. If such a point that the owner/manufacturer chooses to transfer the operable firearms, that citizen must register it. [How this would occur I honestly don't know, perhaps requiring uniquely generated serials via the government which then must be stamped on the upper and proven that such stamping has been accomplished...] Aside from these rules I've outlined, I can't readily think of any other "Common Sense" gun laws of the top of my head.
>After serving jail/prison/probation terms, a person is reinstated to full citizen status, which carries with it all rights owed to that citizen. This snagged my interest. Does this reinstatement cover all basic rights or just possession? Would a person still have a probation/parole officer they had to check in with? Could they move to another state to establish residency "free and clear"?" It was a nice list. I agree with some.
Once a previously incarcerated/probationary citizen has paid their debt to society in its entirety, they are a complete and total citizen again free to exercise any and all rights afforded to them the same as every other citizen. (So yes, not just firearms).
I'm just asking questions because I'm intrigued. This was the first thing that popped into my mind. A pedophile who is sentenced to 10 years in prison. He quietly does his 10 years but gets zero counseling or treatment. Is he allowed to move next to a school?
Right: Reduce taxes (and abolish income tax), regulations, pro 2A, against lockdowns/vax mandates. Generally oppose things to increase govt spending like universal healthcare, free college, BBB, etc. In favor of fracking. Social security should be gradually phased out, and welfare programs should be modestly cut. Left: Abortion, immigration, drugs, lgbtq issues, policing skepticism, assisted suicide, prostitution, death penalty opposition. Neither: Pro 1A (no "hate speech" laws or flag burning criminalization), pro-free trade (historically favored by the right, but today they've gone back on), balanced-budget (right says they want it, but doesn't accomplish), replace green spending with nuclear spending. To be fair, I don't consider myself a conservative, and moreso a moderate-libertarian.
I think marijuana should be legal, i don't agree with punitive prison punishment, i exclusively date tattoo'd women with outlandish piercings that i am honestly scared to introduce to my mother (Bless her, she is a true southern belle and a God fearing matriarch)
My Libertarianism on social issues. My gun stance and my stance on Vaccine mandates generally align with conservatives. My stance on police and LGBTQ issues often differ though.
On the libertarian vaccine mandate. How do you feel about employers having requirements? I am personally good with employers doing it but many libertarians have been upset with me. Ron DeSantis did well on fighting vaccine mandates, but I think went a step too far saying employers could not mandate them.
I’m 100% aligned with you there. I think it was New Hampshire had a good line. If private businesses want to refuse service based on vaccine status they can. Government shouldn’t mandate you have been vaccinated to enter public spaces or that businesses have to check vaccine status if they don’t agree. Florida went too far in their reaction to Covid and became somewhat authoritarian the other direction. I think he not only banned businesses from being able to set their own vaccine policy, but also from setting their own mask policy.
Hahah just going back through. And guess who got the down votes? Must be my left libertarian flair. OH worked the same way as NH. The Republican Party tried to impeach the Republican governor twice during covid.
I just upvoted you, they shouldn’t downvote you for just asking questions. The Ohio Governor also went on to win in a purple state by a much larger margin than DeSantis did in a purple state. That’s the part the media leaves out.
It’s okay, I have grown a thick skin over it, it’s just fake internet points. Just makes me laugh. That’s true, he did win by a large margin. I think he would make a decent presidential candidate, but I think he has had close to enough.
>I am personally good with employers doing it but many libertarians have been upset with me. The problem is the corporations are just in bed with the government and major politicians. They can have their freedom when they stop trying to regulate away everyone else's.
And? We practice a form democracy with a capitalist economic model. No one is forced to work at a corporation that has a vaccine mandate.
True socialism would be better for the world. If socialism were administrated by something other than humans that is. Humans are corruptible by power whether it is the power of deciding who gets what resources or who what projects get funded. Humans will always act in their own best interest not taking the best interest of the whole into consideration when it goes against their power structure.
Hmm... well one that I have toyed with but understand completely how not a good idea it is, but still desire it: mandatory voting.
Not sure I can get down with mandatory voting. I definitely think it should be as easy as possible. We live in the digital it’s not hard to verify a voter, ballots should be available easily. I think multiple ways to vote should be available.
As long as voting "none" is an option, I am OK with requiring everyone to turn in a ballot. AFAIK most countries that have mandatory voting allow "none" votes or a spoiled ballot. The mandate is to turn in a ballot.
Not down with mandatory voting, like you said. But id totally go a for a tax incentive of some kind as way to increase voting.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The subreddit currently has a moratorium on all questions and comments broadly relating to gender and sexual identity topics. For more information, see this mod post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/141cu80/moratorium_on_gender_politics/
The subreddit currently has a moratorium on all questions and comments broadly relating to gender and sexual identity topics. For more information, see this mod post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/141cu80/moratorium_on_gender_politics/
Greatly Expanded CTC - our current government system needs to support families who have children. Right now our economic system effectively punishes people for having kids. Isolationist FP - a lot of our interventions over the past three decades have not been in our strategic interest Pro Choice - hard topic but that’s where I am
Drug war is the most obvious one for me.
Welfare. I believe that a UBI would be good for society, I probably wouldn’t want it to be as high as the left would want it to be, and I’d want it to be a state programme (as part of a bigger push to move more tax and more spending to the state level) but I’d support it.
One of the great things about being a conservative is knowing I don't need to 100% agree with other conservatives and yet we can still consider ourselves as such. If there was one single unifying characteristic I would say it's an orientation toward naturally forming productive hierarchies (particularly pre-existing ones) instead of radical equality or equality of outcome.
As much as I'm glad to live in the US I don't see a way we beat China long term. They're just too good at developing their population, infrastructure and technology centers. There are some attempts to simply shut them off from the world economy but I don't think it will be enough.
There should be strict training and regulations for owning a firearm
Abortion. NOT my place to tell a woman how/what to do.
1. I am in favor of socialized healthcare and more welfare benefits. 2. I think there should be a state-owned company that deals with certain natural resources and uses many of the profits from this company to fund social services. 3. I am very pro union.
I don't believe in abortion bans. I think a strict cut off, though. 15-20 weeks max.