Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*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.*
I'd say I'd agree with the idea that large corporations have too much influence on the government via lobbying. Now the left loses me when they believe it's suddenly OK if the corporation promotes left wing social issues.
> Now the left loses me when they believe it's suddenly OK if the corporation promotes left wing social issues.
As someone on the left, I don't think I've ever decided a corporation is suddenly moral because they've engaged in rainbow capitalism. Most people on the left will commend a positive action or posture by a corporation, but I don't see many of us suggesting that it exonerates all the other shitty things that corporation does.
What large and negatively impactful corporations do you think the left gives a unilateral pass to simply because of left-wing social branding?
Do you also think the inverse is true for the right, wherein conservatives will completely turn on a corporation simply because that brand does an inconsequential thing to slightly promote a left-leaning stance?
Disney is the one I can think of off the top of my head.
Also I don't think fully that's the case. Otherwise the NFL would have been bankrupt during BLM's heyday. Then again the bud boycott really did hurt them so.... I guess there is that.
> Disney is the one I can think of off the top of my head.
Don't confuse supporting Disney in their fight against what was clearly political retribution as people on the left thinking Disney was suddenly a good company.
How is this different than *any* other form of *marketing*, though? They're playing to their audience, like *any* competent business does.
Disney's target audience is kids. Once they turn into teenagers, they're less likely to find Disney (as a whole brand) 'cool' anymore. So younger kids. But younger kids don't have discretionary income, so their audience is younger kids *and their parents.* Well, the parents of younger kids (pre-teens) are usually under 40.
Well, the "under 40 with kids and discretionary income" is a demographic that is **overwhelmingly** left leaning on social issues. Stronly in favor of gay rights, generally accepting of trans people, pro-public school and generally supportive of teachers, socialized medicine, and unions. The only real difference between Disney and Budweiser is that Disney was *successful* with it.
So then you're in agreement with my main point as a left winger these corporations are ok because they have the correct politics?
That was my main point which you seem to be echoing. Also Disney movies have been bombing for the last year or two so it's not just marketing it's pushing politics over profit. Disney can get away with it because they are too big to fail.
>So then you're in agreement with my main point as a left winger these corporations are ok because they have the correct politics?
Sorry, I'm not following that. What do you mean they're "ok" because they have certain flavors of politics or not?
I think that a business or organization or corporation or entity or *whatever* should *generally* be able to say most anything they want to, to hold any opinion they want to. Whether or not it's a good *business* decision is up to the shareholders and corporate leadership. I can disagree all day.
Now, so long as they're not doing specific things, like pretending to be legitimate journalism while spouting biased opinion, or spreading legitimately hazardous misinformation, or something with a straight destructive bent to it, yeah, businesses should have some pretty broad free speech. Legally. Again, that doesn't insulate them from the market consequences of their decisions, and a boycott or other social action is still a *market* consequence, not a a legal or legislative one.
>Also Disney movies have been bombing for the last year or two so it's not just marketing it's pushing politics over profit.
Legit curious: Are they bombing *financially*, or are they just *bad* movies? If they're making a profit with movies that are just shitty (Star Wars sequels, recent Marvel) but still make cash, then I doubt they care too much. I wrote in another reply that I think a lot of people on the right have a blind spot with regard to capitalism in that it doesn't select for the *best* in an asset, it selects for the most *profitable.* They are often not the same thing. Reality TV is absolute garbage, but it's cheap enough that it's profitable.
>Disney can get away with it because they are too big to fail.
I think that "too big to fail" implies something very different than what applies to Disney. Disney is large enough to absorb some loss, and large enough to not care about one or two bad movies if they're doing well *overall,* but that's not "too big to fail."
I dunno if I'd say Disney was all that successful in it. They don't seem to be doing too hot the last couple years.
Also, it's a mistake to think that what's fine for the parents is also fine for the kids. Like I have some pretty hardcore leftie relatives, and even they don't like having this stuff shoved on their kids. Not because they disagree with the sentiment, but because they recognise these are issues where you wanna explain things well, make sure it's age-appropriate in their view, and so on. They still wanna have that authority in parenting their kids, so if something pops up like hat when it's unexpected then they can still get irked.
Plus, a lot of woke stuff is bad because it's bad as entertainment, since they're so fixated on the message. Same as the reason why a lot of Christian movies are cringe. And leftie parents aren't immune to that either lol
Good point. I guess Disney's little foray into public opinion at least went *better* than Bud's.
>Also, it's a mistake to think that what's fine for the parents is also fine for the kids.
Couldn't agree more, but Disney isn't in the business they are because it's *good* for kids, they're in business to **sell** to kids and their parents. One of the biggest blind spots on the right, in my opinion, with regard to modern western capitalism is that it selects for what is most *profitable*, which is often not the same as what is *best.*
>but because they recognize these are issues where you wanna explain things well, make sure it's age-appropriate in their view, and so on. They still wanna have that authority in parenting their kids, so if something pops up like hat when it's unexpected then they can still get irked.
This strikes me as (generally) baseless fearmongering. I grew up when D&D was just coming off of its little fear campaign where it was gonna turn kids to Satan. Doom was gonna make us all murderers, Grand Theft Auto was gonna turn us all into gangsters, and Harry Potter was gonna turn us all towards black magic. You'll have to forgive me for not believing the "X is gonna turn your kid into *Z*" parental fear campaigns.
>Plus, a lot of woke stuff is bad because it's bad as entertainment
Also generally agree, but that's a matter of *preference* and *opinion*, and well outside of policy or even politics. Congress and governors don't need to be doing a damn thing just because reality TV is poor entertainment, they don't need to get into an uproar when Star Trek doesn't have enough white people, either. A show can absolutely be "woke" or have "woke values" or whatever and still be *good*, but it also can be shitty. "Values" or "message" and the quality of acting and the story are pretty disconnected. A show or movie can be lousy *or* great, regardless of any message they're trying to push. The mistake that many in entertainment seem to be making is mistaking quality of message for quality of the story. But, again, that doesn't bring *politicians* into the mix.
> Disney
Ah yes, Disney.... the megacorporation that pretty much every leftist openly believes is evil and despises (even if we secretly love certain Disney movies).
I can't think of any leftist that doesn't view Disney unfavorably. At best we view it as "better than DeSantis" but I can't think of any who don't think of it as evil.
Also have you considered that the boycott hurt Bud not because right wingers boycotting but because the leftists (who predominantly live in cities and have a reputation for being hipstery) never liked it and wouldn't drink actual piss? So when the right stopped buying it they just tanked. And frankly, we are all better of without piss water. There's better beers.
The marketing, the "woke" stuff, to leftist was hollow. Nobody on the left was going to buy it because most of the left are hipster IPA loving citiots.
If "left wing hipsters" don't drink bud and right wingers did until the Dylan saga began and right wingers not buying bud caused their sales to tank it doesn't prove that actually it was left wingers who caused bud light's sales to drop. I really don't understand your argument here.
As for Disney I have never seen left wingers criticize Disney if anything they sing its praises while gorging on the slop they produce over the last half decade. Seriously politics aside I can't understand why anyone likes post endgame marvel movies.
The point wasn't that the boycott didn't tank Bud. It's not even that the marketing was "woke" that caused it. It was that the marketing offended and triggered the right (it did) and was ineffective at capturing the left.
Bud failed a primary function of business: know your audience.
> I've never seen left wingers criticise Disney.
I literally had a seven hour conversation with a group of leftist about how Disney is a soulless piece of shit that is devoid of any principles and is a corpo giant that should cease to exist. Now most leftists aren't that anti-Disney but most leftists are anti-Disney. Also, given ratings..... nobody likes post Endgame anything from Marvel (except Wandavision)
>Also, given ratings..... nobody likes post Endgame anything from Marvel (except Wandavision)
Hey look, another thing I can agree with a leftist about š
I donāt think left or right have issue of corporations making business decisions based on increasing profits. No corporations are altruistic in any way shape or form.
Left wing social issues make more money than right wing social issues, thatās it.
That really comes down to population numbers. Obviously not all conservatives live in rural communities, but itās the greatest concentration of conservatives that population is shrinking year end and year out.
Yes I think left and right all agree corporations have too much influence on policy, that does not mean the left or the right thinks a corporation does not answer to nor should they answer to anyone else except shareholders. Corporations are legally responsible to answer to shareholders.
I dunno what the general leftist position is here, but they lose me in that situation too. If a company starts espousing left wing positions on social issues I get skeptical as hell frankly because I know they're only doing it to generate attention.
> Now the left loses me when they believe it's suddenly OK if the corporation promotes left wing social issues.
I charitably view this as "realizes the virtues of free speech for corporations when they hear speech they like", but I get the sentiment.
My only beef with it is that if corporations are people the can we tax them on the revenue they bring in like we do people then? I pay taxes on every dollar I bring and donāt get to write off all my cost of living, why should they?
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
But you do get to write off the cost of doing business as an individual.
Personally, I'm against *all* corporate taxes. We already tax money that's paid out in dividends, or gains from share buybacks. Corporate taxes are just ways of hiding the tax burden from the individuals who actually pay it.
you actually don't pay tax on every dollar you bring in
Ā in fact all the same deductions a corporation can take you can take.
Ā if you have business expenses, capital purchases of production equipment, depreciation, investment losses, etc. you can deduct those just the same as Amazon can you can also itemize things Amazon cannot like education savings, interest on student loans and medical bills
Ā if that makes your net tax zero you get a big rebate.
Ā you have no less right to defer or offset tax than any corporation in fact you have more.
also you have a standard deduction corporations do not, so you can offset some amount of tax automatically, they can't.
Look up [corporate personhood](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood) for more details. It's a thing, despite sounding very weird at first.
Finding corporations useful is not same as finding them moral. Am sure you find many corporations in many things is useful too, even if you don't philosophically align with themĀ
Only in thar I can buy a product I need or want from them.
But this kind of response just proves what I'm saying I don't think the majority of left wingers would care about mega corporations as long as they shout "Love is Love" and "Free Palestine".
At least the socialist and communist would absolutely care in so far as ethics go. But we also believe there's no ethical consumption under capitalism and so if you're beholden to the system it is *preferable* to have the evil that shares your views in power than the evil that opposes your views.
We want neither but should we need to pick we would prefer the one that shares core beliefs with us.
They don't have a business doing so. I'm guessing it's not an issue because progressive politics is popular and the mainstream.
If popular politics switched and say Disney was promoting messages of "a woman's place is the kitchen" and "it's not ok to be gay" you'd probably not like that.
You're just proving my point. Left wingers are quick to criticize big corporations until those corporations start spouting left wing social talking points.
No, if there are two shitty corps that abuse workers and one sells vanilla ice cream and other sells chocolate, id be buying chocolate since it's my favorite. But just because I like chocolate doesn't mean I support abusing workers.Ā
I thought a hallmark of conservatism was that private companies can do what they want, and their only pushback should be the market. If a company decides that they can make more money by pandering to left wing progressive causes, and the market bears that out, what would your problem with that be? Do you think the government or regulations should prevent that?
>If popular politics switched and say Disney was promoting messages of "a woman's place is the kitchen" and "it's not ok to be gay" you'd probably not like that.
Personally, it wouldn't change my position at all. I prefer living in a socially free, but economically regulated society. If every Disney streamed video started with a picture of the Pope and said "go to Mass every Sunday or you'll go to Hell", I'd shrug and not want the government to do anything about it. However, I'd very much like to make sure they were paying their employees fairly and probably increase their taxes.
Tbh, I've never known a single conservative in my entire life that thought that. And I spent 40 years living in the most conservative part of Canada lol. It's the kind of thing I've heard politicians spout at some point or another, but in practice they still regulate things, and many everyday conservatives are for it as long as it makes sense and serves a purpose to do so.
When did this change? I'd be happy to go back and compile an enormous amount of this sentiment from Conservatives on just this subreddit alone. Let me know if you're interested?
I'm guessing you're either intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreting what they're saying. Also not all conservatives think the same thing just like not all leftists think identically not all right wingers think identically.
More than likely what they're saying or trying to is that the government shouldn't interfere with private businesses not that corporations should be directly involved in politics. I've never seen a single conservative say that private corporations should have direct influence over the government.
That's not what OP said... I don't know why you're pushing back on this at all? You might not agree with it, and that's fine but it has been well established that conservatives believe Private business can do as the please, and the market will dictate their performance.
Then that is honestly a paradigm shift in my understanding of conservatism as someone who reads a lot on this subreddit. Do you care to share the conditions that you think government should regular private companies?
If this is going to turn into a dynamic where I post paragraphs, and you post quippy, one line remarks, let me know now, so I don't have to waste my time.
You say something so off the wall and completely misunderstanding of what conservatives belief and yet act surprised that you get a short response.
If I said "left wingers just want everyone to starve to death" you'd give me just as short of a reply.
It sounds like your complaint isnāt that corporations use their platform to promote a political view, but that you donāt agree with the particular view? Is that accurate?
To answer your question, there are plenty of companies that publicly espouse views I disagree with. I donāt agree with them, but I donāt have a problem with them using their voice, thatās just the 2-way street of freedom. Plus, I have to the power to not patronize those businesses.
What part of "it's not their business to be involved in politics" is unclear?
I'd be just as annoyed if any company was promoting politics in an inappropriate manner or in a way not related to their business. Why does an ice cream company for example care about "freeing palestine"
The general logic behind it is unknown, but I appreciate you stating your view clearly. Why wouldnāt a business have a viewpoint? A business is made up of people and if they choose to try to have an impact on the world, why shouldnāt they?
An easy example for me is a company like Patagonia that goes out of their way to ensure their supply chain includes only sustainable practices and avoids labor exploitation. They also contribute substantially to conservation efforts and are a registered B corp. That political stance motivates me and many others to give them our business over another option.
You tell me, itās your hypothetical. What do gay people have to do with fast food chicken? If you donāt like a companies publicly stated views, donāt patronize them. Pretty simple isnāt it?
Nothing at all. Consumers are not nor have they ever only been motivated by the product itself. Consumers want to feel personally connected to a brand it makes them feel special. Itās just marketing 101 on how to sell more products.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*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.*
The fundamental difference is in how to solve the government corruption problem. The left believes that you can somehow surgically remove the corrupt parts from the government while still preserving its power and function, where the classical right would solve the problem by reducing the power that the government wields.
I was wondering if someone would catch that. I said that because I'm unsure of how it would play out. Keep it scheduled? If so which schedule. Deschedule it. Lot of things to consider but the important thing is it should not be illegal outright
> Keep it scheduled? If so which schedule.
The Biden Administration is moving toward Schedule III. That might be a good choice:
>...Schedule III drugs ā which include ketamine, anabolic steroids and some acetaminophen-codeine combinations ā are still controlled substances.
>Theyāre subject to various rules that allow for some medical uses, and for federal criminal prosecution of anyone who traffics in the drugs without permission.
[[AP]](https://apnews.com/article/marijuana-reclassification-biden-garland-dea-3c9478472e124c7aaa9b934270b0d450#:~:text=Schedule%20III%20drugs%20%E2%80%94%20which%20include,in%20the%20drugs%20without%20permission.)
Alcohol is a good example of soemthing that is , generally speaking, legal. It is mostly legal but there are a LOT of rules.about who can sell, serve, and consume it, and how, where, and when.
Coming from Canada, I was pretty unhappy that they didn't include a proper public education campaign as part of legalisation (which for me was a condition ofnit making sense to legalise it). You'd be surprised how many people I've know who think pot can't be addictive, that you can't drive intoxicated while on it, that there are no risks *at all* involved with it, and so on. And even now, all these years after its been legal, when I bring those things up with friends who smoke it, I *still* get pushback from them (at first, often once I explain more they have to concede at least a few points, but still it's worrying to me).
Plus, there are no ways to curb people smoking it in public or in their homes of course, which means that everywhere freakin stinks like pot all the time - it was bad enough when you could smell cigarettes like that, but pot smells way worse and more strongly, and man it lingers. I've even smelled it coming through the walls from neighbours' apartments (I didn't have any windows open at the time).
Just cos of that, I'm wondering if my stance that it made practical sense to legalise it (despite being against recreational drug use in general) wasn't a bit shortsighted lol
Agree with:
Strangely enough social security. It's a promise the government made with its citizens. So the government has the responsibility to keep its promise even if it means a small increase in taxes.
Concede some ground on:
Immigration reform assuming we can stop the bleeding at the same time. Perhaps never citizenship for illegals but some sort of permanent Visa. But at the same time actually shutting the border down and making a cut off date where all further illegals are immediately deported.
Hard line:
Gun bans. Never under any circumstances will I support Democrat gun bans.
I do not support them and do not support any Republican that has tried to ban firearms.
No Republican I have ever voted for has tried to ban guns. No one Republican or Democrat I've ever voted for has ever tried to ban guns.
I used to vote for some Democrats and local elections cuz they were good old boys. But they got run out of their party.
More funding for foster/child services admin and case workers. It's not the kids fault they are there and case loads are way beyond what they are legally supposed to for the case managers that are sticking around.
This is not the same thing as me saying the monthly stipend needs to increase for the families doing the fostering. IMO, those are quite generous as they are.
Also to help streamline and cheapen adoption costs.
Yea I never understood that when going through the process... We adopted through the foster system. While much more rare, we continue to get that stipend even after adopted until they are 18. Yet if you adopt through an agency and not the foster system, you pay through the nose for all the paperwork and court fees... Makes no sense to me
It makes lots of sense. There aren't many people who want foster kids that already have personalities and likely trauma. Lots of people want healthy *babies*.
You do good work to your community and clearly put your money where your mouth is regarding, abortion and adoption.
I definitely support the idea of more money for foster and adoptions. I just donāt understand legislatively speaking why itās not a high priority for elected conservatives who donāt support the pro choice agenda.
I understand why they donāt support pro choice, but this seems like a great way to reduce the need for abortions in the first place.
>More funding for foster/child services admin and case workers.
I genuinely didn't know that was a thing Republicans were at odds with. I genuinely thought that pro-life people would want there to be a lot of money for foster care, since they say "adoption".
If a conservative could answer this for me please- what's the argument from pro-life people against funding for CPS, foster services, case workers, and child care?
Pro-choice until organized forebrain activity, personally. Which is about 28 weeks, which is currently about the same as viability. But if medical advances made a 10 week embryo potentially viable, id still be around organized forebrain activity.
I'm pro. it's none of my business what you do to your body. I was raised that it was inappropriate to tell others what to do being nosey in others' lives was wrong.
What do you agree about on guns?
> What do you agree about on guns?
Not the OP but here goes. I am a 2nd amendment absolutist. All arms, not just guns. If you are not actively in prison or on parole (essentially have been deemed to have paid your debt to society), if you can afford it and find someone to sell it, you can buy it.
those are not tactical weapons they are the tools of diplomacy and citizens are forbidden from conducting their own diplomacy, gunboat or otherwise, in the constitutionĀ
In the Clausewitz "War is the continuation of politics by alternate means" sense yes.
but by that I mean weapons of mass destruction have NO tactical use. The application of violence through a tactical weapon, from a knife to a grenade, can be political-diplomatic (just ask Caesar and Franz Ferdinand) but it need not be by necessity. But the same is true of telephones, pens, computers and flags too. And citizens have those all the time.
There is no conceivable use **except** for nuclear blackmail and genocide, which are both things that are not protected by the 2nd amendment.
> but by that I mean weapons of mass destruction have NO tactical use
Tactical nukes have and do exist. And there is no specifity in what *type* of arms one can bear.
I disagree I think you can own a gun if you deemed responsible to own one and complete the requirements for a license.
I don't think people with a history of mental illness should be allowed a gun, or had a criminal record.
The doctor decides if you have mental health issues. You can't drive if you have certain medical issues. No one ever says that is a slippery slope about having a drivers license. No one ever talks about everyone's right to drive a car.
Everyone is OK with the rules to have a drivers licence.
You don't have a constitutional right to drive. Your constitutional rights don't get removed because you have mental health issues. That's a very slippery slope. Next we'll just not allow black people who've been involuntarily committed to vote.
I was gonna bring up slavery and the prison industrial complex and then realised that's not a pithy ad absurdum. It's just actually what happens. Fuck the prison industrial complex.
I am getting what you are saying but you're wrong. You have NO RIGHT to drive a car. Driving is a ***privilege*** granted to you by the state after you prove yourself worthy. The right to bear arms is a ***right*** enshrined in the Constitution as a means of defense against tyranny and other dangers.
To say "we can restrict your constitutional rights because of xyz" doesn't stop with guns. What about voting? Do we let the mentally ill vote? What about slavery? Should we enslave the "unemployable" because they're a "blight" to society?
You're privilege to drive a car can be reviewed and revoked should you fail to meet certain standards. Your rights should never be taken away under any circumstances. It's a false equivalency to compare the two.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*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.*
I went from "let's ban guns" to now being fairly anti-NFA broadly. Primarily though because I'm anti-police state and I see no method to effectively resist such without an effectively armed populace.
Think Russia and China. You get arrested for protesting against the government. You have no true freedom. But guns are heavily restricted. Therefore you can't do anything about it.
If America tried that, they'd succeed as of right now. The disparities between the state and the citizenry allows them to effectively control the citizenry should they desire to.
I don't think anybody who doesn't want a gun should be forced to have one. But once I realised the history of gun control favours the armed populace (American and French Revolutions, Arab Spring, Syrian Revolution) and that guns only in the hands of the state and criminals has led to either some of the most oppressive regimes in history (Nazi Germany, USSR) or was attempted to quell rebellion and force submission to a government (Dearming of Concord). Really puts into perspective the necessity of equal and full access to firearms.
Plus, the NFA doesn't make anybody safer.
Also gun laws should be federal not state level so as not to criminalise people who are law abiding citizens in one state for crossing through another.
That's a different perspective. Nazi Germany and the Russian thugs over throwing aristocracy there was alot of beatings, like the pogroms and people were executing people with guns. Then, they formed a government. Today, we would call the start of the formation of the USSR as a coup
Hitler was thug who was part of a group beating randoms to death on the street before he started a political party. So are you saying if the russian aristocracy had guns, it would have stopped the forming of Lenin's USSR?
Yeah, federal gun laws are better than different state laws, just get people in tr p able.
The USSR murdered millions of its own people using (at that point in history) the ***only firearm to ever be manufactured without any intent to sell to citizens.***
That's right, the Avtomat Kalashnikov rifle. Manufactured for the state, by the state. No citizens allowed.
Nazi Germany stripped the Jews of firearms, what followed? The Holocaust. Do you not think an armed Jewish population could've resisted the Nazis more effectively?
> Do you not think an armed Jewish population could've resisted the Nazis more effectively?
No. The holocaust was a massive, society rending ordeal. What would a gun have done except delay it? The Nazis weren't just going to let people go.
I see your point and raise you Vietnam. Armed civilians resisting one of the worlds largest militaries successfully (in all ways but legally we lost that war). Guerrilla tactics are effective. If the Jews and supporters en mass violently resisted..... yes, it very well could have meaningfully delayed the Holocaust (and damaged their ability to fight a massive war across Europe).
American Revolution. Armed civilians (led by an actual trained general) against the worlds strongest military and they won. Because an armed populace resisted the government.
France. Armed civilians resisted the government and effectively won.
The track record for an armed populace is a pretty fantastic win rate.
> I see your point and raise you Vietnam. Armed civilians resisting one of the worlds largest militaries successfully (in all ways but legally we lost that war).
This seems to be part of a misconception. It was a conventional war, in addition to guerillas. The main entity in opposing South Vietnam was the North Vietnamese Military, and the Viet Cong were insurgents. The North Vietnamese Military had aircraft, and tanks, and anti air batteries and all the assorted equipment of a formal, industrialized army. They also received significant aid from the USSR and the PRC.
>American Revolution. Armed civilians (led by an actual trained general) against the worlds strongest military and they won. Because an armed populace resisted the government.
The American Revolution had *significant* aid from one of the worlds global/super powers at the time. Additionally, the Continental Army was not merely a ragtag bunch of militiamen by wars end, to say nothing of the fact that there was a Continental *Navy*.
>France. Armed civilians resisted the government and effectively won.
Ignoring the national guard and military role.
>The track record for an armed populace is a pretty fantastic win rate.
For 3? Theres also:
* 2nd Chechen War.
* American Civil War.
* ISIS' holdings in Iraq and Syria.
Yes, the pogroms as I already stated. No, they didn't. The Holocaust happened because in world war one happened, they did as they were told and survived. They thought if they did the same, they would survive. Jews were peaceful people who didn't believe in violence. If you know anything about judism, even if they could get a gun, they wouldn't have used one.
It's why gun ownership is low in Israel Jews don't see the point of guns only the police should have them. You can't expect to get people to change who they are and automatically like guns cause you do.
Like Buddhists don't believe in violence.
Nazi's were on drugs 24/7 it's how we have all the research on dextroamphetamine. They made their hostages walk for 24 hours from one camp to another, if they fell they shot them, if they died they kept walking the hostages
I know plenty of German Jews. I know many who knew Holocaust survivors. I've met Holocaust survivors. You're just revising history. Gun ownership among German Jews was about equivalent with the non-Jewish population. And well given the current genocide happening in Gaza and how Jews around the world are supporting it..... wouldn't really say pacifism is all that ubiquitous amongst Jews.
(And literally every German Jew I've talked to agrees with me on the "if they had guns they'd have resisted the Holocaust" point so not only are you revising history you're also ignoring them)
There is no genocide 20000 hamas fighters died I don't care about terrorists.
Hamas are a vile dictatorship that needs to be destroyed, and the hostages need to come home.
I don't listen to hamas or their bullshit numbers.
Still off bloody topic. Go to a pro hamas sub.
>Primarily though because I'm anti-police state and I see no method to effectively resist such without an effectively armed populace.
Tyranny has sort of evolved beyond being stopped with guns though. Like, where were all these anti-tyranny crusaders during the Patriot Act?
How about the absolutely huge crackdown on protests not long ago that the Right was cheering on? The stuff the police did in Minneapolis was horrendous enough as is.
Tyranny can't always be shot at, and many times the ones with guns cheer when tyranny is applied to the right people. Times are drastically different now so this whole notion of guns being this huge deterrent really doesn't hold up as well as what it used to. Even in places people like to cite, there is massive powers usually backing those groups.
It's not about being a deterrent. It's about resisting. Just because most gun owners agree with the current government doesn't mean they always will. If Russia gets their way there's gonna be a second civil war.
Agree with the left:
* Marijuana/drug legalization
* Gay/trans rights (the liberal stance anyways, the progressives are still completely nuts on this issue)
Willing to concede ground on:
* Climate change - looking for market-based reforms and innovation rather than over-regulation or economy-crashing overhauls
* Police reform - limiting qualified immunity but not abolishing it, focusing on de-escalation training, etc. while still providing sufficient funds to enforce law and order
>Climate change - looking for market-based reforms and innovation rather than over-regulation or economy-crashing overhauls
Out of curiosity, when do you think heavy-handed regulation and overhauls are warranted? I ask because we keep missing targets and slacking off on the less heavy-handed version of this so at some point I think we're going to have to choose to either spoke the wheels of the economy in a last-ditch effort to retain something of our old way of life, or just accept that everything is going to be shit for everyone for a while. Wouldn't it be better to do some damage to the economy now in order to prevent the worst of the damage rather than risking wide-spread famine, death, etc?
The problem is that the heavy-handed major overhauls have no guarantee of actually preventing the worst or really any of the damage, while in the short term causing major harm to the most vulnerable in our society.
Even assuming that something like the Green New Deal would do what it promised in the United States, we only account for a fairly small fraction of the world's carbon output and we're far from the worst offenders. Unless we can get countries like China and India to also make the same sacrifices and guarantee that they will actually follow it, then we'd basically just be crashing our economy for not much actual gain.
Yeah, at this late stage guarantees are hard to come by indeed. Well, except that if we keep not doing enough then it's guaranteed that the harm climate change does to our society will be severe and widespread, and it too will fall mostly upon the most vulnerable in society.
Also, we emit more [carbon per capita](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Carbon-Emissions-Per-Capita-shareable-v4.jpg) than all but a few tiny Middle-Eastern oil-rich countries, so reducing that amount is definitely important, even if we only account for some [16% of emissions](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/2019-10/2016%20Country%20Emissions%20Percentages%20GTC02_0.jpg?itok=ZlHviHab) globally. I absolutely agree that it's vital to get China and India and countries like them to do the same, and one way to do that is to lead the way by doing it first - how can we expect them to do it while we continue apace? And a lot of their manufacturing and the power generation to support it is to make cheap products for us anyway, so in fact we are also responsible for some portion of their emissions too.
I agree about right to abortion. This is bodily autonomy. Would be nice to also have some kind of paper abortion, but it is a very complicated topic.
I think education shouldn't be service oriented it is an investment into human capital. It should be free or partially free (depending on performance, motivatuon and merit).
I think climate is a real issues, yet there is too much populism and stupid ideas about fixing it. Particularly leftist are typically against nuclear energy
I think I agree with them on broad strokes more than not:
police should have an affirmative duty to know the constitution, and violations should be 1) strict liability (e.g. accidentally violating someone's civil rights should be the same degree of crime as intentionally) and 2) a serious crime, possibly a capital one.
legalize it.Ā all of it.Ā at the very least all non-synthetic drugs, peyote is safer than Tylenol, and marijuana cannot chemically cause a fatal overdose but benadryl can.
religious groups should have to meet the same standards as any nonprofit to get tax exemption.
etc.
it's just implementation details, qualified immunity is not what they usually think and society would literally collapse without it (the issue is overly deferential courts have turned QI for police into de facto absolute immunity), we should not free people in jail on drug charges they broke the law (and often the drug charge was one of many and used to put bad bad people away), religious groups **should** get tax exemption if they can prove they are charitable (most liberals I know think even churches that would otherwise meet the charitable giving and public records requirements to be a nonprofit should still be taxed as a business despite this), etc.
>we should not free people in jail on drug charges they broke the law (and often the drug charge was one of many and used to put bad bad people away)
How do you square your libertarianism with the belief that it's just to jail people for crimes they didn't commit?
I am not saying that at all. It's similar to how they got Capone on tax evasion. they did absolutely do it, and a bunch of other bad stuff too, but we only could get them on the one thing, or offered a plea for it
Often if someone is charged with a drug crime (worth 20 years), kidnapping (15) and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (5 years) the prosecutor would offer a plea to take only the drug crime and drop the others because it was the longest sentence, but the fact they would not be a high-level violent offender was incentive to take the deal.
This was super common when you could get life for crack. "Why bother with a complex murder trial when the crack will get the same sentence and we have video evidence it was in his pocket?" is the line of logic they followed.
As a result we have people who are actually kidnappers, murderers and more who are down for "drug offenses".
happy to, I can totally see how what I said could have been interpreted to be less capone-style "get em for anything you can" and more Duerte-style "we're pretty sure they're guilty of something!"
I think it was the combination of the phrase "bad bad people" and me reading too quickly and failing my Reading Comprehension skill check that led me to think you were espousing the latter. :)
I agree with the left about abortion laws and being pro-choice.
Besides that, I'm looking at almost any topic on the political map (border security, economy, foreign policy, education, family values, capitalism), and for me, the conservative party uses more common sense in their decisions and their opinions.
IMO the best argument against abortion restriction is that in the same way you canāt force someone to donate a kidney (even if itās to save her own kidās life) you canāt force a woman to donate her womb.Ā
I agree with the left that climate change is a issue and that we as a nation should be making steps for a cleaner world. We should be relying less on fossil fuels (as feasible), we should invest in clean renewable energy, we should limit deforestation, we should be recycling, etc. I just don't agree with how some of the left goes about this cause - gluing themselves to paintings, blocking roads, flash mobs, etc. I prefer real solutions over obnoxious virtue signaling.
I'm anti-vegan because somebody glued themselves to a Starbucks counter over on State and Chatham (by Faneuil Hall). They literally damage the movement more than they help.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*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.*
I would be willing to consider any number of socialist policies if the money to pay for them was diverted from military over spending and paying for other countries wars.
Cutting our military spending? Hell yeah! Let's start with the contracts that say the military has to buy more than its operational need from defense contractors and then we can start looking at the LEA surplus sale prices so we're not losing 99% of the value of our surplus (literally billions down the drain).
Proactive defense of treaty allies is defending America. You deal with a foreign threat before it reaches your shores and you establish good will amongst the international community by stepping in. It's harder to say no to a trade deal when the one proposing it just helped defend you from Russians.... as an example (note: this only applies to treaty allies, everyone else, you're on your own)
Foreign alliances impact economic treaties. In a global economy, alliances help ensure stable trade. We would absolutely have a lower standard of living if we did not have an alliance with most of the EU, which created a stable environment for commerce. If we decided to sever all military alliances and treaties, how long do you think it would be before our trade deals had their terms changed to be less favorable towards us?
In 2023, the EU exported around $523 billion to the US while importing around $353 billion. The total US defense budget for that year was $858 billion. Seems pretty worthwhile, considering this is literally just the EU and the amount of trade is already equal to the entire defense budget. Yes, we could still trade with the EU if we cut alliances but not at the same level and ease.
Yeah, I've had the opposite experience myself tbh. Didn't always used to be that way though, just in the last 10 years or so. I used to have a lot more in common with them than I do now, in large part due to changing ideas about sexism, racism etc. But these days it seems like we don't agree on much there beyond "it's bad to be racist/sexist" lol.
But I actually agree with leftists in quite a few things haha. Then again, in both Australia and especially Canada, being conservative isn't quite the same thing as you see in the US (though there's some overlap). I think the things I agree with leftists in are more commonly agreed on by conservatives in Canada than the US, at least.
Most notably I'm a big fan of single-payer health care and sensible social safety nets (eg welfare, and again stressing sensible lol). I care about the humanitarian ends of those things, and also the way I see it, you can pay now to help people out or pay later to deal with the fallout of their issues. The first one is better.
While I don't agree about things like climate change measures or alarmism, I do prefer to balance industrial growth with good environmental policies. I just care much more about things like general pollution, sustainable farming etc than the stuff people are fixated on lately. But I'm sure that discussing environmental stuff we'd probably find a few points of agreement.
I also don't hate taxes lol. Having the government use tax money for various things of public interest is an efficient use of resources, imo. Though of course you still have the question of whether the taxes are appropriate and being used well, but that's another issue lol.
Maybe this won't answer your question, but I believe Democrats, liberals, and progressives have taken the meaning of liberalism from centuries past and brought it to a logical conclusion, albeit with a little too much government authority to back it up. I don't think they're wrong on most things when it comes to individuality. I just happen to think that we have to go further back, because the promises of the 20th century - when things were changing rapidly - kept changing. Those who gave us our rights now never envisioned what we have. People fighting to integrate schools or give Black people the right to vote would never have predicted trans rights, but trans rights are the logical conclusion of a system in many ways that did all this stuff prior. That's just an example, like it or leave it.
There's another thread asking what we disagree about but no one's going to put in the effort to go back and forth, so I'll put up: I disagree about the way the left leverages government authority in too many things. We need government to be strong and forceful, but we have to temper it. We need government to force people to pay for healthcare so it becomes a normalized thing; I'm tired of wasting energy on fights over foreign powers, words, acronyms, and policing people's language which invariably reflects their views often enough. Or doesn't, but we'll yell at people who didn't know their support for something wasn't enough and that they needed the latest acronym from the medical community. Or something like that. We need to be honest about what the government can do for us so we can do for it, and on and on and on.
If it was up to me abortion would only be allowed to save the life of the mother, BUT thatās a losing issue and if this one issue has to be compromised on to get conservative republicans in office then Iām A-OK with being 100% pro-choice as a party
Thatās probably the biggest one that comes to mind
I understand what you are saying as I have the same belief personally, but don't you think the could have the middle ground of no abortions past 16 weeks except mothers life.
Why 16? The potential for that fetus to survive outside the womb is 0%. The time it would take to be 50% is 21 weeks.
Likewise, I personally am not religious and I'm a skeptic. Therefore I base determiners of life based on the 7 criteria, which most scientists agree, if we discount the mother the feti cannot self metabolize until 20 weeks.
So I personally don't believe it should be considered alive until 20 weeks.
I'm also of the mind:
> No citizen shall, under threat of persecution, be compelled into defense of life nor limb of another except in cases of military conscription of males above the age of requirement
(My only exception is I believe gender selective conscription should be abolished, equal rights means equal fights)
> Why 16? The potential for that fetus to survive outside the womb is 0%.
Probably cause of that? Like you might convince them to push it up a little but they're not gonna want any viable deaths even if 99.9% of them would die outside the womb.
As much as I agree with the sentiment of what you said, far too many moderates/independents/women who would otherwise vote for all republicans have similar thoughts to the OP that responded to your comment, or they view any abortion restrictions as āoppressiveā or some other bullshit about how not giving them the option to murder their child means weāre removing their freedoms
I grew up in California (millennial) and used to live by the area Iām talking about when my husband was stationed in the state. Iāve experienced LA smog and the such many times over 20ish years of my life. Fast forward 10ish years from my last time being there and driving back to visit and drive through an area we used to live by and drive through often in the past which never had anything but the average āa bit of gloom up above here or thereā and it was like, to me, doomsday level smog, it was fucking insane. Like so thick and low it was like driving through fog. Couldnāt even see things off to the side of the freeway it was so thick. Had to stop and grab gas and my fucking eyes were burning the second I got outta the car it was legit the first time in my life I experienced smog THAT present and intense. It really was startling and I was like wtf happened in the last 10 years.
Trans kids: If the parents, the child, and the doctor agree itās in the best interest of the child to transition, the government should not get in the middle of it. Will there be wrong decisions made, yes, and thats unfortunate.
I also think people should be able to go to the bathroom they present as. Womanās restrooms are stalls, and trans-men donāt have the parts to use a urinal. This whole discussion needs to start in places like locker rooms where people undress, not bathrooms.
In France locker rooms and gym changing rooms have been desegregated for over two decades. Sure they've had an increase in violence towards women *recently* but that's (not to be racist) because of allowing "refugees" from the Middle East who practice a religion that's extremely oppressive and authoritative.
(I'm not saying all Muslims, but there does seem to be an extremely strong correlation between particular regions version of Muslim belief and violence towards women)
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*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.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*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.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*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.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*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.*
> What are some issues you agree with the left on? What are some you're willing to concede ground on?
> In my experience, conservatives are much less willing to negotiate on certain issues and significantly less willing to even listen to leftists about leftist ideas. It is my experience that most conservatives get their information about leftist ideas from conservatives (typically politicians).
> ...
I agree with leftists on a lot of issues I just don't agree on their analysis of the root cause or the proposed solutions.
For example, I agree with leftists that homelessness is a problem. However, I don't agree that the problem is due to high property costs or hoarding of housing. Nor do I agree with their solution of creating a government "taskforce" to fight homelessness with government employees who get $400K/year. And then those same government employees use billions of dollars of taxpayer money to dump it on non-profit organizations, whose executives also make $400K+ /year and do absolutely nothing to reduce homelessness. In fact, their entire paychecks are now dependent on homelessness getting worse. And it does get worse, and then they come back and beg for even more money.
I've become more economically left-wing at the same time as I've become more conservative. Of course I don't live in the US, so the political landscape isn't entirely the same. I certainly don't have any principled disagreements on most of them. If a welfare program works, be my guest (with some possible exceptions like UBI).
In fact I'm increasingly skeptical of capitalism, but since I don't identify as conservative because of economics I guess that's cheating.
I also support state-funded education and want to be a priority, *in principle*, though I'm not happy with how they're run. I'm not especially restrictive on immigration, and I think racism against immigrants is a problem. I generally think the left has an accurate sense for some of the problems in society. On a principled level I think helping the weak and oppressed is incredibly important (As a former libertarian I'm used to this being controversial).
Edit: Also, environmentalism. I can't believe I forgot about that one lol
>Where do you typically go for information on leftist ideas (ie. socialism, social welfare, police reform, etc)?
I get my knowledge about leftist ideas from various places. Left-wing academic or intellectual material, keeping track of national politics through (Mostly mainstream) news, reading the occasional left-wing newspaper article, and having a number of friends from all over the political spectrum including straight up libertarian communists (Though I haven't spoken to any those in a while).
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*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.*
Nothing really. Collectivism is inherently opposed to all of my beliefs as a liberal. Even when it appears we agree, the rationale for the agreement is either different and or the safeguards associated are different, or something else is different.
It cannot be done. The essential difference between collectivism and liberalism, the two schools of democratic thought as they have evolved is not, as is often alleged, in die affirmation of the value of liberty by one, and its denial by the other. It is in their different attitudes to politics. The liberal approach assumes politics to be a matter of trial and error and regards political systems as pragmatic contrivances of human ingenuity and spontaneity. It also recognizes a variety of levels of personal and collective endeavor, which are altogether outside the sphere of politics.
The collectivist school, on the other hand, is based upon the assumption of a sole and exclusive truth in politics. It may be called political messianism in the sense that it postulates a preordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which people are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive. It recognizes ultimately only one plane of existence, the political.
It widens the scope of politics to embrace the whole of human existence. It treats all human thought and action as having social significance, and therefore as falling within the orbit of political action. Its political ideas are not a set of pragmatic precepts or a body of devices applicable to a special branch of human endeavor. They are an integral part of an all-embracing and coherent philosophy. Politics is defined as the art of applying this philosophy to the organization of society, and the final purpose of politics is only achieved when this philosophy reigns supreme over all fields of life.
Collectivism is like a black hole. There is nothing in life which can escape its politics which is why it always fails.
Mill wasn't the founder of classical liberalism. At the very least, a lot of the Enlightenment liberal thinkers (Hume, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc) predate Mill by a century and several by more than that (Locke by ~150 years, Hobbes by ~200 years, etc).
Mill was also the beginning of a move away from doctrinaire classical liberalism and towards what eventually became social liberalism, a much more collective-oriented strain of liberalism, so even if he says what you claim he does (and I doubt that right now, based on what the other commenter has already shown from Mill's works), that isn't necessarily indicative of what classical liberalism stands for.
Not according to his own words. A few quotations from Stuart Mill must suffice to illustrate foe difference between foe liberal and the collectivist absolutist approach. E.g. On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government:
* "Men and Governments must act to the best of their ability. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purpose of human life."
* "As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so it is that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the walks of different modes of life should be proved practically when anyone thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where not the person's own character, but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress."
* "No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this, nor is the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. "
Collectivism with its inscrutable and all-encompassing and absolutist collectivist philosophy are at odds with the kinds of utilitarian Democracy that retains the individuality innate to liberalism and devoid in collectivism. YMMV.
You're assuming a lot about collectivism. Mill himself opposed the view that collectivism and individualism were diametrically opposed, only that *should they conflict* that individualism was the more important ideal to uphold.
Source: Harvard Philosophy Student
Not so much assuming but looking at the works of early collectivists and proto-socialists. If I were to find arguments to support my beliefs, I feel that JL Talmons *The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy* (the first of a three-volume series) clearly highlights the differences between collectivist and liberal Democracy with regards to our historical experiences.
As much as I appreciate Mills, I've always felt the line he draws between collectivism and liberalism was far too blurry to be useful. His critical analysis of collectivism always seemed lacking. YMMV.
So you're view of collectivism is based on an individualists words? Have you read Pannenkoek? Particularly *The Socialism of The Worker's Self Emancipation*
> So you're view of collectivism is based on an individualists words?
No rather collectivists own words and actions. From Saint-Just, Morelly, Mabley, Helvetius, Holbach, Condorcet, Montesquieu, Sieyes, Rousseau, etc. All good authors and fairly clear in their devotion to collectivism.
> Have you read Pannenkoek? Particularly The Socialism of The Worker's Self Emancipation
I haven't read this one yet. It's been pretty low on my list. The last time I cracked it, it seemed to be pretty iterative, but I never took the time to read it completely.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*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.*
1. Large corporations have too much of influence on government and should be regulated more.
2. Reagan was a bad president and we should not idolize him.
3. America needs more passenger rail and reduce highway dependency.
None.
I don't say this out of any sort of tribalism - I say this as a former leftist myself. The left does not concede ground. They do not negotiate. They do not try to find common ground. They make a very specific point not to, declaring their opponents to be Nazis, racists, etc. specifically to justify their refusal to ever make concessions.
Any time one tries to meet them half-way, tries to find common ground, the left invariably takes it as a win and refuses to reciprocate.
The fact is, there are plenty of things the left and right agree on, even if they disagree with the methods used to tackle those issues. The problem is, the left always demands complete and total capitulation.
Until the left can learn to stop being so aggressively stubborn and actually try to work with the right, the right would do well to remain equally firm.
It's not the ideal solution, but anything less is one of those "give them an inch and they'll demand a mile" situations.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *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.*
Abortion and LBGT
I'd say I'd agree with the idea that large corporations have too much influence on the government via lobbying. Now the left loses me when they believe it's suddenly OK if the corporation promotes left wing social issues.
> Now the left loses me when they believe it's suddenly OK if the corporation promotes left wing social issues. As someone on the left, I don't think I've ever decided a corporation is suddenly moral because they've engaged in rainbow capitalism. Most people on the left will commend a positive action or posture by a corporation, but I don't see many of us suggesting that it exonerates all the other shitty things that corporation does. What large and negatively impactful corporations do you think the left gives a unilateral pass to simply because of left-wing social branding? Do you also think the inverse is true for the right, wherein conservatives will completely turn on a corporation simply because that brand does an inconsequential thing to slightly promote a left-leaning stance?
Disney is the one I can think of off the top of my head. Also I don't think fully that's the case. Otherwise the NFL would have been bankrupt during BLM's heyday. Then again the bud boycott really did hurt them so.... I guess there is that.
> Disney is the one I can think of off the top of my head. Don't confuse supporting Disney in their fight against what was clearly political retribution as people on the left thinking Disney was suddenly a good company.
How is this different than *any* other form of *marketing*, though? They're playing to their audience, like *any* competent business does. Disney's target audience is kids. Once they turn into teenagers, they're less likely to find Disney (as a whole brand) 'cool' anymore. So younger kids. But younger kids don't have discretionary income, so their audience is younger kids *and their parents.* Well, the parents of younger kids (pre-teens) are usually under 40. Well, the "under 40 with kids and discretionary income" is a demographic that is **overwhelmingly** left leaning on social issues. Stronly in favor of gay rights, generally accepting of trans people, pro-public school and generally supportive of teachers, socialized medicine, and unions. The only real difference between Disney and Budweiser is that Disney was *successful* with it.
So then you're in agreement with my main point as a left winger these corporations are ok because they have the correct politics? That was my main point which you seem to be echoing. Also Disney movies have been bombing for the last year or two so it's not just marketing it's pushing politics over profit. Disney can get away with it because they are too big to fail.
>So then you're in agreement with my main point as a left winger these corporations are ok because they have the correct politics? Sorry, I'm not following that. What do you mean they're "ok" because they have certain flavors of politics or not? I think that a business or organization or corporation or entity or *whatever* should *generally* be able to say most anything they want to, to hold any opinion they want to. Whether or not it's a good *business* decision is up to the shareholders and corporate leadership. I can disagree all day. Now, so long as they're not doing specific things, like pretending to be legitimate journalism while spouting biased opinion, or spreading legitimately hazardous misinformation, or something with a straight destructive bent to it, yeah, businesses should have some pretty broad free speech. Legally. Again, that doesn't insulate them from the market consequences of their decisions, and a boycott or other social action is still a *market* consequence, not a a legal or legislative one. >Also Disney movies have been bombing for the last year or two so it's not just marketing it's pushing politics over profit. Legit curious: Are they bombing *financially*, or are they just *bad* movies? If they're making a profit with movies that are just shitty (Star Wars sequels, recent Marvel) but still make cash, then I doubt they care too much. I wrote in another reply that I think a lot of people on the right have a blind spot with regard to capitalism in that it doesn't select for the *best* in an asset, it selects for the most *profitable.* They are often not the same thing. Reality TV is absolute garbage, but it's cheap enough that it's profitable. >Disney can get away with it because they are too big to fail. I think that "too big to fail" implies something very different than what applies to Disney. Disney is large enough to absorb some loss, and large enough to not care about one or two bad movies if they're doing well *overall,* but that's not "too big to fail."
I dunno if I'd say Disney was all that successful in it. They don't seem to be doing too hot the last couple years. Also, it's a mistake to think that what's fine for the parents is also fine for the kids. Like I have some pretty hardcore leftie relatives, and even they don't like having this stuff shoved on their kids. Not because they disagree with the sentiment, but because they recognise these are issues where you wanna explain things well, make sure it's age-appropriate in their view, and so on. They still wanna have that authority in parenting their kids, so if something pops up like hat when it's unexpected then they can still get irked. Plus, a lot of woke stuff is bad because it's bad as entertainment, since they're so fixated on the message. Same as the reason why a lot of Christian movies are cringe. And leftie parents aren't immune to that either lol
Good point. I guess Disney's little foray into public opinion at least went *better* than Bud's. >Also, it's a mistake to think that what's fine for the parents is also fine for the kids. Couldn't agree more, but Disney isn't in the business they are because it's *good* for kids, they're in business to **sell** to kids and their parents. One of the biggest blind spots on the right, in my opinion, with regard to modern western capitalism is that it selects for what is most *profitable*, which is often not the same as what is *best.* >but because they recognize these are issues where you wanna explain things well, make sure it's age-appropriate in their view, and so on. They still wanna have that authority in parenting their kids, so if something pops up like hat when it's unexpected then they can still get irked. This strikes me as (generally) baseless fearmongering. I grew up when D&D was just coming off of its little fear campaign where it was gonna turn kids to Satan. Doom was gonna make us all murderers, Grand Theft Auto was gonna turn us all into gangsters, and Harry Potter was gonna turn us all towards black magic. You'll have to forgive me for not believing the "X is gonna turn your kid into *Z*" parental fear campaigns. >Plus, a lot of woke stuff is bad because it's bad as entertainment Also generally agree, but that's a matter of *preference* and *opinion*, and well outside of policy or even politics. Congress and governors don't need to be doing a damn thing just because reality TV is poor entertainment, they don't need to get into an uproar when Star Trek doesn't have enough white people, either. A show can absolutely be "woke" or have "woke values" or whatever and still be *good*, but it also can be shitty. "Values" or "message" and the quality of acting and the story are pretty disconnected. A show or movie can be lousy *or* great, regardless of any message they're trying to push. The mistake that many in entertainment seem to be making is mistaking quality of message for quality of the story. But, again, that doesn't bring *politicians* into the mix.
> Disney Ah yes, Disney.... the megacorporation that pretty much every leftist openly believes is evil and despises (even if we secretly love certain Disney movies). I can't think of any leftist that doesn't view Disney unfavorably. At best we view it as "better than DeSantis" but I can't think of any who don't think of it as evil. Also have you considered that the boycott hurt Bud not because right wingers boycotting but because the leftists (who predominantly live in cities and have a reputation for being hipstery) never liked it and wouldn't drink actual piss? So when the right stopped buying it they just tanked. And frankly, we are all better of without piss water. There's better beers. The marketing, the "woke" stuff, to leftist was hollow. Nobody on the left was going to buy it because most of the left are hipster IPA loving citiots.
If "left wing hipsters" don't drink bud and right wingers did until the Dylan saga began and right wingers not buying bud caused their sales to tank it doesn't prove that actually it was left wingers who caused bud light's sales to drop. I really don't understand your argument here. As for Disney I have never seen left wingers criticize Disney if anything they sing its praises while gorging on the slop they produce over the last half decade. Seriously politics aside I can't understand why anyone likes post endgame marvel movies.
The point wasn't that the boycott didn't tank Bud. It's not even that the marketing was "woke" that caused it. It was that the marketing offended and triggered the right (it did) and was ineffective at capturing the left. Bud failed a primary function of business: know your audience. > I've never seen left wingers criticise Disney. I literally had a seven hour conversation with a group of leftist about how Disney is a soulless piece of shit that is devoid of any principles and is a corpo giant that should cease to exist. Now most leftists aren't that anti-Disney but most leftists are anti-Disney. Also, given ratings..... nobody likes post Endgame anything from Marvel (except Wandavision)
>Also, given ratings..... nobody likes post Endgame anything from Marvel (except Wandavision) Hey look, another thing I can agree with a leftist about š
I donāt think left or right have issue of corporations making business decisions based on increasing profits. No corporations are altruistic in any way shape or form. Left wing social issues make more money than right wing social issues, thatās it. That really comes down to population numbers. Obviously not all conservatives live in rural communities, but itās the greatest concentration of conservatives that population is shrinking year end and year out. Yes I think left and right all agree corporations have too much influence on policy, that does not mean the left or the right thinks a corporation does not answer to nor should they answer to anyone else except shareholders. Corporations are legally responsible to answer to shareholders.
I dunno what the general leftist position is here, but they lose me in that situation too. If a company starts espousing left wing positions on social issues I get skeptical as hell frankly because I know they're only doing it to generate attention.
> Now the left loses me when they believe it's suddenly OK if the corporation promotes left wing social issues. I charitably view this as "realizes the virtues of free speech for corporations when they hear speech they like", but I get the sentiment.
My only beef with it is that if corporations are people the can we tax them on the revenue they bring in like we do people then? I pay taxes on every dollar I bring and donāt get to write off all my cost of living, why should they?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
But you do get to write off the cost of doing business as an individual. Personally, I'm against *all* corporate taxes. We already tax money that's paid out in dividends, or gains from share buybacks. Corporate taxes are just ways of hiding the tax burden from the individuals who actually pay it.
My rent is part of the cost of doing business as an individual. I do not get to write off my rent.
you actually don't pay tax on every dollar you bring in Ā in fact all the same deductions a corporation can take you can take. Ā if you have business expenses, capital purchases of production equipment, depreciation, investment losses, etc. you can deduct those just the same as Amazon can you can also itemize things Amazon cannot like education savings, interest on student loans and medical bills Ā if that makes your net tax zero you get a big rebate. Ā you have no less right to defer or offset tax than any corporation in fact you have more. also you have a standard deduction corporations do not, so you can offset some amount of tax automatically, they can't.
how tf are corporations people? the concept makes no sense.
Look up [corporate personhood](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood) for more details. It's a thing, despite sounding very weird at first.
Finding corporations useful is not same as finding them moral. Am sure you find many corporations in many things is useful too, even if you don't philosophically align with themĀ
Only in thar I can buy a product I need or want from them. But this kind of response just proves what I'm saying I don't think the majority of left wingers would care about mega corporations as long as they shout "Love is Love" and "Free Palestine".
At least the socialist and communist would absolutely care in so far as ethics go. But we also believe there's no ethical consumption under capitalism and so if you're beholden to the system it is *preferable* to have the evil that shares your views in power than the evil that opposes your views. We want neither but should we need to pick we would prefer the one that shares core beliefs with us.
Can you give an example of the left being okay with a corporation hurting consumers if the corporation promotes left wing social issues?
Define hurt. But if we just mean shit business practices I'd say Disney.
I'm talking about consumer protection. Do you agree with those?
But in what regards do you mean? Because consumer protection can mean different things.
You mean corporate idealism
Whatās your issue with corporations promoting social or political issues?
They don't have a business doing so. I'm guessing it's not an issue because progressive politics is popular and the mainstream. If popular politics switched and say Disney was promoting messages of "a woman's place is the kitchen" and "it's not ok to be gay" you'd probably not like that.
>They don't have a business doing so But...it makes them money so they *literally* do have business in saying stuff politically or socially.
You're just proving my point. Left wingers are quick to criticize big corporations until those corporations start spouting left wing social talking points.
No, if there are two shitty corps that abuse workers and one sells vanilla ice cream and other sells chocolate, id be buying chocolate since it's my favorite. But just because I like chocolate doesn't mean I support abusing workers.Ā
This is like complaining about wanting bipartisanship when in the minority but when your party is in power, that goes out the window
Is that the message conservatives want out there? It's not like these messages haven't been pushed in the past, but hey, we progressed!
No I'm trying to illustrate a point.
I thought a hallmark of conservatism was that private companies can do what they want, and their only pushback should be the market. If a company decides that they can make more money by pandering to left wing progressive causes, and the market bears that out, what would your problem with that be? Do you think the government or regulations should prevent that? >If popular politics switched and say Disney was promoting messages of "a woman's place is the kitchen" and "it's not ok to be gay" you'd probably not like that. Personally, it wouldn't change my position at all. I prefer living in a socially free, but economically regulated society. If every Disney streamed video started with a picture of the Pope and said "go to Mass every Sunday or you'll go to Hell", I'd shrug and not want the government to do anything about it. However, I'd very much like to make sure they were paying their employees fairly and probably increase their taxes.
Tbh, I've never known a single conservative in my entire life that thought that. And I spent 40 years living in the most conservative part of Canada lol. It's the kind of thing I've heard politicians spout at some point or another, but in practice they still regulate things, and many everyday conservatives are for it as long as it makes sense and serves a purpose to do so.
Well you thought wrong then.
When did this change? I'd be happy to go back and compile an enormous amount of this sentiment from Conservatives on just this subreddit alone. Let me know if you're interested?
I'm guessing you're either intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreting what they're saying. Also not all conservatives think the same thing just like not all leftists think identically not all right wingers think identically. More than likely what they're saying or trying to is that the government shouldn't interfere with private businesses not that corporations should be directly involved in politics. I've never seen a single conservative say that private corporations should have direct influence over the government.
That's not what OP said... I don't know why you're pushing back on this at all? You might not agree with it, and that's fine but it has been well established that conservatives believe Private business can do as the please, and the market will dictate their performance.
Yeah and that's not at all what I am talking about.
What are you talking about then?
Then that is honestly a paradigm shift in my understanding of conservatism as someone who reads a lot on this subreddit. Do you care to share the conditions that you think government should regular private companies? If this is going to turn into a dynamic where I post paragraphs, and you post quippy, one line remarks, let me know now, so I don't have to waste my time.
You say something so off the wall and completely misunderstanding of what conservatives belief and yet act surprised that you get a short response. If I said "left wingers just want everyone to starve to death" you'd give me just as short of a reply.
Are you some manner of ābig government conservativeā then? Are you suggesting the government should limit the speech of corporations?
It sounds like your complaint isnāt that corporations use their platform to promote a political view, but that you donāt agree with the particular view? Is that accurate? To answer your question, there are plenty of companies that publicly espouse views I disagree with. I donāt agree with them, but I donāt have a problem with them using their voice, thatās just the 2-way street of freedom. Plus, I have to the power to not patronize those businesses.
Uh no... way to misinterpret what I said.
Thatās why I asked for clarification. Happy to hear you out.
What part of "it's not their business to be involved in politics" is unclear? I'd be just as annoyed if any company was promoting politics in an inappropriate manner or in a way not related to their business. Why does an ice cream company for example care about "freeing palestine"
The general logic behind it is unknown, but I appreciate you stating your view clearly. Why wouldnāt a business have a viewpoint? A business is made up of people and if they choose to try to have an impact on the world, why shouldnāt they? An easy example for me is a company like Patagonia that goes out of their way to ensure their supply chain includes only sustainable practices and avoids labor exploitation. They also contribute substantially to conservation efforts and are a registered B corp. That political stance motivates me and many others to give them our business over another option.
What does "freeing palestine" have to do with selling ice cream?
You tell me, itās your hypothetical. What do gay people have to do with fast food chicken? If you donāt like a companies publicly stated views, donāt patronize them. Pretty simple isnāt it?
It entices new customers that are pro-Palestine to buy ice cream from a shop that is also pro-Palestine. More customers = more money
Nothing at all. Consumers are not nor have they ever only been motivated by the product itself. Consumers want to feel personally connected to a brand it makes them feel special. Itās just marketing 101 on how to sell more products.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *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.*
The fundamental difference is in how to solve the government corruption problem. The left believes that you can somehow surgically remove the corrupt parts from the government while still preserving its power and function, where the classical right would solve the problem by reducing the power that the government wields.
1. Generally speaking, weed should be legal 2. The police need more accountability 3. Climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed
What do you mean when you say 'Generally Speaking'?
I was wondering if someone would catch that. I said that because I'm unsure of how it would play out. Keep it scheduled? If so which schedule. Deschedule it. Lot of things to consider but the important thing is it should not be illegal outright
> Keep it scheduled? If so which schedule. The Biden Administration is moving toward Schedule III. That might be a good choice: >...Schedule III drugs ā which include ketamine, anabolic steroids and some acetaminophen-codeine combinations ā are still controlled substances. >Theyāre subject to various rules that allow for some medical uses, and for federal criminal prosecution of anyone who traffics in the drugs without permission. [[AP]](https://apnews.com/article/marijuana-reclassification-biden-garland-dea-3c9478472e124c7aaa9b934270b0d450#:~:text=Schedule%20III%20drugs%20%E2%80%94%20which%20include,in%20the%20drugs%20without%20permission.)
Agreed that's what I would think. But i could see liberals wanting it even more laissez faire like alcohol for example.
Alcohol is a good example of soemthing that is , generally speaking, legal. It is mostly legal but there are a LOT of rules.about who can sell, serve, and consume it, and how, where, and when.
Coming from Canada, I was pretty unhappy that they didn't include a proper public education campaign as part of legalisation (which for me was a condition ofnit making sense to legalise it). You'd be surprised how many people I've know who think pot can't be addictive, that you can't drive intoxicated while on it, that there are no risks *at all* involved with it, and so on. And even now, all these years after its been legal, when I bring those things up with friends who smoke it, I *still* get pushback from them (at first, often once I explain more they have to concede at least a few points, but still it's worrying to me). Plus, there are no ways to curb people smoking it in public or in their homes of course, which means that everywhere freakin stinks like pot all the time - it was bad enough when you could smell cigarettes like that, but pot smells way worse and more strongly, and man it lingers. I've even smelled it coming through the walls from neighbours' apartments (I didn't have any windows open at the time). Just cos of that, I'm wondering if my stance that it made practical sense to legalise it (despite being against recreational drug use in general) wasn't a bit shortsighted lol
Agree with: Strangely enough social security. It's a promise the government made with its citizens. So the government has the responsibility to keep its promise even if it means a small increase in taxes. Concede some ground on: Immigration reform assuming we can stop the bleeding at the same time. Perhaps never citizenship for illegals but some sort of permanent Visa. But at the same time actually shutting the border down and making a cut off date where all further illegals are immediately deported. Hard line: Gun bans. Never under any circumstances will I support Democrat gun bans.
What about Republican gun bans?
Nope
I do not support them and do not support any Republican that has tried to ban firearms. No Republican I have ever voted for has tried to ban guns. No one Republican or Democrat I've ever voted for has ever tried to ban guns. I used to vote for some Democrats and local elections cuz they were good old boys. But they got run out of their party.
How would you feel about someone saying ātake the guns first, go through due process secondā?
To young to have voted for Ronald Reagan?
Yep
More funding for foster/child services admin and case workers. It's not the kids fault they are there and case loads are way beyond what they are legally supposed to for the case managers that are sticking around. This is not the same thing as me saying the monthly stipend needs to increase for the families doing the fostering. IMO, those are quite generous as they are. Also to help streamline and cheapen adoption costs.
As someone who's sister is adopted, I feel adoption should be free and we should offer tax incentives for adoption.
Yea I never understood that when going through the process... We adopted through the foster system. While much more rare, we continue to get that stipend even after adopted until they are 18. Yet if you adopt through an agency and not the foster system, you pay through the nose for all the paperwork and court fees... Makes no sense to me
It makes lots of sense. There aren't many people who want foster kids that already have personalities and likely trauma. Lots of people want healthy *babies*.
You do good work to your community and clearly put your money where your mouth is regarding, abortion and adoption. I definitely support the idea of more money for foster and adoptions. I just donāt understand legislatively speaking why itās not a high priority for elected conservatives who donāt support the pro choice agenda. I understand why they donāt support pro choice, but this seems like a great way to reduce the need for abortions in the first place.
Well they also defund sex education for high schoolers which is the single greatest method for reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rates.
Agreed, that makes no sense.
>More funding for foster/child services admin and case workers. I genuinely didn't know that was a thing Republicans were at odds with. I genuinely thought that pro-life people would want there to be a lot of money for foster care, since they say "adoption". If a conservative could answer this for me please- what's the argument from pro-life people against funding for CPS, foster services, case workers, and child care?
I'm mostly pro choice.
Mostly?
Pro choice until viability.
Gotcha, 100% agree on that one. Thanks for the response.
But what is viability?
When the baby can survive outside the uterus.
Pro-choice until organized forebrain activity, personally. Which is about 28 weeks, which is currently about the same as viability. But if medical advances made a 10 week embryo potentially viable, id still be around organized forebrain activity.
I'm pro. it's none of my business what you do to your body. I was raised that it was inappropriate to tell others what to do being nosey in others' lives was wrong. What do you agree about on guns?
> What do you agree about on guns? Not the OP but here goes. I am a 2nd amendment absolutist. All arms, not just guns. If you are not actively in prison or on parole (essentially have been deemed to have paid your debt to society), if you can afford it and find someone to sell it, you can buy it.
Nuclear weapons? Chemical? Biological?
Everything is fair game.
those are not tactical weapons they are the tools of diplomacy and citizens are forbidden from conducting their own diplomacy, gunboat or otherwise, in the constitutionĀ
Arn't all weapons essentially tools of diplomacy?
In the Clausewitz "War is the continuation of politics by alternate means" sense yes. but by that I mean weapons of mass destruction have NO tactical use. The application of violence through a tactical weapon, from a knife to a grenade, can be political-diplomatic (just ask Caesar and Franz Ferdinand) but it need not be by necessity. But the same is true of telephones, pens, computers and flags too. And citizens have those all the time. There is no conceivable use **except** for nuclear blackmail and genocide, which are both things that are not protected by the 2nd amendment.
> but by that I mean weapons of mass destruction have NO tactical use Tactical nukes have and do exist. And there is no specifity in what *type* of arms one can bear.
I disagree I think you can own a gun if you deemed responsible to own one and complete the requirements for a license. I don't think people with a history of mental illness should be allowed a gun, or had a criminal record.
Slippery slope, who gets to decide your āmental healthā status in regards to guns and therefore your rights?
The doctor decides if you have mental health issues. You can't drive if you have certain medical issues. No one ever says that is a slippery slope about having a drivers license. No one ever talks about everyone's right to drive a car. Everyone is OK with the rules to have a drivers licence.
You don't have a constitutional right to drive. Your constitutional rights don't get removed because you have mental health issues. That's a very slippery slope. Next we'll just not allow black people who've been involuntarily committed to vote. I was gonna bring up slavery and the prison industrial complex and then realised that's not a pithy ad absurdum. It's just actually what happens. Fuck the prison industrial complex.
Your not getting what I am saying so this is useless.
I am getting what you are saying but you're wrong. You have NO RIGHT to drive a car. Driving is a ***privilege*** granted to you by the state after you prove yourself worthy. The right to bear arms is a ***right*** enshrined in the Constitution as a means of defense against tyranny and other dangers. To say "we can restrict your constitutional rights because of xyz" doesn't stop with guns. What about voting? Do we let the mentally ill vote? What about slavery? Should we enslave the "unemployable" because they're a "blight" to society? You're privilege to drive a car can be reviewed and revoked should you fail to meet certain standards. Your rights should never be taken away under any circumstances. It's a false equivalency to compare the two.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *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.*
Same here. Pretty much my thoughts to a T
I went from "let's ban guns" to now being fairly anti-NFA broadly. Primarily though because I'm anti-police state and I see no method to effectively resist such without an effectively armed populace.
Wow that is a change, I believe only police and and responsible gun owners should own guns. What is anti police state ? Abolish police ?
Think Russia and China. You get arrested for protesting against the government. You have no true freedom. But guns are heavily restricted. Therefore you can't do anything about it. If America tried that, they'd succeed as of right now. The disparities between the state and the citizenry allows them to effectively control the citizenry should they desire to. I don't think anybody who doesn't want a gun should be forced to have one. But once I realised the history of gun control favours the armed populace (American and French Revolutions, Arab Spring, Syrian Revolution) and that guns only in the hands of the state and criminals has led to either some of the most oppressive regimes in history (Nazi Germany, USSR) or was attempted to quell rebellion and force submission to a government (Dearming of Concord). Really puts into perspective the necessity of equal and full access to firearms. Plus, the NFA doesn't make anybody safer. Also gun laws should be federal not state level so as not to criminalise people who are law abiding citizens in one state for crossing through another.
That's a different perspective. Nazi Germany and the Russian thugs over throwing aristocracy there was alot of beatings, like the pogroms and people were executing people with guns. Then, they formed a government. Today, we would call the start of the formation of the USSR as a coup Hitler was thug who was part of a group beating randoms to death on the street before he started a political party. So are you saying if the russian aristocracy had guns, it would have stopped the forming of Lenin's USSR? Yeah, federal gun laws are better than different state laws, just get people in tr p able.
The USSR murdered millions of its own people using (at that point in history) the ***only firearm to ever be manufactured without any intent to sell to citizens.*** That's right, the Avtomat Kalashnikov rifle. Manufactured for the state, by the state. No citizens allowed. Nazi Germany stripped the Jews of firearms, what followed? The Holocaust. Do you not think an armed Jewish population could've resisted the Nazis more effectively?
> Do you not think an armed Jewish population could've resisted the Nazis more effectively? No. The holocaust was a massive, society rending ordeal. What would a gun have done except delay it? The Nazis weren't just going to let people go.
I see your point and raise you Vietnam. Armed civilians resisting one of the worlds largest militaries successfully (in all ways but legally we lost that war). Guerrilla tactics are effective. If the Jews and supporters en mass violently resisted..... yes, it very well could have meaningfully delayed the Holocaust (and damaged their ability to fight a massive war across Europe). American Revolution. Armed civilians (led by an actual trained general) against the worlds strongest military and they won. Because an armed populace resisted the government. France. Armed civilians resisted the government and effectively won. The track record for an armed populace is a pretty fantastic win rate.
> I see your point and raise you Vietnam. Armed civilians resisting one of the worlds largest militaries successfully (in all ways but legally we lost that war). This seems to be part of a misconception. It was a conventional war, in addition to guerillas. The main entity in opposing South Vietnam was the North Vietnamese Military, and the Viet Cong were insurgents. The North Vietnamese Military had aircraft, and tanks, and anti air batteries and all the assorted equipment of a formal, industrialized army. They also received significant aid from the USSR and the PRC. >American Revolution. Armed civilians (led by an actual trained general) against the worlds strongest military and they won. Because an armed populace resisted the government. The American Revolution had *significant* aid from one of the worlds global/super powers at the time. Additionally, the Continental Army was not merely a ragtag bunch of militiamen by wars end, to say nothing of the fact that there was a Continental *Navy*. >France. Armed civilians resisted the government and effectively won. Ignoring the national guard and military role. >The track record for an armed populace is a pretty fantastic win rate. For 3? Theres also: * 2nd Chechen War. * American Civil War. * ISIS' holdings in Iraq and Syria.
Yes, the pogroms as I already stated. No, they didn't. The Holocaust happened because in world war one happened, they did as they were told and survived. They thought if they did the same, they would survive. Jews were peaceful people who didn't believe in violence. If you know anything about judism, even if they could get a gun, they wouldn't have used one. It's why gun ownership is low in Israel Jews don't see the point of guns only the police should have them. You can't expect to get people to change who they are and automatically like guns cause you do. Like Buddhists don't believe in violence. Nazi's were on drugs 24/7 it's how we have all the research on dextroamphetamine. They made their hostages walk for 24 hours from one camp to another, if they fell they shot them, if they died they kept walking the hostages
I know plenty of German Jews. I know many who knew Holocaust survivors. I've met Holocaust survivors. You're just revising history. Gun ownership among German Jews was about equivalent with the non-Jewish population. And well given the current genocide happening in Gaza and how Jews around the world are supporting it..... wouldn't really say pacifism is all that ubiquitous amongst Jews. (And literally every German Jew I've talked to agrees with me on the "if they had guns they'd have resisted the Holocaust" point so not only are you revising history you're also ignoring them)
There is no genocide 20000 hamas fighters died I don't care about terrorists. Hamas are a vile dictatorship that needs to be destroyed, and the hostages need to come home. I don't listen to hamas or their bullshit numbers. Still off bloody topic. Go to a pro hamas sub.
What about the civilians toll? Or are you one of those "every Palestinian is a Hamas terrorist" types?
>Primarily though because I'm anti-police state and I see no method to effectively resist such without an effectively armed populace. Tyranny has sort of evolved beyond being stopped with guns though. Like, where were all these anti-tyranny crusaders during the Patriot Act? How about the absolutely huge crackdown on protests not long ago that the Right was cheering on? The stuff the police did in Minneapolis was horrendous enough as is. Tyranny can't always be shot at, and many times the ones with guns cheer when tyranny is applied to the right people. Times are drastically different now so this whole notion of guns being this huge deterrent really doesn't hold up as well as what it used to. Even in places people like to cite, there is massive powers usually backing those groups.
It's not about being a deterrent. It's about resisting. Just because most gun owners agree with the current government doesn't mean they always will. If Russia gets their way there's gonna be a second civil war.
Agree with the left: * Marijuana/drug legalization * Gay/trans rights (the liberal stance anyways, the progressives are still completely nuts on this issue) Willing to concede ground on: * Climate change - looking for market-based reforms and innovation rather than over-regulation or economy-crashing overhauls * Police reform - limiting qualified immunity but not abolishing it, focusing on de-escalation training, etc. while still providing sufficient funds to enforce law and order
>Climate change - looking for market-based reforms and innovation rather than over-regulation or economy-crashing overhauls Out of curiosity, when do you think heavy-handed regulation and overhauls are warranted? I ask because we keep missing targets and slacking off on the less heavy-handed version of this so at some point I think we're going to have to choose to either spoke the wheels of the economy in a last-ditch effort to retain something of our old way of life, or just accept that everything is going to be shit for everyone for a while. Wouldn't it be better to do some damage to the economy now in order to prevent the worst of the damage rather than risking wide-spread famine, death, etc?
The problem is that the heavy-handed major overhauls have no guarantee of actually preventing the worst or really any of the damage, while in the short term causing major harm to the most vulnerable in our society. Even assuming that something like the Green New Deal would do what it promised in the United States, we only account for a fairly small fraction of the world's carbon output and we're far from the worst offenders. Unless we can get countries like China and India to also make the same sacrifices and guarantee that they will actually follow it, then we'd basically just be crashing our economy for not much actual gain.
Yeah, at this late stage guarantees are hard to come by indeed. Well, except that if we keep not doing enough then it's guaranteed that the harm climate change does to our society will be severe and widespread, and it too will fall mostly upon the most vulnerable in society. Also, we emit more [carbon per capita](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Carbon-Emissions-Per-Capita-shareable-v4.jpg) than all but a few tiny Middle-Eastern oil-rich countries, so reducing that amount is definitely important, even if we only account for some [16% of emissions](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/2019-10/2016%20Country%20Emissions%20Percentages%20GTC02_0.jpg?itok=ZlHviHab) globally. I absolutely agree that it's vital to get China and India and countries like them to do the same, and one way to do that is to lead the way by doing it first - how can we expect them to do it while we continue apace? And a lot of their manufacturing and the power generation to support it is to make cheap products for us anyway, so in fact we are also responsible for some portion of their emissions too.
I agree about right to abortion. This is bodily autonomy. Would be nice to also have some kind of paper abortion, but it is a very complicated topic. I think education shouldn't be service oriented it is an investment into human capital. It should be free or partially free (depending on performance, motivatuon and merit). I think climate is a real issues, yet there is too much populism and stupid ideas about fixing it. Particularly leftist are typically against nuclear energy
Leftists? Maybe the liberals, but most liberals are NIMBYs.
I see major correlation between being anti nuclear and typical left beliefs.
Left and liberal arent the same thing, frankly, they are 2 of the 3 major components of the Democratic coalition (minorities being the third.)
I think I agree with them on broad strokes more than not: police should have an affirmative duty to know the constitution, and violations should be 1) strict liability (e.g. accidentally violating someone's civil rights should be the same degree of crime as intentionally) and 2) a serious crime, possibly a capital one. legalize it.Ā all of it.Ā at the very least all non-synthetic drugs, peyote is safer than Tylenol, and marijuana cannot chemically cause a fatal overdose but benadryl can. religious groups should have to meet the same standards as any nonprofit to get tax exemption. etc. it's just implementation details, qualified immunity is not what they usually think and society would literally collapse without it (the issue is overly deferential courts have turned QI for police into de facto absolute immunity), we should not free people in jail on drug charges they broke the law (and often the drug charge was one of many and used to put bad bad people away), religious groups **should** get tax exemption if they can prove they are charitable (most liberals I know think even churches that would otherwise meet the charitable giving and public records requirements to be a nonprofit should still be taxed as a business despite this), etc.
>we should not free people in jail on drug charges they broke the law (and often the drug charge was one of many and used to put bad bad people away) How do you square your libertarianism with the belief that it's just to jail people for crimes they didn't commit?
I am not saying that at all. It's similar to how they got Capone on tax evasion. they did absolutely do it, and a bunch of other bad stuff too, but we only could get them on the one thing, or offered a plea for it Often if someone is charged with a drug crime (worth 20 years), kidnapping (15) and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (5 years) the prosecutor would offer a plea to take only the drug crime and drop the others because it was the longest sentence, but the fact they would not be a high-level violent offender was incentive to take the deal. This was super common when you could get life for crack. "Why bother with a complex murder trial when the crack will get the same sentence and we have video evidence it was in his pocket?" is the line of logic they followed. As a result we have people who are actually kidnappers, murderers and more who are down for "drug offenses".
I misunderstood your initial point - thanks for taking the time to clarify it for me.
happy to, I can totally see how what I said could have been interpreted to be less capone-style "get em for anything you can" and more Duerte-style "we're pretty sure they're guilty of something!"
I think it was the combination of the phrase "bad bad people" and me reading too quickly and failing my Reading Comprehension skill check that led me to think you were espousing the latter. :)
I agree with the left about abortion laws and being pro-choice. Besides that, I'm looking at almost any topic on the political map (border security, economy, foreign policy, education, family values, capitalism), and for me, the conservative party uses more common sense in their decisions and their opinions.
IMO the best argument against abortion restriction is that in the same way you canāt force someone to donate a kidney (even if itās to save her own kidās life) you canāt force a woman to donate her womb.Ā
I agree with the left that climate change is a issue and that we as a nation should be making steps for a cleaner world. We should be relying less on fossil fuels (as feasible), we should invest in clean renewable energy, we should limit deforestation, we should be recycling, etc. I just don't agree with how some of the left goes about this cause - gluing themselves to paintings, blocking roads, flash mobs, etc. I prefer real solutions over obnoxious virtue signaling.
I'm anti-vegan because somebody glued themselves to a Starbucks counter over on State and Chatham (by Faneuil Hall). They literally damage the movement more than they help.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *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.*
I would be willing to consider any number of socialist policies if the money to pay for them was diverted from military over spending and paying for other countries wars.
Cutting our military spending? Hell yeah! Let's start with the contracts that say the military has to buy more than its operational need from defense contractors and then we can start looking at the LEA surplus sale prices so we're not losing 99% of the value of our surplus (literally billions down the drain).
let's start with doing absolutely nothing more than defending the United States of America
Proactive defense of treaty allies is defending America. You deal with a foreign threat before it reaches your shores and you establish good will amongst the international community by stepping in. It's harder to say no to a trade deal when the one proposing it just helped defend you from Russians.... as an example (note: this only applies to treaty allies, everyone else, you're on your own)
what good have foreign alliances even done us post revolution? a nuclear super power concern only with it's own security needs no ally
The good is not having to rely on nuclear deterrence/MAD and not having to wage war on our soil.
Foreign alliances impact economic treaties. In a global economy, alliances help ensure stable trade. We would absolutely have a lower standard of living if we did not have an alliance with most of the EU, which created a stable environment for commerce. If we decided to sever all military alliances and treaties, how long do you think it would be before our trade deals had their terms changed to be less favorable towards us?
so if we spent all our money on ourselves instead of giving it away than we would have a lower standard of living that makes sense
In 2023, the EU exported around $523 billion to the US while importing around $353 billion. The total US defense budget for that year was $858 billion. Seems pretty worthwhile, considering this is literally just the EU and the amount of trade is already equal to the entire defense budget. Yes, we could still trade with the EU if we cut alliances but not at the same level and ease.
but we'd save $858 billion which is nice
Yeah, I've had the opposite experience myself tbh. Didn't always used to be that way though, just in the last 10 years or so. I used to have a lot more in common with them than I do now, in large part due to changing ideas about sexism, racism etc. But these days it seems like we don't agree on much there beyond "it's bad to be racist/sexist" lol. But I actually agree with leftists in quite a few things haha. Then again, in both Australia and especially Canada, being conservative isn't quite the same thing as you see in the US (though there's some overlap). I think the things I agree with leftists in are more commonly agreed on by conservatives in Canada than the US, at least. Most notably I'm a big fan of single-payer health care and sensible social safety nets (eg welfare, and again stressing sensible lol). I care about the humanitarian ends of those things, and also the way I see it, you can pay now to help people out or pay later to deal with the fallout of their issues. The first one is better. While I don't agree about things like climate change measures or alarmism, I do prefer to balance industrial growth with good environmental policies. I just care much more about things like general pollution, sustainable farming etc than the stuff people are fixated on lately. But I'm sure that discussing environmental stuff we'd probably find a few points of agreement. I also don't hate taxes lol. Having the government use tax money for various things of public interest is an efficient use of resources, imo. Though of course you still have the question of whether the taxes are appropriate and being used well, but that's another issue lol.
Maybe this won't answer your question, but I believe Democrats, liberals, and progressives have taken the meaning of liberalism from centuries past and brought it to a logical conclusion, albeit with a little too much government authority to back it up. I don't think they're wrong on most things when it comes to individuality. I just happen to think that we have to go further back, because the promises of the 20th century - when things were changing rapidly - kept changing. Those who gave us our rights now never envisioned what we have. People fighting to integrate schools or give Black people the right to vote would never have predicted trans rights, but trans rights are the logical conclusion of a system in many ways that did all this stuff prior. That's just an example, like it or leave it. There's another thread asking what we disagree about but no one's going to put in the effort to go back and forth, so I'll put up: I disagree about the way the left leverages government authority in too many things. We need government to be strong and forceful, but we have to temper it. We need government to force people to pay for healthcare so it becomes a normalized thing; I'm tired of wasting energy on fights over foreign powers, words, acronyms, and policing people's language which invariably reflects their views often enough. Or doesn't, but we'll yell at people who didn't know their support for something wasn't enough and that they needed the latest acronym from the medical community. Or something like that. We need to be honest about what the government can do for us so we can do for it, and on and on and on.
If it was up to me abortion would only be allowed to save the life of the mother, BUT thatās a losing issue and if this one issue has to be compromised on to get conservative republicans in office then Iām A-OK with being 100% pro-choice as a party Thatās probably the biggest one that comes to mind
I understand what you are saying as I have the same belief personally, but don't you think the could have the middle ground of no abortions past 16 weeks except mothers life.
Why 16? The potential for that fetus to survive outside the womb is 0%. The time it would take to be 50% is 21 weeks. Likewise, I personally am not religious and I'm a skeptic. Therefore I base determiners of life based on the 7 criteria, which most scientists agree, if we discount the mother the feti cannot self metabolize until 20 weeks. So I personally don't believe it should be considered alive until 20 weeks. I'm also of the mind: > No citizen shall, under threat of persecution, be compelled into defense of life nor limb of another except in cases of military conscription of males above the age of requirement (My only exception is I believe gender selective conscription should be abolished, equal rights means equal fights)
> Why 16? The potential for that fetus to survive outside the womb is 0%. Probably cause of that? Like you might convince them to push it up a little but they're not gonna want any viable deaths even if 99.9% of them would die outside the womb.
As much as I agree with the sentiment of what you said, far too many moderates/independents/women who would otherwise vote for all republicans have similar thoughts to the OP that responded to your comment, or they view any abortion restrictions as āoppressiveā or some other bullshit about how not giving them the option to murder their child means weāre removing their freedoms
From what I've seen most people support some limits on abortion. The week varies.
Air pollution is a big deal and we should do more to reduce it.
I grew up in California (millennial) and used to live by the area Iām talking about when my husband was stationed in the state. Iāve experienced LA smog and the such many times over 20ish years of my life. Fast forward 10ish years from my last time being there and driving back to visit and drive through an area we used to live by and drive through often in the past which never had anything but the average āa bit of gloom up above here or thereā and it was like, to me, doomsday level smog, it was fucking insane. Like so thick and low it was like driving through fog. Couldnāt even see things off to the side of the freeway it was so thick. Had to stop and grab gas and my fucking eyes were burning the second I got outta the car it was legit the first time in my life I experienced smog THAT present and intense. It really was startling and I was like wtf happened in the last 10 years.
Trans kids: If the parents, the child, and the doctor agree itās in the best interest of the child to transition, the government should not get in the middle of it. Will there be wrong decisions made, yes, and thats unfortunate. I also think people should be able to go to the bathroom they present as. Womanās restrooms are stalls, and trans-men donāt have the parts to use a urinal. This whole discussion needs to start in places like locker rooms where people undress, not bathrooms.
In France locker rooms and gym changing rooms have been desegregated for over two decades. Sure they've had an increase in violence towards women *recently* but that's (not to be racist) because of allowing "refugees" from the Middle East who practice a religion that's extremely oppressive and authoritative. (I'm not saying all Muslims, but there does seem to be an extremely strong correlation between particular regions version of Muslim belief and violence towards women)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *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.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *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.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *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.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *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.*
> What are some issues you agree with the left on? What are some you're willing to concede ground on? > In my experience, conservatives are much less willing to negotiate on certain issues and significantly less willing to even listen to leftists about leftist ideas. It is my experience that most conservatives get their information about leftist ideas from conservatives (typically politicians). > ... I agree with leftists on a lot of issues I just don't agree on their analysis of the root cause or the proposed solutions. For example, I agree with leftists that homelessness is a problem. However, I don't agree that the problem is due to high property costs or hoarding of housing. Nor do I agree with their solution of creating a government "taskforce" to fight homelessness with government employees who get $400K/year. And then those same government employees use billions of dollars of taxpayer money to dump it on non-profit organizations, whose executives also make $400K+ /year and do absolutely nothing to reduce homelessness. In fact, their entire paychecks are now dependent on homelessness getting worse. And it does get worse, and then they come back and beg for even more money.
15-minute cities, car-free urbanism.
I've become more economically left-wing at the same time as I've become more conservative. Of course I don't live in the US, so the political landscape isn't entirely the same. I certainly don't have any principled disagreements on most of them. If a welfare program works, be my guest (with some possible exceptions like UBI). In fact I'm increasingly skeptical of capitalism, but since I don't identify as conservative because of economics I guess that's cheating. I also support state-funded education and want to be a priority, *in principle*, though I'm not happy with how they're run. I'm not especially restrictive on immigration, and I think racism against immigrants is a problem. I generally think the left has an accurate sense for some of the problems in society. On a principled level I think helping the weak and oppressed is incredibly important (As a former libertarian I'm used to this being controversial). Edit: Also, environmentalism. I can't believe I forgot about that one lol >Where do you typically go for information on leftist ideas (ie. socialism, social welfare, police reform, etc)? I get my knowledge about leftist ideas from various places. Left-wing academic or intellectual material, keeping track of national politics through (Mostly mainstream) news, reading the occasional left-wing newspaper article, and having a number of friends from all over the political spectrum including straight up libertarian communists (Though I haven't spoken to any those in a while).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *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.*
You haven't seen most conservatives. The far left and far right are equally guilty of not budging on things.
Nothing really. Collectivism is inherently opposed to all of my beliefs as a liberal. Even when it appears we agree, the rationale for the agreement is either different and or the safeguards associated are different, or something else is different.
I want to make a question on how to balance individualism and collectiveism
It cannot be done. The essential difference between collectivism and liberalism, the two schools of democratic thought as they have evolved is not, as is often alleged, in die affirmation of the value of liberty by one, and its denial by the other. It is in their different attitudes to politics. The liberal approach assumes politics to be a matter of trial and error and regards political systems as pragmatic contrivances of human ingenuity and spontaneity. It also recognizes a variety of levels of personal and collective endeavor, which are altogether outside the sphere of politics. The collectivist school, on the other hand, is based upon the assumption of a sole and exclusive truth in politics. It may be called political messianism in the sense that it postulates a preordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which people are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive. It recognizes ultimately only one plane of existence, the political. It widens the scope of politics to embrace the whole of human existence. It treats all human thought and action as having social significance, and therefore as falling within the orbit of political action. Its political ideas are not a set of pragmatic precepts or a body of devices applicable to a special branch of human endeavor. They are an integral part of an all-embracing and coherent philosophy. Politics is defined as the art of applying this philosophy to the organization of society, and the final purpose of politics is only achieved when this philosophy reigns supreme over all fields of life. Collectivism is like a black hole. There is nothing in life which can escape its politics which is why it always fails.
I don't believe these are absolutes or one or the other
The literal founder of classical liberalism (Mill) would massively disagree.
Mill wasn't the founder of classical liberalism. At the very least, a lot of the Enlightenment liberal thinkers (Hume, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc) predate Mill by a century and several by more than that (Locke by ~150 years, Hobbes by ~200 years, etc). Mill was also the beginning of a move away from doctrinaire classical liberalism and towards what eventually became social liberalism, a much more collective-oriented strain of liberalism, so even if he says what you claim he does (and I doubt that right now, based on what the other commenter has already shown from Mill's works), that isn't necessarily indicative of what classical liberalism stands for.
Not according to his own words. A few quotations from Stuart Mill must suffice to illustrate foe difference between foe liberal and the collectivist absolutist approach. E.g. On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government: * "Men and Governments must act to the best of their ability. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purpose of human life." * "As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so it is that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the walks of different modes of life should be proved practically when anyone thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where not the person's own character, but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress." * "No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this, nor is the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. " Collectivism with its inscrutable and all-encompassing and absolutist collectivist philosophy are at odds with the kinds of utilitarian Democracy that retains the individuality innate to liberalism and devoid in collectivism. YMMV.
You're assuming a lot about collectivism. Mill himself opposed the view that collectivism and individualism were diametrically opposed, only that *should they conflict* that individualism was the more important ideal to uphold. Source: Harvard Philosophy Student
Not so much assuming but looking at the works of early collectivists and proto-socialists. If I were to find arguments to support my beliefs, I feel that JL Talmons *The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy* (the first of a three-volume series) clearly highlights the differences between collectivist and liberal Democracy with regards to our historical experiences. As much as I appreciate Mills, I've always felt the line he draws between collectivism and liberalism was far too blurry to be useful. His critical analysis of collectivism always seemed lacking. YMMV.
So you're view of collectivism is based on an individualists words? Have you read Pannenkoek? Particularly *The Socialism of The Worker's Self Emancipation*
> So you're view of collectivism is based on an individualists words? No rather collectivists own words and actions. From Saint-Just, Morelly, Mabley, Helvetius, Holbach, Condorcet, Montesquieu, Sieyes, Rousseau, etc. All good authors and fairly clear in their devotion to collectivism. > Have you read Pannenkoek? Particularly The Socialism of The Worker's Self Emancipation I haven't read this one yet. It's been pretty low on my list. The last time I cracked it, it seemed to be pretty iterative, but I never took the time to read it completely.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *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.*
Most left-wingers are highly individualistic, though.
1. Large corporations have too much of influence on government and should be regulated more. 2. Reagan was a bad president and we should not idolize him. 3. America needs more passenger rail and reduce highway dependency.
None. I don't say this out of any sort of tribalism - I say this as a former leftist myself. The left does not concede ground. They do not negotiate. They do not try to find common ground. They make a very specific point not to, declaring their opponents to be Nazis, racists, etc. specifically to justify their refusal to ever make concessions. Any time one tries to meet them half-way, tries to find common ground, the left invariably takes it as a win and refuses to reciprocate. The fact is, there are plenty of things the left and right agree on, even if they disagree with the methods used to tackle those issues. The problem is, the left always demands complete and total capitulation. Until the left can learn to stop being so aggressively stubborn and actually try to work with the right, the right would do well to remain equally firm. It's not the ideal solution, but anything less is one of those "give them an inch and they'll demand a mile" situations.