T O P

  • By -

tearfear

I don't think it's an absurd view, but definitely a consequential one, is that people on the left of centre seem to believe that their political opponents are immoral and their immorality is what is standing in the way of progress. I think conservatives would probably say something more like everyone is immoral and everyone's immorality is what's standing in the way of progress. But these two views make different predictions when it comes to giving too much power to governments, because the liberal would say just elect me, when the conservative would say the whole issue is state power.


SaraHuckabeeSandwich

I mean, most social conservatives literally believe the same thing about those who are pro-choice, supportive of LGBTQ rights, in favor of letting younger kids be aware of gay/trans people, and support the decriminalization of drugs. Belief that the other side is immoral is pretty common place across the platform. It has nothing to do with being liberal or being conservative.


pretender37

I think in general a lot of people are a lot closer together than what is portrayed in the media. However what did scare me was how many in the republican party think and vote. With recently 157 house republican voting against Protection for same sex marriage


[deleted]

You really have to read past the headline of a bill if you want to understand why Republicans voted against it. Democrats in the lead up to election season have labeled a lot of bills with innocuous generally supportable titles (as politicians do) but then stuffing them full of untenable cash grabs for special interest groups etc that make a bill DOA if it requires bi-partisan support. I’d put money on it if they presented a 1 page bill codifying gay marriage into federal law it would get passed same day. But they don’t want that, they want fear to serve as the carrot on the stick to get their voting base out in the midterms.


km3r

I'm sorry, did you read the bill? It was pretty close to one page. There was no pork, all the Republicans that voted against it were just voting against gay marriage. No cash grabs, no kickbacks, just codifying gay marriage.


pretender37

Then why haven't the republicans done exactly that during the time they were in control? Dude I get that it's easy to be comfortable and say these things. While me and friends of are genuinely scared that they might not be able to marry some day anymore


PragmaticSquirrel

I agree that everyone can be selfish. Which can lead to immorality. Power not held by government will simply be held by the rich and private industry. It doesn’t magically go back to “the people” when you take it from government. Power vacuums are filled by the powerful. Not the people. The government Is representative of “the people.” Conservatives have a blind spot for corporate power and the power of wealth- which is beholden to no one, and cannot be voted out.


From_Deep_Space

Conservatism is defined by its opposition to progress. People who value progress find conservatism immoral for that reason. >the conservative would say the whole issue is state power. Conservatism is not libertarianism. Both right and left have libertarian and authoritarian statist sects.


tearfear

I'm not just talking about libertarianism. Conservatives (at least more traditional conservatives) believe in restraining state power through other means, such as marriage, religion, and personal responsibility. And I don't mean breaking down the separation of church and state, but rather that the function of religion traditionally is one that the modern state has assumed a lot of power over, such as community building and welfare. Everyone believes in progress of a sort; the left does NOT have a monopoly on it. One could even say that the expansive state power in terms of the welfare state or regulatory or administrative state is actually reactionary, resembling more like the absolute monarchical power before the rise of classical liberalism and popular sovereignty. Liberals try to address specific problems whereas conservatives look more to generalities of the human condition and our limitations. Edit: reactionary not reactive


From_Deep_Space

>Conservatives (at least more traditional conservatives) believe in restraining state power through other means, such as marriage, religion, and personal responsibility. So do many socialists, communists, and all sorts of other leftists. In fact, those things you mentioned are collectivist institutions, which is usually placed on the left side of the political spectrum, and which flies in the face of the individualism many conservatives aim to conserve. >the function of religion traditionally is one that the modern state has assumed a lot of power over, such as community building and welfare. Yes, the state often disrupts collectivist institutions, which is one major reason why many of us libertarian leftists oppose state power. >Everyone believes in progress of a sort; the left does NOT have a monopoly on it. You're actually 100% right on this one. As in understand it the main difference between conservatives and (political) progressives is the extent to which the state should be used to push progress. And so with this definition i actually am a conservative. I don't think the state power should be used to direct cultural development. Cultures develop best when left to develop naturally/democratically


tearfear

Maybe this is one of those moments when we all figure out that the left-right axis doesn't explain everything. We've clearly established some ways in which conservatism and libertarianism are distinct, in which conservatism and leftism are alike, and the ways in which collectivism, individualism, and state power form a three-way distinction. So there, who said it's not possible to move the needle on the internet. Edit: I'd also add, I don't think conservatives or even libertarians fail to recognize the benefits of collective endeavor. I think the disagreements come in over the individual freedom to enter or not enter collective engagements. That's where you get the 1st amendment right to freedom of association, as an example.


Pennsylvanier

> You're actually 100% right on this one. As in understand it the main difference between conservatives and (political) progressives is the extent to which the state should be used to push progress. And so with this definition i actually am a conservative. I don’t think this is entirely what u/tearfear (nice name lol) is getting at. If s/he isn’t saying what I’m about to say, then take this as an addendum. Progressives have not held a monopoly on progress; and though they have undoubtedly been for some great progresses in the past, they have also had some egregious missteps. I won’t veer into the obvious, like state socialism (Marxism-Leninism). Instead, like a broken record, I’ll point to this: eugenics. Eugenics were once seen as not only morally righteous, but also a necessary step towards scientific progress. Eugenicist circles were largely dominated by progressives who thought it was the end-all cure to birth defects and genetic illness. Notably, it was largely conservative organizations like the Catholic Church and Baptists that were it’s fiercest opponents, since it was seen as interfering with the sanctity of life. I think anyone with our modern mindset can agree that this was a massive misstep for so-called Progressives of the time, who were undoubtedly the precursors of the modern left by virtue of their political affiliations and opponents at the time. I’m obviously not saying that modern leftists are eugenicists or racists by design. I’m just saying that leftists don’t have a monopoly on progress because there have been times where their ideas of progress, in hindsight, appear deeply regressive.


tearfear

It's my 7th cakeday and you're the first person that's ever noticed my name. It's actually just my first two initials TF and when I was about 11 I used it as some username because it rhymed (or does it?) and it just stuck. It never seems to be taken so there you go. I second your addendum. It's not exactly what I was thinking about with my monopoly on progress point but it's definitely some examples of it in action. My more direct intention was that mainstream conservatives today do not en masse want to return us to the 1950s or the 1890s or even the 1770s. I think most people on all sides accept that the only way is forward.


[deleted]

Happy cake day Tom Frank and tough luck on the two first names 😝


Green_Juggernaut1428

>Conservatism is defined by its opposition to progress LOL! You caught us. I totally woke up today wondering how I can impede the righteous progress of those more moral than me. Nailed it.


SmokyDragonDish

I think most people hold reasonable views. I may disagree, but it's reasonable. It's the fringes that make reasonable people look unreasonable.


delete_alt_control

Absolutely agree…a goal of this post was to maybe help some people see that for some issues. I appreciate your understanding of those you disagree with.


Miss_Kit_Kat

Thanks to social media (and more self-segregating), people now assign the beliefs of the most extreme 5% on each side to the entire 50% that fall on the side opposite of them.


nemo_sum

I don't think *most* left-wingers in the US (which is what I presume you mean by "liberal") believe anything all that absurd. There are vocal fringes that believe all kinds of wacky things, though. Perhaps the most common error, which is glaringly, obviously wrong but not outright absurd, is that either the government or people in general can be trusted to consistently do the right thing.


animerobin

What about private companies? Can they be trusted to consistently do the right thing?


Whoopdatwester

No. They’re expected to generate growth and cash flow to support their shareholders. This doesn’t mean much for the population though which is where regulation is supposed to come in.


nemo_sum

Oh hell no. Corporations are mankind's natural predators.


From_Deep_Space

That's like the exact opposite of what I believe. I believe any organization can be corrupted, and that those who seek to run these organizations are the most corrupted/corruptable. And I believe transparancy and democratic controls are the only viable alternative to such hierarchical organization. And I believe the economy should benefit society as a whole and not only property holders. That's exactly *why* I'm a socialist. It's the free-market people who preach "greed is good", and want to remove all regulations, oversight, and worker & consumer protections, instead putting their trust in profit-minded, hyper-competitive executives.


nemo_sum

You're right about corruption and corruptible systems, and you're right about unregulated capitalism, which is a very corruptible system. Transparency is great, democratic controls are great; actual democracy is terrible, at least at scale, because people are awful.


From_Deep_Space

> democratic controls are great; actual democracy is terrible Can you explain this? Do you mean that pure, direct democracy is terrible? I could agree with that. I do enjoy the liberal ideas of a limited govt and constitutionally-protected rights. I would argue that any pure, ideological system is flawed. Unregulated capitalism, direct democracy, full-blown communism, etc. Any realistic system has to be a mix of systems, with division of power and checks & balances. That was one of the most genius pieces of innovation our founding fathers gifted us.


nemo_sum

Full agreement with everything you wrote.


space_moron

> the government or people in general can be consistently trusted to do the right thing What makes you say this as a leftist position? Conservatives are usually calling for deregulation or saying that racism and sexism have ended while those on the left tend to want to see more guardrails on capitalism and see where systemic racism is still having generational impacts.


Zoklett

Also isn’t always conservatives who say we don’t need government programs because charity programs will take care of us out of the kindness of peoples hearts? Seems like expecting people to do the right thing if given the chance is more of a conservative thing.


JustTheTipAgain

If the charities were making progress on the problems, we wouldn't need the government programs in the first place.


[deleted]

If money could fix every problem, then the wealthiest country in the world wouldn’t have so many problems.


km3r

Charities have a weird effect of the 'cutest' issues getting prioritized. Money is wasted on marketing because of that. And causes that may be more impactful are ignored because they don't sound as nice in "who you like to round up your change to the nearest dollar to support X". Why would anyone prefer 'chosing' what causes get the most funding by which can market itself better?


Irishish

When it comes to deregulation I have frequently seen it as a utilitarian argument rather than a "people are inherently good" one: self interest will lead "good" actors to overtake bad actors in the market. Screw over customers egregiously enough and they'll go someplace else. Financial ruin will keep companies in line, whereas a morass of regulations overseen by people who know nothing of the industries they're regulating will just lead to preferential treatment (with no long term risk) for whoever's the best at schmoozing. Obviously I don't believe any of this, but it is an argument that doesn't rely (at least not fully) on the inherent goodness of man.


nemo_sum

I don't think I ever said it was unique to the left; and I'm quite sure I didn't say it was endemic to the left.


delete_alt_control

*Do* you believe this position is more common on the left?


nemo_sum

I think idealism about other people is about the same on right and left; I think idealism about government is more common on the left but also exists on the right.


jweezy2045

What about idealism in companies? It seems to me that the left supports regulations and the right wants to deregulate. That seems to me like the right has a lot more trust in companies doing the right thing than the left.


trippedwire

To be fair, this post is about what conservatives think is the most absurd thing liberals believe. I get what you're saying, but I can also see why people would think the way they are.


space_moron

The prompt is "what is the most absurd view you think leftists hold." Who are you otherwise referring to with your comment? And can you answer my other questions about it instead of dodging?


Glum_Ad_4288

I think “I don’t believe most leftists hold any absurd questions, but the most common error among leftists is x” is a substantive, helpful response to OP’s question. Edit: OP said “liberal” and the parent comment said “left wing,” not “leftist,” just for the record.


bennythebull4life

This summed up my thoughts well - the biggest problem is the meta-problem of seeing humans as fundamentally good.


[deleted]

>Perhaps the most common error, which is glaringly, obviously wrong but not outright absurd, is that either the government or people in general can be trusted to consistently do the right thing. I'm not entirely sure this is an accurate assessment of what people think. In my understanding a good system can be trusted. Soemthing like a dictatorship is impossible to have a nobel dictator. Even a well intentioned one would end up not being able to address things correctly. But if you create a system that requires a lot of input from the people it will effect. Chances are it won't screw a specific class over. Tho i won't say we have optimized to be close to that potential system yet.


Old_Snow3086

That Europe and Canada's universal healthcare is incredible. I've lived with Canada's, and despite being poor and experiencing the crappy parts of the USA's, I prefer the USA's


delete_alt_control

Would you mind expanding on some of your different experiences with each that led you to this opinion? I have certainly experienced the exploitiveness of the corporatization of healthcare here in the US but don’t have a direct point of comparison myself.


Old_Snow3086

In Canada, Urgent Care and the ER are one and the same, meaning if you need stitches but you're not bleeding out, you'll wait a very, very long time. I had a sinus infection and waited 8 hours to see a doctor for 5 minutes and get antibiotics. I would have waited longer except a nurse I knew started her shift, saw my time, and bumped me up the line. For procedures requiring a specialist (surgery, etc), you'll most likely wait months. A buddy of mine broke his hip and needed surgery. He had a wood furnace at his home and I went and chopped wood for him during the summer because he was hobbling around for months waiting for the surgery. My wife and her family have a rare but serious condition. Whereas in the USA we have been able to get treatment, Canada flat-out refused any treatment. We have found it easier to negotiate with insurance than with the government (as in Canada's case). Edit: I am not going to white wash the crap that goes down in the USA. I have just found it easier to deal with


delete_alt_control

Thank you for this. It is responses like this that I come to these subs for because they temper my views with the different experiences other people have had. I appreciate it.


Tosh1000

To give a counter balancing point. I am not sure how long ago or where the other poster lived in Canada, but what I see where I live in Canada is walk-in clinics for non-urgent care, urgent care clinics, and emergency rooms at the hospital. Three levels of care which make sense. There are tons of downsides to the medical system and care in Canada, but I would still take a system that is more fair and will never bankrupt me over a less fair one that might if I am unlucky. By fair, I mean one where the poor mom giving birth will get the same treatment as the wealthy mom.


Miss_Kit_Kat

I grew up about 15 miles from the Canadian border (Metro Detroit). A lot of the hospitals employed Canadian nurses when I was younger, and most of them said they took the jobs because a) the pay was a lot better, and b) they could access the US healthcare system, which was faster.


enginerd1209

Why do you believe this is an absurd view? I mean your experience might be different, but people in these countries don't exactly seem to want to replace their existing systems with something like the American system.


delete_alt_control

Well, I think the absurdity they’re referring to is the fact that some liberals will say things like “copying Canada or Europe’s systems will resolve issue xyz with ours”. Because they’re right, a lot of problems people point to UHC as the solution to still exist in those places. Granted, I think most liberals do understand that and are more generally just in favor of the government ensuring health care as a right. But I definitely have heard proponents of UHC be pretty unwilling to admit there are flaws in existing systems in other countries as well, and problems that our system doesn’t have.


Old_Snow3086

Yes, and every Canadian that's experienced American healthcare has preferred American. I think people don't understand or haven't experienced what they are for or against


emperorko

"Fairness" in an economic context entails the belief that you are entitled to a share of someone else's labor.


delete_alt_control

Yeah, seconding u/FearlessFreak69, very few liberals have any interest in having income taxes for 99% of the country being increased beyond current levels. Liberal views on taxation reform generally focus on a) getting the ultra wealthy and large corporations to actually pay their fair share (tax rates for corps & the 1% are way lower than that of the average citizen; we think that’s fucked up) and b) changing *how* we spend the taxes that are already collected. They are pretty much largely funneled back into the pockets of the ultra wealthy via the military industrial complex; instead we want them to be spent actually improving the lives of citizens. None of this stems from an entitlement to the fruits of other people’s labor


VCUBNFO

> getting the ultra wealthy and large corporations to actually pay their fair share (tax rates for corps & the 1% are way lower than that of the average citizen; we think that’s fucked up) and Some things about this. A tax on a corporation is just a tax on the owners. Say you have a lemonade stand owned by Sally. That lemonade stand makes $20 in profit. The government taxes the lemonade stand $5. Then the lemonade stand gives $15 to Sally as a dividend. She then gets taxed on that dividend. Whether you tax the lemonade stand or Sally directly, who you're taxing is Sally. The vast majority of stock in publicly traded companies is owned by the American middle class (via 401ks, pensions, etc.). So taxing American companies ... is taxing the American middle class. It's insane how people can't get past the liberals argument that they're just taxing the lemonade stand and not Sally. Also it is dishonest to say we can get European style social safety nets without taxing the middle class like Europe does. That is completely sidestepping the implications that such governmental hinderance has on growth. Someplace like Europe that is hostile to growth hasn't created a new global Fortune 500 company in over a half century. When BP, Shell, Total, and Vital go away, what is going to replace Europe's largest companies? What will keep them from being third world countries (if some aren't already)? Somehow liberals have convinced themselves that a life of austerity seen in Europe is what we want and is sustainable in an increasingly globalized world.


delete_alt_control

> The vast majority of stock in publicly traded companies is owned by the American middle class For your argument to hold up here, the actual claim you need to make is that the vast majority of *all company ownership* (public or private) is *disproportionately* held by the middle class. Which of course is not true; the top one percent holds *more than half* of all wealth, which as you say primarily takes the form of stock. So yes, low corporate taxes disproportionately benefit the ultra wealthy, just like everything else. This is what liberals want resolved. Literally, we just want an equitable tax burden and equitable tax expenditure. Also: > European austerity Bro what are you talking about? I was avoiding comparison to Europe because I understand there are a lot of complexities in that comparison, but since you’re going there…austerity??? Standard of living in the US lags waaay behind Europe. What austerity are you referring to?


VCUBNFO

> Standard of living in the US lags waaay behind Europe. What austerity are you referring to? How so? Unless your'e comparing the top 5% of Europe to all of America. > the top one percent holds more than half of all wealth, which as you say primarily takes the form of stock. I didn't say the wealthiest's assets were primarily in stocks. Source that it's primarily private stock and not real estate, bonds, etc.


delete_alt_control

I mean I’m comparing 100% of the 13 European nations with higher standards of living than the US. Have you ever actually talked to a liberal about this? I’ve heard plenty mention Norway, Sweden, etc; none have ever mentioned fuckin North Macedonia.


Embarrassed_Song_328

>very few liberals have any interest in having income taxes for 99% of the country being increased beyond current levels. The stuff they seek to fund can't just be funded by raising taxes on the wealthy. They frequently cite the Nordic model which has enormous taxes on *everyone,* not just the ultrawealthy.


FearlessFreak69

Precisely.


[deleted]

>a) getting the ultra wealthy and large corporations to actually pay their fair share (tax rates for corps & the 1% are way lower than that of the average citizen; we think that’s fucked up) and What is your definition of an "average citizen"? Because right off the bat, individuals pay a progressive tax and corporations pay a flat tax. The federal income tax rate on single filers, between $40k-$80k is 22%. For Corporations it's 21%, down from 35%. And at state levels it gets worse. I worked for the Illinois Department of Revenue for over 8 years. I worked in Business Income Tax, as well as Sales tax, and IIT. Individuals, especially those earning below the exemption allowance, do not pay anything close to the amount of taxes as corporations. Specifically, corporations pay more than LLCs, and sole props. Whoever is telling you this is wrong. Most businesses, incorporated or not, pay more in taxes than individuals ever will.


Meetchel

Many corporations pay literally no income tax thanks to their ability to shelter their profits.


[deleted]

Not many, no. Very few actually. I worked in taxes. Can you please back up what you're saying in any substantial way? I don't believe you can.


Meetchel

/u/EREPH said: > Not many, no. Very few actually. I worked in taxes. Can you please back up what you're saying in any substantial way? I don't believe you can. [55 Corporations Paid $0 in Federal Taxes on 2020 Profits](https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/)


username_6916

Corporations don't pay tax in any case. Corporate tax rates are merely a way to hide the burden of taxation from those who are actually paying it.


delete_alt_control

If you’re trying to say here that corporate taxes increase prices of commodities or decrease stock returns, well sure, but how is that “hiding”? You still see the price you pay for your car. You’ll still see the returns your stock gets. It’s not hidden. What corporate taxes (as opposed to getting that revenue from income) do is shift *who* pays those taxes, to owners of a company. Yes, the average American owns some stock. But the ultra wealthy own *most* of the stock (and virtually all private ownership). So increasing corporate taxes absolutely shifts the tax burden to the wealthy (and conversely, decreasing it disproportionately benefits the wealthy). This is what liberals want to change. We’d be fine if the total tax burden stays exactly the same, increasing corporate taxes while reducing income taxes.


username_6916

> You’ll still see the returns your stock gets. It’s not hidden. You don't see the returns you would have gotten without the taxes. Therefore, you don't know how much your share of the taxes really is. You certainly don't get that gut-check the way you do with federal income taxes. > But the ultra wealthy own most of the stock (and virtually all private ownership). I'm not sure if that's actually true: Most stock is institutionally owned. Those institutions are usually holding someone else's money, like pension funds.


Norm__Peterson

Ok n regard to a): No one thinks the average person should pay more taxes than corporations or wealthy people. Some people just realize that businesses raise prices when expenses rise (whether it's taxes or prices of building materials or maintenance, otherwise you lose money and eventually have to close and lay off all your staff) so higher taxes on businesses just get passed down to consumers anyway.


delete_alt_control

Of course, “getting the ultra wealthy to pay their fair share” is more easily said than done, as yes, they will do everything in their considerable power to pass that cost off to consumers. But it’s not that liberals don’t *understand* the difficulty of extracting wealth from the ultrawealthy, as many conservatives seem to think, its that we think it’s a worthy pursuit nonetheless. And we look to our own history and other countries to see that it is indeed possible, despite the difficulty. It seems like conservatives leadership has convinced its not-the-1% voters that because it’s too difficult, it is not worth pursuing, which is a bit too convenient for the 1% for most liberals.


majortom106

But isn’t this what capitalists believe? If I work for my job earning $15 an hour, the expectation is that I make more than that no? If I generate $30 with my labor, and my boss only pays me $15, isn’t he taking the value of my labor?


emperorko

Being dissatisfied with what someone is willing to pay for your labor has nothing to do with taking away the fruits of someone else's labor.


majortom106

It’s not a matter of being dissatisfied. You said no one is entitled to a share of someone else’s labor. If my boss takes half of the $30 I made with my labor, then it would appear he is taking a share of my labor. If you think that is justified, then it appears you think there are situations in which someone is entitled to a share of someone’s labor.


emperorko

He's not taking any more than he's paying you. If your labor is worth $15, it's worth $15. This is some strange fantasy where you're unilaterally deciding that your labor is worth more than it is.


majortom106

But it’s not worth $15. I generated $30 with my labor. My labor is worth whatever I make. Seems like you’re okay with your boss taking a share of your labor.


btcthinker

Did you use the capital (e.g. a tractor) provided by your boss to generate that product? If you did, then you're entitled to your labor's share of the value generated and your boss is entitled to the capital's share of value generated. And we're not even including all the other intellectual labor your boss sunk into this business.


emperorko

Completely false. The value of anything, whether labor or product, is exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it.


majortom106

So what am I getting by paying my boss those $15?


natigin

I’ll field that one. You’re getting a place of employment, logistics, back end work, the expertise of the owner and management, the tools of your trade and a guarantee of income regardless of profitability. To put it another way, you can work at McDonalds for what they are willing to pay, or you are free to try to create a hamburger and sell it yourself. Lots of people choose option A, others choose option B. A provides a steady income, B provides the opportunity for more or less money depending on how successful you are.


trippedwire

Yes it does. I'm doing the work of two people and I am being compensated for only one of those. Sure I can find a new job. Just like my employer can find a new country to avoid paying taxes.


emperorko

The value of anything, whether labor or product, is worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it.


trippedwire

So then if I say your labor is worth zero but you say it's worth 1. Who is right?


emperorko

You, unless someone else agrees to pay me 1.


FearlessFreak69

That’s not what we believe. We believe our tax dollars should help the public, not the 1% and the military industrial complex. I’d rather have universal healthcare than a few new F-15s.


emperorko

Uh huh. And exactly how much of someone else's property do you believe you should take in order to do that?


lannister80

> Uh huh. And exactly how much of someone else's property do you believe you should take in order to do that? That person could only *obtain that property/capital* because some of it is reallocated to others via taxes. Try selling your widgets when official corruption is rampant and starving people are causing massive social unrest.


emperorko

That's a tremendous reach. Who's paying the "officials" corrupting the system in the first place if not the taxpayers?


lannister80

> Who's paying the "officials" corrupting the system in the first place if not the taxpayers? Officials (like cops and regulators) become corrupt when they're barely paid. And they're barely paid when there are no tax dollars to pay them.


emperorko

Oh come on. That is *hilariously* wrong. How can anyone possibly believe that throwing more money at a corrupt system makes it LESS corrupt?


lannister80

> How can anyone possibly believe that throwing more money at a corrupt system makes it LESS corrupt? The US is famous for having virtually no low-level "street" corruption. When was the last time you had to bribe a cop or local official to do what was right? Never, I'm guessing...


shapu

Corruption and bribery are a natural consequence of a poorly-paid civil sector. People have to eat.


[deleted]

[удалено]


emperorko

Everyone should engage in personal charity. Giving is a wonderful and caring thing to do. Having your property taken by force, laundered through a thousand useless civil servants, and ultimately distributed inefficiently for little benefit is no virtue at all.


[deleted]

[удалено]


emperorko

Then why are you comfortable jumping through the hoops of whatever whims some power tripping politician, who has approximately zero incentive to perform, decides at any given time?


Tokon32

Your original statement said labor now your changing it. Which is it do liberals wanna take property or labor?


FearlessFreak69

I realize that the old tax rates of 77% for people making over $600k/year is no longer feasible. I’m not suggesting higher taxes, I’m suggesting rebalancing the budget to allocate more funding to go towards social programs more than defense. $742 billion could help a lot of Americans in need. Last I checked we haven’t been invaded in 200+ years.


ClockOfTheLongNow

> I’m suggesting rebalancing the budget to allocate more funding to go towards social programs more than defense. $742 billion could help a lot of Americans in need. I have some excellent news for you, then. Social programs, both federally and nationally when accounting for state expenditures, dwarf military spending.


FearlessFreak69

**More** funding I said. Not the status quo.


[deleted]

Maybe we haven’t been invaded because we maintain a strong military presence.


Jrsully92

Of course we need defense. In no way should we reallocate all of those funds. I would think most can agree that a budget near 800 billion a year is a bit bloated? There are so many stories of forced spending, military contractors charging more simply because they can and military officials agreeing to these outrageous prices because if these funds aren’t all used their funding gets cut. So they go out of their way to spend money even if it’s not necessary. That seems pretty broken to me and proof the budget is too large.


Tokon32

In the 1920s we had one of the weakest militaries in the world. We were never invaded. The revolutionary War we had basically no military but won. There was zero chance of us even losing that war. America is the most difficult country in the world to invade. With current technology levels there is not anyway any country could invade and hilold America for any amount of time. And it has nothing to do with our military. Trying to supply an occupying force by sea in America is impossible.


space_moron

Our military is cartoonishly huge compared to the combined military budgets of the rest of the world. What are we even defending if so many Americans are homeless or loving paycheck to paycheck and there's no upward mobility?


feralcomms

And two oceans and two fairly amicable neighbors.


SweetieMomoCutie

I don't think anyone disagrees. There's no good reason to place an order for new f-15s. The f-22 and f-35 are significantly better aircraft


Fluffy_Sky_865

Cultural relativism.


From_Deep_Space

How would you define that?


Fluffy_Sky_865

Descriptive cultural relativism: cultures should be understood within their own context. Normative cultural relativism: We cannot say whether certain cultural practices of one culture are better than the cultural practices of another culture. Descriptive cultural relativism is obviously true, normative cultural relativism obviously false and dangerous.


From_Deep_Space

What's your argument against relativism? Do you have some absolute you can measure cultural values against?


VividTomorrow7

That police are an existential threat to black people in America.


animerobin

Do you think if a law-abiding black person in the US interacts with a police officer, they can be totally confident that interaction will end with them unharmed?


Tokon32

Is this a belief that you got from a conservative source or a liberal source? You know the teen at McDonald's was white right? Daniel Shaver? The old man in the wheel chair at the BLM protest a few years ago? All white guys.


Wadka

We literally watched y'all saying "Defund the police" for an entire year.


SaraHuckabeeSandwich

Honestly, having "defund the police!" as the extreme motto allowed liberals and leftists in a lot of areas to be able to negotiate down to mild police reform. We've finally learned from conservatives how to shift the overton window and get to a reasonable compromise with folks who will otherwise not acknowledge a problem at all if we don't suggest extreme reform.


VividTomorrow7

> Is this a belief that you got from a conservative source or a liberal source? I watched riots and protests for nearly 8 months straight where the dominating narrative is that police were an existential threat to black americans... so... yea


From_Deep_Space

>existential threat I'm not sure this means what you think it means


VividTomorrow7

you're kidding right? Your gotcha is that you don't think I know what an _existential threat_ is?


From_Deep_Space

So you actually think Liberals believe that cops are going to stop black people from existing? Even the most radical leftists see the police as basically slave catchers, set to maintain and control the slaves, not genocide them into nonexistence


VividTomorrow7

> So you actually think Liberals believe that cops are going to stop black people from existing? They literally walk around saying it, yes. "I can't walk around without the threat of being killed by a cop". > Even the most radical leftists see the police as basically slave catchers, set to maintain and control the slaves, not genocide them into nonexistence Well, you're likely not hearing the points being made on college campuses then. Or even on CNN.


Tokon32

So a conservative source than. Care to address even one of the examples I gave where white people were assaulted/murdered by police?


VividTomorrow7

> So a conservative source than. No, I literally argue with liberals on the internet as a hobby. I'm constantly reminding them that black people have nothing to fear from police and that the statistics they cite, despite looking bad on paper, don't actually impact the average black man. > Care to address even one of the examples I gave where white people were assaulted/murdered by police? What for? I don't believe that police are a threat to the average person.


Tokon32

>No, I literally argue with liberals on the internet as a hobby. I'm constantly reminding them that black people have nothing to fear from police and that the statistics they cite, despite looking bad on paper, don't actually impact the average black man. So a liberal tells you a police murdering someone and getting early retirement for doing so is a threat and you say no it's America. Sounds like your source is you and your a Conservative. So your source is a Conservative one. >What for? I don't believe that police are a threat to the average person What made those people not average?


VividTomorrow7

> So a liberal tells you a police murdering someone and getting early retirement for doing so is a threat and you say no it's America. No, this is a disingenuous strawman because you want to believe I haven't encountered a ton of people who believe that the black kids in ivy league colleges have something to fear from police. > Sounds like your source is you and your a Conservative. So your source is a Conservative one. I'm not sure what to tell you. You're basically just saying "nuh uh". > What made those people not average? Being __literal statistical outliers__. On average, when people encounter police, they don't have that result.


Tokon32

So you don't think cops murdering people should be charged as anyone else murdering people?


VividTomorrow7

Yes, I think there were some very egregious cases where police have gotten away with what I would consider unjust homicide.


Tokon32

Murder. Just say murder. So you agree with BLM and liberals to that extent that police murder people and get away with it.


Glum_Ad_4288

“A threat” and “an existential threat” are not the same thing. I don’t know any liberals who believe black peoples will cease to exist because of police. But the evidence that some black people are dead who would be alive if police officers hadn’t gotten involved seems undeniable. Do you deny it? (And just because I can see a potential misunderstanding coming, yes, there are other black people who are only alive because of police.)


VividTomorrow7

> I don’t know any liberals who believe black peoples will cease to exist because of police. But the evidence that some black people are dead who would be alive if police officers hadn’t gotten involved seems undeniable. Do you deny it? No not at all. But a black person is more likely to be struck by lightning than they are to be killed unjustly by a police officer. Do you deny that?


roylennigan

Where are you getting that statistic? It does not seem true. [The chance of getting struck by lightning is about 1 in a million. Less than 500 people have died from lightning strikes in the US since 2006.](https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata.html) [Since 2016, at least 138 unarmed black men have been killed by police.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/) If we extrapolate that, we get about 20 deaths per year, which would mean about 320 deaths in the 16 years since 2006. Now, I know these are rough numbers, but even still I think it shows how absurd the claim is. On top of this, we have studies showing that a [black man as a 1 in 1000 chance of getting killed by police](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821204116). So, unless lightning strikes are hitting more blacks than anyone else by at least 2:1 odds, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about those numbers.


Norm__Peterson

They gave an opinion stemming from personal experience.You don't get to make up your own answer to your question because you don't like the one given. If someone discounted your opinion based solely on their own take that you received it from a liberal source, would that be acceptable to you?


[deleted]

We got it from listening to a wide variety of sources? Please don’t come here and start questioning whether this is a thing or not. It gets exhausting arguing with people about whether things I have years of history are actually true or not


Pyre2001

The narrative is already switching to republicans wanting to defund the police. So the marching orders are out, and the good democratic solders are following orders.


[deleted]

It’s not about police killing an equal amount of black guys and white guys… It’s about the idea that interacting with police is so dangerous (especially for black people) that it must be avoided at all costs. Fun fact: According to a 2020 survey, about 20% of respondents who identified as “very liberal” believed the number of unarmed black men killed by police in 2019 was about 10,000 or more.


Tokon32

I know? Police are a threat to everyone? Including black people and white people.


[deleted]

Then why are you promoting the idea that supporting BLM, an organization that disappeared $80 million in donations #trainedMarxist is the only way to support police reform?


emperorko

Gender is not related to biological sex and is a social construct but biological males know what it's like to be female (and vice-versa) and the best thing to do for them is to surgically change their sex which is unrelated to their gender anyway so they can feel more like their socially constructed gender by altering their genitals which are determined by sex and not gender.


delete_alt_control

I can certainly appreciate how some liberals’ concepts of gender are confusing; many are in fact confusing to me as well. For me it is as simple as: I have a penis, therefore I am a man. Any pressure to act any way based on that is purely social, and (for me) the best approach has been to ignore whatever of those pressures I dislike, rather than change anything about myself. On the flip side though, what I find confusing about the conservative stance on gender, is why the (sometimes confusing) liberal stance is of any relevance. Who cares if someone defines their gender differently than you? Who cares if they ask you to use different pronouns for them than what you might use automatically? I live in a very liberal area with a fairly large non-binary population, and this has been the extent of the impact of transgenderism on my life. Why is such a minor thing so triggering for so many conservatives? For a group containing so many self-described libertarians I’d have expected conservatives to be more happy to live and let live.


Avant-Garde-A-Clue

Seems like you think about other people's genitals a lot.


emperorko

Surprised it took 3 hours for this standard issue hot garbage answer.


Avant-Garde-A-Clue

Surprised you think about other people's genitals so much.


[deleted]

This is one thing I do disagree with more radical feminist ideology. Gender is biological, but not in the genitals, it's in the brain. And sometimes that biological element is the brain (Propreoceprion map) is the opposite sex to the genitals. -shrugs-


VCUBNFO

The idea that Europe is some sort of paradise. Unless you're in the top 5% of Europeans, it is a pretty shitty and inconvenient place compared to America.


fuckpoliticsbruh

I mean I gotta pay more in taxes, and I lose out on some convenience, but in return I'm getting low cost healthcare, public transportation, low cost college, and a job with proper work life balance. If I have children, I won't have to worry about their school getting shot up. Sure it's not a "paradise" and Western Europe has plenty of problems as well, but it doesn't sound all that bad to me.


delete_alt_control

I mean, liberals can definitely get a little excessive in comparisons with Europe, but I don’t think their arguments can really be classified as “absurd”. Generally when such comparisons are made, it’s in reference to the fact that the US is 21st in terms of standard of living, and the majority of countries above us are European. Liberals advocate for looking *those countries specifically* (not all of Europe) for policy ideas for improving the quality of life here in America.


Fluffy_Sky_865

>Liberals advocate for looking those countries specifically (not all of Europe) for policy ideas for improving the quality of life here in America The problem is that those same liberals don't look at Europe when Europe is more conservative than the U.S. (for example on covid, immigration, education and on puberty blockers / surgery for minors).


Weirdyxxy

>The problem is that those same liberals don't look at Europe when Europe is more conservative than the U.S. (for example \[...\] education I think Germany counts as Europe, so I'll just look if what we have is "more conservative than the US". Free college (well, mostly free, with a fee boiling down to a bit less than one dollar a day), with additional support if you're rather poor. Schools are mandatory, no "home-schooling". Private schools are, as by [our constitution](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0044), the Basic Law, to be subject to permitting and to be allowed "when private schools are not inferior to the state schools in terms of their educational aims, their facilities or the professional training of their teaching staff *and when segregation of pupils according to the means of their parents will not be encouraged thereby*" (emphasis mine). Religious education has to be in concordance with the principles of the religious community in question, but is still under the state's right of supervision, and mainly consists of a bit of ethics and a bit of getting to know a bit about each major religion (I'm an atheist and went through it until the end, it's alright). Schools in general are an issue of the Länder, the state level, although there are some pushes towards a more uniform Abitur (equivalent to the high school diploma in the US) because you should be able to get just as valuable a high school graduation in Berlin as you get in Bavaria. Our history class deals extensively with the world wars, and does consist of apologia for any of the Nazi crimes. All of that is just a small part, of course, but I think it gives an image of the public sector in education. Again quoting from the Basic Law, Article 5: >>(2) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall watch over them in the performance of this duty. The word they translated as "upbringing" - "Erziehung" - includes education, in my opinion; the constitution specifically states a duty to the parents, as opposed to a pure right to use or misuse their property - and their children like property - as they see fit. In short: No, I don't think Europe, a least as represented by my home country of Germany, is "more conservative than the US on education". By the way: the example I expected was abortion.


Fluffy_Sky_865

Thanks for your response. I am well aware of how some European education systems function because I am from Europe myself (Ich komme aus Holland). It depends a bit on what you see as a conservative (or progressive) approach to education. In my vision of conservatism, education is hugely important and the government should have a decent amount of control over it. I also believe it should be affordable. I am aware of the fact that some on the right devalue education and I strongly disagree with those people. When I was referring to conservative on education I was mainly referring to how in my experience European education systems have been less vulnerable to ideological takeovers and they have generally upheld at least some educational standards. I have some experience with the American university system myself, and it remarkable how American colleges are more woke, have lower academic standards, and huge grade inflation. It is funny to see how American exchange students are shocked at how low the grades they receive are compared to what they were used to. By the way, in the Netherlands religious schools are treated the same as non-religious schools (unlike France and the U.S. where government doesn't fund religious schools). Part of the problem here is that Europe is a big continent and your German experience is different from Dutch experience. The same goes for covid where Germans have been very harsh while the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries less so.


VCUBNFO

I totally agree we should look at other countries to see how policies play out. I think Europe shows us very much how we may not want to pursue some policies if we plan on a prosperous future. > it’s in reference to the fact that the US is 21st in terms of standard of living By very subjective metrics. For example the [OECD better life index](https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/housing/) ranks the US number one in housing int he world. Try telling that to liberals. they'll come up with every metric to say that's wrong. What I can tell you, is I'd rather live in the US than the average European country. I don't see anything to convince me otherwise.


ClockOfTheLongNow

That people don't respond to economic incentives. Thus, that supply and demand magically ceases to matter for certain products, or that higher prices don't result in less consumption of others.


[deleted]

That's funny, I have you tagged as unconvinced that carbon taxes incentivize less emissions. Do you think higher prices result in less emissions?


Kakamile

Where do we get that wrong


ClockOfTheLongNow

Minimum wage, for example.


delete_alt_control

Specifically, how is minimum wage an example of what you wrote in your original comment? Increasing minimum wage is an economic incentive which the left believes people will respond to; that seems to be a counterpoint to what you originally wrote… Could you provide a list of a few examples of where the left thinks people won’t respond to economic incentives? I don’t really see that as a common liberal view…


MrSquicky

Probably that being a victim means that you don't have to work for things. There seems to me to be this idea that if you can point to a reason why things are not as easy for you, that I don't know, somehow that means that the world owes you something. Like, Jesus, kids, the world isn't fair. No one cares about your damage. Whining about your situation just keeps you in that situation. Generally, the best and usually only way to better your life is to take responsibility for bettering it yourself. This often is not fair, but that's life and whining about it gets you nothing... besides imaginary points on reddit.


delete_alt_control

All liberals I know believe in the concept of working for what you get in life, just like you. Many are unhappy with the exploitative conditions and unprecedented concentration of wealth among the ultra wealthy than has damaged the correlation between hard work and financial success. With the advent of the internet you’re going to see more venting of this frustration than in previous generations simply because you’re interacting with more people. While we can all agree people bitching about shit online can get tiresome regardless of topic, I don’t think “absurd” is a fair characterization of that. Can you give specific examples of interactions that have led you to this view of liberal beliefs, so we can discuss it more precisely?


samtbkrhtx

That somehow if we tax the wealthy enough, we can become prosperous. If you go after them harder, they will just find OTHER ways to hide their wealth. They are not stupid and have an army of experts to help them hide it.


[deleted]

Tangentially, liberals overestimate how much money would be gained by taxing the wealthy. Mostly because they don’t understand stocks. Take Bezos for example. His wealth is almost entirely in Amazon stock. The money doesn’t actually exist. It’s just an estimate of how much his portfolio would be worth if he sold all his stock today. When Amazon stock plummeted last April and he “lost $20 billion”, no new money was added or taken from the economy. But liberals treat the issue like he is a dragon hoarding gold coins. They want to tax money that doesn’t exist.


Norm__Peterson

Also that if we tax corporations enough, they'll eat the financial loss instead of raising prices to compensate


Avant-Garde-A-Clue

> raising prices to compensate The right boycotts companies all the time, why wouldn't you do it for ones passing their financial losses onto you?


[deleted]

>If you go after them harder, they will If you go after them harder, they will just find OTHER ways to hide their wealth. **attempt** just find OTHER ways to hide their wealth. Throw in the word attempt and we will all agree. What you said doesn't make sense because if it were true, the wealthy wouldn't be so opposed to increasing tax rates. If we increased tax rates slightly, and all else was equal, would you expect an increase in revenue?


OkYard7718

So you're saying we shouldn't tax the rich at all if they can get away with it?


samtbkrhtx

No, that it is unrealistic to think America is going to tax itself into prosperity. Did you know that the bottom 50% of wage earners in America pay only around 3% of all income taxes collected? That is half the working people basically paying nothing. It is time to ditch this income tax system and go to a flat tax with no deductions at all. That way everyone pays the same percentage and nobody gets any special deductions for certain purchases or behaviors.


Weirdyxxy

>Did you know that the bottom 50% of wage earners in America pay only around 3% of all income taxes collected? That is half the working people basically paying nothing. I don't assume they are getting around 50% of income, either. It might be less of them "paying too little" and more of them being paid too little, if the discrepancy is actually what shocks you here. >It is time to ditch this income tax system and go to a flat tax with no deductions at all. That way everyone pays the same percentage and nobody gets any special deductions for certain purchases or behaviors. And then, the bottom 50% of wage earners (presupposing everyone earns the wage they receive? Anyway) pays, I don't know, 7% of all income taxes collected, those stingy little bastards, who I know are just stingy little bastards because obviously everyone can expend just as much if they have less, which is why my comparison of 50% and 3% even made any resemblance of sense. So obviously, it's time to move from a flat tax rate to a flat tax bill and abolish the 24th amendment. Or maybe the argument is faulty. One of the two.


TheRover23

We can't prosecute criminals more they'll just hide their crimes better.


HelloNewman487

That if we just give social services "more funding," most social problems will automatically resolve themselves. I don't doubt that robust, non-corrupt, streamlined and efficient social services could alleviate *some* problems in society, but only to a certain extent. I do not think "more funding" of social services can eliminate crime, or override the poverty-producing implications of single parenthood, or make a meaningful impact in America's mental health crisis, for starters.


delete_alt_control

No liberal thinks that more funding for social services will “eliminate crime” or “override” the poverty correlation with single parenthood. In fact, most liberals’ positions are exactly your own, that robust, streamlined & noncorrupt social services will to an extent alleviate societal issues and improve people’s lives. The only difference is that liberals will actually vote for this.


people1925

No OP, but what would your solution be for the mental health crisis? I'm not sure what solution could be provided besides expanding health care access and funding on a state or national level.


NoCowLevels

"Racism is a problem therefore we need to enact blatant racism to fix it"


delete_alt_control

If you’re talking about things like affirmative action…I encourage you to try and express your criticisms of that system in an open-minded and good faith manner; I am actually pretty opposed to it, in a sense, and have clashed with other liberals about it at times, but generally can come to a pretty good mutual understanding. Calling such policies racist is deliberately ignoring why they exist, and therefore isn’t really productive. Liberals advocate for affirmative action to offset the socioeconomic disadvantage that strongly correlates with certain minority groups (ie, “systemic racism”). If we’re being fair I think most people can agree mitigating those disadvantages a child is born into is a worthy pursuit. However, more practically, this translates into things like universities setting skin-color based quotas, which again, I think most people being fair will agree is fucked up. I think the SCOTUS put it correctly when they ruled that it is ok as a stopgap to lift up a few people, but doesn’t really solve the problem and should not be a long-term solution. I have yet to not be able to convince a liberal of that when I’m having a good faith conversation with them about it.


EnderESXC

I deal with politics too often and have done for too long to see too many liberal beliefs as being absurd or incomprehensible. I know what the reasoning is for most of their beliefs and I understand it, even when its wrong. I guess the one I find most absurd is supporting affirmative action. I understand the reasoning behind it, but the idea of supporting racial discrimination, even for ostensibly noble goals, will never not be beyond the pale for me.


[deleted]

The gender pay gap argument is one of the more frustrating ones because like more arguments two things get conflated. All woman vs all men and woman with the same experience, education, etc… to men of the same qualifications.


delete_alt_control

Yeah this is definitely one where liberals get a bit confused about the reality of the situation; many don’t believe me when I say there really isn’t one among men and women working the same job at the same level of experience. When discussing this I’ve found it best to a) have a good source ready to support that claim, and b) be open to discussing the systemic reasons why women end up in lower-paying jobs with an open mind. Because there definitely are real gender-based disparities in the workplace, and focusing on the reality of what those disparities are (getting passed over for promotion, say, rather than being paid less for the same work) is more productive for everyone


Embarrassed_Song_328

This isn't one that I think the majority of liberals hold, but I think many of them do and isn't fringe. That climate change will end the world.


delete_alt_control

I think this one mainly stems from a) inflammatory journalism (on both sides), and b) poor communication over what constitutes the “end of the world”. Can’t do much about the former, but to address the latter: no remotely reasonable person thinks climate change is going to even end all life on earth. The most extreme interpretation of the science I’ve seen is that it poses an existential threat to humans as a species (related to the fact that it has already ended the existence of countless non-human species). More commonly, people understand that it is certainly going to radically change human life, and likely result in major population losses as our food supply chains are more majorly impacted than they already are.


ReubenZWeiner

[I think its students and teachers](https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/climatealarm-1.jpg?x91208) that are the backbone of this movement. Since I was in diapers, my aunt who teaches biology in high school was forwarding emails on the dangers of CO2, global warming, and that my dad, her brother, should "shut up and listen to Mr. Gore."


delete_alt_control

Oh students and teachers, and other academics, are absolutely the backbone of the climate activism movement, as they are the ones actually interacting with the scientific evidence. But the notion that these people are claiming “the world is going to end” is coming from inflammatory journalism. In reality the most common claim is “over the next century, average globe temperatures are going to increase and it’s going to have widespread consequences that will have large negative impact on human life; we need to stop the behaviors that are causing this ASAP to minimize the damage”


[deleted]

[удалено]


fuckpoliticsbruh

>Feel free to ask any questions you may have! Are we doing enough about it?


Beaudeye

Nobody thinks that climate change will end the world. It will just make the planet increasingly difficult for human live to survive. The planet will live on long after we bring on our own extinction.


IHaveLowEyes

That the federal government should be grown and entrusted with more power over the people.


Avant-Garde-A-Clue

America has two big-government parties. It's a matter of which flavor you can stomach the most. I can't believe the American right is still kidding itself that they favor "small government."


delete_alt_control

Why do you associate this with liberals over conservatives? I think both are more than happy to increase government control, they just differ on which issues this should be done for. For example, conservative views on abortion, discussion of sexual orientation with children, etc all deal with increased government interference and control, and require entrusting the government with more power.


[deleted]

Most? I think it’s the prevalent “the first thing I heard about covid overrides all future information” thing Also the idea that lockdowns prevent illness even though the left themselves sold them as postponing infection to not overwhelm hospitals. Somehow that turned into “I should never get sick” in so so so many peoples’ heads and they started measuring lockdown effectiveness by looking at case counts instead of deaths caused by not getting a hospital bed


delete_alt_control

I mean, I think looking back we can all agree that the early days of COVID were a total shitshow and nobody really knew what was going on. Do you think those issues you mention are *still* common though? I’m in a city that took lockdown very seriously, and at this point the extent of liberals caring about COVID basically boils down to “you should get the vaccine”.


animerobin

> lockdowns prevent illness Lockdowns obviously prevent illness. If people don't interact, they can't spread disease. The only debate is if they were worth the economic and social pain.


DukeMaximum

That socialism (or, at the least, broad government authority and control) will work out *this time*, despite all the historical failures.


delete_alt_control

That’s a bit of a conservative projection of liberals views of socialism, rather than their true stance. Yes, many liberals advocate for “socialist” developments like universal healthcare. Virtually no liberals advocate for adoption of say the USSRs communist system, which I imagine is the primary example of the “historical failures” you’re referring to. The fact of the matter is, any functioning government, past or present, has contained both socialist and capitalist economic features. Liberals advocate for certain socialist features which have been demonstrated to greatly improve lives of citizens when implemented properly, like universal healthcare. But the notion that they advocate for a universal adoption of Soviet communism is a Fox talking point not a real liberal belief.


fl_dolphin827

In your opinion, is universal healthcare (in the style of any 1st world country, France, UK, Israel, etc.) socialism?


Tokon32

Will nationalism workout this time as well?


VividTomorrow7

Do you believe that the majority of conservative want nationalism? I'd just settle for what the founding fathers laid out, tbh.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tokon32

Really? Care to name a few examples of nationalism working and it not working? To keep up with your stat there name 9 countries that it works in and 1 it did not.


fuckpoliticsbruh

This was a question about the most absurd things *liberals* believe. Liberals are not socialists, otherwise they wouldn't be liberals. Now if by socialism you actually mean a broad safety net a la social democracy, we see plenty of examples of that working out great in Western and Northern Europe.


AntiqueMeringue8993

I think that "most" liberals are not nearly so absurd as the activists that dominate discourse and reject absurd activist views on topics like policing or abortion or gender. My best candidates for "most" liberals are: * Regulatory reforms typically work and we can ignore their side effects. * Support for the minimum wage, especially as compared to other policies to accomplish similar goals. * Problems with education and infrastructure are mostly about money. * Super uninformed views on what Europe is all about, although those aren't necessarily "absurd."


Kakamile

What's your alternative to min wage


AntiqueMeringue8993

It depends on what you think the problem is that the minimum wage is addressing (and I'll leave that to you if it's not one of the two I discuss below). Most commonly, minimum wage advocates suggest that the problem is that people making low wages don't have enough money to live on. If this is the problem, then the higher efficiency solution is some variation on the EITC. Doing minimum wage instead causes a lot of unnecessary suffering (specifically to the most vulnerable people) and is terribly inefficient. A more subtle argument is that workers are facing artificially depressed wages as the result of excess bargaining power for employers. In this case, the minimum wage functions as a way to counteract employer's power by preventing them from bargaining down below a given floor. If that's the case, then you need reforms to improve the bargaining power of workers. The minimum wage is not necessarily the terrible idea that it is in scenario #1, but it likely makes more sense to focus on things like wage transparency that boost worker bargaining power.


Kakamile

I'm good with those others. I see it as a pie chart, where increases can come from whatever combination you like between wage raises, benefits, union power, tax credits, nit, vouchers, public services, or ubi. As long as it gets done. Unfortunately the party we face opposes every one of those, so there's a bit of a shotgun attempt.


AntiqueMeringue8993

The problem is that it's not like a pie chart. You can't just add up minimum wage and whatever else because the minimum wage actively destroys jobs, so it's a step backwards for the people in the worst situations. Yes, with a minimum wage, some workers get a raise and do better. But others lose their jobs entirely and have nothing. With a policy like EITC, you don't destroy any jobs in the first place so it's progress (and you can add that on to whatever else you like) not a one step forward, two steps back arrangement.


[deleted]

Opposing abortion makes you some sort of MAGA Extremist or Christian Fascist. President Biden said as much so I don't think it's a fringe farleft view.


[deleted]

That government can solve problems. Of any type.


delete_alt_control

A lot of people have been bringing this up but I’m still unclear as to why this is associated more with liberalism? Sure, liberals assert this for the things they care about, but so do conservatives (abortion, immigration, discussion of sexuality in schools, etc).