Survey: which way do you lean on each political issue?

[skeptik]

First of all, that's not quite the 'theory', so to speak. Secondly, what good is an economic system that leaves so many people behind, when in the cases of many it is through no fault of their own, whether it is through prejudice or some other unfortunate circumstance?

 

[waif]

Things like pacifism and opposition to economic freedom keep me skeptical of the generalised "liberal viewpoint". There's also a tendency to assume that the tax burden should be focused on high income earners without taking into account the contributions of businesses to the economy.

I think you're misusing the word "pacifism" there. Perhaps "a strong opposition to unjustified and unnecessary war" might be a better term. For example, I'd say the majority of liberals (not the radicals, but most) were fine with Afghanistan. Iraq, on the other hand, was started under false pretenses. Opposing such a war is hardly tantamount to pacifism. If America was attacked by a foreign nation or in order to combat an imminent threat to world peace I think a majority of liberals would endorse military action (in the second case provided America had the support of the international community).

I do think there should be voting qualifications other than age. It's just hard to deal with the potential for corruption and abuse when implementing such things.

Let's see...in the past, what qualifications have we used:
1. land-ownership
2. literacy
3. race
4. gender

so what would you like to use instead? Would it by any chance strongly favor middle- and upper-class white males?
Forget corruption and abuse, any qualification you have is in and of itself going to be fucking retarded.

Progressive taxation is hardly an injustice.

.

 

[Cythraul]

Let's see...in the past, what qualifications have we used:
1. land-ownership
2. literacy
3. race
4. gender

so what would you like to use instead? Would it by any chance strongly favor middle- and upper-class white males?
Forget corruption and abuse, any qualification you have is in and of itself going to be fucking retarded.

Wait, so because qualifications used in the past were unjustified, any qualification he has in mind is going to be in and of itself fucking retarded? Why??

 

[no country for old wainds]

war is cool i like war lets go to war some more

 

[waif]

Wait, so because qualifications used in the past were unjustified, any qualification he has in mind is going to be in and of itself fucking retarded? Why??

I was more pointing out exactly how well this has worked in the past, as I am a strong believer that past performance is an indication of the future. That and the second bit are separate.

 

[Cythraul]

Kiss my ass.

 

[waif]

No.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

First of all, that's not quite the 'theory', so to speak. Secondly, what good is an economic system that leaves so many people behind, when in the cases of many it is through no fault of their own, whether it is through prejudice or some other unfortunate circumstance?

If the tax system makes it harder for businesses to produce the goods used by everyone, it's not really doing the poor people any favors.

Not that Republicans necessarily have only businesses in mind when they lower taxes for the rich. And I really don't know shit about economics, so I don't really have a sense of what the 'smartest' way to tax a country is, but surely there are factors other than the wealth of the taxpayer to be considered.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think you're misusing the word "pacifism" there. Perhaps "a strong opposition to unjustified and unnecessary war" might be a better term. For example, I'd say the majority of liberals (not the radicals, but most) were fine with Afghanistan. Iraq, on the other hand, was started under false pretenses. Opposing such a war is hardly tantamount to pacifism. If America was attacked by a foreign nation or in order to combat an imminent threat to world peace I think a majority of liberals would endorse military action (in the second case provided America had the support of the international community).

I wasn't talking so much about Iraq as just general unwillingness to take military action when there is a threat present. I may only be referring to a small percentage of liberals, I'm not sure. It's just one of the possible pitfalls of the liberal worldview.

Let's see...in the past, what qualifications have we used:
1. land-ownership
2. literacy
3. race
4. gender

so what would you like to use instead? Would it by any chance strongly favor middle- and upper-class white males?
Forget corruption and abuse, any qualification you have is in and of itself going to be fucking retarded.

If anything, some way of verifying that voters are actually well-informed about what they're voting on would be good. I'm not about to make any assumptions on how that could be done, but what comes to my mind is some sort of test people would have to take which asks questions about the background and positions of the candidates for public office. It would be retakeable, so if someone screwed up they could go read up on the candidates and take it again later. But you would have to pass a test relevant to an upcoming election before you could vote in that election.

 

[Einherjar86]

Progressive taxation is hardly an injustice.

That's your opinion.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Depends on how progressive it is.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Fair Tax > any kind of income tax

 

[skeptik]

That's your opinion.

In that case, I propose this to you. Which is the graver injustice, that those equipped to do so are asked to bear a larger percent of the tax burden than those who can't, or that millions of people are left behind, treated unfairly, treated differently in general, do not have the means to progress due to the position in which they are situated by the capitalist system, or simply never had a chance? Which group of people should I have greater sympathy for, the top 1% who control about 40% of the total monetary value in the country, or the bottom 80% who don't control even a quarter of that? I think it is more prudent for a just society to lean toward those who are in need of help when the free market has proven time and time again that it is far from a level playing field where everybody has the same opportunities and advantages to 'make it.'

 

[Blind Guardian]

Fair Tax > any kind of income tax

Dont agree though the 33% i´m paying is way too fucking high. Income tax works but it shouldn't disable economical progress.

 

[The Ozzman]

Depends on how progressive it is.

This.

Flat Tax is better though

 

[The Ozzman]

I was more pointing out exactly how well this has worked in the past, as I am a strong believer that past performance is an indication of the future. That and the second bit are separate.

Don't go into the financial industry then, because PAST PERFORMANCE ISN'T AN INDICATOR OF FUTURE RESULTS

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Seriously...how can you even think that?

 

[The Ozzman]

Seriously...how can you even think that?

It's proved itself to be that time and time again. If you think otherwise, you're stupid

 

[The Ozzman]

It's proved itself to be that time and time again. If you think otherwise, you're stupid

I mean, some people do investment research using past data, but they also take into account other factors to forecast future results.

 

[skeptik]

Past performance is definitely "an indicator" of future performance. This is why we assume that the sun will perform as it has in the past, etc. This is not saying, however, that we should base everything that we can fathom of the present based on the past. And I'm sure this has an entirely separate understanding in financial philosophy. But seriously, if you meant that broadly in any sense, then you should seriously reconsider. If we didn't use past performance as an indicator of future performance, then the world would run a hell of a lot differently than it does now. I assume that you were mainly speaking in an economic sense, that you can't predict how the market will perform based on what happened yesterday since there are so many countless variables that can't possibly be fully accounted for, but other than that, your comment was kind of silleh.