this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
642 points (89.4% liked)
General Discussion
12091 readers
2 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy.World General!
This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.
πͺ About Lemmy World
π§ Finding Communities
Feel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!
Also keep an eye on:
For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!
π¬ Additional Discussion Focused Communities:
- [email protected] - Note this is for more serious discussions.
- [email protected] - The opposite of the above, for more laidback chat!
- [email protected] - Into video games? Here's a place to discuss them!
- [email protected] - Watched a movie and wanna talk to others about it? Here's a place to do so!
- [email protected] - Want to talk politics apart from political news? Here's a community for that!
Rules
Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
0. See: Rules for Users.
- No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: even with βsillyβ questions. The world wonβt be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
- Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
- Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
- No Ads/Spamming.
- No NSFW content.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree. However, I'm curious exactly what type of ranked voting system you would advocate for β Instant Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, etc.
I disagree. The right to vote also encompasses one's right to not vote. Even if one ignores the freedom aspect of it, an argument could be made that mandatory voting would actually have a negative effect: forcing people to vote, who otherwise wouldn't've, will likely cause them to choose whomever they are the most familiar with β essentially, this means that the person who can afford the most advertising is the most likely to win. Furthermore, as pointed out in this comment, there are potential privacy risks associated with tracking voters.
I disagree. There is too much potential for abuse.
I agree.
I agree β granted, I would legalize all drugs. However, I'm of the opinion that selling it to minors should still be illegal. I've also been considering the idea that any entity that wants to engage in the sale of addictive substances must also provide, proportional to their sale volume, rehabilitation centers. There would also need to be strict regulation, such as there is with the sale of food, on their production, and composition.
I agree. Of course, this would then mean that prostitutes would be entitled to the same employee protections, and rights as anyone else.
I'm not very familiar with this court case, so my answer isn't thoroughly thought out, but, if I understand it correctly, that ruling overturned a previous ruling that prohibited some forms of election spending. If so, I would agree with such a ruling β I believe that people have the right to spend their money where they see fit. It is the voter's duty to determine whether the person should be elected.
I disagree. I'm not sure I understand your rationale behind this one. Why don't you think this should be allowed? As long as the land-value taxes are being payed, the people are being justly compensated for the ownership of that land.
I haven't come to a firm decision on this matter. Would you mind elaborating on your rationale?
While I agree with the sentiment that gerrymandering is bad, what would you suggest should be done to "abolish" it?
I disagree (I don't disagree with the idea that filibustering is bad. I disagree that it should be prohibited). It is the duty of the voters to hold their representatives to account.
I disagree (from the perspective of the U.S. Congress). I would like to know your rationale for why you want them merged. The intent of a bicameral legislature is to act as a sort of "check and balance" on new legislation β it plays an important role in a federation. Do you disagree that this is the case? If so, why?
I've never thought about this. I'm inclined to agree. I can't think of, nor can I find, any good reason for why there is a cap beyond the arbitrary.
This a tricky one. I'm not yet convinced that it is as cut and dry as many people make it out to be β there are many caveats. I, at the very least, am strongly inclined to favor a hybrid system. There are also certain circumstances where a free market is simply not compatible (e.g. emergency departments).
While I understand the rationale that it would effectively cover one's right to life, I have economic concerns. Primarily, I am concerned that it would lead to runaway inflation. I have considered other options like breaking down the necessities for life into categories and apportioning them equally (e.g. foodstamps). I have not yet come to a conclusion on this matter.
I'm more of the thinking that income taxes should be abolished.
...why? I suppose there is some lobbying risk, but, beyond that, I don't understand this one. However, even if there was lobbying risk, they are within their rights, imo.
This may only be possible for simple taxes. Anything more complicated than simple income tax would not really be feasible, I think. Also, it is important to note that the IRS does already offer this, to an extent. I could be mistaken, though. In all honesty, I think the solution is to just simply taxes, rather than trying to obfuscate away their unnecessary complexity. This, most likely, will just lead to more bloat, and money wastage.
Generally, I would disagree with the implementation of a VAT. The only tax on products that I would support is one that is in the form of compensation to the public for damages (e.g. environmental taxes).
I'm not certain on the exact number, but I am in favor of the idea of term limits for non-elected officials.
Again, I'm more in favor of abolishing income tax.
I don't understand the rationale for this. Would you mind elaborating?
This is similar to the point about Citizens United v. FEC. It is the voter's job to hold elected officials accountable.
I think this is sort of missing the point. What you're effectively getting at is that insider trading should be illegal, which it is. The real question is why the SEC, or related government agencies in other countries, doesn't seem to go after some people when it seems obvious that they are engaging in insider trading.
Hm. I'm generally against adding any more government bloat unless absolutely necessary. One of the main issues with how ISPs are structured is that they somewhat currently function as an monopoly β due to intrinsic factors. This is the main reason, in my opinion, why prices are high, and why the service is often bad. Intrinsic monopolies are a tough issue to solve. I'm not sure that creating a government run ISP would make the problem any better. If anything, it might actually get worse. A cooperatively owned ISP may work, though.
This will always be a tricky issue. In my opinion, both sides of the debate have fair arguments. The main question is "whose rights trump whose?" Is it the baby, or the mother? Whichever one that one chooses, I would like to know their rationale. It is not an easy question to answer, imo. It most likely will always lie more in the realm of philosophy than in hard fact, which, of course, doesn't lend itself well to legislation. If I were pushed to side with a group, I would most likely side with the mother.
I disagree. That being said, I certainly would like for tipping culture to die. It is not my job to ensure that an employee is payed well β that is between them and their employer.
I'm more in the camp of wholly restructuring how education is done, but that is out of the scope of this comment. I agree that economic literacy is important, but my beliefs on the matter of education go far beyond only that Ββ I believe that we need a fundamental restructuring of the education system.
Ancaps / libertarians in lemmy? Oh my
Political beliefs are often more complex than simply applying a single label. I do support much of what libertarianism advocates for, but it's more nuanced than that. I would also like to be clear that I don't align with anarcho-capitalism.