summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon, as stated in the constitution. CMV | The intent of the second amendment was to allow the populace to overthrow the government in a time of emergency. The found fathers had just led a crude militia against the greatest military ever seen on earth, and succeeded, so they had faith that this was a good plan. For a while, it was a good plan - if the people wanted to, they could have overthrown President Washington. But if a dictator gained control of the US, how could you protect yourself with an assault rifle? You can't shoot down a plane that's dropping bombs on your house, or a 100, 000 ton aircraft carrier that's basically a floating military fortress. Guns just can't stand up to military anymore - if the Syrians can barely keep up the fight against against a relatively weak government, how can a bunch of Americans with guns take down a military worth trillions upon trillions of dollars? You also don't have to worry about fending off the British. The US military hasn't always " won ", but no one has ever successfully invaded us. There is zero direct threat posed by any foreign government to the American people, except for the occasional dictator threatening a nuke - but what good would guns be then? tl ; dr Whether we should keep the second amendment or not is a complicated debate, but it is no longer needed for its originally intended purpose. | cmv |
I believe that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon, as stated in the constitution. CMV | The way I see it is this : We all have constitutionally protected rights, but from time to time, the government must place limits on those rights. We have freedom of speach, but no one can shout fire in a crowded theater, because of the threat to many people without good cause. Along the same line of thought, anyone of age can own a firearm, but there are things that no one can do with those firearms. You cannot carry a concealled weapon without the propper permit for safety reasons. You cannot shoot at a person without reason. There are of course other things that you cannot do with a firearm that are perfectly reasonable restrictions within the constitution. So if we can limit what someone can do with their weapons, we can also limit what weapons they can own. More after work... | cmv |
I believe that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon, as stated in the constitution. CMV | Isn't the problem that the 2nd amendment, to be used as the basis for a legal argument, wholly incomplete? In order to use it to define a legal context, wouldn't it need to be vastly more comprehensive ( or at least have a set of specific terms and conditions attached to it ) in order to unravel the enormous range of complexities it involves? If something so loosely defined were proposed as an amendment nowadays, it would have to undergo a huge definition process to give it any kind of legal credibility. | cmv |
I believe that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon, as stated in the constitution. CMV | Well, alright, then lets enforce as laid out to us in the US Constitution. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Now, lets highlight some passages. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. If you would note, a well regulated Militia, does not imply, nor require the ability for an individual to bear and keep arms. The Right speaks to only organized groups. And we can see lots of example of this Right being totally used properly. State level police agencies and national guards come to mind. | cmv |
I believe Conservative stances and policies are harmful to progress in society. CMV | Compared to? Why is conservative democratic thinking not anti - progress and beneficial for society as a whole? Now don't get me wrong I HATE the pro - war party ; I just really don't care or the so - called " anti - war " " progressives " who do very little to stop war ; and usually set up the tax structure to fund it. | cmv |
I believe Conservative stances and policies are harmful to progress in society. CMV | Most of the social issues you listed such as LGBT rights and other's such as abortion, or drugs law's are in fact matters of personal opinion. Conservatism or right wing ideology at it's core favours a limitation to government, while leftism's main goal is to expand government. In - fact back in the day the democrats used to be the racist's ( for the most part ) and anti progressives. For instance the Ku Klux Klan was at first a democratic organization. Set up to protect the newly defeated confederacy from the evil republicans. The social views of the parties switched due to the demographic base switching. Now the northerners are democrats while southerners are republican, while in the past the reverse was true. Just note being a conservative is not mutually exclusive with being anti progress. | cmv |
I believe Conservative stances and policies are harmful to progress in society. CMV | Lets look at what those terms mean : " conservative " and " progressive " are opposites. That's the point. One group proposes new change and one proposes no change. Things need to be this way to keep change from happening to fast or to prevent changes that would not be good. | cmv |
I believe Conservative stances and policies are harmful to progress in society. CMV | Well being to liberal can push society back as well. Communism has been shown to massively stunt growth ( this was also an intention that Marx laid out ) and slow down innovation. The conservative stance of capitalism makes far more progress. and in social aspects just look at the names. Progressives seek progress and conservatives want to conserve and keep things the same as they are now. So obviously they prevent progress. That is the point. | cmv |
I believe that felons should retain the right to vote, CMV | I agree with you, but think your stance isn't strong enough. To me, it's not whether felons can vote, but whether PRISONERS should be able to vote. So, you should change your view to include prisoners, not just felons. IMHO, once a person has served their sentence, they are square with the house again - - and should have all the rights and indicia of citizenship restored to them. A person doesn't have a " privilege " to vote, but the RIGHT to vote - - and that right shouldn't be forfeited so easily ( and arbitrarily, as you point out ). In the U. K., where I currently live, the debate is between whether or not current PRISONERS should be allowed to vote - - with the liberal party asserting that they should, while the conservatives argue that they should only be able to vote when they get out. In the U. S., where I'm from, not only is that not a debate, but both parties take for granted the premise that prisoners AND ex - cons should not be allowed to vote. | cmv |
I believe that felons should retain the right to vote, CMV | First off, what constitutes a " felony " and what voting represents should really be established. With minor crimes ( speeding, minor possession, etc ), it's something that society views as " Oh, you just screwed up, learn your lesson and move on ". Felonies ( like murder, major drug trafficing, etc ) are in that upper class because they really represent the crimes that society views as " outrageous ", something that shows that you can't / won't be a normal, contributing member of that society. Voting is ( supposed to be ) something that represents citizens being active in steering the direction that society goes in. Voters choose major laws as well as the people they want to represent their views and shape the future of the society and it's laws / overall views. With a felon losing those rights to vote ( and thus steer society in a given direction ), it's our societys way of saying " Hey, you can't or won't be an active / contributing member of society, instead making choices to go against what we, as a community, deem are the right things. Therefore, you should have no right to help steer a society that you choose to ignore when it comes to established laws ". | cmv |
I believe that felons should retain the right to vote, CMV | One of the most basic problems of voting in prison is where do those votes count toward? Should a prisoner count in the state that they lived in but have been removed? Or should a prisoner count to the state he is incarcerated in, where he had never lived or seen. Should the electoral college change due to prison populations, giving rural areas with a federal prison a higher powered vote? There is more to this issue than human rights and social contracts. There is a massive logistical issue to prison voting as well. Imagine voting campaigns and organizing a voting booth in a maximum security prison. Which also opens the debate of how do you know the prisoners aren't being coerced into voting by guards, wardens, or even amongst themselves? | cmv |
I believe that felons should retain the right to vote, CMV | Your stance isn't strong enough. People who broke the law are exactly the ones who might have some interest in what the law is. Restricting their vote is no better than banning someone from voting because they voted for a candidate who lost. | cmv |
I believe that felons should retain the right to vote, CMV | As an inmate in a prison, you are not viewed as a citizen, but as a ward of the state. Voting rights are not extended to wards of the state. Upon release, however, you become a citizen again, so I guess I agree that you should once again have all of the rights and privileges you enjoyed before incarceration. | cmv |
I believe that felons should retain the right to vote, CMV | It varies depending on the crime committed. In America, men are not given the " right " to vote so much as they are the " privilege " to vote in exchange for enrolling in the Selective Service Program. This is also the program which in times of war is used to conscript young men in a draft. Those who men evade selective service in one way or another cannot vote. However the military still keeps limits on who can and cannot be conscripted to serve, including for obvious reasons age and fitness, but also whether or not a man is " morally fit to serve. " Things that would deem a man " morally unfit " would be certain felonies. Therefore if a man intentionally makes himself " morally unfit " as a means to order to escape a draft or potential, he effectively " cheated the system, " and his right to vote is taken away. In effect, it is a holdover from closing a draft dodging loophole. How this is applied varies by state / court. | cmv |
I believe that felons should retain the right to vote, CMV | A quick scan through the top comments didn't show that anyone had brought up this caveat : people who are actively incarcerated should not be able to vote. Why? Because they are a captive audience for the prison system and law enforcement communities. Don't think for one second that if the incarcerated were allowed to vote, that they wouldn't be forced or coerced into voting for whoever the warden / governor / ceo of a four profit prison wanted to be in office. But as far as felons who have been released, yes they should have the opportunity to have their rights restored. That is the point of " paying your debt to society " | cmv |
I believe that / r / conspiracy should be a default subreddit. CMV | I certainly don't wanna see that stuff on my front page. I have never visited it so I can't say anything about the people there ( if they're crazy or not ) but I don't want to read about different theories. If you're into that, good for you that's great, but not everyone else feels so passionately about it and wants it to be on the front page. The purpose of being a default sub is that it appeals to a large audience and / r / conspiracy does not. | cmv |
I believe that / r / conspiracy should be a default subreddit. CMV | Reasonable doubts are always important to be raised, within the context of skepticism we should doubt everything we come in contact with. Assuming people should know that what they're shown on mainstream news channels are people attempting very hard to show a world in balance and under control, why would / r / conspiracy be the best way to realign that perception? Doesn't the way / r / conspiracy function where everything is considered collusion before skepticism speak negatively to the idea of being more honest about the true state of the world around us? Doesn't it reinforce the impulse to turn away from doubt altogether? | cmv |
I don't think human nature exists. CMV. | I want to draw a distinction here. A lot of what you've described, I would argue, is not human nature but culture - what our societies tell us about morals, beliefs and actions - which I agree has a huge effect on our actions and beliefs. But there is such a thing as human nature. In the end we're all just biological machines set to generate as many copies of our own DNA as possible. Sure, the best way to do that might be to all work together in a socialist society and give for the good of everyone - but it is in such societies that exploitation can thrive. That is the basis of statements like " socialism can't work because human nature ". Much though I hate it ( and I'm still amazed at how often it gets trotted out ), there is some debate at least to be had over that statement. Humans perform actions based on rewards, whether those be right now ( like stealing something from a shop ) or some time in the future / potentially never ( being nice to some random person you may never meet again, for numerous selfish reasons you may or may not realise you had ). There's a kind of struggle between the individualistic side ( screw everyone else, I'm doing things for me ) and the social side. What people have ( correctly ) pointed out is that " socialist " societies have often fallen victim to corruption, inefficiency and bureaucracy - human failures caused by individualist exploitation. | cmv |
I believe that legalizing marijuana would be extremely advantageous to America in many ways, and these advantages outweigh any problems legalization may cause. CMV. | Any legalization will most definitely include an age restriction, marijuana will still be illegal for minors to posses / use / sell etc. Those minors will still be detained and cited - though it may be less of a cost as it is now. While I agree with you that there are benefits to legalization, I also believe the majority of those benefits could be realized by making anything marijuana related relatively minor, possession is a ticket fine, driving while high essentially the same as a DUI etc. | cmv |
The U. S. military court system should be abolished and military justice handled in civilian federal courts. CMV. | The problem is that a US civilian court has no jurisdiction for many of the areas that Military crimes can be committed. They also by necessity have additional laws and regulations that they must follow for the sake of national security and just to function. You would not want those laws mandated for civilians. | cmv |
The U. S. military court system should be abolished and military justice handled in civilian federal courts. CMV. | First off, it is constitutional " make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. " The use of military tribunals goes back as far as George Washington. As far as why one is necessary, the laws governing soldiers are much different and changing than the laws governing civilians, thus it makes since to cover them in separate courts. Laws like being late to work shouldn't be used on civilians, but when your job is to charge up an enemy hill, then you better be there on time. Also, there is far more at risk for a court martial. If an officer is accused of misconduct and he is 51 % likely to be guilty then I don't want him commanding our troops. We simply can't afford the same level of certainty as for civilians. Plus, the soldiers no what they are getting into, and if they have a problem with military courts they should leave. | cmv |
I think the United States should be a direct democracy. CMV | Benjamin Franklin said : Democracy is a lamb and two wolves, voting on what to have for lunch. In a direct democracy, without the buffer of representatives or compromise, the minority party would get the short end of the stick, even if they're a significant part of the population. Imagine what would have happened if, decades ago, a direct democracy had ruled that gays should be put to death? This is a human rights abuse, allowed by the majority. This wouldn't be a good form of government. | cmv |
I think the United States should be a direct democracy. CMV | One huge issue of note is that direct democracy by volume of things that need to be voted on would be a government where " people who can sit at home all day voting " would have a huge power advantage in the government. The less things you have to do every day the more you are able to vote. This creates some obvious weird skews. 1. the elderly will gain a hugely disproportionate amount of power 2. the harder you work at your job, the less control you have over the law 3. having a social life means you give up political power. | cmv |
I think politicians should be paid a lot more than they currently are. CMV. | They already make tons of money. It is extremely hard to stay poor as a politician. Look up the stats. Find some poor person who became a congress person and look up their net worth now. The simple ability to insider trade is worth more than any salary you could offer them, to say other off off the books gifts, etc. Unless you want to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars each, you won't get the results you are hoping for. Elections cost real money, not rinky - dink personal fortunes. | cmv |
I think politicians should be paid a lot more than they currently are. CMV. | I will choose just to counter your point that paying them more will reduce corruption and pay - to - play politics. The basis of this assumption is that they are accepting bribes, kick - backs, and such because they need to supplement their income in order to be a comfortable level of living. They are already paid much more than a large part of the workers in the country, so I don't think that this is the case. The politicians who are corrupt do it simply to get more. There is no specific limit at which point they will think that they have enough. Regardless of how much you pay them, they will still look for bribes and kick - backs. | cmv |
I think politicians should be paid a lot more than they currently are. CMV. | What guarantee do you have, above thinking, that it would help to pay politicians more to reduce corruption? Why not some other system? Why is yours the best? 1. Why not payment based on amount of legislation passed, that way people stop pork barreling important legislation, and the focus is on reform and balancing the state of all of our laws instead of making a career out of kowtowing to interest groups? 2. Why not payment at a really low amount, like 120k, so that we relegate public office to the privilege it is instead of a competitive career path that corruption has? 3. Why not even paying based on your ability to expose corruption in other politicians, programs, and branches of government? There are so many ways to assign pay, what makes you think yours is the best? | cmv |
I believe that US and US - sponsored interventions and coups in other countries during the Cold War were necessary evils, and are not something the US should be ashamed of. CMV | Earlier today, the CIA released documents confirming their role in the 1953 Iranian coup d'etat in which it overthrew a democratically elected government in favor of a dictatorship. This eliminated the possibility of Iran aligning itself with the Soviet union, and provided the US with significant resources, namely oil. This led to two major issues. First, many countries around the world lost their trust in the United States. If the US, despite it's democratic rhetoric, was willing to infringe on Iran's sovereignty, why wouldn't they infringe on any other nation's? This willingness was and is a major source of anti - American sentiment around the world. Secondly, the conditions the US left in Iran led to a popular revolt in 1979. The government established afterwards is one of the most anti - American institutions in the world. Even if you believe the Soviets were a bigger threat to US security, would you still think so if someone from Tehran detonates a dirty bomb in Washington? Even if you believe the ends justify the means, you need to wait until the actual end to determine if it was worth it or not. | cmv |
I believe that US and US - sponsored interventions and coups in other countries during the Cold War were necessary evils, and are not something the US should be ashamed of. CMV | America certainly needed to increase its sphere of influence and prevent countries from joining the Soviets sphere. However, that does not mean that every action it took during the Cold War was necessary to achieve that goal. Some actions possibly pushed them further from it ( such as the Vietnam War? I am not an expert on this time period ). For America's necessary evils to be justified they need to actually have been necessary. You might have more luck answering that question if you go to r / askahistorian. The problem I have is when a country that proclaims itself the land of the free and defender of democracy overthrows democratic governments because they voted socialist and replaces them with more sympathetic dictatorships. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with reasonable actions taken to overthrow Soviet - aligned dictatorships, but not democracies, not if America wants to act as if it was defending freedom. Actions like those America took in the Cold War mean that America is now seen ( and may have been seen back then, I am unsure ) not as the moral paragon it wants to be but as a Machiavellian power player. | cmv |
I believe that US and US - sponsored interventions and coups in other countries during the Cold War were necessary evils, and are not something the US should be ashamed of. CMV | Two wrongs dont make a right. You are operating from the'U. S is good / Soviets bad frame of mind. In reality we influenced just as many governments overthrowing democracies at times for our own interests. ( Economic at times ) we assassinated leaders and installed / supported dictators who killed many many people. This is supposed to be ok because communism would spread? Whos to say if it did spread it would be better or worse than capitalism? Because capatalism Wasn't always successful. Your argument boils down to'poison paul before the devil can stab him ' | cmv |
I believe the US news media does not act in the best interest of the US people, CMV. | You talk about incentives a lot. Picture a scenario where someone in the government has been up to no good. ( For example, the NSA spying on the private emails of US citizens. ) Who has incentive to reveal this information to the public? The media will earn money and fame, and boost their reputation, by revealing the truth. A government employee, on the other hand, will not make any money from blowing the whistle - unless he sells his story to the media. He might acquire fame - again, by going to the media - but he has to weigh that up against being fired or even prosecuted. Even if he is motivated purely by a desire to do good, he still needs to go to the media to get the story out. At the end of the day, we rely on the media for both powerful incentives to expose wrongdoing, and the capability to do so. | cmv |
I believe the US news media does not act in the best interest of the US people, CMV. | I have no idea how anyone could think it's the government's goal to provide us with a high standard of living. The'government'is not in itself an entity, it's a collection of people who wield varying amounts of power that use that power to further their own interests, often at the expense of taxpayers. How else do you explain the US government not being able to account for 2 trillion dollars? Do you think that that contributed to our standard of living? Do you think there is a single corporation in the world that can lose that kind of money and stay in business? Imagine if instead of'losing'that money, the government chose not to take that $ 8, 000 from Americans. Now THAT would benefit our standard of living. | cmv |
I believe the US news media does not act in the best interest of the US people, CMV. | Well,'on our side'is a pretty meaningless position for anyone to take, isn't?'Us'is a collection of many intersecting and mutually exclusive interest. When the media takes the consumer's side, business interest may be harmed. Those businesses have workers - so the media, in this case, may not be'on our side'from their perspective. In short, no one can be'on our side'because we are not homogeneous. | cmv |
I believe the US news media does not act in the best interest of the US people, CMV. | Everyone who takes their time to tell you something is gaining from that experience in some way, even if it's just because they like to talk. The media isn't perfect, but it's good to have multiple opinions. You don't need to take them at their word! As long as media outlets are in competition with each other and the government then they have an incentive to reveal corruption and malpractice on the part of their competitors. | cmv |
I think that now it would be a good business decision for potentially many companies to bring certain manufacturing operations to Haiti. CMV | The only counter I have is that other south - east Asia destination like Vietnam appears to be a better choice. They have comparable low labor costs and is Geo - graphically closer to the current equipment. Also, a large subset of the population of these SE Asian countries already speaks Chinese, so companies doesn't even have to retrain new managers. And I am not sure international manufacture wants the kind of international spotlight Haiti has. It makes it much harder to exploit low - income labor when international aid organization already has such a strong footprint in the country. So I am not arguing that Haiti makes a poor destination, I am saying SE Asian countries are better. | cmv |
I believe that purchase of luxury items and services should be tax deductible. CMV! | You know what create more of a boost to the economy than rich people spending money? A bolstered middle class. One rich person might buy 3 cars in their lifetime. But 100 families experiencing economic prosperity will contribute a whole lot more than that. Lowering taxes on the rich and the " job creator " myth of the rich is extremely counter productive to how economics actually work. You need to create the demand first of all, which you are correct in assuming giving people purchasing power will create. But the purchasing power of the middle and working class drives the economy, not of the leisure class. If the consumption of the leisure class was the driving force of our economy we would be seeing huge gains as the wealth divide furthers itself ; however that is clearly not the case. | cmv |
I believe that purchase of luxury items and services should be tax deductible. CMV! | You should check your math on the tax revenue side. The marginal tax rate for a high income person would be higher than 30 %. Sales tax is typically between 6 % and 10 % depending on the locality. So you would need to at least quadruple the sales of luxury goods in order to make up for the lost tax revenue. Also, none of that revenue would go to the Federal government, so you would need to raise other taxes in order to prevent harm to the Federal deficit. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 08 / 20 / 13 | I can think of 3 major things that drastically changed my view when they happened. 1. I did a two - year Mormon mission in East LA where I learned Spanish and worked primarily with Latino immigrant families. It changed the way I think about culture, racism, poverty, immigration and much more. 2. In a social psychology class in college, I watched the documentary Flight From Death. This changed the way I think about religion and belief systems and planted the seed that led to my own abandonment of religion. 3. When my dad came out gay several years ago it changed the way I think about homosexuality and the social issues that come with it because it forced me to closely examine an issue that I had previously not paid much attention to. | cmv |
TCMV Tuesday - 08 / 20 / 13 | I volunteered at a school in Detroit, and I mentored a robotics team in a poor district, Redford. I used to think that inner city kids were more likely to engage in gang culture and disobedience because of the environment in such they were raised from a young age. But these kids weren't really different at all from upper income kids the same age. They were quite possibly less rowdy and more quiet. I now think that the differences become way more apparent in highschool and what happens in the young adult years affects people far more. I also used to be a socialist, after realizing how antagonistic they were to anyone who even supports men's rights or capitalism, even to anyone who didn't call themselves a feminist, it turned me off to the whole movement. They're basically the SRSers and post modernists of economics. | cmv |
I believe that they US government should step in and support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. CMV | They will always hate America no matter what. Muslim brotherhood was never a good bet. Women would have no rights under the brotherhood rule. They would turn into another Iran, which is bad for the US and the rest of the world. | cmv |
I believe that they US government should step in and support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. CMV | There are thousands of people demonstrating on a daily basis against what they saw as a democratically elected government governing in a non - democratic way. They are exercising their democracy, but instead of putting an x next to someone's name, they are taking to the streets. Parallels could be drawn to the Boston Tea Party, I suppose. It's important to remember that Western democracy, the type the US is so fond of imposing on countries in the Middle East, does not simply work everywhere. There are tribes, religious affiliations, clans, etc. Bearing this in mind, it would be incredibly foolish for the US to step in, claiming that Egypt is'getting democracy wrong ', if you will. The US does not have a good image in the Middle East, the last thing it needs is to be seen as yet another invading force. | cmv |
I think an " easy " fix for the world's problems is to put a cap on accumulation of wealth. CMV | How is this in any way better than an estate tax? An estate tax doesn't have burdensome requirements of needing to constantly calculating wealth ( which is not easy ), doesn't have the problems of how to manage property worth more than the wealth cap, and isn't as personally intrusive. In a system with a very strong estate tax, you don't get to pass down loads of wealth to children / grandchildren, but since you do get to enjoy it during your life, people still have an incentive to earn even beyond the point where the wealth tax kicks in. If they don't spend the money during their lifetime - great - the government auctions it off for money. If it does get spent, then great, that means someone else has it now. The only thing your argument of a cap has going for it over an estate tax is that the government gets control of the money now, rather than in 0 - 70 years. The severe downsides of a wealth cap as mentioned previously and elsewhere in this thread make it so that a wealth cap is a very poor option compared to better alternatives. | cmv |
I think an " easy " fix for the world's problems is to put a cap on accumulation of wealth. CMV | This only seems to be a " solution " to domestic inequality not necessarily fixing world problems. Natural resources like oil and certain metals are inherently distributed unequally. A lot of the worlds problems stem from this unequal distribution of resources as the people who need uranium or diamonds may not necessarily have them. I don't see how this cap would necessarily solve that. | cmv |
I think an " easy " fix for the world's problems is to put a cap on accumulation of wealth. CMV | So are couples allowed to have twice as much wealth as someone who is single? What about children? If I have a lot of children does my family's wealth cap go up with each of them? | cmv |
I think an " easy " fix for the world's problems is to put a cap on accumulation of wealth. CMV | OP, if I may offer a suggestion. Rather than kicking people out of the work force entirely once they hit a certain cap, we should simply increase tax rates, similar to what we do now. It should be harder and harder to become more wealthy, and rather than relying on people's charity, we should be forcibly pushed to the center of wealth distribution. This wouldn't even be an unprecedented change either ; we did it during WWII. The top tax bracket had a marginal tax rate of 95 %. People like to say that war alone stimulated the economy but they forget that we were basically funneling money from the rich into soldier and factory worker pockets. I would implement that again, except instead of financing war, we would eliminate poverty and ignorance, and implement vast numbers of civic projects, free nation wide WIFI, anyone? | cmv |
I believe in a right to death established through prior written consent. I believe such a document should be treated as legally binding, and that ignoring the wishes outlined therein should be a crime. CMV | Sometimes the right thing to do isn't always the best one and can create a situation where the consequences are a greater harm than what that right thing was seeking to correct. I agree with you, in my heart, that people should be allowed to chose a quicker end when the path is clearly set for a slow and undignified finish. But the consequence that allows for is the possibility of families who don't wish to take on end of life expenses and hassle pressuring said person into choosing that quicker end. How do we properly regulate that choice to make SURE that the assisted suicide is something person 100 % wanted, and that they were not the the victim of a family strong - arming or guilt - brigading an already weakened and disabled person? Everyone should be allowed to chose a more dignified end. I just don't see how to make that a legally sanctioned thing without also exposing our sick and elderly to situations where they could be bullied into taking that option. | cmv |
The government should offer bounties for citizens to pentest counterterrorism systems. CMV. | Why citizens? This is already done, but usually hiring people who either a ) specialize in it or b ) work in law enforcement / military. It's also done much, much more cheaply than what you've envisioned. Law enforcement and military personnel also have some level trust established because they've been through a vetting process. Giving a substantial cash reward means that even with a steep penalty, people will still figure out ways to game the system. They may look for kickbacks, or just ensure that their friends are selected to participate in the program. The US hasn't had significant enough terrorism problems to warrant the spending on this kind of program. That $ 20k could be better spent on infrastructure, education, etc. | cmv |
The government should offer bounties for citizens to pentest counterterrorism systems. CMV. | I would also say that this could wind up being very dangerous for the citizen PenTesters - - site security is usually armed. If we're doing this on a regular basis, the odds of one overzealous security officer at Davis - Besse, or a jumpy transit cop seeing a strange dude set up some sort of aerosol can on the BART are pretty high. Even with a liability waiver, the public backlash should one of these volunteers be killed would be intense. | cmv |
The government should offer bounties for citizens to pentest counterterrorism systems. CMV. | My first thought would be that it would desensitize people to actual terrorist actions. If people knew there were always drills going on. Although there is monetary reward, this would create many more problems. People will do many things for that kind of money. I suspect that for every capture, many people will be harassed for suspicion because of the reward. | cmv |
I believe the Federal Reserve should be ended. CMV | You don't understand what you're talking about. Your idea of how money is injected into the economy is wrong, your claim that wages don't rise with inflation is wrong, and your idea that " almost any " US recession was caused by artificial lowering of interest rates is completely ignorant of history. e : I guess it's only fair for me to elaborate a bit. Money is injected into the economy primarily by the Fed purchasing Treasury bonds on the open market. They do so for the prevailing price, and the market is very large, so there is no sense in which this injection constitutes a significant handout to the upper classes. Real wages ( " real " basically means " adjusted for inflation " here ) have been almost constant since the 1970s. This is actually considered to be a problem, because the inflation - adjusted value of the US economy has risen quite a bit since then, but the issue isn't inflation. There were a ton of recessions before the Federal Reserve was established. They were both more frequent and more severe. | cmv |
I don't believe a society can be very successful or safe without taxation and law enforcement. CMV | Have you considered hunter - gatherer societies that have lived for many thousands of years without dying out? They often have no taxation / law - enforcement as we envision such things. They have rules, sure, and ways of treating some property as common - vs - private - - but those are often enforced personally by the community of people, not by a separate group of human beings known as " the government. " Why is it intrinsically necessary for one small group of " elite human beings " to be elevated to a place where they - - and only they - - can initiate violent force ( " law " ) and theft / forceful - taking ( " taxes " ) in ways that no one else is allowed to do? How on earth is that helpful to allow? - - - The point is not that " taking " is always ( or never ) wrong, or that using force is always ( or never ) okay. Rather, the idea is that saying a smaller subsection of people are uniquely allowed to do it because they Have Authority has always - and - only resulted in abuses of those privileges throughout human history. Why not allow all people to defend themselves, etc? | cmv |
Dual - citizens should not be able to serve in State or Federal government - CMV | Check out this article about Ted Cruz, a Republican Senator from Texas. He was born in Calgary to an American mother. This means that he holds dual citizenship of the United States and Canada. Today, he decided to take steps formally renounce his Canadian citizenship, but even if he didn't, do you honestly think he is secretly advocating for Canada? Even if a dual citizen is secretly advocating for another government, what is to stop him or her from simply renouncing the citizenship in name only, and continuing to secretly work for the foreign government? When foreign citizens are naturalized as US citizens, they are required to renounce their allegiance to the foreign state. At least on paper they have already eliminated any conflict of interest. Finally, this has already been decided on by the US Supreme Court. In Afroyim v. Rusk, they ruled in favor of multiple citizenship. | cmv |
Dual - citizens should not be able to serve in State or Federal government - CMV | Is it solely an issue of citizenship for you? For example, would you have the same issues with a natural - born citizen that spent the entirety / vast majority of their life in another country? Or, alternatively, would you view someone with dual citizenship but never set foot in another country differently from one who has? | cmv |
Dual - citizens should not be able to serve in State or Federal government - CMV | The problem is that dual citizenship has nothing to do with loyalty to governments. This is just anecdotal, but I hold a dual citizenship because my parents were born in another country. I was born here and I have lived here my whole life though. I firmly consider myself an American, so to me it doesn't make any sense for you to suggest that I'll have a foreign bias just because of where my parents happened to be born. And even then, why do we need to ban all dual - citizens from holding office? It shouldn't be too hard to tell whether politicians hold some sort of bias or not. | cmv |
Dual - citizens should not be able to serve in State or Federal government - CMV | What would stop someone who only held American citizenship but secretly hated the government from infiltrating it and selling secrets or working to undermine it? American citizens have been " turned " before by foreign governments they had no natural ties to. The better question is how can anyone be trusted? At a certain point, you have to dispense with paranoia if you have any hope of running a functioning government. Even if you could conclusively prove that dual citizens were somehow at a higher risk of being disloyal than natural born citizens ( which I'm not sure you can ), that doesn't mean you can't evaluate people on a case by case basis. Government agents and employees are often under enormous scrutiny, especially the higher up in power and responsibility they climb. It's not likely we're going to fall victim to some real life Manchurian candidate. | cmv |
I believe that the term " terrorist " is just the new version of " commie " or " communist. " CMV | I would counter that " socialist " is the new version of " communist ". Now, I recognize that these words are actually very similar in literal meaning, but in the sense that you're talking about, OP, where people toss it around to basically mean " anyone I don't like ", I think it's taken the reins as the new go - to. We hear this more and more as any election cycle starts gearing up. Anyone who supports gay marriage, or environmental action, or welfare, is " socialist ", and this term is supposed to automatically conjure up mental images of Big Brother coming to take away everything you own. | cmv |
I believe that the term " terrorist " is just the new version of " commie " or " communist. " CMV | I agree with you that, purely as labels, " terrorist " and " communist " both have been used to serve similar purposes in their respective eras. That said, especially when compared to the delusional witch hunts of the McCarthy era, terrorism is a real thing. People can and do murder scores of innocent people to draw attention to their ideologies and affect political change. Although governments are applying the label rather indiscriminately, that doesn't mean that it's all smoke and mirrors. | cmv |
I believe that the term " terrorist " is just the new version of " commie " or " communist. " CMV | The constitution guarantees you the right for you to be a communist. It does not give you the right to be a terrorist. It goes to the definition of the words. Terrorist uses violence and the fear it generates to further their agenda. Communist is, well, an ideology. There is a pretty big difference. | cmv |
I believe that people should have sex with as many people as they want as long as they practice safe sex and that no one should care how many previous partners their SO have had. CMV | Condoms don't guarantee that you won't contract an std. And then one say your having sex with your SO, then the next day you wake up with Orc penis. Or some other weird exotic std that doesn't kill you but makes you want to be dead. | cmv |
I believe that people should have sex with as many people as they want as long as they practice safe sex and that no one should care how many previous partners their SO have had. CMV | You do / did the things you do / did because of the person you biologically are. It's genetics. It's unchangeable. I honestly believe that I would be doing my potential children a moral and eugenic disservice if their mother was genetically inclined to sleep with a high number of people. | cmv |
I believe that under certain circumstances, double jeopardy should be acceptable. CMV | I'm interested in the reasoning behind your first two points. What about the death of minors should enable double jeopardy? Do you want to see increased punishment of those who murder children? If so, why not just increase the statutory minimum sentence? Why should repeat criminals face double jeopardy? If they've committed the same crime shouldn't there simply be prosecution for one of the other instances, not the same one twice? | cmv |
I believe that under certain circumstances, double jeopardy should be acceptable. CMV | mrrp is has a great point with the state controls when a charge gets filed and only pursuing them once enough evidence is present greatly reducing the need for this. Trials last a lot longer than six weeks, giving time for evidence to arise as well. Enacting this violates the spirit of double jeopardy. If a person has been found not guilty of a crime, it is not right for them to be retried or harrassed for more evidence. Your third case makes it so that police investigation won't close until someone is found guilty of the crime. Constitutional rights were established to prevent the government from overreaching into people lives and this would do that to citizens who were merely charged. | cmv |
I believe that churches should be tax exempt and be able to preach about politics and endorse candidates CMV | I feel that the moral authority held by clergy, given to them by their community, creates an unfair pressure that they are able to exact upon said community. It's one thing to disagree with a friend on politics, it is another to disagree with an individual you've designated your middle - man for God. Even within religious communities there are disagreements on philosophy, and you are right that an individual should be allowed to vote based on their beliefs. What should happen if the slight difference in personal philosophy makes an individual going to a church want to vote against who their Priest endorses? It shouldn't be a problem, but the influence such figures can have in a community can create a hostile environment for those even just suspected of not following the church's endorsement. And all of this pressure can hinder on concepts of eternity and trying to please an omnipotent creator. Such pressure can cause truly deep emotional turmoil. It all adds up to what essentially becomes spiritual blackmail to accommodate the political leanings of the Clergy. | cmv |
I believe that churches should be tax exempt and be able to preach about politics and endorse candidates CMV | From your explanation, I deduce you support the separation of church and state. You are correct in stating that talking about politics does not create " a bond of church and state ". It is also correct that paying taxes does not create " a bond of church and state ". Many people, almost all who have income, pay taxes. This does not necessarily create a bond between people and state. | cmv |
The Conservative's perspective is wrong.. the first duty of Government is to enable the People. CMV | I would agree with the statement that first duty is to protect the public, and 2nd would then be to enable the people. When you have a large group of people and you enable them and its a good society then that is something that would be appealing to others as something they would want to control. The protect the public being duty number one is not in my view to protect the people from themselves but to protect the group from other groups. By that I mean the first duty for a government is to have control of a military or a means to defend its group from other governments or groups of people. Then and only then can the group of people be enabled or empowered to grow and prosper. Otherwise they are just starting something up for some other group to roll in and take over. An analogy would be farming. If you just go plant some crops to enable them to grow you will basically just be feeding all the animals that live around your farm. First you need to make sure your crops are safe and can grow. | cmv |
I believe fast food is bad for the economy CMV | Where else, aside from low - skill minimum wage jobs are new additions to the workforce supposed to learn? Min wage jobs are good for the economy when utilized properly. when Joey 16 yr old needs spare cash, McDonalds ( or similar ) is the perfect environment for him to learn about responsibility, work ethic, etc.. When 35 yr old John Q. Public thinks he can support a family of four on his McD wages, that's when the problem arises. TL / DR : Minimum wage jobs are good for the economy because they allow low skill workers to gain experience at low risk to the hirer. | cmv |
I believe fast food is bad for the economy CMV | Point 1 : The people who work at fast food restaurants know that their jobs suck ; if alternatives were accessible to them, they'd already be there. $ 7. 25 per hour, measly as it is, is still better than nothing. Point 2 : Many things are " inherently terrible for one's health, " in that if you misuse them ( or are just unlucky ) they can injure, sicken, or even kill you. That doesn't mean that we can or should ban them. Over 30 thousand people will die in the U. S. this year due to auto accidents ; would you ban cars? | cmv |
I believe fast food is bad for the economy CMV | I fail to see how it's the fast food companies who are to blame for a minimum wage that doesn't actually provide enough money for someone to cover the basic necessities. Does the blame not rest with a government that refuses to acknowledge the reality of how much things cost and how much the average family needs to get by? You can't charge a capitalist system with behaving compassionately. You couldn't have as many McDonald's locations if you paid your employees twice as much, and therefore they wouldn't be as dominant of an enterprise. Like it or not, the status quo demands that companies treat the bottom line as a top priority. That's how it is, and the fast food companies are operating within the bounds of the system that's been handed to them. If you want the system to be different, then you need to get the rulemakers ( the government ) to change it. | cmv |
I believe fast food is bad for the economy CMV | " There is virtually no room for advancement, even for those who exhibit merit. " Do you have any data to prove this? I worked in fast food for years and they aggressively try to promote people. A lot of people just didn't want the responsibility. I knew one woman that was completely content with just coming in and cleaning every day. You do hit a wall though once you make it to store manager. It get's pretty competitive for the district manager position after that. Store Managers make about $ 50k - $ 70k on average depending on bonuses and volume. Pretty good for not having a college education. This was just my experience in two small Texas cities with about 60, 000 people. | cmv |
I believe fast food is bad for the economy CMV | 1. There are multiple outlets of minimum wage, fast food being but one of them. Data entry, short order restaurants ( bar and grill style ), remedial positions at most companies, a lot of phone support jobs are pretty close ; just to name a few. 2. Fast food in and of itself is only one of many variables leading to the health epidemic in this country, and in fact, in the world. Smoking, sedimentary jobs and lifestyles, alcohol, bad relationships, over bearing governments, and a host of others also need to be respected for their part in this detriment. The cause of WHY these people would choose such a position, knowing full well the detriment is has on themselves and the lack of recompense they will get for it leads to the fact that they exist. Also, limited skill sets due to unavailability to educational outlets would also play a high influence as people cannot get themselves out of the workforce of unskilled labor. | cmv |
I believe fast food is bad for the economy CMV | There is plenty of room for advancement. My friend is a regional manager of McDonalds, the only company he has worked for. Entry level, no experience required jobs are important. They give people an opportunity to succeed, denying them the oppertunity will not improve their lives. There is nothing inherently bad about fast food. Eating a Big Mac and fries will not negatively impact your overall health at all. | cmv |
I believe fast food is bad for the economy CMV | They employ millions of workers and provide extremely affordable food. I'm not an economist but that doesn't seem like a bad thing. If it is a bad thing, then Wallmart must be horrible for the economy too. As far as the health issue goes, it's really the sodium that is the problem, not necessarily the calories. Fat people would still be fat if fast food didn't exist. | cmv |
I would be in favor of the use of terrorism in at least some situations. CMV | It is not criminal acts, but acts of violence for political purposes. It is rather specific on the use of violence. So you can easily argue that any war anyone has waged can be considered terrorism. | cmv |
I would be in favor of the use of terrorism in at least some situations. CMV | So you would kill innocent Germans who didn't vote for Hitler and didn't like him on the basis that it would help prevent violence against German Jews? First of all, it wouldn't work. It would only serve to encourage more violence from those willing to inflict it. Secondly, you'd be killing one person for the crimes of another. | cmv |
I would be in favor of the use of terrorism in at least some situations. CMV | As a means to achieving a political end, terrorism is rarely effective. Generally, only separatist groups ( for example, the PLO, the IRA, and to a lesser extent the ETA ) have any success with using terrorism to bring their opponents to the negotiating table. Religious extremists ( e. g. al - Qaeda ), lone wolves ( e. g. Unabomber ), single issue groups ( e. g., ALF ), etc., almost never attain their political goals through terrorism. So my argument is not so much a moral one as it is one of practicality. Committing an act of terrorism will most certainly turn people who were previously undecided about your cause against you. In the case of the separatist groups I mentioned, their use of terrorism was used as a means of provocation. They knew that using terrorism would cause their opponents to strike back, which would turn people to their side and eventually bring their opponents to the table. And even then their successes were limited. So compare the use of coordinated terrorism to mass nonviolent protests and uprisings - I think the latter has proven to be more effective in the course of modern history in bringing about political change. | cmv |
I would be in favor of the use of terrorism in at least some situations. CMV | I don't think that terrorism does anything useful beyond the spreading of fear that other means cannot accomplish. For example, take 9 / 11. It destroyed lives and spread fear, but our presence in the middle east increased as a result of it. If their end goal was fear, then they accomplished it, although I think the US actually seemed to unite more afterwards as well. If there goal was to get the US to leave them alone, that failed. There is a psychological phenomenon that basically says " you get more bees with honey than with vinegar. " Essentially, if you outright attack a person, they will hold onto their own beliefs and attack back. However, if you approach them slowly and peacefully, they will be more open to listen. I just don't see any situation where a terrorist act would be beneficial. In terms of Nazi Germany, a terrorist act on the part of the Jews could have made them an even bigger target. | cmv |
I think the US federal minimum wage is unconstitutional - CMV. | The FLSA ( at issue in Darby ) only covers employees and businesses engaged in interstate commerce or the production of goods for interstate commerce. If you can prove that your business has nothing to do with interstate commerce, I believe you're exempt from federal minimum wage requirements. I agree that the Commerce Clause has been distended beyond any sensible reading, but not so much by Darby. Look at idiotic decisions like Raich. | cmv |
I think the " Stand Your Ground " laws in many US states are some of the best laws to come about in the last 20 years, CMV | One problem I have with these types of laws operate not as a defense but as immunity. You can not be sued in many states if you claim that you were standing your ground. That removes the proper judicial process. Also the key point of your argument is the phrase " used properly " Any law should help when used properly its the improper usage that is a problem. Humans can be very poor judges of threats which can lead to, accidental, killings as a result of these laws. Even cops mistake signals, notably when Amadou Diallo was shot while reaching for his wallet. These laws in essence laws that permit preemptive strikes against observed threats. I do support " castle doctrine " laws, laws that say you can attack a person who is invading your home because the fact that they are invading your home shows clear malicious intent on their part. Equally if their was a requirement that someone be armed then I would support the law because that would also show malicious intent. Another note to think about robberies turn into homicides, of the target of the robbery, much more often when the target is also armed. | cmv |
I think the " Stand Your Ground " laws in many US states are some of the best laws to come about in the last 20 years, CMV | Surely you are ignorant of the thousands of other laws and ordinances that have been passed in the United States in the prior two decades. The law is simply a legislative failure for its unbelievable vagueness. If any human being " feels " he is " threatened, " he therefore has the right to expel the " threatening parties " with aggressive or lethal force. This law misinterprets the ability of a jurist to comprehend the consciousness perception the person who is invoking SYG. Furthermore, anybody can theoretically feel threatened at any point in his life, and therefore the law establishes a framework wherein lethal force could be used in any just about any situation. | cmv |
I think the " Stand Your Ground " laws in many US states are some of the best laws to come about in the last 20 years, CMV | So when a john kills a prostitute because she took his money but didn't give him the services that he requested, that john is showing he won't back down in the face of evil? If a gun owner kills the neighbor's kid because he believes that the neighbor's kid stole some shotguns, is the gun owner showing he won't back down in the face of evil? SYG laws are a disgrace to civil order and address a problem that never existed. Most states never had a duty to retreat in either their statutes or their judicial interpretations of the statutes. The SYG laws only emboldened people who where already aggressive to simply add shooting people to their bag of aggressive behaviors. | cmv |
I believe all pedophiles should be given the death sentence. CMV | Among other problems, a pedophile is merely someone sexually attracted to children. In other words, a pedophile can easily go his or her entire life without actually harming a child. Considering that many pedophiles haven't physically done anything harmful, and it's difficult to tell what's going on in someone's head, killing pedophiles doesn't seem like it would actually make a positive difference in the world. | cmv |
I believe all pedophiles should be given the death sentence. CMV | The problem with the death sentence, and the reason no criminal should be punished for it, is because you can't appeal. In most cases, the person charged with a crime is guilty, in this case of abusing children. But what if they aren't guilty of what they are accused of doing. Our justice system works well, but it's not unheard of for someone whose innocent to be wrongly found guilty. The problem with the death sentence is, even if you were innocent, once the killing's done there is no way to appeal. | cmv |
I believe all pedophiles should be given the death sentence. CMV | I think one necessary point to make is that clearly you would need a more strict definition of pedophilia if this were to be enacted. I have a distant relative, 3rd cousin or something like that, who is currently in jail for possession of child pornography. Now he is a sex offender, and clearly deserves to serve his jail sentence, but I would never say that he should be sentenced to death for that crime. Additionally if your second paragraph were entirely true Texas, the state that executes the most people, would have the lowest crime rates and we should just make every crime punishable by death. And I suppose that might work if I knew I would be killed for jaywalking I wouldn't do it but it is still an excessive punishment relative to my crime. My final point is that a jury by your peers is a system inherently open to error. People are exonerated off death row, sometimes they are exonerated after they have been killed, because of juror error. I think that chance means that it is a bad idea. Life imprisonment I can agree with for crimes such as serious sexual assault, not just against children, because if they are found not - guilty they can be released. Yes they have lost x years of their life but at least they are not dead. | cmv |
I believe that it's easy ( especially for the average redditor ) to champion universal health care, but that such a system would take advantage of the high - income portion of the population. Please CMV. | Well, the current system takes advantage of the middle and low income portions of the population. Low income people just aren't able to get healthcare in many situations, and middle income people have to pay extremely high health insurance costs. The only people who are better off with the American system are those with very high incomes, who can just cut through all the problems with healthcare by throwing money at them. If you have some alternative proposal that doesn't take advantage of anyone, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, given a choice between taking advantage of the rich and taking advantage of the poor, I don't see why we shouldn't choose the former. | cmv |
I believe that it's easy ( especially for the average redditor ) to champion universal health care, but that such a system would take advantage of the high - income portion of the population. Please CMV. | Taking advantage of the rich is a meaningless statement. The rich don't inherently deserve riches. Many of them just happen to be rich because natural human social structures favored people who then gained wealth. To take an extra slice of this is not a terrible evil if it does more good. | cmv |
I believe any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants is slap in the face for those who followed the rules and the laws by immigrating legally. CMV | What would you have us do? What's our option? How do we find all the illegal immigrants and kick them out of the country? Doing so would seriously hurt food production and doubtless many other industries, and it would cost an immense amount of money that there just isn't. Amnesty though, amnesty means we can change the rules so they aren't so damn draconean, and we can fix the problem we already have - people are working here and aren't paying taxes, among other things. Illegal immigration is a little pissant problem compared to so many other things, especially given its positive contribution to the economy. There's no better option. | cmv |
I believe any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants is slap in the face for those who followed the rules and the laws by immigrating legally. CMV | It's fantastic that you're a skilled professional, but there is essentially no way to legally immigrate to the U. S. if you're not. Most illegal immigrants would enter legally, IF there were a legal way to do it. But there isn't. What Part of Legal Immigration Don't You Understand? | cmv |
I believe any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants is slap in the face for those who followed the rules and the laws by immigrating legally. CMV | I empathize with you, but I think we should do it anyway even if it is unfair. Law isn't about what's best or most moral, it's about what's least bad. In this case, it's least bad to not spend the money and manpower rooting our and deporting 11 million people, and instead to make it easier for them to pay taxes and live " on the grid " like the rest of us. Sure, it isn't fair to people like you, but that's not the point. It'd be less fair to you if the government wasted tax dollars, destroying lives and communities in the process. It's like health care reform : even if the new law is objectively terrible and a waste of money, if it's less terrible and less of a waste of money than our current trajectory it's what we should do. | cmv |
I believe any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants is slap in the face for those who followed the rules and the laws by immigrating legally. CMV | Your argument reminds me of the fear that allowing gay marriage will somehow hurt " traditional " marriage. Why should someone else's good fortune have a negative impact on yours? What do you gain by begrudging them the mercy shown by the government, should it come to pass? Just because your path was needlessly difficult doesn't mean it makes sense for everyone else's to be. If you're the religious type, Matthew 20 is relevant. | cmv |
I believe any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants is slap in the face for those who followed the rules and the laws by immigrating legally. CMV | The illegal immigrants that I have worked besides have fled miserable circumstances are trying to make a life for themselves and their families. It takes a doggedness that I admire to take that leap and live on the outskirts of the law. I don't think they should be punished for our bad policies. If their country was communist we would welcome these same people with open arms. Instead their country is just over run by thugs so they don't qualify for political asylum and cannot come here through legal means. | cmv |
I believe any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants is slap in the face for those who followed the rules and the laws by immigrating legally. CMV | You are making this a black and white issue without considering the wide range of circumstances from which illegal immigrants come to this country. I won't argue against a relatively priviledged individual who had the time and resources to do things legally but chose not to. But what about all of the other people who had little choice? Refugees escaping violence and starvation? Can't we lend them a helping hand? Or just toss them back into the abyss because they've indirectly " wronged " you? Make no exceptions? That's a horribly rigid way to think. | cmv |
I believe that Medicare & Social Security are ponzi schemes. CMV. | A ponzi scheme is a scheme where, as the number of participants grows exponentially at the bottom, more and more money is passed up the chain to a very small number of people, who are generally the originators of the scheme. That's not what these govt programs are doing, though, because for these govt programs, the number of benefactors is ( or ideally should be ) increasing or decreasing at the same rate as the number of contributors. The problems we are foreseeing with medicare and social security are really just due to the fact that the ratio of old people to young people is getting bigger, mostly because families these days just aren't having nearly as many kids as they used to have. This means the active workforce as a percentage of our population is getting smaller, and the percentage of retired persons needing benefits is getting larger. So as the baby boomers retire, that means there is now a smaller number of people in the workforce contributing to these programs, and a larger number of people that the money is getting split between. These changes in the ratio of older people to younger people are not exponential. The changes really aren't even that big, but they're significant enough that the retiring baby boomers will inevitably need to expect to see a significant decrease in their social security benefits ( or raise medicare and ss taxes on the workforce to compensate ). | cmv |
I believe that Medicare & Social Security are ponzi schemes. CMV. | Your taxes are forced on you and are not payments you can opt out of. The SS and Medicare fund that is currently running a surplus, because of the babyboom generation, will be depleted, and start going into debt. This is a temporary condition as the number of retirees exceeds the number people paying into the system. It is caused by a number of factors including the rising costs of healthcare. | cmv |
CMV : I think the NSA is a necessary evil ; there should be strict legislation about the possible consequences from it, but not a complete disestablishment. | I actually would like to change your view on that fact that you rely on Joe Rogan and Sam Harris to educate you on these topics. You should really take some time and do some real research on the topic, on why and what NSA does. Preventing nuclear terrorism is just a small tiny tiny tiny piece of what they bring to the table. The fact that this is what it took for you to change your view is what actually troubles me. | cmv |
I believe that mass surveillance of public areas is perfectly fine and would discourage crime. CMV | Two issues : First, if there is a mass high quality surveillance paired with computers capable of real time analysis and facial recognition technology then it will be easy to keep track of everyone. Whoever is in charge of the system could set it up so that every person who enters the city would know exactly where every single person is at all times. This would be a system ripe for abuse and given enough time the probability of it being abused is just about 100 %. Second, assuming this system is perfect at preventing violent crimes, it will only make the minor crimes that most people commit on a daily basis easy to detect and punish. See icallmyselfmonster's comment. | cmv |
I believe that mass surveillance of public areas is perfectly fine and would discourage crime. CMV | What you are suggesting is great in the scenario of perfect trust for government, perfect functionality etc. However, on the other side of this - consider the amount of power that is handed over with such a system, and then remove the condition of perfect trust for government. This creates an enormous power to monitor / control the public, and if used with ill intent, could serve to strongly oppress groups a la 1984. Would you really be comfortable building such a framework, knowing that once such power is granted it will not be removed? Knowing that we have many confirmed instances of governments seeking to restrict certain ideas, are you really certain that - - not just today, but for the indefinite future - - you're willing to allow such a powerful mechanism to be constructed? ( perhaps too late to ask, by the way ) As directly - stated as possible : the government that is your friend today may not always be, which is why the principle of limited government power is incredibly important. | cmv |
I believe that mass surveillance of public areas is perfectly fine and would discourage crime. CMV | But not all crimes are immoral, you would be placing undue difficulty on people who are generally good but commit crimes that affect nobody. Also if you start to eliminate most crimes, even minor divergence from the imposed norm are magnified. Until a person like you is impacted. | cmv |
I think that " bodily autonomy ", by itself, is a horrible reason to justify abortion. CMV. | I would argue against your first hypothesis : 1. A fetus is a person with full rights This is only a law present in some 1st world countries. Other consider a fetus to be a human being but not a person until it's chord ( aka the thing that made him part of the body of his mother ) is severed and he is outside of the mothers body. So you argument only applies to those countries / states that consider the fetus to be a person. Those exist, so I'm not saying it's invalid, actually I find it pretty solid in those cases. | cmv |
I think that " bodily autonomy ", by itself, is a horrible reason to justify abortion. CMV. | It's not " I have a right to bodily autonomy, and hence abortion " as it is " Other people shouldn't have a right to make choices for me about my body. " Going back to the violinist / kidney argument, it's the equivalent of someone saying that you had no choice BUT to share your kidneys with the violinist. Someone else shouldn't force you to share your kidneys, you should have the option of sharing ( or not sharing ) your kidneys. | cmv |
I think that " bodily autonomy ", by itself, is a horrible reason to justify abortion. CMV. | Neither of your criticisms really get at the essence of " bodily autonomy, " which is that no one ever has rights to your body as a resource. They may use it as such ( with your permission, of course ), but you have the right to revoke that usage at any time, no questions asked. In particular with respect to your second criticism, a parent's body differs from other resources they are legally required to provide for their children ( i. e. food, clothing, shelter, etc. ) in this way. Your first criticism doesn't really address bodily autonomy at all. It is clearly not the right to do whatever you want with your body ( e. g. use it to kill, steal, embezzle, bribe, extort, blackmail ) ; that would be absurd. | cmv |
I think that " bodily autonomy ", by itself, is a horrible reason to justify abortion. CMV. | Say I cause a car accident that causes the other person to need a kidney transplant and I'm a compatible donor. Legally I cannot be forced to donate my kidney to the guy because I cannot be forced to be life support for another person without my consent. Its the same for abortions. Even if the fetus IS a person, the mother shouldn't become a life support unit for it without her consent. And consent has to be continuous. Even if she gave consent during conception, at any time she should be able to change her mind. Just like sex. A person may consent at first, but if at any time they want to stop, if the other person doesn't stop, its rape. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.