|
|
Post by Cducharme on Apr 5, 2017 10:24:27 GMT -5
I've been doing some thought exercises as I've recently been reading a lot of stuff I find myself agreeing with without much extra thought which to me reads "echo chamber" and one thing I fucking hate is not looking objectively when I can at a situation.
I've been working all morning for a solid conservative basis for a universal basic income. Hear me out fellow righties before you grab the pitchforks and throw me to Alex Jones and Steve Bannon, I'm putting actual thoughts into why this would be a good move for America as a whole even if the idea of this scale of socialism seems to be against what I believe.
I think we can all agree the means-tested welfare system currently in America is inefficient at best and a giant waste of money at worst. I mean it's basic math, we're spending shitloads verifying these people lack the means they claim in administrative costs. Setting up meetings, making people live in a state where they have to do exactly as told to continue receiving the help that is intended to raise them up.
Meanwhile we're driving manufacturing jobs that we used to rely on out of country or innovating them out of existence using robotics, and our public schools are still preparing people for only the manufacturing jobs that don't exist. End result? A lot of ill prepared populace reliant on the government proving they have no means so therefore never lifting themselves up. Sounds like madness right? It is.
With a universal basic income, no questions asked no conditions attached you eliminate almost all of the administrative overhead so the money you're spending on helping people as a government GOES TO THEM and not a bureaucrat. If someone squanders it? That's their problem, they fucked up and deal with the consequences. But if they don't fuck up? An education can be acquired that brings us to the forefront of the second industrial revolution.
This brings me to my biggest point, manufacturing still exists it's just done differently now when it's done in the US. We automate so much, but those machines need someone to build and maintain them. As well as design them and new ones, and new products. We don't have the educated populace right now to do that, and most adults are unable to stop working long enough to get the re-training or further education they need because they'd lack an income. So we're moving to a low-paying service based economy and wondering why our middle class is shrinking and shrinking.
We could change that, with a move towards educating for the future rather than the past and allowing people the freedom to pursue the education required to attain the skills.
I mean fuck, if we'd have had a UBI when I was a kid I bet I could actually have gone to college instead of trying to keep my family from starving.
So there it is, my right-leaning reasoning for a UBI.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2017 21:52:24 GMT -5
Well CD...If you're looking for low intellect echo chamber....You've landed in the right place! Welcome to the not Free Speech Wheeler...Where only failed ideologies from the past are promoted....Put on your JFK for President Button and get ready for the show!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Apr 6, 2017 11:21:50 GMT -5
Well CD...If you're looking for low intellect echo chamber....You've landed in the right place! Welcome to the not Free Speech Wheeler...Where only failed ideologies from the past are promoted....Put on your JFK for President Button and get ready for the show! You are free to say whatever you want and have deep political debates about how Trump is awesome and America is great again using actual FACTS. Apparently you want to troll around instead like a douche. Perhaps you need a reminded of the rules here written in 2011. Consider rule 3 and look at 4 regarding Psychosaint. thefreewheeler.proboards.com/thread/142/terms-service |
|
|
|
Post by Cducharme on Apr 6, 2017 18:59:39 GMT -5
What say you Adam, any left leaning reasons for typically right ideas? I can think of a few for austerity and a few for eliminating government involvement in marriage totally aside from recording the contracts and being arbiter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 20:37:12 GMT -5
Not sure which side this falls on....I'm not for or against gay marriage....I truely don't believe government should be involved in a religious act. Allow civil contracts....It gives all legal benefits to the person you choose...You can pick boy girl...your Mom or Dad...It hold no gender...No sexual implications...Just legal...Property, inheritance etc. If I wasn't with someone and my prospects for a'civil contract was poor...I should be able to pick a family member...Say a parent has no insurance....I should be able to put them on mine....It would help in a lot of ways... Not sure if it's liberal or conservative
|
|
|
|
Post by Cducharme on Apr 7, 2017 22:16:30 GMT -5
When you hit insurance you're hitting a whole different set of law, but otherwise your view is not left or right but libertarian on the matter. Well actually classic liberal, in the vein of Locke, Smith and the non-federalist founding fathers
|
|
|
|
Post by CaboChris on Apr 8, 2017 0:00:28 GMT -5
From a cradle Catholic who still believes in the tenets of the Church...
Get religion out of marriage. The government has no business involving itself in the institution and picking sides and the Church needs to understand that God...unfortunately, doesn't rule here and now. His domain is the afterlife because he gave us free will to decide and make our own choices here.
Am I for for a guy marrying his goat? Nope. There are two recognized unions however...man/woman and homesexual unions.
Polygamy? Meh...ok...but that's it. It's not a free for all and we have to have limits imo...
|
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Apr 8, 2017 0:15:58 GMT -5
From a cradle Catholic who still believes in the tenets of the Church... Get religion out of marriage. The government has no business involving itself in the institution and picking sides and the Church needs to understand that God...unfortunately, doesn't rule here and now. His domain is the afterlife because he gave us free will to decide and make our own choices here. Am I for for a guy marrying his goat? Nope. There are two recognized unions however...man/woman and homesexual unions. Polygamy? Meh...ok...but that's it. It's not a free for all and we have to have limits imo... Do you think religion should have any bearing on laws, policy and any other government decisions or do you believe in separation of church and state across the board. So while you may not approve of prostitution being legal across the board, regulated and taxed - you can't legislate morality for example. |
|
|
|
Post by Cducharme on Apr 8, 2017 14:08:28 GMT -5
From a cradle Catholic who still believes in the tenets of the Church... Get religion out of marriage. The government has no business involving itself in the institution and picking sides and the Church needs to understand that God...unfortunately, doesn't rule here and now. His domain is the afterlife because he gave us free will to decide and make our own choices here. Am I for for a guy marrying his goat? Nope. There are two recognized unions however...man/woman and homesexual unions. Polygamy? Meh...ok...but that's it. It's not a free for all and we have to have limits imo... I mean keeping the government out is all I care about, the churches can have their own limits (freedom of association is ok to me, the market can correct cunt-ish behavior with the ol' vote with your wallet routine) but a secular marriage should just be the social contract it essentially is. Polygamy seems like it'd be the world's biggest headache, kudos to anyone who thinks it'll work! Incest and beings that can't consent (kids, animals) should be a no-go otherwise none of my damn business. As for Hey Man's question (even though it's not directed at me) I hate when any church involves themselves in politics. I say if they get political they should be treated like a corporation, taxes and all. If they stay out of it and just do their worship thing I've no problem them not paying the societal dues. Well, we could just do away with most taxes but that's a different discussion  |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Apr 8, 2017 14:18:20 GMT -5
From a cradle Catholic who still believes in the tenets of the Church... Get religion out of marriage. The government has no business involving itself in the institution and picking sides and the Church needs to understand that God...unfortunately, doesn't rule here and now. His domain is the afterlife because he gave us free will to decide and make our own choices here. Am I for for a guy marrying his goat? Nope. There are two recognized unions however...man/woman and homesexual unions. Polygamy? Meh...ok...but that's it. It's not a free for all and we have to have limits imo... I mean keeping the government out is all I care about, the churches can have their own limits (freedom of association is ok to me, the market can correct cunt-ish behavior with the ol' vote with your wallet routine) but a secular marriage should just be the social contract it essentially is. Polygamy seems like it'd be the world's biggest headache, kudos to anyone who thinks it'll work! Incest and beings that can't consent (kids, animals) should be a no-go otherwise none of my damn business. As for Hey Man's question (even though it's not directed at me) I hate when any church involves themselves in politics. I say if they get political they should be treated like a corporation, taxes and all. If they stay out of it and just do their worship thing I've no problem them not paying the societal dues. Well, we could just do away with most taxes but that's a different discussion Just playing devil's advocate here, but what if a mother and her son (an adult now) enjoy fucking each other and eventually want to get married because they are in love. Now most people wouldn't approve of this, but can the argument be made in the libertarian world that if two consenting adults want to engage in this behavior and it makes them happy to be together in a romantic relationship, they should be allowed to without any government interference? |
|
|
|
Post by Cducharme on Apr 8, 2017 14:20:23 GMT -5
I mean keeping the government out is all I care about, the churches can have their own limits (freedom of association is ok to me, the market can correct cunt-ish behavior with the ol' vote with your wallet routine) but a secular marriage should just be the social contract it essentially is. Polygamy seems like it'd be the world's biggest headache, kudos to anyone who thinks it'll work! Incest and beings that can't consent (kids, animals) should be a no-go otherwise none of my damn business. As for Hey Man's question (even though it's not directed at me) I hate when any church involves themselves in politics. I say if they get political they should be treated like a corporation, taxes and all. If they stay out of it and just do their worship thing I've no problem them not paying the societal dues. Well, we could just do away with most taxes but that's a different discussion Just playing devil's advocate here, but what if a mother and her son (an adult now) enjoy fucking each other and eventually want to get married because they are in love. Now most people wouldn't approve of this, but can the argument be made in the libertarian world that if two consenting adults want to engage in this behavior and it makes them happy to be together in a romantic relationship, they should be allowed to without any government interference? While none of my business, that can result in a genetic bottleneck... Wait, that'd mostly be down south. You're onto something! It's icky, I don't think people should do it so I don't think should NEED to be a rule for it, but it's one of the few I understand  |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Apr 8, 2017 14:29:59 GMT -5
Just playing devil's advocate here, but what if a mother and her son (an adult now) enjoy fucking each other and eventually want to get married because they are in love. Now most people wouldn't approve of this, but can the argument be made in the libertarian world that if two consenting adults want to engage in this behavior and it makes them happy to be together in a romantic relationship, they should be allowed to without any government interference? While none of my business, that can result in a genetic bottleneck... Wait, that'd mostly be down south. You're onto something! It's icky, I don't think people should do it so I don't think should NEED to be a rule for it, but it's one of the few I understand It's funny - but incest and animal marriages were deemed to be the slippery slope consequence of letting gay people marry from those that are against gay marriage. Just you wait, liberals will make incest marriages and bestiality legal!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Cducharme on Apr 8, 2017 14:31:29 GMT -5
While none of my business, that can result in a genetic bottleneck... Wait, that'd mostly be down south. You're onto something! It's icky, I don't think people should do it so I don't think should NEED to be a rule for it, but it's one of the few I understand It's funny - but incest and animal marriages were deemed to be the slippery slope consequence of letting gay people marry from those that are against gay marriage. Just you wait, liberals will make incest marriages and bestiality legal!!!!! With animals there's no way for them to consent, and again icky. Incest is already legal in some states provided you're 1st cousins and not like mother/son shit, guess what color those states usually show up as on voting maps? |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Apr 8, 2017 14:39:07 GMT -5
It's funny - but incest and animal marriages were deemed to be the slippery slope consequence of letting gay people marry from those that are against gay marriage. Just you wait, liberals will make incest marriages and bestiality legal!!!!! With animals there's no way for them to consent, and again icky. Incest is already legal in some states provided you're 1st cousins and not like mother/son shit, guess what color those states usually show up as on voting maps? The same states that voted for Trump to make America great again? |
|
|
|
Post by Cducharme on Apr 8, 2017 14:39:46 GMT -5
With animals there's no way for them to consent, and again icky. Incest is already legal in some states provided you're 1st cousins and not like mother/son shit, guess what color those states usually show up as on voting maps? The same states that voted for Trump to make America great again? Yup. |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Apr 8, 2017 14:47:21 GMT -5
The same states that voted for Trump to make America great again? Yup. What a shock - said by NO ONE. |
|
|
|
Post by CaboChris on Apr 9, 2017 0:51:18 GMT -5
Do you think religion should have any bearing on laws, policy and any other government decisions or do you believe in separation of church and state across the board. So while you may not approve of prostitution being legal across the board, regulated and taxed - you can't legislate morality for example. At one time I was for religion playing a part but not so much now that I'm older. We only have the freedom to worship however we want but that right doesn't extend to making policy based on our own religious convictions. I wish our politicians wound understand the difference. Your conscience means fuck all to an atheist. Your Christanity means fuck all to a Muslim and vice versa. Now...do I want wanton anarchy...free for all...do as you please hedonism? No, but I think a little bit of moral judgment is good and you can accomplish that without invoking your relivuous beliefs. As for prostitution...I live in a state that allows for legal brothels. They're not permited within city limits...usually in rural counties with miminmal population. Tested for stds weekly and regulated. I'm ok with two consenting adults entering into a business transaction. Street hooking however, is another thing though. I'm not quite as comfortable with that, as those girls are usually drug addicted and under the influemce pf a pimp. Theres also the increased public health hazard of street hookers. I don't want HIV infected men/women roaming our streets needing to make a buck. |
|
|
|
Post by CaboChris on Apr 9, 2017 0:53:34 GMT -5
Double post wtf?
This site is weird when trying to quote or edit. Lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Apr 9, 2017 2:07:39 GMT -5
Do you think religion should have any bearing on laws, policy and any other government decisions or do you believe in separation of church and state across the board. So while you may not approve of prostitution being legal across the board, regulated and taxed - you can't legislate morality for example. At one time I was for religion playing a part but not so much now that I'm older. We only have the freedom to worship however we want but that right doesn't extend to making policy based on our own religious convictions. I wish our politicians wound understand the difference. Your conscience means fuck all to an atheist. Your Christanity means fuck all to a Muslim and vice versa. Now...do I want wanton anarchy...free for all...do as you please hedonism? No, but I think a little bit of moral judgment is good and you can accomplish that without invoking your relivuous beliefs. As for prostitution...I live in a state that allows for legal brothels. They're not permited within city limits...usually in rural counties with miminmal population. Tested for stds weekly and regulated. I'm ok with two consenting adults entering into a business transaction. Street hooking however, is another thing though. I'm not quite as comfortable with that, as those girls are usually drug addicted and under the influemce pf a pimp. Theres also the increased public health hazard of street hookers. I don't want HIV infected men/women roaming our streets needing to make a buck. Well obviously if it was regulated and taxed, it would be safer, pimps would be less of a factor, there would be drug tests, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by CaboChris on Apr 9, 2017 2:29:20 GMT -5
I would prefer it kept in brothels not a free for all on the streets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Apr 9, 2017 2:41:45 GMT -5
I would prefer it kept in brothels not a free for all on the streets. You never know when you might want pussy. How about designated areas/streets? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 10:36:24 GMT -5
From a cradle Catholic who still believes in the tenets of the Church... Get religion out of marriage. The government has no business involving itself in the institution and picking sides and the Church needs to understand that God...unfortunately, doesn't rule here and now. His domain is the afterlife because he gave us free will to decide and make our own choices here. Am I for for a guy marrying his goat? Nope. There are two recognized unions however...man/woman and homesexual unions. Polygamy? Meh...ok...but that's it. It's not a free for all and we have to have limits imo... I mean keeping the government out is all I care about, the churches can have their own limits (freedom of association is ok to me, the market can correct cunt-ish behavior with the ol' vote with your wallet routine) but a secular marriage should just be the social contract it essentially is. Polygamy seems like it'd be the world's biggest headache, kudos to anyone who thinks it'll work! Incest and beings that can't consent (kids, animals) should be a no-go otherwise none of my damn business. As for Hey Man 's question (even though it's not directed at me) I hate when any church involves themselves in politics. I say if they get political they should be treated like a corporation, taxes and all. If they stay out of it and just do their worship thing I've no problem them not paying the societal dues. Well, we could just do away with most taxes but that's a different discussion I think they should pay taxes'either way....The only way they get out is like everyone else....Business'expenses or charitable giving....The only difference is I might lift the limit on Givingmto charity...I mean that is tneir business....Absolutely no profit....No ability to hold assets....No land ownership....That's all Bull shit....the church in Boston sold churches when they needed to pay the victims of the diddlers....They sold active churches that were donated and built by the local parish....For condo's and other crap....Paid off the victims, sent the priests who knew kids were being heymanned in the rectory to Rome and made a very nice'profit....And nothing was done....Fuck them...Pay your taxes |
|
|
|
Post by Cducharme on Apr 9, 2017 10:45:59 GMT -5
Yeah there's no way the catholic church would ever qualify as non-profit dude |
|
