Controversial and/or Unpopular, Personal/Political opinions

Post Reply New Topic

Parodies should be labeled as such in the same post.

Back-pedaling unbecomes you.

[Moderator]
Ahem - aaand moving right along...

Notice taken.  Thank you for your support.

Controversial and/or Unpopular, Personal/Political opinions (a.k.a., "How I Think Things Should Be"):

• Any adult legal immigrant with no criminal history should be able to earn U.S. citizenship automatically by honorably serving a minimum of 4 years in any branch of the U.S. military.

• Any honorably discharged U.S. military veteran with no criminal history should automatically be offered employment in local, state, or federal U.S. government.

• Only honorably discharged U.S. military veterans with no criminal history would be allowed to run for U.S. President (a.k.a., Commander In Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces), provided they also meet all other previously-established criteria (See Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution).

I think all gun laws except second amendment should be repealed because I believe all gun control is unconstitutional I think I should be able to buy a machine gun with no background check or assault rifle and have it delivered to my door with ammo the same day I think the atf are a bunch of criminals I think every military weapon should be able to bought and owned without a background check but obviously not nukes

^Too many crazies for that. People not mentally fit to possess potentially lethal objects.

Well after what precedes it, that seems rather churlish - but presumably non-nuke cruise missiles would be Ok?

As it is, the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms, not to bear artillery.

The mere fact that a man has a big gun does not mean he will ever get a chance to properly use it, either.

Last edited by Fnord on 06 Apr 2022, 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I believe people should take an amoral perspective on politics. From a purely materialistic angle, good and evil are subjective evaluations decided on by each person's own, differing principles and knowledge. Furthermore, instead of a wholly rational process, differing personal emotions tend us towards different directions, some of which are engrained in an unchangeable nature. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, physically or metaphysically.

Some Leftists are aware of this, but still coat their arguments in moralistic language. I think it is most honest if we replaced right and wrong with want and don't want. Instead of "I want X, because Y is evil", "I want X, because I don't want Y". It is easier to argue for Y on more desirable terms than unwrapping moral fundamentalism.

How dare you try to infringe on my right to bear nuclear arms?

If there's an inherent right to bear arms why should the state be entitled to infringe on it all? How dare anyone deny me the right to make nuclear powered cruise missiles with cobalt-salted warheads. Even a background check to ensure I don't intend on holding the world hostage to impose my own dangerous leftist ideals upon humanity would be an unthinkable deniable of liberty.

It's interesting that you give Smith as the person who first described capitalism, and then state that true capitalism has never been tried. Now I happen to agree that true capitalism has never been tried, but I suspect I have a very different idea of what constitutes "true capitalism" to you!

Smith was not an anarcho-capitalist, or a libertarian, or an Objectivist, or an Austrian. He didn't advocate for the abolition of the state or anything like that. Smith wrote about the benefits of the divison of labour and free trade, as well as how individuals each acting in their own self interest can unintentionally work for the public good, but he also wrote about the harms of business collusion to fix prices, and the undue influence of money upon politics. Indeed, his concern about the influence of money upon politics feeds into his belief in the invisible hand. Smith believed that government should not favour one business over another - his arguments in favour of the free market were arguments against cronyism.

Very few significant capitalists believe that the government should have no role in society or the economy, or even just a role limited to law enforcement. Smith is one bogeyman for people on the left, others are Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek - both of whom thought government should actively redistribute wealth. Friedman and Hayek are both Nobel Prize winners, which gives an idea for the regard they are held in. If you want to find a Nobel Prize winner who was a minarchist, you'd have Leonid Hurwicz... who won for contributions to game theory. Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises? Nope, not awarded.

True capitalism depends upon truly free markets, where decisions are made in rational self-interest. Not out of desperation, not out of coercion, not because you've been misled, not because there's no good choice. It requires a government that will correct market failures around information assymetry, externalities, public goods, and non-competitive markets. Not all capitalists will go as far as I will, but I think my position is much more consistent with Smith (who shouldn't necessarily be held up as a model of anything -we've learned a lot since he died) than Rothbard is.

I would be fine with non nuke cruise missiles because I think the second amendment was intended to be our last line of defense and not for deer hunting I would be fine with anything except nukes the founding fathers let the citizenry freely own artilliary that was operational with no background check I think every adult male citizen should be required to know to shoot military grade weapons and I think every adult male should be required to own military grade guns if they are eligible to be in the military I don’t believe in a professional military I think the army should only be allowed to exist in national emergencies I think that we should only take military action including as little as drone strikes and cruise missiles only if congress declares war like they did in world war two

(h/t Fnord)

In case of an armed conflict, private rifles are meaningless against armies but useful against marauders.

In case of an armed urban conflict, private rifles are useful for sniping at and demoralizing the opposition.

It fails because too many people are not willing to work for free. This only works in small communities that are very isolated from the rest of the world.