# NT Political leaning?



## Kierkegarden (Dec 31, 2015)

Where do you, an NT, lean politically?


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Moderate left. Thing is, any American would probably see me as far left. Always hard to answer, this kind of polls.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Classical Liberal.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

ENTP. Far right.


----------



## Doktorin Zylinder (May 10, 2015)

I prefer the Nolan Chart rather than the false dichotomy of left and right.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Doktorin Zylinder said:


> I prefer the Nolan Chart rather than the false dichotomy of left and right.


I have seen some pretty fucked up Nolan Charts.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

The four-point spectrum seems pretty easy to use.

I would describe myself as simultaneously _libertarian_ and _progressive_, which as I recall is the general ENTP consensus.


----------



## Kierkegarden (Dec 31, 2015)

knife said:


> The four-point spectrum seems pretty easy to use.
> 
> I would describe myself as simultaneously _libertarian_ and _progressive_, which as I recall is the general ENTP consensus.


I agree that the four-point spectrum makes a lot more sense. However, part of this post was too see how many NTs identified as moderate versus extreme. I am also an ENTP libertarian and progressive so there's that.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

Kierkegarden said:


> I agree that the four-point spectrum makes a lot more sense. However, part of this post was too see how many NTs identified as moderate versus extreme. I am also an ENTP libertarian and progressive so there's that.


May I point out I like your handle? Kierkegaard gets too little airtime.


----------



## Kierkegarden (Dec 31, 2015)

knife said:


> May I point out I like your handle? Kierkegaard gets too little airtime.


Thanks! He's my favorite philosopher and fascinating character to boot. His short-lived affair/engagement to Regine Olsen is a great study of character. I wonder what his MBTI would be.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

Kierkegarden said:


> Thanks! He's my favorite philosopher and fascinating character to boot. His short-lived affair/engagement to Regine Olsen is a great study of character. I wonder what his MBTI would be.


I've always suspected INFP 5. Sx? There is something fundamentally torrential and irrational (note I mean in the sense of personality -- not "not logical", just that if a "rational" philosopher heads down the river road, Kierkegaard's bouncing between hilltops -- you get with him that you don't get with e.g. Kant (INTP) or Hume (ENTP).


----------



## Doktorin Zylinder (May 10, 2015)

Carpentet810 said:


> I have seen some pretty fucked up Nolan Charts.
> 
> View attachment 455777


You don't really want to do that, now, do you?


Somewhere hovering around libertarian in a more than ideal world.


----------



## Kierkegarden (Dec 31, 2015)

knife said:


> I've always suspected INFP 5. Sx? There is something fundamentally torrential and irrational you get with him that you don't get with e.g. Kant (INTP) or Hume (ENTP).


He is without a doubt feeling-centered. Part of why I find his work so fascinating. Apparently, he was always a melancholic character who carried a lot of baggage. How I'd love to go back and meet him. I'd imagine Sartre to be feeling-centered too.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

Kierkegarden said:


> He is without a doubt feeling-centered. Part of why I find his work so fascinating. Apparently, he was always a melancholic character who carried a lot of baggage. How I'd love to go back and meet him. I'd imagine Sartre to be feeling-centered too.


I've never read _La nausée_, believe or not.

Camus, now there's a curious one. Dark as the day is long, yet somehow I identify with Meursault. I find myself identifying with characters others have a hard time identifying with -- I also identify with Leo Bloom from _Ulysses_ --


----------



## Kierkegarden (Dec 31, 2015)

knife said:


> I've never read _La nausée_, believe or not.
> 
> Camus, now there's a curious one. Dark as the day is long, yet somehow I identify with Meursault. I find myself identifying with characters others have a hard time identifying with -- I also identify with Leo Bloom from _Ulysses_ --


Ah, and see, I've never read The Stranger. Camus is interesting though, I've only skimmed the surface with him. Existentialism is such an interesting and varied school of thought.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

Kierkegaard _was_ the first existentialist. :cheers2:

And then there's Nietzsche. A brilliant writer but a conflicted philosopher. Work your way through his corpus and you can see how he goes from being more driven by rigor to being more driven by style. (And there is something deeply satisfying about when a _bon mot_ just comes to you, too) --

While I usually translate _L'étranger_ as "The Stranger", I will definitely admit that _The Outsider_ probably best fits the sense Camus wants us in. _Maman est morte aujourd'hui. Ou hier, je ne sais pas..._


----------



## Kierkegarden (Dec 31, 2015)

knife said:


> Kierkegaard _was_ the first existentialist. :cheers2:
> 
> And then there's Nietzsche. A brilliant writer but a conflicted philosopher. Work your way through his corpus and you can see how he goes from being more driven by rigor to being more driven by style. (And there is something deeply satisfying about when a _bon mot_ just comes to you, too) --
> 
> While I usually translate _L'étranger_ as "The Stranger", I will definitely admit that _The Outsider_ probably best fits the sense Camus wants us in. _Maman est morte aujourd'hui. Ou hier, je ne sais pas..._


What is Nietzsche usually typed as? INTP? My INTP friend is really interested in Nietzsche. Talk about dark.

I've heard it translated as The Stranger but The Outsider really does make more sense. I should get around to reading it. I haven't read in my own time for several semesters now. I picked up Good Omens (a highschool favorite, haha) over the break and that's really it. Being a history major means a lot of quality time with books. Blasted college.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

Kierkegarden said:


> What is Nietzsche usually typed as? INTP? My INTP friend is really interested in Nietzsche. Talk about dark.
> 
> I've heard it translated as The Stranger but The Outsider really does make more sense. I should get around to reading it. I haven't read in my own time for several semesters now. I picked up Good Omens (a highschool favorite, haha) over the break and that's really it. Being a history major means a lot of quality time with books. Blasted college.


Hmm I dunno actually. Unlike with some philosophers, Nietzsche doesn't really have one function you can point to and say "that's his dominant". My own raw intuition is flagging "INFJ" but I ain't got shit to back that up with right now.

Ha, Good Omens, everything that's good about Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman in one wonderful package. Terry Pratchett (RIP you ENTP) is one of my favorite authors -- I especially liked _Witches Abroad_, _Thud!_, _Reaper Man_, _Jingo_, and -- surprisingly enough -- _The Fifth Elephant_. Shadow from Gaiman's _American Gods_ is really awesome too. I'm working my way through _The Sandman_ right now, and I have to admit I'm rather more a fan of Dream's big sis than Dream himself ...


----------



## Kierkegarden (Dec 31, 2015)

knife said:


> Hmm I dunno actually. Unlike with some philosophers, Nietzsche doesn't really have one function you can point to and say "that's his dominant". My own raw intuition is flagging "INFJ" but I ain't got shit to back that up with right now.
> 
> Ha, Good Omens, everything that's good about Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman in one wonderful package. Terry Pratchett (RIP you ENTP) is one of my favorite authors -- I especially liked _Witches Abroad_, _Thud!_, _Reaper Man_, _Jingo_, and -- surprisingly enough -- _The Fifth Elephant_. Shadow from Gaiman's _American Gods_ is really awesome too. I'm working my way through _The Sandman_ right now, and I have to admit I'm rather more a fan of Dream's big sis than Dream himself ...


Both make my favorite authors list too! Especially Gaiman. American Gods remains one of my all time favorites. Wee Free Men by Pratchett brings me back to early middle school, damn. You have good taste though. I have a feeling we'd be friends IRL.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

Kierkegarden said:


> Both make my favorite authors list too! Especially Gaiman. American Gods remains one of my all time favorites. Wee Free Men by Pratchett brings me back to early middle school, damn. You have good taste though. I have a feeling we'd be friends IRL.


Interestingly enough I got into Gaiman because a certain other ENTP :exterminate: got me into him. (I got into Pratchett by way of Douglas Adams.) Then I proceeded to drive her nuts by getting into Alan Moore! :laughing:

Have you ever read Jim Butcher?


----------



## WorldzMine (Sep 9, 2014)

Clyme said:


> I'd contend that, as far as ideologies go, there are no "facts." Accepted definitions are derived approximately from academic consensus but there aren't any particular authorities on the matter. That's rather peripheral though. If you hold to the idea that capitalism is only capitalism so long as government does not regulate the markets in any manner, how would you describe the economies of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and so forth?


Sighs.... to even begin to explain how wrong and nonsensical your posts are from my perspective I would have to start from the beginning and teach you first how to think and evaluate ideas correctly. I would have to teach you philosophy from metaphysics, then epistemology, ethics, and finally for this case politics. It would be too exhausting and I'm not the worlds teacher, so I'll defer. 

Nothing personal, and have fun!


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

WorldzMine said:


> Sighs.... to even begin to explain how wrong and nonsensical your posts are from my perspective I would have to start from the beginning and teach you first how to think and evaluate ideas correctly. I would have to teach you philosophy from metaphysics, then epistemology, ethics, and finally for this case politics. It would be too exhausting and I'm not the worlds teacher, so I'll defer.
> 
> Nothing personal, and have fun!


It's rather unfortunate that you don't care to spend the time doing so. I'm not stubborn in my beliefs and, provided sufficient evidence, I'll gladly change my mind. Thus far though, with the exception of quoting Ayn Rand, you'd merely asserted that I'm incorrect. I've stated my concerns with your assertions. You presume to know a lot about my cognitive capacities. I'd personal prefer it if you engaged me in a proper conversation rather than merely asserting the same position over again and hurling light insults my way. If you refuse to though, I can't do anything about it, but again, I find that rather unfortunate if your perspective is correct and mine is incorrect.


----------



## ColoradoGrrrl (Jan 8, 2016)

Classical Liberal/Constitutional Libertarian. 

(As is my best guy friend, an INTJ... so yes, we talk about this often, to the chagrin of our other friends)


----------



## kiwig0ld (Nov 7, 2010)

Moderate to far left with some conservative business principals.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

Clyme said:


> It's rather unfortunate that you don't care to spend the time doing so. I'm not stubborn in my beliefs and, provided sufficient evidence, I'll gladly change my mind. Thus far though, with the exception of quoting Ayn Rand, you'd merely asserted that I'm incorrect. I've stated my concerns with your assertions. You presume to know a lot about my cognitive capacities. I'd personal prefer it if you engaged me in a proper conversation rather than merely asserting the same position over again and hurling light insults my way. If you refuse to though, I can't do anything about it, but again, I find that rather unfortunate if your perspective is correct and mine is incorrect.


Don't waste your time with him. One time I debated him and he literally Godwinned himself on the first turn. It was actually kind of sad.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

knife said:


> Don't waste your time with him. One time I debated him and he literally Godwinned himself on the first turn. It was actually kind of sad.


If anyone has a position to present, I'm always open to it provided that they're willing to share their evidence. I'll heed your advice though. What do you mean when you say that he "Godwinned himself?"


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

As an NF (i did not vote in the poll by the way) -> progressivism


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

Clyme said:


> If anyone has a position to present, I'm always open to it provided that they're willing to share their evidence. I'll heed your advice though. What do you mean when you say that he "Godwinned himself?"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

The worst part was, I was expecting something _interesting_ from him. He was like "Your position is wrong because Nazis!" and I was like ... *facepalm*


----------



## Asmodaeus (Feb 15, 2015)

I’m a liberal on some social issues (the environment, pro-choice, secularism); I’m a pragmatist on political/economic issues (my perspective encompasses mostly mercantilist, free market and even some Keynesian policies). Concerning foreign policy, I’m a hawkish realist 100% of the time (the legendary Henry Kissinger is one of my intellectual role models).


----------



## maust (Jul 14, 2014)

Stultum said:


> Moderate left. Thing is, any American would probably see me as far left. Always hard to answer, this kind of polls.


For America, I'm further left than Bernie Sanders, but that's not nearly as radical in a European context. The two-party system. It's a thing, and it sucks.


----------



## katsux (Jan 23, 2015)

bernie sanders as hell tbh.


----------



## SimplyRivers (Sep 5, 2015)

I think I find myself somewhere right in the middle, so a centrist. Sometimes I lean more conservative, while other times I lean more liberal. However, I thought of myself as a conservative when I was younger, because of my father. I then realized, that I'm more in the middle. 

So, I don't know how to vote.


----------



## Kierkegarden (Dec 31, 2015)

katsux said:


> bernie sanders as hell tbh.


I'm curious why.


----------



## katsux (Jan 23, 2015)

idk man i just agree with most of his policies. i cant say theyre all something we can do realistically, especially the way america's sort of set up right now, but i think we should make progress towards an america that's more accessible for everyone.


----------



## katsux (Jan 23, 2015)

Kierkegarden said:


> I'm curious why.



idk man i just agree with most of his policies. i cant say theyre all something we can do realistically, especially the way america's sort of set up right now, but i think we should make progress towards an america that's more accessible for everyone.
meant to post that with a quote oops


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

I consider myself to be far left in a European sense, in an American sense I've probably fallen off the left-wing side of the spectrum.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

skycloud86 said:


> I consider myself to be far left in a European sense, in an American sense I've probably fallen off the left-wing side of the spectrum.


What does this look like in practice. Just curious what your policy would be. As an America I honestly can not imagine lol. 

Would you take my car, or tell me when or how to drive it, it is a relatively small displacement 6 cylinder but it is a sports car, it has advanced emission systems for the time but is coming on being of 20 years of age. How much would it cost me to operate this car under your government considering whatever taxes you plan to slap on me for having a hobby.

Would you own my property and or business?

How much would I pay in taxes and how would my spending benefit me directly?

What is the most lethal weapon I may use to defend myself and my property from the government and other individuals? 

What happens to my money when I die? 

As a business owner, would I be able to decide what I produce and for what price, who I sell to and when, and what benefits and salary I would like to pay my employees, whilst being taxed a competitive (be it fair or not) rate to other nations in the world. Would I be allowed to leave with my business if you can not offer that rate.

Will you censor my internet or spy on me despite my human right to no unlawful search or seizure? 


Thanks, these are some genuine questions for how far left, far left really is.


----------



## peter pettishrooms (Apr 20, 2015)

Farther left than the average Democrat. Mostly due to past experiences. My family may be well-off now, but there was a time when we were struggling and had to rely on welfare before my father landed himself a much better job, which took years. Now we don't need all of that assistance to the point where I'm not even allowed to get financial aid because my parents can actually pay for all of my college expenses. I realize that there are flaws in some of these ideologies I side by, but for the most part it would be a little odd to oppose the exact same system that helped us get to where we are today.


----------



## DualGnosis (Apr 6, 2013)

Independent. Libertarian Right.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

I like pie more than cake, I don't know where that places me on the 4th dimensional political spectrum.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

@maust can you answer for me if @skycloud86 doesn't.. I'm just not the patient type lol.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

Damn near Anarchist.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

BIGJake111 said:


> What does this look like in practice. Just curious what your policy would be. As an America I honestly can not imagine lol.
> 
> Would you take my car, or tell me when or how to drive it, it is a relatively small displacement 6 cylinder but it is a sports car, it has advanced emission systems for the time but is coming on being of 20 years of age. How much would it cost me to operate this car under your government considering whatever taxes you plan to slap on me for having a hobby.


Why would your personal property be taken from you?



> Would you own my property and or business?


In my ideal society, society would own them.



> How much would I pay in taxes and how would my spending benefit me directly?


Taxes wouldn't exist.



> What is the most lethal weapon I may use to defend myself and my property from the government and other individuals?


This is more of an American concern whilst I'm British, but generally I would be all for people having weapons to defend themselves. I know many leftists, mostly Americans, who own guns.



> What happens to my money when I die?


The ideal society I believe in doesn't use money.



> As a business owner, would I be able to decide what I produce and for what price, who I sell to and when, and what benefits and salary I would like to pay my employees, whilst being taxed a competitive (be it fair or not) rate to other nations in the world. Would I be allowed to leave with my business if you can not offer that rate.


The society I would prefer wouldn't have an economy based on wage labour, so no.



> Will you censor my internet or spy on me despite my human right to no unlawful search or seizure?


I wouldn't put as many restrictions on the Internet as many would, most restrictions would be to prevent people accessing things like child pornography.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

@skycloud86

With no taxes who funds education, defense, and road building

What does it mean for society to own my business, do they own my profit be it monetary or not from the sell of my goods and services?

With a lack of money how would I go about acquiring a loaf of bread. And how in your society would one buy a used car.


----------



## ENTJess (Mar 3, 2015)

Moderate left.


----------



## maust (Jul 14, 2014)

> Thanks, these are some genuine questions for how far left, far left really is.


I've been arguing with conservatives a lot dumber than you for the last few weeks and have lost a lot of my patience, so this is going to sound snarky. 



BIGJake111 said:


> What does this look like in practice. Just curious what your policy would be. As an America I honestly can not imagine lol.
> 
> Would you take my car, or tell me when or how to drive it, it is a relatively small displacement 6 cylinder but it is a sports car, it has advanced emission systems for the time but is coming on being of 20 years of age. How much would it cost me to operate this car under your government considering *whatever taxes you plan to slap on me for having a hobby.*


(Obviously) Meant to disparage instead of engage. Clearly negative. Would rephrase to neutral if you wish me to engage this seriously. :wink: 

No, I'd wait for you to get fucked by the auto industry and just make sure they're producing stuff that's cleaner. Regulations can take care of that. 



> Would you own my property and or business?


Why would I want to do that? 

I do believe in breaking up big banks, but that doesn't really affect you. 



> How much would I pay in taxes and how would my spending benefit me directly?


Healthcare. You don't pay premiums, so though your taxes go up, you're paying less overall. We pay 3x more than Great Britain. Not hard to figure out why. 

Depends on your tax bracket. Zero sympathy for the rich. You didn't earn that money. 90% of millionaires inherited it. The economic game is rigged against the poor and we've had rates for them in the 90s before with few problems. 

It’s expensive to be poor | The Economist 

You can't argue with these statistics, though I know you will want to. It is a fact that our society is unfair and it is a fact that in most other developed societies, the government is able to resolve these sorts of inequalities. From 2009 to 2013, the top 1% had over 90% of the economic gains in our country. From 2009 to now, it's been in total a little under 60%. 

That is fucking absurd, and that is corrupt and immoral. 

Also bad for the economy. 



> What is the most lethal weapon I may use to defend myself and my property from the government and other individuals?


Guns are stupid, but you can have one if you register it and insure it. 

I give zero fucks about your desire to play hero. Too many kids get shot by parents who thought they were intruders. 

Thankfully the South will eventually weed themselves out, since that's where most shootings take place anyway. Natural selection is a wonderful thing. 

Thinking you can defend yourself from the government is idiotic. They have nukes. If they want to come for you, you'll be dead, and if you shoot a cop in "defense of your liberty", you will go to jail, where you will (and deserve to) rot. 




> What happens to my money when I die?


"You donate it." Haha but people are selfish fuckers 

I tax it. You didn't earn it and wealth inequality is bad enough in this country, and really badly racially divided. 



> As a business owner, would I be able to decide what I produce and for what price, who I sell to and when, and what benefits and salary I would like to pay my employees, whilst being taxed a competitive (be it fair or not) rate to other nations in the world. Would I be allowed to leave with my business if you can not offer that rate.


Jake, you and I both know you're still in high school. 

I don't think you understand how the economic system works. 

Billionaires and corporations pay politicians through SuperPACs and campaign contributions. Then the politicians make sure they have very little regulation.

A US company manufactured "life jackets" that drowned refugees a few months back. Corporations cannot be trusted. 

You seem to default to "let me have my freedom". I default to "fuck your freedom when other people are getting murdered. You can deal with some paperwork if it saves lives, quit whining". 



> Will you censor my internet or spy on me *despite my human right to no unlawful search or seizure?*


Unnecessarily contrary and with clearly belligerent implications. 

I don't give a fuck what you do with your internet, but the Deep Web needs to be regulated. Feel free to stream all the porn you want as long as there's no human trafficking involved.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

maust said:


> I've been arguing with conservatives a lot dumber than you for the last few weeks and have lost a lot of my patience, so this is going to sound snarky.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On the topic of allowing me to keep my car, thanks. But wouldn't the environmentalist of the left hate you for that? There are already cities banning personal property that doesn't meet a certain requirement. Under these current regulations my car would be banned from some European cities simply based on its age. No car I plan on owning is made after 2005 excluding a few small exemptions. All vehicles I plan to collect would piss off environmentalist. I just want to confirm that you would allow me to own and store several pre 1980 Alfa Romeos and face no repercussions for this other then the "auto industry" that I could care less about and has no affect on me as they forgot about the cars I like 15 years ago when everything went plastic and cars became appliances as apposed to an extension of ones character.

I see that you say healthcare would benefit me and I know that no premiums sounds totally worth a small tax hike. I just worry that you are simply creating another monopoly that's even worse then the current corporate set. Only worse it's funded by my dollars rather then shareholders. So no one can even make a buck off of it at that point other then doctors who can hike prices because the government is footing the bill and people will visit to get their ears cleaned.

I disagree with your opinion on the south and natural selection. I agree that low lives are the reason guns are a problem but I'm pretty sure anyone who's been robbed at gun point in Chicago wouldn't be happy with you singling out the south where at least it's just idiots shooting each other in hunting accidents.

On the topic of no tax excuse for the wealthy.... I would move abroad. I don't see why other wealthy individuals wouldn't as well. That's fine for the rich, but not so good for our economy. I think taxing 25% on the wealthy is better then 0% if they're gone.

Defense from government with guns. 

The more people with guns the better they can revolt. Swat comes to my door without a warrant attempting to sieze something that's mine I would die trying to defend myself.

Inheritance. If you think wages or whatever are unfair then that's fine. But if I have a large sum of money accumulated from assets and stock. Rental property, up selling cars, and playing the market wisely. I'd be rather offended if you think I didn't earn that. As then you are saying those assets were not mine when I sold them and that's an attack on my personal property. I was not born into excessive wealth. I spent the first two years of my life in a trailer.... If I have an inheritance that was gained and taxed as income and capital gains taxes along the way, I don't expect it to be taxed again as I lend it to my kids so they may have an upper hand that I did not and their grandparents sure as hell did not. 

There are bad corporations as there are bad people. Deal with it.
We do need campaign reform though and we should know where the money comes from. We just need a more educated voter. For example I agree with Cruz on most things other then foreign policy. But I also know his wife works at Goldman Sachs and he is a snake. Therefore despite him holding my best Interest, he will not garner my vote.

I'm a bit offended with you regulating the deep web. That's like shooting down ships in the ocean for having casinos. Yes the people who take part in human trafficking should burn in hell. But that's between them and karma or whatever cosmic force you believe puts people in their place.


Anyways, good points. Your society sounds livable. But the policy is at times excessively collectivist and on occasion delusional. And at the very least an insult to the founding fathers. In general it just seems like a leftist government is an abusive relationship with Liberty. They don't go too far or else Liberty will actually leave. But they always push the limits to try and control more and it ends up with just a bunch of bruises and brokenness.


----------



## Solrac026 (Mar 6, 2012)

Clyme said:


> INTJ.
> 
> I've selected "far left." As far as the economy goes, I'm in favor of a capitalist system that is heavily regulated, so you could place me in the category of social democrat. As far as human rights go, I'm very "liberal."


It seems like a capitalist system and heavy regulation are nearly mutually exclusive. The capitalists will simply buy out the politicians and reduce regulations. At the very least, capitalists will impede new regulations. The only exception I can think of is capitalists pushing support for new regulations to create a barrier to entry.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Solrac026 said:


> It seems like a capitalist system and heavy regulation are nearly mutually exclusive. The capitalists will simply buy out the politicians and reduce regulations. At the very least, capitalists will impede new regulations. The only exception I can think of is capitalists pushing support for new regulations to create a barrier to entry.


Capitalist covers a broad spectrum. On the extreme puritan form of capitalism, you get things like laissez-faire economics which, as you've indicated, does lead to quite a bit of corruption and wealth inequality. On the other hand though, you can have highly regulated markets which are still based on private ownership (where key resources may be owned publicly), but where there is more wealth redistribution and progressive taxation. While I don't think that higher incomes necessarily leads to corruption, it certainly increases the likelihood and moreover, there is no guarantee that higher incomes does any common good. What typically results is an elite that does, as you suggest, use its power to grow and maintain its power. However, progressive taxation, publicly-funded elections, and governmental oversights can really reduce the level of corruption. A completely socialist system is very inefficient in terms of economic growth and a completely capitalist system is very ineffective at market stability and collective welfare or human development. What I think is the best policy is a system which retains capitalism, but tapers off the higher end of earnings and redistributes wealth. Healthcare should be provided free as part of the right to life. Post-secondary and job development should either be free, subsidized to improve welfare and support a healthy, highly educated workforce, and to facilitate a meritocracy (or allow us to come closer to it). Keynesian economics should be practiced to stabilize the market. Elections should be publicly funded by citizens (there are a number of propositions on how to accomplish this) to get big money out of politics. Tax loopholes should be cut down and a state should practice progressive taxation with marginal rates to reduce income inequality, market instability, and the polarization of power to the very few. I mean, I could go on and on, but yeah, you get the idea.

Anyway, I sympathize with your worries about the capitalist system, but the major problem isn't that there is _some_ income inequality or that there is private property. The real issue is how much is being allowed and how it's being permitted to be used within our system. For example, having publicly funded elections is a wonderful idea. In Washington, I believe, they're using $25 vouchers where each state resident gets three to use. It could possibly be just in Seattle, you'll have to check, but ideas like that I think are much better than allowing total freedom with campaign donations. In that sense, everyone's voice matters equally, as they should. So, it's not that some inequality or some private property exists, but about how much there is and how its use is permitted.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

Clyme said:


> Capitalist covers a broad spectrum. On the extreme puritan form of capitalism, you get things like laissez-faire economics which, as you've indicated, does lead to quite a bit of corruption and wealth inequality. On the other hand though, you can have highly regulated markets which are still based on private ownership (where key resources may be owned publicly), but where there is more wealth redistribution and progressive taxation. While I don't think that higher incomes necessarily leads to corruption, it certainly increases the likelihood and moreover, there is no guarantee that higher incomes does any common good.


Just a comment on this. I wouldn't cheat on a test... Unless the teacher made it redundant and difficult. 

Same way I don't think people would be corrupt or evade taxes, if the taxes were reasonable.

When you regulate and make it hard to start a buisness the only ones that succeed are the ones that play dirty... And honestly a respect them for that.

VW diesels are the best vehicles on the market, the reason being that they say screw you to the EPA. 

Now weather that's ethical or not, as a consumer who likes good cars I would buy theirs over someone else's. And that was the same mindset of many others before the truth came out. And now those who want a good car keep buying them and those with a moral compass that's afraid of Emissions that are minuscule in comparison to what your grand mother farted out over her life don't buy them.

Wether you think cars should produce a small amount of emissions or not, it's obvious that regulation allows cheaters to come to the top.


Therefore I find that it is not capitalism that leads to corruption rather it is regulation. 

Capitalism does have I'll affects by producing gdp and increasing production and Vehicle use therefore negatively affecting the environment. That is by all means the biggest draw back to a free market. However, we control what is produced with what we buy, so therefore it's not capitalism to blame but rather the public for supporting truck sales rather then hybrid.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> Therefore I find that it is not capitalism that leads to corruption rather it is regulation.


But without regulation, capitalism drives businesses to cut corners wherever possible, at the expense of other people and the environment. Take pollution as you discuss. Have you ever saw what the environment was like without the EPA? Rivers literally smoldered and started on fire due to companies dumping their toxic waste into the rivers (because capitalism dictates it's more cost effective to do this than properly dispose of the waste). Also, you think air quality is bad now in the US? Look at China and their lack of EPA and the US would be in the same boat without the regulations we put in place.

Sure regulations can drive corruption. Look at Citizens United and how corporations try to undermine any regulation out there that costs them money. The thing is, the alternative without regulation, is much much worse.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> But without regulation, capitalism drives businesses to cut corners wherever possible, at the expense of other people and the environment. Take pollution as you discuss. Have you ever saw what the environment was like without the EPA? Rivers literally smoldered and started on fire due to companies dumping their toxic waste into the rivers (because capitalism dictates it's more cost effective to do this than properly dispose of the waste). Also, you think air quality is bad now in the US? Look at China and their lack of EPA and the US would be in the same boat without the regulations we put in place.
> 
> Sure regulations can drive corruption. Look at Citizens United and how corporations try to undermine any regulation out there that costs them money. The thing is, the alternative without regulation, is much much worse.


I completely agree except that I don't think it has to be the EPA to keep things in check. We need an educated public and the fast and prominent spread of knowledge. For example if Honda decides to dump waste into a river the consumer should know, similar to how we have mpg stickers on cars I have no issue with a simple color coded environment sticker on each and every consumer product. Allowing the consumer to know what damage was done to the environment in the creation of that product.

At that point though it should be the consumers decision on weather they are willing to buy a product with a burning river label or a picture of a skull and cross bones on a ground water well lol.

I think that's entirely reasonable and results in natural competition between companies to produce the best product.

For example look at the Porsche 918. Regulation drove Aston Martin to produce the cygnet. A rehashed scion that diluted the brand. However Porsche who had the padding of vw sales to save them from EPA regulations also produced a fuel efficent car. The difference is that the 918 is the fastest car around the ring whilst the cygnet only damaged the brand identity of Aston Martin. 

Through the freedom of Porsche to Produce what they want, they created an Innovative car that has technology that will trickle down and improve emissions for all sports cars, they produced it because it's the way public opinion is going. In stark contrast no innovation came from the Cygnet.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> I completely agree except that I don't think it has to be the EPA to keep things in check. We need an educated public and the fast and prominent spread of knowledge. For example if Honda decides to dump waste into a river the consumer should know, similar to how we have mpg stickers on cars I have no issue with a simple color coded environment sticker on each and every consumer product. Allowing the consumer to know what damage was done to the environment in the creation of that product.


You do realize the only reason there are MPG stickers is because the EPA mandates them. Do you think that a car marker is going to spend the extra money on a process to show MPG of a car when they don't have to? Then, if there's no EPA, who sets the criteria for the products to be labeled accordingly? Who enforces that they are labeled properly? Basically what you're suggesting is having some government agency like the EPA to do this, but instead, allow companies to freely pollute. When it comes to a label, most consumers don't care. The only label they really pay attention to is price. That's why organic foods continue to remain a niche compared to conventional foods. There is a subset of educated consumers, but most people don't care, especially if they don't see the firsthand effects of what is going on. Why would someone in Texas care about a polluted river in Ohio?

Basically all your plan would do is allow corporations to become even more greedy and you talk about corruption, look at how hard corporations fight labeling requirements as it is. They would just pollute and then work to get the labeling laws changed so they didn't have to report their pollution. In turn, your idea would be a horrible system.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> You do realize the only reason there are MPG stickers is because the EPA mandates them. Do you think that a car marker is going to spend the extra money on a process to show MPG of a car when they don't have to? Then, if there's no EPA, who sets the criteria for the products to be labeled accordingly? Who enforces that they are labeled properly? Basically what you're suggesting is having some government agency like the EPA to do this, but instead, allow companies to freely pollute. When it comes to a label, most consumers don't care. The only label they really pay attention to is price. That's why organic foods continue to remain a niche compared to conventional foods. There is a subset of educated consumers, but most people don't care, especially if they don't see the firsthand effects of what is going on. Why would someone in Texas care about a polluted river in Ohio?
> 
> Basically all your plan would do is allow corporations to become even more greedy and you talk about corruption, look at how hard corporations fight labeling requirements as it is. They would just pollute and then work to get the labeling laws changed so they didn't have to report their pollution. In turn, your idea would be a horrible system.


I didn't say abolish the EPA or that mpg stickers are there for another reason.

We should not force companies to do something. We should have transparency then speak with our dollar.

If someone doesn't care about a river in Ohio then that's on them. The people of Ohio can take it up with them. If you have a problem with consumers then so be it, if you think humanity is dumb or terrible and want to assume such a narcissistic stand point, then so be it. 

I think the idea of a color coded label placed on products is and ideal way to deal with pollution. It places the burden on the average human being rather then the power being in the governments hands (which really shouldn't exist for anything other then to collect taxes, maintain roads, defend against intruders, and educate.)


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> I didn't say abolish the EPA or that mpg stickers are there for another reason.


Well when you say, "I completely agree except that I don't think it has to be the EPA to keep things in check. We need an educated public and the fast and prominent spread of knowledge," that pretty much implies abolish the EPA. What would they be doing if you took their ability to regulate the environment away? Sitting there and playing video games?




> We should not force companies to do something. We should have transparency then speak with our dollar.
> 
> If someone doesn't care about a river in Ohio then that's on them. The people of Ohio can take it up with them. If you have a problem with consumers then so be it, if you think humanity is dumb or terrible and want to assume such a narcissistic stand point, then so be it.
> 
> I think the idea of a color coded label placed on products is and ideal way to deal with pollution. It places the burden on the average human being rather then the power being in the governments hands (which really shouldn't exist for anything other then to collect taxes, maintain roads, defend against intruders, and educate.)


You're naive as heck to think that companies would do the right thing. Study history. You know how the FDA was created? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

Things like this stemmed the EPA being created (that's right, a river on fire):








And honestly, ever hear the term, "not in my backyard." People only care what directly effects them. This makes it easy for multibillion dollar corporations with vast legal resources to easily come into little podunk towns and do whatever they want. Nestle does this with local aquifers for their bottled water: Nestle Continues Stealing World's Water During Drought

You don't see people caring that they're buying bottled water and caring about the many environmental impacts it has such as the draining of aquifers or the plastic bottle waste. Why would they suddenly care about some color coded label? I mean we have nutrition labels on all of our food yet suffer from an obesity crises. You can't tell me 1/3 of the population that is obese cares enough to read labels and that is something directly effecting their health. Now imagine something that is happening far away that is out of sight, out of mind.

You think the residents of a small town of 1000 people can go against a major corporation in the court system? If you do, that's another being naive on your part. We should indeed force companies to do anything. Since they're legally "people" and their main goal, by law, is to maximize profits within all legal means, this effectively makes them sociopaths that will stop at nothing to make an extra penny of profit. If they had to bulldoze through a group of people to make an extra nickel, and they could legally do so, they would.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> Well when you say, "I completely agree except that I don't think it has to be the EPA to keep things in check. We need an educated public and the fast and prominent spread of knowledge," that pretty much implies abolish the EPA. What would they be doing if you took their ability to regulate the environment away? Sitting there and playing video games?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You misunderstood the quote. It's not the epas place to tell me what I can buy. They should exist so that we may know of pollution and I am okay with them stepping in at the case of mal practice such as improper disposal of nuclear waste. 

I don't think companies would do the right thing. I think that the buyer would, and if they don't. That's on them. A company will go where the money is and if people refuse to buy red labeled products (or even better retailers refuse to carry these products) then you are defeating pollution one the same but while protecting the liberty of the individual, be them a CEO or hobo.

I know of the river on fire. I like to think that in today's global market driven by the media that if that happened today. Regardless of EPA. People would boycot the companies that dump in that river and nonprofits if not my opinion of an EPA that fights for information rather then restriction would make sure people know who is responsible. Leave it the public buying their product, retailers stocking their product, and even better shareholders scared of bad pr, to manage the environment.

Few humans think global warming is a lie by now thankfully. Now they should just act based on that. I think they will, you think they won't.

When entering an argument it grows apparent that collectivist like you are driven by a superiority complex as apposed to a heart outreach to the underdog be it the impoverished or the environment. Rather then thinking the environment or impoverished deserve help it's usually more of a distrust in humanity to help themselves. 

You have a bleak view on many things, why not have the same view towards government as well. Many would find your obesity comments offensive and if you think the government should limit if I may eat or burger or not that's absurd. Your analogy about obesity and food is actually a reflection of how labels as apposed to regulation does help.

Notice what's on fast food menus today and the amount of calories in it as compared to 20 years ago. Weather some are still obese or not, that's their choice and the consequences are on them. But overall due to public opinion, education, the media, and forced transparency. Lives are being saved. Let's treat the environment the same.


----------



## katemess (Oct 21, 2015)

Centre-right. 

I'm a Conservative voter, despite having typically leftist social leanings.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> You misunderstood the quote. It's not the epas place to tell me what I can buy. They should exist so that we may know of pollution and I am okay with them stepping in at the case of mal practice such as improper disposal of nuclear waste.


They're not telling you what to buy. They're merely setting a standard to protect the environment on products that are sold. Kind of like the health department sets a minimum standard that employees have to wash hands or food has to be handled in a certain way. The health department isn't prohibiting you from buying any food. They just make sure the business selling the food doesn't poison you. The EPA is doing the same thing but instead of directly poisoning you, they make sure the environment that everyone relies on isn't poisoned.



> I don't think companies would do the right thing. I think that the buyer would, and if they don't. That's on them. A company will go where the money is and if people refuse to buy red labeled products (or even better retailers refuse to carry these products) then you are defeating pollution one the same but while protecting the liberty of the individual, be them a CEO or hobo.


But buyers don't care, as I pointed out. Even if they care, there's often not a lot of choices. Looks at half the products we have, including the computer you are reading this post with. Do you think there wasn't some sort of slave labor used into gathering the materials and manufacturing it?



> I know of the river on fire. I like to think that in today's global market driven by the media that if that happened today. Regardless of EPA. People would boycot the companies that dump in that river and nonprofits if not my opinion of an EPA that fights for information rather then restriction would make sure people know who is responsible. Leave it the public buying their product, retailers stocking their product, and even better shareholders scared of bad pr, to manage the environment.


Yet companies get bad PR, and life goes on. Look at BP. They committed one of the worst environmental disasters in modern history, yet I still see BP gas being sold. By your theory everyone would have started buying Shell or Mobil gas and BP would have been put out of business. As far as I can see, BP is still selling gas pretty much everywhere (and I have been a lot of places in my traveling to see).



> Few humans think global warming is a lie by now thankfully. Now they should just act based on that. I think they will, you think they won't.


And if they care so much, why when gas is now under $2 a gallon people are swarming to buy SUVs and bigger gas guzzlers? If they truly acted like you said they did, the demand for gas sipping cars would be rising, despite low gas prices. Honestly the lower gas prices and people swarming to buy big SUV's proves my point that people only really think with their wallets.



> When entering an argument it grows apparent that collectivist like you are driven by a superiority complex as apposed to a heart outreach to the underdog be it the impoverished or the environment. Rather then thinking the environment or impoverished deserve help it's usually more of a distrust in humanity to help themselves.
> 
> You have a bleak view on many things, why not have the same view towards government as well. Many would find your obesity comments offensive and if you think the government should limit if I may eat or burger or not that's absurd. Your analogy about obesity and food is actually a reflection of how labels as apposed to regulation does help.
> 
> Notice what's on fast food menus today and the amount of calories in it as compared to 20 years ago. Weather some are still obese or not, that's their choice and the consequences are on them. But overall due to public opinion, education, the media, and forced transparency. Lives are being saved. Let's treat the environment the same.


I am far from collectivist. I just don't have absolute faith in a completely unregulated market and that corporations and consumers will do the right thing. Fast food calorie labels are required federal by law: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24menu.html?_r=0 You're right, it has raised some awareness, but on the other end, people don't care. I don't care how offense my obesity comment is, it's the truth. People just don't care and even with labels will continue to stuff their faces with garbage. That's why 1/3 of the population is obese. Sure, a small subset of people might change but the vast majority of people don't care. 

Seriously, observe people. Yourself and this forums (along with many internet forums) is a bad place to deduce human behavior. People in these places tend to be more rational, and if everyone were like that, you might be right. The problem is, however, the average person is pretty much a lazy slob who just really doesn't care. Their lives are really of mere existence by working some mindless job they hate, coming home, eating the same garbage and watching the same garbage. Most importantly, they don't think for themselves. They let things be fed to them and just don't care.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> They're not telling you what to buy.


That must be exactly why it's so easy to find a naturally aspirated v12 new car for sale.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> That must be exactly why it's so easy to find a naturally aspirated v12 new car for sale.


Stop exaggerating thinking you're proving a point. If you are as market oriented as you say, you do realize there's limits on what customers demand. Just like how there's extra large value meals, they don't serve an XXXL value meal with 3 burgers and 4 containers of fries with a 5 gallon bucket of cola.

Here's an article outlining what is going on: Cheap Gas Prices Slow Small Car Sales, Help SUVs, Crossovers

Also, it takes several years to design and bring a car to market. I remember there being a V10 Ford pickup before gas prices spiked. You never know, they might come out with V12 engines if gas stays cheap enough. Right now the market demands are anywhere between a 4 cylinder and a V8 with a few outliers.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> Couple cars and a couple of houses with some savings and you're in the millions quick, particularly if these assets were acquired at the right time and their values have greatly increased. You'd be amazed how blue chip some cars are going to be going as the world turns to electric cars, I want to hold onto these things for the sake of passion, not investment. But just because I buy a car in 2017 for 20 grand it's worth 2 million in 2080 doesn't mean my children should have to pay taxes on the family heirloom simply because it appreciated.
> 
> I want to pay taxes, but not from my casket. That's just plain horrid.


What do you not get about (figure is increasing every year). These are the figures from the IRS website:



> $1,500,000 in 2004 - 2005; $2,000,000 in 2006 - 2008; $3,500,000 for decedents dying in 2009; and $5,000,000 or more for decedent's dying in 2010 and 2011 (note: there are special rules for decedents dying in 2010); $5,120,000 in 2012, $5,250,000 in 2013, $5,340,000 in 2014, $5,430,000 in 2015, and $5,450,000 in 2016


As you can see, by 2080, that exemption will be much higher. Some years there was literally a 40-50% increase. I highly doubt the limit is going to be at $5.45 million 64 years from now. Also, I own a collector car. I have a rare 1969 Mercury Cougar Eliminator. It's 1 of 2250 made and 1 of 425 known left in existence. I see them going for an average of $35-40,000 on the Facebook group I belong to for Eliminator Owners. I paid $17,000 for it and have stuck about $2000 into it. That's close to doubling my money in literally 4 years of owning it if I were to sell it at fair market value. I would still need to own 136 of those cars or 32% of those left in known existence in order to reach the $5.45 million exemption if the cars were valued at $40,000.

If you're interested in cars this is mine: http://impulsivetravelerguy.com/cruising-in-the-cougar/


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> What do you not get about (figure is increasing every year). These are the figures from the IRS website:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love your car man, but... We can't assume the value will always go up, were due for deflation. Regardless you have to realize that almost always we disagree on the basis of morals.

You and I simply have a different idea of what the government should morally be allowed to do. Tax money twice, particularly on the dead is not something I stand behind.



As for vehicle values, send yours to the Balkan Peninsula if you want some real returns.... That being said though the vehicles I am expecting to increase massively in value are the last sports and super cars, the last manuals, the last naturally aspirated engines, the last cars with no electronic interference.

My ASAP goal in auto collecting is to own a carrera gt. It is THE blue chip car. 










I'm starting to build a relationship with the owner of this car, going to do everything I can to be able to afford it from a private sell when he decides to get rid of it.

(Edit: I've always been a ford/Mercury guy when it comes to domestic cars, thanks for the link.)


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> You and I simply have a different idea of what the government should morally be allowed to do. Tax money twice, particularly on the dead is not something I stand behind.


In order to have infrastructure and everything we take for granted, we have to pay for it. The roads you drive you car on need to be maintained and not doing so leads to great private costs on things like fixing your car. Everything is taxed in one way or another. Stop attaching your personal morals on it to make a claim that it's somehow immoral and we should adhere to your personal morals.

This technically isn't even taxing the dead. It's taxing the recipients of the inheritance. This is effectively an asset transfer between two different parties. It doesn't matter if they're related, it's a simple asset transfer. If I sell you my car, sales tax is incurred. If I make a certain level of profit, the income is also taxed. That's technically double taxation, but in reality, that's just how things are.

Now getting back to the estate tax. You get a $5.45 million dollar exemption. What if this was taxed like regular income? You get a $6300 exemption and the rest would be taxed. You would pay a lot more in tax if this was treated as regular income than you do when this is treated like it is now.



> That being said though the vehicles I am expecting to increase massively in value are the last sports and super cars, the last manuals, the last naturally aspirated engines, the last cars with no electronic interference.


You do realize, doing this is a huge risk? You're expecting a market to be there decades from now. In the meantime there is massive upkeep with each car. Insurance through a collector car company will probably run you $300-500 per year per car, if not more depending on the value of the car. Then you need a place to store it and also you need to store it in a manner that preserves it. On top of it, you still need to drive it and do maintenance on it because it sitting there is just as hard on a vehicle than driving the heck out of it.

From other posts, I'm thinking you're around 18-19. Your head is in the clouds and you have a ton of optimism that you're going to do something big and hit it rich and the last thing you want is the "man" coming and taking any of it away. I used to be like that and very libertarian and wanting everything privatized and no taxes. The older you get, the more you will realize it's a pipe dream and, in a lot of cases you're getting played by the extremely wealthy. Forget your so called morals and ideals. People are selfish and greedy as heck. The positions you argue only benefit the extremely wealthy and you will get peanuts, at best, for your efforts.

Keep the optimism, drive, and ambition. That's a good thing. Dream big, but at the same time ground yourself in reality. The government isn't some evil thing hell bent to put you down. It's a tool we can use. The same goes for free markets. Too much on the extreme end of either gets us nowhere. It's finding the right balance that allows us to be as free as possible while at the same time providing the infrastructure necessary for the markets to operate at higher levels.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> In order to have infrastructure and everything we take for granted, we have to pay for it. The roads you drive you car on need to be maintained and not doing so leads to great private costs on things like fixing your car. Everything is taxed in one way or another. Stop attaching your personal morals on it to make a claim that it's somehow immoral and we should adhere to your personal morals.
> 
> This technically isn't even taxing the dead. It's taxing the recipients of the inheritance. This is effectively an asset transfer between two different parties. It doesn't matter if they're related, it's a simple asset transfer. If I sell you my car, sales tax is incurred. If I make a certain level of profit, the income is also taxed. That's technically double taxation, but in reality, that's just how things are.
> 
> ...


We need taxes, that's why we have gas taxes for roads and I have no issue with increasing the gas tax, even by a very large amount. We shouldn't be treating within families as a transaction though, there are other ways to tax and this one is just grubby. As an investment, collecting the vehicles is a risk, as someone who is passionate about cars it's a no brainier. Honestly I would likely donate any cars I own to a museum that drives them rather then give it to kids if they are to sell. The cars are not for the point of investment, I just don't want kids to pay taxes on an heirloom that isn't meant to be sold anyways. Insurance with collectors cars gets rather cheap btw, the more you own the less they know you'll be driving them individually. Therefore each consecutive one is less to insure. 

I may get rich, I may not, I really don't care about money, but I do care about what's mine.

On your closing comments... I feel like we have a balance, and I sadly think that's why things won't work. We need things to be more free, or more collectivist, and of the two I'd prefer freedom.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> We need taxes, that's why we have gas taxes for roads and I have no issue with increasing the gas tax, even by a very large amount.


So you're willing to pay $15 a gallon for gas? If we abolish certain taxes, other taxes have to make up the difference. That's why we tax the way we do. I am a Texas resident. I don't pay a state income tax but sales tax is 8.25%. Property taxes are also some of the highest in the nation. In Wisconsin there was an income tax, but 5.5% sales tax and property taxes are slightly lower than Texas. No matter what, you need to pay for government and it ultimately is taxed in one way or another.



> We shouldn't be treating within families as a transaction though, there are other ways to tax and this one is just grubby.


But it is a transaction. You are transferring ownership from the dead person to other people they have willed it to. The assets are changing owners. When you buy or sell something, it is an asset transfer and you pay sales tax. We could be like Canada who doesn't technically have an inheritance tax, but all assets are taxed at a 50% capital gains tax: Canada Inheritance Tax Laws & Information | TurboTax® Canada



> I just don't want kids to pay taxes on an heirloom that isn't meant to be sold anyways.


Then do estate planning. Get whole life insurance or other investments that will take care of the tax burden. Regardless, it will probably eventually be sold and therefore it's treated as such. That's why if you truly cared about it not being sold, then do estate planning.



> On your closing comments... I feel like we have a balance, and I sadly think that's why things won't work. We need things to be more free, or more collectivist, and of the two I'd prefer freedom.


What is freedom though? It seems all the "patriots" yell freedom but it isn't defined. What would you consider more free? Getting hurt or sick and having to carry private insurance and hopefully they pay up everything but you still might go bankrupt anyway because the for-profit insurance company tries to find any way to screw you or basically going to the doctor and not worrying about bills? The "free" method costs 3 times more per capita than the "collectivist" method yet they both have similar outcomes.

The "free" method is to have private toll roads. This could mean paying tolls every couple miles as the road changes ownership. The "collectivist" provides the roads and their maintenance as part of taxes. Which is more efficient.

This whole spouting of "freedom" is stupid, especially from the right wing. You are just as oppressed with a totally free market than you are in a communist state. Like I said, markets and the government are tools for the job. People forget that. How do we harness the tools to give us the most value for the least amount of input. If you want to sum up to the original post, this is my NT political philosophy. Basically how can we do the least to get the most. That means embracing markets but at the same time putting certain restrictions in place where the markets fail (pollution, etc). It also means providing basic infrastructure accessible to everyone in an equitable manner that allows the markets to function better (interstate roads, etc.).

"Free" can mean 2 different things to 2 different people. The biggest thing is it's the ends, not the means, that justifies freedom. Too many people reverse that and that's where we run into problems.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> So you're willing to pay $15 a gallon for gas? If we abolish certain taxes, other taxes have to make up the difference. That's why we tax the way we do. I am a Texas resident. I don't pay a state income tax but sales tax is 8.25%. Property taxes are also some of the highest in the nation. In Wisconsin there was an income tax, but 5.5% sales tax and property taxes are slightly lower than Texas. No matter what, you need to pay for government and it ultimately is taxed in one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not 15 but if I'm the one driving the road and damaging it, then it's okay for me to be the one paying to fix it. Obviously trucks will be really facing the burden and as we move to alternative energy the tax would have to find a way to include electric cars. But I have zero issue paying a tax to help keep the roads going specifically if the tax is directly proportionate to how often I use those roads.

Patriots are rather idotic too, nationalism is the fast route to facism. 

I'm cool with social programs, just not when we're 19 trillion in debt, and I just don't see economic growth coming from increasing social security, that'll just drive up healthcare costs more then they already are.

I completely whole heartdly disagree with your closing statement it is by all means the means, and not the ends that justifies freedom equality and everything else. Racial, social, and any other form of "affirmative action" is horrendous we should not separate and sub divide human beings like that. 

I'm not an anarchist btw, I've stated several times that many taxes are fine, several agencies are fine, and honestly I'd cut military spending before most anything else. I'm not dumb enough to want all roads as toll roads. But I would rather lower and simplify taxes, eliminate any cases where a single dollar is taxed twice, increase gdp, and once the deficit is in better shape it's fine time to spend on infrastructure, and if we ever become a very wealthy nation then we may begin to look into things such as free college tuition, higher teacher salaries, advancing the military, drastically increasing spending on prisons (not for more solitary confinement but rather for more and better rehabilitation programs). As dumb as it sounds there is a stupid game called democracy, you can introduce and affect laws in the game. Usually I get assassinated by socalist (Lol) , but assuming I turn off assasnations I always drastically increase gdp, wages go up, balance the budget, (envionment takes a small hit due to gdp increase) as the debt goes down I invest heavily in alternative energy to change the environmental state, and with time I introduce solcial welfare programs.

The two things I do in the game that would likely never fly in America though, I decrease military spending, and create tax havens right off the bat to jump start the economy. 

In the real world though...

For now though it's important we stimulate the economy and reduce the unfairness of the tax system and the choke hold the government has on personal liberty. That means no trump, no Bernie (both are actually a lot alike) they do both mean well and have big hearts, and are actually fairly honest. However, both are short sighted protectionist who get votes on the basis of optimism rather than realism. I don't have too big of a problem with most current regulations and such, but now is not the time to add more, raise taxes, or increase entitlements, the debt is issue number one. 

I will have you know though, I am willing to compromise, I helped lead Rubio to beat Cruze in South Carolina with my vote and the passion I instilled in many others that allowed him to actually win my county instead of Trump. While I agree more with the policy of Cruze, I find him unelectable, dishonest, shifty, and comparable to a used car salesman that puts gt headlamps on a mustang v6 and sales it up marked to an unsuspecting Vaper. Rubio's top tax bracket is actually higher then the current rate, something I don't really agree with, but a compromise worth making. 


Essentially, I'm not as radical as I may sound, this is the Internet, this is where we are allowed to let our delusions and crazy fly free. 

That being said the EPA does still have too much power and the tax code should be simplified and an inheritance tax is immoral.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> create tax havens to jump start the economy.


How does that work?


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> Not 15 but if I'm the one driving the road and damaging it, then it's okay for me to be the one paying to fix it. Obviously trucks will be really facing the burden and as we move to alternative energy the tax would have to find a way to include electric cars. But I have zero issue paying a tax to help keep the roads going specifically if the tax is directly proportionate to how often I use those roads.


But it's not just maintaining the roads. There's other things behind it. What about the highway patrol? There's a lot of other stuff running in the background that, if you eliminated other taxes, it would probably cost $15 a gallon.



> I'm cool with social programs, just not when we're 19 trillion in debt, and I just don't see economic growth coming from increasing social security, that'll just drive up healthcare costs more then they already are.


How is increasing social security going to drive up health care costs?



> I completely whole heartdly disagree with your closing statement it is by all means the means, and not the ends that justifies freedom equality and everything else. Racial, social, and any other form of "affirmative action" is horrendous we should not separate and sub divide human beings like that.


I fully agree on this. We need to fix the root cause and that's crappy schools and working against a culture that can resist things like education or working hard.



> if we ever become a very wealthy nation


And this is where the conservative agenda has you. We ARE a wealthy nation. Not only that we are the WEALTHIEST and have been for quite some time. Other countries that are less wealthy can provide things like universal health care (at a fraction of the cost and with the same outcomes) and other things like cheap college. The whole "we're poor and struggling" is just some BS the Republican party wants to push so they can justify making cuts to social programs, while at the same time give tax cuts to their rich friends who've effectively bought their campaign.

That's another problem. Everyone complains about the costs of things Bernie Sanders or Democrats in general propose like it's going to break the bank, yet the tax cuts to the wealthy cost just as much. I agree, the deficit and debt is ridiculous, but nobody is doing anything about it. Actually, after the economy stabilized deficits fell under Obama. Under Bush (or Reagan), they increased every year and broke records. Clinton had a surplus. I'd say Democrats actually do more for debt than the Republicans.

So ask yourself, what's better? A minimal tax cut that might save you a few dollars a year or something like universal health care where you no longer have to worry about medical bills or going bankrupt? Both cost the same. Get it out of your mind that you think you're going to be rich. For the average person, what the Democrats spend money on benefits the average person more than what the Republicans do.



> The two things I do in the game that would likely never fly in America though, I decrease military spending, and create tax havens right off the bat to jump start the economy.


I agree on cutting military spending. We could cut it in half and still outspend everyone. Tax havens just encourage hiding and hoarding. I believe we need a progressive tax system with a tax rate like back in Eisenhower's administration:91%. The "tax haven" can be allowing deductions and write-offs for pretty much everything so, if you want to lower your effective rate, you spend money back in the economy. It does not help the economy having money hoarded and not being spent.




> In the real world though...
> 
> For now though it's important we stimulate the economy and reduce the unfairness of the tax system and the choke hold the government has on personal liberty. That means no trump, no Bernie (both are actually a lot alike) they do both mean well and have big hearts, and are actually fairly honest. However, both are short sighted protectionist who get votes on the basis of optimism rather than realism. I don't have too big of a problem with most current regulations and such, but now is not the time to add more, raise taxes, or increase entitlements, the debt is issue number one.


Another worn out conservative cliche. Where has your personal liberty been infringed? What is so much different than years past?



> I will have you know though, I am willing to compromise, I helped lead Rubio to beat Cruze in South Carolina with my vote and the passion I instilled in many others that allowed him to actually win my county instead of Trump. While I agree more with the policy of Cruze, I find him unelectable, dishonest, shifty, and comparable to a used car salesman that puts gt headlamps on a mustang v6 and sales it up marked to an unsuspecting Vaper. Rubio's top tax bracket is actually higher then the current rate, something I don't really agree with, but a compromise worth making.


The whole Republican party (and half the Democrats) are snake oil salesmen. Look at my comments above on how each of their policies help you as an average person.



> Essentially, I'm not as radical as I may sound, this is the Internet, this is where we are allowed to let our delusions and crazy fly free.
> 
> That being said the EPA does still have too much power and the tax code should be simplified and an inheritance tax is immoral.


We've had these arguments before and calling for the abolition of the EPA is extremest and delusional. It comes down to selfishness on your part. You're a "car guy" and you want to mess with your cars without restrictions, especially on pollution. The same sentiment was said back in the 1970's when they started putting catalytic converters on cars and the horsepower dropped substantially. It basically killed the first muscle car era.

Now you look at it and we're in a second muscle car era. All the computers controls and technology that was spurred by the EPA and its regulation now produces cars that come off the showroom floor at over 700 horsepower, get 25mpg on the highway, and pollute literally 99% less emissions. This is completely unheard of and my dad is still in awe the kinds of power cars produce now. Not to mention, the air is much cleaner than it used to be.

Basically, you claim to try to be rational, but you parrot Republican talking points and obviously support Republicans. Yeah you might not be as vial as a lot of Republicans I know and I appreciate we can have a civilized and rational debate, but you tow the party line pretty heavily.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

@Strelok tax havens bring companies and jobs.
@PowerShell

You claim we arnt broke, but also claim that simply eliminating the inheritance tax would need an increase to 15 dollar a gallon fuel. I may be wrong and I don't have time to find a source so I'll admit I am pulling this out of my ass but I highly doubt the inheritance tax contributes much to our national income. So if it is to be seen a moral or not, which is where we disagree. It shouldn't be particularly missed if it was to be found by the majority to be immoral to tax families assets at the time of loss.

Social security would absolutely drive up healthcare costs and is exactly why healthcare costs so much today. When it's on the governments tab then private companies will charge as much as possible and even treat things that do not need to be treated.

People are inherently greedy, I agree. That's why we need competition rather then the gov paying for everything because when it's a single buyer then companies can charge as much as they'd like, just like drugs and healthcare currently is. 

(Which does also contribute to the price of higher education as well)



We agree on the root problem, America has a major social issues of victimization and predatory behavior both. Those who claim victim and those who eat others alive makes for a terrible situation, I think that's an issue that will take a long time to fix though and tech education grants is my best bet at helping the under a 15 dollar an hour crowd bring themselves and most importantly their children up on the standard of living.

We are very wealthy per capita, I actually make the same argument you are here.... Usually in terms of millitary spending. When people moan about China or Russia being so dangerous I always explain how unbelievably advanced we are in comparison.... Even if our planes are 25 years old. However.... We will be paying increasing amounts of interest on our debt soon. That can't happen. Because we are so wealthy, I think it would take about 3 terms of hardcore capitalism, to start fixing infrastructure the envionment and so forth. We can turn a Clinton style profit in no time and raise wages for everyone.

(I'm not a fan of bush or regan btw, both are neocons and very similar to Hillary in my eyes.) 

You mention how expensive it is to cut taxes on the wealthy.... You are forgetting that I would also like to abolish the irs and eliminate loop holes. The income we would get from eliminating loop holes would help lessen the cost of the tax cuts and ultimatly they would pay off when wages go up across the bored, as middle class income tax is where the government gets overwhelmingly most of its money, so if middle class wages go up then goverment spending can too. Middle class wages are way more important then a few small cuts on the wealthy and corporations in order to keep the jobs in America. 

Democrats and republicans are both bad about debt. Republicans are war mongers and democrats creat policy either to get votes from minorities and interest groups then support big banks one the same as republicans (Hillary Clinton) or they do have a good heart like Bernie but simply don't understand the consequences of their policy (like a 15 dollar an hour wage that would replace majority of unskilled labor with automated robots and increase the price level) 

Personal liberty is not particularly infringed, but I see it going that way in the future. A few more carters Obamas and Bernies and were in the shitter, at least without a conservative or at least more classic liberal like Bill Clinton inbetween. 

Rubios child tax credit is not something to benefit the wealthy. It helps the average person, it has to to be electable against modern democrats.

I don't want to abolish the EPA this has been adressed before. Saying it has too much power is different then saying it should be abolished. The EPA hiding in a massive document regulations that would prevent spec race series is too much power for any agency.

As for your closing comments, I cringe through most of the republican debates and find myself the only one not clapping at many of the rallies I attended here in South Carolina leading up to the primary.

When I take political tests I tend to get classical liberal or libertarian and on the isidewith test I get Gary Johnson. 

The two party system makes me support neo cons in order to defend against socalists, I'm not happy about it, but it is what it is.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

BIGJake111 said:


> You claim we arnt broke, but also claim that simply eliminating the inheritance tax would need an increase to 15 dollar a gallon fuel.


Maybe $15 a gallon was an exaggeration, but my point is, taxes are spread throughout different parts of the economy in a more even fashion. Instead of having certain taxes that are high in one spot and then not having taxes in other spots, it's more spread out so it makes it harder to just skirt the taxes or that certain groups of people won't pay their fair share.



> Social security would absolutely drive up healthcare costs and is exactly why healthcare costs so much today. When it's on the governments tab then private companies will charge as much as possible and even treat things that do not need to be treated.


I don't think you even know what you're talking about. How is social security driving up health care costs? Social security doesn't even directly pay for health care costs unless you count out of pocket expenses that seniors pay which could theoretically be paid with social security money. You saying this leads me to believe you have no clue how social security even works.



> People are inherently greedy, I agree. That's why we need competition rather then the gov paying for everything because when it's a single buyer then companies can charge as much as they'd like, just like drugs and healthcare currently is.


Yes, because the government with Medicare and Medicaid is a large buyer of drugs and such. As a large buyer, you typically get bulk discounts. Well it was Bush and the Republicans who outlawed the US government negotiating a bulk discount on drugs. With that, it allows drug companies to charge what they want and charge several times more than any other country: Uncle Sam barred from bargaining Medicare drug prices, Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin says, blaming rival Tommy Thompson | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Also, Canada's healthcare system is exactly the same as the US except for insurance. The hospitals and care providers are both private businesses. Where we have multiple private insurance companies and also Medicare and Medicaid, Canada has Medicare (it's literally called that) for everyone. Basically in the 60's where we had Medicare for senior citizens, Canada choose to have Medicare for everyone.

With that, they can treat people at 1/2 to 1/3 the cost per capita and everyone is covered: U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective - The Commonwealth Fund

Here is a Canadian health care story I heard when I Canada. Basically the horror story part was the guy didn't have his wallet to board the plane for the ride back after they rushed him out and medivaced him halfway across Canada to do a procedure. It cost him nothing. In the US, this would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and could bankrupt a lot of people who didn't have the best of insurance: Canadian Health Care Horror Story - The Impulsive Traveler Guy



> You mention how expensive it is to cut taxes on the wealthy.... You are forgetting that I would also like to abolish the irs and eliminate loop holes. The income we would get from eliminating loop holes would help lessen the cost of the tax cuts and ultimatly they would pay off when wages go up across the bored, as middle class income tax is where the government gets overwhelmingly most of its money, so if middle class wages go up then goverment spending can too. Middle class wages are way more important then a few small cuts on the wealthy and corporations in order to keep the jobs in America.


You Republicans and "abolish <insert agency>." Then who the heck collects taxes? With no IRS, there's no agency that collects taxes. With no IRS, there's no agency to enforce the tax laws. Who would collect the taxes and ensure people are paying their fair share under the laws?

Also you talk about tax havens, but do you understand what a "loophole" is? It's simply a deduction. You reinvest into new equipment, you deduct it from your taxes. As equipment depreciates, you write off the depreciation. Both of these things lead to a lower tax burden and lower effective tax rate. It's not a "loophole" it's basically deducting investments and spending, which is money put back into the economy and ultimately spurs economic activity and growth.



> Democrats and republicans are both bad about debt. Republicans are war mongers and democrats creat policy either to get votes from minorities and interest groups then support big banks one the same as republicans (Hillary Clinton) or they do have a good heart like Bernie but simply don't understand the consequences of their policy (like a 15 dollar an hour wage that would replace majority of unskilled labor with automated robots and increase the price level)


Yet war gets my buddies killed and gives me nothing. Universal health care and other social programs actually benefit me.



> Personal liberty is not particularly infringed, but I see it going that way in the future. A few more carters Obamas and Bernies and were in the shitter, at least without a conservative or at least more classic liberal like Bill Clinton inbetween.


Keep believing that rhetoric. Bernie is a New Deal Democrat. His stances are on par with FDR. FDR is hailed one of the greatest presidents of all time for how he helped the economy out of the depression as well as led as us to victory in WWII. That's why he was elected FOUR times. The only reason a president is allowed 2 terms is after FDR, they put in a constitutional amendment. Think about that. He was elected 4 times!



> Rubios child tax credit is not something to benefit the wealthy. It helps the average person, it has to to be electable against modern democrats.


Why are the Republicans so obsessed with taxes and tax credits? Tax credits are essentially social welfare payments and what you view as handouts. Oh wait, if you abolish the IRS, who is going pay out this tax credit?



> I don't want to abolish the EPA this has been adressed before. Saying it has too much power is different then saying it should be abolished. The EPA hiding in a massive document regulations that would prevent spec race series is too much power for any agency.


No you basically want them to be a do nothing agency that literally does nothing. What you've proposed in the past basically makes them useless and ineffective. They would literally be an agency that you're paying people to effectively do nothing.



> As for your closing comments, I cringe through most of the republican debates and find myself the only one not clapping at many of the rallies I attended here in South Carolina leading up to the primary.


You being in South Carolina explains a lot. That whole region is brainwashed into voting against their interests. The whole "yes sir I tell ya what" sort of mentality where you don't question anything is the reason you hold your stances. I originally grew up in Wisconsin. I now reside in Austin, Texas. Outside of Austin, the political environment turns pretty backwards with the same mentality. I have an uncle in Louisiana. He's the same way politically. The whole southern conservative way of thinking is a bunch of BS. They claim to be conservatives yet the region is the worst offenders in welfare abuse and pretty much everything else. It's insane how divorce is so common there yet they thump their supposed Christian values.

The older I get and the more I travel, the more the Republican party just seems like the biggest snake oil salesmen and shysters of them all. Voting for them gets me nothing and our country is going backwards as they become more and more extreme.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

You lost me entirely with your comments about the south.


The social conservatives like the one I heard at a rally litterally talking about how "the gays defiled the covenant of the rainbow" and we have to shoot down Russian planes types need to go away. But the economic basis of the party has and always will be stronger then the far left.

The issue in Republican Party isn't snake oil salesmen it's the snake charmers and racists. 

And I could have added FDR to the list with Carter and Obama just didn't feel like reaching that far back, I fully agree that Bernie is just like FDR and Carter and that's not a good thing. 

Anyways I've had enough politics for now, my states primary is over and I haven't worked up the energy to go tear down Bernie yard signs. So I'm gonna call it quits until you suggest an inheritance tax or something excessive like that again lol.

Cheers for being mostly respectful.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

BIGJake111 said:


> And I could have added FDR to the list with Carter and Obama just didn't feel like reaching that far back, I fully agree that Bernie is just like FDR and Carter and that's not a good thing.


I don't think that Carter and Obama are good comparisons to FDR. A great many of FDR's new deal policies brought about economic prosperity to the point that the Republican party maintained them and Eisenhower actually expanded them (and this had a markedly positive impact on the middle class and the economy). A stable middle class equates to a greater flow of capital throughout a capitalist market, which means that companies and corporations invest more into R&D rather than into the sort of speculative investment that drives economic depression. Despite what people would like to believe, Carter actually began dismantling some of the New Deal policies that helped maintain economic stability of the middle class, and Reagan contributed further to this.

There are other ways to prop up and stabilize the middle class (and again, this leads to growth of the entire economy) than through the New Deal policies, but they've rarely been discussed at the policy level outside of certain libertarian circles. And for what it's worth, regulation of corporations is not necessarily a bad thing; it just depends on the implementation of it, and to this point, implementation has constantly been faulty because those regulations are frequently an impediment for new companies breaking onto the scene. And for what it's worth, extremely large corporations are somewhat antithetical to a prosperous free market.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

BIGJake111 said:


> @_Strelok_ tax havens bring companies and jobs.


Tax havens are actually an impediment to a free market and economic development, because it makes it several times more difficult for newer businesses and companies to break into industries because they're put at a competitive disadvantage. This impedes economic growth; large corporations are, again, antithetical to a free market and the prosperity of the middle class.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

PowerShell said:


> You being in South Carolina explains a lot. That whole region is brainwashed into voting against their interests. The whole "yes sir I tell ya what" sort of mentality where you don't question anything is the reason you hold your stances. I originally grew up in Wisconsin. I now reside in Austin, Texas. Outside of Austin, the political environment turns pretty backwards with the same mentality. I have an uncle in Louisiana. He's the same way politically. The whole southern conservative way of thinking is a bunch of BS. They claim to be conservatives yet the region is the worst offenders in welfare abuse and pretty much everything else. It's insane how divorce is so common there yet they thump their supposed Christian values.


I just wanted to quote you because I concur with your statement. I'm from SC, and I moved back here from D.C. when I finish grad school; if the map that he linked is correct, I also went to the same school he currently attends (although it was many, many moons ago, and I had to swap undergraduate schools because I got to a point where I was incredibly unwell emotionally and physically very sick to the point of having difficulty taking care of myself). If he's taking economics at all, Clemson economics professors tend to be strongly in the Austrian economics camp, and they essentially follow Rothbardian beliefs to the letter. I'm also somewhat libertarian, but I view the majority of Friedman's work on the economy to be superior to Rothbard's work on the economy. I see far too many fellow libertarians hailing the gold standard without also acknowledging the pitfalls of such a system. 

The state of South Carolina is incredibly backwards, for all intents and purposes. A lot of people here (despite touting the U.S. Constitution), have very little concept of how our government functions. They vote based on whatever their pastor tells them to vote on, and those who don't follow this pattern typically vote whatever way their parents and grandparents voted. The fingers are always pointed at the "Liberals" (ie, Democrats) when anything goes wrong in the country, without anyone having the sense to research that it's often an issue of both parties or even the Republican party. Then again, the Democrats here love to blame everything on Republicans as well, it's just that there's nowhere near as many Democrats outside of one or two of the metro areas. The electorate here tends to be ignorant, and I find myself constantly having to explain economic issues to my mother and to my sister's in laws. 

And yes, while I'm the rare Christian ENTJ, I try to take an holistic approach to issues rather than voting the way the EOC tells my I'm supposed to vote. I generally vote in favor of candidates whose policies would reduce overall abortion rates instead of those that would outlaw the procedure outright (an outright ban is probably an ineffective policy). But yes, if I recall correctly, the poster you were responding to is a college freshman, and I don't particularly take the beliefs of undergraduates as viable except on rare occasions. College freshman especially are frequently full of piss and vinegar and idealism and a conviction of the infallibility and inviolability of their beliefs, but they have little in the way in the breadth or depth of knowledge that would actually lend itself to a more secure understanding of policy or the world in general. The breadth and depth that's learned as one matures (through courses and through outside reading), is what tends to make a better informed electorate.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> I just wanted to quote you because I concur with your statement. I'm from SC, and I moved back here from D.C. when I finish grad school; if the map that he linked is correct, I also went to the same school he currently attends (although it was many, many moons ago, and I had to swap undergraduate schools because I got to a point where I was incredibly unwell emotionally and physically very sick to the point of having difficulty taking care of myself). If he's taking economics at all, Clemson economics professors tend to be strongly in the Austrian economics camp, and they essentially follow Rothbardian beliefs to the letter. I'm also somewhat libertarian, but I view the majority of Friedman's work on the economy to be superior to Rothbard's work on the economy. I see far too many fellow libertarians hailing the gold standard without also acknowledging the pitfalls of such a system.


http://www.clemson.edu/capitalism/ebeling-democratic-socialism-means-loss-liberty.html

Maybe I drank the kool aid. But I choose my school because of their political leaning. (Not yet attending, enrolled for next fall.)


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> The state of South Carolina is incredibly backwards, for all intents and purposes. A lot of people here (despite touting the U.S. Constitution), have very little concept of how our government functions. They vote based on whatever their pastor tells them to vote on, and those who don't follow this pattern typically vote whatever way their parents and grandparents voted. The fingers are always pointed at the "Liberals" (ie, Democrats) when anything goes wrong in the country, without anyone having the sense to research that it's often an issue of both parties or even the Republican party. Then again, the Democrats here love to blame everything on Republicans as well, it's just that there's nowhere near as many Democrats outside of one or two of the metro areas. The electorate here tends to be ignorant, and I find myself constantly having to explain economic issues to my mother and to my sister's in laws.


The problem is the US is becoming a huge echo chamber and people just hear what they want to hear. That's why Fox News and other news stations have their insane biases and people eat it up.



BIGJake111 said:


> CISC | "Democratic Socialism" Means The Loss Of Liberty
> 
> Maybe I drank the kool aid. But I choose my school because of their political leaning. (Not yet attending, enrolled for next fall.)


And this reiterates my comment on the echo chamber. Literally going to college to hear what you want to hear versus being exposed to a wide range of ideas is definitely not a smart decision.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

BIGJake111 said:


> CISC | "Democratic Socialism" Means The Loss Of Liberty
> 
> Maybe I drank the kool aid. But I choose my school because of their political leaning. (Not yet attending, enrolled for next fall.)


Not based on the courses they offer or the quality of their education???

Priorities, I guess.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

BIGJake111 said:


> CISC | "Democratic Socialism" Means The Loss Of Liberty
> 
> Maybe I drank the kool aid. But I choose my school because of their political leaning. (Not yet attending, enrolled for next fall.)


Why are you assuming that I'm all about democratic socialism because I'm pointing out reality to you? I talk about Friedman and you reply with a link about Democratic Socialism ...? For what it's worth, the entire article is full of revisionist history. Did you just find the link based on your own biases? Ultimately, there were some positives and negatives of New Deal policies, but an actual great many of them DID prop up the middle class. You can recognize that fact without necessarily agreeing that it's the BEST implementation of policy to foster a robust middle class.

Like I said, I'm a libertarian, and I tend towards agreeing with Friedman rather than with Rothbard. My best friend from college was an economics major at Clemson, and I was the one who had to introduce her to Friedman's work because most of her coursework was based totally in the Austrian school of economics. I don't know if that's still how it is at Clemson, though, but it appears that it tends to be that way based on the research of current professors. For what it's worth, there are quite a few overlaps between both the Austrian & Chicago school of economics, but I think that the Chicago school tends to be more based in reality and pragmatism. I'm not as radical as Friedman is in terms of what he wants to get rid of, deregulate, etcetera, but I can see the merits of his arguments.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

Stultum said:


> Not based on the courses they offer or the quality of their education???
> 
> Priorities, I guess.


It's the best instate university by miles. Also never ever go to a university that you would be unhappy in. I have a liberal instate school that's offering me tons and tons of money but I would simply be outcast, judged, and unhappy. That's not worth my money. Even if it's a fair amount less.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Why are you assuming that I'm all about democratic socialism because I'm pointing out reality to you? I talk about Friedman and you reply with a link about Democratic Socialism ...? For what it's worth, the entire article is full of revisionist history. Did you just find the link based on your own biases? Ultimately, there were some positives and negatives of New Deal policies, but an actual great many of them DID prop up the middle class. You can recognize that fact without necessarily agreeing that it's the BEST implementation of policy to foster a robust middle class.
> 
> Like I said, I'm a libertarian, and I tend towards agreeing with Friedman rather than with Rothbard. My best friend from college was an economics major at Clemson, and I was the one who had to introduce her to Friedman's work because most of her coursework was based totally in the Austrian school of economics. I don't know if that's still how it is at Clemson, though, but it appears that it tends to be that way based on the research of current professors. For what it's worth, there are quite a few overlaps between both the Austrian & Chicago school of economics, but I think that the Chicago school tends to be more based in reality and pragmatism. I'm not as radical as Friedman is in terms of what he wants to get rid of, deregulate, etcetera, but I can see the merits of his arguments.


I never suggested anything about you, I was providing a link from the school for powershell more so then for you.


----------



## MsBossyPants (Oct 5, 2011)

Moderate left, though more to the left in social issues.


----------



## ThisIsNotBrittany (Feb 4, 2016)

Some people are left for the people, right for the country. Or right for the people, left for the country. Maybe these should be options.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

ThisIsNotBrittany said:


> Some people are left for the people, right for the country. Or right for the people, left for the country. Maybe these should be options.


But what do each of those 2 combinations mean?


----------



## Elistra (Apr 6, 2013)

Stultum said:


> Moderate left. Thing is, any American would probably see me as far left. Always hard to answer, this kind of polls.


Similar problem here. 

<== Moderate right by American standards, far right by European ones. In my case, I went with moderate right, because *'MERICA, FUCK YEAH. 
*










Thank you, that is all. *:tongue:*


----------



## ColoradoGrrrl (Jan 8, 2016)

Why is Libertarian not an option? I'm left leaning in terms of personal freedom (even if my own personal morals are conservative - I don't care if you want to be married to your boyfriend AND your bisexual girlfriend).... and a right leaning free-market capitalist.

My motto is limited government interference - government should exist only to protect and defend the rights of the individual citizen. Where government limits the rights/liberties of some people over others, regardless of the kindness of motive, they are no longer functioning in a capacity the ought.


----------



## LuciferSam (Jan 4, 2015)

I can't say either, I also don't think people are bad. Just stupid or ignorant. 

For instance, we have a banking system in an economy that must grow or obliterate human life as we know it because momentum toward a collapse can bring the economic system to zero. I think we act like farm animals pretending that it's not a real risk. In the context of history, it's untested at this level. Here's to the experiment.

I also think most people have no clue what's going on, and they vote based on limited or flat our incorrect information. Anyone with 1/2 a brain or 10 minutes of middle eastern research could have told you invading Iraq was a ridiculously stupid move. I think we support Israel for no good reason and people have no idea why - it's become dogmatic logic which sucks or an emotional response calling someone an anti-semite for questioning a sovereign country.

I think we should have health care, and a certain amount of welfare for the severely sick and handicapped but nothing beyond. I believe in a limited government with added benefits like health care once we pass an evolutionary point which allows for it. 

I don't think anyone should get money for college by loan from the government. 

I dunno, I'm far right and far left, depending on the issue. I'll never be represented so it's more fun to just watch everyone else.


----------



## Kytaari (Mar 14, 2011)

Center right. Renaissance libertarianism. 1960s American Republican pre Regan era, Barry Goldwater.

Almost everyone else who goes to perc is a liberal yuppy.


----------



## xatwr36x (Apr 26, 2013)

Pretty far left by American standards (my views are probably closest to "Democratic Socialist") - would probably be considered center-left in most of Europe.

I tend to think of it in terms of "situational pragmatism" too. For instance, people might ask, "Are you a socialist or a capitalist?". I don't really like to view those two things as ideologies to be followed, but rather as tools that we have, to use at our disposal. Socialism has its time and place where it's the best tool. Capitalism has its time and place. I probably lean towards more "socialist" solutions, but I wouldn't advocate for blanket socialism any more than I would advocate for always using a screwdriver (even if I thought it was the best tool).


----------



## WakeTheUndead (Apr 5, 2016)

Classic Conservative Republican


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

moderate left by european standards, communist-like-bernie-sanders by American standards


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

ziggy stardust x said:


> moderate left by european standards, communist-like-bernie-sanders by American standards


The world would be a better place if "American standards" didn't exist


----------



## Wolf (Mar 20, 2016)

Between moderate and far left!


----------



## SouDesuNyan (Sep 8, 2015)

I'm slightly left in social policies and slightly right in economic policies. So, probably middle of the road in American standards and slightly right in European standards.


----------



## SilasGTBronte (Jul 15, 2014)

I tend to lean more favourably to classical liberalism and libertarianism. My political beliefs do not fit well into the left-right wing dichotomy.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

SilasGTBronte said:


> libertarianism


But is it the left libertarianism (the original use of the word; associated with socialism and all that), or the new-fangled 'Merican version with Ayn Rand and all that?


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

I'm too ignorant on politics to have an valuable opinion. But damn, I would love to see how the far left reacts if Trump wins. So I guess the biggest show is the one I'll go for for the time being.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

Marshy14 said:


> I'm too ignorant on politics to have an valuable opinion. But damn, I would love to see how the far left reacts if Trump wins. So I guess the biggest show is the one I'll go for for the time being.


A lot of trumps policy has the right to piss of the far right (fiscally) more so then it ever would the left. Barry Goldwater style conservatives despise trump in every way myself included. Trumps not far from Bernie on most policy.


----------



## SilasGTBronte (Jul 15, 2014)

Strelok said:


> But is it the left libertarianism (the original use of the word; associated with socialism and all that), or the new-fangled 'Merican version with Ayn Rand and all that?


I thought I had made myself clear when I said my beliefs do not fit into the left-right wing dichotomy. I guess classical liberalism would be a more fitting label for me.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

SouDesuNyan said:


> I'm slightly left in social policies and slightly right in economic policies. So, probably middle of the road in American standards and slightly right in European standards.


I am pretty much the same.. Where I live in the US that comes off slightly right too. Depending on who you're around, sometimes it comes off more than slightly lol.


----------



## maybird (Jan 22, 2016)

Stultum said:


> Moderate left. Thing is, any American would probably see me as far left. Always hard to answer, this kind of polls.


Same here. In Canada I'm considered moderate or slightly left leaning, but since immigrating to America I've often been labeled as a utilitarian socialist. 

I'm interested in if introversion v. extroversion or cognitive functions draw any political leaning correlations.


----------



## maybird (Jan 22, 2016)




----------



## Maquiladora (Jun 8, 2016)

I'm too young to register, but I'd call myself a moderate Democrat. 

*Social:*
1) Anti-censorship
2) Pro-choice. I don't agree with it personally, but it's not my call. 
3) Pro-LGBT. Also, declining services to same-sex couples is discrimination. It's no different than excluding blacks from a restaurant.
4) Pro-background checks with guns. But I don't believe in suing gun manufacturers.
5) Pro-_medical_ marijuana. I'm against recreational marijuana. 
6) Pro-death penalty, but only in the case where the person is 100% proven guilty and for the most severe crimes. 
7) Pro-renewable energy. Climate change is a legitimate issue. 

*Economics:*
1) Pro-government mandated healthcare. 
2) Pro-graduated income tax.
3) Pro-saving money when possible. 
4) Pro-welfare, although those who are able-bodied and capable should be required to work. 
5) I'm not as well-versed in economics as social issues, but I guess I support a combination of capitalism and socialism. Neither on its own 100% is going to work. Capitalism has its flaws, but I don't think we should abolish it completely. On the other hand, there are socialistic policies that have helped the US (ie: The New Deal). 

_(This election is a meeessssss. I agree with maybird all the way.)_


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

ENTP - Independent


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

Maquiladora said:


> 4) Pro-welfare, although those who are able-bodied and capable should be required to work.


What about people who are depressed or otherwise mentally ill?


----------



## Winterleaf (Jun 13, 2016)

Definitely independent.
I can understand the partisan and stuff, it's a lot easier to say I am right or I am left than actually exam every single issue and fact. But as a thinker, I can never say, will I agree with universal healthcare therefore I agree with abortion, gay marriage, immigrant, high tax and other stuff. 

I am not saying I don't support gay marriage, I am just saying that has nothing to do with universal health care. I think politic should be fact based, not partisan. 

But honestly I do not think I have enough knowledge to decide whether something is beneficial to the country or not, I believe there should be some sort of qualification to voting. For example, anyone who believe anything trump said should not be allowed to vote.


----------



## Maquiladora (Jun 8, 2016)

Strelok said:


> What about people who are depressed or otherwise mentally ill?


I should have been more specific. If it's hindering their daily life, then I think that should count for exemption. Mental health reform is crucial as well. I'm not a Republican, but I really liked Kasich's emphasis on mental illness.


----------



## Hunter512 (Aug 29, 2014)

I'm definitely far right, in the economic spectrum. I'm very much so a free market capitalist. I'm also very much so a libertarian and sort of wished that libertarianism was included in the poll.


----------



## elizabethgrace (Jun 22, 2016)

Center, tiny bit right. Then again, in this American presidential election, I would be voting left.


----------



## Artificial_Lifeform (Jul 22, 2015)

I am libertarian for the simple reason that I do not know what is best for other people.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

tanstaafl28 said:


> ENTP - Independent


Haha yeah judging by your Facebook posts, it would be hard to pin you down to a specific ideology.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

PowerShell said:


> Haha yeah judging by your Facebook posts, it would be hard to pin you down to a specific ideology.


I like to keep my options open. It's easier to find the: "Win-Win."


----------



## Luizy (Jul 20, 2015)

Years of talking about how left-right axis is inadequate to describe someone's political believes since at least 20th century when great ammount of ideologies and political doctrines were born, and still people use it.

Even using two axis (economical and social) it's not enough, and here we talk about division crystallized in late XVIII century France: right - those who support ancien regime (mostly aristocrats and clergy) and left - those who oppose it (classical liberals, proto-socialists, democrats, republicans). How it can be used today? I'm listening.

To illustrate how futile is this division and how meanigless are terms "left-wing", "right-wing" you can read Murrray N. Rothbard who in his late years said that without changing his political believes at all for last decades, he has "evolved" from being called "far rightist" to "far leftist".


----------



## Gorion (Sep 20, 2016)

It doesn't really matter. Your political beliefs are usually just a byproduct of your social standing. If you're rich, you're a right winger and if you're poor, you're a leftist. This is usually the rule. Only the objective truth matters and political beliefs are usually subjective.

We need to create a political philosophy that can be accepted by all. I find that most ideologies fail to do this.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

Gorion said:


> If you're rich, you're a right winger and if you're poor, you're a leftist.


The wealthy elite-owned media has done a good job convincing even poor people to think like right-wingers over the past few decades. "Fuck you, got mine" even if they have nothing.


----------



## Nuberschutze (Apr 11, 2015)

-- del --


----------



## Gorion (Sep 20, 2016)

That is true. But if they were properly informed, they would be leftists. Those kinds of policies benefit them the most.


----------



## Gorion (Sep 20, 2016)

Strelok said:


> The wealthy elite-owned media has done a good job convincing even poor people to think like right-wingers over the past few decades. "Fuck you, got mine" even if they have nothing.


That is true. But if they were properly informed, they would be leftists. Those kinds of policies benefit them the most.

Sorry about the double post.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Strelok said:


> The wealthy elite-owned media has done a good job convincing even poor people to think like right-wingers over the past few decades. "Fuck you, got mine" even if they have nothing.


Or the fact that these people think they're going to hit it rich any day and benefit immensely from these policies. Also, they think a $5 tax cut is better than actually keeping infrastructure and other stuff up to date. Living in Texas, the growth rate is crazy, but they keep cutting taxes. Then they have budget shortfalls and cannot invest in infrastructure. The congestion is getting so bad here, but hey, the average person saved $5 on their taxes. You know time isn't money and $5 is worth sitting countless extra hours in traffic.


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> Or the fact that these people think they're going to hit it rich any day and benefit immensely from these policies. Also, they think a $5 tax cut is better than actually keeping infrastructure and other stuff up to date. Living in Texas, the growth rate is crazy, but they keep cutting taxes. Then they have budget shortfalls and cannot invest in infrastructure. The congestion is getting so bad here, but hey, the average person saved $5 on their taxes. You know time isn't money and $5 is worth sitting countless extra hours in traffic.


You're welcome to make a donation.


----------



## There4GoEye (Feb 13, 2015)

I always considered myself to be a centrist. However the mainstream left today is indistinguishable from the radical left of 20 years ago. So in response to the radicalization of the left, all centrists are moved to the right.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

fascist commie liberal


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

As much as I want to be a far-right authoritarian (they have the best memes), I still believe the ideal course of action is to have the government just leave us alone.

Sometimes, though, swamps gotta be drained.


----------



## Elistra (Apr 6, 2013)

Pro-worker and socially conservative, with a strong patriotic streak.

I picked moderate right.


----------



## deviants (Dec 16, 2016)

DudeGuy said:


> fascist commie liberal


this but switch fascist with antifa/anarchist for me.


edit: Far left, I don't really like calling myself liberal because I think a lot of liberals are annoying bleeding heart types. I simply call myself a leftist or social anarchist.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

deviants said:


> this but switch fascist with antifa/anarchist for me.


it's just that you can't really be fascist and commie.


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

DudeGuy said:


> it's just that you can't really be fascist and commie.


Communism doesn't happen overnight...


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Tamehagane said:


> Communism doesn't happen overnight...


make like a tree


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

DudeGuy said:


> make like a tree


I am rubber, you are glue


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Tamehagane said:


> I am rubber, you are glue






No, no, no, we're not having a conversation here.


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

DudeGuy said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nashvols (Jan 15, 2017)

I'd say solidly independent at this point.

Socially moderate-liberal. Fiscally moderate-conservative.

I see the need for government...for rules and regulations. But there are way too damn many of them. I feel like the government becomes intrusive because it wants to justify its own existence.

I'm big on infrastructure, and the military should be strong (but not bloated). Aside from that, and making sure the states play nice with each other, I feel like the government (USA) should be lean. Let the states (and local governments) decide what is best for their citizens when it comes to social programs.


----------



## martinkunev (Mar 23, 2017)

Most tests say I'm left libertarian. I was also once classified as anarcho-communist 

I strongly support personal freedom, including freedom of speech.
I think economy should be regulated when this doesn't conflict with personal freedom. For example I think planned economy can give good results if decisions are made by competent individuals, but people should be free to have private business. I strongly oppose patents and copyright. I believe natural resources to be common to society (and thus oppose land ownership). Infrastructure should be public property.
I think people should take responsibility for themselves and thus oppose obligatory taxing for social programs that benefit only selected individuals. To clarify, I support public education (because it brings benefits for the whole society), but not unemployment benefits. In an ideal economy, I would support basic income.
I support a technology-assisted form of direct democracy where decisions are made by competent people - e.g. if you don't have understanding of economy, you have no say on economic policy.
Military spending is a vicious circle creating enormous amounts of waste.


----------



## anonymous99x (Mar 26, 2017)

intj, moderate right


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

infp, far left


----------



## warxzawa (Aug 19, 2016)

just did a basic nolan chart quiz, the answer was expected


----------



## Epictetus (Apr 26, 2012)

Philosophically: Voluntaryist/Individualist Anarchist

Pragmatically: Libertarian/Civic Nationalist Minarchist


----------



## felina (Mar 28, 2017)

ENTP. I lean right.


----------



## fatentomms (Feb 14, 2017)

My current college has bunch of "intellectual" leftist which are completely irrational and obnoxious about their views. They act like all men are pigs and about patriarchy and other stuff. Well it's in our nature that genders are different, and it's also in our nature that females and males don't have the same type of intelligence. Yes there can be anomalies and different people but in general it's like this. 
Woman are born to survive, they are far superior than men socially and in sexual selection and men are far superior to women when we consider rational thinking and science. You see lots of insecure and robot-like man out there and never ask yourself why they are like that? Because they are useless socially, they can't get happy and be successfull at the actual life related stuff. But in general woman always are able to survive in every condition in life. They shag with the alpha guy and marry the engineer am i right? And most men become failures in life, but never a woman. Women can find something or someone to stay alive and be happy with.

What does men do, they try to improve every science and field in life. Because testosterone, different hormones and genes, because they have more will to do it just to achieve. Men are not the same with women when we compare the level of ambition. Therefore most of the competitive fields have more men and they are more successfull.
AGAIN these doesn't mean that woman can't also be successful, but we are just stuck with our biology for the rest of our lives and it both has advantages and disadvantages. All of these are what a leftist can't see and become ignorant about.
Every race has different IQ, different athleticism and different specs. 

That's why being free is important rather than protecting some rights, that's why individuals matter not the general population. That is why i am libertarian/independent. 
And what saddens me the most is that people from any political state will never ever try to take the red pill and understand the world like what it is. They just blabber around.

EDIT: Moderation told me to be Politically Correct. Apparently i am a misogynist and racist
Disregard what all i have said,
All men and women are equal yay.


----------

