Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Conservatives, what's your most liberal opinion? Liberals, what's your most conservative opinion?

@Noflaps said ^

I'd call Mr. Musk's well-deserved wealth a "feature" of regulated capitalism, not a flaw.

The problem is if you like democracy.

It is unlikely to survive when there's a few individuals that are so massively wealthy and powerfull. Democracies become oligarchies when a few people are powerful enough to run things.

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/W38zX10B) > I'd call Mr. Musk's well-deserved wealth a "feature" of regulated capitalism, not a flaw. > The problem is if you like democracy. It is unlikely to survive when there's a few individuals that are so massively wealthy and powerfull. Democracies become oligarchies when a few people are powerful enough to run things.

@MandoMan13 said ^

@garlic_bread_rucola

I agree that there is probably a limit on how small the goverment can be, but as of now, we are paying for way too many government programs that don't actually effect us personally. I personally view that as theft.

There is a lot of stuff that are just mandatory. But then there will always stuff that are like grey zone and it's a never ending debate as to how much stuff you par for.

It also keeps changing. Like when new things get invented countries need to pay to regulate it. Say for aueroplanes, the govt. wants to prevet planes from crashing each into and crashing down in the middle of cities and so on, so you spend money on like standards for pilot education and standards for plane maintenance and so on. Whatever you need to spend on to keep the planes from crashing too much.

And if people stop using planes because of a new invention, you can scrap all that.

With every major invention government gets changes what they need to do and don't need to do.

@MandoMan13 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/NiAF0KP3) > @garlic_bread_rucola > > I agree that there is probably a limit on how small the goverment can be, but as of now, we are paying for way too many government programs that don't actually effect us personally. I personally view that as theft. There is a lot of stuff that are just mandatory. But then there will always stuff that are like grey zone and it's a never ending debate as to how much stuff you par for. It also keeps changing. Like when new things get invented countries need to pay to regulate it. Say for aueroplanes, the govt. wants to prevet planes from crashing each into and crashing down in the middle of cities and so on, so you spend money on like standards for pilot education and standards for plane maintenance and so on. Whatever you need to spend on to keep the planes from crashing too much. And if people stop using planes because of a new invention, you can scrap all that. With every major invention government gets changes what they need to do and don't need to do.

@Noflaps said ^

How much wealth is "deserved" ?

If wealth is obtained lawfully, by someone who pays his or her taxes, and by building up, employing others, creating things that help and please others, how is it not "deserved" ?

The total tax on marginal ordinary income is ALREADY a very substantial percentage. But it's not enough? Because somebody "feels" that "undeserved" affluence might still result?

You’ve completely failed to address my argument about Katrina. The wealth is not deserved because he hasn’t given as much to the world as his wealth would suggest.

Which is likely to produce more overall gain in life: striving to achieve or striving to limit achievement and label it undeserved?

Best thing to do is to label achievement accurately to what it is

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/g6X66uN8) > How much wealth is "deserved" ? > > If wealth is obtained lawfully, by someone who pays his or her taxes, and by building up, employing others, creating things that help and please others, how is it not "deserved" ? > > The total tax on marginal ordinary income is ALREADY a very substantial percentage. But it's not enough? Because somebody "feels" that "undeserved" affluence might still result? > You’ve completely failed to address my argument about Katrina. The wealth is not deserved because he hasn’t given as much to the world as his wealth would suggest. > Which is likely to produce more overall gain in life: striving to achieve or striving to limit achievement and label it undeserved? > Best thing to do is to label achievement accurately to what it is

"The problem is if you like democracy."

I like representative democracy just fine!

Oddly, some of the politicians who are concerned with taxing the already-taxed affluence of others are sometimes the very same politicians who would like to gerrymander their own states to produce fewer representatives for the opposing party than the numbers of those in the opposing party would actually justify, on a percentage basis.

They're even sometimes the very same politicians who would like to pack the supreme court, or throw out the already existing justices, when the court rules in a way they don't like.

Even more weirdly, they've sometimes even the very same politicians who don't turn down the assistance of billionaires!

How does INCREASING the size and power of government foster more "democracy." We're the citizens of the USSR more "free" to make their own choices than the citizens of the U.S. ?

Are those who tend to favor "nanny state" control likely to be more on the Right ... or more on the Left?

I think we should err on the side of the Center, and meddle as little as we can in the lives of others. I'm not wild about the Far Right OR the Far Left. But then again, I'm not young enough to worry too much about fashion.

And, by the way, @benseshi , I certainly HAVE addressed what you said. But simply repeating your OPINION that Musk "hasn’t given as much to the world as his wealth would suggest" is simply that -- a statement of your own opinion.

You're welcome to your own opinions, of course, but I will stubbornly never mistake them for mathematical proof. And when you write "[b]est thing to do is to label achievement accurately to what it is" I quite agree -- and for that purpose I'll resort to a dictionary, not to my own opinions.

Some television stars and writers and sports stars and other "celebrities" -- even some politicians! -- have become vastly wealthy! Some have even become billionaires!

I suppose I could argue that they haven't really "achieved" enough for mankind to justify their vast wealth -- but I prefer to let other people spend their money, lawfully, as they choose. And if that leads to great wealth for some who might not have actually created companies that employ thousands or tens of thousands of other people, like Musk has, I won't second guess the people who like them and contribute to their wealth.

Indeed, that simply seems to be a manifestation of the personal freedom of others. Which certainly doesn't seem adverse to "democracy."

And, before I go, let me ask this: how many pension funds or retirement accounts -- that will eventually help teachers, workers and others -- hold the stock of Tesla or other companies created by "billionaires." How many will have MUCH BETTER retirements because of the MASSIVE investment in the stocks in those companies?

Have you figured that huge societal gain into your personal calculus of deserved affluence? Vast companies don't spring up unbidden -- they're created, often at great personal risk and as a result of great personal effort and creativity -- by the very people that some later wish to describe as having undeserved wealth.

"The problem is if you like democracy." I like representative democracy just fine! Oddly, some of the politicians who are concerned with taxing the already-taxed affluence of others are sometimes the very same politicians who would like to gerrymander their own states to produce fewer representatives for the opposing party than the numbers of those in the opposing party would actually justify, on a percentage basis. They're even sometimes the very same politicians who would like to pack the supreme court, or throw out the already existing justices, when the court rules in a way they don't like. Even more weirdly, they've sometimes even the very same politicians who don't turn down the assistance of billionaires! How does INCREASING the size and power of government foster more "democracy." We're the citizens of the USSR more "free" to make their own choices than the citizens of the U.S. ? Are those who tend to favor "nanny state" control likely to be more on the Right ... or more on the Left? I think we should err on the side of the Center, and meddle as little as we can in the lives of others. I'm not wild about the Far Right OR the Far Left. But then again, I'm not young enough to worry too much about fashion. And, by the way, @benseshi , I certainly HAVE addressed what you said. But simply repeating your OPINION that Musk "hasn’t given as much to the world as his wealth would suggest" is simply that -- a statement of your own opinion. You're welcome to your own opinions, of course, but I will stubbornly never mistake them for mathematical proof. And when you write "[b]est thing to do is to label achievement accurately to what it is" I quite agree -- and for that purpose I'll resort to a dictionary, not to my own opinions. Some television stars and writers and sports stars and other "celebrities" -- even some politicians! -- have become vastly wealthy! Some have even become billionaires! I suppose I could argue that they haven't really "achieved" enough for mankind to justify their vast wealth -- but I prefer to let other people spend their money, lawfully, as they choose. And if that leads to great wealth for some who might not have actually created companies that employ thousands or tens of thousands of other people, like Musk has, I won't second guess the people who like them and contribute to their wealth. Indeed, that simply seems to be a manifestation of the personal freedom of others. Which certainly doesn't seem adverse to "democracy." And, before I go, let me ask this: how many pension funds or retirement accounts -- that will eventually help teachers, workers and others -- hold the stock of Tesla or other companies created by "billionaires." How many will have MUCH BETTER retirements because of the MASSIVE investment in the stocks in those companies? Have you figured that huge societal gain into your personal calculus of deserved affluence? Vast companies don't spring up unbidden -- they're created, often at great personal risk and as a result of great personal effort and creativity -- by the very people that some later wish to describe as having undeserved wealth.

Reprsentative democracy will die and turn into oligcarchy if you allow individuals to become too rich and powerful.

If a guy (or a group of people) ends up having more power than the government then government and democraxy and the voting just becomes irrelevant.

Reprsentative democracy will die and turn into oligcarchy if you allow individuals to become too rich and powerful. If a guy (or a group of people) ends up having more power than the government then government and democraxy and the voting just becomes irrelevant.

Voting is not made irrelevant by the success of others.

Indeed, the future of, say, California will soon be greatly influenced by what votes are cast for whom.

That's true REGARDLESS of Musk's wealth.

Some don't seem to realize it, but "billionaires" don't all share the exact same political opinions. But even if they did -- if they can influence government, do you want that government to become MORE vast and powerful or less so?

Clear thinking about such points is something to which we should all aspire. How is clear thinking hindered? Well, money can be spent on advertising and internet propaganda -- which might either promote or detract from clarity.

But there are some things advertising can't change. Like: when a fire hydrant is turned on, does water come out? It's a yes or no determination. Neither advertising nor propaganda can make water out of thin air.

Voting is not made irrelevant by the success of others. Indeed, the future of, say, California will soon be greatly influenced by what votes are cast for whom. That's true REGARDLESS of Musk's wealth. Some don't seem to realize it, but "billionaires" don't all share the exact same political opinions. But even if they did -- if they can influence government, do you want that government to become MORE vast and powerful or less so? Clear thinking about such points is something to which we should all aspire. How is clear thinking hindered? Well, money can be spent on advertising and internet propaganda -- which might either promote or detract from clarity. But there are some things advertising can't change. Like: when a fire hydrant is turned on, does water come out? It's a yes or no determination. Neither advertising nor propaganda can make water out of thin air.

@Noflaps said ^

Voting is not made irrelevant by the success of others.

No, success does not make voting irrelevant? Who said that?

It makes voting irrelevant if the people you can vote for have no power, because the power is elsewhere. And if a few private people have all the power, then this is what happens. You can vote "till your blue in the face" and it will change nothing so its irrelevant.

Some don't seem to realize it, but "billionaires" don't all share the exact same political opinions. But even if they did -- if they can influence government, do you want that government to become MORE vast and powerful or less so?

Oligarchy doesn't mean the oligarchs share views. It means the oligarchs hold the power. It doesn't matter if they share views really.

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/FjAoAwnT) > Voting is not made irrelevant by the success of others. No, success does not make voting irrelevant? Who said that? It makes voting irrelevant if the people you can vote for have no power, because the power is elsewhere. And if a few private people have all the power, then this is what happens. You can vote "till your blue in the face" and it will change nothing so its irrelevant. > > Some don't seem to realize it, but "billionaires" don't all share the exact same political opinions. But even if they did -- if they can influence government, do you want that government to become MORE vast and powerful or less so? Oligarchy doesn't mean the oligarchs share views. It means the oligarchs hold the power. It doesn't matter if they share views really.

This thread's very concept is flawed. Politics is not binary (liberal or conservative). Not in the US. And especially not outside the US. Be that as it may I'll humour it for a moment:

CONSERVATIVE:
My "most conservative" opinion is probably that abortion is not something that should be taken lightly. I believe most people who would self-identify as conservatives would agree with this sentiment.

Depending on the circumstances it can be a very difficult ethical question to answer and it is good that laws exist to restrict abortion to the early months of a pregnancy. However that which is legal is not necessarily perfectly ethical. It is therefore normal and valid to struggle with the question of whether or not one ought to end one's pregnancy in a controlled manner by having an abortion. It's okay to deeply ponder such things.

Questions like: "Is it ethical to exclude the possibility of life that will be (fully) conscious in future?" are important. Or "How will that decision impact me, those around me and the world at large?" or "Will the decision create or prevent future suffering and mental anguish? What risks for my health and my chance of survival are associated with the pregnancy? How does it affect my mental health and wellbeing (now)? Will I be able to provide for my child and if not what other options are there?"
Also: "Is the value of a life determined by physical or mental ability? What is my society's answer to that question and what kind of society would I like to see in the world? One in which disabled people are excluded, looked down upon as a burden, ignored and disadvantaged? Even prevented from existing in the first place? Or one in which they are included, treated as equals and allowed to participate freely and independently? How can I and how could my possible child help to shape a more equitable society?"
These and many more questions are valid and important (and I don't pretend to know the answers). Many people do consider them deeply before they come to a decision.

LIBERTARIAN:
My "most libertarian" opinion is probably that the government should not decide about women's bodies in general and pregnancy (or abortion) in particular. The government should not be the arbiter of life or death. For the same reason the death penalty is abhorrent and ought to be abolished.
It should be the right of those who are pregnant to decide for or against an abortion. It is their right to health and bodily autonomy as conscious (and conscientious) human beings that has to be upheld. Attempts to outright outlaw abortions only lead to unsafe DIY abortions at home that unnecessarily risk the lives of would-be mothers AND of unborn life in all its various forms. Such policies demonstrably lead to the preventable death of fully conscious human beings. Enforcing such laws also inevitably leads to the imprisonment of innocent people who simply had a perfectly natural miscarriage. It's very common and something that is traumatic enough in its own right even without being falsely accused of murder or manslaughter, let alone being forced into a false admission by manipulative interrogation methods.
Any state implementing and actively enforcing such abortion bans in the 21st century (using surveillance technologies) is a dystopian Orwellian police state of nightmarish proportions.

Pretty sure most libertarians, you know, the people concerned with personal liberty, would agree, right? Right?! At least the ones who don't use the term simply to describe their belief that corporations should be able to do as they bloody well please with no regulation whatsoever.

LIBERAL:
My "most liberal" opinion is probably that anti-abortion activists should not be allowed to shout down pregnant people on their way to the abortion clinic. Or lie to them. Or pretend to be an abortion clinic by deliberatively picking a similar name and location for their impostor "club" aimed at actively deceiving (young) people to stall them until it's too late for an abortion. These activists should not be allowed to lure people seeking an abortion into fake "hospitals" or "free ultrasound" vans to mislead them, pressure them or coerce them to carry the pregnancy to term. They should not be allowed to perniciously harass, intimidate, brigade, dox or even kill medical personell performing potentially life-saving medical care in the form of abortions. Abortion clinics should be protected if necessary.
Such anti-abortion tactics are not a legitimate form of protest in a democratic society. They are intimidation attempts, deliberate deception and fraud. Go march in the streets instead, protest, petition your government, hold public debates with community participation. Speak honestly about your convictions and do not try to trick people into having a baby (they may not be able to support / a baby from their rapist / a baby that might kill them during childbirth or before that).

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

This thread's very concept is flawed. Politics is not binary (liberal or conservative). Not in the US. And especially not outside the US. Be that as it may I'll humour it for a moment: CONSERVATIVE: My "most conservative" opinion is probably that abortion is not something that should be taken lightly. I believe most people who would self-identify as conservatives would agree with this sentiment. Depending on the circumstances it can be a very difficult ethical question to answer and it is good that laws exist to restrict abortion to the early months of a pregnancy. However that which is legal is not necessarily perfectly ethical. It is therefore normal and valid to struggle with the question of whether or not one ought to end one's pregnancy in a controlled manner by having an abortion. It's okay to deeply ponder such things. Questions like: "Is it ethical to exclude the possibility of life that will be (fully) conscious in future?" are important. Or "How will that decision impact me, those around me and the world at large?" or "Will the decision create or prevent future suffering and mental anguish? What risks for my health and my chance of survival are associated with the pregnancy? How does it affect my mental health and wellbeing (now)? Will I be able to provide for my child and if not what other options are there?" Also: "Is the value of a life determined by physical or mental ability? What is my society's answer to that question and what kind of society would I like to see in the world? One in which disabled people are excluded, looked down upon as a burden, ignored and disadvantaged? Even prevented from existing in the first place? Or one in which they are included, treated as equals and allowed to participate freely and independently? How can I and how could my possible child help to shape a more equitable society?" These and many more questions are valid and important (and I don't pretend to know the answers). Many people do consider them deeply before they come to a decision. LIBERTARIAN: My "most libertarian" opinion is probably that the government should not decide about women's bodies in general and pregnancy (or abortion) in particular. The government should not be the arbiter of life or death. For the same reason the death penalty is abhorrent and ought to be abolished. It should be the right of those who are pregnant to decide for or against an abortion. It is their right to health and bodily autonomy as conscious (and conscientious) human beings that has to be upheld. Attempts to outright outlaw abortions only lead to unsafe DIY abortions at home that unnecessarily risk the lives of would-be mothers AND of unborn life in all its various forms. Such policies demonstrably lead to the preventable death of fully conscious human beings. Enforcing such laws also inevitably leads to the imprisonment of innocent people who simply had a perfectly natural miscarriage. It's very common and something that is traumatic enough in its own right even without being falsely accused of murder or manslaughter, let alone being forced into a false admission by manipulative interrogation methods. Any state implementing and actively enforcing such abortion bans in the 21st century (using surveillance technologies) is a dystopian Orwellian police state of nightmarish proportions. Pretty sure most libertarians, you know, the people concerned with personal liberty, would agree, right? Right?! At least the ones who don't use the term simply to describe their belief that corporations should be able to do as they bloody well please with no regulation whatsoever. LIBERAL: My "most liberal" opinion is probably that anti-abortion activists should not be allowed to shout down pregnant people on their way to the abortion clinic. Or lie to them. Or pretend to be an abortion clinic by deliberatively picking a similar name and location for their impostor "club" aimed at actively deceiving (young) people to stall them until it's too late for an abortion. These activists should not be allowed to lure people seeking an abortion into fake "hospitals" or "free ultrasound" vans to mislead them, pressure them or coerce them to carry the pregnancy to term. They should not be allowed to perniciously harass, intimidate, brigade, dox or even kill medical personell performing potentially life-saving medical care in the form of abortions. Abortion clinics should be protected if necessary. Such anti-abortion tactics are not a legitimate form of protest in a democratic society. They are intimidation attempts, deliberate deception and fraud. Go march in the streets instead, protest, petition your government, hold public debates with community participation. Speak honestly about your convictions and do not try to trick people into having a baby (they may not be able to support / a baby from their rapist / a baby that might kill them during childbirth or before that). > And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

@garlic_bread_rucola writes -- in apparent response to my own assurance that voting is not made "irrelevant" by the success of others:

--------> "No, success does not make voting irrelevant? Who said that?"

Well, here's what YOU said in a post BEFORE that, @garlic_bread_rucola (to which my assurance was responding), in the context of a discussion about Elon's vast wealth and success, and the possible danger of "oligarchs" :

-------> "If a guy (or a group of people) ends up having more power than the government then government and democraxy and the voting just becomes irrelevant."

[please notice the last four words of your previous post, which warn that "voting just becomes irrelevant".] Those were your previous words. Not mine.

By the way -- if "oligarchs" are feared to gain control and influence over government, then what remains unanswered is this: then why do we wish to give government still MORE size and power?

In the U.S. at least, do we think rich people have storm troopers that can bypass government and enforce their will regardless of government? Not that I know of!

No, rich people CAN sometimes influence politicians and CAN sometimes pay for advertising and propaganda. So -- should politicians be given still MORE power? Beyond what the current American constitution would allow? Should they be allowed to pack courts by changing the very structure of the courts, when they don't get their own way?

I ask again: were citizens freer in the Soviet Union or in capitalist America? In which of those two countries was government more all-powerful?

Can we learn anything from the quiet contemplation of history? Or must we be influenced by internet "polls" and "news" only? Perhaps by "comedians" and "celebrities" (who, by the way, are often PLENTY wealthy themselves -- often without much complaint from the Left).

@garlic_bread_rucola writes -- in apparent response to my own assurance that voting is not made "irrelevant" by the success of others: --------> "No, success does not make voting irrelevant? Who said that?" Well, here's what YOU said in a post BEFORE that, @garlic_bread_rucola (to which my assurance was responding), in the context of a discussion about Elon's vast wealth and success, and the possible danger of "oligarchs" : -------> "If a guy (or a group of people) ends up having more power than the government then government and democraxy and the voting just becomes irrelevant." [please notice the last four words of your previous post, which warn that "voting just becomes irrelevant".] Those were your previous words. Not mine. By the way -- if "oligarchs" are feared to gain control and influence over government, then what remains unanswered is this: then why do we wish to give government still MORE size and power? In the U.S. at least, do we think rich people have storm troopers that can bypass government and enforce their will regardless of government? Not that I know of! No, rich people CAN sometimes influence politicians and CAN sometimes pay for advertising and propaganda. So -- should politicians be given still MORE power? Beyond what the current American constitution would allow? Should they be allowed to pack courts by changing the very structure of the courts, when they don't get their own way? I ask again: were citizens freer in the Soviet Union or in capitalist America? In which of those two countries was government more all-powerful? Can we learn anything from the quiet contemplation of history? Or must we be influenced by internet "polls" and "news" only? Perhaps by "comedians" and "celebrities" (who, by the way, are often PLENTY wealthy themselves -- often without much complaint from the Left).