Which political ideology do you most identify with?

Would you be willing to give up some personal luxuries if it meant that the less fortunate could live a better life?

▲Reply to this •••+ My feed React Follow

8 Replies

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas answered…6mos6MO

Absolutely. No person should have access to luxuries in the first place until ALL people are guaranteed, at least, their basic human needs.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree 1 Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

@TruthHurts101 from Washington commented…5mos5MO

By the government? That (no offence) is an utterly stupid idea. If government guarantees "basic human needs" by which you mean, if you are like most socialists, anarcho-Marxists, and other such people, "fair wages" "full employment" "free healthcare" "welfare" "universal education" than you must first consider how you'd pay for all that. That's right, YOU WOULD TAKE PEOPLE'S MONEY (that's what taxes are.) The definition of "stealing" is and I do quote the Oxford Dictionary of British English : "the… Read more action or offence of taking another person's property." That's what taxes are. So in order to guarantee the long list of so-called "human rights," (a secular ideology completely different from the Founder's conception of rights) it must, of necessity, deny the natural property rights of other persons in so doing. Using tax revenues to regulate business and labor management, set wage and price standards, and provide state-operated healthcare does not increase liberty or human need, it destroys it.

▲▲Reply to this Disagree 1 Link Context •••Agree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas disagreed…5mos5MO

Firstly, "the government" should BE the public; the government should not be some kind of private or exclusive group of people that make decisions outside of the public's reach, the government should be all of us: the people in society. Anything less would be oligarchic, and if you claim to care about genuine freedom and liberty, then you'd agree. This is incredibly important and you should keep this in mind, because when I say "government", I am not talking about state politicians or presidents or any bureaucratic structures of hierarchy, I am talking about ever… Read moreyone in society, collectively, as all governments should be.

Secondly, just to get the rest of the premises out of the way: 1) I do not believe in your made-up god, so any religious argument you attempt to make regarding so-called "god-given rights" is embarrassingly useless. There is no such thing as an inherent or natural right; rights are made up by us, and can be or not be whatever we want to include as a society. 2) We obviously do not have the same views on private property or freedom. You, as a supporter of capitalism, believe that private individuals should be allowed to buy, sell, and own society's economic means of production, and that doing so is "freedom"; whereas I, a supporter of socialism, believe that private individuals should NOT be allowed to buy, sell, or own society's economic means of production, and that doing so is the denial of others' freedom. I doubt there is anything either of us can say to each other that would change this most fundamental of personal values, so just understand that we view this premise very differently.

Thirdly, the entire purpose of a society, and quite literally the reason we came together to create civilization in the first place, is to provide for each other. We know that we can achieve more as a collective group than any one individual can achieve alone, and so we live and work together so that we can all benefit from the collective labor of each other. This is literally the sole purpose of a society. There is no point in even having a society to begin with if our own labor is not providing for the benefit of everyone. We already produce enough to provide for everyone who needs it, yet private individuals who hold exclusive ownership over the things society works to create prevent that from happening. This is not a system that is even designed to be beneficial for everyone, which is not only bad, but blatantly anti-societal. If a system does not work for the interests of the people, then it should be abolished and replaced with one that does, regardless of what traditionalist laws or values need to be overthrown.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…5mos5MO

If you do not believe in God then all you have is relative morality and might-makes-right despotism. Please explain to me why you lack faith in God and I will be glad to discuss this all-important issue with you in depth.

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@VulcanMan6 from Kansas commented…5mos5MO

Morality IS relative; it is entirely subjective because we made it up. Morality is nothing more than our own personal values and opinions on any given conflict or issue. There is nothing objective about it, that's why we rely on some form of laws to determine what we as a society will or will not allow. Without any kind of mutual agreement on what will or will not be acceptable within society, that is how you end up with some kind of "wild west" every-man-for-himself nonsense, because morality is not objective and people have different morals.

As for your question, I do not hav… Read moree faith in a god for the same reason i do not have faith in elves or unicorns or any other gods or mythos: because there is no evidence to support it, nor reason to believe any exists in the first place. I do not believe in your god for the same reasons that neither of us believe in Zeus or Anubis or Buddhas or etc. If you don't believe in any other gods, then you should understand exactly why other people wouldn't believe in your god as well, for the same exact reasons. They were all made up by people who didn't yet understand how the world worked, and many continue to be believed in because it feels better to some people to believe than having to cope without one.

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

Show 1 reply

@9H6NY8F from Indiana answered…6mos6MO

Yes, especially since I'm one of those less fortunate and know that my struggle is nothing compared to others

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

Would you be willing to give up some personal luxuries if it meant that the less fortunate could live a better life?

8 Replies

Discussions

Voter guides

Data & analytics

Candidates

About