<p>DC, every one of those views is moderate liberalism today, except for the capital punishment. I am 100% with you on civil unions. Marriage is a religious concept that the government has to right to regulate between consenting adults. My religion says any consenting adults can marry, where is my religious freedom?</p>
<p>“I say expand the party system and let the people vote directly on the major political issues.”</p>
<p>The problem is that, just like elections, only the most politically active people would vote on the major issues, and 40% of the country (of that 40% –> 30% being radically ideological and 10% not knowing enough about the issue) would be directly deciding on issues which affect everyone.</p>
<p>Granted, elections outside of the presidential race function under that same premise of a few voters electing the official for everyone, however, congressmen/local reps are (theoretically) supposed to be working in the interest of everyone in their district and not just those who voted for them, whereas mass people voting on legislation directly are looking out only for themselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it’s not. Your proposal is completely impractical without a solution to that problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re going to have to clarify on this point.</p>
<p>“First of all, government welfare crowds out private charity.”</p>
<p>Well, the government has given faith-based organizations about a billion and a half dollars every year for the past decade, so that could actually be a compromise. </p>
<p>“Second, welfare increases poverty by subsidizing it. (Think about it: people get benefits for being poor.)”</p>
<p>Well, no.</p>
<p>“Well, the government has given faith-based organizations about a billion and a half dollars every year for the past decade, so that could actually be a compromise.”</p>
<p>Nope, there’s no need for the government to spend money on this. People aren’t as careful with other people’s money as they are with their own. Also, whenever the government spends money on anything, it will dictate how it will be used- either explicitly, by setting regulations, or implicitly, by only giving the money to whatever organization meets their desired criteria. This creates centralized control of the money, which isn’t as effective as a dispersed control that can be managed on personal basis. </p>
<p>“Well, no.”</p>
<p>Oh, ok. </p>
<p>Hmm, lets see: When one meets a certain criteria, he gets benefits. When he’s out of that criteria, the benefits stop. </p>
<p>It’s the height of simplicity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Think of all the people living the high life on food stamps. Imagine how much poorer they would be if they had more money!</p>
<p>Radical liberals are absolutely worse. The ones I have dealt with have been openly threatening to conservatives, and actually believe that free speech only applies to those on the left (yes, this question was asked of them and yes, that is how they responded). They’re nuts.</p>
<p>yeah they’re p. crazy</p>
<p>“I’m thinking America should just go back to direct democracy, who is with me?!?!?!”</p>
<p>Yay, I can’t wait to have the 50.1% impose their will on the other 49.9%. To seriously advocate democracy is to not comprehend history.</p>
<p>And what do you mean “go back” to a direct democracy? </p>
<p>The only viable, moral political philosophy is anarchy. Whether that be anarcho-capitalism or libertarian sociolism (though I’d argue there would be a greater degree of prosperity in the former), the non-aggression principle must be taken to its fullest conclusions.</p>
<p>I with the ANARCHY solution. Anarchy would definitely weed out a lot of problems we face, but then again if anarchy was imposed, some people would go crazy. lol</p>
<p>Anarchy only works in a small society, not in a society with over 300 million people.</p>
<p>“Anarchy only works in a small society”</p>
<p>The same applies to direct democracy.</p>
<p>Well one could argue that this huge nation would divide itself into smaller segments allowing it to function. Basically forming small societies/groups of people that would band together. Protecting one another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right-which is why we’re a republic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A reason why direct democracy was discontinued in the formation of our country because the technology was not there. The entire country could not vote, it would take to long. Now that we have technology that allows us to communicate with one another, we can no now implement direct democracy. All it would take is 2 seconds and a click. No big deal.</p>
<p>
It wouldn’t really be going “back,” since we added an amendment to the Constitution for the direct election of senators… that being said, I don’t think we’re in need of more “direct democracy.” I don’t know if you’re joking, with all of the question marks and stuff at the end - this is random, but I’ve always liked the “interrobang” (a punctuation mark). [Interrobang</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrobang]Interrobang”>Interrobang - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Obviously, both liberals and conservatives can be really annoying, and the answers we’re getting are just people saying that whatever they aren’t is worse. I’ve always been in environments where conservatives are vastly outnumbered by liberals (if there are any vocal conservatives at all). </p>
<p>Being conservative myself, it’s a little weird when many arguments against whatever idea may be associated with conservatism are just framed as a question of, “Should we tolerate intolerance?” Intolerance of minority groups, the existence of the poor (!), illegal immigrants, etc.</p>
<p>Oh, and NonAntiAnarchist, I appreciate your somewhat Buckley-esque verbosity in the first post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not just legalize gay marriage and allow churches to not marry gays if they don’t want to?
</p>
<p>Agreed, although I think that kids should only be put into foster care if rehab for the parents has tried and failed.
Except that innocent people are killed by the death penalty because our justice system isn’t perfect. Adding rape to the list of capital crimes would just add to the list of innocents executed because of judicial screw-ups.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree with all of this.
Agreed with all of this, especially nuclear.
</p>
<p>While a VAT tax is fair, it’s not as efficient as a progressive tax because it takes money out of consumers’ pockets. A progressive tax provides more revenue for less damage to the economy, since the rich have more disposable income. It just isn’t fair. To me, fixing the deficit is more important than “fairness”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We have enough problems with our Presidential elections (Florida 2000 ring a bell?). While it may be possible to hold elections on each and every issue that merits discussion in this country, it would not be practical in the least.</p>
<p>As for changing our political system, I for one like Israel’s. Have proportional elections with a bunch of parties each representing a small chunk of the political spectrum. A bunch of like-minded parties then come together in a coalition government. And since “districts” aren’t individually represented, there’s no need to worry about pork.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that marriage did not start with Christianity and does not end with it either, so there shouldn’t be any complaining to that degree in the first place. Marriage is an institution which cannot be defined as specifically being between a man and a woman since, historically speaking, many parties of homosexual couples were bonded through one union of marriage.</p>
<p>People tend to misconceive many ideas such as this. Another excuse is that gay marriage would destroy the foundation of America since the nation was founded under the guise of Christianity. The truth behind this is that, in its youth, America signed treaties which explicitly stated that America was indeed not a christian nation.</p>