NathanKerbonaut wrote:

Source of the post (I've heard this test is infamous for having a libertarian bias)

It probably does, all my friends who took it got on the libertarian part of the spectrum.
It could use some improvement.

HarbingerDawn wrote:

The Potato, that system doesn't really seem fair. Why should billionaires not be allowed to vote? Surely there would be too few of them for their votes to matter very much. And if you want to punish billionaires, why not make it so that there can't be any? Make a limit on how much money people can earn, and anything over that limit must be invested in some new company (that's not related to them), donated to charity, or taken as tax.

And instead of making it so that certain people cannot run for office (I don't really understand why this is the case), make it so that all campaigns are publicly funded, so that billionaires and well-connected people don't have much advantage over people who are relatively unknown. And instead of keeping a political system where one person can hold a huge amount of power, why not change the system entirely? What about a parliamentary system, with a limited presidency, and a multi-tiered meritocratic legislature and executive panel?

Can you be more specific about limiting billionaires? I don't think that will work, they will just move to another country, no?
Agree with your 2nd para. I myself tilt libertarian so the concept of few people having that much power bothers me.

The Potato wrote:

HarbingerDawn wrote:

Source of the post And if you want to punish billionaires, why not make it so that there can't be any? Make a limit on how much money people can earn, and anything over that limit must be invested in some new company (that's not related to them), donated to charity, or taken as tax.

That is a good Idea, When I first had started becoming socialistic that Idea was always kinda in the back of my head, then I forgot it.

Congress passes a law preventing companies from firing employees on the basis that they are part of an industrial union.
Congress then passes a secret bill that creates an industrial union secretly run by the government.
With this new industrial union formed workers from all markets join it. (The workers control the government, the government controls the companies through the workers, Essentially socialism)

The industrial union controls everything pertaining to the economy, it prevents companies from paying low wages by threatening to move all of its workers to other companies and dismantling it.
Companies that benefit society more then others will have more workers given to it and will be given more gov't funds.
Companies that don't benefit society as much will lose workers and be given less gov't funds. (This is to keep competition and development of technology.)
Workers can work there way up like in a capitalistic society but as they get higher up they lose political power.
The Industrial Union would also be funded with taxes (Of course).

HarbingerDawn wrote:

Source of the post make it so that all campaigns are publicly funded, so that billionaires and well-connected people don't have much advantage over people who are relatively unknown.

[color=#ffffff][font=YouTube Noto, Roboto, arial, sans-serif]Here's an addition. A person running for a political position will first sign-up, a committee will examine all of the applications to weed out un-qualified applicants (We don't want a 100,000 people campaigning it would be a nightmare) after several levels of weeding-out the committee will get to maybe it's last 5 or 10 candidates, these candidates will have their campaigns publicly funded by taxes, Several elections go by like a tournament, On the first election whoever has the least votes is removed from the ballot of the next election, it goes on until there are only 2 people left on the ballot and whoever wins this ballot gets the position.[/font][/color]

as someone from 3rd world country I assure your plan won't work. Why? They will start outsourcing work to our countries because its cheaper and no union 'problem'. And we gladly accept because MNC's pay is far far far better than our agriculture based economy.      

"a committee will examine all of the applications to weed out un-qualified applicants"  

. who decided who is the committe? also your election system will be very costly

I'm quoting a moderator here:

HarbingerDawn wrote:

please edit your previous post instead of making double (in this case triple) posts.

Here is mine. But im sorry but I cant deal with the political correctness and watch innocent lives die in front of my eyes from Islam. This is why I voted for Trump. I want the border shut so we can better protect ourselves. You can call me a racist all you want but its the cold hard truth. Plus, I believe that Hollywood and liberal actors in general are inciting more violence than doing the opposite. Look at that old man that shot Steve Scalise. The guy was a socialist and worked for Bernie Sanders, Whom is a hypocrite. I feel that the law needs to put in place to protect the republic and the president. Which mean people like Kathie Griffin, Madonna, and all others should be put in jail for sedition and inciting violence in this country.

Interesting discussion so far. I did see some points I have not considered much myself before. Even thou I do think that some of the ideas of communism and socialism are very good I myself do not approve all of them. I do think private ownership is okay but the government ownership is also something that should exist in certain things. Also making any kind of communist or socialist system actually work as is should is quite hard in real life. As I said I would not want to have a full communist/socialist system in my country but also not a fascist one. Not too authoritarian nor too libertarian.

ZackG wrote:

Source of the post watch innocent lives die in front of my eyes from Islam

I would agree that religiously inspired oppression and violence is a serious problem, but why single out Islam? What about people who commit violence or other terrible acts who are inspired by Christianity, for example? If we're going to be addressing religious violence and other crimes in the name of religion, we might as well address the whole spectrum, not single things out.

ZackG wrote:

Source of the post I want the border shut so we can better protect ourselves

This can be better achieved via a change in our defense policy, focusing on actual homeland defense rather than deploying troops all over the world and intervening in everyone else's affairs. This would reduce animosity, increase security, and reduce unnecessary spending. I'm not sure how building a giant wall on the Mexican border would significantly increase security.

ZackG wrote:

Source of the post I believe that Hollywood and liberal actors in general are inciting more violence than doing the opposite

Do you not remember the times during the campaign where Trump himself was inciting violence? It's a bit hypocritical to call out others for that but not him.

ZackG wrote:

Source of the post I feel that the law needs to put in place to protect the republic and the president. Which mean people like Kathie Griffin, Madonna, and all others should be put in jail for sedition and inciting violence in this country.

The laws in this country exist to protect the people from the government and from each other, not to protect the government from the people. It violates the very essence of the Bill of Rights. Are you suggesting that we just throw away the First Amendment?

ZackG wrote:

Source of the post Look at that old man that shot Steve Scalise.

I did not heard of this story until now, but I feel it should bring up an important point: why is that most attacks to Europe are indeed Islamic terrorists, while it is a proven fact that most on the ones occurred in America are made by American themselves?

Dunno about all of you since you're so used to it as a normal thing, but maybe, maybe it's the fact that every single dang redneck can bring a gun wherever they want.

Espcially since this guy was apparently reported various times for shooting at the neighbors' trees, so he cleraly was not completely sane and can't be taken as an example of the average left-wing supporter.

XBrain130 wrote:

ZackG wrote:

Source of the post Look at that old man that shot Steve Scalise.

I did not heard of this story until now, but I feel it should bring up an important point: why is that most attacks to europe are indeed islamic terrorists, while it is a proven fact that most on the most occurred in American are made by American themselves?
Dunno about all of you since you're so used to it as a normal thing, but maybe, maybe it's the fact that every single dang redneck can bring a gun wherever they want.

Good point, I guess maybe. I have had similar thoughts about USA but do not know much about the subject to say if I am right or not.

HarbingerDawn wrote:

Source of the post I would agree that religiously inspired oppression and violence is a serious problem, but why single out Islam? What about people who commit violence or other terrible acts who are inspired by Christianity, for example? If we're going to be addressing religious violence and other crimes in the name of religion, we might as well address the whole spectrum, not single things out.

The attacks are more directly based on ideology.  For the religious inspiration to that ideology, we must ask: how political is the religion?  I think you're wrong if you assume all religions to be equally political.  I do think you'll find people with ambitions to change society in any religion, but when that turns into oppression calling for reform and a return to the core ideas, the religions are different. Christianity, despite its conquerors and popes, is less political than Islam.  The prophet of the former, a pacifist, explicitly said that the kingdom of God is not of this earth, just be a good citizen and do not think you can or should make a perfect society on earth.  The prophet of the latter, however, a warrior, said that it's man's duty to implement the kingdom of God on earth.  I think this is very important to understand if you enjoy a secular society.

midtskogen wrote:

The attacks are more directly based on ideology.  For the religious inspiration to that ideology, we must ask: how political is the religion?  I think you're wrong if you assume all religions to be equally political.  I do think you'll find people with ambitions to change society in any religion, but when that turns into oppression calling for reform and a return to the core ideas, the religions are different. Christianity, despite its conquerors and popes, is less political than Islam.  The prophet of the former, a pacifist, explicitly said that the kingdom of God is not of this earth, just be a good citizen and do not think you can or should make a perfect society on earth.  The prophet of the latter, however, a warrior, said that it's man's duty to implement the kingdom of God on earth.  I think this is very important to understand if you enjoy a secular society.

This may be a good point. Different religions have different ideals.

midtskogen wrote:

HarbingerDawn wrote:

Source of the post I would agree that religiously inspired oppression and violence is a serious problem, but why single out Islam? What about people who commit violence or other terrible acts who are inspired by Christianity, for example? If we're going to be addressing religious violence and other crimes in the name of religion, we might as well address the whole spectrum, not single things out.

The attacks are more directly based on ideology.  For the religious inspiration to that ideology, we must ask: how political is the religion?  I think you're wrong if you assume all religions to be equally political.  I do think you'll find people with ambitions to change society in any religion, but when that turns into oppression calling for reform and a return to the core ideas, the religions are different. Christianity, despite its conquerors and popes, is less political than Islam.  The prophet of the former, a pacifist, explicitly said that the kingdom of God is not of this earth, just be a good citizen and do not think you can or should make a perfect society on earth.  The prophet of the latter, however, a warrior, said that it's man's duty to implement the kingdom of God on earth.  I think this is very important to understand if you enjoy a secular society.

I didn't mean to imply that Christianity and Islam both have equal potential to be the foundation for extremism and problematic behavior from their adherents, I just meant that we should focus more on the root of the problem (faith in general, for example) rather than focusing exclusively on Islam.

HarbingerDawn wrote:

Source of the post I just meant that we should focus more on the root of the problem (faith in general, for example) rather than focusing exclusively on Islam.

I almost agree, but faith in general is not the root of the problem, as I tried to express. That would be a far too wide target.  The focus must be on specific superstitions (those incompatible with a secular society, gender equality, etc), and if those specifics sounds like Islam its followers, well, let them be the ones naming it Islam (or whatever religion that happens to appear targeted).  I think religion is mostly about identity, and that the key is to be careful not to target Islam qua identity.  Muslims should continue staying Muslims by celebrating their language, art, science etc.  There is room for that in a secular society.

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post faith in general is not the root of the problem

Faith is belief without regard for any supporting or contradicting evidence, or to put it another way, believing in something for no good reason, just because you want to. I would argue that the willingness to accept a belief and integrate it into your worldview without examining it to see if it makes sense or is supported by facts and empirical evidence is, while not the sole root of the problem, certainly a significant contribution.