Jump to content
SkylabPatel

Election advice

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

a thing is that working class as individual people have a base desire. Go to work, work hard and smart and get paid well. When this happens they can pay their own way as they would much prefer. And not be reliant on other people to give them 'benefits'. This base desire is what separates the working class from the beneficiary class. Workers are not beneficiaries. Workers are people who are happy to work and earn and pay their own way. And contribute to the commonweal of elderly, infirm and children, thru paying taxes. Which they can't do when the social construct that underpins this is deteriorating

Now, how is it that a self-described "lefty" can make this statement?  Not that I am complaining, mind you!  Molly, your entire post makes a lot of sense.  But it's astonishing to see that your statement here is exactly the "conservative" viewpoint.  Libertarian, even.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Now, how is it that a self-described "lefty" can make this statement?  Not that I am complaining, mind you!  Molly, your entire post makes a lot of sense.  But it's astonishing to see that your statement here is exactly the "conservative" viewpoint.  Libertarian, even.

a thing

what most people agree on in today's western societies is that capitalism is a good thing. That there is no desire for these most people to do away with capitalism

in a capitalist society of this western kind, the lines are structurally quite limited:  Conservative vs Liberal.  Authoritarian vs Libertarian

Conservative vs Liberal is the intersectional line.  Social constructs: racial discrimination, gender recognition, gun rights, abortion, work place safety, consumer protections, wealth distribution, etc. How we think about things

Authoritarian vs Libertarian is the intervention line. State law and regulatory constructs. What we can and can't do at any given time in this capitalist society. No matter how we, and others, might think about these things

when do a X Y quadrant graph:
 

Liberal     | Authoritarian

----------- + -------------

Libertarian | Conservative

most people cluster in the middle, in some slight direction

when I map myself I will find that I am more a Liberal Authoritarian, and you I think ( and I could be wrong, just going off what you have written on this forums over the years) see yourself as more a Conservative Libertarian.  A person like Philip Rosedale for example would be a Liberal Libertarian.  A person like Jerry Falwell Jr. would by contrast be a Conservative Authoritarian

why I am more Authoritarian than Libertarian is that I have no qualms about using State intervention to regulate for the Liberal social constructs that I consider necessary in the capitalist western society I am in. Actually in that is, not a society I might imagine myself to be in

basically in the western capitalist society, we shouldn't confuse Liberal with Libertarian. Or confuse Authoritarian with Conservative

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhhh, this is far too complicated, Molly!

 

I am Lawfully Good.

Tolya is Chaotically Evil.

 

Everything else follows from that.

Any questions?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mollymews said:

a lot of good stuff

Excellent points, although you missed one of the biggest if not THE biggest problem with social security today.  When it was originally implemented, the retirement age for SS was actually older than the average life expectancy.  In other words, it was designed for the average person to pay in their entire working life, and then conveniently die before collecting much in terms of benefits.  Today, the median retirement age is 62, a full 5 years before full retirement age (that's a simplification, since we're in the midst of SS retirement age increasing to 67) while the average life expectancy is almost 79.  Simply put, the system was not designed to pay benefits for such a long period relative to years spent collecting taxes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ohhhh, this is far too complicated, Molly!

 

I am Lawfully Good.

Tolya is Chaotically Evil.

 

Everything else follows from that.

Any questions?

Did NOT expect D&D from you. Cool.

I am (probably) True Neutral. (Maybe Neutral Good)(It depends on if you ask me or H.)

ETA: Wondering if this new tilt can change the direction of the thread again...

 

Edited by Seicher Rae
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Storm Clarence said:

Since you guys brought it up.  And this turned into another hate thread . . .

As the Brits like to say: in it for a penny, in it for a pound.

MAGA 2020.

 

I think it's "Keep America Great" this time around, although "KAG" doesn't work nearly as well as "MAGA".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

Did NOT expect D&D from you. Cool.

I was, while at university in the 90s, briefly transformed for short periods of time into a radically lawful good lesbian half-elf cleric.

With a mace and cloak. It was all about the cool cloak, so far as I was concerned.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a response emoji for giving the bird and for throwing up a little in your mouth. (I've been making a whole list of emojis that we need.)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ohhhh, this is far too complicated, Molly!

 

I am Lawfully Good.

Tolya is Chaotically Evil.

 

Everything else follows from that.

Any questions?

ROFLMAOTIPMP!

Actually, when it comes to politics, I'm much more inclined towards Lawful Neutral.  Laws and policies should generally not be interested in "good vs. evil" since laws should be as limited as possible for a functional republic.  Lawful good people tend to think that they can legislate paradise and for everyone to be nice to each other - and at some point people should grow out of that fantasy 😛  Laws should be enforced strictly, else why bother having them?  Hence, I'm all for a large increase in legal immigration (because it's a net benefit for the country) but I'm also for border minefields (fences and walls are for amateurs) to ensure people are coming here in a controlled, legal manner.

Before people start screeching, I'm 99% joking about the minefield.

In my personal life, I'm more neutral good, with a slight chatoic bent.  I'm not good at following other peoples' rules, but I'm generally nice and helpful, and I have a lot of empathy for people who are truly in a bad way.

Besides, you can't build a true global empire on chaotic evil.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you on immigration, Tolya.

The current "crisis" at the border is exacerbated by the fact that where once the USA encouraged immigration, today there is almost no legal way to come to the USA and become a citizen.  We should have strong border security AND an immigration policy that allows us once again to say "bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free..."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Simply put, the system was not designed to pay benefits for such a long period relative to years spent collecting taxes.

Life expectancy where I live is creeping into the 80s (even 90s-100s age band are growing), so the Govt decided to make us all buy mandatory life annuities at age 55, using our personal "pension" accounts that we add to while working (these accounts are also used to buy housing and pay medical expenses, so it's not just pension). Not a bad idea actually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

Life expectancy where I live is creeping into the 80s (even 90s-100s age band are growing), so the Govt decided to make us all buy mandatory life annuities at age 55, using our personal "pension" accounts that we add to while working (these accounts are also used to buy housing and pay medical expenses, so it's not just pension). Not a bad idea actually. 

Where is this?  That's an interesting approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Excellent points, although you missed one of the biggest if not THE biggest problem with social security today.  When it was originally implemented, the retirement age for SS was actually older than the average life expectancy.  In other words, it was designed for the average person to pay in their entire working life, and then conveniently die before collecting much in terms of benefits.  Today, the median retirement age is 62, a full 5 years before full retirement age (that's a simplification, since we're in the midst of SS retirement age increasing to 67) while the average life expectancy is almost 79.  Simply put, the system was not designed to pay benefits for such a long period relative to years spent collecting taxes.

 

the US social security planners back in 1983 did factor this into their projections

Long-Range Financing (183-2057) document here: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/historical/1983.pdf

page 7:

"Several important long-range demographic trends, already under way, are anticipated to raise the proportion of the aged in the population in the next 75 years:
(1) Because of the large number of persons born shortly after WorldWar II, rapid growth is expected in the aged population after the turn of the century.
(2) At the same time, low birth rates would hold down the number of young people.
(3) Projected improvements in mortality also would increase the numbers of aged persons"


following this is a table which shows the projected life expectancy for people at age 65 (how many more years do they have to live)

     Male Female
2000 15.7 20.8
2020 16.4 21.7
2040 17.2 22.6
2060 17.9 23.6

how well did the 1983 planners do ?

the actuals are here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2017/015.pdf

     Male Female
2000 16.0 19.0
2016 18.0 20.6 (the last year of available data)

the 1983 social security planners did factor in, people living longer lives. Their projections underestimated male life expectancy and overestimated female life expectancy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

Singapore 🌴

One of our sales guys who did a lot of international travel once told me that in Singapore children are legally obligated to support their elderly parents.  Is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say ,this thread has helped to break up the monotony at work last night..

I don't know why,but it was just interesting to read..

Maybe just more interesting than work was I guess..

Anyways,thank you all..:D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

One of our sales guys who did a lot of international travel once told me that in Singapore children are legally obligated to support their elderly parents.  Is this correct?

Problem with politics is that too many people take what others say as fact rather than doing their own research and this is why all our governments are all criminal, crooked, liars making every attempt at every turn to burden the people and take what you own and give it to someone else, a.k.a. taxes, etc, or oppress your constitutional rights (if your country has a constitution, anyway.) Learn to do your own research rather that trusting what someone says then asking strangers to validate it. LOL

Your answer, because duckduckgo and any other search engine is your friend: https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1614_2009-11-30.html

Edited by Alyona Su
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I am Lawfully Good.

Tolya is Chaotically Evil.

   And I'm lawfully evil!

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was usually chaotic good when doing tabletop RPG. The general consensus was that this was my natural alignment, although that's where my similarity to my character usually stopped. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Beth Macbain said:

Are we labeling ourselves based on our morals now? COOL!

Can I be Evilly Good?!

"Good" in the sense of, "Wow, that Beth . . . man, she's good!"

Like that?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   And I'm lawfully evil!

Is there such thing as 'unlawfully good?' Asking for a friend.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"Good" in the sense of, "Wow, that Beth . . . man, she's good!"

Like that?

I'll take it!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...