We were talking about what voter suppression means, I was just using an example. You focused on your attitude towards that one example, not the topic.
Then where is your evidence of widespread voter suppression?
Because then we would need a new label for every single deviation, which would number in the hundreds or even thousands.
It would be millions. That's why political parties should be abolished and people who are running for political office should run as independents and abide by the rules in
Online takes - Google Slides, slides 23 to 33.
Libertarian means socially left while economically right, authoritarian means socially right while economically left.
This isn't accurate. Libertarians disagree with the left on many social issues and they even disagree with the republicans on many economic issues. For authoritarians, it's similar.
Someone could easily be on the political left on every issue but be a 2nd amendment absolutist.
Then that person is left wing on every issue except guns.
Tommi Lauren is as right wing as they come on every issue, yet she is pro choice.
If this is true, then she is as right wing as they come on every issue except abortion.
When normal people don't have 79 issues in a spreadsheet and they can really only think of 3-4 issues that define their politics and they happen to buck party orthodoxy on one issue, being x wing on 3 issues and x^c on 1 issue is in theory a plausible combination. On the following issues:
1. Abortion
2. Vaccine mandates
3. Immigration policy
4. Gun policy
There are 16 possible combinations assuming it's just a Boolean approach. They are all social issues. The following groups of people want the governmetn out of the following issues:
1. Libertarians; all 4 issues. They want victimless social freedom unconditionally.
2. Liberals, 1,3
3. Conservatives, 2,4
4. Authoritarians; the empty set; they want safety unconditionally
5. Theocrats ; 3 and 4. They trust God (whom they believe is all knowing) to make the call
6. Communists/socialists; 1,3,4; They trust Karl Marx on guns, but other than that, they are basically hardcore democrats.
7. Constitutionalists: People who trust the US constitution and the founding fathers above all else; so 2,3, and 4
There is nothing consistent about over 100 million voters wanting the government out of issues 1 and 3 while having the government involved with 2 and 4 (or vice versa) except that they are following party orders! Libertarians, Authoritarians, and theocrats I can respect how they came to their conclusions even if I don't agree. Libertarians want freedom, authoritarians want earthly safety, and theocrats want eternal saftey. If one person on their own came to 1 and 3 or 2 and 4, I can respect that.
But people rarely come to their own conclusions; they hear news from people who also didn't come to their own conclusions and heard it from somewhere else.
If Karl Marx said that the gun lobby was a result of capitalism and that the 2nd amendment should be repealed, the communists and socialists would want to ban all guns. But the leader speaks and the people follow; because most people are sheep.
What do issues 1 and 3 have to do with each other that many people would take the small government approach with them but then also take the big government approach with 2 and 4 (or vice versa)? This you are dodging because you want to appear like you are thinking for yourself when you are following the herd.
Where are the people who want the government out of issues 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4 (or vice versa)? What about same thing, but for issues 1 and 4, but not 2 and 3 (or vice versa)?
Again, labels are just basic descriptions, they're not supposed to tell you where any individual stands on every issue.
But people try to mold to the label on issues that were going to initially indifferent to them.
First of all, shipping food to your house is more expensive, not everyone has that option.
It's probably a pretty nominal expense, especially if you do it in bulk. I've had books shipped to my house before. It's really not a big cost.
I could have easily used going to work
You can work remotely if you want, with a few exceptions, but those exceptions are people that have a strong enough immune system to where they almost certainly won't die if they get COVID and are vaccinated or boosted and worrying about them dying is very petty. But that's classical of authoritarian viewpoints of the right and left.
or how about casting your ballot if you live in a state that doesn't let you vote by mail?
Or you can allow mail in ballots in every state (which I support by the way). When I live on my own, I'd want to vote by mail.
If you don't value the hundreds of thousands of lives that could have been saved had we done things differently then I guess not.
I mean, I don't really value the lives of strangers enough to sacrifice for them and the people that get angry at me for that have not thought that statement through.
If human life was priceless and the government believed that human life was priceless, they could force every household in the US to adopt as many starving children as they could if it saves just one life. The logical principle applies to hundreds of thousands of lives.
The following 2 beliefs have justified all of the authoritarianism that has happened throughout history:
1. Human life/pain is worth saving/preventing.
2. Human eternity is worth saving, so we must kill those who we believe are a threat to the salvation of mankind (all politicians who have killed people in their country based on religious differences).
Sometimes, authoritarianism is good (like anti murder and anti rape laws), other times it is not good (like banning people for being Jewish).
If you ask the typical person if they were willing to spend $1/day sponsoring the life of a starving child, most people would say no. So most people value the life of a stranger child at less than $1/day.
I'm merely saying that $8 trillion of economic loss was not worth saving 1 million lives ($8 million/life).
People like talking about the value of human life until they have to actually sacrifice for it, then their self righteousness goes out the window.
Curious... Suppose COVID mutated and became 5x more contagious with a death rate of 35%. Would you then support lock downs and vaccine mandates?
35% death rate among non elderly people; yeah I would support lockdowns; the elderly can lockdown on a personal level all they want since they are retired and therefore don't need to work; but everyone else has too. A vaccine mandate wouldn't be necessary as virtually everybody would willingly get vaccinated if the odds of death were 35%. A vaccine mandate in that scenario (assuming the vaccines are 100% effective and produced the same side effects as the COVID vaccine) would be a lot like banning Russian Roulette; Russian Roulette is legal to play, but virtually nobody is stupid enough to do it. I believe you are referencing the Bubonic Plague.
Half of the things you respond to I didn't say.
I quote you every time.
I don't recall dropping any relevant points, if I did feel free to bring them back up and I would be glad to address it and explain why I didn't the first time of done so intentionally.
This point that I made:
You also seem to misunderstand libertarianism. Libertarians are leftists when it comes to social policy and are on the political right when it comes to economic policy.
Some Social issues the libetarians and the left disagree on:
1. Gun control
2. Vacciene mandates
3. Mask mandates
4. Testing requirements
5. Free speech absolutism
Some economic issues libetarians and the conservatives disagree on:
1. Free trade
2. Corporate welfare
3. Funding the Israeli military
4. Military spending
The idea that libetarians are, "Fiscally conservative, socially left" is incorrect.
Basically, the belief that the left isn't 100% (socially libertarian and fiscally authoritarian) and the right isn't 100% (fiscally libertarian or socially authoritarian). Outliers like Tomi Lauren and Michael Kaine (anti vax and pro choice democrat) aren't the rule.
