You on the Chad Centrist political compass

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A. SJWs are annoying
B. Affirmative action goes too far
C. The government does waste a lot of money on certain things like the military
D. Gambling should be legal
E. The FBI needs to stop deciding what is misinformation.
F.  Abortion should be free
G. Single payer now
H. Corrupt CEOs need to go to prison

[Dr. MB]

B. Not all adults should have the vote. (when you retire from work, you should have your right to vote retired too.)

So someone’s worthiness in society only depends on whether or not they have a job?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

B. Not all adults should have the vote. (when you retire from work, you should have your right to vote retired too.)

So someone’s worthiness in society only depends on whether or not they have a job?

I'm hoping Andrew will elaborate on this too. I've run into this position before, usually advocated for in extremely crass terms (either what you're saying or "old people are a structurally conservative group of voters and people who disagree with me shouldn't vote"), but I trust him to have an at least somewhat sounder rationale for it.

[afleitch]

B. Not all adults should have the vote. (when you retire from work, you should have your right to vote retired too.)

So someone’s worthiness in society only depends on whether or not they have a job?

I'm hoping Andrew will elaborate on this too. I've run into this position before, usually advocated for in extremely crass terms (either what you're saying or "old people are a structurally conservative group of voters and people who disagree with me shouldn't vote"), but I trust him to have an at least somewhat sounder rationale for it.

It's less that older voters are conservative (and certainly not economically conservative); in some nations (UK) they have become frightfully monolithic to the point at which genuine ebbs and flows of public opinion in voters of working age in response to policy/economic shifts don't impact on the electoral outcome. And they don't impact because older voters are often protected from the effect on the basis of benefits or sizable under taxed assets.

It's a flippant response (because I don't think I actually hold views in that quadrant!) but I do think something has to be done in terms of the structure of decision making and voting. Particularly on constitutional matters. I am generally in favour of more policy referenda that could be restricted to different demographic groups that it effects. And that would include restricting younger voters in some matters too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

B. Not all adults should have the vote. (when you retire from work, you should have your right to vote retired too.)

So someone’s worthiness in society only depends on whether or not they have a job?

I'm hoping Andrew will elaborate on this too. I've run into this position before, usually advocated for in extremely crass terms (either what you're saying or "old people are a structurally conservative group of voters and people who disagree with me shouldn't vote"), but I trust him to have an at least somewhat sounder rationale for it.

It's less that older voters are conservative (and certainly not economically conservative); in some nations (UK) they have become frightfully monolithic to the point at which genuine ebbs and flows of public opinion in voters of working age in response to policy/economic shifts don't impact on the electoral outcome. And they don't impact because older voters are often protected from the effect on the basis of benefits or sizable under taxed assets.

It's a flippant response (because I don't think I actually hold views in that quadrant!) but I do think something has to be done in terms of the structure of decision making and voting. Particularly on constitutional matters. I am generally in favour of more policy referenda that could be restricted to different demographic groups that it effects. And that would include restricting younger voters in some matters too.

Honestly, this seems like first and foremost the product of a breakdown in intergenerational communication across society. Which is a serious problem in all areas of life, and I agree we need policies to counteract it.

Responding to social problems by disenfranchising people is utterly morally unconscionable, however. Everyone deserves a say in the course of their own society, even if you don't like their opinion on the matter. Even if you have objectively correct reasons to think their opinion is wrongheaded. If you don't like how people vote, you change society so that they vote better - same with people who have issues with "low-education" voters, the only legitimate solution to that is to improve education.

[afleitch]

B. Not all adults should have the vote. (when you retire from work, you should have your right to vote retired too.)

So someone’s worthiness in society only depends on whether or not they have a job?

I'm hoping Andrew will elaborate on this too. I've run into this position before, usually advocated for in extremely crass terms (either what you're saying or "old people are a structurally conservative group of voters and people who disagree with me shouldn't vote"), but I trust him to have an at least somewhat sounder rationale for it.

It's less that older voters are conservative (and certainly not economically conservative); in some nations (UK) they have become frightfully monolithic to the point at which genuine ebbs and flows of public opinion in voters of working age in response to policy/economic shifts don't impact on the electoral outcome. And they don't impact because older voters are often protected from the effect on the basis of benefits or sizable under taxed assets.

It's a flippant response (because I don't think I actually hold views in that quadrant!) but I do think something has to be done in terms of the structure of decision making and voting. Particularly on constitutional matters. I am generally in favour of more policy referenda that could be restricted to different demographic groups that it effects. And that would include restricting younger voters in some matters too.

Honestly, this seems like first and foremost the product of a breakdown in intergenerational communication across society. Which is a serious problem in all areas of life, and I agree we need policies to counteract it.

Responding to social problems by disenfranchising people is utterly morally unconscionable, however. Everyone deserves a say in the course of their own society, even if you don't like their opinion on the matter. Even if you have objectively correct reasons to think their opinion is wrongheaded. If you don't like how people vote, you change society so that they vote better - same with people who have issues with "low-education" voters, the only legitimate solution to that is to improve education.

Again, it's not an enforceable viewpoint; it's not something I'm personally committed in any way to because it's extremely difficult to manage and it doesn't haunt me as a concern. It's a hypothetical placeholder for that part of the quadrant. But it's in the same 'space' if you will as putting minority rights to a public ballot. It's great Ireland and Australia voted for Equal Marriage...but also jarring it was in the hands of straights to vote it into law. Or vote it down.

Given this is Atlas, I expected more pushback on the throuples pitch

[Antonio the Sixth]

Again, it's not an enforceable viewpoint; it's not something I'm personally committed in any way to because it's extremely difficult to manage and it doesn't haunt me as a concern. It's a hypothetical placeholder for that part of the quadrant. But it's in the same 'space' if you will as putting minority rights to a public ballot. It's great Ireland and Australia voted for Equal Marriage...but also jarring it was in the hands of straights to vote it into law. Or vote it down.

I understand that frustration, and I do think broad protections for minority groups ought to be enshrined in a democracy's constitution such that they're harder to repeal than regular legislation (which, tbf, is the case now in Ireland thanks to the referendum). That said, I do believe that the democratic principle must necessarily come before minority rights. That's because plenty of people disagree on what minorities need/deserve special protections (if you listen to the MAGA crowd, they'd love to enact special protections for White Christians!), and the only morally acceptable way to sort out these disagreements is democratically. Of course, there are inherent limits to that - you shouldn't be allowed democratically vote to disenfranchise minorities because then you wouldn't have a democracy anymore - but beyond that I think the point stands. I realize it's easier for me to say given my demographics, but I really believe this is the only way to fairly run a polity.

Given this is Atlas, I expected more pushback on the throuples pitch

You guys really overestimate Atlas prudeness smh

[Vosem]

A: Abortion Bad
B: Several types of sexual behavior that currently fall under the "consenting adults" bromide for most politically intelligent people, such as adultery, should be tortious (but not criminal). More generally, the fact that I used the phrase "the 'consenting adults' bromide" probably falls somewhere around here in and of itself.
C: Inheritance is, on the individual level (I'm not talking about social harms here), probably one of the least immoral ways to make a whole boatload of money.
D: The famed litigiousness of American society is a good thing and should be strategically encouraged in situations that all too often fall apart into interpersonal violence instead. (See B. for an example.)
E: Life with possibility of parole after twenty or so years should be the maximum criminal sentence, and executives should have minimal authority, if any, to overrule parole boards' decisions--no more cases like Gavin Newsom keeping Sirhan Sirhan in prison and explicitly saying in public that it was partly because of his personal admiration for RFK. Solitary confinement should be used extremely sparingly and in most circumstances is a human rights abuse. More nonviolent crimes, including property crimes that don't involve violence against other people, should be punished with house arrest and/or supervised release rather than conventional imprisonment.
F: In certain fields, descriptive representation concerns are valid, actually. We need more women and gay people in economics, more black and Asian people in fashion design, WAY more people who aren't straight white men in military history, more disabled people in medical ethics (in fact, I think we've heard about all on this subject from people who AREN'T disabled that any society could possibly need to), and ideally more Native Americans in every academic and arts-and-culture field with the possible exception of mood music.
G: All employed people should have a constitutional right to collective bargaining, as should people in certain vital non-employed categories like homemakers and Social Security recipients.
H: I'm open to soaking elite private college endowments and using them to reboot state universities with a back-to-the-basics social-leveling mandate.

I'm not picking on you in any way, Nathan, but almost all of these are so opposite of my views (I think H is the only one where I don't have a 180-degrees-opposed position, and even there while I think I sympathize with your point of view I find it aesthetically very ugly) that I think I can use this as a sort of guide to coming up with my own "Chad Centrist" compass.

A: We should hugely expand the use of the death penalty, and it should be the default option for any crime where there is no realistic expectation of a prisoner ever being released. The use of slave labor through the prison system is one of the most abhorrent things about modern America, particularly when you consider the vast amounts ordinary Americans spend to support it. I support some leniency for very young offenders, but otherwise death should be the usual penalty for essentially any violent crime without really serious extenuating circumstances (murder, yes, but also rape/burglary with threat of deadly force/any destruction of property that seriously endangered anyone), and probably also for most large-scale white-collar crimes, too.

B: Descriptive concerns are not valid outside of the makeup of legislatures and juries (government bodies explicitly meant to reflect the entire population). People coming from different cultures or biological backgrounds -- even quite subtly different cultures or biological backgrounds -- will be drawn to different things, and that's OK. Trying to force interest in people will just make the thing worse; as society becomes richer more people should be able to make a living doing what they love.

C: Public-sector unions are fundamentally anti-democratic and serve only to give more power to those who already have it.

D: I mean, the vast majority of my beliefs go in this quadrant, but I'll repeat one that sums most of them up: things should never be banned just because they are dangerous.

E: Abortion is good most of the time. Raising a child is an enormous responsibility that, in an ideal world, would not be forced on anyone because of a momentary poor decision.

F: Consenting adults can do pretty much whatever they want, and this is a principle that extends beyond sex (to things like euthanasia/medical experimentation/most contracts). This might be a lib-right opinion but whatever.

G: Inheritance is generally bad; inheritors often spend money in ways that the original entrepreneur would not have liked. (Divorcees getting half of a fortune tends to be even worse in this regard). More generally -- once again this might be a lib-right opinion but whatever -- societal tastes should be set by the nouveau riche and those who have come to money recently, since their example can be used as guidance by others, and never by inheritors who have lived their whole lives comfortably. TikTok culture is a positive good. (A different way to put this is that one of the books whose messages I found most distasteful is The Great Gatsby, because every social instinct I have suggests that it should be Tom looking up to Gatsby and trying to ape Gatsby's mannerisms, and having it be the other way around is ridiculous).

H: (This is another lib-right opinion generated by just contradicting Nathan, but again, whatever). We as a society have overvalued safety far too much, and this is substantially because suing someone has become far too easy. (Although actually the peak of litigiousness was in the 1990s and since then the number of interpersonal lawsuits has actually hugely declined; still). There should be large penalties for suing someone unsuccessfully (up to significantly more severe than "the punishment they would've gotten goes to you"), and there should be a social norm that lawsuits are a last-resort option before literally embarking on some kind of Hatfield/McCoy or Capulet/Montague feud.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A: Abortion Bad
B: Several types of sexual behavior that currently fall under the "consenting adults" bromide for most politically intelligent people, such as adultery, should be tortious (but not criminal). More generally, the fact that I used the phrase "the 'consenting adults' bromide" probably falls somewhere around here in and of itself.
C: Inheritance is, on the individual level (I'm not talking about social harms here), probably one of the least immoral ways to make a whole boatload of money.
D: The famed litigiousness of American society is a good thing and should be strategically encouraged in situations that all too often fall apart into interpersonal violence instead. (See B. for an example.)
E: Life with possibility of parole after twenty or so years should be the maximum criminal sentence, and executives should have minimal authority, if any, to overrule parole boards' decisions--no more cases like Gavin Newsom keeping Sirhan Sirhan in prison and explicitly saying in public that it was partly because of his personal admiration for RFK. Solitary confinement should be used extremely sparingly and in most circumstances is a human rights abuse. More nonviolent crimes, including property crimes that don't involve violence against other people, should be punished with house arrest and/or supervised release rather than conventional imprisonment.
F: In certain fields, descriptive representation concerns are valid, actually. We need more women and gay people in economics, more black and Asian people in fashion design, WAY more people who aren't straight white men in military history, more disabled people in medical ethics (in fact, I think we've heard about all on this subject from people who AREN'T disabled that any society could possibly need to), and ideally more Native Americans in every academic and arts-and-culture field with the possible exception of mood music.
G: All employed people should have a constitutional right to collective bargaining, as should people in certain vital non-employed categories like homemakers and Social Security recipients.
H: I'm open to soaking elite private college endowments and using them to reboot state universities with a back-to-the-basics social-leveling mandate.

I'm not picking on you in any way, Nathan, but almost all of these are so opposite of my views

Don't worry; I'd expect nothing else.

[Goldwater]

A: Abortion Bad
B: Several types of sexual behavior that currently fall under the "consenting adults" bromide for most politically intelligent people, such as adultery, should be tortious (but not criminal). More generally, the fact that I used the phrase "the 'consenting adults' bromide" probably falls somewhere around here in and of itself.
C: Inheritance is, on the individual level (I'm not talking about social harms here), probably one of the least immoral ways to make a whole boatload of money.
D: The famed litigiousness of American society is a good thing and should be strategically encouraged in situations that all too often fall apart into interpersonal violence instead. (See B. for an example.)
E: Life with possibility of parole after twenty or so years should be the maximum criminal sentence, and executives should have minimal authority, if any, to overrule parole boards' decisions--no more cases like Gavin Newsom keeping Sirhan Sirhan in prison and explicitly saying in public that it was partly because of his personal admiration for RFK. Solitary confinement should be used extremely sparingly and in most circumstances is a human rights abuse. More nonviolent crimes, including property crimes that don't involve violence against other people, should be punished with house arrest and/or supervised release rather than conventional imprisonment.
F: In certain fields, descriptive representation concerns are valid, actually. We need more women and gay people in economics, more black and Asian people in fashion design, WAY more people who aren't straight white men in military history, more disabled people in medical ethics (in fact, I think we've heard about all on this subject from people who AREN'T disabled that any society could possibly need to), and ideally more Native Americans in every academic and arts-and-culture field with the possible exception of mood music.
G: All employed people should have a constitutional right to collective bargaining, as should people in certain vital non-employed categories like homemakers and Social Security recipients.
H: I'm open to soaking elite private college endowments and using them to reboot state universities with a back-to-the-basics social-leveling mandate.

I'm not picking on you in any way, Nathan, but almost all of these are so opposite of my views

Don't worry; I'd expect nothing else.

Society if Vosemism vs. Nathanism became the main political divide:

[Dr. MB]

A. Citizens should actively be encouraged (and financially compensated) for reporting any and every crime that occurs around them and/or that they have knowledge of, creating true community policing via financial incentive.

culture of snitches

[Dr. MB]

A: We should hugely expand the use of the death penalty, and it should be the default option for any crime where there is no realistic expectation of a prisoner ever being released. The use of slave labor through the prison system is one of the most abhorrent things about modern America, particularly when you consider the vast amounts ordinary Americans spend to support it. I support some leniency for very young offenders, but otherwise death should be the usual penalty for essentially any violent crime without really serious extenuating circumstances (murder, yes, but also rape/burglary with threat of deadly force/any destruction of property that seriously endangered anyone), and probably also for most large-scale white-collar crimes, too.

So prison labor is abhorrent but killing people for things that don't actually result in someone else's death isn't?

[nicholas.slaydon]

A. Citizens should actively be encouraged (and financially compensated) for reporting any and every crime that occurs around them and/or that they have knowledge of, creating true community policing via financial incentive.

culture of snitches

That's right. The best way to combat crime and to ensure a law abiding populace is to compensate the public for their law keeping beyond a symbolic pat on the back and a good job. It is an incentive for good behavior, just like Pavlov and his dog. Likewise, it would help to reduce poverty and such, as those who are poor could climb out of that poverty by knowing that the better citizen they are, the more compensation they will receive. Similarly, our law enforcement system today is built not to prevent crime from ever occurring, but rather to respond to crime after it has already occurred. I think this is ridiculous, and we should be pushing for all measures to prevent crime from ever occurring in the first place, and I can think of no better way to ensure that would be criminals don't become real criminals than to incentivize the public through compensation to report anything they know that may well be criminal in nature.

[Vosem]

A: We should hugely expand the use of the death penalty, and it should be the default option for any crime where there is no realistic expectation of a prisoner ever being released. The use of slave labor through the prison system is one of the most abhorrent things about modern America, particularly when you consider the vast amounts ordinary Americans spend to support it. I support some leniency for very young offenders, but otherwise death should be the usual penalty for essentially any violent crime without really serious extenuating circumstances (murder, yes, but also rape/burglary with threat of deadly force/any destruction of property that seriously endangered anyone), and probably also for most large-scale white-collar crimes, too.

So prison labor is abhorrent but killing people for things that don't actually result in someone else's death isn't?

Yes. Killing people is less abhorrent than locking them up forever at great economic and moral cost to society and themselves. I have no idea how you can know anything about the American prison system and not also think this.

A. Citizens should actively be encouraged (and financially compensated) for reporting any and every crime that occurs around them and/or that they have knowledge of, creating true community policing via financial incentive.

culture of snitches

That's right. The best way to combat crime and to ensure a law abiding populace is to compensate the public for their law keeping beyond a symbolic pat on the back and a good job. It is an incentive for good behavior, just like Pavlov and his dog. Likewise, it would help to reduce poverty and such, as those who are poor could climb out of that poverty by knowing that the better citizen they are, the more compensation they will receive. Similarly, our law enforcement system today is built not to prevent crime from ever occurring, but rather to respond to crime after it has already occurred. I think this is ridiculous, and we should be pushing for all measures to prevent crime from ever occurring in the first place, and I can think of no better way to ensure that would be criminals don't become real criminals than to incentivize the public through compensation to report anything they know that may well be criminal in nature.

Look, I think the political effects of declining trust in society will on average be good, but maybe giving every citizen a payload of paranoia about every other citizen is authoritarian and psychotic. More generally, prosecution should be a tool for punishing serious offenses against the body politic that do not need "citizen reporting" to be discovered.

(This isn't to say that, like, whistleblowing shouldn't be a thing, or that some crimes aren't effectively disguised, but this just goes miles and miles in the wrong direction).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

A. 16 year olds are absolutely not mature enough to consent to sex/relationships with people over 18. And Antonio's take on the age of consent was reasonable and didn't deserve the push-back it got.

B. There is no right to do immoral things(though what I consider immoral is very different from what most people who would say this condemn.

C. Nuclear power is an essential part of ending fossil fuel use.

D. There's nothing inherently wrong with incest.

E. Polyamory is a good thing that is equal to and should be promoted until it's as respected as monogamous relationships.

F. Being weird(and I mean WEIRD weird.) is not a bad thing

G. Disabled people(including the mentally ill) deserve to live with dignity and respect and those who can't support themselves(and that doesn't just mean physically) should be supported fully by society.

H. Rich people are worse people than poor people.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

A: We should hugely expand the use of the death penalty, and it should be the default option for any crime where there is no realistic expectation of a prisoner ever being released. The use of slave labor through the prison system is one of the most abhorrent things about modern America, particularly when you consider the vast amounts ordinary Americans spend to support it. I support some leniency for very young offenders, but otherwise death should be the usual penalty for essentially any violent crime without really serious extenuating circumstances (murder, yes, but also rape/burglary with threat of deadly force/any destruction of property that seriously endangered anyone), and probably also for most large-scale white-collar crimes, too.

So prison labor is abhorrent but killing people for things that don't actually result in someone else's death isn't?

Yes. Killing people is less abhorrent than locking them up forever at great economic and moral cost to society and themselves. I have no idea how you can know anything about the American prison system and not also think this.

Bruh. Even if you pretend death is better than american prisons(bad as they are), actually making prison humane is surely a better solution than mass death?

[Dr. MB]

A: We should hugely expand the use of the death penalty, and it should be the default option for any crime where there is no realistic expectation of a prisoner ever being released. The use of slave labor through the prison system is one of the most abhorrent things about modern America, particularly when you consider the vast amounts ordinary Americans spend to support it. I support some leniency for very young offenders, but otherwise death should be the usual penalty for essentially any violent crime without really serious extenuating circumstances (murder, yes, but also rape/burglary with threat of deadly force/any destruction of property that seriously endangered anyone), and probably also for most large-scale white-collar crimes, too.

So prison labor is abhorrent but killing people for things that don't actually result in someone else's death isn't?

Yes. Killing people is less abhorrent than locking them up forever at great economic and moral cost to society and themselves. I have no idea how you can know anything about the American prison system and not also think this.

Well I don’t think we should do either, but I’d rather at least be alive and in prison than dead. Why not at least give them a choice?

[Schiff for Senate]

Here's mine.

A: bring back public executions
B: death penalty for drug dealers
C: ban all taxes on property
D: no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever

With the possible exception of B, these are all big nos from me. Particularly A and D…red flag laws and the like are supported even by Republicans, and universal background checks are a commonsensical procedure. No reasonable person remotely interested in saving lives would oppose them. You oppose banning any types of guns? Fair. But I don’t get why you’d oppose red flag laws or universal background checks (you’ve got anybody literally walking into a shop, not needing to show any ID, getting whichever guns they want…it should be a little harder to do that, while ensuring law abiding and responsible citizens can still access them, and that’s precisely what universal background checks do). As for public executions, again: it just feeds into and creates bloodlust, and that’s not good at all - it's a lot like the French Revolution in that regard. No, there’s no need for mob lynchings or glorifying death. Death is not something to be *celebrated* or something for people to watch and enjoy. You can execute whoever needs to be executed in their own privacy - no need to make a disturbing/disgusting theatre out of it. The message will still be sent that if you commit a heinous crime, you lose your right to live - without generating or provoking bloodlust and brazenly violating the 8th Amendment.

[DavidB.]

A: Mass immigration bad. Also: cars good, airplanes good

B: Church/synagogue/mosque good. Also: elite schools good (but merit-based, not money-based), should also focus on physical excellence

C: Inheritance good; taxing it is immoral.

D: War on drugs has failed - legalize it. Also: in hindsight all COVID restrictions were always immoral

E: State should not enter the bedroom of consenting adults

F: Prisons should be humane and long prison sentences - except for the most heinous of crimes - are generally bad

G: Piketty is right: taxes on wealth should be much higher and taxes on labour much lower. Also: four day work weeks; unions good; legal assistance for employees (when in trouble with employer) free; healthcare almost free; rent control good (in combination with massive government-led housing construction); minimum wage must be high enough to live off; 30+ days off per year

H: Tiktok culture is cancer, social media are bad, and the fact that young people read significantly less often than 20 years ago will bring down our civilization; like in Chyna, social media algorithms should mandatorily show content that helps the individual and the community in improving - not dumb sex dances

[VPH]

A: Enforce obscenity laws against big porn, reinvigorate the cause of action for alienation of affection, some kind of ban on abortion, make chemical castration part of the punishment for pedophiles and rapists

B: Clarence Thomas is right that the Establishment Clause should not apply to states and localities, hire more police, the Electoral College and Senate are good actually

C: Abolish a good number of zoning laws, major occupational licensing reform, support the 2nd amendment

D: Deregulate cars so you can import something less than 25 years old and/or buy cheaper vehicles even if they're slightly less safe or whatnot (as long as consumers are fully informed), do more to ensure that colleges and universities uphold freedom of expression

E: Carbon tax and nuclear energy, curtail qualified immunity for law enforcement

F: Abolish the death penalty, make it much easier to vote

G: Trustbusting 21st century style, institute a Baby Bond program that would help close much of the racial wealth gap, make legal immigration easier

H: Regulate social media, empower labor unions, implement like a whole year of paid parental leave

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

A: We should hugely expand the use of the death penalty, and it should be the default option for any crime where there is no realistic expectation of a prisoner ever being released. The use of slave labor through the prison system is one of the most abhorrent things about modern America, particularly when you consider the vast amounts ordinary Americans spend to support it. I support some leniency for very young offenders, but otherwise death should be the usual penalty for essentially any violent crime without really serious extenuating circumstances (murder, yes, but also rape/burglary with threat of deadly force/any destruction of property that seriously endangered anyone), and probably also for most large-scale white-collar crimes, too.

So prison labor is abhorrent but killing people for things that don't actually result in someone else's death isn't?

Yes. Killing people is less abhorrent than locking them up forever at great economic and moral cost to society and themselves. I have no idea how you can know anything about the American prison system and not also think this.

Bruh. Even if you pretend death is better than american prisons(bad as they are), actually making prison humane is surely a better solution than mass death?

Vosem thinks we should abolish Medicare/Social Security and Public Education. He also thinks most people AGREE with that, somehow.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I don't understand this?

[Ferguson97]

A - Gun confiscation

B - Hierarchies are a part of human nature

C - The free market, more often than not, is efficient

D - HOAs are bad

E - America's free speech standard should be a model for the world

F - Open borders are morally correct

G - Wealth tax

H - Nationalize the energy sector

[Dr. MB]

B - Hierarchies are a part of human nature

Shouldn’t we combat our animalistic instincts and enlighten ourselves?

[Antonio the Sixth]

B - Hierarchies are a part of human nature

Shouldn’t we combat our animalistic instincts and enlighten ourselves?

Yeah, that's the thing about human nature - it's often very bad and we need to actively work to correct it.