What are your politically unpopular views?

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

Here is another

Its morally preferable to forcibly separate a child from a parent who wants to keep the child, putting the child up for adoption than to either let a child be raised by only 1 parent or to force a parent to take care of a child they would rather not have.

I grew up with a single mom. Please explain in detail why I should have been seized by the state.

[President Johnson]

A decent number of my views are unpopular, even or especially in my own party. I guess most are referring to public opinion in Germany and not neccessarily the US.

- Raising the retirement age. I think as a result of demographic change and longer life expectancy, we have to raise the retirement age to 69 in Germany and then tie it to life expectancy. Not sure about the US as I'm not that familiar with the details, though could be similar. Otherwise, social security might not be sustainable without massive tax increases on the middle class.

- In Germany, I would entirely abolish the "Beamtentum" (can be translated by "civil service") and make each public employee indeed a normal employee with the same rules as in the private sector. It's bureucratic, inflexible and too expensive for tax payers. However, I know a lot of people supporting this from across the political spectrum, so not sure whether it's an unpopular position. It would be almost impossible to enact into law though as this group has a strong lobby.

- At least for Germany: Massive increase in defense spending as a result of Putin's increasing aggresion. Also as a signal to other autocratic countries. (the US in contrary probably spends a little too much)

- All driver's licenses should have an expiration date of 15 years for people under 65 or 70, and then five years before drivers have to take a test to renew their license. Too many utterly incompetent drivers out on the streets.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here is another

Its morally preferable to forcibly separate a child from a parent who wants to keep the child, putting the child up for adoption than to either let a child be raised by only 1 parent or to force a parent to take care of a child they would rather not have.

I grew up with a single mom. Please explain in detail why I should have been seized by the state.

Yeah - I disagree with the single parent thing, but def understand the argument about forcing a parent to raise a child they don't want if that will compromise the quality of that child's upbringing.

On average, I would think being raised in a dual-parent household would be preferable to a single parent household for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean a single parent can't provide a child with a good loving upbringing better than that of an average dual parent household. Sometimes, single parent households are preferable if the other parent was abusive or something.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Giving people testosterone should be illegal. If that de facto eliminates trans men, so be it.

I'm actually quite of the opposite belief - let people do what they want to their own bodies. My more controversial belief would be if you are doing something unhealthy or potentially dangerous by choice and suffer a consequence (i.e. taking steroids), you shouldn't be covered by any sort of public healthcare.

However in practice, this becomes a slippery slope; if a person takes steroids and has a heart attack, how do you know that heart attack was because of the steroids?

It would be interesting to see what would happen if somehow a "safe steroid" could be created; something that allows men to achieve huge muscle mass without all the health risks. It's unlikely this is truly possible though because anything giving you ability to put on huge amounts of muscle is going to mess with the endocrine system.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Parents who are aware that their child will be born with down syndrome or another serious genetic disease and do not abort the fetus are acting selfishly and cruelly. I would never support a forced abortion, but I do think they shouldn't receive any government welfare whatsoever.

Racist humor, when used in the correct context, can serve as a trust-building bonding exercise for people of different cultures or ethnic groups. We should build towards a future where we are able to laugh at each other's stereotypes and differences, not one where those differences are ignored.

The value of any given object is completely contingent upon the time and location in which it is sold. Those who complain about "unfair prices" or "price gouging" do not understand this basic concept.

Any attempt to give Americans universal health care will fail if it isn't accompanied by a cultural change towards exercise/nutrition and away from car dependency and mindless fast food consumption. Our health care costs aren't just high because of our system's design. It's also because most of us make terrible choices about what we put in our bodies, and not a single politician has the guts to tell their lethargic constituents the truth about it.

Immigrants to the US are generally more patriotic than native-born citizens and have a greater appreciation for this country because they understand what it's like to live without freedom and prosperity. People who think native-born citizens deserve anything more than immigrants are entitled provincial losers with no marketable skills who want freebies from the government just for the accident of their birth.

Property rights are too strong in this country. Homeowners should not be able to prevent the development of new apartment complexes due to noise complaints, whining about traffic, or "changes to the neighborhood character." None of these should be recognized as legitimate concerns to hold up construction.

Private religious schools should probably be illegal.

Infant circumcision should definitely be illegal.

For most of recent American history, our workplaces and institutions were aggressively masculine and actively hostile to women. We are not being cognizant enough of the fact that we are currently going too far in the other direction. Male-dominated and female-dominated offices/schools/businesses have their own unique pathologies, and neither is really desirable.

Finally, Americans are generally much too concerned with obtaining the results they want and do not seem to care at all about building efficient or long-lasting incentive systems to achieve those results. When confronted by a problem in our society (for example, a housing shortage), the question always seems to be "How can we give housing to people who need it?" rather than "How can we construct a system that incentivizes people to provide housing at a lower price?" Aligning people's incentives in a desirable way is how you create self-sustaining systems that don't need constant handouts to perpetuate themselves. However, in our modern society anyone who doesn't endorse throwing free money at a problem is labeled a monster-- even if they want the same outcome. A system that relies on people's charity is not reliable. A system that relies on their self-interest is.

Despite being a liberal/Dem, I actually agree with the racist humor thing. Obv there are certain boundaries, but being able to make offensive jokes towards someone can show you have a sense of comfort with them. Humour can also be a great way to lower tensions generally.

I just made this point in another post, but if there was a way to quantify these sorts of things, I think those who voluntarily live unhealthy or risky lifestyles (couch potatoes, liberal drug usage, steroid users, ect), should not get the same access to publicly subsidized healthcare.

Def agree on your immigrant points.

I agree NIMBYs have too much power to block good projects and development, but I also believe people should have greater freedom to do whatever they want with their home/property. If I want to paint my house pink and add a skatepark in my backyard, I should be able to do that without permission of any sort of Government or HoA, as long as it doesn't have a direct negative externality on anyone else (I.e skatepark would cause drainage problems for neighbors)

From what I've read, circumcision rates seem to be going down. I don't have as strong of an opinion but generally believe circumcision should be up to each man's choice.

I think the over-feminization of education in some cases has been problematic especially for younger men; we now see them lagging behind in academic achievement in many ways. I think what's hard is masculinization/feminization of certain sectors is kind of self-perpetuating; for instance if tech is known for being "more masculine", it'll probably attract more men and actually make it more masculine. What's hard is I am a believer than men and women are biologically attracted to different things, so in some industries there will always be a natural masculine or feminine skew, and in some cases maybe that skew is desirable. I think it depends on context.

Def agree on the last point 100%

We agree quite a bit lol.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Another one for me is requiring parental licenses to have children.

how would this be enforced?  Sorry let me rephrase that, how in the hell could this be enforced without trampling on every adult (or if you want to be really sexist about it, half of adults) rights, and some very intimate, important rights.

It would be required for both parents regardless of gender. In order to get a license, you would have to pass a sort of mental competency test, so the would be child would be less likely to have a parent that is abusive or doesnt care about their wellbeing.

right right right, but how would it work?  Lots of forced abortions on the ignorant and dumb?  Lots of forced (and not 100% working and not 100% reversible) temporary contraception?  Forced adoptions?

The mental competency tests wont be a measure of intelligence, but rather a measure of whether you have a mental illness or not, whether you have a past criminal record that has to do with children (i.e. child abuse, sexual assault on a child).

If you manage to get pregnant but dont have a license, than yes would be forced to get an abortion.

If you have a child without a license, the child would be taken to an adoption center and the parent be charged with a fine.

If you agree to take the test and you pass, neither will happen.

It sounds cruel, but imo its necessary.

I agree with your idea in theory, but in practice it could become a slippery slope.

For instance, I have autism which has both positive and negative impacts on my life. However, some would argue for this reason alone I shouldn't be able to have or raise kids. I would worry this test could start to be politicized and use to attack certain groups if we're not careful. What about lower functioning autistic people? People with bipolar? People with schizophrenia? and so on.

Just looking at criminal record could probably do a good job at weeding out many problematic situations.

I think also just a look at the general situation. This already sort of happens where children will be taken out of custody of a homeless drug addict. The issue becomes a lot of these people are pretty disconnected from the system anyways and would have children regardless.

[HisGrace]

Cut US defense spending by at least 25%

Anti death penalty

Probably fine with getting rid of prison sentences for a lot of minor crimes like shoplifting

Abolish the income tax and estate tax

Raise retirement age to 70 and means test social security

Legalize prostitution, at least decriminalize if not legalize hard drugs

-Physician assisted suicide should be legal.

Was going to list this but looked it up and recent polls show a majority of people supporting it.

[Diabolical Materialism]

1. Recreational cocaine use should be legalized
2. Consensual dueling between sound minded adults should be legal
3. The workers of any given work place should democratically own their workplaces
4. Fully automatic weapons should be legal for the civilian populace
5. Speed limits should be abolished
6. Unions should run the country

[Sol]

I feel like most of the ones of mine are things you'd expect from anybody with my political persuasion, so here are some which might be a little less expected or out of the box in general.

-All combined statistical areas should be forcibly amalgamated into one city, and any new areas falling under the CSA's definition in later censuses should be added as well. Once added, these places should be non-removable. In situations where CSAs cross state lines, the cities on either side should pay equalization payments to ensure population-proportional equality in tax funding, and they should be forced to share a name.
-Professional Sports should be nationalized. Under this new scheme, the federal government will ban tackle football and replace it with touch football, as well as banning headers in soccer to minimize concussion risk. Teams should be allocated by the size of the new unified cities, to encourage unity, and should have the same name across all sports. Teams will be reallocated with each census, though the federal government will likely expand the league instead. Here's a proposal for the NBA (ignoring the unified name element):

• 1. New York -- Keeps the Knicks, loses the Nets.
  2. Los Angeles -- Keeps the Lakers, loses the Clippers. They should be made to change the name but idk to what.
  3. Washington -- Keeps the Wizards
  4. Chicago -- Keeps the Bulls
  5. San Francisco -- Keeps the Warriors, who are renamed the San Francisco Warriors
  6. Boston -- Keeps the Celtics
  7. Dallas -- Keeps the Mavericks
  8. Philly -- Keeps the 76ers
  9. Houston -- Keeps the Rockets
  10. Atlanta -- Keeps the Hawks
  11. Miami -- Keeps the Heat
  12. Detroit -- Keeps the Pistons
  13. Seattle -- Gains the Nets from Brooklyn.
  14. Phoenix -- Keeps the Suns
  15. Orlando -- Keeps the Magic
  16. Minneapolis -- Keeps the Timberwolves, who are renamed the Minneapolis Timberwolves
  17. Cleveland -- Keeps the Cavaliers
  18. Denver -- Keeps the Nuggets
  19. Portland -- Keeps the Trail Blazers
  20. Charlotte -- Keeps the Hornets
  21. St. Louis -- Gains the Clippers
  22. Pittsburgh -- Gains the Thunder
  23. Salt Lake City -- Keeps the Jazz, but the name is completely changed to remove reference to the totally anachronistic "jazz" and the state name.
  24. Sacramento -- Keeps the Kings
  25. Connecticut City -- Gains the Pelicans
  26. San Antonio -- Keeps the Spurs
  27. Columbus -- Gains the Grizzlies
  28. Indianapolis -- Keeps the Pacers, renamed the Indianapolis Pacers
  29. Kansas City -- Gains the Bucks
  30. Las Vegas -- Gains the Raptors
  

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

Setting the Age of consent to 21 is infinitely better than putting it at 16.

[Ferguson97]

Setting the Age of consent to 21 is infinitely better than putting it at 16.

Strongly agree.

[mileslunn]

Setting the Age of consent to 21 is infinitely better than putting it at 16.

I think would be a good idea but with a 2 year age difference exemption.  Otherwise 20 and 19 year old would be legal but 40 and 18 year old would not.