What are your politically unpopular views?

[Vice President Christian Man]

Here's some:
1. Abortion is immoral
2. Parents should have the final say on whether their child decides to transition
3. Most of what Hollywood supports is garbage
4. Workplace/direct democracy should be implemented
5. Punishment shouldn't be the primary purpose of imprisonment/should pay people a living wage for their labors. They should also have the right to vote
6. Companies that use slave labor should be sanctioned
7. Campaign vouchers should be implemented to suppress corporate power
8. States should have as close to an equal population as possible, same goes with congressional districts done based off the US census.
9. State and local governments should be more powerful than the states.
10. Drugs should be legalized
11. I'm opposed to big government and big business although both should be used in moderation in order to reduce their overall power.
12. Most government subsidies should end

I thought #6 was popular.

I feel like it's overlooked too much for it to be popular

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Abolish speed limits.

some former atlas poster that somehow became the attorney general of south dakota agrees with you.

[BigZuck08]

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

[Joe Biden 2024]

The United States should intervene overseas.

[Mr. Smith]

U.S. is closer in mindset to Russia than the EU.

[MarkD]

Just two main views that are unpopular with most other people:
1) There should not be any minimum wage laws. Not all workers are equally in need of a "living wage," and all workers do not have the same minimum economic needs. See this video. (It was produced by the Libertarian Party.)
2) There have been MANY TIMES that the US Supreme Court has struck down laws as "unconstitutional" which were not truly unconstitutional, even though it was true that those laws were pernicious -- somebody should have gotten rid of those laws, but it was not truly the duty of the SCOTUS to get rid of them. Because many people do not like those laws, they assume that the Court did the right thing to strike them down.

[TML]

All railroads in the US should be nationalized so that improvements to various lines to boost passenger rail service can be done quicker compared to now.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Just two main views that are unpopular with most other people:
1) There should not be any minimum wage laws. Not all workers are equally in need of a "living wage," and all workers do not have the same minimum economic needs. See this video. (It was produced by the Libertarian Party.)
2) There have been MANY TIMES that the US Supreme Court has struck down laws as "unconstitutional" which were not truly unconstitutional, even though it was true that those laws were pernicious -- somebody should have gotten rid of those laws, but it was not truly the duty of the SCOTUS to get rid of them. Because many people do not like those laws, they assume that the Court did the right thing to strike them down.

See this video. (It was produced by the Libertarian Party.)

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

The American middle class does not pay anywhere near enough taxes

[dead0man]

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.

[BigZuck08]

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.

[dead0man]

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?

[BigZuck08]

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.

[Excessive Hyperbole]

1. I'm passionately pro-life but also believe in exceptions. My pro-life position is a mixture of Jewish considerations and secular considerations.

2. Parents should have the final say on whether their child decides to transition - and this cuts both ways. Both parties want to support parents when the parents agree with their party but it can't work that way. Either Parents have agency over their young children or the government does - and I most certainly prefer that parents have that agency. (Obviously, in cases of abuse or neglect - there are legal avenues to save children from those situations).

3. America should and must remain the world's leading superpower and hegemonic power. American leadership and Pax Americana has been the most democratic and empowering force for good on the international stage in modern history. A world where China or Russia are the leading hegemon is a world that would live in darkness.

4. Capitalism is still clearly the best economic system that has helped liberate millions onto millions of people from a deep and painful level of poverty that existed in preceding generations. At the same time, Capitalism's got some serious flaws that are causing anxiety among middle class and working class people. I think its fair to debate how capitalism should operate in society but it is extremist, dangerous and suicidal for people to talk about replacing capitalism as an economic system.

5. LGBT Communities (especially in America) need to normalize settling down with one partner, having families and/or raising children. A lot of LGBT party culture was born out of necessity during a time period for even kissing the same gender could get someone fired from their jobs and/or thrown in jail. However, in most western countries there has been tangible progress for LGBT people and its time to move away from hyper-individualism and towards creating a balance of individual-collective structures that create meaningful connections and families. The longer LGBT culture prioritizes perpetual singledom, the easier is for the religious right to demonize and exclude LGBT people from social, cultural and religious life.

6. Secular and Religious communities need to create a new "normal" and pluralism. Both Secular and Religious communities - in America and other parts of the world - have been increasingly polarized from each other. The two poles will never have a warm and fuzzy relationship - there are too many natural tensions that exist - however, there needs to be a healthy dose of political pluralism between the two groups. A healthy democracy protects both the rights of religious people/communities and secular people/communities - without infringing on the political rights of the other. I oppose religious coercion from the government and from poliical forces in society. I also oppose secular coercion from the government and from political forces in society.

7. Securing Democracy requires compromise and political pluralism. In places like America, people increasingly have distorted personal overton windows and are unable to communicate or discuss politics civilly with people they don't agree with. This is, in itself, a major threat to democracy. Geographic, cultural, racial, ethnic, gender and religious polarization threatens to destroy democracy in diverse societies and countries. If there's no national purpose and/or no respect for political pluralism - a society will eventually fall apart.  Demonizing political opponents, political self-segregation, creating us vs them political dynamics are all eating at the fiber of our country. The reality is - we need to find ways to compromise on basic things - like existing in spaces with people we don't agree with and understanding that our divisions aren't destiny, especially those based on identity.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

1. While the Supreme Court should not be in the business of making law, neither should it take away rights previously established for any reason.

Classic leftlib view but one I hold very dearly. Perhaps Roe wasn't the right way to go for the pro-choice side and dubious from a constitutional standpoint. But, neither should the courts be in the business of deciding you have a right and then taking it away half-a-century later. Dobbs and its aftermath is an important example of how a government that can give you anything you want can easily take everything away. In an instant. Same with student loan forgiveness.

2. The federal government is responsible for killing more innocent people than every person on death row combined.

This sorta goes without saying, doesn't it? "Guns don't kill people, the government does." And indeed, I need not list all the drone attacks and other ways the US government has killed or maimed people. But a well-armed citizenry is far less worrying to me than a country where only the government -- or people who are friends of the government -- can carry certain firearms that civilians can't.

3. "The rich are in possession of the goods of the poor, even if they have acquired them honestly or inherited them legally."

- St. John Chrysostom

4. Poverty builds more character than wealthiness.

Having grown up fairly affluent and privileged only to eventually end up in a homeless shelter has shown me both worlds, and I can easily identify the one which was harder but also built me up more than I ever thought possible. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

5. “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”

This is a popular quote among certain elements of the right, but I think it actually makes sense if we reconsider what actually makes a person strong or weak, or at least distinguish what society tells us from what is true. See #4.

[Ferguson97]

Pretrial detention and noise ordinances are unconstitutional.

?

1st Amendment.

[WalterWhite]

We should add a third branch of Congress filled with elected representatives from each Native American tribe, elected by enrolled tribe members.

[Donerail]

1. While the Supreme Court should not be in the business of making law, neither should it take away rights previously established for any reason.

Classic leftlib view but one I hold very dearly. Perhaps Roe wasn't the right way to go for the pro-choice side and dubious from a constitutional standpoint. But, neither should the courts be in the business of deciding you have a right and then taking it away half-a-century later. Dobbs and its aftermath is an important example of how a government that can give you anything you want can easily take everything away. In an instant. Same with student loan forgiveness.

But everything can be framed in the language of rights — Dobbs restored the right of states to decide their own policy on abortion, and the student loan rulings likewise gave Congress, not just the executive, the right to decide on the issue. The Court resolving an issue instead of letting it work through the political process always curtails the "rights," in some form, of whoever's on the losing side.

Pretrial detention and noise ordinances are unconstitutional.

?

1st Amendment.

Interesting. Are you a sovereign citizen?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

1. While the Supreme Court should not be in the business of making law, neither should it take away rights previously established for any reason.

Classic leftlib view but one I hold very dearly. Perhaps Roe wasn't the right way to go for the pro-choice side and dubious from a constitutional standpoint. But, neither should the courts be in the business of deciding you have a right and then taking it away half-a-century later. Dobbs and its aftermath is an important example of how a government that can give you anything you want can easily take everything away. In an instant. Same with student loan forgiveness.

But everything can be framed in the language of rights — Dobbs restored the right of states to decide their own policy on abortion, and the student loan rulings likewise gave Congress, not just the executive, the right to decide on the issue. The Court resolving an issue instead of letting it work through the political process always curtails the "rights," in some form, of whoever's on the losing side.

The right to an abortion was an individual right. Under Roe, it was a right regardless of what your congressman believed. My argument is that stare decisis should have decided Roe's fate, because the practical effect of Dobbs was millions of women immediately losing that right. Student loan forgiveness is protected under the HEROES Act, but it was overturned by a corrupt packed court just as Roe was and it was on questionable standing.

[Aurelius2]

1. Repeal the Hughes Amendment.
2. Abolish all property taxation at all levels.
3. The correct approach to climate change is to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in: (1) nuclear fusion research and development, (2) carbon capture and sequestration research and development, and (3) massive rapid buildout of nuclear fission capacity. The goal of this is to be able to keep living exactly as before while also being able to prevent further warming.
4. In doing so, we should seek not just to halt further warming, but also to sequester enough CO2 to drop temperatures back to pre-industrial levels. Yes, my personal preference for cold weather is a major motivator behind this.
5. Ban all AI research and development, globally monitor compute above a threshold level, and confiscate and destroy all H100s.
6. The billionaire jetsetters who fly around the world telling us peons that we should eat bugs and own nothing for the sake of the climate belong in the Hague.
7. Death penalty for fentanyl distribution.
7b. The Sacklers should be publicly executed in some particularly gruesome manner on the National Mall.
8. The US should seek to acquire Greenland, even if this means offering to pay every Greenlander $1,000,000 if YES wins in a referendum.
9. Ban outsourcing of call centers to non-English-native countries.
10. California should split the Sierra Nevada, up to around 5,000 or 6,000 feet elevation, into ten zones. Each summer the state should do a massive controlled burn of one of those zones, with tens of thousands of firefighters stationed to protect homes, property, and infrastructure within those zones. This is the only way we can escape 110 years of overaggressive fire suppression that has resulted in an insane level of undergrowth buildup.
11. Before weed is federally legalized, the government should fund a research program to get rid of the smell. The relevant genes should then be edited into all weed strains, and there should be extremely strict penalties for selling smelly weed.
12. Overturn Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and all subsequent law that depends on it. Abolish the existing EEOC and start from scratch which a new agency which, unlike the existing one, has a clearly defined mandate and is subject to the usual oversight that almost all other agencies are subject to.
13. Technology, viewed generally, is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. A particular technology's goodness or badness comes from its impact on the world and on the human experience. Each technology must be evaluated on its own merits. This will inevitably result in rejection of some (not all, or even most) technologies as harmful/dangerous/anti-human. These rejections will inevitably be derided by techno-optimists as being a "Luddite", whatever that is supposed to mean.
14. Ban California from banning things.

[Ferguson97]

Interesting. Are you a sovereign citizen?

No. I'm just unaware of any part of the First Amendment that contains exceptions for speech made at certain volumes or certain hours of the day.

[Donerail]

Interesting. Are you a sovereign citizen?

No. I'm just unaware of any part of the First Amendment that contains exceptions for speech made at certain volumes or certain hours of the day.

"Speech" refers to the communication or expression of thoughts. You can learn this by looking up the word "speech" in the dictionary. "Freedom of speech" means the freedom to communicate or express whatever thought you wish — the state cannot compel you to express a particular viewpoint or forbid you from expressing a particular viewpoint. It does not mean a right to speak at a particular volume, at a particular time, or in a particular place. Glad I could clear that up for you.

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

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.

Forced abortion is a crime against humanity, my dude. At least equivalent to government sponsered rape. Banning those with mental illnesses from having children isn't going to stop much abuse, and will stop many kids from being born into loving, healthy families. I can understand wanting to prevent child abuse, but rape and authoritarianism is not the answer. increased enforcement/broadening of child abuse laws that protect childrens rights and giving children more rights(especially teenagers) is a better way to go.

2. Parents should have the final say on whether their child decides to transition

This is extremely popular, sadly.

[BigZuck08]

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.

Forced abortion is a crime against humanity, my dude. At least equivalent to government sponsered rape. Banning those with mental illnesses from having children isn't going to stop much abuse, and will stop many kids from being born into loving, healthy families. I can understand wanting to prevent child abuse, but rape and authoritarianism is not the answer. increased enforcement/broadening of child abuse laws that protect childrens rights and giving children more rights(especially teenagers) is a better way to go.

2. Parents should have the final say on whether their child decides to transition

This is extremely popular, sadly.

You make a good point. I'm gonna rethink my position on that.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Not only should the death penalty be banned, but advocacy for the death penalty should be illegal and classified as threats to commit murder.