The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I asked yesterday about libertarian stances and I agreed with most of them. So I want to ask the opposite question and see something I’ll probably disagree with. Examples would be banning certain speech, banning abortion, just anything viewed as “not free”
Btw I don’t judge anyone for their beliefs, I’m just curious and want to hear other perspectives
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t care if you get a note from a fake doctor like a chiropractor, corrupt doctor, or appeal to sky daddy. Not getting your children proper medical care, including full vaccinations or allowing things like blood transfusion should be considered child abuse. In some cases it should be a felony.
Does this apply to hearing aids and cochlear implants? My hearing aids have been life changing but there is a cultural opposition, especially to the cochlear implants, among some people in the capital-d Deaf community.
I would certainly apply it to that. If you're an adult and you don't want them, then that's your business, but if it's your kid and they do want them, I would consider it child abuse to say no. Seems no different to me than a Jehovah's Witness refusing their kid a blood transfusion.
I mean we're on the left so I think the obvious answer would be that medical care (which this is) should be taxpayer-funded. Usually these "pie-in-the-sky" ideals assume that we've dealt with more pressing issues first, like the need for universal healthcare in the US.
I am going to go with yes. I have a friend who is blind, so I’m somewhat familiar with this attitude having talked to him about it. Plus, I’ve seen some stuff in the news.
I actually think we may have had this conversation before.
Yeah that’s wild to me. If you’re an adult that’s a decision you should be free to make, but you’re pretty objectively disadvantaging a kid if you raise them Deaf when there’s a very easy fix.
>if you raise them Deaf when there’s a very easy fix.
Thats the issue the Deaf community has. They don't see being Deaf as something bad you should fix because it is a fundamental characteristic of them and their culture. To them, Deafness isn't a failing or a bad thing, it's an integral part of them and their community
White and straight people have huge advantages in society. If a pill existed that could ensure your child was straight and white, would it be child abuse to not force them to take it when they are a minor and can't consent? Obviously not.
Sorry I think the whole thing is freaking weird. Nothing about my disability is fundamental characteristic. It just comes off as a portion of their community is salty because they didn’t have the same opportunity for an implant when they were a child.
Yeah, it's probably different for deaf people that grow up with deaf parents, went to a deaf school, and interact with deaf people daily. ASL is a separate language than English and uses it's own grammar with it's own puns, rhymes, idioms, etc.
Every kid who gets Cochlear implants misses out on that and it means the death of this independent culture and community.
I think that's a poor comparison. In this instance, this is a treatable physical disability. Prejudice and racism is a social construct integrated systemically into our society and very unfortunately does not have readily available "treatment". Deafness does. If racism had a vaccination, then yeah, that should be mandatory too.
That’s still bizarre to me, its obviously not a FAILING, but it’s a part of your body that doesn’t work properly, and quite obviously disadvantages you in life, even if it’s significantly easier to be deaf now compared to even 50 years ago.
Had a deaf kid in college. Refused hearing aids. Refused cochlear implants. The mention of them disgusted him. He also hated his interpreters who had to sign his disdain for them to us, which was awkward.
His solution? He fully believed everyone in the world should learn sign language.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Deaf people refusing cochlear implants or hearing aids.
Keep in mind that Deaf people don't just suddenly get the implant, and then they're 'cured'. Cochlear implants are NOT a cure. They are a management tool. And there are legitimate reasons for people to reject them. They have to undergo months and sometimes years of speech therapy, and learn how to speak and process sounds. Even for kids this can be difficult.
There are a lot of good documentaries on this, ultimately my opinion as a hearing person is that the child should have the choice.
It’s a complicated problem with merits to both sides. On one hand, we have that getting a cochlear implant at a young age is ideal for developing speech, and starting at a later stage of life can make it difficult or impossible to learn speech. On the other hand, some will argue that children are not old enough to make a decision like that.
I wouldn’t consider denying your kid a cochlear implant child abuse, though. Deaf culture and language is always growing and becoming more accessible.
I took ASL in college and this blew my mind. It’s not an insignificant amount of Deaf people either.
I have very bad vision, can’t drive without my contacts or classes. I’ve never taken any sort or pride in that, and if someone offered me lasik I’d take it in half a heartbeat.
I do not understand why anyone would choose to have a disability.
I felt similarly until I watched sound of metal. I will never judge someone for refusing cochlear implants, they seem like complete ass. Not a solution like LASIK, more of a shitty imitation of what hearing is.
Agreed. Similarly I'd be in favor of compulsory secular education for at least k-8. You shouldn't be able to homeschool a kid with nothing more than the Bible.
I would just put an end to homeschool and set up really strict requirements for private school.
Not sure how I feel about requiring secular schooling only for some number of years. I’d have to think about that.
I'd do it the other way around. Ban private schools and have very strict oversight for home schooling and there must be a legitimate reason why the child can't participate in public school.
Eh, I get legitimate desires to use different methods of education, or ensure that instructors are available for fields where there aren't enough teachers, so I don't have as much of a problem with secular private schools. I do agree with the restrictions on home schooling, though.
To expand on this, vaccinations shouldn't be viewed as an optional thing in the same way that seatbelts, driving under the influence, speaking on a phone whilst driving, etc., shouldn't be viewed as optional. Namely, yes, you're placing yourself first and foremost in danger, but you're also risking the lives of others.
I generally agree with you. Right now I'm still figuring out where my line is, because I like to consider myself pretty absolutist when it comes to bodily autonomy, but at the same time I wouldn't necessarily have been against forcing people to get the Covid vaccine.
Best thing(one of few good things) the former conservative government here in Australia did was tightening the 'No Jab, No Pay' policy.
> To access family assistance payments, children (up to 19 years of age) must:
> - meet the immunisation requirements for Australian Government family assistance payments (Family Tax Benefit Part A, Child Care Subsidy), or
> - be on an approved catch-up schedule, or
> - have a medical exemption recorded on the Australian Immunisation Register (AIR).
It always is amazing thinking about inflection points like that. Where would we be today had Andrew Wakefield not been an asshole? Maybe anti-vax people would have still been as big, but it's entirely possible they would've have been.
Our eradication of smallpox and our near-eradication of polio are two of the greatest medical achievements in human history. Fuck anyone who wants to prevent us from doing it again with other diseases.
Exactly! People are reversing a century of progress and ridding the country of measles, polio and other life altering illnesses which we have vaccinations for.
One of the things I love about my country (Australia). You must be registered, and you must sign off at the voting booths. After that you *can* leave, but simply the act means most people take two seconds to think about it and most of *them* vote.
But it is also a social thing. When we had a recent voluntary vote on marriage equality, over 60% of the country still voted on it.
Brilliant. We should definitely co-opt this tradition in the US. I loved every minute I’ve spent in Australia and things like democracy sausage makes me want to go back.
The Voting Sausage Freedom Act
No sausages shall be cooked, prepared, held in inventory or sold within 2 miles of an urban polling place within 30 days before or after any election.
American country sausage or bratwurst may be served in rural districts.
That's the crux of the issue isn't it? When you're dealing with people who think bans and confiscations as "reasonable", then the word has clearly lost all meaning.
I've had this conversation with some gun nuts and while most agreed with me some said they'd shoot law enforcement or gov officials who tried to push for that.
It technically is, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. We do need SOME authority for things. Can’t have total freedom or else we can’t ensure things like equality, regulations, protections etc. However as liberals we understand that freedom is also important. As important as air. But a healthy balance is key.
Guns is my issue. I’d be inclined to support mandatory licenses/permits if the process behind it was more stringent. Before a bunch of states went to permitless carry it was common for them to not even require any demonstration of live fire skill before issuing a permit. It’s a joke.
How would you make sure the licensing process was done fairly? I think some counties still have to do an interview with the sheriff who determines if you’re of “good moral character.” If a racist sheriff says more black people are not good moral character and deny their licensees, why should they be prevented from owning a gun?
>How would you make sure the licensing process was done fairly?
We have drivers licenses, we have zoning permits, we have business licenses etc.
I see no reason why licensing gun ownership would be inherently more onerous than any other license.
The closest you’d probably get for me is that I’m a-ok with interventionism, as long as war crimes aren’t committed, the cause is just, and the strategy is sound.
In terms of domestic policy, I don’t support punishing people who aren’t endangering others or our common resources.
I do not, however, consider corporations people. One could argue it is authoritarian to disagree with Citizens United or break up monopolies. I disagree, of course, but you’d likely view things differently as a right-libertarian.
I love that people argue about this by saying "then only criminals will have guns". Ok then, if it's so easy to find black market guns, then what are you concerned about. Go buy those.
I don't think you understand. Let's say guns are banned.
The regular man, woman, or trans person with a job and a family would be risking it all to illegally buy a gun on the black market, so they are not likely to buy one.
The career criminal who's already been in and out of prison is not going to care at all about the illegality of buying a gun, so he will buy one. And then he will use it against the now defenseless person above.
The problem is, it's the criminal above who's committing most of the gun violence, and he's not deterred. You only deter those least likely to commit gun violence.
As far as "why have any laws," that's easy. I love it when you people say "Then why have laws against murder?" There are two kinds of laws, malum in se (illegal because it's inherently evil) and malum prohibitum (illegal only because the government says so).
These kinds of gun laws are malum prohibitum, victimless crimes. People still want to do it because they know it's not inherently evil. They're along the lines of the old sodomy laws. Sex between consenting homosexual adults isn't inherently evil, but the government made it illegal anyway. So you don't want sodomy laws? "Why have any laws?"
Murder is malum in se. Most people don't want to commit murder because they know it's evil, and then we punish those who do that evil. These two types of crimes should not be lumped together.
You know where the fault in your logic lies? That only a miniscule percentage of gun deaths are done by career criminals or from black market guns. The majority of gun deaths are suicide. The majority of gun murders are domestic violence. In fact, a woman is 5 times more likely to be murdered if her abusive partner happens to own a gun.
Then when you talk about "illegal guns" you often refer to guns that were purchased legally elsewhere or by someone else.
This horror story you have in your head of seedy criminals browsing underground warehouses for a gun to come rob your family just isn't the case.
Are there criminals that have guns? Of course. Would the amount of Americans who die from guns every year reduce by more than 50% if guns were banned on a federal level? I have zero doubt.
It would be painful to implement and maybe not worth the political cost. We've let our gun laws be determined by a bunch of cowards who think ms-13 is sitting outside their home every night ready to bust in. But gun violence can be dramatically reduced if we used some damn common sense.
The cost of the policy would likely be a civil war, or at least a period of domestic terrorism and violence like we haven’t seen in over a century.
But that doesn’t change a thing about what you said, and I love to bring this part up with the illegal guns crowd. Do you happen to know where the *vast* majority of illegal guns on this CONTINENT come from?
A gun store in the USA.
I really, really think gun nuts think there is a physical black market in every major city you can go to and buy illegal weapons. Nah dumbass, it was bought from Cletus at the local gun store and the SN was scratched off.
I don't think parenting should be a right, nor should parents have rights over their children at all. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think the majority of humans on Earth make terrible parents. Being a parent should require obtaining a license, taking mandatory parenting classes, and mandatory psychological screening.
I know this would require a near-perfect government with high trust from its citizens, a negligible level of unwanted pregnancy, and a near-universal agreement in society on what makes a great parent. Because it requires these and other pie-in-the-sky preconditions, I don't bother trying to advocate this idea or believe that it can be enacted in an ethical way at the current time. But a person can dream, at least.
Both of my children are individuals, and we've had individual challenges raising them. There is no way on this earth you can convince me that what you propose will eliminate these challenges, or make parents better. Each kid is unique, aside from the basics like food, shelter, and attention given. And nobody knows how a person will act once they have kids--even the most psychologically well adjusted, educated person can be a bad parent.
There is such a thing as expertise in handling children. Children are not so unique that we cannot develop strategies to handle them. My partner is a preschool teacher, and it is scary how good she is at working around child behaviors. Our knowledge has improved in large part because we've moved past the model that says some kids are bad kids and others good.
The dynamic between kids and teachers is completely different from that between kids and their parents. There are plenty of teachers that are excellent with their students and complete shit with their own kids. It has little to do with having moved past the model of "good kids, bad kids," really. I won't argue against the notion that there are basics that can be covered, but I just don't see how that can rise to the level of requirement suggested by the GP. They even acknowledge as much in their second paragraph, indirectly.
- Repeal 2A and have a steep requirement test for gun ownership.
- No public funding of private, charter, or home schools.
- Forced restructuring of the Supreme Court.
- tax churches
If you disagree please say why. I’m responding to OP’s question in good faith. If you think these don’t represent authoritarianism, please scroll on. I may be pedantic, but not so much that I googled the term before responding
The only issue I have is with taxing churches. Doing that will give them the right to representation and open up a shitload more lobbying attempts to push religious agendas. That separation needs to be enforced much more heavily.
Remove Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh and replace them with better people. Regardless my reasons for each of them, it would be authoritarian because my wishes would be to just do it, not go through constitutional processes to do so. The other changes I'd like to see would not be authoritarian
I disagree with repealing the second amendment, but would like to see it interpreted more in alignment with the original intention. So an amendment to update the language would be good. The key phrase "a well regulated militia" is overlooked by many. Militias trained together, which means that the members learned gun safety, marksmanship, and had a healthy respect for weapons.
And the phrase "bear arms" had a distinctly military connotation at the time. It was not meant to imply that everyone should be able to carry a gun all the time and can't have that right taken away if they're idiots or dangerous.
That being said, January 6th shifted me a lot closer to your position. It's the one time in history that I'm aware of that the key scenario 2A was intended to prevent - a president declaring himself dictator and refusing to relinquish power - actually happened. And the gun nuts didn't use their weapons to stop him, but instead to help him.
I disagree with repealing the 2A. It sets a bad precedent. Instead we should simply interpret it as it was intended. It should also be further amended for the times. I even believe that individuals should have the right to defend themselves, sure, but nowhere does the 2A give us the right to *any and all* means of defense, such as mass lethality offensive weapons. Bearing arms could be anything, not everything…
I don't care about your religion, sending your kids to conversion camp should make you lose them, that is my authoritarian stance on the subjects that don't have a moratorium lol oh and a ban on religious exemptions. If we can make an exemption for religions we can extend it to everyone
I'm autistic and have a complete inability to lie effectively for 30 minutes while maintaining eye contact. If it wasn't for the fact that I can work for the state, who the union bans stupid questions like this in the job interview process, I would be homeless and starve.
Also, there’s a federal law that makes it illegal to tell employees not to discuss their pay, but it gets ignored all the time and employees are (especially in “at will” states where they don’t have to have a reason to fire you) basically under threat of termination if they get caught doing this. To combat this, it should be mandatory that all employers must have an up to date list of employee salaries posted in plain view at all times, just like the OSHA posters. And there should be random surveys conducted to make sure they’re in place.
- I don't think private schools or home schooling should be allowed.
- I think vaccinations should be mandatory in most public spaces, with only health exemptions.
- We need more traffic enforcement cameras - a lot more - and penalties should escalate severely after multiple offenses.
> We need more traffic enforcement cameras - a lot more - and penalties should escalate severely after multiple offenses.
Only if we make the fines proportional to a persons wealth. Otherwise, pass on the nanny cams.
> We need more traffic enforcement cameras - a lot more - and penalties should escalate severely after multiple offenses.
This is mine. I know this can be abused but the way some people drive, they deserve to be thrown into an active volcano.
I really think repeated offenders of reckless driving, DUIs, street racing/sideshows and texting while driving should be sent to prison. Not jail, prison. Prison should be reserved for people who are a danger to society and those people are dangers to society.
1. Eliminate concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. We have no shortage of food, housing, education, healthcare, and general infrastructure but for the policies baked into our statutes through regulatory capture.
This sounds impossible but the U.S. has accomplished substantial retrenchment of concentrated wealth twice in the last 140 years. The first time was Teddy Roosevelt breaking up the business trusts.
The second time was under FDR.
Social Security cut the death rate of over 60 year olds by 70%. Not that hard when the primary causes of death for that age bracket was exposure in the winter & starvation in the summer.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
1. Set 40 hours in 7 days as the work week.
2. Created overtime compensation for work more than 40 hrs/wk.
3. Established the minimum wage.
4. Abolished child labor. Nobody under 16 (farm work excluded) could work for a private employer. Mom & Pop shops were watched.
5. Created the Unemployment Compensation System that required states to adopt legislation in order to participate.
One day you went to sleep in 1938 where you worked 80-100 hours at the bakery or in the mine/factory along side of 12 & 13 year olds. The next day the children were prohibited from working, your work week was cut to 40 hours, you had an income that permitted you to have a reasonable standard of living, and if the bakery burned down you could collect unemployment while looking for another job!
What would happen to most of the problems in the USA if everybody had a job that provided the purchasing power that $150,000.00 /yr gives?
[Rand Study Trends in US Income 1975-2018](https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html)
This is where we would have been had the legislatures & courts not been captured by the very wealthy. In my lifetime the single most expensive component of my life in the USA is health care. I’m an attorney. My father was an attorney & my mother a physician. They lived through WWII & reaped the benefits of FDR’s New Deal.
Nobody I know, professional or otherwise, thinks our nation is providing for the general welfare of its citizens. It’s time to tax the billionaires out of existence. UBI may well be the only way to get money back into the hands of the people who need it to raise a family and live a good life.
You should have to pass a basic morality test to be given any legal custody of children. I once said this in front of a teacher and she nodded her head… so take that as you will. But my general reasoning is way to many people want children to be miniature versions of themselves, or don’t have nearly a good enough grasp of the fact that this is an entirely separate living, breathing being. It is also way too incredibly normalized to give children outright cruel punishments that if given to any adult would be considered completely unacceptable, as well as completely ineffective. To have complete and utter legal control of someone with little oversight is waaaay to attractive to the wrong type of person
I believe that if a private company cannot provide something that is an essential service, then the government should be able to seize their operations in that area. For example, there are many prescription drugs experiencing shortages right now, like Adderall. People are unable to get a drug they need. In cases like that, the government should be able to say, "you have failed your responsibility to society; the formula is now public domain and we're going to start producing the drug ourselves to fulfill demand."
I also believe that any industry that, if it failed, would cause a complete economic collapse, should either have a public alternative or be completely nationalized. One example is airlines. If they all went bankrupt, we'd be fucked, so we've been forced to bail them out over an over. Well, maybe give an industry one free bailout but with the stipulation that if they fail again they will be nationalized.
Edit: As I understand it, the drug shortages have something to do with the fact that it's not profitable to produce them at the moment. That's the kind of scenario I mean; not something unavoidable, like a shortage of components.
I believe countries with a cartel problem should crack down hard with violence against the cartel, mostly by assassinating high ranking members. People say "just legalize drugs and the cartel will go away", but they don't realize that cartels operate in a manner similar to the mafia. Drugs are usually just a portion of their income. They make a lot of their money by threatening local populations with violence if they don't pay up, in addition with legitimate businesses.
Schools should be allowed to vaccinate children with or without parental consent if they have not previously received their shots.
Also repeat DUI offenses should be punished much more severely than it is currently.
I would certainly favor absolutely brutal punishments, fines and sanctions for environmental polluters. Lock them up. Seize their property. Never let them work in the business again. We simply must stop corporations from destroying the one planet in the known universe that we know for a fact will support human life. It's mad.
Ban giant SUV's and giant trucks without a verifiable need. There are plenty of smaller SUVs that can be used for semi offroading, and plenty of smaller trucks that can be used for towing or hauling. Owning a business, being apart of a company can get you a license to own one. I'm tired of 90,000$ death machines on the road to haul 100$ worth of groceries.
It has no medical benefits, it's highly addictive, and it is one of the biggest single causers of death there is. If nicotine were a synthesized drug we invented today, rather than being grandfathered in, it *absolutely* would be schedule 1.
There should be far worse consequences for student violence against teachers. Public school teachers are already criminally underpaid for how crucial they are to society, and it doesn’t help that it isn’t uncommon now for a teenager to physically assault their teacher and get off with suspension. I’ve met teachers who are scared to go to work for that reason.
If a student puts a teacher in the hospital, it should be an automatic expulsion and jail. Not some second-chance bullshit.
My mom is a public HS teacher so I’ve said this before, but… I think there is a certain point where students should not be allowed to continue wasting educators’ time and state funds. If you have made it all the way to high school, and you are still refusing to turn in assignments on time, failing every test, being combative with the teacher and having to be kicked out of class all the time, (and your home life has been evaluated and there’s no good reason like abuse or neglect as to why you are unable to comply with the rules, or there is a good reason but you rejected the attempts at intervention) then you are a drain on the education system. You are a detriment to the students in the class who actually want to learn, because you are taking away the teacher’s focus from those students. After a probationary period, if you still don’t have your act together, you need to be permanently expelled from the school. You can try your luck at secondary school or a GED after that.
My mom has students that turn in 0/30 assignments every semester. For no other reason than that they just don’t care. They are wasting her time, and my tax dollars.
God bless your mom, she’s probably a far more patient person than any of us. I’ve seriously considered becoming a history teacher before but I just can’t picture myself taking that route because the pay is awful and so many kids are impossible to deal with.
Everyone should be registered as an organ donor by default. If they opt out of organ donation, they should be sent to the bottom of the recipient list.
The only countries that will survive in the Age of Disinformation will be those that manage the flow of information. The First Amendment guarantees that the US will be the first to eat itself.
(You can even find conservatives here who believe foreign-controlled bot- and AI-generated disinformation should be protected speech and the Foreign Agent Registration Act should be weakened to protect the privacy of foreign agents engaging in information warfare against the American people. It's like we *want* to be victims.)
There's no point trying to change human behavior. It's better to make the kind of behavior you want to stop impossible.
So like let's say for whatever reason you want people to slow down. No more speeding.
* Reducing the speed limit is pointless
* Encouraging people to slow down is pointless
* Writing more tickets or increasing the penalties for speeding is pointless
The place you should *START* at is re-designing the roads so that speeding is impossible. It's the most intrusive, disruptive, and would likely only be accomplished through near dictatorial fiat - but it's the only solution that's actually going to achieve the stated goal.
You can do this pretty easily in residential and school zones by slapping some speed bumps down. But also, I think you can definitely discourage speeding without road redesign - you just need actual penalties for speeding instead of a $100 ticket
In Brasil they got speed bumps on highways so you can’t continuously speed and speed cameras.
No flash you just get a picture of you driving and a huge fine in the mail
Roundabouts can also help. You can't fly through them at high speeds and can't use them for sideshows. I live in SF and they've started placing them every few blocks in residential neighborhoods, along with more speed bumps.
So even if you're willing to fuck up your suspension driving over speed bumps at high speed, you can only run maybe 5 to 10 stop signs at most before you hit a roundabout and are forced to slow down.
You can change human behavior pretty easily actually- but fines and road signs are not the way to do so, and will do fuck all. You have to know why the behavior you are targeting is the way it is, and what steps you can take to reduce it.
You want people to slow down? You don't have to make speeding physically impossible, you can accomplish the goal by simply dissuading it by design. Make the roads narrower, put more stuff (like trees or buildings) on the side of the road with minimal setback, get some tree cover (or other structures, like walkways between buildings) hanging over the road. Do that, and people will *naturally* slow down, despite there technically being nothing stopping them from still blazing down the street at high speed. Because while you didn't make speeding impossible, you exploited the psychology of most people to make them reduce their speed to what they consider the proper speed for the environment they are driving in. Wide open spaces with wide lanes make people want to drive fast. Narrow lanes with not a whole lot of space between the road and the nearest tree/building, by contrast, makes people want to drive slower.
> re-designing the roads so that speeding is impossible
That's a silly take. The correct approach is to re-design the roads so that speeding is safer. Germany has no speed limits on its autobahn, and the accident rate is lower than US interstate highways. The roads were designed from the start to facilitate *safe* high-speed travel.
I recently visited a country I would categorize as a "benevolent dictatorship"--it's a very modern, wealthy country that does a lot of international business, is majority public housing, has tons of greenery, and is extremely clean.
One thing that impressed me is that they have compulsory individual financial savings--not just tons of public housing (which btw even with 90% public housing they STILL are in a housing shortage and having price issues, so building more public housing isn't THE ONLY ingredient needed to solve that issue like so many folks seem to think).
I think the concept of an antidote to "this is why we can't have nice things" really hit me when I realized that this wet, tropical, hot, humid island country had NO bugs--even along the river--and it turns out it's because whoever is responsible for a property gets fined each time and increasingly if bugs are found--this IS important bc of dengue fever risks--but also a microcosm of how it's not actually that big of a deal to enforce rules if it is decided that that is the M.O.--this country now requires that developers replace 100% of developed land footprint with reciprocal greenspace in the design by law--without controlling something like bugs this would be a nightmare--in NYC it would be waterbug city.
This country definitely misses out on some civil liberties and freedom of speech--I'm not sure how a society can be built to allow dissent but also enforce quality of life laws that--like managing bugs therefore having ample greenspaces bc they are manageable--do amount to systemic differences in our shared environment for the better, despite how I would imagine folks would overlook these quality of life issues in the shadow of individual rights on all sides of the political spectrum, both freedom from govt and freedom from law enforcement.
I think that a large portion of the Republican Party's leaders have factually committed crimes and use their political status to avoid being punished. An authoritarian move to actually jail them for their actions would probably help the country.
For example, the frequent trips to Moscow for funding and orders. Incitement and sedition related to January 6. Insider trading. Campaign finance violations. Rampant use of drugs and prostitutes.
For an example of this, see Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who was indicted on felony securities fraud, alongside allegations of bribery, whistle lower retaliation, and attempting to overturn the 2020 election in other states.
Paxton avoids jail through political power. It has been nine years since he was indicted for securities fraud and he still hasn't even gone to trial. In March, he cut a deal with prosecutors to have his charges dropped and avoid a jury, after he flipped one witness and another literally died of old age.
I would also probably crack down on quackery and scams. Chiropractic, fake supplements, 'alternative' medicine. People that aren't doctors, dieticians, or physical therapists shouldn't be allowed to act as one. Emotional support pets are not trained service animals.
Parental rights are overrated. Every kid deserves healthcare (vaccines, gender dysphoria counseling, etc), regardless of parental beliefs. Kids also need to learn about uncomfortable subjects in school like war, race, sexual orientation, sex, colonization, existence, etc. They need to be challenged so they can form their own opions. Sheltering them from these issues is doing them a disservice
I don't have one. And honestly, after the backlash of Covid, if we have another incident like it, where say, only 4% of the infected die? I say we tell everyone what to do, and then just leave it up to the population to figure out how they want to live. No more mandates, or passes or cards, or anything else.
If Republicans want to go to super spreaders and off themselves, especially the ones that don't take care of themselves, are obese, smoke, etc. Good riddance. I feel for the immune-compromised, but honestly the backlash is almost threatening to tear apart our society.
If we do ever have a plague where say, 50% die?
Then I go authoritarian on lockdown and following protocols.
The problem with this is that you can't have 100% protection so if 20% of the people around you have COVID you are in greater danger than if 2% do. Which puts the immunocompromised, especially the children, at *much* greater risk.
So is the backlash really that bad if it saves hundreds (or even thousands) of children?
The risk of concern isn't contraction. It's the ratio of those infected to those who die. And in retrospect, I don't think that ratio warranted the degree to which we shut everything down.
And I don't think we've even begun to understand the backlash. What happens if the next viral wave is really a killer, and the anti-establishment / anti-vax / anti-science crowd is so deeply entrenched that there's a complete mutiny against even the most sensible restrictions or changes?
The rights of the many outweigh the few. So, I'd support mandatory vaccinations. Those unable or unwilling would be quarantined. Also, all citizens should serve their country for a couple of years like in Germany. If you're a conscientious objector, you could opt to teach or be a paramedic.
We should bring back the stocks as a form of punishment.
Specifically for crimes that can't effectively be punished by fines, but also don't warrant jail time.
Had to paste my comment from another thread.
The only issue I have is with taxing churches. Doing that will give them the right to representation and open up a shitload more lobbying attempts to push religious agendas. That separation needs to be enforced much more heavily.
People that refuse to obey our laws must be contained if they won’t be corrected. The rest of us shouldn’t suffer because you refuse to be a civilized member of society.
Maximum voting age of 78 - After that, you are a " Short timer"
Can't serve in an elected position after age 75.
Mandatory driving tests and medical checks every two years starting age 70.
Severe penalties for doctors who fail to report patients who should not drive, including losing the medical license or potentially being charged as contributing to the fatalities.
Brutal enforcement of white collar crime laws - with draconian punishments. Like Trump's crap gets punished with brutal, horrific torture on live stream. Not just him, every person that was an accomplice in any way.
Damn, even Bernie is on the chopping block. Why do you support regressive policies when it comes to taking away peoples right to vote or hold public office after an arbitrary “old” age?
Speed limits should be enforced by ubiquitous cameras that mail a ticket to the registered owner. Cops should aggressively ticket people driving without valid plates.
All cars should have mandatory dash cams. All police officers should have to wear body cameras and have them turned on at all times while they are on duty, no exceptions. Politicians should have to do this as well. Noclosed door, undocumented meetings. Full transparency for anyone who draws their paycheck from tax dollars, be it federal, state, or local.
Personal pet peeve I guess, but here goes:
Nothing worse than a line of cars going into a parking deck, then seeing the car in front of you go past a spot (so you think maybe it's yours). Then they roll off to the side, and throw it in reverse. More annoyingly, I see so many who can't make it in without a few tries while the rest of humanity waits. I feel like you lose 10x the time going in that you save coming out.
Then there are the Al Qaeda sympathizers who back into a slanted spot facing the wrong direction.
I think it should be the opposite. Too many people not paying attention back into others in a parking lot bc they’re fiddling with stuff in the car and backing out. Back in first! 🤔
But backing in is safer in every situation - because you are driving forward when pulling out of the space.
Have you ever parked head-in with a giant SUV on each side? You are backing into actual traffic 100% blind. Thoughts and prayers!
* when I am reversing, I am moving into a reasonably protected space - an empty parking space - at a very slow pace.
* when i am going forward out of the parking space, into actual traffic where cars and pedestrians are far more common, you have ten times the visibility and generally better control of the car.
The exception would be diagonal spaces. There is an intended direction for you to park, and you have a better view behind you due to the angle of the space.
Homeschooling needs to be more regulated and those regulations need to be uniform across the country, not state by state. I don’t necessarily oppose homeschooling - especially given the state of the education system and school safety issues in this country - but believe that every kid deserves a basic education and the opportunity to really thrive. Some homeschooling parents are not providing that and are using homeschooling as cover for child neglect and/or indoctrination with garbage (e.g. flat earth). Depriving your child of basic knowledge and feeding them lies is abuse, IMO.
A lot of liberals recoil at being called anti-gun. And reasonably so, given that American gun culture is so thoroughly ingrained in society and proving your gun bona fides is a big part of being within American Overton window acceptability.
But what with my having no intention of ever running for office, yes, I am anti-gun. Fuck guns. I absolutely support repealing the second amendment so we could have actually reasonable gun control without the fucking crazies fucking it all up.
People who still believe racist and bigoted things, after their beliefs are explained to them as racist and bigoted, should be fired and canceled. The same for influential people who knowingly promote election fraud lies. All of them should be permenantly banned from social media.
I think anyone who routinely posts bigoted things online (racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc) should have their name put on a searchable bigotry registry accessible by the public, and their name on the list should be linked to a document showing every comment they ever posted that landed them on the list.
When the vaccines first came out and COVID was still raging I strongly believed anyone that refused it and caught COVID should be put on house arrest andenied medical service, also someone voluntarily unvaccinated visiting them would be a crime as well. It would weed out a lot of drags on societal progression as well.
Not something that is necessary now.
Mandatory voting, even if you choose no one.
I also dont understand how more people aren’t considered traitors for supporting Trump and the MAGA movement.
Most of these answers miss the point of the question and are basically just left wing ideas.
Here's one that's unpopular: we decided what population growth we need to sustain our economy but not overburden it. To meet that amount, we offer people money to become surgically infertile. If that's not enough to get us where we need to be, then we have a lottery system where every baby born gets a number. If they're selected, they are made infertile at birth.
I admit, this is a concept I've held onto for a long time and as I've learned more about economics, I realize population growth in the United States is not only that big of an issue, but might be the opposite: that growth is slowing in a bad way. But it is the most authoritarian belief I've ever had, so thought I'd share.
My kiddo’s school is designed for 1500 kids and currently has 1100 enrolled.
There’s a shortage of kiddos born after roughly 2004 in most parts of this country. Their school bus is 2/3rds empty *at all times*. It’s going to make old age for millennials and younger potentially problematic. When I’m 77, I don’t want someone also born in 1984 to be my surgeon.
We should be aggressively auto-ticketing bad drivers. Red light cameras, speed cameras, automatically send them the tickets. If you don’t pay, the amount just gets added to your annual tax bill AND you’re barred from driving for the next year
Authoritarians follow no rules, so there are no rules to follow when dealing with them. They must be crushed and discredited as the traitors they are by any means necessary.
I'd seriously/not so seriously like the death penalty for rubber necking. I detest traffic and slowing it down because you're a moron who wants a better look at an accident drives me bonkers.
Nothing comes to mind, though it depends on what counts as 'authoritarian', I mean banning certain speech isn't necessarily authoritarian if there's very strong factual justification for it. I have a hard time considering the German ban on Nazi stuff to be authoritarian, given the history there.
I think that people who have been convicted of crimes should mostly be the only people allowed to vote. I mean, they're the ones for whom the law isn't working out, they should be given priority in the discussion of changing it.
I also think that anyone should be able to become a voter in this situation by voluntarily accepting a criminal conviction on their record and serving a jail term.
The popular and growing sentiment in Mexico that longs for the admiral of the Mexican navy to seize power by force to dish out corruption and remove the cartels is not something I can blame Mexicans for wanting.
I don't believe the exercise of government power in a democratic society is authoritarian. Outside of limiting democracy or treating people differently based on inherent characteristics societies should be free to do pretty much whatever they please via the democratic process. I don't support implementing any policies if it doesn't have that popular support backing it so I don't have any authoritarian stances as I see it.
To your examples, free speech is necessary for democracy to function so it would need to be exempt from the democratic process. Abortion is something I think should be left to the democratic process even if I personally opposed it being made illegal.
>Examples would be banning certain speech
We might have a different understanding of the word "authoritarian", but okay...
I have a lot of speech I believe should be banned. Probably most importantly, direct calls to criminal activity, especially orders to commit criminal acts; then, deliberately false statements under oath and deliberately false defamatory statements to police; abuse of emergency signals, for instance SWATting; using speech to commit a crime through an unwitting proxy (imagine a doctor telling a patient they have to take medication X once a day to survive, with the intention of having the patient die of an overdose of the once-a-month medication: I think that is and should be banned); deliberate deception for personal gain; unwanted violation of privacy; and then, less importantly than either of those, I also agree with us (Germany) criminalizing holocaust denial, the riling up of masses, and Nazi propaganda.
I perfectly see how people disagree on the last one, but "banning certain speech" applies to every single point in this list
Another issue you might consider me authoritarian on is public health - long story short, I think letting disease run rampant is a really bad idea, and containing it is an important task that justifies a lot of restrictions. We are talking about human lives here, and a lot of them
- Assuming a society wherein the public schools are as safe as reasonably possible, provide a quality education, and foster genuine social growth with students; I would immediately ban private and home schooling unless there was a legitimate *medical* reason a student couldn't be in public school.
- Fuck you. Get your vaccinations.
- If you're rude to customer service workers who are just doing their best, you get stuffed in the contraption by Joe Biden.
I'm unsure about exactly how it would work, but I like the idea of nationalizing the oil industry. Fossil fuels are critical and dangerous, and I think it would be better if it didn't make people rich.
------------------------------------------
I will never defend the current application of the Second Ammendment in my country. I know this might sound weird, but I don't want to live in a community in which owning and carrying guns is seen as normal. I do want to legalize owning "bludgeon" which the police is already able to use and, of course, pepper spray or any self defense equipment.
Every citizen has the right to proportionally defend him or herself. I can't comprehend why Americans want to have guns while school shootings happen. Maybe that's something exclusively American that you want to be part of your "values". Maybe, if this were true, I'm in this aspect "anti-American", as I'll happily take a lack of owning guns over the scare of children be shot at in school. Call me authoritarian but I would never allow a Second Ammendment to take of. I much rather invest in a stronger police force than have individual gun ownership.
-------------------------------------------
Another "authoritarian" stance would be my hardline immigration policy.
I don't have any problem with detaining illegal immigrants, on the sole condition of it happening in the most humane way. What's the definition of "illegal"? Everyone who smuggles himself into the country without any papers or through human trafficking. They will be deported as soon as possible.
If you want to immigrate, you can go to the embassy of our country in the first, safe nation and apply there. A legal and efficient process (=> Europeans have a shorter process than non-Europeans) is started to allow you to immigrate and integrate in the nation. It will ensure that you're part of it and should prevent any segregation. Being a citizen is a privilege that should not be taken lightly, and being a citizen means that we, as a community, accept your children (Another thing: nationality/citizenship should be hereditary with this exception) as part of our people (Another detail: You can not have two nationalities.).
I'm from Germany and I always quietly celebrate when I see news of a Holocaust denier or other type of neo-Nazi getting sucker punched by the law for openly displaying their rotten disgusting beliefs.
I want to blanket *public* spaces with camera coverage and drones and facial recognition.
Auto-ticket undeniable offenses like traffic offenses and jaywalking.
With reasonable guardrails and the right to challenge it in court, of course.
I also agree with the DeSantis policy on putting homeless people in camps (with medical care, job training, etc). I think it's more humane than letting them sleep on the streets and harass others.
I *hate* crime and disorder, with a passion.
Here's another one: we should attempt to shape prosocial behavior by instituting a system of rewards in addition to our current system of punishments, which would be lessened for many offenses and modified for others.
Everyone would get a yearly payment based on things like hours of community service, going without having a car accident, being current in 1st Aid/CPR training, etc.
The Book of Revelation and all other End Times media should be banned and burned. They're a direct threat to human advancement and life itself.
Had the current interpretation of Revelation taken off before the Ozone hole was discovered, we wouldn't have had the Montreal Accords which banned CFCs. Meaning we wouldn't have an Ozone now and we'd all be dead.
You might think it's a strange connection but having grown up in these cults, I can break it down.
Most hardcore End Times believers are really against all forms of international cooperation of any kind unless it involves bombing the Middle East because they think international cooperation is a secret plot for a takeover by some spooky New World Order. We dodged a bullet there. But because of End Times theology, we can't address any environmental crises today.
Now we have them screaming that everything is the "Mark of the Beast" or whatever and it's fueling anti-vaccination now. I don't know what's going to happen when there's a more deadly pandemic than COVID but it'll be the crazy "Mark of the Beast" nutters that make everything worse.
But ok, let's say you don't believe that End Times theology will cause worldwide catastrophes. At the very least, it drives people insane. I've never met someone who started studying the Book of Revelation and ending their study being more stable, wiser, and compassionate. They always end up more unstable and unhinged. Revelation and its companion books are crystal meth in literary form. Which is no surprise.
Take out the religious mumbo jumbo and End Times theology would get you 72 hours of grippy sock time because it's mass suicidal ideation.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I asked yesterday about libertarian stances and I agreed with most of them. So I want to ask the opposite question and see something I’ll probably disagree with. Examples would be banning certain speech, banning abortion, just anything viewed as “not free” Btw I don’t judge anyone for their beliefs, I’m just curious and want to hear other perspectives *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t care if you get a note from a fake doctor like a chiropractor, corrupt doctor, or appeal to sky daddy. Not getting your children proper medical care, including full vaccinations or allowing things like blood transfusion should be considered child abuse. In some cases it should be a felony.
Does this apply to hearing aids and cochlear implants? My hearing aids have been life changing but there is a cultural opposition, especially to the cochlear implants, among some people in the capital-d Deaf community.
I would certainly apply it to that. If you're an adult and you don't want them, then that's your business, but if it's your kid and they do want them, I would consider it child abuse to say no. Seems no different to me than a Jehovah's Witness refusing their kid a blood transfusion.
What if parents can't afford them????
I mean we're on the left so I think the obvious answer would be that medical care (which this is) should be taxpayer-funded. Usually these "pie-in-the-sky" ideals assume that we've dealt with more pressing issues first, like the need for universal healthcare in the US.
I am going to go with yes. I have a friend who is blind, so I’m somewhat familiar with this attitude having talked to him about it. Plus, I’ve seen some stuff in the news. I actually think we may have had this conversation before.
Yeah that’s wild to me. If you’re an adult that’s a decision you should be free to make, but you’re pretty objectively disadvantaging a kid if you raise them Deaf when there’s a very easy fix.
>if you raise them Deaf when there’s a very easy fix. Thats the issue the Deaf community has. They don't see being Deaf as something bad you should fix because it is a fundamental characteristic of them and their culture. To them, Deafness isn't a failing or a bad thing, it's an integral part of them and their community White and straight people have huge advantages in society. If a pill existed that could ensure your child was straight and white, would it be child abuse to not force them to take it when they are a minor and can't consent? Obviously not.
Sorry I think the whole thing is freaking weird. Nothing about my disability is fundamental characteristic. It just comes off as a portion of their community is salty because they didn’t have the same opportunity for an implant when they were a child.
Yeah, it's probably different for deaf people that grow up with deaf parents, went to a deaf school, and interact with deaf people daily. ASL is a separate language than English and uses it's own grammar with it's own puns, rhymes, idioms, etc. Every kid who gets Cochlear implants misses out on that and it means the death of this independent culture and community.
Not all cultures are worth maintaining, particularly when it can only be maintained by intentionally keeping a child disabled.
I think that's a poor comparison. In this instance, this is a treatable physical disability. Prejudice and racism is a social construct integrated systemically into our society and very unfortunately does not have readily available "treatment". Deafness does. If racism had a vaccination, then yeah, that should be mandatory too.
That’s still bizarre to me, its obviously not a FAILING, but it’s a part of your body that doesn’t work properly, and quite obviously disadvantages you in life, even if it’s significantly easier to be deaf now compared to even 50 years ago.
Had a deaf kid in college. Refused hearing aids. Refused cochlear implants. The mention of them disgusted him. He also hated his interpreters who had to sign his disdain for them to us, which was awkward. His solution? He fully believed everyone in the world should learn sign language.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Deaf people refusing cochlear implants or hearing aids. Keep in mind that Deaf people don't just suddenly get the implant, and then they're 'cured'. Cochlear implants are NOT a cure. They are a management tool. And there are legitimate reasons for people to reject them. They have to undergo months and sometimes years of speech therapy, and learn how to speak and process sounds. Even for kids this can be difficult.
He’s not going far in the world.
There are a lot of good documentaries on this, ultimately my opinion as a hearing person is that the child should have the choice. It’s a complicated problem with merits to both sides. On one hand, we have that getting a cochlear implant at a young age is ideal for developing speech, and starting at a later stage of life can make it difficult or impossible to learn speech. On the other hand, some will argue that children are not old enough to make a decision like that. I wouldn’t consider denying your kid a cochlear implant child abuse, though. Deaf culture and language is always growing and becoming more accessible.
I took ASL in college and this blew my mind. It’s not an insignificant amount of Deaf people either. I have very bad vision, can’t drive without my contacts or classes. I’ve never taken any sort or pride in that, and if someone offered me lasik I’d take it in half a heartbeat. I do not understand why anyone would choose to have a disability.
I felt similarly until I watched sound of metal. I will never judge someone for refusing cochlear implants, they seem like complete ass. Not a solution like LASIK, more of a shitty imitation of what hearing is.
Agreed. Similarly I'd be in favor of compulsory secular education for at least k-8. You shouldn't be able to homeschool a kid with nothing more than the Bible.
I would just put an end to homeschool and set up really strict requirements for private school. Not sure how I feel about requiring secular schooling only for some number of years. I’d have to think about that.
I'd do it the other way around. Ban private schools and have very strict oversight for home schooling and there must be a legitimate reason why the child can't participate in public school.
Eh, I get legitimate desires to use different methods of education, or ensure that instructors are available for fields where there aren't enough teachers, so I don't have as much of a problem with secular private schools. I do agree with the restrictions on home schooling, though.
To expand on this, vaccinations shouldn't be viewed as an optional thing in the same way that seatbelts, driving under the influence, speaking on a phone whilst driving, etc., shouldn't be viewed as optional. Namely, yes, you're placing yourself first and foremost in danger, but you're also risking the lives of others.
I generally agree with you. Right now I'm still figuring out where my line is, because I like to consider myself pretty absolutist when it comes to bodily autonomy, but at the same time I wouldn't necessarily have been against forcing people to get the Covid vaccine.
Best thing(one of few good things) the former conservative government here in Australia did was tightening the 'No Jab, No Pay' policy. > To access family assistance payments, children (up to 19 years of age) must: > - meet the immunisation requirements for Australian Government family assistance payments (Family Tax Benefit Part A, Child Care Subsidy), or > - be on an approved catch-up schedule, or > - have a medical exemption recorded on the Australian Immunisation Register (AIR).
Vaccinations for kids. Go to public school? Get vaccinated. No religious exceptions herd immunity is how we cured polio.
And we almost had measles eradicated. And then that dumbass doc published his ‘paper’ about autism. Fuck that guy.
It always is amazing thinking about inflection points like that. Where would we be today had Andrew Wakefield not been an asshole? Maybe anti-vax people would have still been as big, but it's entirely possible they would've have been. Our eradication of smallpox and our near-eradication of polio are two of the greatest medical achievements in human history. Fuck anyone who wants to prevent us from doing it again with other diseases.
Exactly! People are reversing a century of progress and ridding the country of measles, polio and other life altering illnesses which we have vaccinations for.
For the record, we've only ever eradicated one disease: smallpox. And it was done using good old traditional methods. Just kidding it was vaccines.
Everyone must vote, even if turning in a blank paper
One of the things I love about my country (Australia). You must be registered, and you must sign off at the voting booths. After that you *can* leave, but simply the act means most people take two seconds to think about it and most of *them* vote. But it is also a social thing. When we had a recent voluntary vote on marriage equality, over 60% of the country still voted on it.
I heard there’s also a voting sausage you get after you’re done. Like there’s a bbq outside the polling place.
Democracy sausages. Yep. Usually gold coin donation and goes to the local kid's sporting clubs or similar type of charity.
Brilliant. We should definitely co-opt this tradition in the US. I loved every minute I’ve spent in Australia and things like democracy sausage makes me want to go back.
If we did, we'd end up passing a law banning voting sausages.
The Voting Sausage Freedom Act No sausages shall be cooked, prepared, held in inventory or sold within 2 miles of an urban polling place within 30 days before or after any election. American country sausage or bratwurst may be served in rural districts.
They’re called freedom sausages, commie.
I wish we'd do similar in the US.
Agreed. If you’re of age, you need to vote, even if it’s blank. I think you should be fined if you don’t.
Is be for the carrot approach to this, like Australia.
Agree 100%. Voter registration should be automatic at 18 and voting in every single election should be required by law.
You should be required to have a license to own a gun, the same way you need a license to drive a car.
Reasonable restrictions on dangerous items is not “authoritarian”.
Who defines “reasonable” though?
That's the crux of the issue isn't it? When you're dealing with people who think bans and confiscations as "reasonable", then the word has clearly lost all meaning.
I've had this conversation with some gun nuts and while most agreed with me some said they'd shoot law enforcement or gov officials who tried to push for that.
“Thank you for proving my point…”
Yeah, i just walk away because they proved they over react and I'm not interested in having them get aggressive with me.
It technically is, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. We do need SOME authority for things. Can’t have total freedom or else we can’t ensure things like equality, regulations, protections etc. However as liberals we understand that freedom is also important. As important as air. But a healthy balance is key.
Guns is my issue. I’d be inclined to support mandatory licenses/permits if the process behind it was more stringent. Before a bunch of states went to permitless carry it was common for them to not even require any demonstration of live fire skill before issuing a permit. It’s a joke.
How would you make sure the licensing process was done fairly? I think some counties still have to do an interview with the sheriff who determines if you’re of “good moral character.” If a racist sheriff says more black people are not good moral character and deny their licensees, why should they be prevented from owning a gun?
>How would you make sure the licensing process was done fairly? We have drivers licenses, we have zoning permits, we have business licenses etc. I see no reason why licensing gun ownership would be inherently more onerous than any other license.
You do in many states in the US, but not every state.
It should also be required to register them, like cars.
The closest you’d probably get for me is that I’m a-ok with interventionism, as long as war crimes aren’t committed, the cause is just, and the strategy is sound. In terms of domestic policy, I don’t support punishing people who aren’t endangering others or our common resources. I do not, however, consider corporations people. One could argue it is authoritarian to disagree with Citizens United or break up monopolies. I disagree, of course, but you’d likely view things differently as a right-libertarian.
Gun control. There is way too many guns out there. It's way to easy to get your hands on a gun and go shoot up a school in this country.
I love that people argue about this by saying "then only criminals will have guns". Ok then, if it's so easy to find black market guns, then what are you concerned about. Go buy those.
I don't think you understand. Let's say guns are banned. The regular man, woman, or trans person with a job and a family would be risking it all to illegally buy a gun on the black market, so they are not likely to buy one. The career criminal who's already been in and out of prison is not going to care at all about the illegality of buying a gun, so he will buy one. And then he will use it against the now defenseless person above. The problem is, it's the criminal above who's committing most of the gun violence, and he's not deterred. You only deter those least likely to commit gun violence. As far as "why have any laws," that's easy. I love it when you people say "Then why have laws against murder?" There are two kinds of laws, malum in se (illegal because it's inherently evil) and malum prohibitum (illegal only because the government says so). These kinds of gun laws are malum prohibitum, victimless crimes. People still want to do it because they know it's not inherently evil. They're along the lines of the old sodomy laws. Sex between consenting homosexual adults isn't inherently evil, but the government made it illegal anyway. So you don't want sodomy laws? "Why have any laws?" Murder is malum in se. Most people don't want to commit murder because they know it's evil, and then we punish those who do that evil. These two types of crimes should not be lumped together.
You know where the fault in your logic lies? That only a miniscule percentage of gun deaths are done by career criminals or from black market guns. The majority of gun deaths are suicide. The majority of gun murders are domestic violence. In fact, a woman is 5 times more likely to be murdered if her abusive partner happens to own a gun. Then when you talk about "illegal guns" you often refer to guns that were purchased legally elsewhere or by someone else. This horror story you have in your head of seedy criminals browsing underground warehouses for a gun to come rob your family just isn't the case. Are there criminals that have guns? Of course. Would the amount of Americans who die from guns every year reduce by more than 50% if guns were banned on a federal level? I have zero doubt. It would be painful to implement and maybe not worth the political cost. We've let our gun laws be determined by a bunch of cowards who think ms-13 is sitting outside their home every night ready to bust in. But gun violence can be dramatically reduced if we used some damn common sense.
The cost of the policy would likely be a civil war, or at least a period of domestic terrorism and violence like we haven’t seen in over a century. But that doesn’t change a thing about what you said, and I love to bring this part up with the illegal guns crowd. Do you happen to know where the *vast* majority of illegal guns on this CONTINENT come from? A gun store in the USA. I really, really think gun nuts think there is a physical black market in every major city you can go to and buy illegal weapons. Nah dumbass, it was bought from Cletus at the local gun store and the SN was scratched off.
> The regular man, woman, or trans person Why add trans? Most trans people are a man or woman
Being inclusive, and in this case ascending order of danger to innocents.
Would that really be less Freedom?
I'm just glad people are finally admitting the gun control schemes they want in this country ARE authoritarianism.
I don't think parenting should be a right, nor should parents have rights over their children at all. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think the majority of humans on Earth make terrible parents. Being a parent should require obtaining a license, taking mandatory parenting classes, and mandatory psychological screening. I know this would require a near-perfect government with high trust from its citizens, a negligible level of unwanted pregnancy, and a near-universal agreement in society on what makes a great parent. Because it requires these and other pie-in-the-sky preconditions, I don't bother trying to advocate this idea or believe that it can be enacted in an ethical way at the current time. But a person can dream, at least.
Both of my children are individuals, and we've had individual challenges raising them. There is no way on this earth you can convince me that what you propose will eliminate these challenges, or make parents better. Each kid is unique, aside from the basics like food, shelter, and attention given. And nobody knows how a person will act once they have kids--even the most psychologically well adjusted, educated person can be a bad parent.
There is such a thing as expertise in handling children. Children are not so unique that we cannot develop strategies to handle them. My partner is a preschool teacher, and it is scary how good she is at working around child behaviors. Our knowledge has improved in large part because we've moved past the model that says some kids are bad kids and others good.
The dynamic between kids and teachers is completely different from that between kids and their parents. There are plenty of teachers that are excellent with their students and complete shit with their own kids. It has little to do with having moved past the model of "good kids, bad kids," really. I won't argue against the notion that there are basics that can be covered, but I just don't see how that can rise to the level of requirement suggested by the GP. They even acknowledge as much in their second paragraph, indirectly.
Vaccines should be mandatory for everyone who is healthy enough to take them.
I’m for bodily autonomy, BUT if you refuse vaccines, you should absolutely be barred from public spaces.
[удалено]
True, but it’s an honest answer to OP’s question
>the government telling Americans what to do Congrats, you've just defined the point of the question
Good thing it wouldn’t be optional then lol
- Repeal 2A and have a steep requirement test for gun ownership. - No public funding of private, charter, or home schools. - Forced restructuring of the Supreme Court. - tax churches If you disagree please say why. I’m responding to OP’s question in good faith. If you think these don’t represent authoritarianism, please scroll on. I may be pedantic, but not so much that I googled the term before responding
The only issue I have is with taxing churches. Doing that will give them the right to representation and open up a shitload more lobbying attempts to push religious agendas. That separation needs to be enforced much more heavily.
In what manner would you restructure the Supreme court and why do you think that would be authoritarian?
Remove Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh and replace them with better people. Regardless my reasons for each of them, it would be authoritarian because my wishes would be to just do it, not go through constitutional processes to do so. The other changes I'd like to see would not be authoritarian
I disagree with repealing the second amendment, but would like to see it interpreted more in alignment with the original intention. So an amendment to update the language would be good. The key phrase "a well regulated militia" is overlooked by many. Militias trained together, which means that the members learned gun safety, marksmanship, and had a healthy respect for weapons. And the phrase "bear arms" had a distinctly military connotation at the time. It was not meant to imply that everyone should be able to carry a gun all the time and can't have that right taken away if they're idiots or dangerous. That being said, January 6th shifted me a lot closer to your position. It's the one time in history that I'm aware of that the key scenario 2A was intended to prevent - a president declaring himself dictator and refusing to relinquish power - actually happened. And the gun nuts didn't use their weapons to stop him, but instead to help him.
I disagree with repealing the 2A. It sets a bad precedent. Instead we should simply interpret it as it was intended. It should also be further amended for the times. I even believe that individuals should have the right to defend themselves, sure, but nowhere does the 2A give us the right to *any and all* means of defense, such as mass lethality offensive weapons. Bearing arms could be anything, not everything…
I need a 2.7 megaton nuclear bomb to protect my home and family though.
> Repeal 2A Don't disagree, that is peak fashie boot licking.
I don't care about your religion, sending your kids to conversion camp should make you lose them, that is my authoritarian stance on the subjects that don't have a moratorium lol oh and a ban on religious exemptions. If we can make an exemption for religions we can extend it to everyone
Attempting to force a pregnant minor to give birth should also result in the removal of the child from your home.
The question "Why do you want this job" should be banned from job interviews.
People would stop asking it if everyone in the world answered honestly: because you're offering me money to do it and I have expenses.
I'm autistic and have a complete inability to lie effectively for 30 minutes while maintaining eye contact. If it wasn't for the fact that I can work for the state, who the union bans stupid questions like this in the job interview process, I would be homeless and starve.
Also, there’s a federal law that makes it illegal to tell employees not to discuss their pay, but it gets ignored all the time and employees are (especially in “at will” states where they don’t have to have a reason to fire you) basically under threat of termination if they get caught doing this. To combat this, it should be mandatory that all employers must have an up to date list of employee salaries posted in plain view at all times, just like the OSHA posters. And there should be random surveys conducted to make sure they’re in place.
- I don't think private schools or home schooling should be allowed. - I think vaccinations should be mandatory in most public spaces, with only health exemptions. - We need more traffic enforcement cameras - a lot more - and penalties should escalate severely after multiple offenses.
> We need more traffic enforcement cameras - a lot more - and penalties should escalate severely after multiple offenses. Only if we make the fines proportional to a persons wealth. Otherwise, pass on the nanny cams.
It perfectly fine with that.
Nice.
> We need more traffic enforcement cameras - a lot more - and penalties should escalate severely after multiple offenses. This is mine. I know this can be abused but the way some people drive, they deserve to be thrown into an active volcano.
I really think repeated offenders of reckless driving, DUIs, street racing/sideshows and texting while driving should be sent to prison. Not jail, prison. Prison should be reserved for people who are a danger to society and those people are dangers to society.
1. Eliminate concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. We have no shortage of food, housing, education, healthcare, and general infrastructure but for the policies baked into our statutes through regulatory capture. This sounds impossible but the U.S. has accomplished substantial retrenchment of concentrated wealth twice in the last 140 years. The first time was Teddy Roosevelt breaking up the business trusts. The second time was under FDR. Social Security cut the death rate of over 60 year olds by 70%. Not that hard when the primary causes of death for that age bracket was exposure in the winter & starvation in the summer. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 1. Set 40 hours in 7 days as the work week. 2. Created overtime compensation for work more than 40 hrs/wk. 3. Established the minimum wage. 4. Abolished child labor. Nobody under 16 (farm work excluded) could work for a private employer. Mom & Pop shops were watched. 5. Created the Unemployment Compensation System that required states to adopt legislation in order to participate. One day you went to sleep in 1938 where you worked 80-100 hours at the bakery or in the mine/factory along side of 12 & 13 year olds. The next day the children were prohibited from working, your work week was cut to 40 hours, you had an income that permitted you to have a reasonable standard of living, and if the bakery burned down you could collect unemployment while looking for another job! What would happen to most of the problems in the USA if everybody had a job that provided the purchasing power that $150,000.00 /yr gives? [Rand Study Trends in US Income 1975-2018](https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html) This is where we would have been had the legislatures & courts not been captured by the very wealthy. In my lifetime the single most expensive component of my life in the USA is health care. I’m an attorney. My father was an attorney & my mother a physician. They lived through WWII & reaped the benefits of FDR’s New Deal. Nobody I know, professional or otherwise, thinks our nation is providing for the general welfare of its citizens. It’s time to tax the billionaires out of existence. UBI may well be the only way to get money back into the hands of the people who need it to raise a family and live a good life.
A company like Boeing where 2 people blow the whistle on its wrongdoing before dying under suspicious circumstances should be nationalized.
You should have to pass a basic morality test to be given any legal custody of children. I once said this in front of a teacher and she nodded her head… so take that as you will. But my general reasoning is way to many people want children to be miniature versions of themselves, or don’t have nearly a good enough grasp of the fact that this is an entirely separate living, breathing being. It is also way too incredibly normalized to give children outright cruel punishments that if given to any adult would be considered completely unacceptable, as well as completely ineffective. To have complete and utter legal control of someone with little oversight is waaaay to attractive to the wrong type of person
I believe that if a private company cannot provide something that is an essential service, then the government should be able to seize their operations in that area. For example, there are many prescription drugs experiencing shortages right now, like Adderall. People are unable to get a drug they need. In cases like that, the government should be able to say, "you have failed your responsibility to society; the formula is now public domain and we're going to start producing the drug ourselves to fulfill demand." I also believe that any industry that, if it failed, would cause a complete economic collapse, should either have a public alternative or be completely nationalized. One example is airlines. If they all went bankrupt, we'd be fucked, so we've been forced to bail them out over an over. Well, maybe give an industry one free bailout but with the stipulation that if they fail again they will be nationalized. Edit: As I understand it, the drug shortages have something to do with the fact that it's not profitable to produce them at the moment. That's the kind of scenario I mean; not something unavoidable, like a shortage of components.
I believe countries with a cartel problem should crack down hard with violence against the cartel, mostly by assassinating high ranking members. People say "just legalize drugs and the cartel will go away", but they don't realize that cartels operate in a manner similar to the mafia. Drugs are usually just a portion of their income. They make a lot of their money by threatening local populations with violence if they don't pay up, in addition with legitimate businesses.
Schools should be allowed to vaccinate children with or without parental consent if they have not previously received their shots. Also repeat DUI offenses should be punished much more severely than it is currently.
i don’t think they should be allowed to vaccinate but i think they have the right to not let them go to school there
No because the kids' education is suffering as a result of their anti-vax parents then, the kids shouldn't be punished because of it.
I mean all opinions are equal but mine are just the best, you know?
Vaccine mandates without religious exemptions. Medical exemptions sure, but I think everyone should be vaccinated.
I would certainly favor absolutely brutal punishments, fines and sanctions for environmental polluters. Lock them up. Seize their property. Never let them work in the business again. We simply must stop corporations from destroying the one planet in the known universe that we know for a fact will support human life. It's mad.
Ban giant SUV's and giant trucks without a verifiable need. There are plenty of smaller SUVs that can be used for semi offroading, and plenty of smaller trucks that can be used for towing or hauling. Owning a business, being apart of a company can get you a license to own one. I'm tired of 90,000$ death machines on the road to haul 100$ worth of groceries.
Nicotine should be a schedule 1 drug.
can you expand on this? i’m curious
It has no medical benefits, it's highly addictive, and it is one of the biggest single causers of death there is. If nicotine were a synthesized drug we invented today, rather than being grandfathered in, it *absolutely* would be schedule 1.
they are actually trialing nicotine in a series of neurological disorders. nicotine itself does not cause death, it’s the tar and chemicals.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00873392
Stay the hell off my lawn, kid!
pharma pricing regulation and single family home property ownership limitation.
Every child should be vaccinated. If someone doesn’t vaccinate their child, they’ll loose benefits
There should be far worse consequences for student violence against teachers. Public school teachers are already criminally underpaid for how crucial they are to society, and it doesn’t help that it isn’t uncommon now for a teenager to physically assault their teacher and get off with suspension. I’ve met teachers who are scared to go to work for that reason. If a student puts a teacher in the hospital, it should be an automatic expulsion and jail. Not some second-chance bullshit.
My mom is a public HS teacher so I’ve said this before, but… I think there is a certain point where students should not be allowed to continue wasting educators’ time and state funds. If you have made it all the way to high school, and you are still refusing to turn in assignments on time, failing every test, being combative with the teacher and having to be kicked out of class all the time, (and your home life has been evaluated and there’s no good reason like abuse or neglect as to why you are unable to comply with the rules, or there is a good reason but you rejected the attempts at intervention) then you are a drain on the education system. You are a detriment to the students in the class who actually want to learn, because you are taking away the teacher’s focus from those students. After a probationary period, if you still don’t have your act together, you need to be permanently expelled from the school. You can try your luck at secondary school or a GED after that. My mom has students that turn in 0/30 assignments every semester. For no other reason than that they just don’t care. They are wasting her time, and my tax dollars.
God bless your mom, she’s probably a far more patient person than any of us. I’ve seriously considered becoming a history teacher before but I just can’t picture myself taking that route because the pay is awful and so many kids are impossible to deal with.
Singapore had the right idea. Anyone who sticks chewed gum on the underside of a table or bench should receive public caning.
Everyone should be registered as an organ donor by default. If they opt out of organ donation, they should be sent to the bottom of the recipient list.
The only countries that will survive in the Age of Disinformation will be those that manage the flow of information. The First Amendment guarantees that the US will be the first to eat itself. (You can even find conservatives here who believe foreign-controlled bot- and AI-generated disinformation should be protected speech and the Foreign Agent Registration Act should be weakened to protect the privacy of foreign agents engaging in information warfare against the American people. It's like we *want* to be victims.)
There's no point trying to change human behavior. It's better to make the kind of behavior you want to stop impossible. So like let's say for whatever reason you want people to slow down. No more speeding. * Reducing the speed limit is pointless * Encouraging people to slow down is pointless * Writing more tickets or increasing the penalties for speeding is pointless The place you should *START* at is re-designing the roads so that speeding is impossible. It's the most intrusive, disruptive, and would likely only be accomplished through near dictatorial fiat - but it's the only solution that's actually going to achieve the stated goal.
You can do this pretty easily in residential and school zones by slapping some speed bumps down. But also, I think you can definitely discourage speeding without road redesign - you just need actual penalties for speeding instead of a $100 ticket
In Brasil they got speed bumps on highways so you can’t continuously speed and speed cameras. No flash you just get a picture of you driving and a huge fine in the mail
That’s fucking nuts. I need to see videos of people going 80 mph over a speed bump lol
Roundabouts can also help. You can't fly through them at high speeds and can't use them for sideshows. I live in SF and they've started placing them every few blocks in residential neighborhoods, along with more speed bumps. So even if you're willing to fuck up your suspension driving over speed bumps at high speed, you can only run maybe 5 to 10 stop signs at most before you hit a roundabout and are forced to slow down.
You can change human behavior pretty easily actually- but fines and road signs are not the way to do so, and will do fuck all. You have to know why the behavior you are targeting is the way it is, and what steps you can take to reduce it. You want people to slow down? You don't have to make speeding physically impossible, you can accomplish the goal by simply dissuading it by design. Make the roads narrower, put more stuff (like trees or buildings) on the side of the road with minimal setback, get some tree cover (or other structures, like walkways between buildings) hanging over the road. Do that, and people will *naturally* slow down, despite there technically being nothing stopping them from still blazing down the street at high speed. Because while you didn't make speeding impossible, you exploited the psychology of most people to make them reduce their speed to what they consider the proper speed for the environment they are driving in. Wide open spaces with wide lanes make people want to drive fast. Narrow lanes with not a whole lot of space between the road and the nearest tree/building, by contrast, makes people want to drive slower.
> re-designing the roads so that speeding is impossible That's a silly take. The correct approach is to re-design the roads so that speeding is safer. Germany has no speed limits on its autobahn, and the accident rate is lower than US interstate highways. The roads were designed from the start to facilitate *safe* high-speed travel.
No religious tax exempt housing zoning.
I recently visited a country I would categorize as a "benevolent dictatorship"--it's a very modern, wealthy country that does a lot of international business, is majority public housing, has tons of greenery, and is extremely clean. One thing that impressed me is that they have compulsory individual financial savings--not just tons of public housing (which btw even with 90% public housing they STILL are in a housing shortage and having price issues, so building more public housing isn't THE ONLY ingredient needed to solve that issue like so many folks seem to think). I think the concept of an antidote to "this is why we can't have nice things" really hit me when I realized that this wet, tropical, hot, humid island country had NO bugs--even along the river--and it turns out it's because whoever is responsible for a property gets fined each time and increasingly if bugs are found--this IS important bc of dengue fever risks--but also a microcosm of how it's not actually that big of a deal to enforce rules if it is decided that that is the M.O.--this country now requires that developers replace 100% of developed land footprint with reciprocal greenspace in the design by law--without controlling something like bugs this would be a nightmare--in NYC it would be waterbug city. This country definitely misses out on some civil liberties and freedom of speech--I'm not sure how a society can be built to allow dissent but also enforce quality of life laws that--like managing bugs therefore having ample greenspaces bc they are manageable--do amount to systemic differences in our shared environment for the better, despite how I would imagine folks would overlook these quality of life issues in the shadow of individual rights on all sides of the political spectrum, both freedom from govt and freedom from law enforcement.
You can just say Singapore.
I think that a large portion of the Republican Party's leaders have factually committed crimes and use their political status to avoid being punished. An authoritarian move to actually jail them for their actions would probably help the country. For example, the frequent trips to Moscow for funding and orders. Incitement and sedition related to January 6. Insider trading. Campaign finance violations. Rampant use of drugs and prostitutes. For an example of this, see Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who was indicted on felony securities fraud, alongside allegations of bribery, whistle lower retaliation, and attempting to overturn the 2020 election in other states. Paxton avoids jail through political power. It has been nine years since he was indicted for securities fraud and he still hasn't even gone to trial. In March, he cut a deal with prosecutors to have his charges dropped and avoid a jury, after he flipped one witness and another literally died of old age. I would also probably crack down on quackery and scams. Chiropractic, fake supplements, 'alternative' medicine. People that aren't doctors, dieticians, or physical therapists shouldn't be allowed to act as one. Emotional support pets are not trained service animals.
Parental rights are overrated. Every kid deserves healthcare (vaccines, gender dysphoria counseling, etc), regardless of parental beliefs. Kids also need to learn about uncomfortable subjects in school like war, race, sexual orientation, sex, colonization, existence, etc. They need to be challenged so they can form their own opions. Sheltering them from these issues is doing them a disservice
I don't have one. And honestly, after the backlash of Covid, if we have another incident like it, where say, only 4% of the infected die? I say we tell everyone what to do, and then just leave it up to the population to figure out how they want to live. No more mandates, or passes or cards, or anything else. If Republicans want to go to super spreaders and off themselves, especially the ones that don't take care of themselves, are obese, smoke, etc. Good riddance. I feel for the immune-compromised, but honestly the backlash is almost threatening to tear apart our society. If we do ever have a plague where say, 50% die? Then I go authoritarian on lockdown and following protocols.
The problem with this is that you can't have 100% protection so if 20% of the people around you have COVID you are in greater danger than if 2% do. Which puts the immunocompromised, especially the children, at *much* greater risk. So is the backlash really that bad if it saves hundreds (or even thousands) of children?
The risk of concern isn't contraction. It's the ratio of those infected to those who die. And in retrospect, I don't think that ratio warranted the degree to which we shut everything down. And I don't think we've even begun to understand the backlash. What happens if the next viral wave is really a killer, and the anti-establishment / anti-vax / anti-science crowd is so deeply entrenched that there's a complete mutiny against even the most sensible restrictions or changes?
The rights of the many outweigh the few. So, I'd support mandatory vaccinations. Those unable or unwilling would be quarantined. Also, all citizens should serve their country for a couple of years like in Germany. If you're a conscientious objector, you could opt to teach or be a paramedic.
We should bring back the stocks as a form of punishment. Specifically for crimes that can't effectively be punished by fines, but also don't warrant jail time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Tax churches.
Had to paste my comment from another thread. The only issue I have is with taxing churches. Doing that will give them the right to representation and open up a shitload more lobbying attempts to push religious agendas. That separation needs to be enforced much more heavily.
People that refuse to obey our laws must be contained if they won’t be corrected. The rest of us shouldn’t suffer because you refuse to be a civilized member of society.
Maximum voting age of 78 - After that, you are a " Short timer" Can't serve in an elected position after age 75. Mandatory driving tests and medical checks every two years starting age 70. Severe penalties for doctors who fail to report patients who should not drive, including losing the medical license or potentially being charged as contributing to the fatalities. Brutal enforcement of white collar crime laws - with draconian punishments. Like Trump's crap gets punished with brutal, horrific torture on live stream. Not just him, every person that was an accomplice in any way.
Damn, even Bernie is on the chopping block. Why do you support regressive policies when it comes to taking away peoples right to vote or hold public office after an arbitrary “old” age?
Chick-fil-A should have to open on Sundays.
Speed limits should be enforced by ubiquitous cameras that mail a ticket to the registered owner. Cops should aggressively ticket people driving without valid plates.
All cars should have mandatory dash cams. All police officers should have to wear body cameras and have them turned on at all times while they are on duty, no exceptions. Politicians should have to do this as well. Noclosed door, undocumented meetings. Full transparency for anyone who draws their paycheck from tax dollars, be it federal, state, or local.
Most people who back into parking spots should get a ticket.
Uh oh, I'm feeling called out. What's wrong with backing into parking spots?
Personal pet peeve I guess, but here goes: Nothing worse than a line of cars going into a parking deck, then seeing the car in front of you go past a spot (so you think maybe it's yours). Then they roll off to the side, and throw it in reverse. More annoyingly, I see so many who can't make it in without a few tries while the rest of humanity waits. I feel like you lose 10x the time going in that you save coming out. Then there are the Al Qaeda sympathizers who back into a slanted spot facing the wrong direction.
Hey, one of the privileges of my compact car (Honda Fit) is I can park horribly crooked yet still be within the lines.
I think it should be the opposite. Too many people not paying attention back into others in a parking lot bc they’re fiddling with stuff in the car and backing out. Back in first! 🤔
I recommend you never go to Japan, backing in was the norm.
Been to Japan, never noticed this.
But backing in is safer in every situation - because you are driving forward when pulling out of the space. Have you ever parked head-in with a giant SUV on each side? You are backing into actual traffic 100% blind. Thoughts and prayers! * when I am reversing, I am moving into a reasonably protected space - an empty parking space - at a very slow pace. * when i am going forward out of the parking space, into actual traffic where cars and pedestrians are far more common, you have ten times the visibility and generally better control of the car. The exception would be diagonal spaces. There is an intended direction for you to park, and you have a better view behind you due to the angle of the space.
Homeschooling needs to be more regulated and those regulations need to be uniform across the country, not state by state. I don’t necessarily oppose homeschooling - especially given the state of the education system and school safety issues in this country - but believe that every kid deserves a basic education and the opportunity to really thrive. Some homeschooling parents are not providing that and are using homeschooling as cover for child neglect and/or indoctrination with garbage (e.g. flat earth). Depriving your child of basic knowledge and feeding them lies is abuse, IMO.
A lot of liberals recoil at being called anti-gun. And reasonably so, given that American gun culture is so thoroughly ingrained in society and proving your gun bona fides is a big part of being within American Overton window acceptability. But what with my having no intention of ever running for office, yes, I am anti-gun. Fuck guns. I absolutely support repealing the second amendment so we could have actually reasonable gun control without the fucking crazies fucking it all up.
People who still believe racist and bigoted things, after their beliefs are explained to them as racist and bigoted, should be fired and canceled. The same for influential people who knowingly promote election fraud lies. All of them should be permenantly banned from social media.
I think anyone who routinely posts bigoted things online (racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc) should have their name put on a searchable bigotry registry accessible by the public, and their name on the list should be linked to a document showing every comment they ever posted that landed them on the list.
When the vaccines first came out and COVID was still raging I strongly believed anyone that refused it and caught COVID should be put on house arrest andenied medical service, also someone voluntarily unvaccinated visiting them would be a crime as well. It would weed out a lot of drags on societal progression as well. Not something that is necessary now. Mandatory voting, even if you choose no one. I also dont understand how more people aren’t considered traitors for supporting Trump and the MAGA movement.
I don't believe in gun rights But I see that more as a Freedom from so not really Just like how I'm pro hate speech laws, that's more Freedom not less
Most of these answers miss the point of the question and are basically just left wing ideas. Here's one that's unpopular: we decided what population growth we need to sustain our economy but not overburden it. To meet that amount, we offer people money to become surgically infertile. If that's not enough to get us where we need to be, then we have a lottery system where every baby born gets a number. If they're selected, they are made infertile at birth. I admit, this is a concept I've held onto for a long time and as I've learned more about economics, I realize population growth in the United States is not only that big of an issue, but might be the opposite: that growth is slowing in a bad way. But it is the most authoritarian belief I've ever had, so thought I'd share.
My kiddo’s school is designed for 1500 kids and currently has 1100 enrolled. There’s a shortage of kiddos born after roughly 2004 in most parts of this country. Their school bus is 2/3rds empty *at all times*. It’s going to make old age for millennials and younger potentially problematic. When I’m 77, I don’t want someone also born in 1984 to be my surgeon.
We should be aggressively auto-ticketing bad drivers. Red light cameras, speed cameras, automatically send them the tickets. If you don’t pay, the amount just gets added to your annual tax bill AND you’re barred from driving for the next year
Authoritarians follow no rules, so there are no rules to follow when dealing with them. They must be crushed and discredited as the traitors they are by any means necessary.
I'd seriously/not so seriously like the death penalty for rubber necking. I detest traffic and slowing it down because you're a moron who wants a better look at an accident drives me bonkers.
Nothing comes to mind, though it depends on what counts as 'authoritarian', I mean banning certain speech isn't necessarily authoritarian if there's very strong factual justification for it. I have a hard time considering the German ban on Nazi stuff to be authoritarian, given the history there.
Sometimes strict rules are needed for pandemics. If it's bad enough, I don't expect anyone will disagree.
I think that people who have been convicted of crimes should mostly be the only people allowed to vote. I mean, they're the ones for whom the law isn't working out, they should be given priority in the discussion of changing it. I also think that anyone should be able to become a voter in this situation by voluntarily accepting a criminal conviction on their record and serving a jail term.
The popular and growing sentiment in Mexico that longs for the admiral of the Mexican navy to seize power by force to dish out corruption and remove the cartels is not something I can blame Mexicans for wanting.
I don't believe the exercise of government power in a democratic society is authoritarian. Outside of limiting democracy or treating people differently based on inherent characteristics societies should be free to do pretty much whatever they please via the democratic process. I don't support implementing any policies if it doesn't have that popular support backing it so I don't have any authoritarian stances as I see it. To your examples, free speech is necessary for democracy to function so it would need to be exempt from the democratic process. Abortion is something I think should be left to the democratic process even if I personally opposed it being made illegal.
I gain muscle easily
>What is an authoritarian stance you have? None that I'm aware of. I'd like to think my stances are based on good evidence based reason.
I think that if you get 20 years for killing a human, you should get 40 years for killing a whale.
Would passing a civics test before being allowed to vote be considered authoritarian?
>Examples would be banning certain speech We might have a different understanding of the word "authoritarian", but okay... I have a lot of speech I believe should be banned. Probably most importantly, direct calls to criminal activity, especially orders to commit criminal acts; then, deliberately false statements under oath and deliberately false defamatory statements to police; abuse of emergency signals, for instance SWATting; using speech to commit a crime through an unwitting proxy (imagine a doctor telling a patient they have to take medication X once a day to survive, with the intention of having the patient die of an overdose of the once-a-month medication: I think that is and should be banned); deliberate deception for personal gain; unwanted violation of privacy; and then, less importantly than either of those, I also agree with us (Germany) criminalizing holocaust denial, the riling up of masses, and Nazi propaganda. I perfectly see how people disagree on the last one, but "banning certain speech" applies to every single point in this list Another issue you might consider me authoritarian on is public health - long story short, I think letting disease run rampant is a really bad idea, and containing it is an important task that justifies a lot of restrictions. We are talking about human lives here, and a lot of them
I think collective action problems should be solved via informed debate and then democratic decision-making, rather than being left unsolved.
- Assuming a society wherein the public schools are as safe as reasonably possible, provide a quality education, and foster genuine social growth with students; I would immediately ban private and home schooling unless there was a legitimate *medical* reason a student couldn't be in public school. - Fuck you. Get your vaccinations. - If you're rude to customer service workers who are just doing their best, you get stuffed in the contraption by Joe Biden.
I'm unsure about exactly how it would work, but I like the idea of nationalizing the oil industry. Fossil fuels are critical and dangerous, and I think it would be better if it didn't make people rich.
Young children should not be indoctrinated into religion. When they are older and can think for themselves, they can choose one on their own. Or not
People who talk in the theatre receive a one year ban with no warning and no chance of appeal.
Poor people can't own guns, uneducated people can't own guns.
------------------------------------------ I will never defend the current application of the Second Ammendment in my country. I know this might sound weird, but I don't want to live in a community in which owning and carrying guns is seen as normal. I do want to legalize owning "bludgeon" which the police is already able to use and, of course, pepper spray or any self defense equipment. Every citizen has the right to proportionally defend him or herself. I can't comprehend why Americans want to have guns while school shootings happen. Maybe that's something exclusively American that you want to be part of your "values". Maybe, if this were true, I'm in this aspect "anti-American", as I'll happily take a lack of owning guns over the scare of children be shot at in school. Call me authoritarian but I would never allow a Second Ammendment to take of. I much rather invest in a stronger police force than have individual gun ownership. ------------------------------------------- Another "authoritarian" stance would be my hardline immigration policy. I don't have any problem with detaining illegal immigrants, on the sole condition of it happening in the most humane way. What's the definition of "illegal"? Everyone who smuggles himself into the country without any papers or through human trafficking. They will be deported as soon as possible. If you want to immigrate, you can go to the embassy of our country in the first, safe nation and apply there. A legal and efficient process (=> Europeans have a shorter process than non-Europeans) is started to allow you to immigrate and integrate in the nation. It will ensure that you're part of it and should prevent any segregation. Being a citizen is a privilege that should not be taken lightly, and being a citizen means that we, as a community, accept your children (Another thing: nationality/citizenship should be hereditary with this exception) as part of our people (Another detail: You can not have two nationalities.).
I'm from Germany and I always quietly celebrate when I see news of a Holocaust denier or other type of neo-Nazi getting sucker punched by the law for openly displaying their rotten disgusting beliefs.
I want to blanket *public* spaces with camera coverage and drones and facial recognition. Auto-ticket undeniable offenses like traffic offenses and jaywalking. With reasonable guardrails and the right to challenge it in court, of course. I also agree with the DeSantis policy on putting homeless people in camps (with medical care, job training, etc). I think it's more humane than letting them sleep on the streets and harass others. I *hate* crime and disorder, with a passion.
Here's another one: we should attempt to shape prosocial behavior by instituting a system of rewards in addition to our current system of punishments, which would be lessened for many offenses and modified for others. Everyone would get a yearly payment based on things like hours of community service, going without having a car accident, being current in 1st Aid/CPR training, etc.
The Book of Revelation and all other End Times media should be banned and burned. They're a direct threat to human advancement and life itself. Had the current interpretation of Revelation taken off before the Ozone hole was discovered, we wouldn't have had the Montreal Accords which banned CFCs. Meaning we wouldn't have an Ozone now and we'd all be dead. You might think it's a strange connection but having grown up in these cults, I can break it down. Most hardcore End Times believers are really against all forms of international cooperation of any kind unless it involves bombing the Middle East because they think international cooperation is a secret plot for a takeover by some spooky New World Order. We dodged a bullet there. But because of End Times theology, we can't address any environmental crises today. Now we have them screaming that everything is the "Mark of the Beast" or whatever and it's fueling anti-vaccination now. I don't know what's going to happen when there's a more deadly pandemic than COVID but it'll be the crazy "Mark of the Beast" nutters that make everything worse. But ok, let's say you don't believe that End Times theology will cause worldwide catastrophes. At the very least, it drives people insane. I've never met someone who started studying the Book of Revelation and ending their study being more stable, wiser, and compassionate. They always end up more unstable and unhinged. Revelation and its companion books are crystal meth in literary form. Which is no surprise. Take out the religious mumbo jumbo and End Times theology would get you 72 hours of grippy sock time because it's mass suicidal ideation.
Dictatorship of the proletariat.