Well you’re right about me needing to consider parks
But let’s see.
No, I don’t think privatization of the National Parks is a good idea. I love the national parks. I love the state parks as well. I think they are run extremely well. I don’t think privatizing would improve their quality. In order to maintain them at their current state, it would require so much regulation of the companies that run them, it wouldn’t be worthwhile for many companies.
Nine times out of ten, I’m not a fan of government doing most anything. But this is definitely that one. The Constitution says one of the tasks of our government is to “promote the general welfare.” I think that the National Parks Service falls within that area. It preserves one of our most valuable assets, our natural beauty and history, and keeps it accessible to everyone. While it may not be economically profitable,
Yeah, that is quite the contradiction, isn’t it? Culturally and fiscally right wing. Well, culturally right would be very different from socially liberal, and fiscally right wing would be very different from economically moderate.
Sounds more like “I’m totally a right wing conservative, but I don’t want to own that.”
Ok as far culturally right wing, idk if that’s the correct way to say it, maybe a tradionalist or a change-resistant person.
Socially liberal- For instance I am ok with same-sex marriage, may not find the idea to strongly serve any purpose, but I am cool with it.
Economically I say moderate because I am against some government assistance, but I definitely want more free education and healthcare and free trade. Is being pro-capitalistic really right-lsaning? There is that also to add I guess for now.
Then I also mentioned the support of small government.
Because if we want to argue purpose, I’ll point out that two old people getting married don’t produce children either, nor is any male-female pair being forced to have children. So quiet clearly, marriage is NOT entirely about the production of children, or it would be limited to male-female pairs who intend to produce children and end once they are done doing so.
You all wanna know another conservative value I have? Fine lower taxes as they create more incentive for people to work, save, invest, and engage in entrepreneurial endeavors.
Except lower taxes doesn’t afford the lowest income people to do any of those things.
And 40+ years of “Taxes are Theft! CUT TAXES” has resulted in the greatest level of wealth disparity in this country since the early 1800’s. The last time Europe was at these levels, it was experiencing communist and socialist revolts from wall to wall. The socialist answers that came from that time, shorter work weeks, worker safety, social security, were the capitalist answers to the problem, by conceding that we needed greater social safety nets and improvement for the lowest level of people.
The Republican Money people always claim that if we just let them have more money, everything will be great for everyone. Forty years of this proves that they’re lying for their own gain and that this idea is patently false.
There can only be so many successful entrepreneurs at any given time, and most people can’t invest in any substantial way, regardless of their tax burden. Better to have higher taxes with social nets and healthcare that won’t bankrupt people.
It’s been my discovery that many of this board’s conservatives are genuinely decent people. Bricker, Clothahump, Starving Artist and so on are seemingly likeable people. As long as you’re not discussing politics. Then, unfairly or not I leave to each individual, they have a tendency to either live in the past or create strawmen about how all of the ills in world history are caused by liberals.
They also sometimes ignore or spin evidence that shows the flaw in their thinking, and try to blame it on liberals.
Clothahump has a problem with saying that he’s made a mistake. He continually ignores requests for cites, and considers himself the smartest guy in the room. If anyone tries to engage him in serious debate, he tends to get insulting and starts telling people to fuck off.
Starving Artist seems to pine for the 50s, back when we all lived in an episode of “Ozzie and Harriet,” and the worst problem that society had was how Eddie Haskell somehow got TWO dates to the dance. He watches “Back to the Future” as if it were a documentary.
That may be the case. What is a “liberal assertion,” though? The impression I’ve been getting is that, from your viewpoint, it’s anything that appears on a laundry list of provocative statements attributed to “liberals” that one alt-right demagogue or another waves around.
A serious answer to this question is that the word “empowerment” has indeed been debased – mainly in corporate settings. HR departments talk about “empowerment” while accomplishing exactly the opposite.
My former employer, a renewable energy company, actually re-named its HR department to be “People Empowerment” while at the same time stripping local managers of authority. I was not allowed to purchase the software tools I needed to do my job. Most of the departments there didn’t have accountable points of contact, only general mailboxes that were black holes. I didn’t feel empowered by any of this. To be fair, some of my colleagues felt OK about it, maybe it was just my natural anarchist tendencies that make me leery of autocratic systems and large organizations.