Debate:Liberal beliefs

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 06:56, 8 August 2008 by Silver Sloth (talk | contribs) (not logged in)

Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Rembrandt.ryan.
User:Rembrandt.ryan kindly supplied a list of liberal beliefs from somewhere, to which we've added our comments. it was originally on his talk page, where you'll find the edit history (and the history of my bungling attempts at moving it here!)


Liberals are assumed to be IN FAVOR OF:

A) Affirmative action

  • Not particularly in favour.--Bobbing up 11:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Depends how far it goes - drives to recruit certain under represented groups - generally good. Selecting people simply on the basis of an unrelated aspect - not so good. Silver Sloth 11:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Almost universially (in the US anyhow) misunderstood as "quota"s by those white men who didn't get a promotion. The reality is that the only time "minority" preference come into play in the hiring sense, is when "all else being equal" one is of a minority. But, white men have an "out" when they do not get a promotion saying "she only got it because she is a woman" "he's black, it's not like he really deserved it." At least that's what i see after 20 some odd years in the American academic and legal sector.--Waiting for Godot 11:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I've got no problems with it (note: I'm a white guy). --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Racism will always be around and needs to be counterbalanced. Quotas are probably a bit crap though - the candidate needs to be good enough for the job. Totnesmartin 13:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I understand the need for affirmative action, but I can't really support it. See Andy's "Affirmative Action President." It's used against any and all minorities who do succeed. I would like to find another method for dealing with racist hiring practices. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Hundreds of years of systemic racism in the US makes some form of counterbalance necessary. It's an easy program to defend when you see the massive slide in admissions to Universities (California is an obvious case) the instant AA is removed - that's not a good thing for society. But admissions should be colour blind - so perhaps the best options is to preferentially overfund primary and secondary-level education systems in underprivileged areas? But without a shadow of doubt, no-one should be picked that isn't qualified for a given position. DogP 14:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It's a simplistic, Band-aid solution to a complex problem. I'm neutral on it, but I feel there has to be a better way. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree with it in terms of furthering equality, & as long as it is handled with common sense. Occasionally it does result in incompetent people holding a job just because they fill a minority quota. However, this does not happen very often ~ not nearly as often as critics of affirmative action suggest. Weaseloid 16:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Like any tool, needs to be used in the right way, at the right time. In the past, it was a good way to alleviate racial inequality by simply giving black people the opportunity to work, when otherwise inherent racism would have denied them this chance. Unfortunately, it seems that it now gives people the chance to claim a black person got a particular position or status due to 'affirmative action' rather than merit or hard work, even if this is not true. Zmidponk 17:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • AA must be applied carefully. Quotas, and giving positions to less qualified people for any other reason, are never a good idea. Helping disadvantaged people find opportunities is entirely fair and acceptable, but I generally believe such efforts should focus more on helping the economically disadvantaged (PC euphemism for "poor people") contribute more to society, rather than on helping minorities. OneForLogic 18:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I am for it in entry level and educational situations. Thus I approve of AA in helping people attend first year university but not for mandating the number of people who should get government jobs. We should try to make the playing field more equitable but after that its up to the individual. --Damo2353 22:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • In principle (i.e. helping groups who're being victims of discrimination), yes, though I'm not surely convinced aiding those who haven't been personally affected at the expense of others is a good idea, even if their group's background was plagued with discrimination. Personally, I think AA should end when, say, poor individuals from all group have it equally bad. Ultimately I don't mind much either way though. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 03:17, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

B) Anthropogenic Global Warming legislation

  • It's good to see the US slowly joining the rest of the world on this.--Bobbing up 11:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Whether or not man caused Global Warming (we did IMHO) - it makes sense not to accelerate it. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • Well, you aren't going to tell me that polar bears did it with farts, or trees did it from dying, are you?--Waiting for Godot 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I don't know - it's not my area - so I'll go with the majority of scientific opinion and agree. Silver Sloth 11:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I definately believe that use of fossil fuels by humans is a major contribution to global warming. Either way, we're the only species on the planet with a conscious ability to fix the problem. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Oh yes - this needs solving, fast. Totnesmartin 13:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree with Silver Sloth an Susan. Whether or not we "did it" is irrelevant. If we can stop it, why shouldn't we? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Climates do fluctuate naturally, but we're making things far, far worse. And, again, even if we aren't the cause, can we all please stop filthying our own bath water? DogP 14:21, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • The data is in. The focus should be on fixing the problem. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It's always seemed daft to me that people did not realise pumping loads of exhaust fumes, and various gases from factories, etc, into the atmosphere was going to have bad effects. If we can alleviate some of those effects by doing now what we should have done years ago, let's do it. Zmidponk 17:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • We need to be careful how we tackle this one, too. Less pollution is good; less fossil fuel use is good; geoengineering solutions like dumping massive amounts of iron in the oceans to increase plankton populations probably aren't so good. We definitely need to keep studying the issue and looking for potential solutions, but we really need to not do anything stupid. Our scientists also really need to quit dramatizing their findings to get stronger reactions from people. State the facts and do sound research. OneForLogic 18:15, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I don't know but I am inclined to go with the overwhelming majority of the experts so yes.--Damo2353 22:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Definitely yes, and the sooner the better. --Kels 23:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Certainly, though I don't mind too much about it. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 03:18, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely. Today, summers are hotter, hurricanes are stronger than ever, and so on. JJ4eGuava marmalade! 20:37, 7 August 2008 (EDT)


  • I do not know who or what this is.--Bobbing up 11:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Murcan - no opinion SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • What about it. Yes, I believe they exist. in fact i even have evidence that they exist.--Waiting for Godot 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • As a Brit I don't have any strong opinion but, as long as they act within the law, I believe that organizations like the ACLU are good for a society. Silver Sloth 11:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I don't agree with everything they do, but I think that is a positive. It makes me feel as though they're looking out for more than just a singular point of view. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I am a big supporter of the ACLU. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm an ACLU supporter. There's staggering amounts of corporate cash lined up against everything the ACLU fights for, so without them we'd all just be steamrollered over. They're not perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than the forces of darkness. DogP 14:24, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Vitally important organization that does a lot of thankless work and draws much misunderstanding and unnecessary abuse. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". To me, that perfectly sums up the ACLU - I dislike some of the causes they've supported, but their overarching aim is to protect what is, to me, the most important Constitutional freedoms. Zmidponk 17:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Um, not to get cynical here, but that statement is about the opposite of what the ACLU stands for. If you disagree with them, they fight to the death to silence you. --CPAdmin1 14:59, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Only if their perception is that your disagreement takes the form of advocating discrimination against a person/group in an unconstitutional manner, or some other form of denying their Constitutional rights. Zmidponk 17:41, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yeah, the ACLU generally does good work. Somebody's got to stand up to Cheney, Bush, and cronies. OneForLogic 18:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • A council to protect the civil liberties of everyone? Sounds bloody good to me. If we are going to grant freedoms then an organisation to defend them is a good a idea.--Damo2353 22:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Canadian, so duh. --Kels 23:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I've only heard good things from these guys, namely, their advocacy of rights even when they imply defense for unpopular (and rightly so) views such as nazism or whatever. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" indeed. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 03:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • More or less support אנדי שלאפלי איז א פאץ What, you can't read it? Learn how to speak Yiddish 08:20, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I support the ACLU on everything except their position on the Second Amendment. That will probably make Andy's head explode. Stile4aly 17:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

D) Banning prayer at football games

  • Do people pray at football games? Why? For their team to win?--Bobbing up 11:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Don't give a damn - I dislike all organised sport SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • I'd just rather they ban the football games. it's school - you know, Education?--Waiting for Godot 11:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Don't care, up to them if they want to. Totnesmartin 13:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Umm... maybe? I don't know. This seems rather kooky compared to the first few of these questions. I've got no problems with it as long as it is the individual's choice. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Whose prayer? "Hail Mary," while perhaps appropriate, won't jive well with non-catholics, will it? To whose god? Should we pray to Jesus, YHWH, nature, Ba'al? It makes much more sense to me to let everyone pray privately. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes - the crowd will never be all of one religion, and you can't be pissing off others with prayers they don't agree with. DogP 14:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It's only ever been an issue at public schools, and in their case, yes. At private schools, who cares? EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Pray about the game? If God exists, why should he care who wins in a ball game? Or do people just make a general 'grace' type prayer? Either way it sounds kinda silly. Weaseloid 16:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Impossible - every Premiership striker does it after every goal. They run up to the crowd coming to a sliding stop on their knees. They then pull the material of their shirt to enable them to kiss the holy emblem of Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, or whatever. Oh, you mean praying to a deity - what a daft idea! Silver Sloth 17:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • What kind of prayer? Personal prayer? That's no-one's business but the believer(s) and his/their relevant non-existant Sky-Daddy. A minister or someone standing up and expecting the crowd to follow them in a prayer? Sorry, that could very well cause offense to those not of that religion. Zmidponk 17:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I think the non-residents-of-Jesusland are telling you that you should have explained the issue more, Rem. At (American) football games, particularly middle school and high school games in rural communities, in the southern US, it is traditional for some official at one of the participating schools to lead the spectators and players in a pre-game Christian prayer. I think Rem's asking if this practice, or similar practices involving public Christian prayer before sporting events, should be banned. I'm really not sure about this, as we really already have a law against this (1st Amendment, since it's often a public school official leading the prayer), and it's being blatantly ignored. All you would accomplish with any enforcement effort would be to piss off a whole stadium full of Jesuslanders. Most with guns in their F-250s in the parking lot. I don't see that ending well. OneForLogic 18:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • This is not a big issue for me. If people want to pray that is fine, so long as I have the freedom to tell them they are idiots (if I want to).--Damo2353 22:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Banning football games? I'm in! --Kels 23:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • What kind of (presumably American) Football games? Those ran by public schools or other institutions? If so, then yes, (group) prayer should be banned, otherwise no. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 03:27, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. Ban it. Ban it *now*. Complete fucking morons. Spica the Hiver If you tolerate this, then your children will be next... 17:54, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

E) Banning smoking

  • About as logical as banning suicide.--Bobbing up 11:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • If it stops kids starting to smoke. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • Strongly support. The public health benefits are enormous. Every country that's tried it has deemed it a success. Silver Sloth 11:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • grown ups are grown ups. laws should be in place for kids, but if you want to do something that may or may not be healthy - like drinking, pot, ciggies, sex-till-you-drop, drugs, work-a-holics, playing guitar till you 'got blisters on me fingers', or play Doom 24 hours a day, i really could care less. Show up to work on time, do your job, and your free time is yours.--Waiting for Godot 11:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I assumed this meant smoking in public places. There is does affect you. Second hand smoke kills. Silver Sloth 11:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not even sure i agree there. I mean I agree that it can be dangerous, yes. but I don't know if i care that a resturant has an *enclosed* smoking section, or that the smokers can go outside. Denver's new regs say they must be 25 feet from any door and 10 feet from teh building, and it can't be a special room provided for them. in otherwords. "during snow storms, suffer, damned smokers". that's outrageous to me (as a non smoker, that is).--Waiting for Godot 13:18, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
One year, yes, only one year after Scotland brought in their ban on smoking in public places heart disease fell by 17%. In England The Daily Mail, not a paper noted for it's leftist leanings, reported that the drop after one year was as high as 41%. That's a good enough reason for me. Silver Sloth 17:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • For a ban, although over here the ban even extends to railway platforms, which are a) mostly outdoors and b) regularly visited by trains pumping out deisel fumes. Totnesmartin 13:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Although it has a little of that "smacks of heavy handedness" sort of thing, I have to say that I am for it. I really hate smoking. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I think banning smoking in places like bars and restaurants should be up to the owner of the establishment. In places like parks etc., I don't really have a stance. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Not a fan (ex-smoker). Although obviously smoking does no-one any good, banning it seems like the thin end of the wedge. What happens if they start banning alcohol? Bans are having terrible effects in rural Ireland - all the ould fellas who used to get together in the rural pubs now have nowhere to go to chat, on top of which strict drink-driving legislation is curbing their ability to go anyway. As a result, rural pubs are closing at a rate of about one a week, and rural society is being broken up. Nanny-Statism of the worst kind, I think. DogP 14:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I support curbing smoker's rights, but lately it's started to become punitive. That's just mean-spirited, and I hate the damn cancer sticks. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Only in certain places, with administrative penalties. We all have rights. --JayJay4ever??? 16:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Only in some public places. Also I agree with bans on tobacco advertising (like we have in the UK). Weaseloid 16:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I think 'informed consent' should be the standard here. If you are aware of the risks, but want to do it anyway, no-one should be able to stop you. In enclosed public places (bars, restaurants, cafes, etc), it should be up to the owner - he can have a 'no smoking' section, ban smoking entirely or have smoking throughout as they see fit. If, as a customer/member of staff, you think the risks of 'second-hand smoke' aren't worth it, you walk out/quit. Zmidponk 17:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Smoking definitely should be banned in government/public buildings. Beyond that, I think leaving such a decision to the owner of the property or building in question is fair. It might be reasonable to mandate some kind of clear notification of the allowance of smoking or lack thereof inside businesses and such. OneForLogic 19:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No. We should discourage young people from starting the disgusting habit, but banning it is too draconian for me and the resulting black market would have unpleasant social consequences.--Damo2353 22:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No ban of smoking in general, but banning it in any government building, office buildings, transit and so forth, and in cases where it clearly endangers children, I'm for. If someone wants to smoke on their back step, let 'em. Just no subsidies, etc. --Kels 23:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No ban in general, but it shouldn't be allowed in public grounds, and it should be clear to the smoker what the risks of smoking are. I think in general it should be left to the owner's judgement whether it's be allowed on his/her property, including his bussiness place. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 03:32, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

F) Democracy

  • There are people who are against democracy?--Bobbing up 11:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Duh! SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • Personally, I hate the idea. No one has time to be educated on the millions of things our local, state, and federal legislators have to contemplate every day. I say, let's vote for our representatives and let them do the dirty work ! oh wait, that's what we do.--Waiting for Godot 11:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • There is no alternative I would wish to live under. Silver Sloth 11:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. Totnesmartin 13:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy just doesn't work.- Kent Brockman
  • Liberals are against Democracy? Really? I haven't heard that outside of CP and Fox News. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Arcan, this is the "In favor of" list. Liberals are supposed to be for it which I guess that means Conservatives are against it. (Although I haven't heard many actually voicing that opinion.) Personally I think that barring myself being elected as some sort of galactic emperor, democracy is the best of all the poor alternatives. People may say democracy is crap but I say it is at least fairly crap. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 14:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I apologize - I hadn't had my morning irish coffee yet. Sorry everyone! --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 15:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Of course - it's anything but perfect, but what other reasonable systems do we have? Although, like Genghis, I'm quite keen on being made Overlord. I think that would be the best system for everyone. DogP 14:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Of course. Any government which exists without the express will of the governed is, de facto, totalitarian, even if the leadership is a bunch of selfless teddy bear types. EVDebs 19:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • As Churchill said, it's the worst form of government, but from everything we have, it's the best. Or something like that. --JayJay4ever??? 16:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. I remember my A-level history teacher using that quote but I've never been able to remember who it came from. The way I remember it was something like 'democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the other forms of government'. Sums it up pretty well. The majority view isn't always correct, but a good democratic government should balance it with restraint & common sense. Weaseloid 17:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • The best form of government, theoretically, is an absolute dictatorship by a completely perfect, selfless, utterly incorruptible person. Owing to the fact I'm busy with other things, I'll take democracy instead. Zmidponk 18:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Surely a better question is "what kind of democracy?".
  • Something democracy-ish would be nice, yes. Nice change from now, in any case. --Kels 23:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Fuck yeah! NightFlareThis is a talk page. 03:33, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

G) Enforcing political correctness

  • How would one do such a thing?--Bobbing up 11:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Common politeness should do. SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • "enforcing?" I think that if you kill some kid in wyoming cause he's gay, you should be tried for Domestic Terrorism.--Waiting for Godot 11:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • PC = treating people with respect - who'd be against it? Totnesmartin 13:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
    • People who regard certain other people with utter hatred and contempt, and don't want to have to hide it to pretend to be civilized? --Gulik 13:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm totally with Susan on this one. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:21, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree about common courtesy, but enforcing it? No. However, there is a difference between enforcing courtesy and prohibiting a hostile work environment. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Sometimes it is necessary to be blunt and even impolite, but not just because someone is of a different race, gender, sexual orientation, physical difference (unless they're just really, really fat), political persuasion or religious belief. And punching someone in the gob because you don't like what they said isn't on. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 14:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Like Susan said. DogP 14:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Political correctness is a problem all over the political spectrum. If everyone treated it as a matter of simple politeness rather than a grand show of righting wrongs, it wouldn't be an issue. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Enforcing political correctness where? Governments can't enforce what people say & think. They can enforce equal opportunity laws for employers & suchlike. The media should exercise political correctness out of respect for their audience. They shouldn't necessarily be forced to do so by law. Weaseloid 17:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Depends how far you go. If you go as far as banning certain words on the grounds that they are considered offensive, then you've gone too far - I've always been of the opinion that it's the intent that counts, not the words used to express it or accomplish it. Zmidponk 18:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • The 1st Amendment prohibits this. That said, it still absolutely should not be necessary. People should be educated to ignore the hateful (or not so hateful) things other say. If someone were to say something like "OneForLogic is an idiotic goat-killer", I would simply ignore it, as their words have no effect on me. This should be the standard, not the exception. OneForLogic 19:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No. We can't go around telling people to conform to one person's notion of political correctness, that would be politically incorrect.--Damo2353 22:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Er, no. Thought police is bad. Prosecuting hate crimes and racial/sexual/etc harrassment, yes. But otherwise no. --Kels 23:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Fuck no! Disagree both in terms of principle and practice. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 03:34, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

H) Ethanol production

  • Against producing ethanol? Is it highly toxic or what?--Bobbing up 11:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • If it supplants food production probably not good. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • World Food Prices Skyrocket. how bout wind, water, even nuclear power, thanks.--Waiting for Godot 11:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I used to be for, but now it's bust. There's no point driving cheaply to an empty food shop. Totnesmartin 13:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • WfG is right. There are plenty of other things we could be doing to solve energy problems. Susan's point is very good too. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:24, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree with Susan and WfG, and I'm in the same position as Totnesmartin. Though, I have to say, I would like to learn more about non-corn based ethanol. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I was just now thinking of Back to the Future. Americans waste LOTS of food. Do we ever see a time when that wasted & rotting food could be turned to fuel?--Waiting for Godot 14:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
It's already being done I believe. Don't have a handy link but only recently I read about someone converting food waste into diesel. (Thinks - I'm sure I read that somehwere.) Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 14:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • There's nothing wrong with ethanol production per se. However, what is important is how it is produced. Diverting resources from food production, cutting down rainforest or utilising petrochemical fertilisers are all gross stupidities. Using waste products like straw, grass or wood chippings is acceptable but not likely to major inroads into world petroleum consumption. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 14:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
PS I remember several years ago driving through the U.S. bible-belt (Alabama, Mississippi etc) and seeing gas stations proclaiming that there was no ethanol in their gas. I always presumed this was to dissociate themselves from the demon alcohol.
  • All it's done is remove resources from food production globally, destroy more rainforest, and jack up inflation. Terrible idea which started with the very best intentions. DogP 14:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Depends on the feedstock and the impact on the food supply. Brazil made it work with sugar cane; for the US it's been a disaster with corn because of the greater energy requirements for processing. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No opinion, as I haven't looked into it. Zmidponk 18:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Producing ethanol is only a good idea if we find a better source than corn or develop a way to refine it more efficiently. As it is, we're using almost as much energy to produce the ethanol as the ethanol being produced provides in the end, and we're driving up food prices in the process. Also, Genghis, I'm not sure where you're from, but most of my friends here in Jesusland are huge fans of alcohol. I doubt that had anything to do with it. How long ago was this? OneForLogic 21:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
OFL, I'm sure there are many fans of alcohol down there, they need something to brighten up their lives. It would have been in the early 90s and driving through the back roads of Alabama it seemed like the only buildings we saw were gas stations and churches. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member
  • As long as it doesn't clash with food production. JJ4e?!?!?!?! 11:50, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I) Fairness Doctrine (radio shows)

  • What is this?--Bobbing up 11:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I care not what anyone says on the radio - I,ve got a channel changer & an off switch SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • you have a remote control???? what a concept. By the way, can we tell fundamentalists that if they don't like certain show or that some tv uses violence--to make a point, can they just not look? Waiting for Godot 11:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • What, and be deprived of WIGO material? Rush and his friends only have power because people listen. Totnesmartin 13:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I just wish that there were a lot more intelligent people who would do as Susan suggests and stop listening. Therefore making conservative talk radio go bust on its own. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It's a complex issue that interweaves technical, cultural and political issues. Broadly, yes, but it's impossible to give a short answer. EVDebs 15:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm a staunch supporter of Freedom of Speech, and parents should decide what their children can or can't hear/read/see. --JayJay4ever??? 16:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm on the fence here. I can see the underlying aim of it, which I generally agree with, but when there's as many radio stations as there is today, would it actually do anything useful to further that aim? I'm not sure it would. Zmidponk 18:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • This was always a violation of the first Amendment. People always had the choice to not listen to stations broadcasting things they don't want to hear. I practice this rather actively while I commute to and from work; I listen to my favorite station while they're holding their morning talk show or playing music, and I switch to the CD a friend left in my car a couple months ago during commercials. The stations have freedom of speech, and I have the freedom to control the radio in my car. OneForLogic 21:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No. There may have been some cause for this back when there limited tv shows and radio stations and people had no choice as to what they listened to. Today there is nearly every political opinion out there available to listen to. Sure some shows are biased, but then there are shows that are biased the other way. For instance I sometimes watch Fox news and laugh at the bias, but then I listen to the Young Turks and don't seem to mind the blatant partisanship.--Damo2353 22:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

J) Gun Control

  • I think that controlling guns is a good idea.--Bobbing up 11:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm so glad I live in a country where I've never seen a handgun. I hope I never do. Strongly in favour. Silver Sloth 11:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • What Silver said. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • I've hunted all my life. Guns can be sports. But there is no reason we can't get a rain in on weapons--Waiting for Godot 11:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT) used against humans.
  • Five American children are shot dead every day, mostly with legal, home guns. Time for this to stop, I think. Totnesmartin 13:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm of the opinion that there are certain guns that are only people-killers and no one should have them. On the other hand, a total ban (on most anything) is never a good thing. It just leads to black markets and more crime. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I like guns (though I wouldn't mind living without them) but I don't see why guns can't be "controlled." Trigger locks, waiting periods, I don't see the problem. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Strongly in favour. DogP 14:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Most parts of the world consider unfettered gun ownership to be a mark of a broken society. The real problem is the inflexibility of firearms advocates, who are trying to force a one-size-fits-all gun policy on a very diverse country. I think the 2nd Amendment is obsolete and the NRA/libertarian position is astonishingly irresponsible in a country with huge divides between urban and rural and a long history of ignoring or exacerbating race and class issues. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • In favour. In an ideal world where everyone was nice, there would be no reason shooting enthusiasts couldn't own guns. In the real world, gun crime is too big a problem. Weaseloid 17:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Generally in favor, as guns are made purely and utterly to kill or maim, but, if implemented, it would have to be enforced on a country-wide basis, with the same level of control in every state, unlike the current system of different states having different rules. Zmidponk 18:20, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • In favor. Too many disturbed/dangerous people out there. --JayJay4ever??? 20:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Where do you live, Sloth, Susan? It sounds nice. And unfortunately, while gun crime is indeed a serious problem in real life, it would become a much bigger one if the government tried to crackdown on gun ownership and add severe new restrictions. Seriously, my fundy Jesusland friends and their families would openly and violently rebel if the government tried to ban gun ownership outright, or if it did anything that they considered too close to a ban. The culture down here has to change first. I'm working on it. Widespread availability an effective, long range, nonlethal defensive weapon, like an electrolaser (we're only just beginning development on those), would go a long way toward solving the problem. OneForLogic 22:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm sorry but this is an absolute no-brainer. If you reduce the supply of guns then it becomes harder for criminals to get them. Sure serious organised crime and bank robbers will still get them but the petty thieves and low level crooks won't be able to. Also if everybody has guns for self-defence then criminals will be forced to carry them and more violent and semi violent crimes will result in murders.--Damo2353 23:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm with Susan and Sloth. I've lived in two Canadian cities, and the only handguns I've ever seen, ever, have been in the holsters of police, and in museums. That's it. --Kels 23:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm certainly in favor of SOME form of gun control, however, I really have no idea what should be acceptable and what is not or even know how loose/strict the laws are currently around the world (or care). NightFlareThis is a talk page. 03:40, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Against gun control. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of only people from the government having guns -especially given how America is slowly(?) drifting towards fascism אנדי שלאפלי איז א פאץ What, you can't read it? Learn how to speak Yiddish 08:24, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes to gun control. Spica the Hiver If you tolerate this, then your children will be next... 17:57, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

K) Hate crime legislation

  • Seems a good idea to have legislation against crimes - hate or not.--Bobbing up 11:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Don't think that a hate crime should be any different from any crime. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • "hate crimes" are domestic terrorism. the intent is to cause FEAR in a particular society, group, gender, religion, etc., due to acts of violence or threats. It should be charged not as a so-called thought crime, but as domestic terrorism. We see what terrorism does to middle class american white families when Muslims do it, how is that any different than what gay kids in Wyoming feel after one of their own is scarcrowed on a fence - just cause he hit on the wrong person?--Waiting for Godot 11:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm with WfG. I'd much rather see these crimes labeled as terroristic. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Cautiously for - If you mean "hate speech" (crime is crime, whatever the motive) - then yes, stopping people stirring up riots or just-short-of-inciting attacks on minorities is a good thing - but watch that slide... Totnesmartin 13:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It depends on your definition of "hate crime." WfG is right, but when the definition/use gets too broad, the intent of the legislation is diluted to mean nothing. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Cautiously for. DogP 14:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Cautiously for as well, with the proviso that they should not be used as bludgeons just to get a longer sentence from a judge. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Of course restrictions on hate crime are necessary. The title doesn't make it clear what kind of specific legislation we are giving an opinion on. Weaseloid 17:13, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • If used properly, in favor, but could be abused to create a Big Brother-esque 'thought police' situation. Zmidponk 18:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I thought criminal incitation was punishable. --JayJay4ever??? 19:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm glad to see such agreement that this needs to be approached cautiously. Things like assault and murder are already crimes, and we can never truly know the intent of the assailant/murderer. What makes a hate crime different from any other murder? How do you tell the difference? And I'd definitely not recommend broadening the definition of "terrorism" any further. We can all see what Cheney has done with it already. Regardless of who your "terrorist" is, though, allowing yourself to live in fear accomplishes nothing. We decide whether or not any so-called "terrorist" accomplishes their goal. OneForLogic 22:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm in two minds about this one, I agree in principle but am afraid that in practice it can result in the squealching of speech that vocal minorities simply dislike. Also it seems to me to be very hard to define.--Damo2353 23:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • In principle yes, in practice however, this has the potential to get out of hand as paranoia may get in the way of proper judgment as overreaction on the part of groups would turn a case between a few criminals and a few victims into a case between a few domestic terrorists and a would-be persecuted group. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 03:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • What WFG said אנדי שלאפלי איז א פאץ What, you can't read it? Learn how to speak Yiddish 08:25, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

L) Helmet laws for motorcyclists

  • You could argue this one, but it seems like a good idea.--Bobbing up 11:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Ever since an idiot motorist hit me on a roundabout I, and my family, have been strongly in favour. I owe my life to my helmet. Silver Sloth 11:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Of course- it saves money on the health services as an added bonus! SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • in states with mandatory helmet laws, motorcycle accidents that result in death go down by (honest to god) 66%. for Godot 11:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Hey, if you want to be a dumbass and ride a motorcycle without a helmet, go ahead. I just don't want to be burdened with the cost of scraping your brains off the ground. You can lay there and rot like so many roadkill deer for all I care. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Why is this "liberal"? It's just common sense, surely? Totnesmartin 13:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I don't think it should be mandatory, but I think it should be an "at your own risk" situation (for instance, not wearing a helmet would forfeit your right to sue over head injuries). --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
But in that case should the National Health Service put you back together if you have an accident?--Bobbing up 14:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Head injuries are so serious that a public health system needs ample protection against them. A relative nearly died in a serious motorcycle accident, but was saved by his helmet, so I'm all for enforcement. DogP 14:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, it's a public health issue. Dying of a head injury in a motorcycle accident -- or worse, not dying -- has ripple effects on family, emergency services, and health care systems. Helmets reduce those effects by reducing serious injury. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. It's a basic road safety requirement. Weaseloid 17:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No. My own personal opinion is that you're an utter fool if you don't wear one, but my opinion should not be enforced as law. Zmidponk 18:24, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Few enough people ride motorcycles that I can't imagine the public medical costs of caring for the idiots that crash while not wearing a helmet are that substantial. I'm personally very much in favor of motorcyclists wearing helmets (I always do), but I'm not sure we really need to mandate it. OneForLogic 22:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, they save lives at little inconvenience. Saving lives has social and economic benefits to a society.--Damo2353 23:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Principle: No. Practice: Yes. Combined: *shrug*. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 03:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Same with seatbelt laws. JJ4e?!?!?!?! 12:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No brainer. I started my nursing career working on a head injury unit. Compulsory skidlids for all. Spica the Hiver If you tolerate this, then your children will be next... 18:02, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

M) Humanitarian intervention in other nations

  • If this means - "should we help other nations?" then yes.--Bobbing up 11:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • By invitation or international (UN) consensus SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • GENOCIDE because no one looked. Starvation cause no one cared. anyone who thinks we shouldn't interveen as some of the most powerful nations in the world, is simply no human.--Waiting for Godot 11:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • yes, we should help out the less fortunate. Totnesmartin 13:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree we should help other nations, as long as we don't lose sight of our own people's needs. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. It's just like public healthcare - a civilised global society cares for all its citizens. DogP 15:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • With great power and wealth comes great responsibility. Even if it's just a possible exchange of favors, humanitarian intervention tries to raise the standard of living as a whole; if you've got, someone else wants, and hundreds of millions of lives throughout history have been lost because of wars over resources. Better to share and be a good neighbor. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely. Many of the developing world's problems are at least partially caused by economic manipulation by us wealthier nations. Helping out in a crisis is the least we can do. Weaseloid 17:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • If you mean like the 'humanitarian intervention' in Iraq, no. If you mean things like supplying food aid, or protecting people being subjected to 'ethnic cleansing', yes. Zmidponk 18:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • As long as it is humanitarian. No country or organization has the right to infringe another country's sovereignty for the sake of particular interests. --JayJay4ever??? 20:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It must be done correctly, which means that mostly it shouldn't be done at all. If emergency relief from the aftermath of a natural disaster is needed, we can, should, and often do help. That, we can (sometimes) get right. If the humanitarian intervention is needed due to some kind of genocide or civil war or similar, we need to be careful. The people that would provide the aid on the ground must be protected as well as possible; better would be to help the affected civilians (PC euphemism for "the poor bastards getting their asses kicked") find somewhere else to go. The "lightly-defended refugee camp" approach doesn't work and is consistently a waste of time and resources. If we could trust our leaders and military to plan and execute effective military interventions to end this kind of fighting with minimal collateral damage, I'd support it. We've unfortunately proven many times in the last 100 years or so that we suck at that kind of thing. OneForLogic 22:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Sure, provided it is mandated by the UN.--Damo2353 23:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes if there's no international disagreement with the process, preferably if under the approval of the UN. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 03:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, even if we don't agree with the politics/have a grudge against that country (e.g. Cuba) אנדי שלאפלי איז א פאץ What, you can't read it? Learn how to speak Yiddish 08:27, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

N) Penalties on companies that hire offshore

  • Why?--Bobbing up 11:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Err ... No? - don't really understand this. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • Dolphins deserve equal pay. Look, as long as we are saying "no immagrant labor forces", and demonizing aliens - then we should hold corporations accountable for spending money in places where not only will the US lose employment taxes, but the bread winners are bying foreign bread. either it's ok for us not to get taxes from employees or its not. you can't have it both ways just cause you like cheep products and hate mexicans.--Waiting for Godot 12:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It's either an open market or its not - I say, those who wish for open global trade get what they wished for. The argument is a bigger one. DogP 15:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It's a far more complex issue than that. I'm certainly not a fan of offshore outsourcing though -- it shows a lack of understanding of the "human" part of "human resources". EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Overseas outsourcing is often exploitative, but redressing this would be very complicated, & 'penalising' companies or forcing them to stop outsourcing may not be the answer. Weaseloid 17:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • 'It's either an open market or its not - I say, those who wish for open global trade get what they wished for. The argument is a bigger one.' Totally agree. Zmidponk 20:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No, but it should be well regulated to avoid the abuses that usually come with it, especially when it's carried out in poor countries. --JayJay4ever??? 21:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely not. Our immigration laws must make sense and must be enforced, but being xenophobic and protectionist doesn't help anyone. What's more, the world's wealth is currently distributed very unevenly, and I consider it basically inevitable that things will even out. Since the world doesn't have enough resources to support all 6.7 billion of us at even a low-level American (U.S.) standard of living with our current technology, it makes sense that as things level out, Americans and residents of other developed nations will feel some economic pressure. Without some serious tech breakthroughs (fusion, anyone? Interstellar space travel? No? Darn.) and stabilization of the population, this can't be avoided. Stabilization of the world population can't really be avoided, either, it's just a matter of how painful it is. OneForLogic 22:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No. Capitalism and foreign trade are based on the concept of comparative advantage.--Damo2353 23:13, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

O) Penalizing oil companies

  • Why?--Bobbing up 11:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • For excess profiteering or poor environmental activities - yes. Otherwise No. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • what are we penalizing them for?
  • Ditto to Susan --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • As per Susan. DogP 15:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Ditto Susan. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Another ditto. We seem to be 100% on this one. Silver Sloth 18:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Ditto. Is there an echo in here? Zmidponk 20:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. And yes. --JayJay4ever??? 21:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • If they break a law, they should suffer the penalty proscribed by the law. Otherwise, no. And I absolutely oppose creating laws to penalize them for making too much money. That's an extremely blunt way to deal with a very complicated problem, if it turns out that "excessive profit" is a problem at all. OneForLogic 22:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree entirely with OneForLogic.--Damo2353 23:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • What Susan said אנדי שלאפלי איז א פאץ What, you can't read it? Learn how to speak Yiddish 08:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)


  • I don't know enough about them.--Bobbing up 11:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • In theory - Yes. Don't agree with their extremist actions though. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • Don't agree with most of their policies - they are far to extreme for me. That said, I am for the ethical/humane treatment of animals. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes - we hideously mistreat animals and abuse our role as their safekeeper. I say it's a good thing someone's fighting for the critters. DogP 15:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • They're a complete con job. They are irrational extremists. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • This is hard, as much as I love animals. I wish that barbaric treatment against animals should be criminalized, i.e. punishable with prison (or something worse, honestly), but from a strictly legal point of view, that's not possible. --JayJay4ever??? 19:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree with their general aim (the humane treatment of animals), but disagree with some of their methods. Zmidponk 20:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I also agree in principle that taking good care of animals is good and mistreating them is bad. I take good care of my pets. I really wish we had better ways to do things like test medicines and surgical methods than to use lab animals. But we don't, and I'd rather not die from a treatable condition because the cure/treatment hasn't been tested. On PETA's methods, though, I can't really say much. I've seen headlines come up every now and then, but don't remember any of the details. OneForLogic 23:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Call me a bad person if you want, but I don't really care about animals. I would prefer they weren't mistreated, but I certainly won't give money or start protesting on their behalf.--Damo2353 23:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Can I just say there is (nearly) nothing that pisses me of more than PETA. Animal rights in general I like in principal, PETA are morons and animal rights in practice usual ends in people wanting to ban farming. Do you know what happens if we stopped eating meat? Cows, sheep and chickens will probably go extinct as they need humans to survive the life they have. But back to PETA they have to be the most ridiculous animal rights organisation of all. \approx\pi 03:17, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

R) Progressive tax system

  • On income, progressive systems are good.--Bobbing up 11:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes - as long as income differentials are as obscene as they are now. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • Yes, rich people can easily afford to pay a bigger relative slice for things. Totnesmartin 13:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Ditto to Totnesmartin, but my support is predicated on a reasonable system. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Tax the fuck out of the rich. They can absolutely afford it. DogP 15:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • If you can afford more, you're obligated to give more. I do think the tax brackets ought to top out at 50%, but the flat tax is a scam. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yep. People who earn the most should be giving the most back. Weaseloid 17:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. And a more streamlined code, plz. --JayJay4ever??? 20:15, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Hell, yes. Zmidponk 20:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I remember reading on CP that in the US the top 1% earn 22% of the income and yet paid 39% of the tax and that somehow this was unfair to the rich. It absolutely is unfair that the top 1% earn 22% of the income, so yes. I also should point out that in a large proportion of cases, rich people's children have a better chance of being rich themselves so it is fair for society to try to square the ledger somewhat.--Damo2353 23:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • The friend I'm IMing now says that we should tax fast food at 50% or higher. Sounds fair to me. Other than that, I'd be very careful about making a progressive tax system. How much more are we talking about the rich paying? Keep in mind that most of you (and I) are likely employed by rich people. It's kind of unavoidable. And until I develop some kind of amazing new tech of my own and commercialize it and become independently wealthy, I like being able to get a job and get paid my pennies to their millions. It's better than nothing. OneForLogic 23:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

S) Public funding to develop energy alternatives

  • Yes, or some kind of encouragement.--Bobbing up 11:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. Yes. Yes. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • Yes. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Private companies are slacking on this one, so yes. We need to find alternatives to oil and coal before they run out, not after. Totnesmartin 13:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely. Private investment was never going to put a man on the Moon. DogP 15:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Of course. There are certain projects that can't be done without government support; the free market won't support anything that can't be monetized semi-immediately, and science doesn't work like that. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. Weaseloid 17:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. Now more than ever. --JayJay4ever??? 20:15, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. There's only so much oil in the world. Zmidponk 20:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It's a no brainer to provide public funds for projects that are necessary, but that private industry won't provide due to vested interests.--Damo2353 23:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • At least in the research and development stage, yes. I'd avoid the "Manhattan Project" and "Going to the Moon" comparisons people toss around when talking about energy, though. Completely different situations. OneForLogic 23:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

T) Seatbelt laws

  • We insist that cars have working brakes - why not insist that they have every available safety measure working. Silver Sloth 11:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Again, there is a civil liberties argument, but in general I think we need these. --Bobbing up 11:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Of course - be selfish & think of the health costs if nothing else. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • And the benefits to children! Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 12:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • My answer to L above seems to cover this enough. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I think this is more clear cut than the helmet laws. Yes to seatbelt laws. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Comments as per helmet laws - yes. DogP 15:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Public health issue, same as helmet laws. I've nearly been killed twice in car accidents, and I am therefore a fanatic about seatbelts. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. Basic safety issue. Weaseloid 17:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Perhaps this clashes with civil liberties, but yes. --JayJay4ever??? 20:15, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes - if you're not wearing a seatbelt, and the car crashes, it's not just you at risk, but, potentially, other people in the car, too, by being hit with your flying body. Zmidponk 20:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Ditto as for helmet laws--Damo2353 23:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • This isn't quite the same as the motorcycle helmet issue, as once the motorcyclist has lost control of his bake, it's all over. In a car wreck, the driver has some chance to keep some control and steer/brake to avoid secondary collisions, but only if they remain in their seat and don't have back-seat passengers flying around the cabin. Seat belt use should definitely be required by law (it's definitely required in my car). 11:58, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

U) Trade Unions

  • Are there people who want to ban Trade Unions?--Bobbing up 11:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Bob, I used to work for Texas Instruments and one of the employment conditions was no trade unions. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 12:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I understand that some employers would want to ban trade unions. I was really asking if any political party wished to do it. Reading my comment I did not make that clear.--Bobbing up 12:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Wal-Mart probably does. They closed down a store in....Canada, I think? After some of the employees unionized. --Gulik 13:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, please. I owe my annual pay rise to the hard work of the PCS. Silver Sloth 11:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Definitely SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • Trade unions have a role to play in protecting worker rights, particularly for the low-paid. However, during the 60s and 70s in the UK they overplayed their hand in certain industries. So they need to be regulated just as companies need to be regulated. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 12:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Workers (who create the profits) should be allowed to organise to protect their rights, yes. Totnesmartin 13:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I am both for unions and a member of a union. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely. As per ACLU comments, the staggering amounts of capital lined up against the workers of the world means they need defense systems. DogP 15:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, though they need to work to repair their image after the scandals of the late 20th century. The abuses many employers get away with are staggering. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Trade Unions are a great idea. In practise modern TUs are often too tied up in bureaucracy & take forever to achieve results. Weaseloid 17:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It's a fundamental right to every worker. --JayJay4ever??? 20:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Definitely. Trade Unions are a great tool for protecting employee's rights (when they work, anyway). Zmidponk 20:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely, employees are at such a bargaining disadvantage viz-a-viz their employers that unions are necessary. Without their efforts in the past the working conditions of middle and lower classes would be unsafe an inhumane.--Damo2353 23:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely, definitely, yes. Member and local steward :D Spica the Hiver If you tolerate this, then your children will be next... 18:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

V) Universal healthcare

  • Essential in a civilised society Silver Sloth 11:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Obviously a good and necessary thing.--Bobbing up 11:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Is there any question (I'd be 6ft under without!) SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • And I'd be married to a box of ashes. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 12:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Sloth said it best. worth repeating.Essential in a civilised society--Waiting for Godot 13:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I've never quite understood people who are against this. In my eyes, you are nothing short of monstrous. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Saved my life and my eye, so yes. Totnesmartin 13:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Support. Is there a reason to let the poor die? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely. The very definition of a civilised society is its ability to care for the health of all its members. DogP 14:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. Again, public health issue. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Essential. Weaseloid 17:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely. Those who oppose UHC usually have enough money to pay for private services. --JayJay4ever??? 20:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • The only arguments I've ever heard against it comes down to money. Refusing people medical treatment due to it being too expensive is an utterly monstrous concept. Zmidponk 20:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. I agree with all the comments above.--Damo2353 23:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yup deifnitely. Spica the Hiver If you tolerate this, then your children will be next... 18:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

W) Wealth redistribution

  • Government action to help obtain a fairer society is a good thing.--Bobbing up 11:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • The obscene differences between bottom income & top income is disgusting. Inherited wealth is also a bit nasty. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • Agree with Susan, inherited wealth exacerbates inequality over time and is also anti-meritocratic, thereby not encouraging the recipients to contribute to society.
  • A fair society should ensure an equal starting line for all. If someone has the ability to surge ahead after that, they will - but only because of their own ability. Totnesmartin 13:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yep - death taxes are a good thing. If you did well in life in a society, you owe a big debt of gratitude to that society when you pass away. DogP 15:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • There needs to be incentives to do this. Trickle-down economics isn't it. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Wealth redistribution would be good, & high earners should certainly be investing in raising others' quality of life rather than widening the gap, but this is hard to enforce. Weaseloid 17:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm on the fence - I can see why money should be redistributed to close the income gap, but, on the other hand, this is money that people receive perfectly legitimately, for the most part. Zmidponk 20:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Wealth from the states or from private citizens? Anyway, yes. The gap between rich people and those who are totally fucked up should be reduced, now. --JayJay4ever??? 21:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I am for progressive taxation but I think that's as far as I would go. I could be persuaded on estate (death) taxes though.Damo2353 23:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

X) Welfare

  • The welfare state is a good thing in general. (If that's what this question is about.)--Bobbing up 11:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Like Bob I'm not sure exactly what the question is but the part of my UK taxes that goes to support the disadvantaged members of society is not a part I begrudge. Silver Sloth 11:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • What Bob & silver said! SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • keeping me from sleeping in shop doorways. Totnesmartin 13:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I support welfare. Like any system, it can be abused, but its benefits outweigh the potential problems. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Like healthcare, in a civilised society, those who do well should help those in less fortunate circumstances. DogP 15:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Similar to health care. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, welfare is good. Weaseloid 17:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Well organized and controlled, yes. --JayJay4ever??? 20:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Assuming it is run competently, so that spongers are kept to a minimum, yes. Zmidponk 21:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Sure so long as people are encouraged to better themselves if they can.--Damo2353 23:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Y) Windfall Profits Tax

  • Can be justified under some circumstances.--Bobbing up 11:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Windfall profits are usually at someone's expense & should be TAXED. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • As it applies to the oil industry right now, I am completely for it. All of that profit is from speculation and had nothing to do with the actual costs of producing oil products. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • taxing one-off excess profits looks fine to me. The economy needs reset buttons like this to ensure a level playing field for all companies, and the people who work for them. Totnesmartin 13:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Ditto to Susan. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely. Egregious profits over and above some predetermined level should be much more heavily taxed. But that level could be set quite high. DogP 15:13, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Looking specifically at the current oil crisis, driven as it is by market speculation, yes. But not as a blanket principle. EVDebs 15:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, per what Susan said. --JayJay4ever??? 20:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, for pretty much all of the above reasons. Zmidponk 21:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Absolutely not. This is a slippery slope we really don't want to slide down. Penalizing economic success is entirely contrary to the purpose of a free market. OneForLogic 23:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberals are assumed to be AGAINST

1 Building nuclear power plants

  • Controversial, but inevitable if we want to reduce CO2 production, and reduce Global Warming.--Bobbing up 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Bob's nicking my points :-) SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • Agree. Western reactors have always been safer than the Russian type used at Chernobyl. However, the technology has improved and modern designs are self-limiting. The only real issue is disposal of waste which can be dealt with by deep burial and is mainly a technical challenge. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 13:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I have no problem with new nuclear power plants. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • But how to deal with the waste? And the low heat efficiency? I'm dubious about this. Totnesmartin 13:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I believe nuclear power can be an excellent alternative energy solution. Also, I live near a reactor, and safety has never been an issue. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Nuclear is an excellent carbon-free option, but we have no known safe or politically acceptable method of disposing of the waste. So we can't do it. DogP 14:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, along with intensive research into failsafes, fuel reprocessing, and disposal. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes to developing nuclear plants responsibly. More research is needed to sort out the waste issues, but this is a more sustainable energy resource than oil or coal. Weaseloid 17:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I would say use it, but only if we have to. Get as much benefit as we can from solar power, wind power, wave power, water power, etc, then start using nuclear power if that doesn't allow us to cut fossil fuel use as much as we need to. In an ideal world, though, we shouldn't use it until we have come up with a way of eradicating or recycling the waste in some manner, rather than just burying it. We may discover later on that this comes back to bite our grandchildren in the ass - our forefathers made that mistake with fossil fuels, we should be careful to not make the same mistake with nuclear waste. Zmidponk 21:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, with strict rules, of course. --JJ4e?!?!?!?! 10:45, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

2 Corporations paying huge salaries to CEOs

  • Inevitable under a capitalist system.--Bobbing up 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Any free market will result in this. However, with progressive taxation... Silver Sloth 12:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • The constant increase of top salaries in "competition" with each other is suspect. There must be more able people out there who could do these jobs and bring down the price. I think it's very much an 'in crowd' system. So yes Against it! SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • No one is worth what these people are paid. But, if they want to do it, it's not really my place to say. However, it seems as though there would be plenty of better ways for a corporation to spend the money. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • And how many worked to bring in that money? Totnesmartin 14:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I think it's obscene. Then again, I think sports stars are paid too much as well. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Disgraceful, but as Bob says, how can we hope to control that in this system? DogP 15:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Give them a modest base salary and pay them in stock or equity for the rest. They want the money, let their income be tied to the company's performance. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I think the salaries at the top end are pretty obscene. Overall I reckon corporations are a pretty corrupt invention & a huge negative influence on society. How to counter this is difficult to say. Weaseloid 17:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Against. I simply cannot believe anyone can do work that is worth the figures some of these CEOs are being paid. Zmidponk 21:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I am appalled by it, but would be more appalled by legislation to stop it.--Damo2353 23:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • This is one of the reasons of the gap between the rich and the poor. But again, huge salaries, huge taxes. --JJ4e?!?!?!?! 10:45, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

3 Dog fighting

  • Evil - file along with bull fighting and any activity where animals are harmed for human enjoyment. Silver Sloth 11:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Obviously hurting animals for our enjoyment is wrong.--Bobbing up 11:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Fucking Hell!How can anyone NOT be against it? SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • Like the others said. What's "liberal" about hating this? Totnesmartin 14:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • This showed up on Ymmenos's (or whatever his username is) questionnaire, too. Didn't make any sense then either. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • You would have to be an enormous dickhead to be pro-dogfighting. DogP 15:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Ban it. A relic of a past age; even buzkashi players stuff the goat carcass before playing horse-rugby with it. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Is this for real about fighting dogs? (Not WW1 aerial combat?) It's a bizarre issue to bring up. I would assume that pretty much every reasonable person in the civilised world thinks that dog fighting is a disgrace. Weaseloid 17:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Sorry, not really into bloodsports, even when it's humans, but at least humans can say they don't want to do it. To do a more violent version with animals, who can't, is just sick. Zmidponk 21:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Not my cup of tea. --Damo2353 23:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Any form of sport or entertainment that involves violence and animals should be banned. --JJ4e?!?!?!?! 11:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

4 Drilling for oil offshore and in ANWR

  • Against - this is a sticking plaster solution to a much deeper problem. It won't make things better. Silver Sloth 11:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Depends on many things. Where is ANWR?--Bobbing up 11:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Believe ANWR refers to the Great Lakes? Might as well - it'll only stave off the end for 10 years more or so. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • 8-10 years before we see any oil from either location, and it doesn't help the need, now. I'm for finding new technologies to either reduce consumption, find new renewable fuels or both.--Waiting for Godot 12:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm definately in the new technology crowd. The word oil shouldn't even be used when we discuss solving energy problems. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Get rid of SUVs, patio heaters etc, fit insulation and solar heating where apprpriate, and there won't be such a need to drill everywhere. Totnesmartin 14:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
    (Don't forget your tyre pressure!) SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't have a car, so I'll keep up my shoe pressure. With a foot pump, arf arf. Totnesmartin 14:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • It's rather like the guy who has a drink problem. To the drunkard the only problem is not enough to drink. To his family it's trying to wean him off it. Believe it or not oil is actually cheap for what you get! People habitually pay more for bottled water and a lot more effort goes into producing gas for your car than drilling a water well. Higher prices are a good incentive to be more economical with a limited resource. There is no inherent right to be profligate with the earth's resources. And from a cynic's POV, as oil prices are destined to go higher, why use up a valuable national resource until it really is necessary? Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 14:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
BTW I drive an economical diesel and have my own air compressor at home. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 14:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Solve the problem by moderating demand and increasing efficiency, not by increasing supply of an ever-diminishing resource. What's the plan when the ANWR oil runs out guys? DogP 15:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Drilling needs to be done with sensitivity towards the local environment. Oil companies have not shown a willingness to do that. Allow only if str4ictly necessary, regulate very tightly. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • A short-term solution for a long-term problem. --JJ4e?!?!?!?! 11:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Against. From what I've seen, if we started right now, today, we wouldn't even see any oil for a number of years. That time and resources could be better spent implementing existing alternatives to oil and conducting research into coming up with new ones - just like we will have to do when the oil from the ANWR runs out anyway. Zmidponk 16:33, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

5 Nuclear weapon development

  • Many countries already have nuclear weapons. The US and Russia have lots. Should other countries develop them? It would be better for the world if they didn't.--Bobbing up 11:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • We can't put the toothpaste back in the tube but Nuclear weapons are unusable. Ok, we no longer have the MAD standoff we had during the cold war but starting a nuclear war has the potential to destroy the world. It won't just be a couple of Japanese cities next time. Silver Sloth 12:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I was in CND in the 60s. So you can take it that I'm against it! SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • It's like gun-control but for nations rather than individuals. The less of them there are then the smaller the chance of anything getting out of hand. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 13:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • oh, get rid of them now, we're sliding back to the cold war days. Totnesmartin 14:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Ban them all. DogP 15:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Given that knowledge of how to build them is fairly easy to come across, and given that we have more of them in the world than could ever be used even in an all-out species-threatening event, there is no reason on earth to do any more work in that area. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Nuclear weapons can't be a good think, & gradually international law should ban them altogether. This will need to be gradual & begin with the nations that seem most intent on using them. Weaseloid 17:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • There will be always the excuse of radicals or madmen with the possibility of having nuclear weapons, but no. --JJ4e?!?!?!?! 11:07, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • In my opinion, the drive to get other countries to not develop nuclear weapons, or get rid of any they have developed is harmed by us having nukes ourselves - from their point of view, it appears incredibly hypocritical, so I certainly agree other countries shouldn't develop nukes, but I can't really blame them for doing so. Zmidponk 16:44, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

6 Preemptive war

  • This question needs a bit more expansion. War in general is a bad thing to be avoided - pre-emptive or not. At what point does an attack become pre-emptive? Should you always wait to be attacked first to show that you have the better moral case? I don't know.--Bobbing up 11:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Subjective, but generally against. (Technically Britain pre-emptively declared war in 1939) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Technically?--Bobbing up 13:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
probably a bad choice of words but a whole lot of people think that Germany declared war on us! (was talking about the very subject last week - 4 out of 8 thought that) SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Really? Remarkable.--Bobbing up 13:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
The Germans declared war on Poland and we sided with the Poles. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 13:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
They were young (all under 40, 2 under 30) SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
we had a mutual defence treaty with Poland at the time, it's worth pointing out. Hitler asumed we wouldn't honour it. Totnesmartin 14:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • How about not being bloody lied to about it first. Totnesmartin 14:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Tricky - should the world have gone to war against the killers in Rwanda, Serbia, or Darfur? Is that war? Maybe. DogP 15:18, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • For humanitarian purposes only. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Don't like war in general; I guess sometimes it's necessary. Re preemptive war: each case on its merits. If there is a definite & imminent threat, maybe. But I think preemptive war can be misused to justify wars that have other purposes.
  • I can't really give a blanket 'yes' or 'no'. It really depends on the specifics of each situation. For example, the pre-emptive war in Iraq was wrong, as the evidence of the 'imminent threat' that we were told Iraq posed was rather weak, and there was other evidence countering that (Hans Blix and his team, for example, reporting 'high levels of cooperation' from the Iraqis and no evidence of any of the alleged weapons of mas destruction). However, as Susan pointed out, technically, WWII was as a result of Britain pre-emptively declaring war on Germany, and I think we all agree that was a war that should have been fought. Zmidponk 16:58, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

7 Prizefighting

  • If people want to do it ...--Bobbing up 11:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Unlike the dog fighting argument the participants are consenting adults. I have no problem with this. Silver Sloth 12:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Against - hate the glamourisation of violence in any way - the effect on kids can be tragic. SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • consent. I'm also in favor of legal BDSM but against bestiality.--Waiting for Godot 12:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Are we just talking about boxing as a controlled sport or uncontrolled bare-knuckle fighting? Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 12:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Incredibly broad topic, but hey, go ahead and beat the hell out of each other. Consenting adults, and all that. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Another symptom of the caveman mentality that still has currency. Totnesmartin 14:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Hard to win against the 'consenting adults' argument. DogP 15:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Unlike dogfighting and cockfighting, humans are assumed to be free agents. Regulate it to prevent exploitation of fighters; it will happen one way or the other, so best to keep it on the level. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Each to their own. Sensible regulations should apply. Weaseloid 17:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Certainly I don't enjoy it, but there's a matter of personal freedom here: if you want the crap beaten out of you, that's your problem. I also hate the idea of a puritan society. JJ4e?!?!?!?! 11:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I wouldn't watch it, participate in it, or even want to know about it, in any way, shape or form, and, frankly, would find it barbaric, but, if the people doing the bleeding are free NOT to do it, if they so wish, and know the risks, I don't see any reason to stop them. Zmidponk 17:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

8 School choice

  • Is it better if people can chose their schools? I suppose so.--Bobbing up 11:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Did I wish to choose the school my child went to - of course. Am in favour of public schooling - of course. Put the two together. Silver Sloth 12:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Rather instill a desire to learn - by example. Dunno how but role models are poor for modern youth (IMHO)SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • "school choice" is one of those loaded terms. the issue isn't about school choice. you have the right to put your child into any school you wish, within some limits. the issue is who should pay for LOCAL schools. what the republicans want is that your personal tax money should be exempt from paying for local schools *if* your kids go to some priavte school, cause "i'm already paying for my kid's education elsewhere." The tax on public schools is so EVERYONE can get an equal education. I don't have kids, but i pay for kid's education because this country believes in the right to free, quality education. If you are in favor of school vouchers, then those of us without kids should get our own "no pay" voucher. why pay for what i don't use, is the Republican and libertarian view... so I will stop paying for all schools, right?--Waiting for Godot 12:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • An educated populace is beneficial to all of society. Don't educate the poorest and you are in danger of having a dangerous anti-social underclass. Give them the tools to escape poverty and everyone benefits. People should be allowed a limited choice in deciding which school to send their children but it should not be that it ends up adversely affecting those who do not or cannot exercise a choice. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 12:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • WfG is right. "Choice" is one of those code words, like "Teach the controversy." Then again, I'm a bit biased. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • We can't all choose the same school - there needs to be regulation of school choice, or perhaps (horrified whisper) make all schools equally good? Totnesmartin 14:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • As per Totnesmartin. DogP 15:20, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • "School choice" as it's currently being pushed in the US siphons funds off an already cash strapped public school system. Private schools can provide private scholarships. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • The standard of education should be universal so that schools do not need to compete for parents' choice. In the UK, the school system is currently ruining this with school league tables & undue emphasis on measurable results. Weaseloid 17:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, and improve public schools. --JJ4e?!?!?!?! 11:27, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • What's being talked about here? Do I think parents should be able to choose which school their child goes to? Yes. Do I think they should have the right to pay for a better education in a private school, if they so wish? Yes. Do I think paying for a private school should exempt them from paying for public schools through tax? No. If you're incapable of looking at it as you living up to certain social responsibilities, think of it as paying for a safety net for your child, not as 'paying for something you're not using' - you're paying for the continued existence of the entire public school system, so it's there, if, for example, you lose everything in a bad investment, and so can no longer afford to pay for your child's private education. Zmidponk 17:12, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

9 Whaling

  • Not in favour of this one.--Bobbing up 11:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I find it hard to support an activity which causes such suffering to an endangered species and which brings so little in the way of benefits. Silver Sloth 12:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Against! SusanG  ContribsTalk
  • I think that indigenous peoples who can prove they are only supporting their families have a right to continue to hunt, if they continue to use "traditional" weapons, and put their lives on the line the way their ancestors did. If it's just "more macho" than running down to the local 7-11, I have a problem with it.--Waiting for Godot 12:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Whaling by major industrial nations is unnecessary and is more likely to lead to extinction of species. Western society no longer needs whale products so it has become wasteful and only provides gastronomic bling for a small group. For indigenous people in remote areas it can be a necessity for survival. Survival hunters respect their prey and don't take more than they need to ensure future supply. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 12:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
    • Don't think they're "whaling" really - walrussing? SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
      • No, they whale. and it's quite dangerous. You go out in your umiak (or kaiak, never remember which is the family boat), spear the whale, then go for a "joy ride" till the whale tires, when you kill it. It's risky business, i must say! --Waiting for Godot 12:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
But in the grand scheme of things it's the big Japanese whaling fleets which are important.--Bobbing up 12:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Ok, i'm naieve then. I didn't think they still hunted. sighs. and i also only recently found out that cosmetics used to be one of the biggest "consumers" of whale bits and peices. bleah.--Waiting for Godot 13:21, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Ditto to WfG and Genghis --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Ban it - this "scientific whaling" is a scam and everyone knows it. Totnesmartin 14:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Against. DogP 15:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Ban it. Unsustainable. EVDebs 16:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • If it can be regulated to be sustainable, then it would be no worse than any other type of fishing. (I don't know enough about the complex issues to know if this is possible.) If it was not heavily regulated, definitely a bad thing. Weaseloid 17:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No. --JJ4e?!?!?!?! 11:27, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I have heard it claimed that whale populations have recovered to the degree that limited whaling can be done on a sustainable basis, but I haven't investigated these claims very much. If these claims are true, I don't have a problem with such limited whaling. If they are false, then it should be banned, at least until these claims become true. Zmidponk 17:16, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberals are also generally assumed to SUPPORT

Keeping abortion legal

  • Whilst I have every sympathy with the anti abortion lobby, and understand their very real concerns, you will never stop abortions and we must never return to the days of backstreet abortions and all that went with. Once you go beyond that I get lost in all the complex questions about where life begins so I leave it to those who know more than me. Silver Sloth 11:03, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
As above. We can't return to the backstreet butchers who killed untold numbers of women. This review of Vera Drake, by a retired midwife, discusses illegal abortion in Britain. Do we really want to go back to that? get off your high horse, Christians, and read about some reality. Totnesmartin 11:45, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, just as outlined in Roe v. Wade. JJ4e?!?!?!?! 11:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • The issue of abortion is actually very complex, so, to my mind, there should never really be a blanket 'all abortions are illegal' or 'all abortions are legal'. For the answer as to where the line should be drawn, I am doubly handicapped in that I am not an expert in fetus development, and am also male, so will never be in the position of being pregnant, so I can't really answer that. Zmidponk 17:24, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Easy access to contraceptives

  • Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Easy access to contraceptives does NOT promote promiscuity - it does prevent teenage pregnancy. Abstinence programs don't work; condoms do. Silver Sloth 11:05, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. JJ4e?!?!?!?! 11:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes again, as per Silver Sloth. Totnesmartin 11:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes. Zmidponk 17:25, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberals are also generally assumed to OPPOSE

Spying on law-abiding citizens

  • Quis custodiet ipso custodies - I think I've got that right. Whilst I recognise the need for MI5, MI6, the CIA, the FBI, etc privacy is going to be the big issue in the 21st century. Silver Sloth 11:12, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • No. It's done anyway, but no. JJ4e?!?!?!?! 11:40, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Against - a waste of resources which should be targeted at genuine threats, and an unreasonable imposition on personal freedom. Has been known to be used on legal protest groups. Totnesmartin 11:51, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • I can see its purpose in certain situations (CCTV in city centers, and things like that), but doing things like warrantless wiretaps is taking it too far. Zmidponk 17:27, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Rank these American presidents from the most intelligent to the least:

I assume that this exercise says something about American liberals - but I don't know what.--Bobbing up 11:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't think actual intelligence has a great deal to do with a president's virtues. SusanG  ContribsTalk

Nixon was probably very intelligent. Say no more! SusanG  ContribsTalk

I don't even know how you rank someone's intelligence. there are tests out there, but experts say even they are flawed and would have found someone like Einstein to be "underintelligent". I do think Bush is either very ill educated, a simple bumpkin, dyslexic, or just totally lazy cause he is terribly unconcerned with what he says and how he says it.--Waiting for Godot 13:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

  • 32 Roosevelt (FDR)
  • 33 Truman
  • 34 Eisenhower
  • 35 Kennedy
  • 36 LBJ
  • 37 Nixon
  • 38 Ford
  • 39 Carter
  • 40 Reagan
  • 41 Bush 41
  • 42 Clinton
  • 43 Bush 43
What the hell is this? How does voting work? DogP 15:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
I just copied it over from Rem's user page as is. I don't understand how people are meant to rate them, or what the significance of such a rating would be. Perhaps Rem has actual records of the presidents' IQ's scores and he is going to see how close RW members get to guessing their real scores scores? Although what this would ay about people being "liberal" or not remains unclear. Rem - could you clarify this?--Bobbing up 16:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
PS - what are the numbers?--Bobbing up 16:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
They're their number as president - Bush is the 43rd President of the USA. Weaseloid 18:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

From dumbest to smartest: Bush 43-Reagan-Truman-Ford-Eisenhower-Bush 41-Kennedy-Carter-LBJ-Roosevelt-Nixon-Clinton. Though if you asked which I thought were the *best* presidents, that list would look very different. EVDebs 16:06, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, this is a stupid question. I remember hearing that Clinton scored incredibly high on IQ tests, but so what? IQ isn't much as the true measure of a President. DogP 18:16, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Indeed. My list of good presidents would look rather different -- Kennedy and Roosevelt, for example, would be much higher, Carter and Nixon would be somewhere in the middle with Eisenhower and Truman, and Bush 41, LBJ, and Ford would drop almost to rock bottom, right over Bush 43. (Clinton would probably be behind Roosevelt and ahead of Kennedy, and without Watergate Nixon would be probably just behind Kennedy. Don't even ask about Reagan.) EVDebs 19:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Bush (Jr) has always struck me as being outstandingly dumb, but that could be that he just sucks at public speaking. The rest, I couldn't say where they rank relative to each other. Zmidponk 17:33, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

And now over to the pundits for an early reaction to the poll

At first glance it looks like we're generally in agreement but, and here's the rub.

  • The agreement is far from 100% Apart from some of the 'Duh!' questions there's a range of opinions and a range of strength of opinions.
  • Where there are differences we agree to differ. Debate is seen as a way of educating and being educated, not of scoring points

In the end it's about mutual respect. Silver Sloth 13:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, Jeremy, from where I'm standing, after five or six votes, we appear to be quite homogeneous. There are some differences but only minor ones. SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
depends on what6 you mean by homogeneous (that gays are geniuses? sorry...grins) Cause i see very different shades on almost all of the issues ranging from "yeah, this is good but not as a law" to "damn straight make it a law". I just find it to be loaded assumptions from teh start. defining liberals by someone else's categories instead of our own.--Waiting for Godot 14:15, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Well Brian, I'm opening a boutique there's certainly an early swing to the liberals, but let's wait until the Americans get home from work and see how it goes. Totnesmartin 14:18, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, the UK team seems to be well out in front at the moment.--Bobbing up 14:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
True, very true, Jeremy, Where's the booteek going to be? I'm thinking of a flower shop. The "transpondians" are likely to be a tad more to the right, I think. SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

There does appear to be a lot of agreement so far but I don't think it all fits in with Rem's stereotype. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 16:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Pundits plowed under, world leaders take note

Wow -- i mean wow! If the gods really want to zap you, they give you what you ask for. An embarassment of riches to be sure, but i am tickled pink. And if i never figure out how to deal with all that info, it's worth it to me -- i got a good laugh (out loud, honest) from your purposeful humor.

I can't tell you why, but Totnesmartin's last comment hit me just right, "Well Brian, I'm (opening a boutique) there's certainly an early swing to the liberals, but let's wait until the Americans get home from work and see how it goes". I don't know who Brian is, but i bet he didn't laugh as hard as i did. Part of it, i guess, was that Americans would have any special insight in evaluating all those answers.

You all know, of course, that it will be well nigh impossible to analyze the "data" in any meaningful, statistical way -- i like to think you all colluded (a global conspiracy) to blitz me silly. (Are you part of the Trilateral Commission? Do you get your marching orders from the Bilderbergers?)

I couldn't wait until i "got home" (i telecommute on most days), i had to read every scrap, so i WILL have some time to make up this evening. C'est la gare (it is the railroad station). All those opinions will keep me going for quite a while ... i will comment on them.

-- RemBeau 15:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Americans don't have "special insight", it's just that you used a politically universal term then applied some very US only topics like prayer at sporting events. In most of the world, religion is just not teh hot button issue it is here, no matter which side. Other than against Muslims, I can't think of a thing Le Pen said that would suggest he wanted school prayer, god in the constitution, or any other religious nonsense that the Right here prattles off.--Waiting for Godot 15:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
"Well Brian, I'm opening a boutique" is from a Monty Python sketch Oooh found it!. My statement about waiting for the Americans is not simply because the question were aimed at them ,but because They're (on average) more right-wing than the Brits - but does this hold true for the RWians? Totnesmartin 15:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the link; i had never seen that one. John Cleese has no peer. My favorites are the dead bird skit and the skit about paying for an argument. I can't watch those enough.
Americans are more Right-Wing than Brits? I don't believe that to be true. More Christian church-goers, definitely, -- also many more than in other Western European countries, but that has been true ever since De Tocqueville wrote about it. Not the same as Right-Wing, many of whom voted for Kerry. Is Kerry more Right-Wing than his British counterparts? I doubt it. I don't think Gordon Brown or Tony Blair are more Liberal, do you?
-- RemBeau 23:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
how so are we more right wing then you? I dare say... put up your dukes, put up your dukes!!--Waiting for Godot 16:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, it's pretty well known that in the secrecy of her bedroom, Godot dons a uniform and shouts orders in 1940s German at her mirror. She probably holds her cig the funny way they did in Germany back then.
Sprechen Sie mit mir? (De Niro, Taxi Driver)
-- RemBeau 22:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Rem, I don't know what all of John Kerry's policies are but I do know that he isn't the leader of his party. Brown and Blair have both been crticised by many in their own party for being too right-wing. And no-one in the UK would describe either of them as liberals. In the UK, UKIP are probably closer to many Republicans and the Conservative party is nearer to the Democrats than the Republicans on many issues. They have even adopted a tree as their symbol to prove their green credentials and their leader bicycles to work. The Conservatives even support the National Health Service although they would like to make changes. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 08:38, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Some mistakes are a good idea

The law of unanticipated consequences worked out well this time, due to the unintended ambiguity of my questions. Not just answers, but thought processes are revealed, and they can be compared to others on the same topic -- that interests me above other considerations.

Some of you seem offended that i didn't know the right questions to ask of Liberals, but my lack of knowledge in this area is EXACTLY why i wanted to do this. Isn't it obvious that Liberals would know more about Liberals than a Libertarian would? And yes, Bob made it clear that many of the questions are geared to America, therefore Brits (or others) couldn't be expected to know about them, but i also learned from this which American topics a non-American might know about, and which we have in common.

My first impression (without having read the newest answers) is that many of you share similar thought processes (what would you expect?), which is why you tend to reach similar conclusions. Some of you sometimes lean Libertarian, but seldom (if ever) share views with Conservatives -- and that is consistent with what i expected.

On (A) i didn't make it clear (sorry) that i wasn't asking whether, when other factors are equal, would you hire a minority (a policy i would personally support) -- rather, should affirmative action be enforced by law (that i am against).

On AGW (B) you were almost unanimous. That suggests what i think most of us already knew -- people line up on this based on politics, not science. Libertarians, even those that believe in AGW, generally don't believe govt could solve the problem no matter how much money they spend.

On the ACLU (C), unanimity except for Bob (unfamiliar with it) and Susan (who is Murcan?). Do i have that correct?

On (D), most all would ban prayer on school property, as would the ACLU.

On smoking (E), mixed reviews. Some supported the Libt view, some would ban it. My own view (also the Libt view) is property rights trumps other rights, and no law should prevent people from smoking on their own property. Bob brought up a good point about suicide. Wish i had thought of that as a separate topic. It IS against the US law to commit suicide -- does that make sense to anybody?

-- RemBeau 21:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

You must be reading a different (D) than the one on this page. First, you said nothing about schools (someone finally clarified what they think you meant). So your "analysis" is a non sequitur from asking if people are for "Banning prayer at football games". ħumanUser talk:Human 23:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
You may be right on both levels concerning (D) -- i may have botched it. I will revisit (D) sometime later.
-- Rem
Great contribution, Rembrandt. If I may address a few poionts in your analysis, though:
  • No comment on A. Reasonable people can disagree.
  • Truthfully, the bulk of the scientific data leans heavily in favor of AGW -- in fact the latest thinking is that the IPCC consensus might be too conservative. At the end of the day, it's the climatologists who should make the decisions here, and this is what they've come up with. It's the people who are ignoring the4 evidence who are politicizing it.
  • On the ACLU, yeah, pretty much. They do for civil rights what labor unions do for workers' rights. If someone claims they support freedom of speech but bashes the ACLU, they either don't know what they're talking about or blowing smoke up your ass.

  • You're missing the point on D. It's about prayer at public schools, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
  • The smoking issue comes down to "elbows off the table". Someone who lights up in a public place is pretty much forcing others to put up with the smoke, and as a general rule people don't want to deal with that anymore. I don't support bans on smoking in residential units (I could go either way on hotel rooms though) since it's private space, nor do I support the kind of punitive cigarette taxes that are in vogue these days, but bars, restaurants, workspaces, etc. are all common space, and while exemptions for places like cigar bars and tobacco shops are reasonable, I can't think of too many other exceptions. EVDebs 02:22, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Debs -- thank you. It works if you have the kind of people that aren't shy about sharing their views, and wish others would be influenced by them. That describes me, for sure.
My slant on some of the issues in your post is different than yours, but the only efficient way i can address them is to intersperse my comments in between yours. Which is what i will do if you don't object.
One easy comment is, you seem to feel strongly that those that don't see things your way are lying. I don't doubt you believe that, but that isn't necessarily true.
-- Rem
Debs, I spend a lot of time in hotel rooms marauding around the globe and find that smoking in the rooms has an unpleasant cumulative after effect. Also smoking is associated with a higher incidence of fire so it presents an added risk to all hotel guests. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 03:10, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Genghis -- yes -- i agree with your s1. It obviously does have "an unpleasant cumulative after effect", and i hate it when it's strong. I don't smoke and i wish nobody did, but my knee-jerk Libt view is, they have a right, and providing they don't blow smoke in my face (or into anyone's that object), i would oppose making their behavior illegal.
We have a plethora of laws based soley on the preference of majorities. I would repeal them. This is the root problem of a Democracy -- majorities force their will upon minorities without regard for individual rights. Democracies based on the Athenian model are bad news. They are tolerable only when those with control-freak tendencies are restrained by a constitution that emphasizes the rights of citizens. Democracies easily morph into Theocracies, both of the Theist and of the Atheist kind.
You are likely correct in your s2 also.
-- Rem
@GK, isn't the solution for hotels to allot a small percentage (10-15% or so) as "smoking rooms", so the non-smokers never get stuck in one? And on the same issue, @Rimbo, again, you failed to present the question in full, and you return to a point of view not expressed for discussion (smoking at home?). Your "discussion" tactics are clumsy at best, and dishonest at worst. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:20, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Why don't you just stop it. Stop making ad homs like saying i'm dishonest. Your problem is that i am a Libt, and i think like one. You are a control freak and think like one. Now can we just get on with discussing issues?
Your s1 seems a reasonable solution (even a good one) for hotels, and i would defend your right, as a hotel owner, to implement it. But i would defend property owners in general to set their own policies. It should be their right.
-- Rem
@Hu. No the answer is not to provide a small number of rooms for smokers only. There should be a separate annexe or all-smoker hotels. Hotels don't allow making fires for tea why should they make an exception for weed-burning? (Sorry, hyperbole.) When airlines used to allow smoking it was usually smokers at the back. Lufthansa used to have smokers on the right, non-smokers on the left. However, in the perfect supply-demand scenario, Nigerian Airways made individual seats either smoking or non-smoking. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 04:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Wait... hotels have sprinkler systems to stop fires. Modern cigarettes are required by law to be self-extinguishing (finally, although it really changed them). An annex? Smoking is not fire (by the way, they don't ban lighters, which are fire). Smoking has two by-products that offend non-smokers - the toxic second hand smoke, which dissipates if you're not in the room, and the "stink" that stays in the room. In my experience, all hotel rooms smell funny anyway. I don't remember the last time I heard of a hotel burning down because of smokers, if that's the big issue. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:11, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
I think you confuse hotel standards in the USA with conditions across the rest of the world, as well as extending the qualities of American cigarette manufacture. Also sprinker systems are not infallible and a cigarette or discarded match can cause a fire with clothing or paper. My suggestion for an annexe was tongue in cheek, so the best way is to stick all the smokers at the top and let them fry first. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 07:37, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
I really don't see the point of 'D'. Surely Libertarians don't condone coercive public prayer? The fact that it is included in a list of what you (Rem) thought defines Liberals probably says a lot about your own view of the matter. In which case you may not be as Libertarian as you think you are. I may have erred in my assumption but it is really only an issue in the US where the religious right seek to wield influence. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 03:04, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Condone? I suspect that condone would qualify as a loaded word if i understand how it is meant in these parts. Most all Libts support the Bill of Rights, and all definitely defend individual rights.
Wow. I may not be as Libertarian as i think i am??? Oh ye of little understanding. I reserve the right to reject a Liberal's view of what Libts should believe, as i respect your right of self-definition. That would seem to be the best way to go, wouldn't you agree?
I often note current Liberal policies and think to myself, how illiberal they are, but that is usually in the sense of classical Liberalism and i have to remind myself that that is pretty much what i am. So to criticize Liberals because they are not Libertarians would be foolish -- when you identify yourself as a Liberal (and i think you have) and believe in policies with which other self-identified Liberals espouse, who am i to try to rip the Liberal label off your uniform?
-- Rem 13:06, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Bob -- i have logged in, a message generated by RW verified that i have logged in, yet the malfunctions persist.
-- Rem 13:09, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Rem: You said: On AGW (B) you were almost unanimous. That suggests what i think most of us already knew -- people line up on this based on politics, not science. Libertarians, even those that believe in AGW, generally don't believe govt could solve the problem no matter how much money they spend. How do you get there? "The science" as expressed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is unambiguous. That would suggest the opposite to your first conclusion. As I understand it Libertarians don't trust governments to fix anything - so your second point is redundant. --Bobbing up 08:03, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Your point about redundancy -- kind of. There are levels of incompetence and most importantly (from my point of view), there are tasks so hugely complicated and difficult that would require very high competence (and a huge level of resources), and a govt full of lawyers is clearly and simply not up to it.
Three govts (one at each level) contributed mightily to the Katrina Fiasco, and all that came out of it was a blame fest. When it comes to any serious problem, circus clowns could do as well. It would take ENORMOUS faith to believe govts would do anything to solve GW that wouldn't be counterproductive.
The ONLY reason that a govt ever wins a war is it is up against another incompetent govt, and there has to be a loser. AND with Katrina, govt has spent over half a million bucks on EVERY man, woman, and child in New Orleans. What those folks could do with that money if only it reached them.
Just consider how well the US Govt has handled the "energy crisis". Ethanol production uses more energy and is a bigger polluter than gasoline, gallon per gallon -- not to mention how many people around the world are starving that wouldn't have had the corn not been diverted to a govt scheme.
It's not a matter of being well intentioned and so sincere -- govts daily turn gold into lead. So if AGW ever raises the sea level 23 feet and hurricanes start sweeping us all into the Bermuda Triangle, we're doomed. Doomed, i tell ya. After the polar bears drown, we're next.
A single volcano eruption could save us -- govt had better hope for one if AGW happens to become a reality.
I know, i know -- it's just a Libertarian rant and nobody is listening.
-- Rem the Realist -- 7 AUG 2008

As others have pointed out your comment on "D: On (D), most all would ban prayer on school property, as would the ACLU." does not really stand up from the comments posted.--Bobbing up 08:03, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

My account has been hijacked. I'll probably have to create a new one. Human would miss me.
-- Rem the Misunderstood -- 7 AUG 2008
Whatever problem you're having I'm sure that User talk:Tmtoulouse can fix it. (Though he seems to be a little busy at the moment.) What exactly is the issue? --Bobbing up 14:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Rem, I doubt that your account has been hijacked. Sometimes the server disconnects your session and you need to log back in otherwise you end up as a BoNE. You can request an IP block to make sure that you always have to log in. If you have forgotten your password then click the email password button on the log-in screen (I presume you supplied an email address). Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 14:48, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Logged in again, still a problem. Even at the top of this page, my IP address shows up instead of my name. Only kidding about the hijacking -- so far nobody has tried to pass himself off as me. Don't remember the server ever disconnecting me; don't think that's it. My password still works, but funny enough, it didn't automatically log me in time before last. It just shows to go ya, Liberalism doesn't work.
Perhaps if i copy my page top, it'll give you a clue. (I have added the double dashes as item separators.) -- Talk for this IP -- Log in / create account
Rem the Victim, applying for victimhood. 7 AUG 2008
Rem, are you clicking the "remember my log in" box each time you log in?
On another note, "AND with Katrina, govt has spent over half a million bucks on EVERY man, woman, and child in New Orleans." The population of N.O. in 2006 is listed as 275,000. 2.75 E+5 times 5.0 E+5 = 1.375 E+11, that's 137,500,000,000. I think your source might be defective. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
No, i hadn't been, but tonight because the problem went away (it was probably global warming), i have, and it still works fine.
You're looking good since you've got numbers, and i don't know what i did with mine. But i'll find them, and if i can't divide, i'll admit it.
-- RemBeau 00:54, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
I just told you that your "claim" was that the US government spent 8x the GNP on New Orleans, and your answer is "you've got numbers, and i don't know what i did with mine. But i'll find them" - don't you realize you are completely wrong? Impossibly wrong??? Insanely, dupedly, completely mathematically wrong? Your source, please, so we can mock it in publick? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:02, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

A Libertarian responds to (F) thru (L)

F -- Against it. It didn't work out for Socrates and it's not working out for us. Majorities run roughshod over minorities. Much worse than if minorities attempt to force their will upon majorities.

  • That's why we have checks and balances -- bicameral legislatures, separation of power, etc. Unfettered democracy is mob rule. But that does not follow that democracy is bad in and of itself. EVDebs 02:24, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

G -- Terrible idea. Preventing all sides of issues from even being brought up? Especially not in a free society.

  • Agreed. But PC is a term that is thrown around far too lightly, usually by those who insist on their own brand of PC instead. EVDebs 02:24, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

H -- DogP said it the way i see it. And he is spot on saying, "Terrible idea which started with the very best intentions". Happens all the time. I don't knock good intentions and sincerity, but if you are sensible as well, the govt is almost the last institution you'd want to involve.

I -- The Fairness Doctrine couldn't possibly make the news media "fair", it is simply another method for some to control, through coercion, those they disagree with. It would be wielded by those with the most power, giving them even more power. Not a good idea for the rest of us. If we are to be truly free, we must be allowed to air our opinions without govt interference.

  • The Fairness Doctrine is not a speech code for its own sake. Its intent, when it was in force, was to insure access to a limited resource -- the broadcasting airwaves are not a particularly wide slice of spectrum for what they're used for, and the intent was not to limit speech in and of itself, but to prevent minority views from getting crowded out. It's at least as much a technical matter as a political one. Watch this space; I feel an essay coming on. EVDebs 02:24, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

J -- This should not be a personal preference issue -- people should have a right to keep and bear arms, even without the protection of the US Constitution. I meant to get back to this one and change it to something like: Criminalizing ownership of firearms by private citizens. That would have been much clearer cut.

  • Certainly clearer-cut than the issue itself. Guns are lethal. They serve no other purpose. What was reasonable in a majority-rural nation over two centuries ago may be a disaster waiting to happen in a majority-urban nation now. To try to shoehorn it as simply a matter of inalienable rights (as the Supreme Court did last month) is being very, very shortsighted indeed. EVDebs 02:24, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
Why should people should have a right to keep and bear arms, even without the protection of the US Constitution - I don't as a citizen of the UK and I don't miss it for an instance. And don't give me that 'to protect mysef and my family' crap; we don't live in the wild west but in the 21st century. But if we do accept your premise where does it end. By the same logic you feel you have the right to own and bear thermo nuclear weapons. The difference is only one of scale. Silver Sloth 02:56, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

K -- Ridiculous. Hate is not a crime. You are a criminal only if you commit a criminal act. (Sounds circular, i know, but i haven't thought of a better way to say it, yet. I hope you know what i mean tho.) It just allows those in power to pretend they are mind readers.

  • Yes, but do you then propose to treat a random mugging and an explicit gay-bashing the same way? Not that there isn't a great gray area there, but in this simplistic case, one is clearly a property crime (albeit a violent one) and the other is an explicit hate crime. At the very least, there should be a legal distinction. EVDebs 02:24, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

L -- No way. Why should some people be able to force other people to wear helmets "for their own good"? Even if they are CERTAIN it's a wonderful idea. Totally repugnant to a Libt. A law which forces a citizen to do someone else's bidding is far worse than a law preventing a citizen from doing something. Hard for this Libt to understand how anyone could see this differently.

-- RemBeau 23:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Again, it's a public health issue. As your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, so your right to be stupid ends when it affects others' lives. I find the libertarian opinion on things like seatbelt and helmet laws consistently ignores the fallout from preventable accidents involving lack of seatbelt or helmet use. At least with suicides it can be reasonably assumed that the suicide either felt undue pressure or was not in his/her right mind. I presume a libertarian objecting to such a law falls under neither of those categories, being both sane and a free agent. I therefore can't understand why consequences don't figure into the equation. EVDebs 02:24, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
Regarding K: man, you totally pulled an Andy there, completely misunderstanding what a "hate crime" is, which is first and foremost a crime. The "hate" part has to do with the motivation, and motive has always been a factor when judging the severity of a criminal act. The idea that "these librulz are tryin to outlaw hate!!!11!1!1" is an Andyism you should have the brains to see through. But anyway, I basically agree with you when it comes to helmets (and I assume seat belts too). It is a fundamental right of a people to cause themselves harm if they see fit. I have that much libertarian in me, at least. DickTurpis 00:05, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Please put your entries in line with every one else's. Your "quoting" numbers makes it so we have no idea what you are talking about, whereas the rest of us answered "in line" You are a troll, really. You don't play on a level playing field - how ironic for a "libertarian". (Libertarian = I make my own rules, seriously - I've seen it over and over again!) ħumanUser talk:Human 01:07, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

It does make it somewhat difficult to follow Rem.--Bobbing up 02:39, 8 August 2008 (EDT)