Let’s look at these one by one.
Minimize poverty, create more equitable economic inequities,
Through Taxpayer funded Government managed Programs - Collectivism +1
Ensure 100% access to healthcare and support for mental health,
Through Regulation and Taxpayer funded Government managed Programs - Collectivism +1
Do not that I agree restructuring of the current Provide, Insurance, Regulatory is over due.
Decriminalize marijuana and psychedelics,
Individualism +1
Make addiction a medical issue instead of a justice issue,
I’ll give this a 50/50, until you want a Trillion $ government program to implement
Increase sexual education with emphasis on personal responsibility (because there is no “responsibility” without education), which results in fewer unwanted pregnancies.
Collectivism +1 - technically it’s Authoritarianism/Government scope expansion
Allow every 10 year old rape victim, and every mother of a headless fetus, and any other victim of medical emergency, immediate access to abortion regardless of what state they live in.
Touche’ on using your “demonic” examples to exemplify unfettered abortion as a “human right”, but I’ll give you a +1 for Individualism. Or do you want Taxpayer funding for the “medical procedures”?
Eliminate oil subsidies and transition to clean(er) energy.
You’re a Mandate/Subsidize “Clean” so you get a +1 Collectivism here even through eliminating oil subsidies I agree with.
Invest in nuclear energy.
Are you willing to dismantle the DOE and EPA? No, so this won’t happen under your favored Party - No credit
Free federal voting IDs for all citizens.
I assume you’re against “Proof of Citizenship”, so No Credit as it’s a hollow statement.
Eliminate wasteful military expenditure
Agreed
Fix our failing roads, bridges, and highways
+1 Collectivism. What roads and bridges are failing? Aren’t we already paying for roads and bridges? Last time I took to the roads in Arizona, Nevada, California, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, and Colorado the highways were ready for 100 mph traffic (as proven by all the 100 mph drivers, LOL).
Invest in mass transportation
+2 Collectivism, Plays nicely with your Green agenda, but is absolutely Collectivism with a bonus.
So let’s tally up for you to see just how balanced you really are:
Collectivism is +7, With a bonus +2 for Firearm Regulations which you forgot = +9
Individualism is +2
Then you have a couple that “could” go either way, depending on how you intend to implement. And based on previous discussions, I assume your implementation strategy is political take over of the government, then government mandated “development of humanity and systems”. Government mandate and enforcement would clearly fall into the Collectivist column. Deregulating so Free Market sorts things out would usually fall into the Individualism column.
Lots of Information Warfare Education, Propaganda and How to Tell the Differencing going on real-time. Don’t want to the he-said-she-didn’t-say-it-quite-right discussion to derail happenings in the real world.
Zuckerberg’s admission reveals a deeper scandal: It was the FBI and not social media that stole the election from Donald Trump.
That +$300M of Chan/Zuckerbucks makes me think there might have been a little collusion. But that’s just Qanon conspiracy stuff, right?
I checked Honest Dave Zan Zandt at MediaBiasFactCheck but haven’t found anything specific to Zuckerbuck’s statement. Have you guys found anything on it?
I find your scoring process arbitrary and meaningless. You are not giving any different weighting at all to different issues — not to mention the fact that my list was an off-the-cuff arbitrary one — which focused on “collective actions to increase personal autonomy”. You are randomly assigning “+2” to issues you particularly don’t like, and you are removing scores based on what the Democrats would or wouldn’t do? As I’ve said before, I am able to criticize Democrats, and often do. They are very wrong when it comes to certain issues, such as nuclear. Your analysis is full of holes, and lacking so much wholeness
So let’s keep going.
Tax relief for small businesses, contractors, and gig workers - +1 individualism
Protected 2A rights - +1 individualism
Repeal speech restrictions in classrooms - +1 individualism
Legalize reasonable abortion access in all 50 states - +1 individualism
Eliminate mandatory “In God We Trust” signs in all 50 states - +1 individualism
Stop punishing corporations for speech you don’t like - +1 individualism
Explicate electoral confirmation process so delusional leaders can’t undermine federal elections - +1 individualism
Make voting day a national holiday, so as many individuals as possible can vote in every election - +1 individualism (+1 collectivism with +2 results for individual liberties gained, which nets me +1)
Mail-in voting options in all 50 states — +1 individualism
Ranked choice voting in all 50 states — +1 individualism
Enforce civil rights and gay marriage in all 50 states — +1 individualism
What roads and bridges are failing?
You’re kidding me. We currently have 46,154 bridges that are rated as being in “poor” condition, and the rate of repair is falling behind the rate of dilapidation. Trump himself campaigned on investing $1 trillion in fixing our “crumbling infrastructure”, but sadly wasn’t able to get it done.
I assume you’re against “Proof of Citizenship”, so No Credit as it’s a hollow statement.
Again with your arbitrary rules. The Federal government already has proof of citizenship. Anyone with a valid social security number gets a free Federal ID and can participate in local, state, and federal elections unobstructed. +1 individualism.
So now we have +13 for individualism, and +9 for collectivism.
Do you self assess yourself as “in the middle”?
I never claimed to be “in the middle”. That’s a classic golden mean fallacy. I am integral, not a centrist, and I contain multitudes
Your rationalizations go shooting off in all directions, like sparks flying out from a catherine wheel lol.
I’m not calling on a nannystate to protect women. I’ve identified a problem. I’m saying that the pill is a dumb invention with disastrous consequences, and that it explains much about the sickness of our era. Make of that what you will. But it’s a conversation that needs to be had, exactly as I’ve suggested:
I realize that my take is controversial… but I think we need to give it some thought. On the one hand, in this forum, I’m testing the water, seeing what others think. On the other hand, the more I think about it, the more serious I think this thing is. The more I think about it, the more surprised I am that such an important topic has never been broached anywhere before. We are living in very dumb times indeed.
Or do you believe that further discussion is a waste of time?
Why would I care about what Arizona says? Again, the Federal government already has proof of citizenship. And I described it as “Federal ID for all citizens”. So your arbitrary comment is, in fact, arbitrary.
So in your self-assessment you’re essentially Center Right on average?
No, because that is playing the same golden mean fallacy as saying I am “in the middle”. I am demonstrating that I am perfectly capable of working with individual-based solutions for some issues, and collective-based solutions for other issues, because I don’t subscribe to the left-only-or-right-only tribalism.
Does implementation by Government Mandate impact how we might view Individualism and Collectivism?
I mean, I don’t think so? Civil rights is obviously intended to preserve and protect a person’s individual rights regardless of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Are you saying we should call it “collectivist” because we had to implement it via laws and the justice system?
In that case, all deregulation is collectivist, as are all tax breaks, because only a Government Mandate can make it happen.
Corey - Your not so subtle attempt at disempowerment (which I ignored - sorry bout that) using the term non sequitur has gotten me back into the cartoons that my dad would explain to me as a little kid. Thanks rekindling the memories!
According to the person to whom you were responding. There was absolutely no connective tissue between comment and response.
Do you really not understand the difference between criticizing an argument, versus criticizing the person him/herself? I mean, I get you’re intentionally trolling here, but come on.
Or maybe it’s you, @raybennett, who is the closet liberal. Why do you assume that the only solution is government intervention? Maybe another solution is to fully inform women of every aspect of this product that has direct implications for their health and way of life.
Sooo… Let’s do some Intelligensia-jitsu. With all due respect Corey, everything you’ve posted here is a non sequitur to the questions which you are not responding.
You definitely seem to be very picky with how you want people to dialog with you, what you want people to dialog about with you, and seemingly also the conclusions you they should reach based upon your writings.
I perceived this as a non sequitur response to my extremely basic questions.
You’re a “any means justifies the end”, with the issue that government give-aways always include the goverment expanding into more areas of life.
To paraphrase a Leftist’s viewpoint, “one stop shop - all from big Government” is better than choices in a market economy. Leftist’s feel that choices and complexity of a market economy equate to inefficiency and anxiety. Meanwhile those on the Right see government mandated and managed programs as inefficient and rife with corruption, always taking on a bureaucratic defensive, self expansive, mission expanding life of their own.
If you share something workable on how your Collectivism doesn’t go awry, as it always has in the past, I’m all ears. Otherwise it’s “seems like” just another Marxian Nightmare in progress.
But I don’t doubt that you might be the most balanced, most both/and of your political group.
