We have been discussing the virtual elimination of Republican and conservative scholars from many faculties despite the fact that roughly half of the country regularly votes for Republicans or conservative causes. Now a new survey by The College Fix of 65 departments in various states found that 33 do not have a single registered Republican. For these departments, the systemic elimination of Republican faculty has finally reached zero, but there is still little recognition of the crushing bias reflected in these numbers. Others, as discussed below, have defended the elimination of conservative or Republican faculty as entirely justified and commendable. Overall, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a margin of over 10-1.
The survey found 61 Republican professors across 65 departments at seven universities while it also found 667 professors identified as Democrats based on their political party registration or voting history.
The survey covered The Ohio State University, University of Nebraska-Omaha, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, University of Georgia, Cornell University, University of Oklahoma and the University of Alaska-Anchorage.
While there may be a couple professors missed on either side of this ideological divide, most faculty will privately admit that it is rare to find self-identified Republicans or conservatives on many faculties. Most faculties are overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal. Diversity generally runs from the left to the far left.
Another survey found that only nine percent of law professors identified as conservative.
The virtual absence of Republican or conservative members on many faculties are just shrugged off by many academics. It is the subject of my recent publication in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The article entitled “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States.”
Notably, a 2017 study found 15 percent of faculties were conservative. This is the result of years of faculty replicating their own ideological preferences and eradicating the diversity that once existed on faculties. When I began teaching in the 1980s, faculties were undeniably liberal but contained a significant number of conservative and libertarian professors. It made for a healthy and balanced intellectual environment. Today such voices are relatively rare and faculties have become political echo chambers, leaving conservatives and Republican students increasingly afraid to speak openly in class.
The trend is the result of hiring systems where conservative or libertarian scholars are often rejected as simply “insufficiently intellectually rigorous” or “not interesting” in their scholarship. This can clearly be true with individual candidates but the wholesale reduction of such scholars shows a more systemic problem. Faculty insist that there is no bias against conservatives, but the obviously falling number of conservative faculty speaks for itself.
The editors of the legal site Above the Law have repeatedly swatted down objections to the loss of free speech and viewpoint diversity in the media and academia. In a recent column, they mocked those of us who objected to the virtual absence of conservative or libertarian faculty members at law schools.
Senior editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” based on the fact that liberal views reflect real law as opposed to junk law. (Patrice regularly calls those with opposing views “racists,” including Chief Justice John Roberts because of his objection to race-based criteria in admissions as racial discrimination). He explained that hiring a conservative academic was akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism (or that the sun orbits the earth) to teach at a university.
It is that easy. You simply declare that conservative views shared by a majority of the Supreme Court and roughly half of the population are not acceptable to be taught.
I frankly do not understand why professors want to maintain this one-sided environment in hiring. I was drawn to academia by the diversity of viewpoints and intellectual challenges on campuses. School publications and conferences today often run from the left to the far left. We have discussed a long line of incidents on this blog of conservative faculties being targeted by cancel campaigns with tepid support from their colleagues or administrations. We have become the face of intellectual orthodoxy and it is reflected in these numbers.
Some studies suggest that nearly 20% of Americans are QAnon believers. https://www.prri.org/press-release/new-prri-report-reveals-nearly-one-in-five-americans-and-one-in-four-republicans-still-believe-in-qanon-conspiracy-theories/. Do we really think they should be teaching our children? Or are they too insane to be taken seriously as academics? Certainly, we do not think students need to hear from the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about Jewish space lasers.
If you take out the truly reality-denying QAnon believers, the percentage of registered Republicans left becomes much smaller. Certainly, that is not all Republicans, but we should be able to agree that people who do not accept reality should be teaching our children or young adults, nor that we need to overrepresent non-QAnon Republicans on faculties because they happen to vote the same way as the reality-denying group.
Some studies suggest all Leftist are Blue Anon believers.
Russiagate.
Clinton had the election stolen from her.
Masks work.
The vaccine prevents transmission.
There are 97 different sexes.
A fetus in the womb knows if it is trans or not.
Math is racist.
Do we really want these kind of people teaching our children or young adults?
Some studies suggest that people who mention some studies are some of the most gullible and stupid people in the world.
“If you take out the truly reality-denying . . .”
That is a perfect description of the essence of academia’s mindset in the humanities and social sciences: There is no absolute, external reality. There are no facts independent of man’s consciousness. There is only your, or your group’s, “construction” of reality. There are only “narratives” — which are shaped by feelings.
of the 20 out of 100, that “believe” in qanon, Zero can define qanon. I have no Idea what this is, and the only time I see it mentioned is is some leftist looking for a fresh smear.
Iowan2,
Yeah, I had to look it up too.
Well said.
Why do we need Republican Science Professors, when Republicans do not believe in science and mock the scientists?
Why do we need Republican Math Professors. Is there Republican math?
The Great Barrington Declaration.
Sound science then, sound science now.
Locking down a society, mandating 6ft distance, mandating masks, mandating a vaccine that does not prevent transmission, denying natural immunity exists, that is not believing in science.
Republican math: 2+2=4
Woke leftist math: mAtH IS rAAyIstS
“I believe in science” – lol.
Lefty clowns do not even understand how stupid they sound with that crap.
Explain what believing in science even means.
Is there republican math? yep, if you spend $23,000/yr/student you can either get a good private school education or a Baltimore City School education, but if you add $X, you don’t get any different.
In democrat math, if you add $X to the BCPS, you don’t get any different outcomes, but you do get extra campaign money through union donations plus ensuring that the union holds power thus creating more idiot kids to vote for you.
Yes, i have a science degree, and my wife has a math degree and, oh yeah, a MD.
Keep regurgitating your stupid talking points and pretending you know a damned thing about math, science, or pretty much anything except what you’re told to think.
Why do we need Republican Science Professors, when Republicans do not believe in science and mock the scientists?
I believe in science, not all scientists. The are just as prone to lying as any 12 year old
Short story
Back in the 80’s during the farm crisis, “experts” were trying to come up with ways farmers could save money
The came up with row applied fertilizer, commonly called Starter fertilizer put on by the planter during planting
Fine, except the Land Grant Univeristy as been studying starter since the 50’s. they keep getting the same answer. unless the ground is north of Highway 20, there is no advantage to starter. Only in cold damp soils do we see a response.
By some miracle, the University produced “science” showing it was a great way to grow corn and save money. 100-200pounds per acre is the same an 350 pounds broadcast
5 years later, it was all over and the same “science” reared its head, going back to the ‘old’ science.
Thats what leftist scientist do.
Ever heard of face masks to prevent the spread of an aerolasized virus? Or 6ft distancing? The science is lacking (ie doesn’t exist) so yes there is definitely a place for real conservative scientists.
Well I think that the liberal-progressive meltdown with the release of Twitter and the encouragement of speech says it all. There is no respect of conservative values or teachings by the nation’s elite so why should we expect it from the teachers of those elites. In fact they are the reason for that bias in teaching. These elites are actually horrified that they might be called to answer for their actions. That’s why you have near unanimity of viewpoint’s in these universities. It’s almost tribal in their reaction to another viewpoint and they actually refuse to mingle with the “common people”. I note that everyone of the universities written about except Cornell are state schools. If you want something to happen and change, the state legislatures have to take action. That may mean holding veto power over Presidents and governing boards of universities and taking a more active role in hiring faculty and no longer leaving it to the faculty itself.
Purdue University has been led by Mitch Daniels for over a decade and he froze tuition for nearly 10 years and made it one of the least expensive schools in the Big 10 (a tremendous collection of outstanding schools even if their counting only goes up to 10) yet maintained it’s academic credentials, overwhelming growth and demand for it’s product. He routinely went rounds with the faculty senate but virtually always prevailed. He was active in the community and Purdue was outstanding in mixing academics with business and has expanded its teaching to outreach on the Internet and distant campuses. Cut costs, and improved product. Almost the same thing he did as a conservative governor. It can be done and that is the way to do it. Also rated one of the top academic centers with free speech in the nation.
We have our liberal element there but they are kept in check for the most part. Again they are tribal and cluster in the same small communities, but surrounded by a sea of red.
It takes the right people, dedication and lifelong effort. Hedonism, decay, and decadence can be right behind the next election.
Being basically an engineering school also helps. If you get too liberal in your approach then bridges collapse, rockets explode and monuments and building fall apart as you build them.
Responding to GEB:
Actually you got it exactly wrong. I’m a fan of Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs show) and have done many of those blue-collar jobs you listed. I’ve never attended a university and am professionally certified (one of 11,000 worldwide) in a blue-collar trade myself and have ran a (blue-collar) small business for almost 20 years.
Mike Rowe, in an interview, once pointed out that blue-collar workers built the classrooms that university students sit in. Blue-collar workers build the automobiles we all ride in. They build our homes and workplaces. They make sure we have heat in the winter time and A/C in the Summer. His viewpoint is missing on both the Left and Right.
I think the United States should learn from nations like Germany. In Germany, blue-collar workers and tradesman are highly respected. These workers aren’t inferior to college graduates.
You might want to check out a great film titled “Saving Capitalism” starring Republican Dave Brat and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. These guys largely predicted what’s happening now.
The real question is why it’s important to have partisan teachers, especially in any civics or political science discipline?
The answer to this question should be moot, unless of course you believe it’s important and necessary to assemble partisan government. We have divided and partisan government because we inappropriately assemble divided and partisan government. Assembly by the Republican Principal is neither partisan or politically based, and the only choice is in the proportionality constant chosen for a given population size, which is not a real choice because it is simply an error analysis, the error in the calculation of the whole number of representatives which converts the percentage apportioned to each district into a whole number and the boundary condition to truncate the fractional representative, the error associated with the truncated fractional representative is decreased as the representative density is increased, the representative density being the proportionality constant.
But to understand this form of assembly of a governing system, you must first understand how the governing system is designed and how it functions to a purpose, which in our case that purpose is collective decision making. Every governing system must specify what is being governed and what is the governor. For the Government of the United States, the collective decision making of the States as the Union is what is being governed, and the governor is the legislative process to reach a predetermined majority consensus of All the States. Once we understand that then it becomes intuitively obvious how our governing system is assembled, how power is distributed among the States through rights of Suffrage, and how our governing system functions to reach a predetermined majority consensus of All The States as the Union and Established Government Authority, the Union which makes our country the United States of America.
If anyone even bothers to read the preamble to the Articles of Confederation what they will find is that it is the result of an agreement between all the States to form their Union, and that it is a participation versus compliance agreement, only for the States, meaning all federal laws are only binding on the States themselves and do not extend to individuals or to foreign nations, because only the States themselves are parties to the agreement. and once they reached an agreement then that agreement was formalized in a constitution to make their agreement unalterable by any means, which is why the process for amending their agreement required unanimous agreement by all the State legislatures, which is why the Constitution of the United States had to be ratified by ALL THE STATES before it was officially adopted, regardless what was written in Article 7, which is why they needed the Federalist Papers to get New York to ratify the Constitution, or by right of their previous agreement, Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution would have been set aside and they would have to continue to abide by the Articles of Confederation.
But notice, there is no partisan or party considerations included in the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution of the United States which amended it, there is only the collective decision making of the States assembled in a discrete democracy where each State was assembled into the Union as equals with equal suffrage to reach a majority consensus of all the States as the Union, and you can’t get more democratic than that.
So, again I will pose the question; Why is it important to have partisan teachers in the disciplines of civics and political science?
“ The departments analyzed at each university were primarily humanities departments, such as English, economics, and philosophy. Aside from Democrat and Republican, there were six other affiliations, including unaffiliated, nonpartisan, libertarian, blank, independent and undeclared. The Fix could not identify the political affiliation of every professor.”
What relevance does political affiliation have on university hiring or staffing?
“ One of the emerging ideas to solve this problem is to place ombudsman or nonpartisan trustees on faculty hiring committees to ensure all applicants, including Republicans ones, are given due consideration during the hiring process,” Kabbany said. “This suggestion deserves further study because, if this faculty bias problem is left unchecked, it will only continue to get worse.”
There is no bias problem. The reality is that there are not enough conservative to republican candidates who apply. Just because there is a small minority doesn’t mean they are deliberately not choosing them. They still have to consider their credentials and academic record in order to be hired. Why would party affiliation be a qualification to get hired? This seems more about manufacturing outrage over the minority being a minority and crying “victim”.
Conversely, most technical trades schools are likely predominantly staffed by those that vote Republican. Although many employers have taken on the role of educators in training tradesman. There are fewer colleges teaching plumbing, auto mechanics, carpenters and HVAC technicians.
Why left and far left? Antonio Gramsci
Thus the poor student will graduate without having to face opposing points of views instead of learning how to think for themselves. The spoon fed graduates will be groomed to follow lockstep with group think and group speak.
E.M.
And when their indoctrination has been challenged, will they be able to debate the topic, or run for a safe space while crying the person who challenged them is racist?
This reminds me of that Day of Absence at Evergreen State that went badly sideways a few years ago. Except, the faculties don’t seem to see the absence of conservatives as a loss, a detriment for the university. Rather, too many seem to have the attitude that the lack of conservatives or libertarians is a benefit, if not a boon to academia. I guess this absence is quietly going sideways for us all.
Here’s part of what Turley is complaining Joe Patrice of Above the Law is saying about Turley’s whining on the lack of conservative or republican professors.
“ An astute observation. Law schools have predominantly liberal faculty the way physics departments are overwhelmingly heliocentrists. No one — outside of Texas maybe — demands that schools hire more Ptolemaic geocentrist professors willing to offer a sympathetic voice to students who think the ocean swallows the sun every night. We should hold legal training to the same standard.
Banzhaf, perhaps unintentionally, strikes at something important in the last sentence of his summary. “[T]ruth may be dying if students are afraid to say what they believe to be true for fear of being penalized.” The operative phrase is “believe to be true.” These aren’t firebrand academics taking their depth of experience and formulating a new model to break up the establishment… it’s a bunch of 20-somethings who want a cookie for believing in a truth at odds with reality.
Believe whatever you want. Go ahead and share it if you want. But when you get treated like a clown, consider — I mean really consider — that it might just be because you are in fact a clown.”
In essence Turley is whining and questioning why a school of geology is predominantly staffed by geologists and not geologists who believe in creationism. Obviously because their ideas are going to be seriously ridiculed or dismissed as stupid and being mocked and ridiculed for expressing those ideas is an “attack” on their free speech and/or viewpoint discrimination.
The 1st amendment doesn’t protect someone from the mockery or ridicule of expressing stupid ideas or long debunked concepts that are no longer applicable to the realities of the present. They can still express that they believe in them and nothing stops them from doing so. But that doesn’t mean they are also going to be protected from the criticism or mockery. It’s a direct consequence of their freedom of speech. You are free to express what you believe. You are not automatically immune from the consequences because you exercised it.
“The 1st amendment doesn’t protect someone from the mockery or ridicule of expressing stupid ideas or long debunked concepts that are no longer applicable to the realities of the present.”
Yes, your daily mocked and ridiculed posts expressing stupid ideas and debunked concepts prove that.
I understand this trend, and i agree with it…
“The trend is the result of hiring systems where conservative or libertarian scholars are often rejected as simply “insufficiently intellectually rigorous” or “not interesting” in their scholarship.”
The conservative movement has been decimated by idiocy for quite awhile now and I can’t see academic institutions creating space for it while still charging large amounts of money for access granted.
Party on!!! We’re all just waiting for the audio surveillance the DOJ has on trump in its espionage investigation of him.
Turley is as hilarious as he is oblivious. Is there a rule that there must be an equal or similar number of Republican professors in every university? Is he seriously complaining about the lack of party affiliation of professors in colleges and universities? Wow.
Turley may be a law professor but he is very naive about why universities and colleges are predominantly staffed by liberal professors and academics. There is no agenda or systemic effort to get rid of conservative or republican academics or professors. These studies he cites don’t really address the real issue that Turley is laughably oblivious to. Students are more attracted to liberal or progressive ideas than conservative ones because they offer a wider range of views to explore. It’s also a sign that conservative ideas are in the minority precisely because they are not widely embraced by the majority of students. They are old backward ideas that are remnants of past ignorance and stubborn adherence to “traditional” values that are not as relevant as they once were. That is not the result of “indoctrination” or “lack of diverse viewpoints”. Contrary to Turley’s claims conservative ideas and views ARE discussed and debated in universities and colleges around the country. What Turley ignores is that those ideas are not as widely accepted or are appropriately ridiculed because there ARE bad, stupid, or simply outdated.
The students he mentions who are “afraid to talk” because they are conservative or republican are LAW STUDENTS. Turley conveniently leaves out this pertinent little fact for obvious reasons that were accurately made clear by Joe Patrice of Above the Law. They are law students and if they are scared or cowed into self censorship because their ideas are being mocked or ridiculed how are they going to be successful as lawyers?! Really think about that for a second and consider that these students Turley portrays as some sort of poor defenseless victim is of…ridicule and mockery are somehow being denied their “free speech” rights’ because they’re conservatives or republicans. Seriously, if they can’t handle that kind of criticism or mockery about their ideas and run to their teacher because they are being unfairly “silenced” because of it they don’t deserve to be in that school at all.
Conservative academics exist. Their ideas are still taught in colleges and universities. What Turley doesn’t understand is that those ideas are as Joe Patrice of Above the Law correctly characterized as outdated or akin to having flat earth theory being mocked because it is a really bad theory or line of academic pursuit in the face of reality. Of course those kinds of people will not be very attractive to students who will not benefit from such ideas.
Is there a rule that there must be an equal or similar number of Republican professors in every university?
Cant
“Republican” is just a proxy determination for conservative. There is no rule. What is clear, Universities are indoctrination camps, not educational institutions. Can’t have varying points of study. Might learn something. Both our kids did a study abroad semester. One in Germany, one in Peru…To get a different perspective. Imagine that!
Iowan2,
The study Turley cites specifically mentions party affiliations as their metric. What’s to say that professors who are registered as democrat are not conservative? What about centrist or moderate? There are progressive republicans too. I am one. Shocking as that may be, but they do exist. That study was nothing more than an excuse to whine about the lack of conservatives in colleges and university’s while ignoring what the students themselves PREFER when it comes to ideas. Conservative ideas are indeed discussed in those schools. There are conservative students who express those ideas too. What Turley is all butt hurt over is that these students are being somehow “robbed” of their education because conservative ideas or philosophy is not more accepted in colleges or universities. Students are always going to be more progressive in their views because they are always looking or improve or seek out the future. Conservative ideas or philosophy is akin to staying the same or going “back to the way things were”.
Conservative thought is more attractive to older folks and those who would prefer sticking to the “old and more familiar” ways THEY believed were better. Older folks no longer go to college or universities. They were all once progressives at some point too.
The study Turley cites specifically mentions party affiliations as their metric.
No, what I said is what I meant. Metric is a known value to measure or determine. Joules, BTU, KWH, HP are all metrics.
Proxy is something used in place of the make an educated determination. Tree rings are a proxy for temperature.
ignoring what the students themselves PREFER when it comes to ideas.
How can students “prefer” one over a dozen others, if all they are taught (indoctrinated) is one and only view point.
These are college students learning critical thinking skills, except the leftist in charge know, because its happened to each of them. On the battle field of Ideas, leftist ALWAYS loose the debate.
Iowan2,
“ How can students “prefer” one over a dozen others, if all they are taught (indoctrinated) is one and only view point.”
What makes you think all they know comes from school? You didn’t really consider that they also have lives outside of school and that they see, hear, and experience the conservative ideas and hypocrisy. They learn from what happens outside school too. They see the contradictions and hypocrisy and the even the bad stereotypes that are associated with what a conservative is. They have seen different view points already and if they don’t like the conservative ideas they see in action outside of school they would more likely not prefer to have those ideas in school OR just choose not to accept them.
You think it’s all about “indoctrination” but it’s more about what they see out there and how conservative ideas really work or harm others. That’s why so many younger voters helped democrats in the midterms and you know what republicans and conservatives offered as a solution? Take away their right to vote at 18 by raising the voting age to 21. That’s why they don’t readily accept conservative ideas. They know from seeing it that they are bad or deeply flawed.
Your argument has an OBVIOUS flaw.
Progressive ideas DO NOT WORK.
They have not ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME.
The USSR collapsed. Venezeulla has gone from the wealthiest country in South American to 80% living in poverty.
People are fleeing Venezeulla for countries that used to be poor.
People STILL flee Cuba. No one want to immigrate to Cuba.
Socialism drove the UK almost to a thrid world nation until Thatcher saved it.
Europe has scaled back its socialist policies – because they do not work.
Many countries in Europe are more capitalist have more economic freedom than the US.
Or you can contrast the Biden administration with the Trump administration.
We get it – “orange man bad, uncle joe good” – but if you can get past your idiotic and warped fixation on carcitures of personality traits,
the FACT is that under Trump the nation improved in myriads of ways. Under Biden things are going to hell – and that continues to get worse.
Republicans should lose every elected office in the country – if their policies fail – they have not.
The same should be true with democrats.
“ Progressive ideas DO NOT WORK.
They have not ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME.”
Nope. You only provided examples from extreme forms and different political philosophies mostly associated with communism. Not democracy. THAT is the big flaw in yours.
They worked here and in the Scandinavian countries of Europe. Some more than others with varying levels of success AND failure.
“ Europe has scaled back its socialist policies – because they do not work.
Many countries in Europe are more capitalist have more economic freedom than the US.”
Nope. The UK has suffered worse economically since Brexit. There GDP is worse than the rest of the European Union. That was a conservative ideology rooted in libertarian ideas.
Scandinavian countries which DO have very progressive socialist policies have more economic freedom and Liberty. They certainly work there. There government social welfare programs are successful for the majority of their citizens and that’s with high taxes.
Never say never.
Svelaz, you are ignorant. First, understand that no country has a pure economic or political system. There is always a mixture, and some countries have moved back and forth between capitalism and socialism. They provide us with a lot of information that you never availed yourself.
Sweden is one of the most common examples of socialist success within the pea-brain community. OAC is one of those pea-brains and often has used Sweden as an example of a socialist success.
The problem is, that assumption is untrue.
First, a definition: Socialism, is the control over the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
Sweden had a market economy that made it rich until socialism entered. Swedish wealth fell relative to others. It once again privatized most of its industry and returned to a predominantly free market economy. It even abandoned its wealth tax!
You are confused, so recognize things you disdain are Swedish policy. Take note of the following:
School choice in education.
School vouchers.
Partially privatized social security.
Of course, you might not like:
Higher middle-class taxes.
VAT
A more regressive tax system than the US
You need to learn what you are talking about because much of what you say is nonsense that I wouldn’t accept from my younger grandchildren.
S. Meyer, you seem to be the one who is clueless. It’s so bad I don’t even know where to begin.
Take note svelaz that you are fact-less. You recognize that you don’t know anything about this subject, but instead of being quiet or dealing with the question you make your ignorant statements.
Do you know why I call you ignorant and other things? Because of the way you act. With your type of responses no one should treat you with respect.
S. Meyer says,
“ Take note svelaz that you are fact-less. You recognize that you don’t know anything about this subject, but instead of being quiet or dealing with the question you make your ignorant statements.
Do you know why I call you ignorant and other things? Because of the way you act. With your type of responses no one should treat you with respect.”
Your incoherent word salads are always entertaining. You spend more time insulting others than actually say anything of substance in relation to the subject being discussed. You’ve made it quite clear multiple times no matter how many facts or evidence is provided you deliberately choose to ignore because you cannot refute it or refuse to acknowledge it. You suffer from a serious case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Five year olds have better and more coherently arguments than you.
Svelaz, what have you said that discusses anything in my reply? Nothing. What content have you added to the discussion? Nothing.
That you for proving that you are fact-less. Your lack of knowledge is impressive.
I note svelaz is unable to respond using facts, that support his assertions.
“You only provided examples from extreme forms and different political philosophies mostly associated with communism.”
Nope, I cited british socialism before Thatcher.
There is an excellent PBS series called “the commanding heights: the battle for the world economy” – and there is a book that is not as polished but has vastly more data and examples. The history of the 20th century is not just the rise and fall of “communism” or “socialism” but ALL FORMS OF STATISM.
Some of the examples I provided are from europe. Europe tried the nonsense that You are advocating today for the US between the 50’s and the 80’s. It was a disaster. Economic growth in Europe was significantly lower through that time period – with the ill effects persisting through to today.
I have cited this repeatedly before. Regardless it is ROBUST, for every additional 10% that government spends the rate of economic growth is 1% lower. That does not sound like much – but the impact after a decade is ENORMOUS.
There is a reason that the standard of living in 19th century america doubled every 15 years. Why that rate of improvement is declining.
Bigger government OF ANY FORM – means we will be significantly poorer in 15 years than we would have been.
REPEATING:
Progressive ideas FAIL.
You spent $5T on covid – how well has that worked out for you ? Are all americans 25% wealthier than they were before ?
They should have been – because you spent 25% of GDP.
No we are not better off. in the 4 years that Trump was president the real income of the working class increased by 4500.
In the less than 2 years Biden has been president it has DECREASED 3500.
Do you wonder why you LOST the working class ?
“Not democracy. THAT is the big flaw in yours.”
There is no democracy on earth and has not been for 2000 years – because democracy was an abject failure.
“They worked here and in the Scandinavian countries of Europe. Some more than others with varying levels of success AND failure.”
Nope, They did not work. The average standard of living in Europe is 35% less than the US – even the more advanced European countries like Germany and France have a standard of living 20% lower than the US. They have smaller apartments and houses, that are more expensive – their entire lives are more expensive. They have less spendable income, they are not nearly as well off.
No they did not “work” in scandanavian countries – by the 1980’s those countries were in deep fiscal problems and have been trying to unwind the disasterous policies that PROGRESSIVES imposed on them since. But those policies are hard to get rid of.
“The UK has suffered worse economically since Brexit. There GDP is worse than the rest of the European Union.”
Nope. GDP/Capital PPP in the UK is 45K/year – they are the 26th highest in the world.
The US has Fallen to 12th in the world – during the Obama Admin – we had previously always been in the top 10. Further there was no nation with more than 10M people with higher GDP/PPP per capita. The US GDP/PPP per capita is 61K/year.
https://external-preview.redd.it/TS7E3DRi4Ketfs6o2i34f5X-39MBAu93n2HLaK3CaYE.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=bb95db72270e7c769c105bff20530b7feb92b252
With respect to Brexit – UK GDP dropped during covid just like the rest of the world.
“That was a conservative ideology rooted in libertarian ideas.”
It was a good idea, but it is neither conservative nor libertarian.
“Scandinavian countries which DO have very progressive socialist policies have more economic freedom and Liberty.”
You are unfamiliar with reality. The very countries you cite have been rolling back those programs since the 80’s that is WHY they have significant economic freedom and liberty. Most of what those on the left say about the so called successful socialist policies of Europe is NOT TRUE. Either the alleged benefits never existed, or no longer exist or are far more threadbare than you claim or involve far more private payment than you claim.
Switzerland as an example has an excellent private healthcare system. It has mandated private health insurance, and everyone is required by law to pay atleast 30% of ALL medical costs before insurance.
I noted before that Sweden – as well as other european nations pays for elementary education – but parents are free to send their kids to public or private schools with that money.
Regardless, Europe has a mix of policies in different nations. Only a few very wealthy european countries have the benefits that the left thinks they can deliver to everyone. And in those countries those benefits are mostly private.
“They certainly work there. There government social welfare programs are successful for the majority of their citizens and that’s with high taxes.”
You are correct about high taxes. There is nothing else that you are actually correct about.
While all of europe has NOT wound down completely its purportedly socialist policies – many were never as you describe them – the left has a fanciful idealized view of europe, Europe has been actively trying to reign in the very programs you celebrate for 4 decades – because they are expensive and do not work. Because they have resulted in significantly lower standard of living.
“Never say never.”
Big Government has NEVER worked – and were you actually familiar with what you think are success stories you would know that.
“ Nope, They did not work. The average standard of living in Europe is 35% less than the US – even the more advanced European countries like Germany and France have a standard of living 20% lower than the US. They have smaller apartments and houses, that are more expensive – their entire lives are more expensive. They have less spendable income, they are not nearly as well off.”
John B. Say, it’s Obvious you are comparing European standards against the U.S. Having a bigger house or a gigantic piece of property is not an indicator of a better standard of living. Europe is more densely populated than the US. Geography plays a part in their standard of living. They are happier than we are and they do have more economic freedom than we do.
You certainly are not using sources to back up your claims because you are only making biased assumptions instead of relying on facts.
The countries with the highest standards of living in the world are in Europe. The top ten are all European nations. Not even England made the list.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country
In those lists from multiple publications all show European countries and Asian countries in some. None of them show the U.S among them.
Here’s another source,
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life
European nations consistently have a higher standard of living than the US. We don’t even rank in the top ten.
” it’s Obvious you are comparing European standards against the U.S.”
Of course – that is what we are trying to compare, so that is what we are comparing.
“Having a bigger house or a gigantic piece of property is not an indicator of a better standard of living.”
Actually it is, though more accurately GDP/PPP per capita is the ONLY correct measure of standard of living.
I know you left wing nuts try to pretend otherwise – but every single other value you can come up with is captured in GDP/PPP per capita – i.e. standard of living.
I you are in love and you take your beau to a movie, to dinner, buy them roses, pretty much anything – that shows up in economic data.
We do not earn money so that we can stare at piles of money. We earn money in order to get whatever we want and need.
Whether that need is love, happiness, comfort. Further, you can have whatever wing nut accademic you wish try to concoct a scale of human satisfaction – it will NEVER be as accurate as Standard of living – why – Because standard of living factors in EVERYTHING.
It covers your ability to feed and cloth yourself, it covers your ability to meet your medical needs, it covers your ability to have leasure with your family. Further it covers every single one of those things and it weights them all proportionate to each and every individual persons wants and needs and the extent that each indiviual values them. If I value art over entertainment – standard of living includes my preference and everyone else’s.
With respect to the purported extra benefits of pseudo socialist Europe – it includes those too. Whether you directly or indirectly pay for a benefit, it MUST still be paid for, it is therefore factored into GDP/PPP per capita.
And that of Europe is much lower than the US.
That americans have bigger homes and apartments, more expensive medical care, more appliances. and on and on and on is specifically because we have higher standard of living. A higher standard of living means MORE of whatever people think of as luxuries.
And more luxuries by defintition means more of what we want and need, more happiness – if that is what we want, more love if that is what we want.
GDP/PPP per capita – standard of living does not tell WHAT it is that is important to each of us – to determine that you have to look at what we have used out greater productivity to aquire – such as bigger apartments and larger homes.
“Europe is more densely populated than the US.”
A bit less than twice as dense. In Europe there are 13776 M^2 per person. Europe has more than sufficient area to have US sized homes and apartments. I would note that in the US about 30% of all land is owned by the federal government, and atleast another 20% by the states.
Europe has a much smaller percentage of government owned land.
“Geography plays a part in their standard of living.”
Because of magic ?
“They are happier”
Maybe, maybe not, measuring happiness is impossibly difficult. Standard of living does not measure happiness specifically – it measures EVERYTHING we value in proportion to the extent we value it. Poor people who live in countries with short life expectances may be happier than the rest of us. They are still poor, and have shorter lives. If that appeals to you – then go to those countries.
” than we are and they do have more economic freedom than we do.”
According to the Frazier institutes index of economic freedom
Hong Kong, sinapore, switzerland, New Zealand, denmark and ausralia have a tiny bit more economic freedom than the US.
The Heritage index of Freedom ranks the US lower, and includes Finland and Sweden as european countries with a tiny bit more economic freedom than the US.
Regardless most of Europe is lower.
“You certainly are not using sources”
Of course I am. And you can check the data if you want. In nearly all instance I have told you where my data is from.
“to back up your claims because you are only making biased assumptions instead of relying on facts.”
Given that you are wrong about my sources, you are obviously wrong here.
“The countries with the highest standards of living in the world are in Europe.”
Nope.
Standard of living is ONLY correctly defined as GDP/PPP per capita – any other measure is distorted.
Pretty much by definition. GDP/PPP per capita reflects ALL the choices and values of the people within the country, and scales them correctly by the individual preferences of the individual people.
There is no other measure that does or CAN possibly do that.
You as an example claimed that people in Europe are happier – maybe, I doubt that, I really doubt anyone;s abilit to measure happiness, and any measure of standard of living that includes a separated measure of happiness is inherently biased by the source doing the measuring and the criteria used.
Regardless, happiness is not everything.
Would you rather live 80 years or be 2% happier and live 40 years ? Would you trade some happiness for better medical care ?
These and infinitely more choices are all part of standard of living and they are ONLY accurately measured by GDP/PPP per capita.
Because GDP/PPP per capita is the only measure of our INDIVIDUAL choices and their relative values.
There is no other measure that will ever come close.
US standard of living is about 35% higher than that of Europe – END OF DEBATE.
“The top ten are all European nations”
IN a list that obviously can not be accurate.
I have ZERO doubt that it measures the CONSCIOUS values of the authors of the study.
It has no ability to meausre the values of the actual people or to agregate them using the weights and values conscious or not of each individual
GDP/PPP per capita does that – nothing else does.
I would note this is another reason to start with RAW data – not someone else’s massage data, based on someone else’s criteria.
It is trivial to take raw data apply your own values to it and get any results you want.
It is so easy that economicst Paul Romer wrote a paper proving that the unconsicious biases of ANY economist would automatically skew the analysis of ANY data set that require multiple regressions. Romer was focused on economics, but the paper was inherently mathematical and applies to every single field in which we try to separate out the effects of multiple variables each with their own coeficient.
And standard of living has litterally infinite variables, and not only does each have is own coeficient – but in fact the coefficients are different for each individual person.
My idea of what is important in life is NOT the same as yours.
But my idea of what is important in live is FULLY encapuslated by what I consume and hoe much of each thing I consume.
If I spend more an shelter – either value shelter more – or I value a location of that shelter that has a high cost more.
etc.
“https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country”
Not a valid source. It can not possibly be accurate because it uses one or a few indivuals values rather than all individuals properly scaled.
“None of them show the U.S among them.”
Which is proof of error. The US is STILL the top destination for immigrants all arround the world.
People are not leaving the US to go to sweden in large numbers.
I would note that there are 8-9M people of swedish descent in Sweden. There a 4M in the US.
“European nations consistently have a higher standard of living than the US.”
If you really believe that – then leave. I am not being facetious.
In 2015 – the newest data I found 5.6M people living in the US right now were born in the EU.
People vote with their feet.
Whatever else the millions of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border are telling is – it is that they want to live here – not where they come from. Not anywhere they can get to easily.
People move to BETTER countries – not crappier ones.
Immigrants from the middle east go to Europe – but they also go to the US
There are 3M people in the US born in the mideast and Africa. It was much harder for these people to come to the US than to Italy, Germany, or Sweden.
Ho many people immigrating from South America right now are trying to get to Sweden ?
Svelaz,
you are not going to win this debate.
You neither have the data, not the intellect.
Nor the understanding.
The core to MAGA is To return to American values. Top quit trying to make the US into Sweden or Europe.
If that actually appeals to you – GO TO EUROPE.
We have our own version of that Where I am from.
My county is a huge destination for Transpants from New York and New England – many of which are retirees.
The come here for the low cost of living for the values that my community reflects.
But when they arrive too many of them then start trying to remake the county into the place they left.
If that is what you want – go back where you came from.
People came to and live in this country for a reason.
It is not because they want swedish or European values, or healthcare.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
I will note another factor that is present in all these numbers we are dealing with, but missing from your understanding.
44.7M people – about 15% of the US population was not born here. I doubt there is a country in the world that is true of.
If we include first generation americans that number is more than double.
The VAST majority of these people come from “shithole” countries. They entered the US with nothing – no skills, no english,
Guaranteed to get crappy jobs and to live at the bottom of the US in standard of living.
And yet with 30% of the US either born in abject poverty elsewhere and starting with nothing, or at most 1 generation away from that.
The US still has a higher standard of living that Europe.
Further these people coming here with nothing – do not stay down for long – That is obvious – US poverty numbers are smaller than the foreign born population. People come here from Shithole countries and still rise to working class – usually in less than a generation.
And they do not stop rising.
That really does not happen elsewhere in the world. In much of the world – including all of europe, there is no birth right citizenship as in the US.
If you come to the US and have children – those children are citizens. Not so in Europe.
It is quite evident that your only sources are naratives or cherry picked to support your predetermined conclusions.
If you want truth – go to raw data, and primary sources.
You also should have learned this from Covid.
The CDC’s basis for Mask mandates was a TINY number of anecdotal or uncontrolled studies of short duration.
One of the primary mask studies was based on a couple of beauticians who wore masks for a month and served atleast 4-5 customers who likely had covid. Only one of the beauticians got covid, so some wing nut at CDC tried to statistically derive the probability of that and calculate the effect of the masks. To be clear that is a mathematically valid approach. The problem is that the error bar dwarfs the result so there is no statistical significance. Or put differently – even if he calculated a 50% effectiveness for masks, there was a 95% chance the result was random chance.
Regardless, my point is that naratives are useless. Annecdotal data can drive a hypothesis, not a conclusion. It can also refute a conclusion.
The best sources are raw data. But SOMETIMES it is difficult to directly analyse raw data – when that is the case. you want Randomized control studies with a high degree of statistical significance.
All RCT’s on masks found no benefit and were statistically significant. There are SOME studies that found other results.
But those studies are not RCT’s and therefor not as trustworthy.
At the same time – when you are asking big questions on important issues, if the results are not obvious in raw data – you are not going to find what you are looking for through statistical analysis.
If you are looking to stop Covid as an example – you need an aggregate effectiveness of greater than 99%.
If you have a mask study of 2 groups of 5000 people – the masked group has 500 cases of Covid in a month, and the unmasked group has 1000.
Your done – Masks are not going to work. They are at best 50% effective You would need to combine several other measures that were atleast 50% effective and have them all used religiously.
With an infectuous disease stoping it is binary – you either meet and maintain the very high threshold needed to cause the disease to die off, or you accomplish nothing beyond making the duration fo the disease longer – and possibly increasing the number of deaths, or even making it endemic which is worse, and where we appear to be headed with covid.
If we had done absolutely nothing – covid likely would have burned out in a year – or less.
The more contagious the disease the faster we reach herd immunity.
“ With respect to Brexit – UK GDP dropped during covid just like the rest of the world.”
Every country’s GDP dropped during covid. But Brexit kept it down for the British while the rest of Europe recovered faster.
“ Springford compared the UK’s performance since Brexit with those of countries with previously similar records.
His “sobering” conclusion is that in the final quarter of 2021, GDP (gross domestic product) was 5.2% smaller, investment 13.7% lower, and goods trade 13.6% lower than what they would have been had the UK remained in the EU.
“The UK had a particularly deep recession in 2020, but it ended COVID restrictions sooner than many of its peers, thanks in part to starting its vaccination campaign early in 2021. That should have made its recovery from COVID faster than other countries, not slower,” he says.”
…” It is difficult to disentangle the impacts of Brexit and COVID on the UK economy with precision. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Brexit has severely curtailed GDP, investment and goods trade,”
http://www.euronews.com/my-europe/amp/2022/07/05/brexit-damage-is-eu-exit-now-hitting-uks-economy-harder-than-covid
“ While all of europe has NOT wound down completely its purportedly socialist policies – many were never as you describe them – the left has a fanciful idealized view of europe, Europe has been actively trying to reign in the very programs you celebrate for 4 decades – because they are expensive and do not work. Because they have resulted in significantly lower standard of living.”
The facts don’t support your claim. You’re simply wrong.
““ With respect to Brexit – UK GDP dropped during covid just like the rest of the world.”
Every country’s GDP dropped during covid. But Brexit kept it down for the British while the rest of Europe recovered faster.”
Nope.
Rather than using reports from the left wing nut media. Try using ACTUAL Data.
trading Economics is a very good source for Data for different countries in the world.
But there are others. Depending on what you are after you can get it from statista.
UK GDP
2014 3.1T
2015 2.9T
2016 2.7T – Brexit vote was June 2016
2017 2.7T
2018 2.9T
2019 2.9T
2020 2.7T Jan 2020 Brexit takes place and Covid hits.
2021 3.2T Post Covid recovery
2022 3.0T EST General EU recession
Europe is heading into Recession – including the UK. This has nothing to do with Brexit.
“ Springford compared the UK’s performance since Brexit with those of countries with previously similar records.
His “sobering” conclusion is that in the final quarter of 2021, GDP (gross domestic product) was 5.2% smaller, investment 13.7% lower, and goods trade 13.6% lower than what they would have been had the UK remained in the EU.”
Apparently Springford uses a ouija board to make projections. The UK had a huge boom in 2021
“The UK had a particularly deep recession in 2020, but it ended COVID restrictions sooner than many of its peers, thanks in part to starting its vaccination campaign early in 2021. That should have made its recovery from COVID faster than other countries, not slower,”
And the Vaccinations worked no better in the UK than anywhere else.
” It is difficult to disentangle the impacts of Brexit and COVID on the UK economy with precision.”
No it is pretty easy, The rest of Europe can be compared to the UK and there is little overall difference in the changes in GDP.
Given that Brexit only happened in the UK and Covid happened everywhere – the lack of any differences means that Brexit had no consequential effect.
Try relying on Data rather than people with Ouija boards.
“But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Brexit has severely curtailed GDP, investment and goods trade,”
Actually it is pretty easy – the Data does not support the Claim that Brexit had broad economic effects in the UK.
While Your source is piss poor, it is beyond any data that there were Winners and losers to Brexit.
And that the UK is not done seeing those positive and negative impacts – as an example the UK-EU trade was slowly declining prior to Brexit and likely declined further. But UK Global trade was rising prior to Brexit, and was actually suffering because EU restrictions limited the UK’s non-EU trade.
One of the huge failures of the Trump Administration was the failure to successfully negotiate a free trade deal with the UK.
That deal is just about the most trivial to negotiate ever – 0 Tarrifs on UK goods into the US, 0 tarrifs on US goods into the UK,
The US and UK mutually accepting compliance with producer regulations as meeting regulatory requirements of the consumer country.
That would be a huge win-win for the US and UK.
Frankly an even Bigger deal was possible – Essentially a sort of return to the British Commonwalth trading arrangement except including the US.
Esentially a free Trade deal between the US and the entire rest of the Anglo sphere, plus India. And it could be expanded to include Mexico.
Such a deal is also possible for the Biden admin – but the odds of that happening are near zero
“The facts don’t support your claim. You’re simply wrong.”
The ACTUAL facts do.
Your choice to buy narratives over Data is your problem, not mine.
https://imgs.search.brave.com/Eim7Snd2b8m3SubqC1Typixljmom1qJXIKS3rln5ifw/rs:fit:500:520:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9waWNz/Lm1lLm1lL2RvLW5v/dC1yZWx5LW9uLXRo/ZS1tZWRpYS10by10/ZWxsLXRoZS10cnV0/aC0yOTI3MDE1Mi5w/bmc
So long as you continue to trust media that has lied to you constantly – you will be wrong nearly always about nearly everything.
We live in the internet era – with very little skill the actual data for most anything is readily available to all of us.
You are better able to do that than some of the most famous economicsts of the past.
Adam Smith got a British Patronage job processing trade data, and gathered and analyzed the information crossing his desk to write the Bible of modern Economics – “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” Which remains the foundational work of modern economics – and unlike similar work in other fields – though it has been expanded on, smith made few errors, and none of consequence.
more than 100 years later Milton Friedman took a job working with economic statistics for the government during the great depression.
Friedman started at the left for his era, and left as the still dominant expert on the nature of money as well as the leading exponent of free market economics and one of the top 4 economists of the past century.
In the 60’s Thomas Sowell went from Harvard, to Columbia to UofChicago starting at the US Department of Labor is practically a marxist, and rapidly being driven by the Data to being a leading modern voice of free market economics.
Slightly later Daniel P. Moynihan made a Similar transition finding as a result of his working with Government data – that despite his own very liberal bent, the “great society” programs had proven themselves to be destructive of minority families.
Julian Simon followed a similar path to Sowell a decade later finding again and again that the government data that he had access to was directly contradicting the naratives of the leftist causes that he supported.
These and many others from the 20th century and earlier followed the data rather than the narative and come to an inescapable conclusion.
Even the “moderate” statism, socialism light, environmentalist, naratives Did not hold up to scrutiny and were all contradicted by the actual data.
Until the past few decades people like you and I had little choice but to trust the media, or activist naratives or the Smith’s, Friedman’s, Sowell’s, …
But today most of the people on earth have a device they carrying in their pockets that will give them near instant access to the raw data on almost anything.
You can do your own analysis if you want – but most of us are not that ambitious.
But we DO have the ability to easily test the narratives we are being fed.
I gave you the GDP data for the UK from before Brexit to the present – that came from Trading economics.
That raw data does NOT tell us whether the UK financial sector suffered from Brexit, or the UK fishing sector thrived.
But it does tell us that the NARRATIVE that you offered claiming that Brexit was on measure net harmful is complete poppy cock.
I will note – that if you state checking institutional narratives on a regular basis you will find that very few of them are correct – SOMETIMES they are correct about specific details – which they then try to weave into a bigger picture. But the bigger picture claims are NOT based on Data.
They are essentially extrapolations from cherry picked anecdotes.
Anecdotal data is very valueable. It has two primary uses. It is a driver to further investigations. your source claimed the UK financial sector suffered initially from Brexit – that is possible, to be sure I would have to check that. Further if true that is a basis to hypothesize larger harm from Brexit – but it is NOT sufficient to conclude broader harm. Only if the raw data for the broader economy supported that would it be true.
The other major use of anecdotal data is to disprove broad claims. A claim that all swans are white is refuted by the presence of a single black swan.
But Anecdotal Data on its own NEVER is sufficient to support broad claims. But it is used that way all the time – apparently by your source.
None of this is particularly difficult – yet I have seen no evidence EVER that you do anything but follow naratives.
I would further note that most naratives are written by reporters – not the purported experts in a field.
Global Warming is a perfect example. There is a whole heavily government subsidized army of left wing nut wack job “climate scientists” ranting about Global Warming. But as nutso coocoo as they are THEIR OWN WORK does not even come close to supporting the narratives reported by the press. So on CAGW we have the press taking data and analysis that is deliberately fudge to reach the most extreme potentially supportable conclusion, and then the press exponentially amplifies that to the absurd.
But neither the broad nor narrow data supports even the claims of scientists – much less the absurd claims of journalists.
Or we can go to covid – again and again.
Your source tried to make Covid claims regarding the UK that are not supported by the facts.
You can check vaccination rates for various countries and verify that the UK has not significantly different from the EU
Not that that matters as vaccinations did not stop the spread of the disease, nor positively effect the economy.
“ Europe has been actively trying to reign in the very programs you celebrate for 4 decades – because they are expensive and do not work.‘
Conservatives in Europe have been trying to do that because they don’t want those programs to be successful. They want to rein in the programs to “prove” they are not successful by citing that they are “expensive” without admitting they are working. Saying they are expensive is not evidence that they are not working. This excuse is only being used because those programs are an impediment for the wealthier conservatives to make more money. Not because those programs are not working.
In the Scandinavian countries they are not reining in social welfare programs. They are refining them or adapting them to the current needs of new generations.
Here’s Sweden’s proposals for 2022,
“ Take back democratic control of the welfare system and ensure social insurance and pensions provide security
A supportive welfare system is essential for an equitable and cohesive Sweden. Sweden will have high-quality healthcare, schooling and social care throughout the country and the shared tax revenue will be put to the uses intended. Everyone who is working and helping Sweden to develop will have social insurance and pensions that provide security.
The pandemic has highlighted serious failings in the welfare system. Understaffing and fragmentation create holes in our safety nets. Even before the pandemic, the Government had been allocating significant resources each year to help strengthen the welfare sector. Since 2014, the number of employees in the welfare sector has increased by over 100 000. Additional staff are still needed in the welfare sector, and improvements are to be made to the work environment and working conditions.
High-quality healthcare, schooling and social care throughout the country
The pandemic has highlighted the need for and importance of a supportive welfare system. To further strengthen the welfare system, the Government has ensured that municipalities and regions have access to substantial amounts of funding through general government grants. The regions are also being given additional funds to improve particularly important areas of healthcare, including shortening waiting times, supporting the development of local health care across the country, improving mental health services and improving and developing cancer care and obstetrics. The Government is making more places available for on-the-job training so that teaching institutions can train more nurses and support CPD for nurses. The Government is also proposing further injections of funds aimed at increasing capacity in healthcare, including increasing the number of beds, employing more people in healthcare, such as nurses, and improving the work environment. In addition, several initiatives are being implemented to strengthen emergency preparedness and civil defence within the healthcare system.
The Welfare Commission, appointed by the Government in 2019, has identified several measures needed to improve the ability of municipalities and regions to provide good-quality welfare services. The majority of the Commission’s 29 proposed measures have been implemented or started, including investment in a shared digital infrastructure that will enable the private sector to benefit more from the opportunities provided by digitalisation.“
https://www.government.se/4a5455/contentassets/52ae212bd7964d9d9ed10f329226f92d/swedens-national-reform-programme-2022.pdf
As you can see they are certainly not reining in those programs they are improving them.
Learn the definition of socialism and read a book. Ignorance contains some true facts, but the ignorant person doesn’t know what they are or what they mean.
Anonymous (S. Meyer) says,
“ Learn the definition of socialism and read a book. Ignorance contains some true facts, but the ignorant person doesn’t know what they are or what they mean.”
You should learn to read first before accusing others of being ignorant. The definition of socialism is not exclusive to one specific meaning. There are many forms of socialism. Some are more successful than others and some are more effective than others.
Then act intelligent and define your terms.
That is something you haven’t done. I defined the term socialism before engaging in this discussion. You don’t know what it is or how it is used in different circumstances. That is ignorance.
Svelaz – you clearly are completely ignorant about Europe.
It is self evident from exchanges with you that there is really nothing that you are capable of learning.
Left and right are quite different in Europe than the US, They are also different regionally in Europe.
Conservatism in the UK as an example is inherently Burkean, While in the US it is inherently Lockean.
If anything US conservatism if growing more Lockean.
The US left pre-Obama was more actually liberal, but today it is far more socialist.
That alone will ultimately doom the democratic party.
There is a reason that the left is losing people like Musk, Rogan, Gabbard, Petterson, Rubin, Dershowitz, and Turley – to name just a few.
Because it is decided illiberal.
In fact the US left is becoming more illiberal than Europe.
I have cited data previously that found that for every 20% of GDP that government spends, the rate of increase of standard of living declines 1%.
That data is True of the US, it is True of the EU, it is true of the OECD. it is robust over the past 20 years, or 60, or 200.
I have also cited Robert Barro’s work that has found – in the US and accross the developed world that Government spending generats on average $0.25-0.35 in value for every $1 spent.
Each of these – indivisually or together PROVES that your claims are WRONG.
It does not matter whether it is Sweden or Italy or the US – ALL government spending is economically inefficient.
You can rant and rail. Left wing nuts in ivory towers can pretend otherwise.
But the FACT is not only is this true – but the majority of people in power – including Obama and Biden and other world leaders KNOW IT.
Just look at ObamaCare – it accomplished absolutely nothing good.
It resulted in the destruction of our best hopes at meaningful changes in health services. It drove the consolidation of medicine.
Individual doctors practices are nearly non-existant, as are small group practices, even hospitals no longer exist – everything has consolidated into large networks. Top heavy markets are a disaster. Inovation dies, costs bloat. stagnation sets in. Those of you on the left claim to be for “Change” – but the worst possible change is to grow the top – whether it is government or business. Bigger means LESS CHANGE in the future.
Meaningful change is never accomplished by government.
I have encouraged you to read Coase – I highly recommend “How China became capitalist” – while it stops before Xi took power and it is not applicable to the past decade, it is an excellent primer on basic economics – using post Mao China as a reference. And it is and easy read.
Meaningful Change ALWAYS takes place at the margins. PPACA destroyed the margins of healthcare, the results are change will be much slower in the future.
Today’s progressive left is about as anti-change as you can get. But again you are clueless.
We can look through all our institutions – the bigger they are the more resistant to change, the more they are entangled with government the more resistant they are to change.
You can read into things whatever you want.
Swedish government spending as a percent of GDP peaked at 28% in the early 80’s.
It has varied between 20-25% since then depending on the government in power.
Current US Federal Spending is 30% of GDP – higher than Sweden – and in the US state and local spending adds another 10% of GDP.
Sweden actually spends LESS as a percent of GDP than the US.
I would note that US federal spending in 2019 was 20% of GDP – less than Sweden.
US federal spending has not exceeded 25% of GDP since WWII – until now. For much of that time it has been below 20% of GDP.
Again Every 10% of GDP government spends reduces growth in standard of living by 1%.
Whether you like it or not the Swedes were spending more than the US in the 80’s found that unsustainable. and are now spending less.
Like the typical leftist you confuse words with facts.
The document you linked is interesting reading. Just like the brochure for the senior living center where you may be sending your mother, it is marketing.
In the real world what people spend and what they spend it own tells you their values.
That is why free markets work so much better than government.
You remain clueless. Sweden and much of europe – particularly the nordic countries have high tax rates – because they do not have lots of incredibly wealthy people like in the US to carry the national tax burden.
In the US the top 10% pay 50% of the cost of government and the top 25% pay nearly all the cost of government.
That is not true in sweden. They do not have a large stock of millionaires and billionaires. They tried taxing the crap out of them and they left or went broke. Sweden today has a higher per capita income than the US (with a far less diverse population) but after taxes they are poorer.
Swedens national debt is less than 1/3 of GDP (and declining). In the US we are well over 100% of GDP and rising
Sweden spends 1.8% of GDP on defense. The US spends about 5% or 18% of the government budget
Sweden’s 2023 defense spending is less than 1/4 the initial US aid package to Ukraine.
It would help greatly if you actually knew what you were talking about. You are spouting left wing talking points that are not backed by the actual data. That would be EVERY SINGLE CLAIM in you post.
“ It would help greatly if you actually knew what you were talking about. You are spouting left wing talking points that are not backed by the actual data. That would be EVERY SINGLE CLAIM in you post.”
You don’t either. Talk is cheap. Show sources or links to your claims. Your word alone is not enough. Provide evidence of your claims I did for mine. See above.
Actually Svelaz – my word alone IS enough.
My claims ARE supported – I have provided you much more than enough to be able to verify them if you wish.
They are more than just words.
You are free to check any claims I make and in the rare instances I have made an error – I will correct them.
You have never corrected and error, even though every post of yours is mostly error from start to finish.
And when you provide “sources” those are like your swedish marketing brochure – they are words – they do not tell you anything.
You can find swedish tax rates on line if you wish – they are much higher than the US. The swedes pay much higher taxes – on lower spending as a percent of GDP because they do not have sufficient numbers of wealthy people to pay the burden of the cost of government – so ordinary Swedes must pay very high taxes and as a result event though they have higher gross income, they have less available to spend.
You can find swedish GDP online. You can find the swedish budget on line. you can find the swedish debt on line.
Those all paint a picture quite different from what you claim.
I do not need to give you links to data you can easily look up.
But there are TWO huge differences between you and I.
There is easily findable data that backs up everything I say.
I have not been selling a long list of lies for the past decade.
We each have an established reputation here.
Mine is for accuracy. Yours is not.
You can trust what I write – because I go to the effort to assure what I write is correct.
If I cease doing that – then people will cease to trust what I write.
No one can trust what you post – because you do not check anything you write,
your words are just made up nonsense.
The fact that you think some Swedish statement of goals is somehow meaningful is evidence that
you can not tell the difference between a slick sales pitch and reality.
That you judge people based on what they say – not what they do.
I do not care what the Swedish glossy brochure for their agenda is.
I care what they actually do – what is actually costs, how well it works, how much debt they accrue, what their taxes are, and what the average swede has left to spend.
I am NOT BTW trying to attack the swedes. While they could do better – they are Spending less than the US. Their debt is lower.
But their taxes are higher.
Though they have a GDP growth rate that has been barely above zero for the past 25 years.
Svelaz – you did NOT provide evidence of your claims.
There is nothing in the source you provided that actually backs up your claims.
India has state paid national health care. Possible enough for 2% of the population.
Everyone else is SOL or private pay.
As I noted Sweden’s total government spending is about 25% of GDP. That is less than the US.
Yet, you are trying to claim that for that they provide vastly more services ?
If so – then lets cut total US spending to 25% of GDP, and you can provide whatever services you can manage with that.
US Defense spending is 677B – that is more than the GDP of Sweden.
Interest on the debt is another $475B
Transportation is another $132B – that is more than the entire spending of the Swedish government.
General Government is 129B
“Other” is 65B
The remainder of about 5T is entirely social services.
I will be happy to here how you are going to provide all the services you THINK Sweden is providing for the amount the US is actually spending,
Which is more as a percentage of GDP than the Swedes are spending.
Put simply you have a few choices.
Either the Swedes are far less wasteful than we are – in which case you get $zero more money and we expect you to deliver swedish level sevices.
Or the swedes are not actually delivering the scope and scale of services that you think they are.
Svelaz is always posting way outside his knowledge set (a vary limited knowledge set) His posts are the very definition of troll.
No content, no discussion, just disruption.
Iowan2, ad hominems are your way of showing us you have no argument.
Svelaz, you have no truthful content in your replies and you make things up. That is why people insult you. It’s a shorter response. The only alternative is to explain each and every item you got wrong and then state how they conflicted with everything else you said.
By the way you were a big talker when the US didn’t protect the Kurds from the Turks and Trump was President. Trump’s actions didn’t lead to any changes in circumstances while he protected the oil fields, but you yelled and hollered about how the Kurds were our allies. The Turks under Biden are advancing into Kurdish territory. Did your love for the Kurds disappear because Biden is President?
That is what one means about your conflicting ideas.
This “Socialism lite actually worked in Europe” argument which is commonly made by those on the left is completely ignorant of Europe.
All nations in Europe did not enact the same policies on pretty much anything. The scope and breadth of “socialist” policies in europe is enormous. Healthcare is one common area of comparison – with those on the left near universally beleiving that all of Europe has the equivalent of the British NHS. They do not. Most of Europe has systems not only closer to those of the US – but actually closer to free markets than the US.
Further Healthcare in the EU is generally cheaper than the US, because it is more spartan. That is most easily understood by looking even further down the ladder at places like India. All that is necescary for a nation to raise life expectance to the mid 70’s is antiseptic, antibiotics and IV fluids. In every single nation where these very inexpensive things are readily available life expectance rises to the mid 70’s.
It should be obvious to nearly all that the health care of India and that of the US are many many many orders of magnitude different in cost.
But there is not much difference in outcome. Just as there is not much difference in outcome between US healthcare today than that of the 50’s.
Which also cost far less.
US healthcare is enormously expensive for 3 reasons.
We are wealthy, we can afford it, and we are willing to pay for it.
We pay an enormous amount for the very best healthcare in the world to buy very small gains in outcomes.
For the overwhelming majority of us US healthcare is a luxury good. A ford Fiesta and a Lamborgini Huricane will get you across manhattan during rush hour in the same time, but those are vastly different experiences with different costs.
Young voters helped democrats in the midterms because they were lied to bribed and coddled.
Absent a ballot being delivered to their couch – they do not vote.
Regardless, why should people who have not gotten out of college, have not held a job, have not had to be productive, to support a family, to accomplish anything on their own – why should they determine the policies of the country ?
Why is it that you think it is wise that people with little or not experience in life should force their views on the rest of us ?
You are correct – Democrats won voters under 30. That is the ONLY age cohort they won.
The least experienced voters.
Youth is wonderful. But it is with very good reason that few of us reach positions of responsibility when we are young.
“ Young voters helped democrats in the midterms because they were lied to bribed and coddled.
Absent a ballot being delivered to their couch – they do not vote.”
Nope.
Young voters, those 18 and above, the very ones who have been denigrated and targeted by republicans in their anti-woke or anti- LGBTQ laws voted in record numbers this mid-term. They weren’t being lied to or bribed or coddled. They were fully aware of how republicans were attacking them for what THEY were. Many were LGBTQ others were women who opposed abortion restrictions and the heavy handed legislation around abortion. They noticed and they did vote. In very large numbers. Republicans noticed and the first thing they proposed? Take away their constitutional right to vote by proposing to raise the age to vote to 21.
“ Regardless, why should people who have not gotten out of college, have not held a job, have not had to be productive, to support a family, to accomplish anything on their own – why should they determine the policies of the country ?”
Because they are also affected by the policies and laws republicans want to pass AND it’s their constitutional right to vote. They are also eligible to join the military at 18 and buy guns. They have as much skin in the game as every other voter.
“ Why is it that you think it is wise that people with little or not experience in life should force their views on the rest of us ?”
Really? Force their views on the you? Because they ARE also citizens who are also affected by the laws and rules imposed on the rest of us . That you would deny them a voice simply because you don’t think they have enough experience or haven’t done anything is telling. What they do or do not do is completely irrelevant. They have a constitutional right to vote and if they choose to do so it’s not your right to dictate why they shouldn’t any more than it is not their right to tell you what YOU should do. That level of arrogance is astonishing coming from a libertarian.
“ You are correct – Democrats won voters under 30. That is the ONLY age cohort they won.
The least experienced voters.
Youth is wonderful. But it is with very good reason that few of us reach positions of responsibility when we are young.”
That is why republicans didn’t get the red wave they were expecting, They ignored the youth vote and they noticed and recognized that they had a right to voice their choice. Republicans defend their right to bear arms but vote? That is too much apparently.
Svelaz,
Younger voters have NEVER voted in any consequential numbers prior to massive mailin voting and ballot harvesting.
That is just a fact. Whether you like it or not.
Further Younger voters are the LOWEST QUALITY voters that we have – again just a fact.
Just as they have the largest portion of automobile accidents.
All of us were young once. There are good things about it – I will never in my life come close to the physical condition I was in when I was 18.
But it is INARGUABLY true that on the whole younger people have the least experience and the poorest judgement.
Violent crime is almost non-existant after people reach 35.
We also know that brain development is not complete until the 30’s.
These things are FACTS.
Your own arguments prove the stupidity of your own claims.
The laws you rant about are not anti-LGBTQ+ – they are anti-stupid, and anti-woke idiocy.
Very few people care about your sexual choices as an adult that do not harm others.
I do not give a schiff if you have a foot fetish – you are not teaching kids about foot fetishes in school.
We arrest and jail people who sexualize children.
“ Svelaz,
Younger voters have NEVER voted in any consequential numbers prior to massive mailin voting and ballot harvesting.
That is just a fact. Whether you like it or not.”
Nope. Not this time. Younger voters chose to vote in the mid-terms in record numbers. That’s just a fact. They ARE still voters and they ARE just as valid as any other voter. That is also a fact. Mail-in voting had noting to do with it.
Republicans chose to attack the choices and lifestyles of younger voters and THEY noticed and voted AGAINST what they correctly perceived as personal.
“ Further Younger voters are the LOWEST QUALITY voters that we have – again just a fact.”
So are Trump voters. It’s irrelevant what quality they are what matters is that they ALL have a constitutional right to vote if they chose to. Younger voters have always been underestimated by both parties. This mid-term election republicans greatly underestimated their ability to affect the election. Rather than acknowledge their choice to voice their opinions Republicans chose to deny their constitutionally protected right to vote because they didn’t like the fact that they did blunt the red wave. That is a fact.
“ But it is INARGUABLY true that on the whole younger people have the least experience and the poorest judgement.
Violent crime is almost non-existant after people reach 35.
We also know that brain development is not complete until the 30’s.
These things are FACTS.
Your own arguments prove the stupidity of your own claims.”
Nope, your pathetic excuses don’t hold water. 18 year olds can enlist in the military. Train to kill others. Own guns. Can be tried as adults. YOUR arguments prove the stupidity of yours.
Being bitter because the younger voters chose to go blue in record numbers this year is not an argument.
Experience is not a requirement to qualify as a voter. Contributing or having a job is NOT a requirement to qualify as a voter. Being stupid or incompetent does not disqualify someone to be a voter. All the constitution requires is that you are a citizen and are at least 18 years of age. THAT is a fact.
“ The laws you rant about are not anti-LGBTQ+ – they are anti-stupid, and anti-woke idiocy.
Very few people care about your sexual choices as an adult that do not harm others.”
They ARE anti-LGBTQ. It’s as a simple as that. Republicans make it quite clear. Younger voters which those laws are aimed towards KNOW the difference and that is why they chose to vote in larger numbers. It’s not just those who identify as gay or transgender. But their friends, family, neighbors. All of those who could vote as soon as they turned 18 chose to do so this time.
Those “very few people” who care about their sexual choices ARE the ones in power choosing attack them for their choices using “woke” dogma as a proxy. 18 year olds are legally adults and THEY are being attacked for THEIR choices by republicans. Younger voters are smarter and better informed in todays world of instant access to information than your generation.
The only fact that matters is that they voted in record numbers this time and will again next time and they are all allowed to vote because it’s their constitutional right if they choose to. YOU have no right to dictate what they should or should not do just as they don’t have a right to do the same to you. They chose to vote against republicans ideas and policies and they successfully made that known by their votes. That is a fact.
If mailin voting had nothing to do with it, then you will join with me in restoring only inperson voting on election day.
If you can not win elections without gaming the rules, then those elections are not legitimate.
It took an incredible amount of things to go in favor of democrats in 2020, and 2022 to get these results.
I can not stop you from claiming that is repeatable but it is unlikely.
Everything is working against you.
The Biden administration will Fail even more in the next two years.
Lincoln said
you can fool some of the people all of the time,
you can fool all of the people some of the time.
But you can not fool all the people all of the time.
Eventually the Geobels Big lies tactic of the left wears thin.
YOU are proof that “you can fool some of the people all of the time”.
You are incapable of grasping that you have been lied to repeatedly – no matter how obvious it is.
But everyone is not that way.
The silver lining for the 2022 election is that the blame for the next 2 years remains with democrats.
I hope I am wrong – but I know I am not.
The next 2 years are going to be miserable.
That was going to be true whether there was a red tsunami or not.
The decisions that caused the mess that is coming were made in 2021.
Whether you like it or not the FACTS regarding the 2022 election are far from established.
Many many people claim to know what happened – but most narratives – including yours do NOT hold up.
Republicans performed way beyond belief in Florida.
There was a red tsunami in New York, but not enough to flip the Governor’s race.
Republicans did much better than expected in Ohio.
In several other states they did not do as well as hoped. But they were incredibly competitive and only barely lost in states that are NOT red states. Nevada was a split decision – and likely with honest elections Nevada would now be a red state.
Regardless, that is near certain, it is just a question of time.
Republicans did incredibly well in Oregon and Washington – states that are supposed to be deep blue.
It is clear they are now purple not blue states.
Democrats continue to hold PORTIONS of the rust belt – but it is with certainty moving red, just slower than expected.
Democrats have proved that if they can lie to young voters, rile them up enough, teriffy them of the boogey man,
that if the press and SM will not call them out on their lies, that if they have compliant and politically biased governors and secretaries of state that they can barely hold back a red tide.
It is unlikely that is sustainable.
Republicans have an issue with a core of about 6M trump voters, that may not show up if Trump is not on the ticket.
But they proved that they have grown their base and that base is reliable.
You are claiming that is true of the under 30 vote. I highly doubt that.
Like 2020 Democrats had to spend an enormous amount of money on this election.
Democrats seem to have locked in the requirement to have a 2:1 spending advantage to stay afloat.
We will see if that is sustainable. Zuckerberg has scaled back and #2 2022 Democratic contributor SBF is now bankrupt and probably headed to jail.
You did not actually answer my question.
You noted many things that are true about younger people.
But you ignored many things that are true.
No one is looking to take the right to vote away from them.
Only the ability to vote from their couches.
If they are unable to let go of the game controller, get out of the couch and go to the polls to vote – then NO they do not have as much skin in the game as others.
Nor as I noted do most of them have the actual adult experience of others.
I would suggest reading about the cultural revolution in China – because you are actively seeking to create a permutaton of it.
That is what happens when those without the experience to actually understand the world start changing the world.
“ No one is looking to take the right to vote away from them.
Only the ability to vote from their couches.”
Republicans are. That was their first response upon learning that younger voters stymied their red wave.
They didn’t vote from their couches. They went to vote like everyone else. Your insinuation that they voted from their couch or were mailed ballots is irrelevant and a nonsensical allegation without a shred of proof. You are making a LOT of assumptions without evidence.
Nothing you said is true and that’s the problem.
Experience is irrelevant. There is absolutely no requirement to have a certain level of experience in order to qualify to be a voter. NONE. Just as there is no requirement that those over 100 years old should not vote. Your question was irrelevant. It did not merit an answer because it doesn’t apply. It’s just an means to make an excuse for your belief that younger votes are “low quality” or “inexperienced”. Both of those criteria are irrelevant to their right to vote.
Republican’s answer to younger voters choosing to side with democrats was to strip their right to vote by raising the age to 21. Which we both know is not going to happen, but it shows that they ARE willing to take away a right because they didn’t like the fact that younger voters prevented them from realizing their political goals. Republicans support stripping the rights of others when they don’t get the results they want.
Republicans constantly attacked and legislated against their beliefs. Democrats defended them. That’s why they chose to vote against those who were actively attacking them. Republicans chose to do that because they thought younger voters don’t have the clout or ability to mount a defense. It looks like a lot of them found out that they can do that by simply voting. What a concept eh?
No they did not vote like everyone else.
Young people NEVER showed up to vote in consequential numbers prior to 2020 and mass mailin elections.
You are arguing total stupidity.
Nor is this limited to “young people”
Mailin voting enables the least informed, the least involved the least interested, the worst voters to vote.
Aside from the fact that it is the most fraud prone way of voting. it also amplifies bad voters.
Unless you are prepared to argue that 4yr olds should be allowed to vote, you have ceded TWO critical points.
That voting can and must be limited by age.
That there is such a thing as a bad voter.
We do not allow 4yr olds to vote – because the results would be bad government.
You have as usual failed the Reductio Ad Absurdem.
So lets get back to a legtimate argument.
I have already established that there are some people who should not be allowed to vote – 4 yr olds.
The ONLY question that remains is WHO should and should not be allowed to vote, and how do we decide.
Whether the lower age limit for voting is 4 or 40 is PURELY a question of the effect on voting quality.
I would be perfectly content to set the voting age to 40.
But age is NOT inherently the only way we decide who should vote.
You claim that young people voted the same as everyone else – that is false. Very few came to the polls,
most everyone else did.
Regardless, I am also perfectly happy limiting voting to people who can come to the polls on election day and provide ID.
Absolutely that will “supress” some voters. Just as setting the voting age to 18 supresses the votes of 4 yr olds.
Your argument is unbeleivably stupid.
Yes, Republicans as well as most people over 30 are opposed to the completely idiotic beleifs of young people.
The only thing that is new about that is that the beleifs of young people today are even more bat schiff crazy than ever before.
You are back to making this stupid majoritarian democracy argument.
Again – if the majority of people voted to enslave blacks – that would STILL BE WRONG.
You are still incapable of grasping that you do not get to impose your will on others by force merely because you got a majority of a vote.
You quite literally can not make a country or government work that way.
I do not wish to make this mostly about young people – it is about Bad ideas. Ideas that we KNOW fail horribly.
But it is to some extent about young people – because as a group they are both historically and especially at the moment prone to buy into bad ideas.
The core to your position appears to be that if Democrats can manipulate and restructure elections to acheive disasterous outcomes for the country, then everyone else must endure abysmal government.
If you need evidence that is not going to work – look to Iran and China right now.
I expect that for now the Iranian regime will endure – as will that of the CCP.
But it should be obvious even to you that merely holding power does not make government either good or legitimate.
Iran’s current govenrment was ELECTED. It is also incredibly bad and Iranians are aware that elections are not going to correct that.
The result is protests and VIOLENCE.
I find it hilarious that many of the people defending Chinese and Iranian protesters are the ones who fight most vigorously against the US Capitol protesters.
Please explain to me the difference ?
Iranian and Chinese protestors want to overthrow their governments. The government of Iran is as legitimately elected as that of Joe Biden.
The process in China is different – but Xi is the legitimate leader of China by the process of the CCP.
There is nothing sacred about the US election process – YOU make that argument. YOU claim that it is OK to have mailin elections.
Then it is equally OK to have party representative elect the national leader. It is equally OK to have the Iranian government conduct elections and control the vote count.
YOUR argument is essentially that any process is legitimate, if it has been arrived at in some way that suits you.
Svelaz – democrats have made it clear in the past two elections that they can not be voted out – because if they are in danger of being voted out, they will change the rules, or do whatever else is necescary to do so.
You keep claiming that Republicans are actively trying to impose their views on others – young people – when that is patently not true.
I am not a republican – yet that is obvious.
In fact the opposite is true.
The dobbs abortion decision that purportedly motivated alot of young people – ended the federal government thwarting people in each state from reaching their own decisions on abortion.
Republicans want limited government – as a libertarian I certainly want that too.
They do not want teachers imposing their views on toddlers or teens by force – because that is what a classroom is – a place where a teacher is the authority and a representative of government aka FORCE.
The do not want to be FORCED to buy electric cars,
Or to wear masks.
They do not want to be FORCED to pay for other peoples loans, or higher education.
Of the top ten items on Voters lists of concerns – 9 are opposition to Bad democratic policies.
A substantial part of the proof of the corruption of the 2022 election is that we KNOW both now and ahead of time that Voters as a whole are both vigorously opposed to and angry with the policies of democrats.
Elections are supposed to reflect the will of the people – this one clearly did not. You have not offered an explanation for that.
“ Young voters turned out in record numbers for Election Day and overwhelmingly voted Democratic—sending Republicans into a moralistic panic over the voting age.
About a third of voters under age 30 participated in the midterm elections, according to a study by Tufts University’s Center for Information & Research on Civil Learning and Engagement.
There was 27 percent turnout overall, and 31 percent turnout in battleground states. In fact, young voters—who favored Democrats by about a 2-to-1 margin—helped tip the scale left in several crucial races, including Pennsylvania and Michigan.”
…” By Thursday morning, conservatives were clamoring to raise the voting age, although they couldn’t seem to agree on what the new age should be: There were arguments for 21, 25, 30, or simply until voters had gotten “a lil life experience.”
…” But while it’s easy to poke fun at Republicans, a call to raise the voting age is still a call to violate voter rights.
“The fact that there are republicans calling to raise the voting age to 21 because Gen-Z showed up in HEAVY Democratic numbers last night is both laughable and terrifying,” tweeted Olivia Julianna, from the nonprofit Gen-Z for Change.”
https://newrepublic.com/post/168732/republicans-mad-huge-youth-gen-z-turnout-want-increase-voting-age
So yes, Republicans WANT to strip their right to vote.
Not a republican.
I have no interest in raising the voting age – though I do not oppose doing so.
Regardless, that is not happening.
I have a long standing interest in election integrity.
What I want is secret ballot elections, on a single day, with voter ID, on paper ballots, with voters voting only in the precinct in which they reside, with precincts of no more than 25,000 citizens, and all votes counted in public within a precinct with totals reported publicly.
That BTW is how most elections throughout the world are conducted.
What I do not want is mailin voting. Early voting. no excuse absentee voting.
I you are someone who supports those – I oppose you – regardless of your age.
If you are someone who will not vote if you must go to the polls to do so – then I am perfectly happy to see your vote “supressed”.
And so should everyone else.
Republicans are learning rapidly that high voter turnout means bad government.
John, I have two kids. When they turned 18 the each came to me and asked what to do. Because they had no idea about anything.(their words not mine). So we had a long talk about what to use as a proxy, in place of informed decisions. We talked party platforms and what they meant. Btw, they were both honor students, and spent long days at school between honors projects, atheletics, music, and drama. Also time with their church youth group doing community projects, and scouting, Boy, and Girl. Smart active kids. Smart enough to know what they don’t know. But…today they are parents. Rearing children, and Navigating careers being their best version of themselves for their spouses. Now they know who is best to represent them.
Some kids can figure things out on their own. Others can’t. Nothing wrong with that. They all can vote regardless.
Many voters go to the polls without ever fully researching the issues or who is on the ballot and they still vote.
You entirely miss the point.
If we change the laws and allow 4yr. olds to vote then they CAN vote.
We could change the laws so that no one with an IQ above 80 could vote – that would have a dramatic effect on govenrment.
Whether you like it or not WHO votes, has a dramatic effect on the results – not just who wins the election, but on how well or poorly the country is governed.
As you correctly note many voters are badly informed. That is true regardless of age.
You are under the delusion that democracy is actually a good thing. It is not. Real democracy has not been tried in over 2000 years – when it failed badly.
No country including the US is an actual democracy – for very good reason. Democracy ensures that we are governed abysmally.
The entire purpose of republican government – representative government is to improve the quality of governance over that of the people as a whole.
You rant about who CAN vote – noting correctly that many who DO vote are those that we would not want to vote.
Yet, failing to grasp that the easier we make it to vote the worse the quality of the voters will be.
The left rants about “voter supression” – failing to realize that good government REQUIRES the largest percentage of well informed experienced intelligent voters, and the smallest percentage of poorly informed inexperienced, unintelligent voters.
It requires very little thought to grasp that we do NOT want voting to be easy. We WANT to supress to the greatest extent possible poor quality voters.
We do NOT want the candidates that 4yr olds would choose.
I have two children of my own – whom I am very proud of.
But even without referencing my children,
I have not forgotten being 18 myself.
At 64 I wish I had the physical capabilities, the stamina I had then.
At the same time I wish I could give to the 18yr old me, much of the wisdom and other benefits of age that I have now.
I am no smarter today than I was then.
I am proud of who I was then – but I would have done so much better, if I knew what I know now.
The same is true of my own children.
Svelaz and all those on the left do not understand they have completely lost the debate.
Leftism does not work.
Everything they are doing will fail – Biden has failed much faster than I had expected.
The only question is how much suffering we will have to endure before we reject this repeatedly failed ideology.
And the lesson of the 2022 election is – quite a lot more.
John B. Say,
“You entirely miss the point.
If we change the laws and allow 4yr. olds to vote then they CAN vote.
We could change the laws so that no one with an IQ above 80 could vote – that would have a dramatic effect on govenrment.
Whether you like it or not WHO votes, has a dramatic effect on the results – not just who wins the election, but on how well or poorly the country is governed.”
No, YOU are the one missing the point. Your very flawed attempt with this false equivalency. You are deflecting from the issue by making these absurd comparisons with 4 year olds. None of your excuses have any relevance to the issue of 18 year olds voting and their right to vote and why they CAN vote. All you have are pathetic excuses.
It doesn’t matter who votes. If those who are qualified to vote can vote they should be able to regardless of who they are. All the law AND the constitution says is citizens and those 18 and above have the right to vote. That’s it. You are whining and complaining that they shouldn’t vote because of a lack of expedience or that they are low quality voters. YOU want to dictate who is worthy of having the right to vote and who is not based on YOUR views. You’re irritated at the notion that there aren’t more restrictions or criteria to determine who gets to vote.
“You are under the delusion that democracy is actually a good thing. It is not.” It actually is. Because in a democracy EVERYONE gets to make a choice. Not the privileged few like you want. That is how dictatorships flourish and you seem to prefer a dictatorship or an authoritarian form of government.
“No country including the US is an actual democracy – for very good reason. Democracy ensures that we are governed abysmally.
The entire purpose of republican government – representative government is to improve the quality of governance over that of the people as a whole.”
We use democracy to choose our representatives in a republican government. The form of choosing our course as a country is predicated on using democracy. It’s been very successful and it allows everyone to have a voice which you seem to want deny some over others. That is contrary to liberty and freedom. Democracy endures that everyone gets a say in the process. You don’t want that obviously.
“Yet, failing to grasp that the easier we make it to vote the worse the quality of the voters will be.”
Making it easier for everyone to vote is the essence in which this country was built on. You want to dictate who should be able to vote like an authoritarian. When you say “low quality voters” shouldn’t have a right to vote because they are low quality you are making the case for being an elitist. You want an authoritarian form of government that is only chosen by “quality voters’ voters that YOU dictate what they should be.
You finally admit to what you really think about what voting should really be about. Only those who deserve the right to vote should be the only ones to vote. All other low quality voters should just accept their place or earn their right. You’re no libertarian. You are an authoritarian at heart.
” Your very flawed attempt with this false equivalency.”
Neither flawed nor false.
“You are deflecting from the issue by making these absurd comparisons with 4 year olds.”
Not a deflection it is a legitimate form of argument called redutio ad absurdem.
It is excellent at identifying Claims that are obviously false absent a meaningful logical constraint.
You have not found – or even offered a meaningful logical constraint.
I have given you one if you were paying attention – but it would exclude current younger voters.
“None of your excuses have any relevance to the issue of 18 year olds voting and their right to vote and why they CAN vote.”
Non sequitur
affirming the consequent.
“All you have are pathetic excuses.”
A very good reducti ad absurdem which you have failed to resolve.
“It doesn’t matter who votes.”
Of course it does – unless you are actually going to argue that 4yr olds should vote.
If it did not matter who voted – then you would not still be pushing mailin voting or 18yr olds or anything else.
Regardless, you are contradicting yourself all over the place.
You have made all these arguments about why the youth vote was so important
OBVIOUSLY it matter WHO votes.
PLEASE think about you write before you write it.
“If those who are qualified to vote can vote they should be able to regardless of who they are.”
Anytime you have should in a statement you run afoul of Humes guitone.
Or the is/ought problem.
Put more simply – should ALWAYS comes with some values – in this case unstated.
Regardles YOU are off on a tangent.
This is not about whether people meeting the legal criteria to vote are allowed to vote.
It is about whether it is moral, or ethical to change the voting process to make it easier for people who chose not to vote, to vote.
The answer is unequivacally no.
“All the law AND the constitution says is citizens and those 18 and above have the right to vote.”
True. But not relevant. No where in the constitution does it say that if they are required to vote, or that they must get preferential treatment so that they vote, or that their whims must be accomodated so that they vote.
It would be a stretch – but you left wing nuts love stretching the constitution,. but it is arguable that mailin voting violates equal protection.
Changing the means of voting in a way that alters the behavior of a specific group is unequal.
It is also unconstitutional more strictly because the constitution says that Congress sets the DAY of the election, not the days, months or weeks.
It is clear that voting is to occur on a single day.
BTW the rules of statutory construction REQUIRE words that are singular to mean singular.
“You are whining and complaining that they shouldn’t vote because of a lack of expedience or that they are low quality voters.”
Not whining. I am outright saying that government can not engage in actions that constitute GOTV efforts.
That is ALWAYS going to be politically biased.
“YOU want to dictate who is worthy of having the right to vote and who is not based on YOUR views.”
You keep trying to manipulate the discussion with loaded words.
Voting in person adds a small cost to voting that creates a small but important disincentive to poorer quality and disinterested voters.
The result is better government.
“You’re irritated at the notion that there aren’t more restrictions or criteria to determine who gets to vote.”
More loaded words – try making an argument without using emotionally charged words – they are irrelevant, and you are wrong.
I do want more restrictions – not because i am irratated but because the more difficult voting is the better government will be.
I have argued before – that if I could I would have elections on one day and have a huricane on that day at every single polling place in the country. That would dramatically improve the quality of government.
I beleive that even though the use of poll taxes in the south was racist – and the courts were correct to strike SPECIFIC poll taxes down, that overall a deminimus poll tax is actually a good idea. But that violates the 34th amendment – which was a mistake.
“It actually is. Because in a democracy EVERYONE gets to make a choice.”
Nope, this is just idiocy.
There is no right to make choices for others. We have been through this.
You are incredibly poorly educated.
Aside from the trivial fact that our founders despised democracy – the word democracy is nowhere in the constitution of declaration of independence, democracy is actually just about the worst possible form of governemtn.
“Not the privileged few like you want.”
While that is not what I want, historically government under monarchs with unlimited power has in practice been far more limited than democracy.
Throughout history despots are overthrown eventually by mobs.
Right now we are seeing violence in China as the people attempt to overthrow the “elite leader”.
Though weirdly the very people condeming the January 6th protests are supporting those in China and Iran.
According to those on the left – it is OK to protest – even violently, even try to overthrow governments they do not like.
But not try to protest of overturn lawless and fraudulent elections.
“That is how dictatorships flourish and you seem to prefer a dictatorship or an authoritarian form of government.”
To actual democracy – yes. Most actual dictatorships are more begnign.
To be clear authoritarian government is not desireable. It is just less undesireable than democracy.
There is no limit to the extent to which individuals can seek to meddle in the lives of their neighbors.
As an example – you want to see Trump’s tax return. Why is that your business. The IRS has it, he has been repeatedly audited.
Unless you do not trust the IRS then he has paid his taxes legally. There is no reason for you to know what Trumps or anyone else’s tax return.
But you do not understand that. Simply because you want something you beleive you are entitled,
That does not happen in authoritarian governments – the leader gets to see everyone’s taxes if he wants.
But everyone does not. Because there is a single leader – there is ONE person who gets the blame for everything.
While they have extraordinary power – it is actually dangerous to excercise it – because THEY will be blamed.
Obviously not so – even with the representative government we have. Or no democrat would still hold office.
“We use democracy to choose our representatives in a republican government. The form of choosing our course as a country is predicated on using democracy.”
Please read the constitution – you are not correct. We use elections – not democracy. Again the word democracy never appears in the constitution.
“It’s been very successful”
Not in any historical terms. In the history of governments the US is but a flicker. Many existing systems – like the british parlimentary system are twice as old. Pharo’s reigned in egypt for thousands of years. The roman empire lasted a 1000 years.
“and it allows everyone to have a voice which you seem to want deny some over others.”
Can you find where in the constitution it says what you are claiming ?
“That is contrary to liberty and freedom.”
Nope, ANY form of actually limited government that adheres closely to the rule of law – protects liberty and freedom.
Any form of government that is without hard limits is contrary to liberty and freedom.
Further your claim is contradictory to your own arguments
You have argued repeatedly that a simple majority is all that is required to limit the freedom and liberty of others.
Obviously Democracy is contrary to liberty and freedom.
That is why we are not a democracy and why we have limited government.
“Democracy endures that everyone gets a say in the process. You don’t want that obviously.”
Correct – I do not want that.
That is quite literally the greatest danger to liberty.
I want the limited undemocratic government that our founders promised.
Where there are few laws, no regulations, very little unilateral powers of the president.
Where congress is not in session most of the time. Where public service is what people do AFTER they have been succssful in life,
where politics is not a career.
Where we have the rule of law and everyone knows what that is and where change if it happens at all happens slowly.
Where all of us are free to do as we wish outside the vary narrow constraints of what limited government can restrict.
THAT is the government created by our founders, that is the govenrment in the constitution.
Our founders did not debate giving everyone a voice. Senators were chose by state legislators. Presidents were chosen by electors chosen by state legislators. The only voting was for representatives.
You are incredibly ignorant on ACTUAL political science.
“Making it easier for everyone to vote is the essence in which this country was built on.”
More historical ignorance.
At this countries founding – you could vote for your house representative – if you were male, and free, and in some states white.
You could not vote for senator or president.
Voting was obviously not very important to our founders.
“You want to dictate who should be able to vote like an authoritarian.”
No I want voting to have sufficient cost to discourage people who do not care much.
I happen to beleive – based on historical evidence that is young inexperienced voters.
But it is actually imposing a cost that is important.
It is a well known fact of economics that people do not value what is free, they make poor choices when there is no cost.
Moral hazard is how we describe it when people can make choices but do not directly pay the cost for those choices.
When you make one party pay for what benefits another – which is what the left seeks all the time – that is a huge moral hazard.
And that is what YOU are selling.
Contra your claim – democracy is a threat to individual liberty and freedom.
” When you say “low quality voters” shouldn’t have a right to vote because they are low quality you are making the case for being an elitist.”
First quote me fully or not at all. While I have said the 26th amendment was a mistake. It is not my intention to repeal it.
Regardless, there are older “low quality voters”. I am not specifically arguing to limit anyones right to vote. I am looking to end what is essentially a Government driven GOTV program – mailin voting.
It is not governments job to make voting easy – it IS governments job to make is secure, and trustworthy.
I want voting to be as hard as it can be made constitutionally. I want it to have the highest cost that we can constitutionally impose on it.
Because people make far better decisions when they must pay something for them.
I can not reimpose poll taxes – because those are not constitutional anymore. Otherwise I would impose a small one.
But I can constitutionally insist that we have ONE election day – as the constitution specifies. That voters must get off their buts, leave their homes, and go to the polls to vote. No early voting, no mailin voting – no absentee voting but for causes that are outside of the control of the voter. You get 24hrs to vote – the same exact 24hrs in Maine as Hawaii, the pols close at the same moment accross the country, and each precinct of no more than 25,000 citizens reports their vote totals publicly within 3hrs of polls closing. If a precinct is late – that precinct is not counted.
“You want an authoritarian form of government that is only chosen by “quality voters’ voters that YOU dictate what they should be.”
I have no interest in dictating who votes. All I am doing is eliminating the mess that YOU have made. And replacing it with something very close to what we had for about 140 years – the time period in which nearly all states had secret balloting – which is a constitutional requirement in 38 states and should be in the US constitution and which can not be met by mailin voting.
I am not looking to change the form of govenrment, just the quality of government by improving the quality of voters.
And I am not choosing who is a quality voter – I am allowing the voter to decide that for themselves.
If they are willing to get off their couch and go to the poll on election day as we have in the US for most of 250 years, That is enough proof that you care enough about voting to make a good choice.
“You finally admit to what you really think about what voting should really be about.”
I have been open about voting and elections for two decades – since the messy 2000 election.
“Only those who deserve the right to vote should be the only ones to vote. All other low quality voters should just accept their place or earn their right.”
Again – please stick to what I have actually said. Freedom quite literally is not free. it comes at a cost. Some have paid that cost in blood with their lives. I expect that if you wish to vote – you are willing to get up out of your couch, and go to the polls and vote in person on election day.
If you can not do that – you do not care enough to vote, and that is your choice – not mine. I am not looking to choose who votes. I am looking to get voters to choose whether they care enough to vote themselves, but adding a small cost – by grasping that too much convenince results in making poor choices.
“You’re no libertarian. You are an authoritarian at heart.”
Your and idiot. Authoritarianism is just another form of government, it can be anti-libertarian or pro-libertarian.
Democracy is literally anti-freedom. You have made is crystal clear that the majority is allowed to take away the liberty and freedom of others.
That is about as anit-liberty and freedom as you can get.
You wonder why libertarians are at odds with the left ?
Let me remind you Hilter was given broad power by a vote of 89% of germans in 1938.
It is very easy to vote freedom away.
John B. Say,
“Svelaz and all those on the left do not understand they have completely lost the debate.
Leftism does not work.
Everything they are doing will fail – Biden has failed much faster than I had expected.”
Mere allegations without a shred of proof are not factual.
“Leftism does not work”. Of course it does. There are lots of examples and I noted a few up thread. Even you tacitly admit some of them have worked.
Your massive partisan bias is a serious handicap for your judgment.
That Biden is a disasterous failure is self evident.
We have near 10% inflation,
We are headed into recession.
Places are starting to lay off workers and cut back hours.
We are in an unnecessary proxy war.
Even the DoD report on Afghanistan has found that the botched withdraw emboldened China and Russia and has weakened the trust of US allies. Attempting to renew the deal with Iran is furthering the damage.
5M people have crossed the border illegally in 22 months.
We have more “kids in cages” then ever before.
The entire executive branch has been converted to a political arm of the democratic party.
We are closer to nuclear armegedon than anytime since I was in School.
1.1M people have died of Covid – and that continues steady at a rate of 9K/month.
That under a president who demanded that his predecessor resign when 200K had died.
Is Biden going to resign 5 times ?
We have the most corrupt administration in a century.
We have the worst administration since Buchanon.
Under Biden real income has dropped $3500.
It is debateable whether in a conflict our military is up to the job.
Recruiting is down 40% – people do not want to be part of the woke military.
Again – this administration thinks the executive is an arm of the democratic party.
Failing to grasp that soldiers exist to kill our enemies, and have no value if that is not their most important priority.
and on and on and on.
“Of course it does.”
False
“There are lots of examples and I noted a few up thread.”
Which were well and thoroughly debunked.
“Even you tacitly admit some of them have worked.”
Only in your dreams
“Your massive partisan bias is a serious handicap for your judgment.”
Still not a republican.
The republicans are the worst possible people to govern this country – except for the democrats.
Look to China and Iran – that is where this country is headed if the left remains in power.
Provide me an alternative other than republicans to idiot left wing nuts and I will take it.
But you have not.
The social contract, the meta foundation for self government is specifically to AVOID others imposing their views on their neighbors.
You have been told repeatedly – this country is NOT a democracy – that is because democracy is the most repugnant and destrictive form of government of all.
You neighbor is no more entitled to come over and beat you up and take all you own, than your neighbor and 51% of the country.
The use of Force must ALWAYS be justified – otherwise it is criminal – even when it is through government, even when it is majoritarian.
“ You have been told repeatedly – this country is NOT a democracy – that is because democracy is the most repugnant and destrictive form of government of all.”
Correct, HOWEVER, also wrong.
The mid-terms are the most direct form of democracy we use and it’s exactly what a representative republic is.
This is not about imposing views. It’s about what the majority choose. Younger voters were not imposing their views on you. They were choosing to vote against those whose views were opposed to their own.
You’re just butt hurt over that simple fact.
You seem to prefer authoritarian rule over democracy. That is how fascism creeps into government.
Our country is founded on the principle of democratic methods to choose who represents us and what direction our nation should go. The constitution itself makes that clear that WE the people decide and one of the ways we chose how to do that is by voting. The majority of votes dictates the choice for all. If you don’t like the direction the country is going, VOTE in greater numbers than those who do not agree with your choice. Young voters exercised precisely that choice and that is exactly as it should be. Even according to libertarians.
“ You neighbor is no more entitled to come over and beat you up and take all you own, than your neighbor and 51% of the country.”
No they are not entitled to do that because we have LAWS against that. Not everything is about infringing on your property or business. Even conservatives libertarians use democracy to impose certain rules on everyone.
“ The use of Force must ALWAYS be justified – otherwise it is criminal – even when it is through government, even when it is majoritarian.”
The rule of LAW must always be justified. WE the people determine whether force is necessary to ensure the rule of law is followed by everyone.
Young voters did not impose their views on you. They just voted against those who wanted to impose THEIR views on them.
What the majority chose IS imposing views.
That is precisely why there are so many obstacles to making law in the US constitution.
The entire constitution exists to hamstring self government – the majority as mush as humanly possible,
while maintaining the necessary minimum of government.
Literally everything about the constitution is creating impediments to the majority imposing its views by force.
You do not seem to grasp this very important issue.
You may not impose your will on others by FORCE – you may not do so as an individual.
You may not do so as the majority.
All uses of FORCE must be Justified.
There are many requirements for the use of force to be justified.
A super majority is ONE of the many requirements for justified use of Force by government.
Why is it necescary to argue such basic fundimentals with you ?
It should not be possible to get out of elementary school with out understanding that the will of the majority is necescary but NOT sufficient to make law – to use FORCE against others.
I constantly use reductio ad absurdems to falsify stupid claims of yours. RAA is an argument that should rarely work – because it only works against obviously stupud arguments.
If the majority of americans voted to kill all jews – would that be legitimate ? If they did so by electing a majority of representatives who run on a platform of killing all jews – would that be legitimate ?
Only a moron would argue rule by the will of the majority.
“No they are not entitled to do that because we have LAWS against that.”
Supermajority support is a necescary but NOT sufficient requirement for the rule of law.
Again something you should have grasped in grade school.
Slavery was the Law of the land. Jim crow was the law of the land.
Legitimate law is not arbitrary, nor does it rest solely on the will of the majority.
it is incredibly disturbing that you do not understand that.
“Not everything is about infringing on your property or business.”
Actually you can derive the entirety of an excellent system of laws exclusively from property rights.
“Even conservatives libertarians use democracy to impose certain rules on everyone.”
Libertarian principles do not derive from democracy.
The principles of this country – which are very libertarian do not derive from democracy.
The US constitution is pretty explicitly about restricting our ability to impose rules on everyone.
“I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law”
Kant
“They just voted against those who wanted to impose THEIR views on them.”
Blatantly false.
They voted FOR censorship.
They voted FOR demonizing and criminalizing those whose views they disagree with.
They voted FOR corruption.
They voted FOR a lawless government.
They voted FOR a failed government.
They voted FOR imposing that on all of us by FORCE.
“What the majority chose IS imposing views.”
Nope. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what democracy is. The majority simply making a choice is not imposing a view. There ARE laws that prevent what you are wrongly implying. The real danger is a minority imposing views on the majority.
“You may not impose your will on others by FORCE – you may not do so as an individual.
You may not do so as the majority.”
WE chose the manner in which we rule. But voting and with the majority deciding the course of action that WE agreed to according to the constitution as in WE the people. We have imposed on ourselves the ability to make decision by voting, democracy.
“I constantly use reductio ad absurdems to falsify stupid claims of yours. RAA is an argument that should rarely work – because it only works against obviously stupud arguments.”
Yours aren’t working obviously the arguments aren’t stupid. Just your attempt at making them look stupid.
We don’t impose our will on others by force. We the people consented to have a majority impose a will on others provided others have the ability to petition for redress and seek justice whenever it is necessary. That is why we have certain rights and why we have the courts.
“A super majority is ONE of the many requirements for justified use of Force by government.”
A super majority which is what republicans want and strive for will determine for itself what force is justified. That is what an authoritarian form of government is.
“If they did so by electing a majority of representatives who run on a platform of killing all jews – would that be legitimate ?”
According to your preferred form of government yes it would be legitimate. The very nature of a representative republic that you support would allow it.
“”What the majority chose IS imposing views.”
Nope. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what democracy is.”
No. You have a fundimental misunderstanding of reality.
When you use FORCE – and Government is FORCE you are imposing your will. PERIOD.
There are SOME instances when that can be justified – we use force to punish people who murder others.
We use FORCE to defend ourselves.
We use FORCE to compel people to honor contracts they try to renige on.
Most of the time we use FORCE to impose our will on others – WE ARE MORALLY WRONG.
But NOT always. There are a FEW instances that we have spent 150,000 years working out, in which the use of FORCE against others to impose our will is legitimate.
The ABOVE is the CORE to moral conduct.
It is CORE to the social contract.
It is a requirement for ALL legitimate government.
It is FAR MORE FUNDAMENTAL than Democracy.
It is Irrelevant whether you think I “misunderstand democracy” – I don’t.
What is true is that YOU are immoral. and your definition of democracy is immoral.
“The majority simply making a choice is not imposing a view.”
Ludicrously STUPID.
I am free to murder whoever I wish – even though the majority has made a choice otherwise ?
Please! Do you ever think even a little about what you say, what you argue ?
Democracy is a form of GOVERNMENT – and ALL GOVERNMENT IS FORCE.
The CHOICES of a government – whether democratic or not are imposing the will of government BY FORCE.
That is only moral, that is only legitimate in a FEW circumstances.
Neither the individual nor government is free to use FORCE however it pleases.
The consent of a majority (actually a super majority) is a necescity, to MORALLY use force – otherwise the use of FORCE is not moral.
But the consent of a supermajority is NOT alone sufficient to make the use of FORCE moral.
Slavery is not moral – because a majoritarian process made it legal in 1787.
Genocide is not moral – because Hilter recieved an unprecidented 89% mandate from the German people in 1938.
“There ARE laws that prevent what you are wrongly implying.”
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
― John Adams
A few people obey the law out of fear of punishment. The vast majority do not need to know the law – they act morally, and therefore they can not act unlawfully – unless the law is immoral.
Laws rarely prevent bad conduct.
“The real danger is a minority imposing views on the majority.”
Nope, the only danger is the use of FORCE where force is not justified. It is irrelevant whether that is by the majority, or a minority.
Woke left wing nuts are a small minority today. YOU control many of the instituions of power, but YOU are not that numerous.
We may not know why people voted as they did in 2022 – but we do know they are very very angry with YOU.
But apparently not yet, sufficiently to give Republicans more power.
Whatever happened in 2022 – it was not an endorsement of the left.
““You may not impose your will on others by FORCE – you may not do so as an individual.
You may not do so as the majority.”
WE chose the manner in which we rule.”
You keep trying to loop back to the same fallacy.
No matter what you say, or how you come back arround to it.
You may not use FORCE to impose your will on others, but for very limited circumstances where that use of force is justified.
There is no exception to that fundamental rule of morality.
It should not take too much intelligence to grasp that if the Majority is free to impose its will by force – everything will quickly go to h311
I have provided you myriads of examples where government acting as YOU claim it is allowed, was unarguably immoral.
The adams quote above can be simplified – without moral foundations – government is not possible.
But you keep trying to reject that.
“But voting and with the majority deciding the course of action that WE agreed to according to the constitution as in WE the people. We have imposed on ourselves the ability to make decision by voting, democracy.”
You really are an idiot – Above you say “We Chose” – the constitution is just a peice of paper, it has no power. If government works as you claim – you can chose to ignore it, or as those on the left are Wont to do, you can preserve it as a sham by reading into it whatever you want.
You keep ranting “democracy” – yet the constitution you are momentarily pretending to revere does not mention or discuss democracy.
Nor does the declaration of independence.
““I constantly use reductio ad absurdems to falsify stupid claims of yours. RAA is an argument that should rarely work – because it only works against obviously stupud arguments.”
Yours aren’t working obviously the arguments aren’t stupid. Just your attempt at making them look stupid.”
You do not falsify an RAA by insulting it or claiming it is stupid – RAA always tend to look stupid – they are supposed to, that is the point.
An RAA is an argument that Assumes YOUR position takes it to its logical extreme. If that logical extreme is absurd – which you have correctly claimed regarding my RAA – then the original argument that the RAA was based on – YOUR argument is invalid.
RAA’s are overcome by proving there is some obvious limiting principle.
I presume that both you and I agree that governments may not committ genocide. That they may not enslave minorities.
But YOUR proposed majoritarian principle of government offers no impediment to genocide, or enslaving minorities, nor any other immoral act that a majority might decide to take. I would further note that your majoritarian principle of government does not even ensure majoritarian government. Following YOUR principles of governance – 51% of the people, can vote to disenfranchise 49% of people.
Then 51% of the remainder can disenfranchise 49% of the remainder and on recursively until you are left with a dictator.
What you call democracy – DOES NOT WORK – and we have myriads of examples through history.
A reductio ad absurdem does not prove HOW and argument that does not survive it will fail.
But it does prove that it will fail. That it is logically false.
“We don’t impose our will on others by force. ”
Of course you do.
All governments do that. Government is ALWAYS imposing the will of some on others by FORCE.
That is not in debate. There is no form of government that does not do that.
The Question is not – is that what we are doing.
It is What are the conditions in which we can legitimately do that.
A majority vote is NOT sufficient to legitimately impose your will on others by FORCE.
Unless you are prepared to defend slavery and genocide as legitimate – even you have atleast tacitly accepted that.
I would further note that you claim that laws, or the constitution somehow provides the answer. NOPE.
They are important, but if there are no other impediments the constitution and the law are just a speed bump.
“We the people consented to have a majority impose a will on others provided others have the ability to petition for redress and seek justice whenever it is necessary. That is why we have certain rights and why we have the courts.”
Both insufficient and muddy as h311.
You did not allow the J6 protestors to petition government – you locked them out of the capitol and everything went to hell.
BTW Rights are thing that you have – even when the majority opposes you. Rights are things you have – even when you are wrong.
Rights are NOT conditional. The J6 protestors, had the right to free speech, the right to assemble and the right to petition govenrment.
That meant that Government was not free to deny them entrance to the capitol while congress was in session.
Government was free to take all kinds of steps to assure that protestors excercise of their rights was peaceful.
But it was NOT free to infringe on those rights.
YOU place importance on the right to petition government – yet when people you did not like, that you disagreed with that you are sure were wrong, tried to exercise that right – you had no problem ignoring that right. And that means your claim that we have the right to petition government is not something YOU actually believe.
You say we have certain rights – but aside from petitioning government, which you clearly do not actually beleive is a right,
What other rights do we have ? And how is it that those other rights work to preclude the tyranny of the majority – or whoever currently holds power. It is not enoug to say that we have rights that protect us. You must identify those rights, you must demonstrate that they are immutable, they can not be circumvented, and you must demonstrate that those rights will work to prevent the tyranny of the majority (or just tyranny).
It is not enough to mutter under your breadth vaguely about tights.
Next you say “we have courts” – but again you have not demonstrated how that is going to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Judges are appointed by the president, and confirmed by the senate – they owe their power and position to “the majority” – what is it that prevents judges from doing the bidding of the majority ? You have repeatedly refused to accept that the law must be read narrowly, that rights must be read broadly and that there are immutable rules for reading the law and constitution that judges must follow. Those are all what actually empowers the courts to serve as a meaningful check on tyranny. Yet you have repeatedly refused to bind the courts to follow any rules.
That means the law and constitution mean whatever those judges want. And that is not the rule of law, and no impediment to tyranny.
““A super majority is ONE of the many requirements for justified use of Force by government.”
A super majority which is what republicans want and strive for will determine for itself what force is justified. ”
First I have already asserted – that a super majority is not alone sufficient.
Regardless I do not understand your reply – so Republicans want a super majority ? Democrats do also.
An excellent step towards improved government would be requiring super majorities to pass any legislation.
Democrats, republicans – I do not care.
““If they did so by electing a majority of representatives who run on a platform of killing all jews – would that be legitimate ?”
According to your preferred form of government yes it would be legitimate. The very nature of a representative republic that you support would allow it.”
We are talking about YOUR views – not mine. I have not as of yet offered a full list of the requirements to justifiably use force.
But YOUR claims regarding what is necescary to use FORCE – will not stop tyranny.
As the Adams quote I provided noted – without morality, government is not possible.
Yet, never in any discussions with you – does morality arrise at all.
It is correct to say that you can not legislate morality – that means the law can not make people act according the the moral principles of ONE group.
What it does not reject – is that the foundation of law is moral.
Further the foundation of morality is individual liberty – freedom.
There is no morality for a slave. They is only what they are told. A slave can not act morally – or immorally, because moral decisions require freedom. The only creature in existence that we know of that has the capacity to act morally are humans.
There is no good or evil, unless we have the freedom to choose good or evil.
The foundation of government is negative morality – Thou Shalt Not infringe on the free will of another.
“Slavery was the Law of the land. Jim crow was the law of the land.
Legitimate law is not arbitrary, nor does it rest solely on the will of the majority.”
Slavery was the law because the majority at the time made it the law and those who voted it was legitimate at the time. Because they used democracy to justify it.
“They just voted against those who wanted to impose THEIR views on them.”
Blatantly false.
They voted FOR censorship.
They voted FOR demonizing and criminalizing those whose views they disagree with.
They voted FOR corruption.
They voted FOR a lawless government.
They voted FOR a failed government.
They voted FOR imposing that on all of us by FORCE.”
Your paranoia runs deep clearly. So much hysteria over false claims. No wonder you are so delusional
“Slavery was the law because the majority at the time made it the law and those who voted it was legitimate at the time. Because they used democracy to justify it.”
Just to be clear you are arguing that if the majority in the US today vote to enslave blacks – that is OK with you ?
You would then be arguing that the south was free to succeed during the civil war
and that Hitler’s genocide was legitimate as he had the support of 89% of th german people in his 1938 plebescite.
“Your paranoia runs deep clearly. So much hysteria over false claims. No wonder you are so delusional”
Many of the claims you are saying are FALSE.
you have argued were GOOD within the past year.
The delusions are yours.
As I have said repeatedly the greatest problem the left has is a complete absence of logical consistency.
Nearly everything you write is contradicted by something you wrote before.
Every single thing YOU have said about 18yr olds is true about 4yr olds – yet we do not give 4yr olds the right to vote.
And we certainly do not deliver ballots directly to their cribs.
Why can 18yr olds vote but 4yr olds can’t ?
If you can not come up with an argument that survives a simple reductio ad absurdem – then you have no argument.
“ Every single thing YOU have said about 18yr olds is true about 4yr olds – yet we do not give 4yr olds the right to vote.”
Wrong. You obviously have animosity towards the fact that the 18 year olds can vote. Your arguments are so badly flawed they are laughable.
Comparing 18 year olds to 4 year olds? Really? Nothing you just posted is true.
4 year olds don’t have a constitutional right to vote. They can’t drive. They can’t read for comprehension. Obviously we don’t given 4 year olds the right to vote because they legally can’t
18 year olds can enlist in the military. They can marry. They can open a bank account. They can file for divorce. They can travel alone. They can legally buy guns without a permit. They can chose NOT To go to college. They can apply for a job. They can buy stocks, invest. AND they have a constitutional right to vote. It’s telling that you are avoiding the simple fact that 18 year olds or those just above that age have their right to vote literally spelled out in the constitution. NOTHING says they have to be experienced, smart, have some “skin in the game” or whatever. All that is required is that they meet is citizenship, and age as spelled out in the constitution. That’s it. By your own logic low quality voters shouldn’t be voting either. But you know they have conditional right to do so regardless of who they are or what experiences they do not have. You’re just being stupid.
Your argument does not survive this simple fact.
They can vote, they were being attacked by republicans because of their beliefs or that they rejected republican ideas against LGBTQ or even abortion. Those things affect them too and thankfully they also have voice. Even those that were not targeted, those who were not gay can also vote against those republican attacks and policies. It’s pretty obvious that YOU don’t have an argument. Just baseless excuses.
AGAIN
Every single thing YOU have said about 18yr olds is true about 4yr olds – yet we do not give 4yr olds the right to vote.
Your sprayed lots of words, but none were arguments.
“You obviously have animosity towards the fact that the 18 year olds can vote.”
Stupid mind reading,
Appeal to emotion
non sequitur
and irrlevant.
“Your arguments are so badly flawed they are laughable.”
Nope
“Comparing 18 year olds to 4 year olds? Really? Nothing you just posted is true.”
Of course it is, regarding the argument is a reductio ad absurdem.
The POINT is that even though the comparison is absurd YOUR argument still fails.
“4 year olds don’t have a constitutional right to vote.”
Nor did 18yr olds until recently.
” They can’t drive.”
So ?
“They can’t read for comprehension.”
Litteracy tests are unconstitutional.
“Obviously we don’t given 4 year olds the right to vote because they legally can’t”
Circular reasoning. Prior to amending the constitution 18yr olds could not legally vote.
“18 year olds can enlist in the military. They can marry. They can open a bank account. They can file for divorce. They can travel alone. They can legally buy guns without a permit. They can chose NOT To go to college. They can apply for a job. They can buy stocks, invest. AND they have a constitutional right to vote. ”
There are several things you listed above they CAN NOT do. Regardless, how is any of the above relevant.
There are also things above that 4 yr olds can do.
At 4 I had a bank account, I traveled alone, and I was paid to work, I owned stock.
In parts of the country you can marry at 13.
Have you tried to rent a hotel room at 18 ?
“It’s telling that you are avoiding the simple fact that 18 year olds or those just above that age have their right to vote literally spelled out in the constitution.”
Because we changed the constitution.
“NOTHING says they have to be experienced, smart, have some “skin in the game” or whatever. All that is required is that they meet is citizenship, and age as spelled out in the constitution. ”
Correct. I would note the constitution does NOT require you to be 18 to vote. It requires states to allow 18yr olds to vote.
Nothing in the constitution prevents 4yr olds from voting.
“That’s it. By your own logic low quality voters shouldn’t be voting either. But you know they have conditional right to do so regardless of who they are or what experiences they do not have.”
I presume you mean constitutional not conditional.
All things that are constitutional are not wise.
“You’re just being stupid.”
You have not demonstrated that yet.
All you have demonstrated so far is that you are unable to invalidate a simple reductio ad absurdem.
“Your argument does not survive this simple fact.
They can vote,”
And they could not in the past, and the constitution could be changed again.
Beat that straw man to death.
“they were being attacked by republicans because of their beliefs or that they rejected republican ideas against LGBTQ or even abortion.”
No Republicans are opposed to THEM imposing THEIR views on the rest of us by force.
You want to be LGBTQ – no one is stopping you. But they ARE trying to stop you from FORCING your views on kids.
From sexualizing kids.
YOU are so stupid that you do not grasp that there is a difference between forcing your will on others, and opposing those forcing their will on others.
“Those things affect them too”
No they do not. No 18yr old is effected by requiring Teachers of grade school kids from sticking to teaching the fundamentals.
Frankly no 18 yr old is actually affected by the most draconian abortion laws, any more than they would be effected by laws that barred them from driving a car without a license. Reliable birth control exists – it did not 60 years ago. Morning after pills exist – they did not 60 years ago.
Chosing not to have sex when you can get pregnant has always been an option.
One aspect of the wisdom that comes from age is understanding that the freedom to make any choice you want does not alter the fact that your choices come with consequences. We do not get “do overs”. That is literally one of the most important distinctions between children and adults.
The job of a parent is to allow a child to learn from the consequences of their actions – without having to experience the potentially life altering consequences of being adults.
“and thankfully they also have voice.”
I will give you a really simple criteria for when you should be able to vote.
You can vote when you and you alone accept the consequences for ALL the choices that you make.
Not your parents. not society.
If you have a loan – and you are looking for ways to get out of paying it – you are not ready to vote.
A large portion of your argument seems to be this delusional nonsense that this is somehow about gender issues.
That is complete nonsense.
Though it is about being an adult.
I stated before that you are an adult when you and you alone are accepting the consequences for your choices.
When you are looking to imposes your choices on 4yr olds (or 14) that are not your children – you are not an adult.
If you are going to argue that 4yr olds, or 14yr olds, are old enough to choose their sex, to alter their bodies, to take drugs, to engage in sexual activities with adults – then 4 yr olds or 14yr olds are old enough to vote, to marry to have bank accounts, to be prosecuted for crimes, to be jailed.
If you are not mature enough to understand that the choices YOU are free to make at 18, that will have potentially life long irreversable consequences, should not be given to 4yr year olds or 14 yr olds – then YOU are not an adult. You are not ready to vote, you are not ready to make those same life altering decisions for yourself.
If you do not understand that there is a difference between an adult and a child and core to that difference is that we do not permit children to make life altering decisions for themselves, then YOU are not an adult.
If as you claim the CORE of the reasons that young people voted democrat, is as you claim – all you have done is proven they are not ready to vote.
I have disposed of all the “LGTBQ” issues that are really about people who are not really adults themselves pretending that they can better make decisions for children than the parents of those children.
You have no argument there. If you are continuing that claim – all you are doing is proving you are not mature enough to vote – whatever your age.
As to adult LGBTQ issues
Dress however you want.
Have whatever surgery you want.
Take whatever pills you want – Horomones, Fentanyl,
Call yourself whatever you want.
I do not think even WestBorro Baptist church is seeking to take that right away from you.
They are of course telling you that you will go to hell for that choice.
But they are not demanding the power to send you there.
And that is why as evil as WBC is – those of you on the left are worse.
You not only tell those who disagree with you they are going to hell.
But you demand the power to send them there.
And again – if you do not understand the difference – all you are doing is proving you are not mature enough to vote – whatever your age.
Your rights as an individual end, when they become FORCE to compel others to act as you wish.
You are free to dress as you wish. I am not free to FORCE you to dress as I wish.
You are free to call yourself whatever you wish. You are not free to FORCE me to call you what you wish.
And again – if you do not understand the difference – all you are doing is proving you are not mature enough to vote – whatever your age.
“AGAIN
Every single thing YOU have said about 18yr olds is true about 4yr olds – yet we do not give 4yr olds the right to vote.
Your sprayed lots of words, but none were arguments.”
Again your attempt to use reductio ad absurdem is a very poor example of how do apply it. 4 year olds cannot do what 18 year olds can do. They can’t do the things 18yr olds can do. It’s not an argument.
“4 year olds don’t have a constitutional right to vote.”
Nor did 18yr olds until recently.”
Now you’re moving the goalposts We are not talking about the past We are talking about the present. It doesn’t change the fact that 18yr olds have a constitutional right to vote. You’re not making an argument, you’re deflecting about a truth you don’t like.
“18 year olds can enlist in the military. They can marry. They can open a bank account. They can file for divorce. They can travel alone. They can legally buy guns without a permit. They can chose NOT To go to college. They can apply for a job. They can buy stocks, invest. AND they have a constitutional right to vote. ”
There are several things you listed above they CAN NOT do. Regardless, how is any of the above relevant.
There are also things above that 4 yr olds can do.”
Yet you don’t list what 18yr olds can not do and what 4year olds can do that 18yr olds can. Your argument is complete nonsense.
“ At 4 I had a bank account, I traveled alone, and I was paid to work, I owned stock.
In parts of the country you can marry at 13.“
Lol! That’s your example? Your mommy opened a bank account FOR you. You were not allowed to APPLY for a job and get a regular paycheck. You didn’t own stock your parents did you “owned” stock because your parents were the ones who could buy it not you. In parts of the country you CANT marry at 4 years old but an 18 year old can.
You’re trying too hard to justify your nonsense.
“I would note the constitution does NOT require you to be 18 to vote. It requires states to allow 18yr olds to vote.
Nothing in the constitution prevents 4yr olds from voting.”
A distinction without a difference. The constitution sets the minimum age to vote at 18. A 4 year old cannot vote. Your own asinine justification is contrary to the literal text of the clause. Which you should know does not mean a 4 year old can vote.
John your arguments are pure nonsense.
“they were being attacked by republicans because of their beliefs or that they rejected republican ideas against LGBTQ or even abortion.”
No Republicans are opposed to THEM imposing THEIR views on the rest of us by force.”
Wrong. Republicans ARE attacking their beliefs and their liberties by dictating what they can and cannot do with their choices. They VOTED against that opposition as they should. Your arguments are claiming that they are low quality voters and they shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they CAN oppose Republican attempts at taking away their liberty and freedom by criminalizing their choices and that of their parents.
They voted and they succeeded in making their point.
“Those things affect them too”
No they do not. No 18yr old is effected by requiring Teachers of grade school kids from sticking to teaching the fundamentals.”
Yes they are affected. It’s the entire point of republicans creating these laws. THEY are forcing their will on them. By voting as they did they successfully opposed their agenda and sent a message.
Svelaz has an aversion to numbers and facts. 18-year-old men pay over three times as much for auto insurance as the average driver. That tells one something about 18-year-olds.
There is a difference between 4-year-olds and 18-year-olds. Svelaz’s abilities and knowledge fit somewhere in between.
I do not want 4yr olds to vote.
The argument that a Reductio ad absurdem represents is
Does the the assertion proposed work at the extremes.
If it does not then it is not a general rule.
What I am challenging Svelaz to demonstrate is that the choice of 18 is not arbitrary.
The reality is that it is arbitrary.
4yr olds are less able to vote well than 18 yr olds who are less able than 35 yr olds.
In 1971 we arbitrarily decided that 18yr olds had the bare minimum capacity to vote, and 17.99 year olds did not.
In law we make these arbitrary distinctions based on age all the time.
If your 16 you can drive.
If you are 21 you can drink.
If you are 16 you can consent to sex.
These are all arbitrary. All 16yr olds are not the same.
“your attempt to use reductio ad absurdem is a very poor example of how do apply it.”
Nope it is quite litterally EXACTLY how you use a reductio ad absurdem.
“4 year olds cannot do what 18 year olds can do. They can’t do the things 18yr olds can do. It’s not an argument.”
Some can, most 18yr old can not do what 35 yr olds can.
It is a perfectly good argument.
“”“4 year olds don’t have a constitutional right to vote. Nor did 18yr olds until recently.”
Now you’re moving the goalposts”
Nope, We can make the age in the constitution anything we want.
YOU are claiming that 18 is magically the correct limit – WHY ? The constitution does not say, it just offers a number,
“We are not talking about the past”
Of course we are – we are always talking about the past, you are constantly talking about the past – you get it wrong nearly all the times, but you constantly make stupid false claims about the past.
“We are talking about the present.”
Those who can not learn from the past will have to repeat it.
” It doesn’t change the fact that 18yr olds have a constitutional right to vote.”
The constitution does not prohibit 4yr olds from voting.
“You’re not making an argument, you’re deflecting about a truth you don’t like.”
non-sequitur, projection, mind reading. false statement.
“Yet you don’t list what 18yr olds can not do and what 4year olds can do that 18yr olds can.”
I do not need to – YOUR argument is both specious and false.
There is no requirement to open a bank account to vote.
There is no requirement to drive to vote
There is no requirement to join the military to vote.
There is no requirement to marry to vote.
You listed a bunch of things that some 18yr olds may or may not be able to do.
None of them have anything to do with voting.
YOUR argument is complete nonsense.
So far you have not overcome the reductio ad absurdem.
.
“Lol! That’s your example? Your mommy opened a bank account FOR you.”
Nope.
“You were not allowed to APPLY for a job and get a regular paycheck.”
You are, I did.
“You didn’t own stock your parents did you “owned” stock because your parents were the ones who could buy it not you.”
Nope, Stock was in my name only. My daughter also owned stock when she was 4.
I can not speak to every state but in most states and certainly when I was young – there were no limits on what kids could buy.
Only on their ability to sign contracts.
“In parts of the country you CANT marry at 4 years old but an 18 year old can.”
So we can restrict voting to married people ? I can live with that.
“You’re trying too hard to justify your nonsense.”
No I am pointing out that you have no rational basis for 18.
The voting age can be any age we want.
As I noted already nothing in the constitution prevents 4yr olds from voting.
I have asked you to explain why 4 yr olds can not vote – and you have yet to provide a good reason.
And you wont, because while there is a good reason it applies to everyone under about 35.
You have provided a long list of things that are NOT reasons that 4yr olds can not vote, or that 18yr olds can.
Most of them you were wrong about.
But more importantly none of them have anything to do with why an 18yrold can vote and a 4yr old can not.
“A distinction without a difference.”
Nope.
“The constitution sets the minimum age to vote at 18. A 4 year old cannot vote.”
“Amendment 26
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
Where does that say the minimum age is 18 ? Where does it say 4yr olds can not vote?
“Your own asinine justification is contrary to the literal text of the clause.”
Obviously you do not know what literal means.
“Which you should know does not mean a 4 year old can vote.”
Correct, it also does not mean a 4yr old can not vote.
“John your arguments are pure nonsense.”
Nope. You just do not like the fact you still have not been able to provide a good reason that 4yr olds can’t vote.
I can provide a good reason – but it will apply to some or all 18yr olds too.
I think you could provide that reason – which is really the only reason, but your not going to because it requires admitting that all 18yr olds are not qualified to vote.
“Republicans ARE attacking their beliefs”
Given that they do not know their own beleifs and could not possibly express them in a coherent manner that is not self contradictory.
In otherwords they are like you – they beleive alot of complete nonsense, and think it makes sense.
Regardless, Republicans have not actually attacked anyone’s beleifs.
They have constrained ACTS, that infringe on the liberties or rights of others.
“their liberties by dictating what they can and cannot do with their choices.”
Please cite a single example of a republican constraining the rights of an Adult LGBTQ, to ACT in anyway that does not infringe on the rights of someone else ?
No teacher straight gay or anything else is free to teach kids whatever they want.
Adults are severely restricted in sexual contact or speech – even with teens.
In my state if you are 2yrs and a day older than a 16 yr old and you touch breasts or genitals even through cloths you could face 10yrs in prison and a life time of sex registration.
There is a case right now of a local man traveling to another state to pick up an FTM trans 14yr old because their parents did not accept them.
bringing them to this state consensually, and having sexual contact short of intercourse. He has been sentenced to 20yrs and lifetime reqistration.
When I was in HS – in the 70’s fully 1/3 of the teachers where in sexual relations with students at one time or another.
One 30yr old lesbian teacher was in a relationship with a 13yr old student. That would have resulted in a prison sentence – even today.
The supreme court long ago ruled that sexually suggestive pictures of pre-teens are child porn, and you can go to jail for them.
Several people in my county each year go to jail for having pictures on their laptops that you could easily find in tiktok.
I do not presume that every LGTBQ person is a pedophile. But as a matter of law we bar sexualizing kids – even teens.
Even parents could go to jail for much of what the left is pushing.
Regardless, Pedophiles are very real. It is a completely stupid move for the LGBTQ community to deliberately create confusion between them.
It is not an infringement on the Rights of LGBTQ people to restrict them from words and actions that we do not allow other adults to do.
Democrats won the under 30 vote. They won the single women vote. They did not win the Mothers vote. They did not win the Parents vote.
If you are and adult LGBTQ that does not grant you rights no one else has with someone else’s children. It does not do so even if you beleive their parents are acting in a way you do not like.
Everyone fully supports teachers efforts to thwart bullying – for ANY reason – though in my experience teachers are piss poor at that and do more harm than good.
Outside of reporting Actual physical or sexual abuse, other adults have no role and no rights regarding another parents child.
It is no more proper for a teacher or other adult to encourage a child to be straight that it is to encourage other identities.
To the extent that schools have ANY role in the sexual education of kids – it is at the appropriate age to discourage them from having intercourse before they are capable of making adult decisions – if you think 4yr olds can make adult decisions about sex – then they can vote.
To educate them on birth control to avoid pregnancy because teenagers make unwise choices and to teach them how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
It is not to teach them about bondage or foot fetishes or sexual identity. not at 4, not at 14.
NONE of this reduces the rights of LGBTQ adults.
You do not have the right to make decisions for other people, or other peoples Children.
That is something that YOU completely fail to understand.
It is why YOU are the authoritarian, the opponent of liberty and freedom.
“They VOTED against that opposition as they should.”
They voted unwisely and criminally on EXACTLY the issue that you claim drove them.
They voted as authoritarians and tyrants and demanding not just control of their own sexuality but of that of others.
Your freedom ENDS in all matters when it infringes on the freedom of another.
Your freedom ENDS in all matters when it involves a child that you are NOT the parent of.
That YOU and they do not understand that is why YOU are not moral.
That YOU and they do not understand that you can not vote to infringe on the rights of others – is precisely why you should not be allowed to vote.
“Your arguments are claiming that they are low quality voters and they shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they CAN oppose Republican attempts at taking away their liberty and freedom”
It is not freedom to infringe on the rights of others.
It is not freedom to infringe on the right of parents.
If you have not given birth to or adopted a child – you have no rights regarding that child.
Until they are an adult – they can not even consent – give you permission. Anything that you do must be with the permission of the parents.
That you do not understand that make you immoral, and if you act on it it actually makes you criminal.
Adults that act without parental authority or parental permission with children are criminals.
There is no exception for LGBTQ adults, there is not even an exception for non sexual conduct.
If you take a child from a playgound with the childs consent – even a teenage child, without the permission of their parents – you are committing a crime. You are kidnapping the child.
You rant about the FL law. Republicans did not need to pass the “anti-grooming” law. Existing law would have allowed the police to arrest these teachers as pedophiles, prosecute, convict, send them to jail, and require them to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
This happens all the time with people who are not teachers. It has happened with priests, and ministers, and scout masters – and teachers.
“They voted and they succeeded in making their point.”
Nope – you have lost and will lose on this issue.
Whetther you like it or not – the laws you oppose are both unnecescary and popular.
No one gives a Schiff if you are adult, gay straight Trans or a furby.
Everyone’s rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.
Everyone’s rights end when they infringe on the rights of parents.
There is no special exception for LGBTQ.
“Yes they are affected.”
Only to the extent they are prohibited from infringing on the rights of others.
“THEY are forcing their will on them.”
Nope. The core to all criminal law is that the limits or your freedom end with You. They do not extend to others.
It is generally a crime to force your will on another. You have no right to act with respect to another person.
You really do not seem to get this very fundamental principle.
One of the attributes of youth – that is a reason they need to mature before they can vote is narcissism.
The failure to understand that other people have rights to. That your freedom ends when it involves another person.
“By voting as they did they successfully opposed their agenda and sent a message.”
Sorry, this is a losing issue. Keep pushing it and you will absolutely ensure that Republicans take over the world.
It is idiocy like this that resulted in Youngkin winning in VA.
While the big deal is that real adults become incredibly protective when children are involved.
And that is what will get you in the most trouble.
The more fundimental problems is that your arguments are both narcissistic, anti-liberty, and in many cases criminal.
Again Your freedom ENDS always when crosses the boundary to another person.
If you do not understand that telling you what you cand not do to another person – is not an infringement on your liberty,
Because you NEVER have the right to infringe on the liberty of another, then you are immoral and a narcissist.
You are correct about one thing – this stupid narcissistic idiocy is fairly strongly restricted to young adults.
All you are doing is making my case – that they are not mature enough to vote.
These young adults have not yet grasp that everything is not about them.
That they have not yet grasp that there freedom does not extend to imposing their will on other people.
This is also more generally what is wrong with the left.
You keep ranting about democracy – but you continue to fail to grasp that liberty – including your own – does not exist when an individual or group can impose their will on another by force.
We some exceptions to this – the first and most significant is that we may use force against those who use force against us. That is self defense and criminal law. We may use limited force against those who voluntarily enter into an agreement and do not keep that agreement – contracts law. We may use limited force against those who cause actual harm to us – tort law.
Those are the primary and obviously necessary justifications for the use of force against others.
Regardless, the use of force must ALWAYS be justified – the will of the majority is necescary, but not sufficient.
That you do not understand that means you have not matured as an adult, and you are obviously not mature enough to vote.
And that applies OBVIOUSLY to YOU.
That is correct – Republicans ignored the least experienced most easily duped, worst educated group of voters and lunatic left wing nuts took advantage.
Sounds an incredible amount like the cultural revolution in China. I would suggest reading about it.
But then you do not have the experience to grasp the importance of history.
It has always been a very good thing that younger voters do not vote, because they have ALWAYS had the worst ideas about government.
“If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.”
attr. Churchill
Youth is incredibly important – no one puts them in charge of anything.
John, the history with China and the cultural revolution is irrelevant. It’s just a bad excuse.
“ Republicans ignored the least experienced most easily duped, worst educated group of voters and lunatic left wing nuts took advantage.”
They were not “easily duped” or “least experienced” they were well aware of what republicans wanted to do why they were attacking their beliefs and their friends beliefs. Like republicans you seriously underestimate the ability of those younger voters to understand what they are seeing in regards to the political discourse and the issues that they know are going to affect them. They are not all stupid. But you seem to be unable to disabuse yourself of that notion based you your experience as a young adult.
“ It has always been a very good thing that younger voters do not vote, because they have ALWAYS had the worst ideas about government.”
Not true. They have some the best at times and they also bring a fresh perspective. That is how societies progress.
Quoting Churchill about youth in HIS time is as irrelevant as quoting Julious Caesar about youth in his time and compare them to the present youth. If that’s your best argument you are seriously out of touch with the present.
It is obvious that you don’t approve of 18yr olds having the right to vote. I assume you also don’t want 18 year olds to be able to enlist in the military, marry, have a job, raise a family, or even god forbid choose to run for office.
You believe they don’t deserve a voice until they have “experience”.
Svelaz believes that the 18-year-old manager of a multinational corporation should be the CEO.
Anonymous (S. Meyer) says,
“ Svelaz believes that the 18-year-old manager of a multinational corporation should be the CEO.”
Nope. BUT an 18 year old CAN be a CEO. If that 18 year old is smart enough a savvy enough to be one he nothing should stop him/her especially if he/she proves they can do the job. 18 year olds can run for office too.
“Nope. BUT an 18 year old CAN be a CEO. If that 18 year old is smart enough a savvy enough”
True, but the rest of the 18 year olds can destroy that multinational company. You are too ignorant to focus on the discussion. I’m not advocating taking away rights but rather discussing what 18 year olds can effectively do.
It’s hard to discuss things with a person like you who cannot focus and has no knowledge.
People of any age CAN do most anything.
But very very very few 18yr olds are capable of being a CEO in all but the simplest of businesses.
There is little difference in the distribution of intelligence between 18yr olds and 50yr olds.
There is an enormous difference in experience – and a CEO requires both.
Conversely a 65yr old CAN compete in the olympic decathalon.
But there is zero chance that the most physically fit 65yr old in the world can compete with althetes from most any college track and field program in the US.
What is in theory possible is often radically different from what is probable.
None of us are the same person at 65 that we were at 18.
Near universally we are much wiser and less physically capable,
and the differences are dramatic.
Sam Bankman-Fried
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Bankman-Fried
Anonymous (S. Meyer) says,
“ True, but the rest of the 18 year olds can destroy that multinational company.”
So what? Nobody is saying then can’t. You implied that I believed an 18 year old could be a CEO of a multinational corporation and YOU agreed with me.
Then you accuse me of being too ignorant to focus on the discussion. The focus of the discussion is about YOUR insinuation of what I believe and after I responded to it you AGREED with my view. Clearly we ARE focusing on the discussion. YOU are just being an idiot.
“Then you accuse me of being too ignorant to focus on the discussion. The focus of the discussion is about YOUR insinuation of what I believe “
More ignorance. The discussion was about the general abilities of 18-year- olds to make complex decisions about things they haven’t yet experienced.
You are a dunce.
“John, the history with China and the cultural revolution is irrelevant. It’s just a bad excuse.”
Svelaz – you can learn through history – or experience. You are repeating many of the errors of the cultural revolution,
and pretending you will get a different outcome.
“They were not “easily duped” or “least experienced” ”
Of course they are.
“they were well aware of what republicans wanted to do why they were attacking their beliefs and their friends beliefs. ”
Of course they are not.
Just look at what those of you on the left are trying to do to Elon Musk right now.
Musk is and has been slightly left of center. In the past he has been the hero of the left.
Yet, because he has actually made the mistake of doing something about free speech – a value that USED to be a core value of actual liberals.
Musk is being painted with exactly the same brush as you have done with Trump.
All you are doing is proving what I keep telling republicans regarding Trump – There is not A GOP candidate that the left, democrats, the media, will not paint in nearly the same way as Trump.
If you offend the left – whether you are Trump or Musk or DeSantis, or Bush or Kaisich, you will be painted as a vile racist, hateful hating hater.
And far too many voters – particularly younger ones are easily duped into beleiving that nonsense.
As to Republicans attacking the beleifs of younger people – that is actually true – and the point. Precisely the point we were discussing before.
Younger people do not have the wisdom and experience generally to arrive at sane beleifs.
Republicans are absolutely attacking the idiotic socialist beleifs of many young people.
If you come out of a college or university and you do not grasp that statism in all forms, and particularly socialism are vile, destructive failures.
Then you were poorly educated and the university owes you a refund. And yet today more so than any period in history students graduate from college with the ferverent beleif that ideas that have universally failed everytime they have been tried – will magically succeed.
There is not even a glimmer of an idea of why this time would be different. Magic.
Nor is this nonsense confined to politics of economics. All accross the spectrum we have allowed young people to be inflicted with a wide variety of mind viruses.
The future rests on the competence and productivity of each new generation – not their pronouns, not how they identify.
And you are literally selling the least productive and competent ideology ever conceived – not that those are its worst attributes.
Absolutely Republicans and pretty much everyone should be attacking the beleifs or that generation – or more importantly the vile idiots that poisoned them. I doubt you actually know what nihlism is.
Regardless, from end to end we are talking about idiotic self contradictory beleifs that will lead to hell on earth.
“Like republicans you seriously underestimate the ability of those younger voters to understand what they are seeing in regards to the political discourse and the issues that they know are going to affect them.”
Nope, it is quite obvious from the way they have voted that they are clueless. The FACt that evry single other age cohort – all with more experience voted the opposite of them should give you a huge clue.
“They are not all stupid.”
They are not, the distribution of IQ’s is not different for different age groups.
But experience and wisdom increase dramatically with age, and young voters are inarguabley the least experienced, and on the whole hove the poorest judgement.
“But you seem to be unable to disabuse yourself of that notion based you your experience as a young adult.”
People gain wisdom and experience with age. They do so without regard for their intelligence level.
This is tautalogically true. Just as it is true that we decline physically with age.
“Not true.”
Completely true.
“They have some the best at times and they also bring a fresh perspective.”
No doubt. New ideas FAIL nearly always. That is part of the wisdom that comes with age – decades of watching new ideas fail.
All new ideas do not fail. A very small proportion succeed and the results significantly improve the world.
But it is extremely hard to get change right. nearly all new ideas FAIL.
This is also why we try new things in free markets – NOT government. It si critically important that government NOT FAIL.
While the consequences of failure in the market are far less and more easily cleared so we can try something else.
“That is how societies progress.”
Nope, please read above. There is a great deal more to actual progress than new ideas.
“Quoting Churchill about youth in HIS time is as irrelevant as quoting Julious Caesar about youth in his time and compare them to the present youth. If that’s your best argument you are seriously out of touch with the present.”
Bzzt wrong. One of the most common errors of youth is the idiocy that their moment is somehow radically different.
It is not.
“It is obvious that you don’t approve of 18yr olds having the right to vote.”
I do not approve of voting systems that make it too easy for the worst voters to vote.
Younger people are just one large class of poor voters who will reliably choose not to vote if voting is not trivially easy.
I do not want ANYONE who is not willing to make the effort to go to a polling place on election day to vote – regardless of their age.
My criticisms of younger voters do not apply to ALL younger voters, nor are they inapplicable to ALL older voters.
But the distribution of bad voters correlates to age. Though the strongest correlation is to those unwilling to vote in person.
In person voting is strongly self selecting of better quality voters.
“I assume you also don’t want 18 year olds to be able to enlist in the military, marry, have a job, raise a family, or even god forbid choose to run for office.
You believe they don’t deserve a voice until they have “experience”.”
Lots of nonsense from you.
My observations regarding younger voters are inarguably correct – and you know it.
That said – I have NOT said I would deprive them of the right to vote.
What I have said is that NO ONE of any age should be permitted to vote from their couch.
That if you are not willing to go to a poll and vote in person, then you should not vote at all.
It is quite clear from the last two elections that making voting easy results in more votes from the least qualified voters.
I have no problems with the 18yr old that is willing to go to the polls on election day to vote – voting.
And I have no problems with the 35 yr old who is unwilling to do so NOT voting.
I am very happy with voting processes that discourage the worst voters from voting – regardless of age.
With specific respect to running for office – I would have no problem with requiring that a person can not hold any public office until after they are 50. I would also have no problem with requiring that anyone holding any public office (or political appointment) may not be paid for their service.
Public service is just that – public service. If your life is such that you need a pay check – then you are not ready for public service.
I agree with much of your comment. Still, more diversity would be better for the students. Isn’t “diversity” what liberal colleges say they want in their student bodies?
Diversity is fine. But complaining that not being able to teach flat earth theory or creationism is a lack of diversity is just being disingenuous with the facts of the issue. It is being argued in order to create a false narrative that there is a movement or agenda to prevent conservatives or republicans from teaching their views. Turley is out of sync with the reality of the present. Notice that he seems to reminisce about HIS past when conservative ideas where more prevalent in the absence of more progressive ideas. It’s about the fact that conservative ideas are no longer as relevant as they were in the past. That doesn’t mean that they are not being discussed or mentioned. They are not viewed as relevant by the majority of students today.
Diversity is fine. But complaining that not being able to teach flat earth theory or creationism is a lack of diversity is just being disingenuous with the facts of the issue.
Tell that to Medico’s, Team medicine practices something called differential diagnosis. It is proposing a diagnosis, and putting it under a whithering examination by other Dr’s from varying fields of Medicine. But that’s not possible if only one voice is heard.
Law firms put together an oppossing team to have their lawyers defend the legal strategy being implemented.
It is impossible to have preference, if you have never been exposed to other ideas.
And creationism? really??? you don’t believe the “Big Bang”?
Iowan2, you’re missing the point.
Let’s take your differential diagnosis scenario as an example.
A bunch of doctors get together to discuss various way to treat pancreatic cancer. One brings up chemotherapy. Another brings up an expensive experimental drug. Another brings up herbal remedies that may work. One brings up a lobotomy. Now this group gets together again for another differential for lupus treatment. One brings up a combination of drugs and diet. One brings up gene therapy. And one brings up a lobotomy again.
Guess which one will not be included in the differential again.
Why? While all of them ARE doctors. One of them will offer the treatment that obviously has been known to be the wrong one every time. That this individual still firmly believes his method is just as valid as all the others deserves equal consideration would be though of as laughable to the rest.
So upon finding out that he is no longer being consulted he accuses the others of deliberately conspiring to censor his views and deny him his viewpoint and claim some sort of discrimination. His solution for nearly everything is a lobotomy. Nobody is going to ask him for his opinion any more.
He is completely entitled to have that belief and express that idea as a solution. That doesn’t mean that everybody else should consider it because he has that right and it should be respected. A lobotomy as a solution is a very stupid idea for a treatment. So much so that there is no need to include the doctor in further differentials because the others know the idea, no matter how much that doctor strongly believes is right is still very wrong and no longer something worthy of consideration.
Svelaz, debating from extremes is meaningless.
It’s not an extreme. It’s simplifying a point by making the obvious flaw more pronounced.
The problem with your analogy is that the “doctor” now being kicked out is the one that has been RIGHT nearly all the time.
And is being driven out because the other doctors are always wrong.
It is the policies of the left that have failed.
John B. Say. Wrong. Twisting my analogy so that you can rationalize putting the square peg that is your argument into a round hole is a perfect example of what cognitive dissonance is. Thank you for such a wonderful example.
“John B. Say. Wrong. Twisting my analogy so that you can rationalize putting the square peg that is your argument into a round hole is a perfect example of what cognitive dissonance is. Thank you for such a wonderful exam”
Your post is the perfect example of left wing nut idiocy.
Reality is the ultimate test of any analogy.
It is the ultimate test of any factual claim or argument.
When reality conflicts with YOUR analogy – then it is YOUR analogy that is twisted – not reality.
The indisputable fact – one you do not need to be an expert to grasp – but which is easily confirmed by experts and data is that ALL covid public policies FAILED. PERIOD. At best they delayed the inevitable.
Look at China NOW. The most rigorously enforced and strongest covid policies of all – are FAILING catastrophically.
It is obvious to all – including the chinese with rigorous censorship, that all these draconian covid public policies have done is delay the inevitable.
Covid will eventually march through China – as it has the rest of the world. No rational person doubts that. It can not be extinguished in China.
But continued adherance to China’s covid Polices is obviously more dangerous than Covid itself. And the Chinese are fed up.
I do not know what will happen in China.
My bet is on Brutal repression. But radical political change is a possibility. But what is impossible to ignore is that millions of chinese people are pissed enough to publicly protest in a country where protest is forbidden and put down violently.
And those millions of people protesting are doing so because their leaders LIKE YOU are OBVIOUSLY wrong.
There is absolutely cognative dissonance here – YOURS.
“ Reality is the ultimate test of any analogy.”
John, the analogy was based on a hypothetical I posed. There was no reality involved here. You just decided to twist it into a nonsensical iteration of your flawed opinion.
Then you go off on some random rant about covid and China. You’re losing it man. Get a grip.
“the analogy was based on a hypothetical I posed. There was no reality involved here.”
Then it is meaningless.
I have absolutely no interest in discussions of fantasy worlds with you or anyone else on this blog.
Do you read what you write before you post it ?
Regardless, you clearly live in an alternate reality.
The debate over Covid is long over. The left, the experts, democrats, institutions, and YOU, lost.
Republicans did not defeat you.
I did not defeat you.
Facts obvious to all
reality defeated you.
Once again – as pretty much ALWAYS you are WRONG.
Not because I say so, but because you are completely out of touch with reality.
Further you continue to make the same stupid claims – long after it is no longer possible to beleive them.
Therefore you are either LYING or mentally incompetent.
“ Do you read what you write before you post it ?”
Obviously you don’t read what you post. YOU turned this into a nonsense rant about covid over an analogy of a hypothetical I posed on an entirely different subject.
Ranting and whining about me being wrong after even you agreed on the points I’ve been making about the youth vote and 18 year olds.
You must be frothing at the mouth trying to make one issue out of another. Are you ok? You’re making allegations that have nothing to do with what I have been posting. Obviously you are not paying attention or are just randomly ranting just to deflect.
Again – not interested in hypotheticals about Fantasy worlds.
I think you are deflecting – but I do not care.
You claim you raised a hypothetical that has no application to the real world.
That is your position.
There is no debate to the validity of a pure hypothetical. In a fantasy world you can consturct the rules and parameters however you please.
In a world with negative gravity everything falls up.
Outside the real world nothing is falsifiable, therefor there is no truth.
I have no idea what you think we agreed on.
Regardless we did not agree on anything relevant.
We often agree on many irrelevant things.
I think we both agree the sun will rise tomorow.
There is no objectively correct way to vote.
But there are ways that result in better or worse government.
Mailin voting results in worse government, it decreases the quality of the voters.
Discouraging poor quality voters is voter supression – it is also constitutional, and positive – just like fire suppression is good.
Deliberately discouraging black voters is voter supression and is unconstitutional – and the evidence indicates that has not happened in decades.
Merely using a term that you think has negative conotations – does not make the action you are slandering bad.
As noted – fire supression is good. Bad voter supression is good. Fraud supression is good.
That said – changing the rules for voting to acheive a specific political objective – is itself a form of fraud.
Svelaz, your analogy was an exercise in stupidity and you were too ignorant to derive what happens in real life.
Let’s take a comparison of two newspapers, The Washington Post and the Epoch Times instead of the fictitious doctors.
Steele Dossier:
WP Wrong
ET Correct
Hunter’s laptop:
WP Wrong
ET Correct
Russia Hoax:
WP Wrong
ET Correct.
By your logic, that is surprisingly correct, you would throw away the Washington Post and subscribe to the Epoch Times because the Epoch Times has been correct about most things including the Covid virus, the economy, Hong Kong, China, etc. Where you fail is that you are not consistent, and don’t follow your logic when it leads in the right direction.
S. Meyer. Your logic is amazingly stupid. Did you come up with that all by yourself or did you have help?
Just because you are unaware of the facts and too ignorant to understand things, doesn’t present a problem for anyone else’s logic.
Ignorance is your downfall.
Please tell us which conservative legal ideas are outdated.
Face it, modern liberal legal theory’s reason for being is to cover-up for the failings of progressive political theories that preceded them.
Neil, I’ll be checking back for a response. But nothing after 3 hours…hmm
Are there any real Republican leaders out there? I’m not aware of any.
Republicans like Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan largely subscribed to the American “constitutional democratic republic” model of government.
Many Trump supporters don’t subscribe to that American model of limited constitutional government. If we could find some Republicans they should be hired by colleges to promote Lincoln’s model of government.
Not true. A lot of Trump supporters were Tea Partiers, and Tea Partiers were driven out because they wanted lower taxes and less government. They had to be stopped..just like Trump.
Professor Turley is pointing out one of the most pressing challenges in America today: to make our faculties everywhere in the country look more politically like our country as a whole. This blatant bias virtually seeps into most everything that is taught in our colleges & universities today.
-Tax all non-profits anyone gets $100k+ including colleges, hospitals, and other non-profits
-Ban fed aid/loans cities & college
Many years ago I argued a case before the Texas Supreme Court which involved an attack on Texas’ lead consumer protection statute. At the time, the statute was considered one of the strongest consumer laws in the nation– mandatory treble damages and features like that. The Court’s majority opinion, upholding the “liberal” interpretation of the statute and rejecting the business community’s attack was authored by the Chief Justice of the Court. It was a resounding victory for consumer rights. Only later did I learn that the Chief Justice’s personal political philosophy was among the most conservative in a very conservative state. Back then, judges were looked down on if they allowed their politics to infect their decisions. As a result, the Chief Justice based his opinion on legislative intent, not how he wanted the law to be. How things have changed! The legal profession suffered immensely when it allowed the line between politics and judicial decisions to be erased. Sadly, law school professors have led the way.
As a result, the Chief Justice based his opinion on legislative intent, not how he wanted the law to be.
I think it was Scalia that offered, ‘if you don’t write opinions you personally disagree with, you’re doing it wrong.’
“Senior editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” based on the fact that liberal views reflect real law as opposed to junk law.”
“junk law” I guess he means the US Constitution which allows him to freely speak his liberal junk views? I think there’s a place for him and his “real law” in China?
“I frankly do not understand why professors want to maintain this one-sided environment in hiring.”
Because their own ideas would be mocked as ridiculous. They censor, they ban, they took over HR, and they control over media simply because their ideas are anathema to people who believe in a just world with free individuals. They are central authoritarian thugs with terrible ideas that must obfuscate reality in order to gain power.
They talk like they’ll help people, but when you look at the pudding for the proof, all you’re left with is Detroit, Baltimore, Philly, etc. Not one place in the US has gotten better when those idiots take over.
The fact that about half the departments have at least one dissenting opinion is heartening, frankly.
The long march through the institution’s continues.
Republicans get real jobs
So true, Dennis. As a libertarian professor I got a “real” job for a few years at a time when my students’ starting job offers were double my instructor/professor salary.
and democrats shower trillions on their loyal henchmen. Time to END all federal money to colleges.
Time to END all federal money to colleges.
Still looking for the enumerated power giving the federal govt the ability to spend a penny on education.
Teaching is a real job, and, a vital one. Inculcating the values, ideals, and knowledge to ground and illuminate people is crucial to the long term success of a culture. Only the very best, brightest and wisest should be teachers. A lost opportunity for Republicans.
James 3:1 “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”
You ought to look up the definition if “inclucate,” Rose. That is exactly the problem
Prairie Rose,
Good point.
Perhaps where meritocracy has lost the most is in the teaching profession?
It may not be the dumbing down of American’s but the lower standard bar that teachers are held to?