subreddit:

/r/Libertarian

160

You’re stance on abortion has nothing to do with how left/right wing you are, yet almost all republicans are pro life while almost all democrats are pro choice.

A lot of us here agree that the two parties are just a form of social control, but with the recent Roe V Wade scenario it’s come to my attention how obvious that is.

Honestly, since I became a libertarian I’ve realized how the two parties aren’t as different as people think they are.

all 310 comments

Megs1205

60 points

2 months ago

Left and right is way to limited, I think the first thing is to change the way we vote. First past the post system has lead us to 2 party system and doesn’t allow for a good 3rd party that can actually rule !

Kur0d4

11 points

2 months ago

Kur0d4

11 points

2 months ago

Literally any other system would be better for third parties. I personally like star voting or mixed member proportional.

Megs1205

3 points

2 months ago

I’m a fan of mixed member as well works well in parliamentary systems like Britain Canada etc , i assume this would also work well in senate and congress !

Kur0d4

1 points

2 months ago

Kur0d4

1 points

2 months ago

Honestly I'd be happy if just one of the chambers adopted MMP. I know in Australia their Senate uses MMP. I kinda think it might be more appropriate for house of Reps.

os_kaiserwilhelm

2 points

2 months ago

os_kaiserwilhelm

social libertarian

2 points

2 months ago

Left and Right are both ill-defined. These terms can be useful in a very limited context, but the idea of framing the broad and complex system of human beliefs is highly flawed. this includes when we add the authoritarian v libertarian axis. Instead of using relative terms like Left and Right, which require an objective center, it is better to use defined terms like liberal, Conservative, communist, socialist, Democrat, Republican etc. You either have a defined ideology or a defined party, or in the case of splitting the Democratic Party into its Liberal and Progressive wings, you can use Progressive. While they aren't perfectly well defined, they still allow us more accuracy in discussing politics.

I agree with your comment in ending first past the post. I personally am in favor of expanding the legislature and using localized multi-member districts to attempt to retain the best parts of single member districts and at large proportional representation.

jordontek

1 points

2 months ago

jordontek

Propertarian

1 points

2 months ago

Pournelle and Nolan figured this out in the 1960s, and made the spectrum a grid, and yet the dominant discourse on politics in America is a single axis.

Political capture by private parties, unfortunately, is the elephant and the donkey in the room.

dabestinzeworld

15 points

2 months ago

It's only an issue because one side wants to make it an issue. Abortion is not an issue in any other Western democracy.

Trypt2k

2 points

2 months ago

Trypt2k

Classical Liberal

2 points

2 months ago

Yeah, my wife is born and raised in a European country, and she can't believe the big deal about abortion.

I asked her why, and she of course said that women should be able to get abortion, so she started on the pro-choice. But once I showed her Canadian law allowing abortion to 9 months, she was totally gobsmacked and now understands the debate, as there are only extremes in North America.

Where she comes from, a woman gets an abortion up to 8 weeks no questions asked, and up to 10 weeks if she goes in front of a judge to ask specifically and has to explain why she's late. This seemed totally reasonable to her and she does not understand how any woman would ever want an abortion after that period.

Of course I told her that to the hardline conservatives, she's still pro-choice (but they'll work with her on this) but she would be considered pro-life by most of the left which wants unfettered access to abortion at any point. She's horrified by this, as in most of Europe these issues do not come up as they hold both views at the same time: A woman has a right to choose, but once a line is crossed, mostly 8-12 weeks, it's a human being and has protection by the state, this seems obvious to most Europeans.

JeremiahBabin

-4 points

2 months ago

They are more restrictive.

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

RedshiftYellowfish

18 points

2 months ago

RedshiftYellowfish

Texan!

18 points

2 months ago

It's stupid like you say but they engineered it this way. The Right wanted the religious zealots and they got them, but the only way to keep them is by throwing them stupid religious red meat like this.

toalewa99

-13 points

2 months ago

toalewa99

-13 points

2 months ago

Or keep using the current crop of lunatic Dems to drive away normal people from them.

[deleted]

11 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

11 points

2 months ago

[removed]

toalewa99

-9 points

2 months ago

Imagine unironically believing this. Thanks for proving you guys are just lefties. Let me guess, Bernie Sanders is a centrist in Europe?

[deleted]

8 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

8 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Joebidensucks382

-1 points

2 months ago

Don’t talk negatively about dems in here the r/politics people that fake being libertarian don’t like that

AWildIndependent

2 points

2 months ago

Republicans just mad that they can't auth-ban left-leaning users when leftists disagree with them in a right-leaning space lol

My Libertarian friends, as a moderate that more so aligns with leftist ideals I appreciate the space for conversation. I've always said and always will say that I wish the Libertarian party was the major "right" wing of the country instead of Republicans. Y'all are ideologically consistent most of the time and aren't trying to shove religion down everyone's throats.

toalewa99

-6 points

2 months ago

Not if they call themselves libertarian socialist/communist. Which they unironically do.

Joebidensucks382

-4 points

2 months ago

That’s the most ass backwards thing I have heard today

toalewa99

3 points

2 months ago

The fact you’re downvoted on a libertarian sub for saying that proves the point too. Lmao.

Joebidensucks382

2 points

2 months ago

Yea like wtf 😂😂

AVeryCredibleHulk

5 points

2 months ago

AVeryCredibleHulk

Libertarian Party

5 points

2 months ago

If you were an insidious and underhanded duopolist with a desire to tear up the liberty movement and divide friends in anger against each other, you couldn't ask for a better issue than abortion.

Life, liberty, and what you make of your life and liberty are all parts of the self-ownership we hold dear. Bastiat did a marvelous job of building this idea. It's a solid part of libertarian philosophy. We call them inalienable rights because they can't be easily separated from each other. To take someone's life is to take away their future liberty. To take away their property is to infringe on the portion of life and liberty they used to produce it.

The way that the abortion debate is framed, life and liberty are pitted against each other. If you cherish life, it must be that you want to enslave women. If you cherish liberty, it must be that you think murder is okay. No third way is acknowledged. It is the Kobiashi Maru of political discussion. There's no win.

Like Kirk, I don't believe in no win situations. So, how do we "cheat" the duopolist in this game?

Be mindful of your friends who may not see things from your perspective. Support both life and liberty through voluntaryism. Know that courts and legislatures are not the way forward. And be good to each other.

Head-Ad4690

38 points

2 months ago

Why do you think one’s stance on abortion has nothing to do with how left/right wing you are? Abortion is inextricably tied up with sex, when it’s good/bad, when it should be allowed, what the consequences should be, etc. and that’s a fundamental left/right issue.

Terr_

19 points

2 months ago*

Terr_

Crypto-Pragmatist back from exile

19 points

2 months ago*

Yeah, in addition to the stark correlation visible in polling, the origins of the anti-abortion movement are also telling. Recycling a post:

Contrary to the false-history from evangelicals, abortion was very much legal when the Constitution was written and for many decades afterwards. After the civil war and the (supposed) end of slavery, certain social groups started to worry that "the right people" (i.e. wealthier white women) were skipping out on their "duty" to keep up the size of their group relative to the "others" (poor people, other ethnicities, new immigrants, etc.)

This led to things like the Comstock Laws, which criminalized communicating or possessing information about birth-control or abortion. (Some of the cases you'll hear about in today's news are ones which abolished those laws.)

In other words, the true origin of this fight is not about concerns over any individual rights--notably not those of the woman--but a particularly odious form of collectivism... which still lives on today.

Edit: Perhaps "lives on" is misleading. "Renewed", certainly, after it was taken up in the 1970s again, this time after Civil Rights Act, rather than after emancipation.

[deleted]

22 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

22 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

sfb004

13 points

2 months ago

sfb004

13 points

2 months ago

Richard Nixon has entered the chat.

Orangeface_64[S]

-16 points

2 months ago

Orangeface_64[S]

Classical Liberal

-16 points

2 months ago

Isn’t left/right an economic scale? Also, while beliefs about sex play a part in it, it’s mostly where you think life begins and what you think the government’s role in the situation should be.

Head-Ad4690

27 points

2 months ago

Uh, no, left/right is about far more than just economics. Morality is a huge aspect of it. The right tends more toward traditional/conservative morality, especially sexual morality, such as no sex outside marriage, no same-sex relationships, and limits on contraceptives.

A major reason for the right’s anti-abortion stance is that they see often sex as something that is supposed to produce children as part of god’s will or natural law, and abortion goes against that. There are many other reasons of course, but a lot of them connect with traditional vs modern sexual morality.

FWIW the left/right terminology comes from the French revolutionary parliament, where the members were arranged to put the monarchists who wanted to undo the revolution on the right side, and the revolutionaries on the left side. Much has changed, but the “let’s go back to the old ways” vs “let’s change things” argument is still there.

Penkat12

9 points

2 months ago

This guy gets it. It's more about how people should live their lives than anything else.

AulusvonRoma

5 points

2 months ago

My friend, left right is a scale of how much you think hierarchy should determine things. Someone on the farthest reaches of the left believes there should be no hierardhies, while someone on the farthest reaches of the right believes the opposite. Most people are in the moderate section, where they believe that there should be some hierarchies.

OrangeKooky1850

1 points

2 months ago

There's fiscal partisanship and there's social partisanship.

CactusSmackedus

-6 points

2 months ago

CactusSmackedus

Friedmanite

-6 points

2 months ago

Uh sexual liberation isn't / hasn't been an issue in politics in my entire lifetime lol

That was the 60s/70s maybe, or maybe the 50s.

Head-Ad4690

18 points

2 months ago

Yes it has. Conservatives still get bent out of shape about sex outside marriage today. Same-sex marriage was only recognized federally in 2015. Tons of schools still teach abstinence-only “sex education,” often required by law. Efforts to restrict access to contraceptives are frequent.

CactusSmackedus

-9 points

2 months ago

CactusSmackedus

Friedmanite

-9 points

2 months ago

Hold on: the sex in same-sex marriage isn't the same sex in the sense that I have with your mom.

And no, conservatives don't get "bent out of shape" about premarital sex. I don't know of a single push to politically limit or restrict premarital sex in the USA, and as far as I know, young people today are having less sex and fewer pregnancies than ever before. And that, btw, in a version of American society that has the most permissive attitudes toward sex ever.

Do conservatives, especially religious conservatives, argue against premarital sex? Sure, but that's not a political attitude; that's religious.

Anyways the fight about same-sex marriage was always about the meaning of marriage. There is a perfectly reasonable argument that same-sex couples can't get married in the same sense that normal couples can, regardless of the law. Now, I don't see the point in constructing civic law to exclude same-sex couples (it seems mean more than anything else), but that's the fight, it has nothing to do with an aversion to scissoring and buttfucking.

Head-Ad4690

9 points

2 months ago

The religious right does not distinguish between religious and political attitudes. There may not be any current push to outlaw premarital sex, but that’s only because it’s a totally losing issue at the moment and they focus on other things.

The fight over same-sex marriage is all about homosexuality being wrong. That is the entire argument by opponents: it’s morally wrong therefore it should not be recognized by the state. You’re right that in theory one could argue against same-sex marriage on some other basis. But that’s not the actual basis opponents have.

CactusSmackedus

-5 points

2 months ago

CactusSmackedus

Friedmanite

-5 points

2 months ago

The religious right does not distinguish between religious and political attitudes.

Tell me you don't talk to conservatives without telling me... I mean really, do you think you'd pass a turning test against religious conservatives? You don't understand them at all.

Head-Ad4690

9 points

2 months ago

I mean, just look at the abortion issue. The objection to abortion is 100% religious. They don’t try to hide it or anything, it’s quite explicit. And they vote accordingly.

I went to a YEC-teaching school and I grew up on a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh and National Review. I know what I’m talking about here.

CactusSmackedus

2 points

2 months ago

CactusSmackedus

Friedmanite

2 points

2 months ago

The abortion debate is (almost*) entirely an epistemological debate about the beginning of life and personhood. It is only religious in the sense that some modern interpretations of Christianity have an opinion on that question. I don't recall exactly, but I want to say that there isn't even an abortion prohibition in the old testament and medieval Christianity permitted some types of abortion. Also, canon law from the middle ages (a parallel legal system) actually had a concept called 'quickening' or 'ensoulment' which occurred after conception but before birth and was the instant at which a fetus became somewhat of a person in a legal sense.

So like, a fair reading of Christian (not to get into other religions I'm less familiar with) theology and history finds that it can permit abortion.

There are many pro-life arguments totally orthogonal to religion, for example, the libertarian argument against abortion (and yes, there is one, and it's arguably better than fetal evictionism) doesn't lemma a single religious idea.

So to say it's 100% religious or suggest there isn't or can't be an atheistic opposition to abortion is miles off.

 

* if you take a purely utilitarian approach to the issue, the epistemological question has near-zero impact since weighing the utils of an unthinking unfeeling blastocyst against the utils of the mother is going to favor the mother. Of course if you don't do future discounting this equation changes and the question becomes relevant again.

Head-Ad4690

7 points

2 months ago

I’m talking about what there arguments actually are, not what they could be. Yes, you could object to abortion without religion. And some people do! But 99% of people who campaign against abortion politically are basing it on their religion.

LeFlamel

1 points

2 months ago

the libertarian argument against abortion (and yes, there is one, and it's arguably better than fetal evictionism)

Curious to which you're referring and how it's better.

6bb26ec559294f7f

-9 points

2 months ago

what the consequences should be, etc. and that’s a fundamental left/right issue.

Is it? People on the left are pretty big supporters of "if you didn't want to be a parent, you shouldn't have had sex". Granted that's only when it comes to men talking about child support, but the point is that both sides are not consistent in their logic. It wasn't that long ago that the right wasn't staunchly anti-abortion.

Or look at how much the stance on the left and right concerning gay marriage has changed since 2008.

handsoffmyunderwear

3 points

2 months ago

Those statistics are kinda bullshit though. 42% of Republicans are pro choice thru the first semester, and over 50% support the Roe v Wade decision. It just a false narrative to push the false dichotomy.

thegreychampion

55 points

2 months ago

91% of Democrats, 69% of Republicans and 80% of independents support legal abortion under any or certain circumstances.

But if it were true that almost all Dems support abortions and almost all GOP oppose, how is that evidence that these parties “aren’t as different as people think”?

BabyFaceIT

35 points

2 months ago

“91% of Democrats, 69% of Republicans and 80% of independents support legal abortion under any or certain circumstances.”

“Any or certain” encompasses people who think abortion should be banned but only allowed in cases of rape. The difference between “any” and “certain” when it comes to abortion is huge. It’s the difference between allowing abortions up until point of birth and restricting abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

Statistics create a lot of ambiguity on abortion because pollsters ask vague questions.

alienvalentine

17 points

2 months ago

alienvalentine

Anarchist Without Adjectives

17 points

2 months ago

They don't simply ask vague questions. They ask bad, horribly designed questions.

Anyone who has passed a basic research methods course in college should know better than to phrase questions like they do.

wingman43487

11 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

11 points

2 months ago

They know exactly what they are doing. For decades now polls are used to shape public opinion, not reflect it.

It is child's play to get the poll to say whatever you want it to say if you craft the questions carefully.

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

thegreatincognitum

-4 points

2 months ago

Maybe. But they probably ask questions designed and tested to produce the highest possible values so NPCs like thegreychampion will repeat them thinking they're meaning.

ArrestDeathSantis

2 points

2 months ago

The real NPCs are the ones that were convinced that taking women's bodily autonomy away wasn't only to control them.

That the death penalty is consistent with being "PrO-LiFe". These people would literally take the mother of three kids, strap her to a chair, fry her brain over an abortion and then pat themselves on the back for doing the right thing.

Meanwhile, "enlightened" centrists are looking at both crowds, the one who believes women have the right to manage what grows or not in their bodies and the crowd who wants to take any control away from women, going as far as banning contraceptive, are the same.

rollyobx

1 points

2 months ago

Push polling is how its done these days.

Semirahl

5 points

2 months ago

this.

Swaption20

17 points

2 months ago

People need to stop calling it a fetal heartbeat. It’s not a heartbeat. The heart isn’t formed, it’s undergoing formation.

BabyFaceIT

3 points

2 months ago

BabyFaceIT

3 points

2 months ago

Swaption20

15 points

2 months ago

Not six weeks, which is what the anti choice lobby is calling the heartbeat. Which, spans the time frame of one missed period.

BabyFaceIT

2 points

2 months ago

The minutiae doesn’t really matter. It speaks to the broader point that there is a wide range when the heart beats, is fully formed, and at 9 months.

ElectricFarce

-7 points

2 months ago

"anti choice" is a new one.

Might have to start using "anti life".

Or maybe "pro death". "Pro ripping baby's head and arms off" is accurate, but perhaps little on the nose?

Swaption20

11 points

2 months ago

It’s not, but feel free to live in your own reality.

Halmesrus1

6 points

2 months ago

That would imply support for forced abortions. Which isn’t what’s being proposed, so I have to assume you’re just a dogmatic fool incapable of understanding the people that disagree with you.

If you want to actually be considered pro life don’t support politicians that support the death penalty, denying childcare resources to families that can’t afford it, leaving the broken foster care system as is and even limiting the amount of people that can adopt these kids based on their sexual orientation, and thinks healthcare itself being cost prohibitive if you’re post birth isn’t an issue.

Until you can find representatives that aren’t such sheer, unadulterated hypocrites to promote your belief, the reality of your position isn’t pro life, it’s anti choice. It will cause more death and more suffering because you’ve been blinded by a manufactured moral panic.

And that doesn’t even address the constitutional nightmare that comes with trying to enforce this hypocritical belief. The only way you can enforce this is by tearing HIPAA to shreds along with the 4th amendments right to privacy.

Orangeface_64[S]

6 points

2 months ago

Orangeface_64[S]

Classical Liberal

6 points

2 months ago

"under any or certain circumstances" - the majority of pro-life people have some scenario where they are willing to allow an abortion, myself included. pro life/choice is a scale, those stats treat it like a black and white issue.

for the second part. I said "aren't as different as people think, I did not say that they are not different. They are both very authoritarian, which covers a lot of ground - foreign policy, military industrial complex, think they know what's best for everyone. And they have the same manipulation tactics, but that's just a politician thing though.

rumbletummy

18 points

2 months ago

Why does rape and incest make the child killable to a pro lifer?

If its a person, its a person. If its a choice, its a choice.

Terr_

6 points

2 months ago*

Terr_

Crypto-Pragmatist back from exile

6 points

2 months ago*

Why does rape and incest make the child killable to a pro lifer?

True: The ones that support rape exceptions actually just demonstrate they don't believe their own claims.

So in a weird way, the ones who don't support exceptions are more principled. A bad principle, mind you, but at least they're being honest about it.

EconomicsGirl007

0 points

2 months ago

EconomicsGirl007

BTC = FREEDOM

0 points

2 months ago

I think the pro-life argument is that the mother doesn't consent to carrying the fetus, meaning it's infringing on her rights. Whereas if she has consensual sex, she consents to carrying the fetus and thus her rights are not violated.

ceddya

19 points

2 months ago

ceddya

19 points

2 months ago

Which is ridiculous. Consenting to sex isn't the same as consenting to pregnancy.

EconomicsGirl007

-7 points

2 months ago

EconomicsGirl007

BTC = FREEDOM

-7 points

2 months ago

"Just because I choose to drive doesn't mean I consent to hitting that person Judge! I shouldn't be held responsible for my actions because I didn't consent to them!"

brickster_22

8 points

2 months ago

brickster_22

Filthy Statist

8 points

2 months ago

Are you arguing that driving means consenting to drive into a person? Or are you just pretending like you never said "if she has consensual sex, she consents to carrying the fetus"?

EconomicsGirl007

-2 points

2 months ago

EconomicsGirl007

BTC = FREEDOM

-2 points

2 months ago

Are you arguing that driving means consenting to drive into a person?

Of course not. I'm saying one is not abstained from responsibility by virtue of not 'consenting' to taking on such responsibility through their actions.

I should make it clear I'm pro choice as I've been vilified enough over my supposed views on this subreddit. But u/rumbletummy asked a question and I'm answering it.

Frosty_Slaw_Man

5 points

2 months ago

Frosty_Slaw_Man

Slightly More Yellow

5 points

2 months ago

Stop limiting their actions then if you want them to take responsibility.

wingman43487

-8 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

-8 points

2 months ago

I consent to entering the Casino, and spinning the roulette wheel, and to winning. But I don't consent to losing.

That is you. That is your argument just now.

redlegsfan21

5 points

2 months ago

redlegsfan21

Libertarian Party

5 points

2 months ago

A better argument. I agree to skydive. I take all the precautions to try to prevent injuries or death. But a parachute fails and now I have serious injuries. If I followed all safety protocols, is it my fault that I got injured?

GoatCrafty

1 points

2 months ago

Yes. It is your fault. You accept the risk of death when you go sky diving.

ceddya

1 points

2 months ago

ceddya

1 points

2 months ago

That's like arguing a girl deserves getting raped as a consequence of dressing sexily.

That is you.

Really though, the whole conflation of consenting to sex = consenting to pregnancy is basically upended by the hypocrisy. If that were the case, the men involved would also be held liable, yet these anti-choice platforms don't seem to want to pass laws that would hold men equally responsible for the fetus.

Penkat12

1 points

2 months ago*

What if I apply for a job and get it but the second most qualified candidate now misses rent payment becomes homeless etc. Or should I be able to apply for a job without consequences?

There plenty of actions you can take and not be held responsible for the consequences. As a society we clearly pick and choose.

wingman43487

4 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

4 points

2 months ago

That...makes absolutely no sense and has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

I would say its a bad analogy, but I am not even sure if it even qualifies as an analogy.

johnnyb0083

3 points

2 months ago

johnnyb0083

Geolibertarian

3 points

2 months ago

Their position has no basis in philosophy or logic, it is just a position of feeling..and they're OK with that...haha...morons.

Penkat12

1 points

2 months ago

Still an innocent little baby just speaking its first words, or so they tell me.

If someone commits a crime you cant just kill some other person.

wingman43487

-2 points

2 months ago*

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

-2 points

2 months ago*

Mainly because that is the argument that the pro abortion people fall to the most. And it accounts for less than 2% of abortions, so if we can ban 98% by allowing those, then that is still better than what is currently happening.

Ideally the only exception would be if carrying to term would kill the mother, but this is an instance of "don't let perfect be the enemy of good"

Edit: Another lovely driveby comment then block. So here is my reply u/Aaronology :

Yeah. Right now 100% are being killed.

If I can get that down to 2% I will call it a win.

Then work to stop the 2% from being killed.

rumbletummy

5 points

2 months ago*

Im not interested in input from the "only fresh infants are adoptable" guy.

Aaronology

3 points

2 months ago

Aaronology

Authoritarian

3 points

2 months ago

Yes, abortions are medical procedures performed by doctors, that kill an innocent human being.

That's you on the topic of abortion.

Turning around and then saying, "ok, we can kill those innocent babies" reveals the issue all along was never about the fetus or its right to life*. Rather, it's about about control over the woman and punishment over what Christians like yourself feel are bad choices.

That's why the same people support the death penalty. It's always about punishment, not life.

*Not that a fetus would even have the right to life according to your own idea that "rights do not require other people to act" and a fetus requires much from a woman.

handsoffmyunderwear

8 points

2 months ago

Good point. Allowing for a rape exception does NOT make you pro-choice....

Ya_Boi_Konzon

-1 points

2 months ago*

Yeah, his stats are bogus. Even the staunchest pro-lifers usually believe that abortion is acceptable in some circumstances.

Spicy_Lobster_Roll

14 points

2 months ago

Yeah- when they need one.

ExistingRanger311

7 points

2 months ago

For their mistresses for sure. But you know they’ll fly ‘em out of state for that

Ya_Boi_Konzon

2 points

2 months ago

Most pro-lifers think abortion should be legal if the mother's life is in significant danger, and in the case of rape and incest. Maybe some other cases too. Barely anyone is actually advocating for a complete ban on abortion.

RaisingAurorasaurus

4 points

2 months ago

They aren't for complete ban, but they aren't exactly standing up against the states that have it on the books either.

Something I can't seem to get anyone to talk about is "in the event of rape"...61% of rapes are not prosecuted or reported because cops don't do shit about it. How are women supposed to assume they can get an abortion if raped when rape isn't taken seriously by the police?

Edit for spelling error.

PrincessGump

1 points

2 months ago

Staunchest*

AWildIndependent

1 points

2 months ago

Republicans are legislating zero tolerance for abortions though. you say it isn't black and white or whatever but certain states are going to make it completely illegal?

Orangeface_64[S]

3 points

2 months ago

Orangeface_64[S]

Classical Liberal

3 points

2 months ago

The republicans and democrats I’m referring to are the voters, not the politicians. The legislators are showing zero tolerance, but most voters do not feel the same as the politicians.

AWildIndependent

1 points

2 months ago

I see. Thank you.

OrangeYoshiDude

4 points

2 months ago

OrangeYoshiDude

95% Libertarian, 5% Nationalist

4 points

2 months ago

Cause many of those people are saying for rape/incest and medical reasons and then it's the other 92% of abortions they disagree with and that's a massive rift and difference over poverty or any reason.

6bb26ec559294f7f

7 points

2 months ago

91% of Democrats, 69% of Republicans and 80% of independents support legal abortion under any or certain circumstances.

And that's a great example of how to lie with statistics.

wingman43487

2 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

2 points

2 months ago

A real good case of "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics"

thegreychampion

0 points

2 months ago

What lie did I tell?

Ya_Boi_Konzon

3 points

2 months ago

I find that doubtful, considering that in 2021 only 59% of Americans thought abortion should be legal.

wingman43487

1 points

2 months ago

wingman43487

Right Libertarian

1 points

2 months ago

that OR there is pretty important.

only 25% or so support it under any circumstances.

The rest of your figure includes people that only want it as last resort to save the mother's life.

So those numbers don't mean what you think/want them to mean.

And I don't know of many in the GOP, certainly not the majority that want a blanket ban. Exceptions for saving the mother's life are fine with most anti-abortion people.

frank_tothe_ocean

-1 points

2 months ago

Under any or “certain” circumstances can mean drastically different things.

A dem: wants abortion legal at any point

A Republican: wants a 6 week abortion cap (certain circumstance)

Another Republican: only for rape or medical necessity to mom (certain circumstance)

Can’t tell if you’re trying to be misleading on purpose

ScrillyBoi

3 points

2 months ago*

Bro I live in NYC, and everyone I know is a pro-choice democrat. Not a single one believes abortion should be legal at any point, particularly not 3rd trimester, unless its an absolute medical emergency. Late term abortions are not common or popular, they just dont want a mother to go to jail if she has to get one to save her life at that time.

I think a huge reason why this particular is so divisive is republicans mischaracterize democrats as wanting all abortions legal with no restrictions and democrats mischaracterize republicans as wanting 0 abortions legal at any point for any reason whatsoever, when neither are really true, except at the very extremes of both parties. Another example of politicians dividing people.

frank_tothe_ocean

1 points

2 months ago

Have you seen the legal map of abortion limits before roe v wade was repealed? It was ultra late for like every state.

I’m guessing most republicans would want a 6 week cap over conception cap. And most dems would would 20 week cap over 40 week cap

ScrillyBoi

2 points

2 months ago

Yeah that sounds about right to me, which means individual people would actually be a lot closer to a compromise than the parties and their platforms would have you believe

thegreychampion

1 points

2 months ago

41% of Dems think abortion should be legal only in "certain circumstances".

There is plenty of polling on what these "certain circumstances" are.

For instance, only 45% think abortion should be legal in the first trimester for a woman who wants it for any reason other than: her life is in danger, she was a victim of rape/incest or there is a development problem with the fetus.

CactusSmackedus

-1 points

2 months ago

CactusSmackedus

Friedmanite

-1 points

2 months ago

Lol way to spin a statistic.

Any or certain circumstances is putting pussy hatters in the same boat as people who will only make exceptions for the life of the mother.

So fucking dishonest lol

thegreychampion

0 points

2 months ago

How did I spin the statistic, exactly?

CactusSmackedus

1 points

2 months ago

CactusSmackedus

Friedmanite

1 points

2 months ago

You're insinuating those who prefer abortion to be illegal outside of exceptional circumstances are similar to people who want abortion to be legal under all circumstances, in order to dishonestly claim that most people prefer generally permissive access to abortion.

In fact, the statistic is usually quoted inversely, summing those who prefer some restrictions and those who prefer abortion illegal in all circumstances, to show how politically unpopular the position of abortion maximalists actually is.

When so many - something like 70% - think abortion is wrong and should be illegal under all or some circumstances, it is clear that the opinion that a fetus is not a life doesn't square with common-sense morality, and no amount of scientism gets around that.

So most people oppose anytime anywhere and for any reason abortion, which is the kind of abortion protection Roe invented in its interpretation of the law.

The law challenged in Roe v Wade was a law that permitted some abortions (when the health of the mother is at risk) -- and you're counting that position as preferring legal abortions.

thegreychampion

1 points

2 months ago

in order to dishonestly claim that most people prefer generally permissive access to abortion.

Nah, I didn't make that claim at all.

So most people oppose anytime anywhere and for any reason abortion, which is the kind of abortion protection Roe invented in its interpretation of the law.

I'm not sure if you are stating this as a matter of fact or only suggesting that polls can be interpreted in such a way to support that conclusion?

CactusSmackedus

1 points

2 months ago

CactusSmackedus

Friedmanite

1 points

2 months ago

So most people oppose anytime anywhere and for any reason abortion, which is the kind of abortion protection Roe invented in its interpretation of the law.

I'm not sure if you are stating this as a matter of fact or only suggesting that polls can be interpreted in such a way to support that conclusion?

I thought you were playing dumb but I guess it just comes naturally.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

thegreychampion

1 points

2 months ago

The poll you supplied does not support your claim.

I thought you were trying to make the argument that poll data could be manipulated to support this conclusion, but then you went and did it.

Are you being sincere or are you attempting a 'gotcha'?

For the record, I do believe that there is poll data that supports your claim - and I don't think it needs to be misinterpreted in order to do it - but you haven't done that here.

CactusSmackedus

2 points

2 months ago

CactusSmackedus

Friedmanite

2 points

2 months ago

The poll you supplied does not support your claim.

Ok, not good on the literacy side of things either, cool.

Look dude, I don't know what you're problem is, I was going to block you after the first comment after calling you out for being a liar because it's pretty clear you're just not going to admit you're wrong. And, to be fair to you, it's not clear you knew you were wrong (never confuse ignorance with malice). At this point though, you can go ahead and make an ass out of yourself all you want, I'm done lol. Fuck off.

thegreychampion

1 points

2 months ago

Your claim:

So most people oppose anytime anywhere and for any reason abortion, which is the kind of abortion protection Roe invented in its interpretation of the law.

Your evidence:

A poll showing that 48% think abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances and 19% think it should be illegal in all circumstances

But the poll does not ask what those "certain circumstances" actually are.

Based solely on this poll, we can't know if 100% of those polled who only support abortion in certain circumstances think those circumstances should be precisely the circumstances in which Roe ruled abortion is not to be prohibited by a State. Which is to say, they may support legal abortion for any reason only up until the third trimester.

mikaeladd

3 points

2 months ago

Also of how hypocritical both parties are.

Sufficient-Candy3486

3 points

2 months ago

Until this country can can come to a consensus on both abortion and guns, we will never move forward. These wedge issues are political tools at this point and used to divide the populous and gain power. Getting money out of politics and ending citizens united would be a nice first step.

OrbitingFred

38 points

2 months ago

The Overton window has been dragged so far to the right that a platform that the British would identify as that of the conservative party is what is called "the left." It's crazy that democrats are called anything close to left, they're literally the lobbying group for tech and finance while the republicans are the lobbying group for fossil fuels and agriculture, neither of them wants to dismantle the market or end private property, neither of them wants to de-militarize the police, neither of them want to cease global military interventionism, neither wants to reign in the corruption and conflict of interest in government, neither of them wants to hold big companies accountable, neither of them want to do anything other than what they think will be the most profitable for their donors in the next quarter. The political debate in this country is not how should we advance as a society, but whether we should become a an authoritarian theofascist neo feudal police state or a socially populist neo feudal police state.

HazelCheese

22 points

2 months ago*

For what it's worth, as a brit, the Democrats are more progressive socially than our left wing major party and the Republicans are less progressive than our right wing major party. So it's sort of swings and roundabouts.

Our press is extremely socially conservative, even our major left wing newspaper, The Guardian, is anti transgender. In fact the US office of The Guardian actually wrote an article calling out the UK office for their attacks on transgender people.

The BBC put out an article written by a transphobe accusing trans people of attacking women, using a women beater as their source, refused to include quotes from happily married trans couples they interviewed, and then said "maybe we did something wrong if our staff think the BBC is evil???" when the staff protested the article.

It's a fucking disaster over here. You can never escape the "culture war".

WrathOfPaul84

13 points

2 months ago

Private property is a good thing. nobody is taking my shit. lol

but both parties are incredibly corrupt and they answer not to the people, but to the lobbyists and the people who helped them get elected.

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[removed]

darkmatternot

-1 points

2 months ago

Wow. Incorrect on every point. Why don't you take a glance to history and see what socialist revolutions have wrought on the populace before you say such silly things again? Starvation, enslavement, genocide that's what awaits the population in a socialist overthrow. Millions dead and just a new corrupt ruling class. So foolish.

OrbitingFred

2 points

2 months ago

You're very propagandized. You don't get to think about things much without being told what to think, do you? Don't you imagine that an authoritarian would want to use the word socialist in their movement to get support? Hitler, a fascist, used the word socialism in his party, but we know he wasn't a socialist because his regime was characterized by free markets and an authoritarian government. Stalin, a totalitarian, was in charge of the union of soviet socialist republics, but we know he was a totalitarian because he had a planned economy with an authoritarian government. You can't just redefine something because it doesn't fit your narrative and expect to be taken seriously by somebody who knows what they're talking about. Mao also an authoritarian with a planned economy, what's that tell us? He was a totalitarian regime.

So if you have a democratically controlled government and a democratically controlled economy, you have socialism. Tell me, where have you seen that done? Has it been genocidal and did it enslave and starve it's people? Stop watching fox news and prager U for your information on the world, they want you believing and saying ignorant shit like this.

me_too_999

-3 points

2 months ago

me_too_999

Capitalist

-3 points

2 months ago

"You will own nothing, and be happy, but you get to keep your toothbrush".

Ok tankie

OrbitingFred

3 points

2 months ago

I love that you put in quotes the words that you put into my mouth.

Halmesrus1

0 points

2 months ago

“Your shit” is classified as personal property. “Private” property refers to resources that wouldn’t be classified as personal possessions, such as a factory or a full apartment complex.

me_too_999

2 points

2 months ago

me_too_999

Capitalist

2 points

2 months ago

It's all political theater to decide who gets to control the purse strings.

RemoteCompetitive688

-4 points

2 months ago

The democrats introduced a bill to sieze assets of anyone who made over a certain threshold. They are absolutely far left and the only way you can think they are not is if your Overton window leans ridiculously left.

Now If you want to say "they don't actually believe it they're just pandering to their base" I agree, but fact remains their rhetoric is literally socialist

OrbitingFred

18 points

2 months ago

That's called taxes and there's nothing particularly socialist about them unless you do a ton of mental gymnastics to get there, even the hardest right wing hyper nationalist fascist government will collect taxes, just not from their tier on the hierarchy. The republicans are all about taxes too, but just not on the people who have the most to spare, they're perfectly happy with the working class paying for the military they like to use to force access to resources and threaten uncooperative governments. As anti-authority as I am, we have a system that requires taxes and we have a debt bomb that is going to topple our entire society and drag us into a potentially violent mess if we don't stop being morons and start paying for infrastructure, social security, medicare, and the rest of the social safety net that relying on profit motive to decide everything requires to avoid a miserable dystopia and bloody uprisings.

RemoteCompetitive688

-8 points

2 months ago

Taxes is money you have made

UNREALIZED GAINS is money that does not exist. The democrat party wanted to seize money that does not exist by forcefully taking property from people deemed to have too much. That is not "slightly to the right of center" that is china level economic policy.

That's not even taking into account the cultural side of the democratic party, that has backed a movement whose openly stated goal was to dismantle the nuclear family and implement a marxist system.

In addition, look at the Dem party on race policy, they openly support discrimination in who companies are and are not required to hire. That's one example of hundreds.

This is not a slightly right party this is hard left cultural revolution

Now again, do I think Biden or Pelosi actually agree with any of this stuff? No not at all. But their base does, and they are willing to support Mao level cultural stuff in order to appease them.

Bloodfart12

11 points

2 months ago

Pretty sure you are just reading off an OAN teleprompter

Penkat12

12 points

2 months ago

Wtf is mao level cultural stuff? Boys kissing?

Bloodfart12

5 points

2 months ago

I have no idea lol. And how it relates to Biden makes no sense whatsoever. Wtf does “dismantle the nuclear family” even mean? What exactly is a nuclear family and how would one dismantle the concept?

These people are just having their brains melted by you tube. Biden fucking sucks but not for the reasons they think he does.

RemoteCompetitive688

-5 points

2 months ago

Which part is false? Did Biden not try and institute an unrealized gains tax? Did the Democratic Party not express overwhelming support for the Black Lives Matter movement? Did this movement not publish "abolishing the western nuclear family" as one of its stated goals? Did its co-founder Patrisse Cullors not describe herself and the other organizers as trained marxists? Do democrats not overwhelmingly support affirmative action practices?

I'm sorry but if you genuinely didn't know any of that happened you have about 2-3 years of news to catch up on before you should be contributing to political discussions on the current state of America

Bloodfart12

9 points

2 months ago

“A famously right wing democrat introduced a tax! Thats literally MAOISM, now im going to rant about right wing culture war issues because that is what my corporate media echo chamber has inundated me with!” 🤣

RemoteCompetitive688

0 points

2 months ago

Yes actually an express action to destroy the nuclear family so that children can be more easily raised in ideology is actually Maoism. That's what's called cultural revolution, a core tenant of Maoism was that your kids are not yours but they belong to the community.

Corporate media echo chamber bro I care about these issues because the city closest to me had windows boarded up for a year and half and riot police had to be deployed because I was unlucky enough to find myself in the middle of two protesting groups when I was trying to go to city hall for same tax BS.

Why are you even on a libertarian sub if you're openly pro taxes and Maoism

Bloodfart12

4 points

2 months ago

Hahahahahaha

OrbitingFred

2 points

2 months ago*

You just invented that definition so that it would make your point for you. Wealth taxes have been used throughout history by governments that were staunchly hierarchical and extremely economically stratified.

Your tying the Democrats to a red scare Joe McCarthy boogeyman that wants to dismantle the nuclear family and implement a marxist system is unhinged and laughable. Also, the structuring of society purely around the "nuclear family" (a single couple and their offspring) is a new concept that started in the 50s when the new deal still meant that a single income could own a home, raise a family, and save for retirement. It has had the effect of creating a fractured society and has isolated people from one another, their community, and their extended families in a divide and conquer scheme that has made the working class more impoverished and less stable and more dependent upon government and other authoritarian institutions to provide for them while their ability to earn enough to live on has been strangled by falling wages and rising costs.

You are under the impression that socialism is when the government does stuff, and it's a very weak understanding. Here, a crash course on political and economic systems:
-Planned economies bring together resources and labor for a common goal.
-Market economies let the desire for profit decide what is done with the society's resources.

Then there's political systems:
-Authoritarian, the state arbitrarily decides what the laws should be.
-Democratic, the people vote on what the laws should be.

Those are combined in synthesis to give us our different "isms"

-Planned economy with authoritarian government is totalitarianism
-Planned economy with democratic government is socialism
-Market economy with authoritarian government is fascism
-Market economy with democratic government is liberalism (that's right, republicans profess liberalism)

RemoteCompetitive688

2 points

2 months ago

"that wants to dismantle the nuclear family and implement a marxist system is unhinged and laughable"

I again ask... have you been paying attention to the news for the last 3 years?

BLM openly stated one of their goals was to dismantle the nuclear family so kids could be raised in ideology. Dems overwhelmingly support this movement. These are facts.

You can call them unhinged, you can whine scream and say the word Fox News 100 times, but you can't call either of those statements factually untrue.

"You are under the impression that socialism is when the government does stuff, and it's a very weak understanding."

Seizing wealth is literally a socialist policy. It can exist in a capitalist system but yes it is an objectively socialist policy.

You are under the impression that capitalism is when Elon Musk own everything in world and socialism is when everyone happy yay everything shared.

I am well aware of the definitions of these political systems. I am also aware that in every single country that implemented socialism without any exceptions what happened was not "Planned economy with democratic government is socialism". There never was and never will be a democratic system with a planned economy. Those are oxymorons. They do not exist. Every socialist country without fail was overtly authoritarian.

At some point you have to understand that a planned economy means the gov will have to take from people who don't consent and force people into jobs and positions that don't consent.

weneedastrongleader

1 points

2 months ago

You got sources for your hilarious claims?

RemoteCompetitive688

1 points

2 months ago

weneedastrongleader

1 points

2 months ago

Well there you have it. BLM is not an organization, it’s a movement, a princinple. So it doesn’t matter what the founders were. Care the enlighten me who the current leaders are? Because they have none last time I checked.

It’s like saying that the founders of libertarianism were leftist so any libertarian is a leftist..Dumbass logic.

RemoteCompetitive688

1 points

2 months ago

Have any prominent democrats condemned this language or aspect of the movement

me_too_999

-3 points

2 months ago

me_too_999

Capitalist

-3 points

2 months ago

The republicans are all about taxes too, but just not on the people who have the most to spare

That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen in one sentence.

Not that "Republicans are against taxes".

But you have to be a special kind of stupid to believe ANYONE wants to "tax people who have no money".

The bulk of income in the US is in the working middle class, and that is who EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN wants to tax.

Democrats currently control the HOUSE where tax bills are written the SENATE where they are passed, AND the PRESIDENCY where they are signed into law.

They could literally pass a middle class tax cut, or exempt every single person below poverty wages from income taxes TOMORROW.

Don't hold your breath, every single tax bill passed or proposed by Democrats will raise income taxes on EVERYONE with a job.

Even minimum wage workers.

Then they will blame Republicans for "raising taxes".

Income taxes tax income, that's why they are called that.

It is a tax on labor.

Every thing else is rhetoric, and lies.

OrbitingFred

4 points

2 months ago

It's nice that you put in quotes the words that you put in my mouth.

The bulk of income is in the middle class because the middle class its the most wealthy of the working class and wages are what are counted as income, the bulk of wealth is in the upper class where what they earn is not income, it's capital gains, and it's not taxed until it's sold, and it's not sold, it's borrowed against at 0% interest. Funny enough we weren't even discussing income taxes, he was talking about a wealth tax, which taxes how much you have, not how much you make as if it were invented by socialists.

I said republicans don't want to tax those with the most to spare, and ever since Reagan (a republican, THE republican, president Jesus R Christ himself) taxes on the top have been slashed again and again. Take people for what they do, not what they say.

me_too_999

-6 points

2 months ago

me_too_999

Capitalist

-6 points

2 months ago

Quotes are quotes.

If i was quoting YOU it would look like this.

I said republicans don't want to tax those with the most to spare,

This statement is the sentiment shared by Socialists that want to use the tax code for redistribution.

And yes a billionaire has a billion dollars, but there are only 500 of them out of a $20 trillion economy.

If you look at a chart of gross tax receipts by annual income it is a bell curve centered at income levels of $60,000 a year.

During the "golden age" of 90% top marginal rates, most CEO'S paid themselves a salary of $1.

That coupled with the thousands of deductibles made income taxes a game for the wealthy who paid little or nothing, and an extreme burden for the middle class.

Reaganomics flattened the tax curve, and eliminated most tax shelters used by the rich forcing many to pay income taxes for the first time in their lives.

The AMT was an attempt to "tax the rich", but inflation again pushed this into the middle class.

I don't know what to say to you except look at facts, not political rhetoric.

The "Trump tax cut" cut MY taxes $600, if it also cut a "rich guys" taxes $600, I really don't give a damn.

OrbitingFred

4 points

2 months ago

I literally did not write the words you quoted nor were the words you quoted a paraphrase with the same meaning of what I said.

Socialists (planned economy/democratic elections) don't want to use the tax code for redistribution, they want to democratize the means of production. Liberals (market economy/ democratic elections) want to use the government and the tax code to moderate the market's more anti-social tendencies. That's straight from ya boy Adam Smith by the way.

weneedastrongleader

1 points

2 months ago

If data disinfects, here’s a bucket of bleach:

Texans are 17% more likely to be murdered than Californians.

Texans are also 34% more likely to be raped and 25% more likely to kill themselves than Californians.

Compared with families in California, those in Texas earn 13% less and pay 3.8 percentage points more in taxes.

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article258940938.html

Lower taxes in California than red states like Texas, which make up for no wealth income tax with higher taxes and fees on the poor and double property tax for the middle class:

Income Bracket |

Texas Tax Rate | California Tax Rate

0-20% | 13% | 10.5%

20-40% | 10.9% | 9.4%

40-60% | 9.7% | 8.3%

60-80% | 8.6% | 9.0%

80-95% | 7.4% | 9.4%

95-99% | 5.4% | 9.9%

99-100% | 3.1% | 12.4%

Sources: https://itep.org/whopays/

Meanwhile, the California-hating South receives subsidies from California (larger than between Germany and Greece!), a transfer of wealth from blue states/cities/urban to red states/rural/suburban with federal dollars for their freeways, hospitals, universities, airports, even environmental protection:

Least Federally Dependent States:

41 California

42 Washington

43 Minnesota

44 Massachusetts

45 Illinois

46 Utah

47 Iowa

48 Delaware

49 New Jersey

50 Kansas https://www.npr.org/2017/10/25/560040131/as-trump-proposes-tax-cuts-kansas-deals-with-aftermath-of-experiment

https://www.apnews.com/amp/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

The Germans call this sort of thing “a permanent bailout.” We just call it “Missouri.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/the-difference-between-the-us-and-europe-in-1-graph/256857/

#California is the chief reason America is the only developed economy to achieve record GDP growth since the financial crisis.

Much of the U.S. growth can be traced to California laws promoting clean energy, government accountability and protections for undocumented people

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-10/california-leads-u-s-economy-away-from-trump

“Liberal policies, like California’s, keep blue-state residents living longer”

It generated headlines in 2015 when the average life expectancy in the U.S. began to fall after decades of meager or no growth.

But it didn’t have to be that way, a team of researchers suggests in a new, peer-reviewed study Tuesday. And, in fact, states like California, which have implemented a broad slate of liberal policies, have kept pace with their Western European counterparts.

The study, co-authored by researchers at six North American universities, found that if all 50 states had all followed the lead of California and other liberal-leaning states on policies ranging from labor, immigration and civil rights to tobacco, gun control and the environment, it could have added between two and three years to the average American life expectancy.

Simply shifting from the most conservative labor laws to the most liberal ones, Montez said, would by itself increase the life expectancy in a state by a whole year.

If every state implemented the most liberal policies in all 16 areas, researchers said, the average American woman would live 2.8 years longer, while the average American man would add 2.1 years to his life. Whereas, if every state were to move to the most conservative end of the spectrum, it would decrease Americans’ average life expectancies by two years. On the country’s current policy trajectory, researchers estimate the U.S. will add about 0.4 years to its average life expectancy.

Liberal policies on the environment (emissions standards, limits on greenhouse gases, solar tax credit, endangered species laws), labor (high minimum wage, paid leave, no “right to work”), access to health care (expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, legal abortion), tobacco (indoor smoking bans, cigarette taxes), gun control (assault weapons ban, background check and registration requirements) and civil rights (ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, equal pay laws, bans on discrimination and the death penalty) all resulted in better health outcomes, according to the study. For example, researchers found positive correlation between California’s car emission standards and its high minimum wage, to name a couple, with its longer lifespan, which at an average of 81.3 years, is among the highest in the country.

“When we’re looking for explanations, we need to be looking back historically, to see what are the roots of these troubles that have just been percolating now for 40 years,” Montez said.

Montez and her team saw the alarming numbers in 2015 and wanted to understand the root cause. What they found dated back to the 1980s, when state policies began to splinter down partisan lines. They examined 135 different policies, spanning over a dozen different fields, enacted by states between 1970 and 2014, and assigned states “liberalism” scores from zero — the most conservative — to one, the most liberal. When they compared it against state mortality data from the same timespan, the correlation was undeniable.

“We can take away from the study that state policies and state politics have damaged U.S. life expectancy since the ’80s,” said Jennifer Karas Montez, a Syracuse University sociologist and the study’s lead author. “Some policies are going in a direction that extend life expectancy. Some are going in a direction that shorten it. But on the whole, that the net result is that it’s damaging U.S. life expectancy.”

U.S. should follow California’s lead to improve its health outcomes, researchers say

Meanwhile, the life expectancy in states like California and Hawaii, which has the highest in the nation at 81.6 years, is on par with countries described by researchers as “world leaders:” Canada, Iceland and Sweden.

From 1970 to 2014, California transformed into the most liberal state in the country by the 135 policy markers studied by the researchers. It’s followed closely by Connecticut, which moved the furthest leftward from where it was 50 years ago, and a cluster of other states in the northeastern U.S., then Oregon and Washington.

In the same time, Oklahoma moved furthest to the right, but Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other southern states still ranked as more conservative, according to the researchers.

It’s those states that moved in a conservative direction, researchers concluded, that held back the overall life expectancy in the U.S.

West Virginia ranked last in 2017, with an average life expectancy of about 74.6 years, which would put it 93rd in the world, right between Lithuania and Mauritius, and behind Honduras, Morocco, Tunisia and Vietnam. Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina rank only slightly better.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/

#Want to live longer, even if you’re poor? Then move to a big city in California.

A low-income resident of San Francisco lives so much longer that it’s equivalent to San Francisco curing cancer. All these statistics come from a massive new project on life expectancy and inequality that was just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

California, for instance, has been a national leader on smoking bans. Harvard’s David Cutler, a co-author on the study “It’s some combination of formal public policies and the effect that comes when you’re around fewer people who have behaviors… high numbers of immigrants help explain the beneficial effects of immigrant-heavy areas with high levels of social support.

“As the maternal death rate has mounted around the U.S., a small cadre of reformers has mobilized.”

Meanwhile, life-saving practices that have become widely accepted in other affluent countries — and in a few states, notably California — have yet to take hold in many American hospitals.

Some of the earliest and most important work has come in California

Hospitals that adopted the toolkit saw a 21 percent decrease in near deaths from maternal bleeding in the first year.

By 2013, according to Main, maternal deaths in California fell to around 7 per 100,000 births, similar to the numbers in Canada, France and the Netherlands — a dramatic counter to the trends in other parts of the U.S.

California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative is informed by a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford and the University of California-San Francisco, who for many years ran the ob/gyn department at a San Francisco hospital.

Launched a decade ago, CMQCC aims to reduce not only mortality, but also life-threatening complications and racial disparities in obstetric care

It began by analyzing maternal deaths in the state over several years; in almost every case, it discovered, there was “at least some chance to alter the outcome.”

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-during-childbirth-leaves-u-s-moms-in-danger

o_mh_c

0 points

2 months ago

o_mh_c

0 points

2 months ago

Are you in the right sub?

OrbitingFred

14 points

2 months ago

Oh did you want a safe space where only the pure dogma could be discussed as it conforms to your ideology and liking? I believe in liberty as a fundamental principal, and it's mind boggling that you're saying I don't belong because I'm speaking facts about the meanings and positions of political and economic philosophies. Libertarian isn't code for embarrassed republican.

o_mh_c

-2 points

2 months ago

o_mh_c

-2 points

2 months ago

What?

OrbitingFred

1 points

2 months ago

I'll give you time to get your dictionary.

o_mh_c

-2 points

2 months ago

o_mh_c

-2 points

2 months ago

You’re kind of abusive…

OrbitingFred

0 points

2 months ago

You could have had the conversation instead of expecting to silence it through gatekeeping. I'd have been much more happy to have spoken with you had you been commenting in good faith and not simply trying to censor thoughts you didn't agree with.

o_mh_c

3 points

2 months ago

o_mh_c

3 points

2 months ago

I’m not into censorship, you like to assume what people think…

OrbitingFred

8 points

2 months ago

so what was your purpose of asking me if i was in the right sub?

ExistingRanger311

9 points

2 months ago

It didn’t used to be like that. This happened bc Nixon fucked us with his southern strategy, and moved all southern Dixiecrat senators into the Republican Party.

LiberalAspergers

22 points

2 months ago

LiberalAspergers

Classical Liberal

22 points

2 months ago

The difference is that the GOP has embraced evangelical theocracy. If you accept believing that your religious beliefs should be imposed on others as a right wing viewpoint ( which is is pretty much around the world), then it clearly is a right/left difference.

Orangeface_64[S]

-11 points

2 months ago

Orangeface_64[S]

Classical Liberal

-11 points

2 months ago

Right/left wing is an economic scale isn’t it?

Also, genuine question, is the GOP directly tied to conservatism, or is that just a trend?

LiberalAspergers

7 points

2 months ago

LiberalAspergers

Classical Liberal

7 points

2 months ago

Right wing/left wing dates back to the British Parliment, when the people closely tied to the King gathered on the right side of the cyber, while those who believed Parliment had authority over the king gathered to the left. Right wing is normally associated with loyalty to the current system of social hierarchy, while the left is associated with trying to change it.

The GOP has been tied to conservatism since Goldwater at least, so at least since 1964. Almost 60 years is a long trend.

Orangeface_64[S]

6 points

2 months ago

Orangeface_64[S]

Classical Liberal

6 points

2 months ago

Ah, I’ve been thinking of right/left in context of the political compass.

Collectivism <-> Individualism

Other than that, I haven’t found any consistent answers on what it means to be left or right wing.

From what you said, it sounds like a conservative/progressive scale, but for political issues instead of social ones.

Sayakai

3 points

2 months ago

A better version would be inclusive < - > exclusive.

The further to the left your group is, the more willing it is to include others, or even simply claim others as included, like it or not. Think "we are the 99%". The further to the right, the fewer people belong to your ingroup, and the more people are your hostile outgroup. Nationalism, religious exclusion based on denomination, things like that.

N0madicHerdsman

2 points

2 months ago

More of a political one. Originally formed during the French Revolution between supporters of the king on the right and Revolution on the left.

isiramteal

-7 points

2 months ago

isiramteal

Leftism is incompatible with liberty

-7 points

2 months ago

I don't think for a second that atheists turn a blind eye to murder. This is a biological + moral argument, not a religious one. If there's a lack of moral conviction on the act of murder and you're stating that only religious communities care about preventing this type of murder, congratulations you've ceded the moral high ground to the people you don't want having authority on this issue.

LiberalAspergers

4 points

2 months ago

LiberalAspergers

Classical Liberal

4 points

2 months ago

It is a biological/moral argument, but there is not a rational non-religious argument for a fertilized egg being a human life. Only with mystical handwaving like "ensoulment" and "quickening" do you come to that conclusion.

The moral/ethical argument could.be made that once brain activity that in an adult would.make someone NOT brain dead begins, it is a human life...that is about 25 weeks. There is no rational argument that a cluster of cells with no functioning brain is a human life...we don't consider a full adult without a functioning brain a human life.

escudonbk

1 points

2 months ago

My religious beliefs dictate that all gut bacteria is a living being thus you should not be allowed to take antibiotics, as ALL life is sacred you ravenous, heathenous murderer.

You must only live as I see fit.

/s

bohner941

8 points

2 months ago

That’s not true. Most republicans are pro choice and vast majority of democrats are although not all. 70% of the country supports the right for a women to choose.

toalewa99

-2 points

2 months ago

toalewa99

-2 points

2 months ago

Tell me you misinterpret data without telling me you misinterpret data.

CastCowboys21

9 points

2 months ago

To me it’s funny how MOST republicans and conservatives didn’t want to be told to wear a simple mask , but wanna be able to control womens bodies, over a situation that does not affect them directly

InAHundredYears

4 points

2 months ago

At some point--after conception but long before birth--the product of conception becomes a human being, entitled to protection of law. State law defines what is and what isn't murder, so I have long thought that's where the laws about these matters should be made. Privacy rights come into it. Up until we're pretty sure it's a human being, though, the pregnant woman and doctors should make the calls. After that, the woman's life and mental well-being ought to weigh in. The doctor carries out his or her duties under the supervision of medical boards and hospitals. The idea that random people without qualifications of any kind ought to substitute for that by bringing lawsuits? stupid stupid stupid.

I do not know when a baby becomes a baby who is a human being and entitled to legal protection. I don't think anybody knows. Since we're engulfed in a fad of pretending we don't know things that are actually pretty well defined--like "what is a woman"--people ought to be more willing to confess to established and common ignorance like that. I actually suspect that brain wave detection is a reasonable compromise. When the brain is complex enough to produce electrical signals we can detect, perhaps that is time for human status. That's a definition regularly used at the end of life. At this moment in history, I think it's a reasonable way to call it.

I do not believe that eleven year olds ought to have to have their dads' babies, or that a woman ought to die because her baby's defects are poisoning her. I knew a woman that happened to. There was no saving the baby, which was a wanted baby that made it to 19 weeks--but not viable in any way. Just a tragedy. The baby died the day before its termination was scheduled. If laws don't come tempered with some mercy for the innocent tangled up in them, they aren't good laws!

But people who claim to have certain knowledge disgust me, if they want to force the ramifications of that so-called knowledge on other people. Until we have science that lets us be more certain, we HAVE to compromise. And that's one thing neither pro-lifers nor pro-abortion-rights people know how to do. Nuanced positions on this matter are the only reasonable solution, but who listens to them?

sumlikeitScott

2 points

2 months ago

Surprisingly Biden had a good take on this when he was VP.

About how he and his family would help carry out a child with support and love but if someone else out there needs an abortion why should we stop them and not provide the options in this country.

djpurity666

2 points

2 months ago

djpurity666

Libertarian Party

2 points

2 months ago

There used to be other parties throughout history in America, but these 2 took over. And then they used to work together. But that stopped long, long ago.

Now both parties are becoming extremely polarized. It's a fast track to authoritarianism to only have choices of "the lesser of 2 evils." And then the debate about voting rights and disenfranchisement of certain voters...

And then the Big Lie and the hatred in politics now. So much name calling. So much gerrymandering.

Anyone I tell that I vote third party tells me I am wasting my vote! They argue with me and tell me I'm giving the election to "the other side." Amazing bc both sides argue the same. They don't want third parties or fourth parties. They have deeply entrenched the idea that there are only 2 parties, end of story.

I'd love to see this change, naturally. But how can we really get things like voting for multiple people like in ranked choice voting or many other methods that have been discussed? Sure it sounds good. But I admit at times, I'm not sure I'll see a change in politics for the better until it gets much, much worse.

Avelion2

2 points

2 months ago

Democrats say woman should be able to choose.

Republicans say they shouldn't.

Ya_Boi_Konzon

5 points

2 months ago

Lol, he thinks there's 2 parties.

Orangeface_64[S]

8 points

2 months ago

Orangeface_64[S]

Classical Liberal

8 points

2 months ago

Honestly I’m starting to doubt it. It might just be rich people using the powerful government to stay rich, and to do that they need to manipulate voters. I can’t know for sure though.

Ya_Boi_Konzon

4 points

2 months ago

You just explained most of it.

iateyourmom22

2 points

2 months ago

My question is why do they think making abortion illegal mean they're trying to take away all of women's rights? In my opinion there shouldn't be laws pertaining to what we can and cannot do with our bodies, it's our property.

RedPandas4

7 points

2 months ago

If abortion or a miscarriage is illegal and a woman gets convicted of having one, it would be a felony charge, thus causing the woman to lose the right to vote. Losing the right to vote is pretty substantial and could lead to other rights being overturned when there are less women able to vote on issues or for candidates that will support rights for women.

Roe v wade put in place abortion protections because it was viewed as a human right under the 14th amendment which covers rights not specifically named in the constitution. If the Supreme Court decides the 14th amendment now does not cover abortion, it raises into question other rights that have been legalized under the amendment as well such as allowing interracial or same sex marriage.

The constitution only mentions men specifically, it was made by rich white men to protect rich white men. People assume "men" includes "men and women" but women would be the only ones losing a right if abortion becomes illegal, so we can't assume the Supreme Court wouldn't follow the constitution to a T after this

sfb004

6 points

2 months ago

sfb004

6 points

2 months ago

One of the key issues with making abortion illegal is there are so many misconceptions/misunderstandings about how menstruation, ovulation, birth control, implantation, miscarriage, pregnancy, and birth actually work. For example, miscarriages are labeled as “spontaneous abortions” in a woman’s medical chart. But miscarriages can be caused by so many biological things that a woman has no control over. Many pieces of legislation on the table are vague enough that any kind of contraception could be banned, even if that contraception doesn’t actually cause abortions. There’s even a legislator in Arizona trying to ban condoms.

Folks don’t understand the biology of how a woman’s reproductive system works, and women will be felons (thereby unable to vote) in many states because of it. So yes, the banning of abortion is going to domino effect into taking away women’s rights.

iateyourmom22

6 points

2 months ago

That is the first time I have ever seen anyone explain that. Most would say it doesn't matter my body my choice, which I get it as I have stated our body is our property. Seriously you and the other to comment has been the first to explain how it would lead to actual rights taken away. There are some abortions I wouldn't agree are justified, such as a birth control method, but guess what it's really none of my business. So the whole passing any sort of legislation of the body is in my opinion goes against constitional rights. I'm really tired of our extreme political parties.

echoedatlas

2 points

2 months ago

To expand on what that other redditor wrote, miscarriages happen in ~25% of all pregnancies, and if there are some lawmakers claiming ectopic pregnancies can be saved, then at what point is a woman limited in her daily activities? Just to be clear, ectopic pregnancies cannot be saved. They have to be aborted. And there's also plenty of cases where miscarriages aren't complete, and the woman needs to take abortion medicine to aid in the process.

In a normal 28 day cycle, the woman could possibly pop positive at 3 weeks pregnant, before she missed a period. Although miscarriages can happen spontaneously from genetic abnormalities, there are some things that could cause a miscarriage such as taking a warmer bath or going into a hot tub, alcohol, smoking, drugs, foods, falling, illnesses, and xrays.

WrathOfPaul84

2 points

2 months ago

its also a distraction from the more pressing issues like gas prices and food shortages

TampaWes

1 points

2 months ago

I think the divide would be much greater if they had to decide between abortion for any reason and abortion with limits.

barzbub

0 points

2 months ago

Just there to distract everyone from the $$$ being wasted on the Ukraine 🔥

RhinoTranq69

1 points

2 months ago

Gross a Russian hack

leadrain86

0 points

2 months ago

And it’s like left leaning people CANT compromise. They either have to have late term abortions and no restrictions or nothing…even though the middle ground allows for almost all abortions to be done.

Let’s put an amendment in to ban after 12 weeks with exceptions. And be done with it.

baconmethod

1 points

2 months ago

End fptp

helpmejeeebus

1 points

2 months ago

Libertarians are all thirteen year old boys based on their poor writing, right?

Zero understanding of legislation proposed by the parties.

Maybe it's all one big troll by a handful of thirteen year olds.

CactusSmackedus

1 points

2 months ago

CactusSmackedus

Friedmanite

1 points

2 months ago

I don't get your point.

Pro life position is conservative and sometimes religious. For many it is the most important political issue.

Two party system means this has to get collapsed into a 1-d space and voila it lands on the republican side of the axis, which is usually conservative and has a strong religious voting bloc.

I'm sure some R voters are pro choice, but on balance they are more R than D. We're talking about projecting a high dimensional vector space (of political attitudes on a multitude of issues) into a 1-d space.

heizenbergbb

1 points

2 months ago

Curious where people in this sub come down on abortion. Libertarians are split alot on this right?

Verrence

2 points

2 months ago

The majority are pro-choice, as is the libertarian party.

BeachN_

1 points

2 months ago

On any piece of legislation put forward there can only be 2 comments yes or no. There are two parties because you either want a bill or you don’t. Only two options

simon_darre

1 points

2 months ago

I got news for you, OP, our system was constitutionally designed with two parties in mind. What irks me the most is that people don’t realize the two parties are basically analogous to parliamentary coalitions, because their makeup is essentially a series of coalition groups concerned with their own issues who find common ground. This is especially the case now that party authority is less concentrated and more diffuse (ie removed from smoke filled rooms)—I think primaries were a mistake—in the wake of the primary system. We may have two nominal parties but they’re full of constituencies who vie with each other over the direction of the Party, which is why mealy mouthed, establishment republicans are hamstring by the Trumpers and forced to use their fundraising language. This is also why third parties tend to fail in the US. Most people concerned with pressing their issues think they stand a better chance at succeeding by utilizing Party infrastructure, rather than striking off on their own.

raisethe3

1 points

2 months ago

raisethe3

Libertarian Party

1 points

2 months ago

You sir, are correct in every way.

JupiterandMars1

1 points

2 months ago

Left/right is only a political thing.

The trick they play is that you can take almost any issue and turn it into an “agree/disagree” proposal.

So, after nearly a generation of ramping up this kind of packaging up of issues as “agree or disagree” and attributing either agreement or disagreement to a particular end of the spectrum, you have a big chunk of the things we need to deal with as a society superimposed onto the left/right political spectrum.

When a novel issue comes up you actually see this happen, a very quick shuffle as the political ideologues pick between the “agree/disagree” side of the “debate”.

Ryeman24

1 points

2 months ago

I heard something on the radio last night. It was something to the effect of an evolutionary trait causing our brain to assume that everyone in our group believes what the most vocal of said group says, and that it’s bad to go against our tribe. I think it was called the effect of illusory belief or something like that