What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FIC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Most controversial or unpopular political/economic/social opinions?

Yesman

British Culture>Whatever pleb culture you have
Author
Any of you like vegetables like corn and beans on non-savory sweet foods like ice cream.
 

Ravan

Gone
As far my controversial opinions the only things that stick out to me that aren't just standered liberal talking points like M4A or a 15$ minimum. Are the following.

>Don't infringe upon my gun rights.
>Nationalize the Oil Companies.
>Abolish the Stock Market.

It's honestly pretty difficult to find someone to the left of me who isn't a Marxist, and while I do think Marx made some very valid and definitely at the time eye opening criticisms of capitalism in a very well written book that I think more people should read, he doesn't present a path forward that satisfies me.

Also while it may not seem like it, my philosophy has a lot of post modern roots that preclude me from beliving in any sort of predestined historical narrative. Even if at times I may come across as more philosophically conservative.
I think the best description I’ve heard of Marx, was that he was wrong about communism, but right about capitalism.
 

Ravan

Gone
Dialectical materialism is the best theory for describing the world, fite me in real life
That’s a method, rather than the end product. You can actually have dielectical materialism be completely valid, but have Marx be incorrect in the conclusions he reached using it if you assume that he plugged incorrect information into the equation due to unforseen externalities.
 

Morphile

Well-known member
or a 15$ minimum
That's actually super contentious since it only vaguely approaches necessary in really big cities where sane wages for most of the developed world are priced out. Realistically, the majority of the US population would work perfectly fine, at current living costs, on $12 an hour. Of course, a flat minimum wage is firmly nonsensical in the long run, pushing inflation because it's constantly set by the needs of the big cities, which tend to have inflated living costs.

This is why I want minimum wage to be set by a regulatory committee on as granular a level as bureaucratically possible (probably County level), defining the cost of living they're to put a price tag on in the legislation. And being public with minimum wage being for low-cost comforts single-person households, possibly using tax credits to incentivize companies to go above minimum wage (to a point, so as to avoid pushing inflation) and pay for better benefits when they have the liquid capital to spare, meaning largely-saturated companies like Walmart then have a breakpoint that's noticeably above minimum wage, but struggling companies aren't priced out of hiring at lower wages or cutting them when they desperately need liquid assets now, not in March.
 

Kylia Quilor

Hopeless Romantic and Nerd
Author
Minimum wage probably should be regional - for example, when I was looking to Rent in Rhode Island, the prices I was getting were twice what I'd have paid for the same amount of space in Indiana (where I used to live).

Some places are more expensive to live than others, and wages should reflect that - I mean yes, if we can pay it so people in the cheaper places to live make even more, that's great, but the risk is that then we end up with the expensive-place-livers still getting underpaid.

--

As for controversial opinions, leaving off that weird 'let's destroy all the cities' discussion that just happened...

States really shouldn't be a thing (states as in the US sense, I mean). In a perfect world, I'd abolish the states and redraw much more reasonably defined "administrative regions" based around major urban centers at their heart, and they'd have a heck of a lot less autonomy.

Granted, this perfect world won't happen, but still.
 

Virian

Sage of Reason and Incomplete information
Author
I support Constitutional Monarchy ... AKA the head of state is not elected by a popularity contest we call democratic elections but instead raised into it and is to both decide the future of the country without catering to 'Special Interest Groups' but to what they believe is the best for the country.This may seem shocking to you guys coming from most of the western world but in Romania our elected officials want to legalize corruption and have become so incompetently corrupt some thought it would be a good idea to leave the EU so they can steal from my country in peace. So yeah I really don't see democracy with kind eyes.

Now that's not to say I hate democracy because I think it is very nice in theory. I simply do not believe it is a viable long term on a wide scale. Sure I will agree with people that say that most countries that are prosperous are also democracies but I also have my own opinion on that, and that is that' Democracy Works as long as the people in power care for those they rule and can be removed if they don't. '

Some of you might be wondering, wait that's self-evident then why are you against democracy? That's exactly what Democracy is supposed to be ABOUT! And I'll say 'Yes, in theory but practice is often times very different from theory.'

Democracy relies on the fact that those that the people that elected did occasional mistakes and that the vast majority of those in power will keep them in line or even depose them, but I ask you this my friends, what happens when they are the majority? What happens when those that care more about what they can steal from are the majority of those in the government? What then?

In a democracy it is said that those that rule, do so with the will of the people as elected officials, that the various organizations that are to protect them are also acting in the interest of the people and that anyone that speaks against the democratically elected officials speaks against the country... This gives the ones in power a HUGE amount of legitimacy and protection which can easily be abused as people in politics are proportionally less trustworthy the less they need to worry about the repercussions of their actions.

In a Constitutional Monarchy that doesn't really happen because as history showed time and time again if you aren't actually good at your post then dying is very much on the table, and being raised and trained one's entire lifetime for a job with the specter of losing more than your money if you fail is one hell of a motivator. However just because I support a monarchy whoever it doesn't mean I don't support a Constitution and The separation of powers to an extent as giving too much power to a single man/woman is a recipe for disaster and abuse.
 

Balerion

Well-known member
Diversity is not a good into itself, but something to be managed extremely cautiously. After all look at how the Austria hungary fell apart despite inclusivity to an extent that would put Canada to shame, or how Brazil elected a fascist. It is far from the silver bullet to star trek that progressives exhort it to be. On a related note "demographics are destiny!" Is just neo Nazi rhetoric with a less odious paint job, and progressives were dumb to exhort it.
 

Mondor

The Freak
Honestly I view my pets as more human than a lot of actual human beings (I.e. A lot of serial killers, people who get off to torturing other people or animals, dictators, etc).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top