Harmful Liberal Policies Mega-Thread

[StarStruck]

24 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

They can leave. But they can't transfer their wealth with them. 

There can be policies to that can't be gamed by packing bags and leaving the country.

Although taxing the rich shouldn't be the absolute best priority of any society at the moment. It's only a secondary goal. There are better things to do to bring fairness in business.

 

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

What a nation can do is to put a tax penalty on moving a business from one country to another.

Also, if that business's market is mostly situated in the country of origin... they that country of origin could impose high import taxes on ex-patriating businesses that disincentivizes those businesses from moving countries.

If they were being really strict, they could even restrict imports from ex-patriating businesses.

There are probably other policies they could enact that disincentivize people moving their businesses elsewhere. They would just have to apply consequences that impact the flow of money enough to offset the benefits of moving to a place with a lower tax burden.

I don't have a lot of knowledge on how this impacts trade, but there's also global organizations like NATO and the UN that have policies that participating nations have to abide by. And perhaps there could even be policies in organizations like this where countries in the organization don't allow businesses from other member nations to leave their country of origin for a lower tax burden in another member nation.

You guys think they are stupid? They are rich because they have a high IQ. 

There is no “moving”. Their HQ are already stationed in those tax heaven countries. 

You don’t want to scare away wealth.  There is a reason why even SD green countries are not going nazi on rich people. They are paying your salary. 

[Davino]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Will leftists ever admit that legalizing all drugs does more harm than good? No. They will shift blame elsewhere and make excuses.

Full drug decriminalisation was quite successful in Portugal.

I'm extremely in favour of legalizing all drugs. Nevertheless, I'm more hesitant towards the how to implement it. 

What are your thoughts? 

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, StarStruck said:

You guys think they are stupid? They are rich because they have a high IQ. 

The CIA are even smarter. You can hunt down the "high IQ rich" folks if they want. 

1 hour ago, StarStruck said:

There is no “moving”. Their HQ are already stationed in those tax heaven countries.

Only their HQ. Their business still operates in US, EU etc. They still need to move money to HQ

Heard that even Dubai started introducing taxes. These havens exist because the government let them. And if the government want to get you, they will. 

1 hour ago, StarStruck said:

There is a reason why even SD green countries are not going nazi on rich people. They are paying your salary. 

Green countries have policies that you might think are going Nazi on rich people.

Edited April 7 by Bobby_2021

[BlueOak]

Decriminalizing drugs is the only sensible way to either remove drugs from your country, or regulate their usage.

It brings everything into the open, to either remove the people actually responsible for bringing them in, or regulate their usage and offer treatment or help at the very sites where people are using them.

Making drugs illegal to use is moronic:
It forces everything underground and makes it harder to track
Creates kingpins and an underground authority in the gap where the government should be.
Fuels the resulting organized crime, and institutionalizes users.
Creates criminals out of users who hate the police
Stops people from seeking out support or offering up information.
Pushes a further social stigma on damaged people
Removes drugged up informants who could tell you everything you ever wanted to know.
Removes any chance of tax income.

Its what humans always do, chop off part of themselves from the whole, and then wonder why they are unbalanced, and eternally fighting themselves, all very dumb.

I actually think that keeping drugs illegal is such a bad a strategy, organized crime are partly responsible in some countries for them NOT being decriminalized. By all means string the Opiate dealers up by their necks, but you might as well not further ruin lives to do so, just bring the people in, say give us your dealers, and you walk, no record at all - that's the bare minimum a society can sensibly do. No jailtime, no record, they walk, and then you can go back to them 50 times for information, because opiate junkies rarely change. 

Edited April 7 by BlueOak

[TheAlchemist]

Decriminalizing also doesn't really solve the problem of the black market, the substances continue to be sourced from the black market which funds organized crime. There is no regulation on the purity of the drugs, so overdoses and impure (and maximally addictive) substances continue to flood the markets, because that is what is most profitable. You also need a good social security system to help those who are struggling with addiction so that they have a safe place to sleep, access to food and water and basic healthcare, without which there ends up being even more problems and costs down the line for society as a whole. That's what they did in Portugal, they funneled all the money they spent on imprisoning and prosecuting the users towards rehabilitation, housing and healtcare for the addicts. Eventually we also need to ask why is our society producing so many addicts? Most people don't get addicted despite trying hard drugs, but the proportion of people that do get addicted is much higher in certain environments and circumstances than others. 

Decriminalization solves part of the problem but a strictly regulated and controlled market through legalization is what will eventually be needed to handle the problem along with a realistic plan for how to prevent escalation of problems tied to addictions. It's not any different than with alcohol. I think we have actually gone too liberal on alcohol, the marketing of it should be more strictly regulated and controlled, just like with drugs. A regulated and controlled market with bans on all drug marketing and strict quality control seems like a reasonable solution. 

Edited April 7 by TheAlchemist

[aurum]

17 hours ago, Emerald said:

But it does open up some questions about why it is that it doesn't quite work the same way for the right side of the political aisle and why it's possible to have a mixed bag of beneficial and detrimental right wing policies... but doesn't necessarily work that way for the left wing.

Extreme reactionary right-wing policies also do not get codified. In a sense, you could say these people are as naive as leftists, just in a different way. The US is not going back to becoming some sort of Christian theocracy.

What is codified at any given moment is mostly just the status quo and our recent past. Which I would argue leans conservative, since conservatism as a strategy is about maintaining the status quo. That's its fundamental flaw: clinging to what is.

Leftism is about spotting the errors in the status quo (in a non-regressive way) and pushing for something better, usually based off of higher developmental values.

Thus when leftist policies are codified, they are usually replacing things that are outdated and have been causing problems for a long time. It's only after the problems of the current policies become very obvious that change happens. So when left policies do work, they usually work well.

Of course, none of this is to say that just because a leftist gets something passed that it must automatically be good. It could be too strong a push or unworkable in some other way. But I think you already understand that.

Asymmetry is probably the right frame here, as opposed to assuming it only happens to the right or the left. 

Edited April 7 by aurum

[Twentyfirst]

All the things Leo said in his blog posts are things you would have to tell a child 

[Bobby_2021]

The problem with liberal policies in general is that it's outcomes are far reaching and by the time you fuck up, it's already too late to rectify it. 

You have to live and suffer in that dysfunctional system, once you have corrupted it with liberalising it too much.

[mmKay]

Hot take:

Being absolutely against violence and death penalty. Some people are a lost cause and are very costly to mantain. Give them a few good chances but don't be naive

---

F*cking one single person up from time to time as an example of consecuences for misbehaving is a clear direct language anyone understands and may be able to solve a decent amount of problems

---

Not having harsh enough penalties for serious crimes. Releasing murderers from jail...

 

 

Serious social challenges requiere serious actions.

Look at what it took for El Salvador to get rid of that murderer gang infested society.

Look how absolutely effective it is

Libs would never be able to handle that society 

Edited April 16 by mmKay

[zurew]

On 2024. 04. 15. at 1:57 AM, mmKay said:

Look how absolutely effective it is

Libs would never be able to handle that society 

I don't think there is good evidence that suggest that death penalty is effective at reducing crimes.

But I see your point - if it would actually be the case that death penalty would reduce crime rates significantly - most libs would still be against it (because they probably have a principled stance against it)

 

[mmKay]

@zurew you miss quoted me, the quote in context would be 

On 15/4/2024 at 1:57 AM, mmKay said:

Look at what it took for El Salvador to get rid of that murderer gang infested society.

Look how absolutely effective it is

Libs would never be able to handle that society 

Check out on YouTube the strick rough rules and laws they had to impose to clean up that chaos. And leftist governments around the world critisize El Salvador for not respecting human rights and accidentally incarcerating innocent people

 

 

Leftist would never be able to clean up that less of a murder society 

Edited April 16 by mmKay

[BlueOak]

17 minutes ago, mmKay said:

@zurew

Leftist would never be able to clean up that less of a murder society 

A monster like Stalin would have eaten it for breakfast and asked for seconds. 

The people make the culture. What people keep calling 'the west': all their Authoritarians, Liberals, Libertarians, Socialists, Capitalists and Conservatives wouldn't have developed into that society in the first place, so they wouldn't need to address the part of themselves contributing to the problem.

What makes you think a leftist is incapable of organized force or violence? Do you mean because the left has been suppressed to the point of being ineffective lip service? Well, whose fault is that exactly? The right and most western liberals are included in 'the right' along with conservatives.

Edited April 16 by BlueOak

[zurew]

20 minutes ago, mmKay said:

@zurew you miss quoted me, the quote in context would be 

If I read the whole post that you wrote:

Quote

Hot take:

Being absolutely against violence and death penalty. Some people are a lost cause and are very costly to mantain. Give them a few good chances but don't be naive

---

F*cking one single person up from time to time as an example of consecuences for misbehaving is a clear direct language anyone understands and may be able to solve a decent amount of problems

---

Not having harsh enough penalties for serious crimes. Releasing murderers from jail...

 

 

Serious social challenges requiere serious actions.

Look at what it took for El Salvador to get rid of that murderer gang infested society.

Look how absolutely effective it is

Libs would never be able to handle that society 

 

, then the impression that I get from it is that you are talking about the need for and about the effectiveness of death penalty in general (making a general argument in favour of it) and I don't get the impression that you are making an explicit argument for El Salvador's case.

If thats not the case (if you don't think that death penalty will reduce crime in general or if you don't think there is good evidence for it) then my bad for misinterpreting what you said.

[Bobby_2021]

Harmful liberal policy:

Sending hundreds billions money abroad to God knows where only to create more wars and give assistance to genocides ,while exacerbating inequality within their own borders.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-mike-johnson-ukraine-israel-b72aed9b195818735d24363f2bc34ea4?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share

All this money could have been used for social programs closer to home, which would be a more conservative approach. 

Republican tried to block the aid, but couldn't succeed.

Edited April 25 by Bobby_2021

[Yimpa]

59 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

All this money could have been used for social programs closer to home, which would be a more conservative approach. 

What kind of social programs would be useful? 

[Bobby_2021]

16 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

What kind of social programs would be useful? 

Free College would be a start.

[Nemra]

Just now, Bobby_2021 said:

Free College would be a start.

Wouldn't that be wonderful.