The truth is that people raised in a two parent household are more likely to not be criminals. It is in a nation’s best interests to promote that relationship by giving it certain benefits.
People should not be allowed to possess whatever substance they want. Nuclear waste?
People will choose the path of least resistance. There is a reason we have a lot more people eating themselves to death than exercising regularly.
Fair enough. I don’t mind the concept of government adknowledgement, furthermore I see no problem with recognising same sex marriage as legitimate marriage. However you’re opinion here is reasonable and well thought out.
Agreed (sort of… As @zecarlo specified… Substances such as nuclear waste, explosives etc should typically be criminalised)
This is where it gets icky for me… I’m for the legalisation of soft drugs… For harder substances I think it’d have to be tightly controlled… I’d want said substances to be treated like tobacco with (here) plain packaging, warnings on said packaging. Furthermore for substances such as cocaine etc I’d want users to be put up on a database as to put limits upon amounts purchased. Heroin should probably only be dispensed to hardcore addicts who have failed rehabilitative measures numerous times and failed with Suboxone/methadone treatment.
It does appear as if decriminalisation doesn’t increase rates of problematic drug use, legalisation of cannabis induces a slight uptick in adult use but supposedly no increase/a slight decrease in adolescent use. I don’t believe the population would be stupid enough to start using cocaine if forms had to be filled out to purchase, advertising was banned and we placed warnings all over the packaging (including the risk for sudden cardiac death upon ingestion)
Understood. I personally generally have no problem with the practice… say financial situation doesn’t permit raising a child, giving birth puts the mother at risk of death (for those under 20 maternal mortality rates are sharply increased), the baby will have serious congenital defects, contraception failed etc… In the off chance the woman didn’t use any form of protection and just “winged it” I would be disgusted… In which case the concept of “evictionism” would apply to me
You preach hate and/or support extremist groups (Taliban, ISIS)… You’re potentially a legitimate threat to the public due to radicalised views. Do you believe such members should be able to co exist within the general populace?
I think this is fine, although I don’t agree with it.
I’m not a fan of criminalizing views.
Yes. Where they’re accepted.
Edit:
I don’t either. I just do not. To the extent government recognizes any marriage, I believe same-sex marriage should be recognized. I also believe polygamous marriages should be recognized to that same extent.
Fair enough, economically do you cater towards capitolism or socialism/communism
In terms of the societal aspect I too cater towards libertarianism… But you seem to cater towards it even moreso than I.
Just curious as to where you stand.
Capitalism. No other economic system is compatible with freedom.
I dont think you know how a regime change in your country would probably look like. It would start with a political leader ignoring/invalidating checks and balances. You would need a common enemy/threat like immigrants/muslims/outside forces threatening your security/life style. You would need a big media influence. You would need a relatively big followship absolulely immun to any negative thought about the political leader. It would not happen over night but over years/legislative periods. You would take away rights gradually and in a manner that is accepted by your voters. You would strengthen/arm police/security forces. You would call it “law and order” against those damaging the society.
If you have the police/military on your side, the regime would also be appealing to your vets, so dont count on them.
Regime change in your country is most likely not a far left/socialist one, it is a right/far right president gradually removing the democracy with a framing like MAGA, freedom, anti outside forces. And your people will vote for it.
Well it’s a good thing we have you, an expert on something that’s never happened.
It appears initially we both signed up to T-nation on the exact same date (not year)
Have studied politics with a focus on regime change, authoritarian regimes and security policies. I am in no way an expert but at least I have read up on some things. And I am not the first speculating about a regime change in the US, I think even Toqueville started this around 160 years ago. And I just replied to ridicule the idea of an armed resistance to regime change.
Yeah I just got done re-listening to Dan Carlin’s: Wrath of the Khan’s from the Hardcore History podcast. He covers Subutai’s little side-excursion into Europe pretty well, and his feigned retreat.
What an interesting place, the Steppes.
Thank you, for your expertise on this matter.
Freedom is a relative term. Besides, chattel slavery and capitalism have coexisted.
Hmm…
Regime changes typically oppose outside forces? Seems like a regime change would require outside forces, but I’m no expert.
I had the honour of visiting a seminar about conflicts with Wolfgang Ischinger and a retired german general commanding in the Kosovo conflict. In this seminar we also discussed the yugoslav wars. We got a got description of the US providing reconaissance and tactics to one side before to reach a peace agreement.
Against a modern military you dont stand a chance.
Maybe it is a language barrier thing but I meant a president going dictator. You dont necessarily need a real outside threat. You can make one up. As long as people believe it, you have a common enemy/cause
Thanks for the expert level insight, Clausewitz. Can you make it over to the US somehow?
Can you name a country with a modern military? I would’ve considered the U.S. one but, given its difficulties in the Middle East, I must be wrong.
It’s preferable to make one up so you can control outcomes.
Why would I want to?