Ask Lemmy

The truth is that nobody ever really cared about anyone else, but social norms kept people in line and slow communications made it hard to organize. The internet taught everyone that they're always right, and it's ok to argue about anything and everything with as mich vitriol as one could muster. It also allowed the worst among us to organize and communicate easily. COVID showed us how much people truly don't give a shit about almost everything until it's truly a disaster for them personally.

You're not going to find these kind of conservatives on Lemmy.

So I've always been left leaning. But I went to uni for economics so some of my left views I believe are best solved through the market, which appear right wing.

Also I have given up with current left parties for the moment so will probably vote right in the next election.

I think more things need to be nationalised, like rail and water, need more money for schools and hospitals and the police (somehow that's a right wing view on this website unbelievably everything short of communism seems right wing in this place.)

But largely I think we need more money in the hands of people, more taxes and value needs to be more accurately addressed (externalities).

The belief coming forward in economics is money beats everything. Poor people don't have enough food? Don't give them free food give them cash, it's better for them and cheaper for the state. So eventually UBI needs to exist but cash transfers are the way for people that need help.

Things that pay back in 20 years should be focused on. Subsidised nurseries and free things for teenagers to do.

Rail adds value to the area directly around it so rail is subsidised by a Land value tax on the wealth it creates around it. (Japan does this sort of, they own land around stations). Land value tax in general is great.

This is all going to cost money and people ultimately need to pay for it. So people will have less wealth but if you can free up costs then it can be a win win. More for the state and more for the people. So let's solve the housing crisis and wage stagnation. Immigration! That's why I'm voting right wing. Unskilled labour keeps wages down and house prices up, it's as simple as that. The capitalist win and that's why they try to gaslight everyone into thinking bringing in people that contribute less to the economy and commit more crime than locals is a good thing. (Stats are out there. Some countries absolutely don't do this, some do. A lot is lost in averages but some demographics make the country worse some obviously better).

Personally I'd demolish a lot of low density land and build more houses (privately) downtown and link it with public transport.

We work too much and we need to start reducing the working hours and put more money into reeducation. I'd probably give tax discounts to business that set up outside of the main cities too.

On a personal societal level we have also lost sight of what equality actually is. Equality isn't treating people differently because they are different, it's treating people the same even if they are different.

Lemmy's loudest seem to believe me thinking the "democratic" part of "democratic socialism" is pretty important makes me a conservative. So here's my "manifesto" for what needs to change in this country, not even to fix our problems but to give us the tools we'll need to finally finish cleaning up this inherited mess that's been made in this land for over 400 years now.

• Abolish the independent executive, inherently the body will become a parasitic leach upon the powers and responsibilities of the legislature until we get Caesar types running for the office just for the immunity to prosecution. Rome reserved that much power entrusted to a single person for ABSOLUTE EMERGENCIES for a reason, and the only two men in US history I think have ever actually needed that level of power were Lincoln and FDR.

• Delegate the responsibilities of government to a vastly expanded parliamentary house

• Delegate the responsibilities of state to a vastly expanded senate (still equal number of senators it's just now you elect a handful at a time every two years instead of one every two or four)

• Multi-Seat STAR voting to fill the house and senate, every election will see every voting district/state send a delegation which roughly reflects the political cross section in each district and state, even Wyoming would send at least one democrat, and that fact that everyone would have at least one senator or representative who they feel validates their issues and concerns and hears their position will I think let a significant amount of steam off the building frustrations people have with their government. Plus these vastly expanded bodies will naturally end up being host to more people who previously had been kept out of the halls of power, more accessibility in terms of women, PoC, and Queer folks getting into office sure, but also, people who aren't any of those things, but who also have been kept out of the discussion because they're too poor to meaningfully challenge the established incumbents. It'll also make lobbying WAAAY harder since you have to spread a massive amount of dough to make any differences at such a grand scale.

• Replace the current circuit system of the federal court with a sortitionate system that draws the judges randomly from across the entire pool of federal judges to try cases with federal jurisdiction. Court stacking and jurisdiction shopping both are too easy at present and both wildly undermine the idea of blind justice, so let the lawyers focus on putting a case together that can win in front of any judge instead of just choosing the judge that'll say yes to them.

Again, none of this will fix all our problems, it won't fix anything except our inability to get out of our own way when trying to solve the problems we face as a country, but goddamn is even that much desperately needed in this land made for you and me.

Can you define conservative?

I am right-leaning and voted republican until Obama. My beliefs haven’t changed, but as the tea party took over, the parties shifted, and now my vote is typically for a conservative democrat, as the republican party strays farther and farther right.

We have a duty to limit oppression of people whereever they maybe. "Culture" is no excuse to justify it. The "sovereignty" of a tin pot dictator doesn't justify it. War is worse then hell, because hell doesn't have innocents in it to suffer. It is the last option after all else has failed, but it is an option and better than allowing liberty to be snuffed out.

I consider myself a centrist libertarian but I often feel like the most conservative one in the room around here. I think America needs electoral reform to allow more viable parties - having no viable alternatives is terrible for voters and leaves them few options if lunatics take over their party. It's too easy for special interests (mostly industry groups) to use the government to obtain special benefits or protection from competition for themselves, with the costs widely spread across society, making it difficult to organize opposition to them. This should be someone's (or a handful of someones') job! An ombudsman or small panel of them, something like that. The government should not be paying off or guaranteeing student loans when people decide to study things that don't lead to careers. If someone wants to get a grad degree in rich people's hobbies or political activism that's their first amendment right but it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. We need at least a plan to allocate limited resources including but not limited to road capacity, ideally with markets. Everyone sitting in traffic and suffering is not a good solution.

Multiple conflicting definitions for "Conservative", for 1 thing..

WHEN you tolerate the:

• moneyarchists
• legalists
• class-position worshippers / monarchists
• authority-worshippers

to claim that they define conservatism,

& us who're committed to conserving

• G-D given LivingValidity
• G-D given LivingWorth
• G-D given LivingPotential
• G-D offered LivingOpportunity

.. people are therefore defined to be not "conservative"..

then the framing has been highjacked.

Integrity-conservatives are conservatives.

LivingPotential conservatives are conservatives, who're interested in competent education for all, instead of accommodating the obliteration of LivingPotential through shit "education"..

LivingOpportunity conservatives are conservatives, who want wastefulness-of-LivingOpportunity to be eradicated, so that we can be inhabiting it, instead of allowint it to be eradicated/wasted..

etc.

I'd begin with the correct qualification of the version of "conservative" that a person is claiming.

Corrupt privilege-conservatives ought be called such, & not let get-away-with claiming that the're the rightful definers of "conservative".

This should go for all "conservative" & "liberal" identifications:

Let people claim whatever variant they want, and then enforce accountability through matching their actual-behavior against their claims, with indestructible public accountability.

_ /\ _