Most people are so binary in their thinking,

and the tenets of “the ” and those of “the ” have shifted so much (sometimes even exchanging places) in the last couple of decades,

that I want to write a post titled “Am I on the Right?”

(kind of [like did](medium.com/@burntoakboy/which-))

listing all the views I have that would be automatically considered left-wing by many people today.

And then perhaps “Am I on the Left?”, too.

A teaser:

* I want abortions to be not only legal but also publicly subsidised
* Ditto about euthanasia
* Ditto about hormone therapy and sex-reassignment surgery
* I am pro same-sex marriage
* I want more and freer migration
* I want the Sate to provide safety nets
* I am against the death penalty
* I want all drugs to be legal for adults (but also regulated)
* I think the State should be completely secular (no official religion, no subsidies for churches, no mentions of god)
* …

@tripu I agree on all your bullet points except for "no subsidies for churches", churches should have all the same benefits as any other nonprofit so long as they operate as a nonprofit. Being religious should no more disqualify them for subsidies than it should qualify them for it. That should be determined (and granted) based on the same criteria as any other group.

@freemo @tripu With tripu on this. Churches are private clubs, no interference positive or negative.

Key point here would be "I want the State to provide safety nets" - subsidize life for individuals. Make sure everyone can live. No indirection over church welfare stuff.

@freemo

I'm surprised you're in favour of subsidies for churches (or “any other nonprofit so long as they operate as a nonprofit”). I'm against subsidies for all those institutions in general — churches are just one category.

In fact, I take it even further: no subsidies for non-profits _nor_ for-profits, in principle. One possible exception (there may be others): industries that are vital for national security or for long-term survival etc.

/cc @admitsWrongIfProven

@tripu @freemo I mean... if anything is vital for survival, it should probably not be privatised.
The old fashioned way of state infrastructure staying like it is and getting outdated should be improvable with some feedback.

Follow

@admitsWrongIfProven

Many things that are vital for survival are in private hands, and that's right: most housing, most land used for agriculture, grocery stores, companies producing and selling clothing, etc.

/cc @freemo

Sign in to participate in the conversation
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.