Re: A Personal Challenge To The Forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you "wouldn't mind" morality laws against gambling, alcohol, violence/sex in movies/videogames/television, or most stuff on the internet?

Sounds good.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the spirit of this thread, since these things cause a lot of problems for a significant portion of the population, yeah I would be ok with it.

As for me, welfare can be useful in a very limited sense if it's not abused. Public education could be ok with me too, since I believe if someone wants to learn they can reguardless of most scenerios they are faced with in this country.

Re: A Personal Challenge To The Forum
 

-A high estate tax
-Higher unemployment benefits

Re: A Personal Challenge To The Forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's the least harmful policy on the other side that you would half-heartedly support if you get almost all of your political views or platform immediately enacted? Basically, what are some of the least bad ideas you disagree with but wouldn't mind so much?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the federal level? Something like NOAA, perhaps?

Re: A Personal Challenge To The Forum
 

Tax the ultra rich a little more or make inheritance taxes bigger. I figure if we have to steal someones money might as well be a dead guys

Re: A Personal Challenge To The Forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
what are some of the least bad ideas you disagree with but wouldn't mind so much?

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Overturn Roe v. Wade

[/ QUOTE ]

Seconded.

Re: A Personal Challenge To The Forum
 

Ron Paul's anti-choice and anti-immigration platforms.

Re: A Personal Challenge To The Forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
Uhm... public fire department? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I would've said the same thing but this is a bit worrying...

I would accept a fiat currency if the Fed would make it's goal be 0% inflation. According to my macro book by Mankiw we could maintain 0% inflation if we wanted, it would just be painful getting there; once we're there it would be essentially the same. Oh, and only if they actually implemented a reasonable CPI bundle and didn't change it to suit their purposes.

Re: A Personal Challenge To The Forum
 

Health and safety regulations.

Re: A Personal Challenge To The Forum
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you "wouldn't mind" morality laws against gambling, alcohol, violence/sex in movies/videogames/television, or most stuff on the internet?

Sounds good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop polluting my thread with this garbage. I don't care about inane points you can find in 100 different posts on the forum. It's a philosophical challenge, not a freaking cakewalk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but juntmonkey makes a solid point. Your challenge that "religous morality is given a bad rap" and, I think, your assertion that it is something you'd be willing to live with is self delusional and indicative of why your question can't be answered simply. Most of the policies you may have been soliciting, from both sides, spring from similar ethical and spiritual thought, and can't be so easily divorced from one another.

Religious morality does not exist in a vacuum, and any attempt to use it as a legislative tool is almost sure to unleash the negative aspects Juntmonkey is alluding to.

You posted the original question (and a very interesting one, I think) to engage in dialogue and debate, and he just punched a little hole, fairly, in one of your answers to your "philosophical challenge". I don't think his point was inane at all.

That said, as a sort of lesser of evils argument, I would be willing to live with less government regulation of corporate environmental policies, and hope like hell the bastards could govern themselves.

If I misunderstood your "religious morality" argument, my apologies. But I tend to agree with Juntmonkey.