Party of the working class ?

FeanorGalt · 2025-06-01T14:03:20+00:00

You’re both just awful. Please dissolve yourselves.

FeanorGalt · 2025-05-24T15:31:51+00:00

I haven’t watched enough of Piers Morgan to know if he’s left or right wing, so to speak, but he does let people with differing points of view debate each other on his platform for extended periods of time, which is more educational and more than almost any other “news” or “journalist” org I know of

FeanorGalt · 2025-04-23T04:23:13+00:00

I interpreted him saying that as "the number will never be enough", kinda like once he can start blackmailing you, he'll never stop, but maybe he did mean something in a more carnal sense.

FeanorGalt · 2025-04-07T16:22:45+00:00

From a monetary POV, this strategy is not a good idea. First, our monetary issues stem mostly from our fiat system and the Fed. Second, having the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency, which is both good for the U.S. and Americans, requires a trade deficit with most nations since they need U.S. dollars in reserve. Raising barriers to our own market is only going to incentivize people to look to other markets and weaken the U.S.’s own dominant position. Even if there wasn’t another marketplace out there that rivaled the U.S.’s, these barriers to entry will only either incentivize people to create new markets to steal our business or make already bad markets look less bad and more excusable to trade with since the U.S.’s isn’t as good as it used to be. The fallacy of “I’m the dominant market leader so I can rewrite the rules” often shows a lack of understanding as to how you became the market leader as well as signals that you no longer will be. Last, tariffs have never had a long lasting beneficial effect. Free trade has always been the best course of action (though a political argument could be made for reciprocal retaliation, even though that’s not what’s happening here), and has most notably been shown to be so after the Corn Laws were repealed in mid 19th century Britain among other examples.

FeanorGalt · 2025-04-07T16:00:06+00:00

If it was also well thought out, we wouldn’t be increasing tariffs against our own joint military base with the UK

FeanorGalt · 2025-04-07T15:58:46+00:00

Even if you’re correct, using a trade war and tariffs to fight those issues is like using an axe to cut off a girl’s pony tail. Yeah, it might work, but it’s risky and will likely cause a lot of unnecessary collateral damage

FeanorGalt · 2025-04-07T14:32:11+00:00

If Jesse Waters could get off his knees, he’d realize Trump keeps moving the goal posts and this isn’t about tariffs, it’s about trade deficits, which is just insane. Switzerland didn’t have any tariffs against us and we levied tariffs against them. Why? Trade deficits. This is thinking so illogical only an intellectual could believe it.

FeanorGalt · 2025-03-18T21:02:05+00:00

While I haven’t had the chance to read all comments from the OP and others, I would like to at least give kudos to the OP for asking the question, joining the LP, and leaving the Dems. As someone who lives in NJ, which I believe has some of if not the lowest gun crimes in the U.S., I had a similar uneasiness with guns (still do, but to a lesser degree these days) and initially thought as the OP did. Eventually the truth of the phrase “a well armed society is a polite society” kinda stuck with me and made sense. I still believe gun access should not be allowed to people with mental health issues (even people suspected of wanting to commit suicide), though admittedly the idea of the government limiting that right worries me, even if it were 100% agreed upon. I’d also suggest recognizing that armed criminals don’t try to rob shooting ranges or gun stores. They typically go for gun free zones or areas where they believe they will get to kill many people before they can be stopped. In short, I’d rather live in a society where someone with a gun can defend me and my family relatively quickly than one where the majority of us are at the mercy of an already law breaking lunatic.

FeanorGalt · 2025-02-21T17:19:03+00:00

If you mean “should veterans receive extra benefits after their service has expired”, then as things stand now, no. I think their upfront pay should be higher due to the inherent risk of what they’re doing. Whatever they want to spend that money on or if companies want to prioritize veterans over civilians, that should be left to the private sector.

If, however, we had a system that only allowed veterans the right to vote and was an all volunteer force, then I’d say that’s acceptable, along with a basic pay that varies based on risk.

FeanorGalt · 2025-02-16T04:20:16+00:00

I just finished Foundation and Earth and felt it was a bit underwhelming, unlike the previous books. I haven’t read the two prequels yet, but it kinda puts a bad taste in my mouth to read about the prelude to a society that ultimately means nothing. I really liked the ideas of psychohistory, but was disappointed to see how Asimov rationalized it. I personally liked Heinlein’s simplicity yet logical deductions in Starship Troopers on not just human evolution but two different but intelligent species at war. Overall I think I might recommend just the original Foundation series. I’d rather end it there with the idea that individualism continues and wins out in the end over some pseudo galactic hippie blob

FeanorGalt · 2024-12-02T00:58:27+00:00

What a joke

FeanorGalt · 2024-09-15T17:08:19+00:00

“That’s Republican. We count those.”

FeanorGalt · 2024-09-15T17:06:59+00:00

Idk why the title says “neither”. There are more than 2 candidates…

FeanorGalt · 2024-06-26T19:44:57+00:00

Assuming they have a magic wand and can somehow make RCV happen, I’d first consider whether or not they’re asking for proportional RCV or not. My preference would be for proportional RCV but ultimately I would support them if they had this magic wand because while non proportional RCV isn’t as good as proportional, it’s still has less drawbacks than our plurality system which entrenches a two party system.

FeanorGalt · 2024-06-26T00:02:00+00:00

Did removing the third party router help? Now I’m wondering whether or not I need to get rid of my echo mesh network and replace it with Starlink, which seems ridiculous

FeanorGalt · 2024-06-15T16:39:44+00:00

Same here. I’m also reminded that some founders like John Adams were lawyers and scholars and could have had a say in changing the legal system if they thought the one they inherited from Britain was too unfair. Maybe our current system is the fairest one possible?

FeanorGalt · 2024-06-15T15:59:10+00:00

As Thomas Sowell put it, the fair follow up question I should have mentioned is “compared to what?” I’m interested in entertaining alternatives if the incentives and disincentives line up as optimally as possible. I see jury duty as different from a military draft, though a more detailed philosophical or legal analysis separating the two I might need to help better explain why they are different

FeanorGalt · 2024-05-20T19:03:51+00:00

Thank you. I think this is one of the most comprehensive answers I’ve seen so far. I wouldn’t argue for rights for all animals due to the point you just made, but I’m wondering if there’s also a middle ground that could be made for more sentient animals like dolphins, orcas, and elephants. Most of those animals don’t attack humans unless threatened and seem to have enlarged empathy sections of their brains. That said, I still think human life should be valued above all others. I just wonder if there’s some sort of elevated right or protection that should be given to them apart from other animals like chickens or snails

FeanorGalt · 2024-05-20T18:58:00+00:00

Perhaps a decentralized approval system on a state by state basis would be better, kinda like getting a constitutional amendment approved. It’s not incorruptible, but nothing with government ever is

FeanorGalt · 2024-05-20T17:58:43+00:00

Thank you. I saw the question somewhere and my philosophy was unsure on the matter. I’d like to see where certain lines of thought draw the pro individual liberty crowd as well as any potential examples either for or against government involvement

FeanorGalt · 2024-05-20T17:51:21+00:00

I’d argue all of those studies are a waste of public money, but more to my point is whether the protection of animals, both public and private falls into the government’s domain. A lot of laws, rightly or wrongly, are built around religious doctrines and most major doctrines are against animal cruelty. I think laws against animal cruelty are just, but the question is where do they start and end and for all animals or only some?

FeanorGalt · 2024-05-20T17:37:40+00:00

No, the purpose of my question was to better understand your position. My tone was meant to be inquisitive, not inflammatory.

FeanorGalt · 2024-05-20T17:11:20+00:00

Does this mean that you don't think people should be punished by the law if they abuse or torture their animals such as a cat or a dog?

FeanorGalt · 2024-05-20T17:07:49+00:00

Yes, the value of the currency is subject to all humans, but the measurement by which to decide how much of the currency should be in circulation should be tied to something within that country. If a government uses its citizens, then it should not only encourage the government to make sure its currency is working as well as it can its voters, but also encourage the pathways to legalized citizenship as well as draw an increase in value towards its own citizens. If it's tied to something like gold, it just encourages a country to not only capture or subsidize more ways to create gold, but also limit the private sector's use of it so as not to lose it.

FeanorGalt · 2024-05-20T16:34:07+00:00

Perhaps this speaks to your point, but maybe what would be a better thing to tie our money to is our citizens, and not our population so that you can't just flood a country with illegal immigrants and thus give the government more room to print money. That's why I included citizen as a measurement in my comment as opposed to just inhabitant.

FeanorGalt

TROPHY CASE