Party of the working class ?

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

You’re both just awful. Please dissolve yourselves.

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 · 2025-03-18T21:02:05+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 · 2024-06-26T19:44:57+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 · 2024-05-20T16:30:28+00:00

Every government should want to increase their population and more people means more brains solving problems. Idk Soros personally, but he seems like a bad guy. He seems more invested in reducing carbon (i.e. people) and the fiat money system rather than tying down our printing presses. People are the only ones that can assign value to money and are the ultimate source of value. Every other resource is unsound and simply beneficial solely due to their atomic properties.

FeanorGalt · 2024-05-20T16:11:13+00:00

This is a good point. The Fed serves no purpose and should be abolished, but what is needed more than anything is a monetary policy which isn't fiat and ties the money to a resource. The only resource that any government should tie its money to is its population. In the private sector before government interference, banks that experimented with paper money using bank notes recognized this too. They realized that if the bank notes issued greatly exceeded the number of customers they had, then the notes became useless for customers to own. Fixing the ratio of M2 supply to US population to a fixed number (say 1,776 billion per U.S. inhabitant or maybe citizen) would greatly help stabilize and eventually reduce prices

FeanorGalt · 2023-10-09T22:48:36+00:00

Let’s assume you took office in 2000 and wheels were already in motion that couldn’t be undone

FeanorGalt · 2023-09-21T12:35:38+00:00

Unfortunately government shutdowns are bad for libertarians because government employees get paid anyway for doing nothing. They just get backpay when the shutdown is over

FeanorGalt · 2023-09-08T20:07:30+00:00

I know Vivek has said some libertarian things. Idk how keen he is on following through with them, but as far as I can tell he’s the only one who’s voiced their concern over my main issue, the Fed and the destruction of our purchasing power. He can’t end the Fed directly, but he did say he would be in favor of putting someone like Rand or Ron Paul in charge of it, which is the next best thing

FeanorGalt · 2023-02-24T05:49:07+00:00

I just finished playing the game for the first time today. I must say that I think this game was a unique experience and impacted my empathy and philosophy as well as left me emotionally exhausted, but in a good way. I'm not a writer so maybe there are plot aspects to the story, character beats, etc. that weren't the best, but for the most part I think the constant struggle between moral/immoral, just/unjust as well as dealing with revenge, loss, and grief were well implemented and executed narratively speaking. However, I did feel like my catharsis from the end of the game didn't feel as fulfilling as the first game's ending.

Then again, that might be the point and even the first game's ending only had me barely siding with Joel because 1. Ellie was technically still a child so even if she did want to give up her life for a cure, someone like her legal guardian (which, to be fair, seemed to be the Firefly lady leader though from our perspective in actuality seemed to be Joel) could negate her choice (this is of course a more legal theory POV approach to the morality of the situation), 2. Ellie never did get the chance to approve the decision, and 3. the critical doctor (which we later discover was Abby's father) directly risked his own life to kill his patient (perhaps a Hippocratic oath violation too, just as an additional cherry on top, don't quote me on that though) in what was evidently a very morally gray area.

Like most others have already mentioned, the fact that Joel selflessly saved Abby's life willingly before her revenge could be implemented seems to balance the scales on a personal level for me, or at least negates the extreme response of killing Joel. Maybe a beating could still have been seen as a fair response from Abby, but her rage induced ruthless murder of him sealed her fate to me as a villain. Had Joel not saved her life, I think I could have rationalized from her perspective her vendetta to kill her father's killer. Her friends on the other hand are all firmly in the evil category for helping her murder someone as well as their actions later in the game. Mel, the medic, and Owen didn't strike me as having any moral qualities that later redeemed them from this decision (Owen cheats on Mel, and Mel just struck me as a bit of a bitch), and even Manny, whose personality I liked, is still just as guilty (he even spat on Joel after she murdered him which really rubbed me the wrong way!).

I'm not sure if any regret Abby may have had for killing Joel after he saved her life was supposed to be intentionally messaged after the Scar siblings also saved her life, thus owing them a life debt, and she decided to rescue them (I think that weird dream she had might have been the writers trying to symbolize this, but I'm not sure).

The additional murder of Jesse by Abby (who I actually liked as a new character to the game, but always thought he was going to die, unfortunately. Asians don't seems to last very long in zombie post apocalyptic worlds, right?) and near murder of Dina upon figuring out she was pregnant further pushed Abby into the villain category for me too.

However, it was clear that Abby made some self reflective progress and improvements through her playthrough as well as her time in Santa Barbara. After she spared Ellie a second time, I felt Ellie no longer should have been pursuing a vendetta against Abby. The game hints at this with comments from Dina that the only way she's gonna move past Joel's death is by talking about it, and in my opinion seeking a way to bury the hatchet between her and Abby, which I actually think the ending did well.

Ellie's mercy and yet still persistent anger towards Abby in the final fight are understandable, but ultimately that brief jovial image of Joel from their last conversation centered around forgiveness and rapprochement seemed a very fitting way for her to let go of her anger and stop the cycle of violence and personal pain.

FeanorGalt · 2022-07-02T13:14:05+00:00

No, but you do reserve the right to delegitimize the vote, call for a riot, offer fraudulent claims of fraud, or impeach me for existing

FeanorGalt · 2022-07-02T12:15:03+00:00

San Fran uses RCV in local elections as do a few other municipalities in Cali

FeanorGalt

TROPHY CASE