“In the most extensive poll of how U.S. farmers and ranchers plan to vote for president, respondents overwhelmingly say they’ll support a Republican, and among those, 40 percent say they will support Donald Trump.”
So most farmers seem to be right-wing?
Anyway, the OP meme was reacting to how some writer thought that supporting you local farmer’s market is “fascist”…
So, I guess my question is what specific problems are you trying to solve, and how might we solve them? A “free market” doesn’t automatically fix these problems, any more than regulations automatically fix these issues. Problem with regulations is it makes it harder to start up a farm yourself for example: you have to comply with all these rules that make it cost-prohibitive to run small operations. Problem with “free market” like for housing is certain private entities buying up real estate (homes) and then renting it out.
So I guess have you thought about how these problems might be solved together, or do you think there are mutually exclusive approaches (only one side is right)? I think the rightwing side is “right”, but I also identified like with housing how a “free market” approach also allows bad outcomes. However regulation of housing makes it more expensive to provide housing, leading to a lack of a supply of affordable housing and subsequent homelessness.
Anyway if you’d like to discuss it and try to make progress on the problems, that would be nice. Adieu @webghost
I mean a national ban isn’t unreasonable, leftists don’t seem supportive of the states having rights to decide about slavery, and abortion fundamentally violates the life and liberty of the unborn so a national ban on such a horrific practice would seem reasonable
there are some alternatives popping up like drone light shows (which can do some interesting displays fireworks can’t?) and if they got popular enough maybe people wouldn’t feel a need for fireworks as much
how about you double their salaries (or allowances?) and see how miserable they are? kek
these “studies” are retarded, anyone online in our circles knows what the problems are and these “clownish” professors suggest the most asinine distracting questions
“is it video games? pornography? too much social media?!”
I think that’s a different analogy; this is more like allowing adults to read a piece praising a philosophy of stealing (which most people reject), which would be different from actually stealing something (or handing out physical firearms)
The widely cited “paradox of intolerance” is invoked erroneously; the tolerance of “disagreeable information” does not require that one agree with intolerant uses of force against a person. It is quite a different thing to allow someone to read someone write positively about “the virtue of stealing” (a philosophy which most people would reject), and quite another to say that one must allow a thief to steal from them.