OK, I have a disability, but I'm more right-wing

Post Reply New Topic

The far right (libertarian) would want the family and community to support the disabled.

It worked well enough in the past going by my own research. Churches (community) tended to support the ill, as did the family. The family and community were stronger back then, I admit.

Libertarianism would agree with disability pensions once it was shown the family wasn't helping or there was no family; it's not stateless after all.

Anarchism is your extreme where if the family or community didn't help, then you'd be left on your own.

There was only so much churches and private individuals could do. None of them had the scope or ability as the federal government has.
As for a previous post of your concerning who's to say how much suffering is too much - it's rather callous to disregard what others go through when you have no idea what they're feeling.

Of course.

The thing you have to watch out for with a strong central government is that they have a propensity to continue once the "good things" have been passed.

What happens when equal rights have been given to all? When the disabled and old are cared for [with little expenditure per person]? People start looking for problems, and these things encroach upon individual freedoms. Which is the problem with leftism that I and many others have. Tyranny through good intentions and all that. You can say, slippery slope fallacy, but we see it happen time after time in these exact circumstances, so it's not really.

As for suffering:

A nonverbal autistic individual that is trapped in their own world, that shows outward signs of distress many times a day. We should kill them for their own good, right? This is the same thing for anyone that's disabled that doesn't have the ability to communicate a choice across.

If it's callous of me to want them to live as no answer was given by them, then call me callous. It's not enough reasonable doubt to play with individual life.

Who said anything about killing anyone?
And what happen when equal rights is given to all? No one get sh*t on for who they are, which sounds pretty good to me.

The conversation was about aborting people based solely on a disability (they "might be suffering" in the most benevolent stance). Which is killing them.

Hate speech laws, for example. It's "equal rights" taken to the extreme, and infringes upon the personal freedom of saying mean things about people; it even ends up with criticizing someone or some belief/opinion equating to the same hate speech. There's a large push for these across the western world in the present and recent past with various degrees of success and failure (it doesn't work as well in the US simply because of the 1st needing a large vote to overturn).

I'm of the opinion that while hate speech shouldn't be legally regulated, employers should be able to discipline those working for them for such things. When said in public, racist language should be countered with the intention of ridiculing the racist speaker.
I misunderstood you last post about using abortion as a means of controlling the disabled population, thinking you were accusing the rest of us of such heinous practices, for which I apologize.

It's cool.

The common left and right really aren't much different in ideology; just some specific differences here and there, but in the end, they both want to help and give equality to all groups of people. Lots of people, I think, forget this.

Which makes sense, as both are actually liberal ideologies. No doubt they made it that way so that the extremes can't take control; I can't recall English-descended countries going into extremism in the past century, really, whereas many, many others of similar technological ability have.

We need to help our own before helping others, millions of Americans need your help first.

Ideally, yes; but that's not always possible. Babies and those who are severely disabled cannot communicate this information. I think that the right thing to do is make the decision for them (with regard to suffering.) You can't just step away from a moral dilemma because the circumstances aren't ideal. You still have to deal with the problem.

if we bar the south of the border ones, agricultural interests in America will SCREAM long and loud because nobody else will do that squat labor in the sun.

There seems to be this myth that conservatives want zero welfare programs.
I don't believe that is the case. I believe the cons just have a more intolerant approach to those they feel can work.
It could improve but ultimately the goal is to reduce welfare to those that do need it so that their welfare is not infringed upon by fraudulent layabouts. And they want the economy to grow.

Be thankful there is even welfare at all for the disabled. In most countries in the world it simply doesn't exist. It's not a right, it's a privilege (at least where we currently stand in time).

OP, follow whichever party you want to follow and if you change your mind later that's OK, too.
Whatever people tell you, we can't do everything for everyone. In practicality it simply isn't possible for a number of reasons.

kind of seems they'd like to severely narrow what is seen as a 'genuine' disability so it is concerning that people with invisible disabilities could be considered not genuinely disabled enough. Also disability pension is for after you've been working if you become disabled....what is their take on SSI?

Also though considering poverty is something that exists I don't think eliminating all welfare aside from disability would be the best idea. Unless there is a sure way to give all those people jobs that will cover their needs...there has to be help available for the impoverished as well as disabled. But yeah something like ending ebt/food stamps would probably be a terrible idea for instance.

It doesn't make sense to reduce welfare for people who 'need' it contrary to their belief...desperation for basic needs met doesn't make someone a better prospective employee/worker. I mean if they really think it comes down to 'that person just needs a job or to work more.' they really are ignorant. Lots of people in poverty do have jobs and do work a lot...somehow I don't think more jobs and cutting welfare is going to solve it.

They will if the companies pay them decently and make working conditions more bare able. Who do you think did it before the illegals came in the 90s? I know many Americans who do farming. There's still a large population of country folk, everyone' not a urbanite like us. Heck if it paid good and I could work part time I'd probably do it.
Heck lots of people will go and pay companies to pick fruit.

A certain someone told us to "love your neighbor." Our neighbor isn't just our people, but is everyone.

I disagree that only helps children, I think it helps everyone. I think you're misinterpreted me as opposing things like SSI/disability insurance, being familiar with those programs I know they are insufficient and I think a lot more can be done to transition people who can from these programs back into the workforce as I think most people would want as I don't think a life on SSI is one most would choose if given other options. I do not identify as a doctrinaire Randian libertarian, you gain life experiences(get beaten down) and lose patience with those that promise the world so being overly rigid in ideology is both impractical and ultimately self-defeating as one has to sell their ideas in order for them to ever be realized. Anarco-capitalism isn't a particularly attractive viewpoint to people that aren't well-to-do homesteaders or preppers, now I like the idea of self-sufficiency but having those means are not realistic to most people in this country so one has to adapt to more realistic and humanistic approach.

Like I said tho, I believe ultimate some form of guaranteed income is necessary in the long run of things because of automation but it also was 'right wing idea' championed by the likes Milton Friedman and was under serious consideration from Nixon before Watergate. The idea is to basically end all the beauracracy and overhead of the means testing welfare state, things would work more efficiently and the money would flow directly to those that need it while allowing the individual choice in the market for social services instead bloated government mandated bureaucracies.

Your point about the Republican Party essentially being pawns of these big corporations is correct for people like Paul Ryan or the Bush family but the Democrats are no better and the corporatist Dems likes Obama and the Clinton's are just as bad if not worse in that regard. The base of the GOP is much more working class than the leadership that is supposed to represent their views which is why Donald Trump won the GOP nomination against unprecedented opposition from all sides. Bernie made a challenge in the Democratic party, I did not take his candidacy seriously as I've been saying the system was rigged for Hillary for years in exchange for bowing out in 2008 with the 2016 field cleared of all 'serious' potential challengers(most notably the Vice President altho he is marginally better policy wise than Hillary, he is at least seems like a decent person) but obviously there is a huge appetite on both sides against the status-quo. I was proven correct about the rigged system with the revelations from Wikileaks, I witnessed it before in the candidacies of Ron Paul the lengths the media and party establishment will go ensure their grip on power.

A good job to me is one that is secure and that you can support a family on, benefits included. No, it is not right that someone has to half kill themselves with 12 hour rotating shifts with no weekends/holidays for a company that makes tens of billions in profit every year regardless of the economy(funny thing about alcohol), now SABMiller which is the parent company of Coors is being acquired by Anheuser-Busch InBev basically monopolizing the entire beer market so I think some trustbusting is probably in order. Another important thing I think is not only keeping the jobs here in America but also keeping domestic ownership instead of selling out to communist China/the Saudis or some faceless multinational corporation.