Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Regulation on businesses seems to be a mixed bag at the moment. Always calls for regulations on finance to avoid another sub prime mortgage type scenario (DDM posted in detail about the repackaging and repackaging over and over of debt) as well as on fossil fuel companies, food standards, environmental standards etc. Mostly driven by centre left.Also currently lots of calls for regulation of the big internet giants around free speech, public spaces etc mostly from the right.
Seems that area is an evolving topic regarding regulations and political allegiance.
Yes, but that's only a recent development because of all the unfair censorship that's been happening to conservatives online. It isn't a traditional conservative position. Generally speaking, more regulations are a left-leaning position.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yes, but that's only a recent development because of all the unfair censorship that's been happening to conservatives online. It isn't a traditional conservative position. Generally speaking, more regulations are a left-leaning position.
Yes. Although I don't think many on the right would argue against certain regulations instigated over the years like not allowing companies to dump toxic waste into water supplies or ones in the pipeline regarding controlling drug price inflation. Or not allowing food processing companies to put any old shit into food. In fact in relation to that last point it's usually the left looking to get rid of regulations regarding genetically modified crops for example.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
With regards to UBI, you can't take it in isolation. Or any issue for that matter. You can be left or right wing on most things and thus be regarded as such and still essentially be a pragmatic futurist and acknowledge the inevitability of UBI being necessary eventually. Otherwise we end up with a future akin to the movie Elysium.As someone who lives in a country with a tax funded universal healthcare system I don't agree that a voluntary payment system would be considered that. It should be noted that here, as I'm sure you already know but others on here might not be, in the UK also has private healthcare companies for those who can afford it. That seems the fairest system. Everyone pays for it and has the right to use it but has the choice not to if they can afford it (private companies tend to be much quicker for treatment and slightly more advanced technologically speaking)
We have a candidate that touches on many of these issues, Andrew Yang. I doubt he'll get the nomination because he isn't a politician he is more of a policy wonk.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Yes. Although I don't think many on the right would argue against certain regulations instigated over the years like not allowing companies to dump toxic waste into water supplies or ones in the pipeline regarding controlling drug price inflation. Or not allowing food processing companies to put any old shit into food. In fact in relation to that last point it's usually the left looking to get rid of regulations regarding genetically modified crops for example.
Yeah, that may be true but, imo, gmo's are very bad for a person's health. Conservatives like me are ok with a small amount of regulation. Some regulation is needed just like some government is needed.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This site says it has a more accurate and less neo-liberal bias compared to the politicalcompass test:https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
I'm taking it, now.
I failed the test.
Never go paperless:
As an attorney, I can tell you there is a legal reason for this.If you sign up NOT to receive a paper bill, you screw yourself in court if you have to file a law suit. Companies have certain obligations to send you a statement every X days because there are penalties and if they fail to do that then that is in your advantage. If you sign up never to receive the statements, their problem solved and you have to be the one to prove it. This is a problem because you often can't since there's no "paper" trail; only modifiable accounting statements available online that may or may not match what the company has in it's "non-modified" records. Screen shots don't hold up in court.
Don't fall for it.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yeah, that may be true but, imo, gmo's are very bad for a person's health. Conservatives like me are ok with a small amount of regulation. Some regulation is needed just like some government is needed.
Like most things, GMO technology is neither good nor bad. It's the application of it that matters. Using it to simply increase profits at the cost of human and/or animal health is not acceptable.
In some cases it can be vitally important for human health. There's GMO varieties of rice that can help prevent vitamin A deficiency in the developing world which is a massive health problem. You can modify tomatoes to produce capsaicin (they already have the gene for it but it's inactive) and this can be used for pain relief and has anti cancer potential. You can modify cows to produce milk with no lactose to help with the dietary needs of people with intolerance problems. You can massively reduce the cost of some cancer treatments by removing the need for expensive production equipment and have chickens produce it in their eggs. You can even produce fruit and vegetables with disease vaccines built in, negating the need for injections, drugs and medical staff needed to administer them. That would help enormously in third world countries.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0Absolutely, did they ever turn cows into the pharmaceutical factories that were planned?
Like most things, GMO technology is neither good nor bad. It's the application of it that matters. Using it to simply increase profits at the cost of human and/or animal health is not acceptable.In some cases it can be vitally important for human health. There's GMO varieties of rice that can help prevent vitamin A deficiency in the developing world which is a massive health problem. You can modify tomatoes to produce capsaicin (they already have the gene for it but it's inactive) and this can be used for pain relief and has anti cancer potential. You can modify cows to produce milk with no lactose to help with the dietary needs of people with intolerance problems. You can massively reduce the cost of some cancer treatments by removing the need for expensive production equipment and have chickens produce it in their eggs. You can even produce fruit and vegetables with disease vaccines built in, negating the need for injections, drugs and medical staff needed to administer them. That would help enormously in third world countries.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeLet's see the proof for GMO's being 'bad' for you. Show me a link or don't respond at all.
Yeah, that may be true but, imo, gmo's are very bad for a person's health. Conservatives like me are ok with a small amount of regulation. Some regulation is needed just like some government is needed.
Originally posted by dadudemonTake this test! It's awesome. It may be the best US-Centric test, yet:
https://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/democrat-or-republican-quiz.html
Mine was 55 < 45. probably would have been a little higher on the left. but I didn't like how a couple questions were worded so I left the slider in the middle.
Originally posted by snowdragon
I knew this already and it hasn't changed in a long long time.You are a centrist social libertarian.
Right: 0.33, Libertarian: 5.15If I could pick my candidates to vote for tomorrow though it would be either Gabbard or Yang even if it doesn't "align" with my beliefs.
We are very similar in our scores. Almost the exact same.
😐
Originally posted by Silent Master
Mine was 55 < 45. probably would have been a little higher on the left. but I didn't like how a couple questions were worded so I left the slider in the middle.
Nice.
Thanks for taking the time. We are also not far off on this score I support more socialist programs than you do, probably: think UHC should happen yesterday, for example.
Originally posted by dadudemon
We are very similar in our scores. Almost the exact same.😐
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Like most things, GMO technology is neither good nor bad. It's the application of it that matters. Using it to simply increase profits at the cost of human and/or animal health is not acceptable.In some cases it can be vitally important for human health. There's GMO varieties of rice that can help prevent vitamin A deficiency in the developing world which is a massive health problem. You can modify tomatoes to produce capsaicin (they already have the gene for it but it's inactive) and this can be used for pain relief and has anti cancer potential. You can modify cows to produce milk with no lactose to help with the dietary needs of people with intolerance problems. You can massively reduce the cost of some cancer treatments by removing the need for expensive production equipment and have chickens produce it in their eggs. You can even produce fruit and vegetables with disease vaccines built in, negating the need for injections, drugs and medical staff needed to administer them. That would help enormously in third world countries.
GMO's, in general, are bad though. I've done a ton of reading about them. I always try to buy organic food when I can afford it (which sadly isn't too often lol). Iirc, several countries in Europe have alrerady banned them.