[quote=@Pepperm1nts] Well, then read again. Social democracy, at least the way it is often called for in the US, seeks to work [i]within[/i] the framework of a capitalist society. Meaning it aims to put social/public policies in place, without completely getting rid of privatization. So much so that it is/was criticized by actual socialists for having more or less surrendered to capitalist ideas by aspiring to work within the capitalist system as opposed to completely destroying it like socialists want to do. Social Democracy is a compromise. [/quote] [s]Wikipedia has been wrong before.[/s] I think a lot of that first part was glanced over. 'I feel that's kind of what we already have in many ways, and a lot of those social elements are very poorly handled. (I'm sure maybe that could be agreed upon, I suppose the divide would be how you'd fix those things.)' It seems that a lot of problems facing America currently have almost always not a free-market economy, but some horrible hybrid. Could you provide some specific examples to what you might be describing? What problem do you think a 'mixed-bag system' solution would be useful for? Can we really pull random bits from other nations, and just stick them here? As people like Bernie Sanders may imply, when he talks about 'Literacy Programs' of Nicaragua. Is that what you believe will work? [quote=@Pepperm1nts] I didn't say anything about gun licenses. I said it's harder to get a driver's license than it is to legally get a gun. [/quote] I know, I meant an actual photo I.D/driver's License to get a gun. [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Bad food is cheap. Poor people buy cheap food. We have a lot of poor people. And yeah, to an extent I think it also comes down to shitty dietary choices. But I don't know, I'm just guessing. [/quote] I guess the only thing I'll say about that, since I want to keep this a general discussion, is that stuff like fast food certainly isn't cheaper than making it yourself which would almost guaranteed to be healthier. I'd say nearly everything comes down to choices. [quote=@Pepperm1nts] I wouldn't consider a car a basic need, but even if we did consider it a basic need for the sake of argument, it's a problem that would be solved with better salaries. There's a lot of poor people out there who have so many things they have to pay (and barely have the money to) that a car, for a lot of them, is too much to get and maintain on top of everything else. [color=fff200]A living wage is not just about paying people enough to live; it's about paying people enough to live [i]comfortably[/i] and with dignity.[/color] [/quote] I wouldn't exactly want a free government car. Nor can I imagine how'd you'd implement such a thing realistically... I think that clarification doesn't actually explain how'd you implement such things. I think it actually makes the stance even more vague... "Basic things you need to live." It's debatable, but simpler at least. But now, it's comfortably/'with dignity'. So again I'd have to ask, who decides that exactly? In a world with people's nature, who desire for more... [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Again, pay people living wages so they aren't struggling with basic necessities and everything else (like transportation) becomes accessible to them as a result. If they want to get a car with the money they have left after the basic needs are covered, cool. A bike? Great. I don't think people in the richest country on earth should have to live with only just enough to survive. Ideally, I want people to have enough for their basic needs, but also something extra to put into the economy. I see a lot of people on the right who seem to find it outrageous to think people should have a little spending money. You hear it a lot from the "just save your money!" crowd and it's ridiculous. [incoming sarcasm] How dare people want to enjoy their lives a little? They should just pay their bills and save everything else even if it means living in an empty apartment. Spending money on furniture and TVs is sooo irresponsible. Oh, and their phones. How fucking dare they. [/quote] What's a living wage? Do you think that answer is the same across the board or that all people will be satisfied with the number you give? I think there's a shred of truth to that, I think some people can turn their noses at people problems because they've not experienced the same struggles. The sorts that claim we can't afford houses because of avocado toast, are tools who the sensible can laugh at. Though yes, people that spend hundreds on a phone and expensive clothes and drugs and alcohol would do a lot better in the world saving their money. You mentioned you don't agree with equal outcomes, but equal opportunity. But set basic incomes wages for existing...isn't that. And even that can be heavily exploited depending how it's implemented. But I don't think anyone likes the idea of poverty. Something I'd like to see, is more people hiring, more jobs for people to make that wage themselves. That is an equal opportunity idea. [quote=@Pepperm1nts] You're doing something a lot of right-wingers do. Someone says "hey, there's a problem with X" and they try to offer a solution, but if the solution doesn't solve literally every conceivable problem, it's a bad one. Life doesn't work that way. Sometimes we have to inch our way towards progress. You can't wave a magic wand and fix every aspect of every problem. Sometimes a solution only patches three out of four holes, but having three holes patched up is better than none. [/quote] Rationalize positions? [i]Oh.[/i] I mean the "give everyone lots of money so that everyone is comfortable." is kind of a fairly simple sounding, widespread solution isn't it? It certainly seems to sound like an end all problem. Give people money every month to 'live with dignity', and the problems of gambling addictions and people bad with money, etc will be solved... I was simply theorizing what "basic" means in such context. Since you weren't specific. But you even had to add the word comfortable, so okay...do you think someone should live without two legs? I can't imagine it's a comfortable life. So why not have free prosthetic limbs surgeries? [quote=@Pepperm1nts] Well, color me surprised. I figured you'd hate her. [/quote] Well, to my knowledge she hasn't said white people don't know what it's like to be poor, so she has a leg up on Bernie Sanders. ;D [quote=@Pepperm1nts] The first few results that came up for me were to do with regular gay marriage, not trans rights. I think to an extent it's an old vs new thing, because even on the left there are people like Hillary who were anti-gay marriage until relatively recently, but I think the right is [i]by far[/i] more anti-LGBT than the left. Like, it's not even a contest. Hands down, the Republican party is the anti-LGBT party. That may be slowly changing, but it still has a long way to go. [/quote] With not much to go on, or say otherwise. I'll take your word for it. I simply don't agree with that assessment. I'd go as so far to say a lot of tactics used to label such things doesn't look good for the party in question. Since that's been their tendency recently, simply to demonize rather than really look to the individual. Actually, I believe the cultural idea of accepting everything, actually has lead to some rather negative consequences, despite the noble idea behind it. It's simply a farce, because everyone has a line...(Even you, probably.)