So “leftism” is about telling what people can and can’t do? And the right is about...? When I think about right wing politics in the US I think about how women CAN’T have an abortion if they feel it’s necessary, about how you CAN carry around an assault rifle for self defense, about how you CAN’T afford healthcare if you were born in a poor social climate, about how CAN become president when more citizens voted for your opponent, about how you CAN’T drink a beer until you’re 21 and you CAN get the death penalty when you’re 12 years old. That’s a ton of can and can’ts.
haha ok, on the first one, I am on your side. It is an interesting topic, because the left took the position what I would expect from the left.
Weapons: you can have weapons in the US has 2 benefits: A girl has a change against a Shaquil O'neil size men, unlike in Europe, where, if you look fragile, you are fragile. And the bad guys don't ask permission for weapen. And the other reason is, you can defend yourself from the state. It is not easy to see it necessary if you live in the US, but if people had gun, probably holocaust wouldn't have happened.
The presidential election is not about left or right, it is about the constitution, which is very well considered. Why? Imagine the Europian Union elects a president. The EU has 28 states. Without the United Kingdom after Brexit, 27 remains. If there are 2 candidates, and Germany, Italy and France votes for one, it doesn't matter what the rest of the 24 decides to do. In that case, 3 countries could overvote 24. Now the same happens in the US. Big cities could overrule rural areas. One more thing, Trump didn't even campaign in cities where he know he was going to lose. If popular vote matters, he campaings in New York instead of Ohio, and gains 5% more votes in New York, and loses 5% votes in Ohio. But 5% in New York maybe ten times more people than 5% in Ohio. So he camaingned according to the rules.
21 in the US, 18 in Europe. Probably too high, but I don't think it is left-right thing, was it any better with Obama?
Death penalty: In the UK, gangs send children to steal mobile phones from people and use acid as a weapen, because they can't be punished. They ruin people face, and they are not punished. I don't think that is fair.
Now the last one is health care. This is general "If I Take Your Money I have More Money" question. You probably think the richer people should pay the
poor's healthcare. Imagine the situation that in a school you take breakfast with you, and a stronger person takes it from you. Next day the same happens. You won't be very motivated to have food with you next day, will you? The same happens with economy. Most cases people are poor because they are lazy and not talented, and rich if they are hardworking or talented. Or corrupt, but I am not here to defend them. Now, if you take money from someone, you don't encourage him to work, and if you give money someone else for free, you won't encourage him either to work more. And wellbeing requires work. I could explain it a lot deeper. If you take money from the wealthy, they can't hire more people, so more people won't be able to afford healthcare, and as less products are created, they became more expensive. Also an example, the US has one of the best doctors in the word. Compare it to Canada, the UK, for example. Canada and the UK are western cultures, private companies, comparable to the US, but the healthcare is driven by the state. And it is shit. If I have temperature in the UK, I need to wait even a week for an appointment. As I heard it is not very good in Canada either. In general, leftists forget mostly 2 things about the economy: Long term consequences matter, not only short term. Wealth is not a fix number. If you let the economy work, total wealth is growing, but if you take money from those people who actually run the economy, the wealth gap will decrease, but only because the wealthy will be 100 times poorer, and the poor will be only 2 times poorer.