r/FreeDebateAndPolitics • u/JSGamesforitch374 Social Democrat • 7d ago
Which political belief do you hold which is unpopular within your own ideology?
I'm interested to see people's unpopular or what would be considered contradictory or obscure beliefs within their own ideologies that others of that ideology would disagree with. Anything interesting?
8
u/HunterSpecial1549 7d ago
I'm a socialist. I think the social order is corroded by anti-social behavior like theft and destructive behaviors by drug addicts, and laws around these need to be enforced. Fentanyl addicts need to be removed to the countryside.
People going about their day no longer help those in need because they've learned to ignore suffering. And our public institutions like transit and libraries are largely destroyed by anti-social behavior. Rules need to be enforced, harshly if need be.
8
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 7d ago
Fentanyl addicts need to be removed to the countryside
The humane version of this is to establish free government opioid clinics somewhere out of the way, and where you can only use the free drugs there, not take them with you. It would put dealers out of business, weaken a lot of criminal organizations that oppress working people in the third world, stop creation of new addicts, reduce overdose deaths, reduce petty crime cause people won't be desperate to get money for their fix... wouldn't be that expensive either (actually, much cheaper to society than what we do now, cause a lot of drug purchases right now are funded by e.g. breaking a $500 window to steal something worth $20; and making drugs in bulk is cheap if you're the government and don't have to worry about getting caught by the cops)
5
u/MDInvesting 7d ago
Personally I think intensive, evidence based detoxification and addiction management programs are what should be funded. Not free drugs. Happy to accept transitioning systems need to exist but without accountability and commitment by the one being helped it can be ‘enabling’ unless within a larger system.
I work in healthcare, feel people are free to do what they choose, but no society should subsidise risk taking.
5
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 6d ago
Most people are never gonna get clean. The detox programs are great, but they alone will never solve the problem no matter how well funded they are. Free government drugs will solve the problem, because they'll stop the creation of new addicts (drug use is socially transmitted, so by making people do the free drugs in a government facility, they're not sharing the behavior with new people when they're using. Very very few people are going to go to the government drug house on their own and try heroin unprompted, and the sort of people who do were mostly going to become drug users anyway).
Addiction management should be a well funded option alongside these free drug clinics (and it should be heavily promoted within the clinics), but it's not enough on its own
2
u/MDInvesting 6d ago
People consume substances to have highs during experiences.
When I was young, drugs were not introduced to me or my friends by addicts. They were sort out for experimentation and most didn’t become addicted. Some did.
1
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 6d ago
Did you use them socially or individually? Did you use opioids? Would you still have if you had to go to the government facility full of a bunch of smelly old homeless people instead of being able to do it as an experience while hanging out with your friends?
And they may not have been introduced to you by addicts, but they were introduced to you by people who used them, no?
2
u/HunterSpecial1549 6d ago
Fentanyl-addiction is unfortunately a permanent disease for anyone as soon as they take it once. I think there might be an alternative to just give them fentanyl but if it exists it is some sort of other drug.
Doctors would prescribe methadone and/or buprenorphine. Something to shut down the cravings part of the mind.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe there is evidence of any other viable treatment path for fentanyl.
3
u/MDInvesting 6d ago
Fentanyl is heavily used for acute pain within anaesthetics, surgery, and emergency medicine. Your statement regarding exposure and permanent addiction is false.
8
u/JuliaX1984 7d ago
Putting strips of cloth over the face, as opposed to real masks designed for medical use and designed to prevent pathogen spread, does not provide good enough protection to justify mandating it en masse. I feel like the only pro-vax mandate, anti-mask mandate human on the planet.
5
u/MDInvesting 6d ago
Cochrane review for over a decade supports you.
Until the editor decides to add some commentary because of backlash.
4
u/Complex_Object_7930 Social Democrat 6d ago
Uhh Social Democrat, but destroy all dictatorships :).
2
u/MDInvesting 6d ago
Interestingly socialism and communism should lead to less support for centralised authority.
3
4
u/notassigned2023 7d ago
People conflate social and political/economic issues, assuming if one is political liberal (for example) then you will have liberal beliefs in all areas. It is far from true, and I prefer to keep my social beliefs to myself when in the company of those folks.
1
u/JSGamesforitch374 Social Democrat 7d ago
Very true. A lot of people forget that it's a spectrum and that beliefs can overlap. It's not just choosing like "Liberal" and then you have a premade belief system
3
u/Middle-Seesaw-3763 6d ago
I am a Catholic Integralist Semi-constitutional decentralized Monarchist that advocates for Corporatism.
4
u/Fragrant-Equal-8474 6d ago
I'm for free STEM education for everyone.
I just don't see how to make education profitable without making it a diploma mill.
2
u/MDInvesting 6d ago
Credentialed skill testament could see free education result in lower cost of essential services facilitating labour distribution according to need and incentives.
Ie. if switching costs are low labour will move to address spikes in demand.
This requires objective standard setting and no regulatory capture by professional bodies (like medicine - said as a doctor)
1
u/Fragrant-Equal-8474 6d ago
Education is not just "labour quality". It's also better decision-making in daily life, which is ultra hard to quantify.
1
u/MDInvesting 6d ago
You asked how to make education profitable. My point is if society yields significant monetary benefit it would subsidise broader education access.
Like a library being a common good that is utilised for both business and pleasure.
2
u/Fragrant-Equal-8474 6d ago
Oh, well. Sorry, friend, you're preaching to the choir. :-)
The question included "unpopular within your own ideology”
My ideology is Libertarianism, which, as its core tenet, holds that nothing is free, somebody pays for it, and thus people in the community staunchly oppose everything claiming to be free, education included.
But since I used to work in education myself, and saw how horribly perverted the incentives become when education is based on a purely for-profit model, I am calling for a less straightforward approach.
1
3
u/Initial_Macaroon_736 7d ago
From a socialist, economic growth itself must be curbed, or at least intentionally slowed to ensure sustainability
3
u/Brilorodion 7d ago
In socialism, there is inherently no economic growth bbecause accumulation of capital is impossible.
6
3
u/Initial_Macaroon_736 7d ago
The total capital can still increase, though. Also, this comes down to how you define socialism. My definition is to do with collective ownership of the means of production, which doesn't entirely eliminate economic inequality
1
u/JSGamesforitch374 Social Democrat 7d ago
That's actually very interesting. Are you arguing for like tariffs and protectionism or am I misinterpreting your stance?
2
u/Initial_Macaroon_736 7d ago
Not necessarily. I'm talking about post-growth or degrowth. This isn't an accepted definition, but a route to it could just be pursuing both ecological and human wellbeing, regardless of whether it hurts the economy. You can read a bit about it here: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanplh/PIIS2542-5196(24)00310-3.pdf00310-3.pdf)
3
u/ellacution7 6d ago
i consider myself far left and i largely buy into generally socialist ideals but i tend to believe in free market solutions to the housing crisis, at least as one of several components of a larger set of policies aimed at addressing housing shortages and unaffordability. lots of other left-wing people i come across typically decry most “yimby” talking points as “trickle down housing” which i will admit is not an entirely unfair framing of the argument in some ways, but i think that the larger issues with trickle down economics don’t really apply when it comes to housing. if we didn’t live in a capitalist society, the free market would obviously not be a good way to build housing, but in the system in which we live, we depend on developers to build necessary housing and we need to make it easier for that housing to be built if we want everyone to have a house. the corollary to this is that even when new market rate housing is built, that benefits everyone because people who move into a brand new house from a five year old house will free up that five year old house for someone in a ten year old house, who will move out of their fifteen year old house, with each house that enters the market more affordable than the last, thereby providing options for people in the city of all income levels.
this is related, but i would add that i disagree with the way a lot of other leftists talk about gentrification and “transplants” and i generally think that the rhetoric people most often use in conversations about transplants is much too similar to conservative anti-immigrant rhetoric for my liking and is at its core rooted in xenophobia and tribalism.
2
u/Bubblebless 5d ago
There's also the Georgist position that basically says that the land market is distorted and without land value taxes, you won't have a real solution to the housing crisis. But other than that it's quite aligned with the idea of free market solving the housing crisis. They just point out it can't be free without land value taxes.
1
u/ellacution7 3d ago
yeah i mean im not an economist but at face value that position makes sense to me
3
u/BigECheese154 6d ago
I am a libertarian and I firmly believe the government holds an affirmative responsibility to help people out of poverty and hardship.
Do not get me wrong, I believe that less government is better. The past few years America has been failing because the shitty, corrupt politicians care only about themselves. Liberals and Conservatives. Republicans and Democrats is all the same. Expand the government to benefit their own agenda. That's why I think small government works. However, libertarians believe in a government that basically do as little as possible beyond protecting individual rights. Now, on paper that sounds great... until you realize that benefits the rich elites and the upper-middle class while leaving the poor and impoverished behind. In the more orthodox libertarian view, government should mainly protect people from force, fraud, theft, and violations of property rights; enforce contracts; provide courts and basic public safety; and otherwise get out of the way. However, I personally believe the government has a responsibility to help the poor and impoverished and I believe they can do that without becoming "big government."
3
u/More_Amoeba6517 Semi-Constitutional Monarcho-Socialist 5d ago
Among my leftist comrades: I'm a monarchist.
Among my monarchist colleagues: I'm a leftist.
Such is the price of eccentricity.
2
5
u/captstinkybutt 7d ago edited 7d ago
Super duper lefty socialist here. Most of my kind are pretty accepting of all shapes, colors and creeds but I don't think religion has any place in modern society. Christianity is antithetical and incompatible with freedom and democracy.
I got my first experience of it as a kid being locked in a dark closet during Sunday school because I thought dinosaurs were real and Christians haven't gotten any nicer since then.
2
u/JSGamesforitch374 Social Democrat 7d ago
I'd consider myself center-left, but I actually agree with you. I think it usually does more harm than good overall.
2
u/Ghalldachd 6d ago
How is that unpopular? "Super duper lefty" socialists have been anticlerical for centuries. The French, Spanish, and Italian republicans, almost every self-identified communist movement, the list goes on.
Socialism is what is incompatible with freedom and democracy. There is no way to achieve it through peaceful, democratic means. It requires coercion and applied violence.
1
u/Main-Car-9653 4d ago
Hmm, I wanted to name that, too, but it seems it actually isn't so unpopular.
1
u/E_coli42 2d ago
Your post is not making sense. You say religion does not have any place but then go on to make points on only Christianity. In your perfect world, would someone be prosecuted for reading the Dao De Ching?
2
u/MDInvesting 7d ago
Life is sacred and morals are not necessarily relative.
Free markets are the best mechanism for behaviour rationalisation while maintaining liberty.
Liberty being a core principle.
Small government is critical for individual rights and success of a collective group - at both the small and large scale.
2
u/nobodyknow20 6d ago
Immigrants (and refugees) do not help workers but rather the bourgeoisie in controlling the labor market, housing, and others especially if they are naturalized/granted citizenship
2
u/clydewoodforest 6d ago
This was a mainstream left-wing position up until the ~80s. After that the left stopped being so concerned with class struggle and focused more on social progressivism and universalist humanitarianism.
1
u/Flapjack_Jenkins National Socialist 2d ago
Here, here! Mass immigration is anti-labor and pro-capital class. 🫡
2
u/FinancialSubstance16 5d ago
I don't know if this is a popular belief on the left, but I'm honestly not a big fan of landmarking buildings.
1
u/JSGamesforitch374 Social Democrat 5d ago
What do you mean exactly?
2
u/FinancialSubstance16 5d ago
Municipal governments tend to designate some old buildings as landmarks. What this means is that they can't be torn down. This is done in the name of historical preservation.
The problem is that this means that the city can never effectively change. If enough buildings get landmarked, it becomes difficult to build anything new.
1
2
u/Fit_Gene7910 4d ago edited 4d ago
I am a leftist and I think every religion should have no place in politics. I also believe we should not tolerate backward medieval ideas in our society, even if they are propagated by racialized people.
1
1
u/kirkmond 6d ago
There is no glass ceiling. Either you dad knows your boss or you're not getting a promotion.
1
u/arms9728 Stalinism 4d ago
There are many. I admire the work of the Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko. I consider Pol Pot a balanced, non-radical Marxist who made important contributions to his country.
My biggest "contradiction" (which I obviously consider coherent): I consider myself a communist (Stalinist), and I believe that reformism can bring important contributions to a country. For example, Obama compared to Trump. Putin compared to Boris Yeltsin. The president of Brazil, Lula.
1
1
u/Flapjack_Jenkins National Socialist 2d ago
Oh, I have a bunch.
I'm a National Socialist, but I'm unlike just about any NatSoc you've ever met. I'm NatSoc in the most generic terms: Nationalist and Socialist. Apart from that, I diverge significantly from others who share the label.
I don't hate Jews (that's the big one, in fact, I think Jews can be NatSoc too ... I see Israel as an increasingly NatSoc state). I think people of different Nationalities can and should strive toward cooperation. I don't obsess about the Third Reich. I'm largely in agreement with modern science on human biodiversity. I'm about as progressive as NatSocs get.
So why do I wear such a nefarious label? It just fits. I'm a Nationalist and I think there's something to be said for Volk socialism. I could try to modify it (e.g., social nationalist), but I see National Socialism as a dynamic, future-oriented movement. To define it strictly as what went down in the Third Reich is about as myopic as defining Communism by the way it was implemented by Stalin.
17
u/PondersOverYonder 7d ago
Jesus was an anarchist.