Datasets:

qwedsacf

/

story-generation

like 11

I cannot get the idea out of my head that abortion is murder. CMV

Abortion is not a murder issue, it is a women's health issue. The fetus and mother's body, until the umbilical cord is cut, are one and the same. They eat the same food, all the bodily processes of the fetus are completely dependent on the mother's body, so it is still and issue of her body and what she wants to do with it.

cmv

I cannot get the idea out of my head that abortion is murder. CMV

I actually have to go somewhere in a moment, but I just wanted to comment really quickly. What is considered a " person " at what stage of the pregnancy? There is no universal definition. Many Christians say conception is. Many Muslims say it is 120 days. Some don't even consider something " alive " until it is born. So, really, abortion is only murder based on the point of view you are looking at. I hope more people pick up on this topic. This is actually good for discussion.

cmv

I believe black people are more racist than white people. CMV.

First of all - I have no idea what your personal experiences are ( so I may be underestimating the amount of racism you face ). Let's get a couple of terms out of the way first though : On a personal level, hatred / unjust treatment of another person just because of what they look like is what sociologists call " prejudice ". This very same " prejudice "

cmv

I don't see anything wrong with someone deciding to commit suicide. CMV.

Many people who consider suicide are mentally ill in some fashion. Depression is a major factor, and can be treated with therapy and / or medication. These people may not really want suicide, but are sick and need help but don't have the cognitive abilities to know or seek it out themselves.

cmv

I don't see anything wrong with someone deciding to commit suicide. CMV.

While i agree someone being able to commit suicide should indeed be a fundamental right the point i would pick is that they should think about the people the leave behind. Now i don't mean in an emotional sense but instead in the sense of sorting out the issues in your life you left behind, house etc would be an example. Another would be your method of suicide, if you example you threw yourself into a road then you have a high chance of hurting and possibly killing others. If you sorted everything like this out beforehand and committed suicide via a method that has no potential to harm others physically then by all means go ahead. In the UK ( where i also live ) the main argument isn't so much to do with if you are allowed to commit suicide or not, its about the legal ramifications for the people who might have helped or supported your decision to take your own life. Would a doctor be considered a murderer for example? Just to point out that i am also an Atheist so religion doesn't cloud the water for me : )

cmv

I don't see anything wrong with someone deciding to commit suicide. CMV.

I agree with you that it shouldn't be illegal ( people have enough to worry about if they are trying to kill themselves and don't need to go to jail on top of it ) but at the same time it shouldn't be a right. If it was a right the law would have to flip, and it would be illegal to stop someone from killing themselves. Sometimes people go through very traumatic events and they need to be forced to take a couple days to consider their actions before they are allowed to decide to end it. I went through a similar situation and I have no idea what would have happened if I didn't have friends there to support me and force me to think more about what I was considering. Making it legal, but regulated, would be an acceptable answer. If someone is old and in pain, or simply don't think life is worth living anymore, they could apply to get medical assistance after a waiting period.

cmv

I don't see anything wrong with someone deciding to commit suicide. CMV.

Could you explain why a person would kill themselves unless they are mentally unbalanced? The only exception that comes to mind is when people are in extreme amounts of pain dying from cancer or such. That type of case is extremely rare though and even in those cases you can speak of depression that's resulted from the pain.

cmv

Politically incorrect is the new political correctness. Change my view, if you can.

I think you mistake the strategy, of say men's rights groups. When I argue with these politically correct nutjobs ( re : Lefties ) at my university and in student government, my'support'of a men's rights group or something along that vein is simply to troll them - I'm using their language against them. If you, as a group, can use the language of the left and fight them on their own terms, you win every shot. I have overcome so many sandbox political battles just by using their own terms.

cmv

Politically incorrect is the new political correctness. Change my view, if you can.

" Politically correct " is an overused term. Politically correct used to mean that, in order to talk about something in the ope forum, you couldn't use offensive language. This meant the terminology was sterile, but the topic could be quite controversial. This was a good idea. By using proper terminology, they avoided being attacked on that front. As opponents became more frustrated, they started attacking because the topic itself could be offensive.

cmv

Politically incorrect is the new political correctness. Change my view, if you can.

I think more people agree with you than you think. I think it's a common fallacy to think that you're the only correct person in the universe and everyone else is wrong. Fortunately or unfortunately, you are never the only correct person in the universe. There are always people who have reached the same conclusion as you and they're almost never as rare as you think they are.

cmv

Politically incorrect is the new political correctness. Change my view, if you can.

" Politically incorrect " topics are topics people don't bring up in public, unless they want serious backlash. The fact that people bring up topics in public and then claim political incorrectness doesn't work, as they hardly experience any backlash. For example, holocaust deniers get ton of backlash in Europe, which means it is a politically incorrect topic. Topics routinely discussed on TV and in the media, even if called politically incorrect, are eventually controversial but no more. Likewise, it isn't politically incorrect to not put a trigger warning, because they hardly experience any backlash at all. At worse, triggered people will leave the place. In a larger sense " politically correct " illustrates the fact that politicians will shy away from difficult or controversial choices in the hope of keeping their job. It doesn't mean that it is an act of bravery to hurt or disrespect others.

cmv

I don't see any reason why a transgender person should be inherently treated or considered any different than someone who identifies as a different species. CMV

I'd be one of the first in line to symbolically renounce human " citizenship " if that were somehow possible, but I believe you're confusing a matter of holistic self - image and spirituality, with one of provable medical science and societal roles. Not to mention gender - specific habits are subjective and fluid. We need to take people at their word concerning what they identify as. You however are objectively human with an objectively human brain and human body.

cmv

I don't see any reason why a transgender person should be inherently treated or considered any different than someone who identifies as a different species. CMV

You can't have a " cat brain " because it's physically impossible to be part non - human animal in any way. Human beings give birth to human beings, who come in the two main varieties of Male and Female. These two forms both develop out of the same basic mold, a human template that is basically female that only differentiates into Male under certain circumstances. Because of this shared development, if conditions during gestation are unusual it's quite possible and not particularly difficult for the sex of a fetus to develop atypically. If physical development is unusual, the infant may be born visibly intersex. If physical development is typical but neurological development is atypical, the infant may be born literally male - brained but female - bodied, or vice versa. Cat brains don't factor into this anywhere. If cat brains are introduced into gestation at any point, the only result will be infection and miscarriage.

cmv

I don't see any reason why a transgender person should be inherently treated or considered any different than someone who identifies as a different species. CMV

The reason, in my understanding, is that there is a biological basis for transgender people. The sexual differentiation that occurs within the womb goes all screwy and people wind up with a gender and a sex that don't match up. This is a reasonable assertion because there is concrete evidence that these things exist and that trans people have brains that are more closely aligned with their gender than their sex. When it comes to trans - species, or'otherkin'as they tend to call themselves, there are two fundamental issues that affect how seriously people take them. The first is that, unlike the differentiation been male and female that occurs in the womb, there is no differentiation between species : you are the product of humans and therefore you are human. This means that it is much more likely to be a mental disorder than a congenital defect because the factors in question don't exist. The second is the use of the term'otherkin'which is incredibly informal and niche and therefore, arguably, doesn't warrant the same respect that terms like'transsexual'and'gender dysphoria'do.

cmv

I don't see any reason why a transgender person should be inherently treated or considered any different than someone who identifies as a different species. CMV

I'm gonna be assuming you know a bunch of stuff about gender that I'm actually pretty sure that you don't know. Just follow along here and if you don't understand ask me afterwards. So, your gender is ultimately decided by you in much the same way that your sexuality is decided by you. There is no " fact " of your gender outside of your own opinion on your gender. Most people base their gender on whatever their internal sense of self tells them, however in the end the thing that makes them some gender is not their ( unreachable ) internal sense of self but their decision to listen to it. HOWEVER species is an actual fact about your body. Whether or not you have a penis or a vagina actually has nothing to do with your gender ( if you don't believe me google two - spirit ), but whether or not you have nipples does determine whether or not you are a mammal. So obviously if you don't lay eggs and you don't have feathers and you claim to be an eagle, that's just obviously not correct. If you're claiming instead to have the " spirit of an eagle " that's harder to disprove but since it's still a factual claim it can still be wrong, and since you can't give us evidence it's reasonable to assume it's wrong until you do.

cmv

I don't believe it's important to respect other people's gender identities.

I think the definition of the word you cite is simply not the same meaning of the word most people are assuming. If someone asks you to " respect their personal space " they're not actually asking you to give their personal space specific attention. Quite the opposite. They're actually asking you to not disrespect their personal space.

cmv

I don't believe it's important to respect other people's gender identities.

I think by respect they mean equal rights. People who are vocal about " respecting gender identities " want equality for marriages, workplace rights, etc. I was a member of student government at my university and a student org brought to our attention bout how our universities code of conduct was worded so that students could be fired from student jobs for being lesbian, homosexual, transexual and all those gender identities other than heterosexual. I am sure this isnt uncommon as most universities code of conducts / bylaw / rules or whatever were written before gender identity was a mainstream issue.

cmv

Minors should have an opportunity to vote. CMV.

Do you really want @ 420blazeItYOLOswag $ $ $ voting for your future president? I suppose you can weed out those kids with a test, but that is against our principles of democracy. The whole idea is that everyone gets a chance to vote, not everyone except dumb kids. With that logic, we might as well give that political knowledge test to everybody, adults too. We have a reason why we don't allow children to vote, and that is because children's minds are too fresh and malleable to be able to form their own experience - based opinions. They are too easily brainwashed, and we don't want political parties taking advantage of that. Political ads already appeal to the lowest common denominator ; would you want that to be lowered even more? Political ads would be like a toy commercial if children could vote.

cmv

Minors should have an opportunity to vote. CMV.

The reason 18 year olds have the right to vote is that 18 is the age men get drafted. And the argument 130 years ago was " if you can fight and die for your country, you should have a say in who sends you to fight and die for your country. " Women got the vote about 100 years ago because they protested for a couple of years. Not sure why they aren't on the draft though... ANYWAY! Yeah, that's the only reason normal folk get to vote instead of only land - owners.

cmv

Minors should have an opportunity to vote. CMV.

Validity of opinion is not part of the democratic process. That's sort of the point - it doesn't matter if you're thick or not, you have just as many rights as your fellow citizen. What you're proposing is that under 18's who are intelligent deserve more rights than the unintelligent. Furthermore, how exactly do you plan to quantify " understanding and knowledge " - it is totally subjective. If you study history, even modern history you aren't presented with a single interpretation of the facts and told " that's how it happened ", there's dozens of different equally valid interpretations of a single event. Take a modern example, the Global Financial Crisis - was this caused by poor regulation of the banks by governments, or by people borrowing beyond their means, or by a global Jewish conspiracy. You can't really refute any of those options with complete certainty - so how on Earth can you test someone on it?

cmv

Minors should have an opportunity to vote. CMV.

I disagree on account that, before the age of 18 you are not considered an adult yet. Children in highschool think that they're mature and that who they vote for now, will be the same way they think in 4 years however that's probably not the case. I don't feel they're intelligent enough yet, or have the experience necessary. Lowering the drinking age to 18? I'm ok with. Lowering the voting age to 15, 16? No. The last thing we need is a politician pandering to 16 year olds with immaturity

cmv

Experiments for the advancement of medical products should be confined to consenting human test subjects rather than animals.

Here is the issue with what you are suggesting. Human testing cannot ever be as fast and efficient as animal testing. The reason being is it takes too much time to observe the lifelong effects of a medication in a human being. Its also impossible to see the generational effects in humans. The reason why we use rats its they breed quickly, they age at a relatively fast and reasonable rate and we can watch the effects a medication or chemical may have on them in a short period of time. If we want medication that is safe and effective for human use we have to use lab rats for testing. If we don't it would take over 100 years to get the same information we would get from lab rat testing.

cmv

Experiments for the advancement of medical products should be confined to consenting human test subjects rather than animals.

If they're genuine medical products that could save or vastly improve human lives, any discomfort caused to animals is a sacrifice worth making because the lives of animals aren't worth as much as of humans. This is because they are less intelligent than humans and generally live for a shorter period of time, so they don't experience as much as humans in their lives and also aren't going to feel worry / fear about the potential effects of taking medicine. Also, other animals won't care when one dies from untested medication If we did limit testing to humans only, there might be a shortage of willing participants. Even if their wasn't, many of them would be poor people or drug addicts who are essentially coerced into performing in trials for financial gain without fully understanding the possible consequences. This is worse than testing on animals.

cmv

Experiments for the advancement of medical products should be confined to consenting human test subjects rather than animals.

What if you think your treatment has an 80 % chance of killing? would you rather that be tested on humans or animals. If you'd say not at all, how about a 10 % of killing. Should that be tested on humans or not at all? Say you find a percentage X where you'd be okay with testing on humans. There would be many avenues of research not taken, because of the time and money constraints on research. Assuming the percentage Y where you are okay with testing on animals is higher than X doing this testing on animals would lead to more effective healthcare.

cmv

I don't think there should be a minimum age for viewing pornography / sexual content. CMV.

Note that websites ask for the 13yo or the 18yo limit because it's a limit applied in some countries and they don't want trouble even though their public is international. I don't think sexual content is inherently problematic but children don't need to be presented with everything as early as possible, they have time to learn and enjoy their childhood. Children should be able to understand and critically analyze ( or have some help to do so ) the content they meet : explaining what consent is, teaching sex, pleasure, respect, doubt, protection, etc. before showing kids whatever adult men and industries have produced. In that same spirit, France forbade advertisement during children TV time, and certain movies are fine to watch if an adult can explain what happens, but harmful otherwise.

cmv

I don't think there should be a minimum age for viewing pornography / sexual content. CMV.

It's not that sexuality is harmful to minors but the way it's presented in pornography is not something a young, inexperienced and undevelopped mind is ready for. Nudity I don't have a problem with but viewing porn is a different story. Maybe the age could be lowered to 16... by that age you've probably seen ot already any way. Basically I wouldn't want a 5 yr old watching hardcore porn.

cmv

I don't believe in Zionism. CMV

May I suggest " Israel " by Martin Gilbert. A bit dry but gives a very detailed history that goes up to the 2000's. He is also not afraid to condemn Israel when they commit human rights violations though he is largely pro Israel.

cmv

I believe that Technocracy is the perfect form of government CMV

The main problem is that competence or intelligence by itself is no good. It is logically valid to use it for extreme evil or just for your own selfish purposes or for intelligent purposes that are not wise ( like focusing merely on progress instead of well - being ). There is no absolute objective reason to use your intelligence to prevent suffering. You could also try to maximize suffering or to maximize your own gain, or maximize intelligence itself ( maybe the most probable problem with intelligent leaders ). I'd rather have relatively dumb, but nice leaders than evil ( or non - compassionate ) intelligent leaders. Then we would have less technology and science and progress, but we'd maybe live in a nicer place. Also, all " - cracy " s are problematic. Rulership is simply institutionalized and controlled violence ( and threat of violence ) - which may be preferable to tribal or completely unorganzied violence but it's still just violence, and I'd prefer peace. In a peaceful society I see no reason to have any sort of rulership.

cmv

I believe that Technocracy is the perfect form of government CMV

As with all great truths in life, the answer comes in the form of a British sitcom. The shows Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister can be interpreted as long - running argument that technocracy could never work. Here's a representative clip. Though it's played for comedy, the minister's reasons for not giving regional governments more power are real reasons those sorts of decisions are made, even if no one says it out loud. The interests of parties involved causes decisions to invariably converge on what suits all of them. People with more knowledge will only have a better understanding of what opportunity was lost ; the outcome will not change. The basic reason technocracy will not work is that people with " scientific merit " or " knowledge " are not any less petty, power - hungry, and self - preserving as anyone else. It's just human nature. Self - serving rationales will creep in. Before long, " scientific merit " would be little more than a branding, a political label, to present a candidate or politician with a certain image, regardless of how they govern in practice - - the same way that " comes from small - town America " is a way of branding.

cmv

I believe that Technocracy is the perfect form of government CMV

In all fairness our current leaders have the resources and advisers who are the top researchers in their field. They are given information on whatever they want. The problem is that people in general tend to gravitate towards people who seem sure of themselves and a lot of studies / theories kind of propose a " this is most likely to work scenario " in terms of the economy and social policy. I would like to see a panel of scientific experts for candidate's debates or speeches though, just to see the BS in their arguments. Also part of the problem is that power corrupts and once you put anyone in power there is a good chance they will eventually abuse it or at least loosen their initial resolve. Political parties are also a terrible thing especially given how bipartisan the US is. Parties set up whomever they see has the best chance of swaying the public. I don't remember the name of the studies but several have been done to show that the taller / more attractive / more honest looking candidate wins the majority of the time regardless of their positions. I think you have to continue education to make the average person smart enough to get past all the superficial / lies.

cmv

I believe that Technocracy is the perfect form of government CMV

From where does your Philosopher King come? If your most intelligent people are the rulers, just who are they educating, and for who's sake? Wouldn't the most educated rulers keep their citizens in the dark with lying and manipulation, if not out of malice, but out of what they see as most right? Why educate people as to the reasons not to do things, when you can just instill superstition and propaganda to do it with less effort? A technocracy would yield Huxley's Brave New World, which I think everyone should read.

cmv

I believe that Technocracy is the perfect form of government CMV

The greatest weakness in any system is the human being. No form of government run by people will ever be perfect because there will inevitably be people who take advantage or corrupt it. IE : Idiot - proof just creates a bigger idiot. Also, just because someone is an expert in their field doesn't actually mean they are capable of making difficult decisions or dealing with people on a regular basis.

cmv

I believe that torture as potential punishment for the most heinous of crimes can save innocent lives. CMV.

People say that when people leave prisons, they don't " learn a lesson " and change their life. A thug, killer, will keep doing his job. But after being tortured, his rage will only grow stronger and stronger.

cmv

I believe that torture as potential punishment for the most heinous of crimes can save innocent lives. CMV.

I think if that were the case, we'd see even more " suicide by police " and murder - suicide scenarios than we do now. As it is, a significant number of mass shooters ( and similarly minded criminals ) off themselves or hole up until the police take the kill shot. I doubt any of them expect to get away with it, and plan their shooting spree as their last act, knowing full well it'll mean their death. What your proposal would do would be to steel these murderer's resolve not to surrender to the police and give them one more reason to instead fight to the bitter end, potentially causing more pain and death.

cmv

I believe that torture as potential punishment for the most heinous of crimes can save innocent lives. CMV.

The certainty of punishment is more effective than the severity of punishment. This is an established principle in the study of crime that's been born out by repeated studies. Life imprisonment in a supermax prison is already essentially torture by sensory deprivation and isolation, but it still won't dissuade anyone who doesn't think they'll get caught. And few criminals think they'll get caught.

cmv

I believe that Third - Wave Feminism is not really necessary. CMV?

Here's a comment that got linked to / r / goldredditsays. Check out the experiences the women who responded have had, and how those experience can be as different as night and day when they reveal their gender. It's not as bad as being told you can't vote, but we obviously still have a lot of sexism in society to get rid of.

cmv

I believe that Third - Wave Feminism is not really necessary. CMV?

They are standing on the shoulders of second wave feminists. Their viewpoint is necessarily different. Likewise, from your perspective you are barely aware of things which seem huge to them. It's necessary to them, but maybe not to you.

cmv

I Feel that Pro - LGBT Equality Protests / Gatherings Either Go Too Far or Don't Do Enough. CMV.

The Netherlands is extremely supportive of gay people. The Amsterdam gay pride parade is celebrated by literally the entire city and is one of the biggest holidays there. People bring their whole families to it. There are all sorts of sexually inappropriate things that straight people can do almost every day / major holiday ( MARDI GRAS, NEW YEARS, HALLOWEEN ). Let us just have one day plz. = )

cmv

I believe that the vast majority of people are too arrogant and uneducated to listen to and accept a reasonable argument as being a valid point. CMV

I'm not sure you can classify climate - change deniers, anti - evolutionists and political idealists the " vast majority of people " ( hope not ) but I don't think it's arrogance and lack of education that makes people hold on to their erroneous beliefs. I think it's often social reasons - social identity, peer group status, power and profit and cultural upbringing... all defended by a multitude of cognitive biases. I think it's how strongly a belief is linked to a persons identity that makes it hard to change their mind, not how arrogant or uneducated they are.

cmv

I believe that the vast majority of people are too arrogant and uneducated to listen to and accept a reasonable argument as being a valid point. CMV

I would argue that much of the population avoids these debates. The few who take part are quite vocal about it. Assessing how reasonable the people are by the voices on the extremes will absolutely make you think that everyone is a nut. As to your example. I don't think there are many people who deny that the global climate has been / is / will continue to change. The debate is the level of human involvement in that change. This is still highly debated by experts as the current change in climate is an insignificant anomaly when compared to the history of the earth or even in the time span of humans on the earth.

cmv

The reading of Miranda Rights is unnecessary and that requirement results in criminals escaping justice. CMV

Ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it... but ignorance of the law does play a mitigating role in sentencing. In short, motive matters. What you're doing wrong here is applying a sentencing doctrine to an arrest situation, and that's why you're getting wound around the axle.

cmv

The reading of Miranda Rights is unnecessary and that requirement results in criminals escaping justice. CMV

Law is a complicated creature, and while ignorance of law isn't an excuse to break it - it is also the right of a person to be able to fight charges as effectively as they can. We afford the right to legal defense even to criminals. I see the reading of Miranda rights as an extension of the same.

cmv

The reading of Miranda Rights is unnecessary and that requirement results in criminals escaping justice. CMV

You should read the case law and do some research before you blather nonsense like this. The are so few checks on law enforcement in the us of a. Why negate a very watered down one?

cmv

The reading of Miranda Rights is unnecessary and that requirement results in criminals escaping justice. CMV

In a situation where all the cards are stacked against you, this is a small advantage afforded to you. The difference that I think you may not see is that, while you are absolutely right about ignorance of the law, the rights afforded to you that are covered by Miranda are not laws you have to follow. They are rights given to us by the Constitution. For example : Just because you don't know you have the right to a fair and speedy trial for an offense doesn't mean that because you didn't know they can simply lock you away or shoot you or administer whatever punishment they see fit. Reminding you of these rights serves to protect evidence the state collects by having a way to demonstrate it wasn't collected through coercion. Those are my scattered thoughts immediately after waking. Enjoy.

cmv

I believe blacks in the Jim Crow south willing to challenge the status quo had just as much courage ( possibly more ) than anyone that stormed the beaches of Normandy. CMV

Rushing onto a beach while having machine guns and bombs hitting people around you while you are helpless and can't see enemy soldiers? Yeah right. It was bad for blacks but it was bad for white immigrants as well. Comparing a brutal battle to Jim Crow era is incomparable

cmv

Bodily autonomy is not particularly important. CMV.

In what cases is it ok to override bodily autonomy? Most people agree that if there is no victim, then it is unacceptable to tell someone what they can do with their own body. I can't really think of any cases that this is not accepted. You say things like regulation regarding " botulism mcnuggets " and unsafe houses. These don't just have to deal with just your body. Mcnuggets are sold to everyone, and the regulation is there to protect the 99. 9 % of people just trying to go to mcdonalds. If you want to eat some botulism no one is actually stopping you from going to the store and leaving your chicken outside for a few days before eating it raw. You can't build a structurally unsafe building because other people will be in it. If you want though you can throw some boards together in a tree in your yard and jump around and try to make it fall apart. There is pretty much no logical reason to invade someones bodily autonomy in the absence of an outside victim.

cmv

Bodily autonomy is not particularly important. CMV.

Because our entire identity comes from the body. The mind / soul whatever does not come from elsewhere - it is literally a collection of body parts. Therefore for someone else to attempt to alter your body is an attempt to alter you as person. This isn't limited to the brain either - many organ donors suffer depression after they donate. And we have no clue why - there's just apparently some link between the loss of an organ and a psychological illness. Our entire bodies contribute to who we are as a person, therefore to change a person's body without consent is to change the person's personality without consent. I doubt you'd let the government alter your memories or personality in such a way?

cmv

Bodily autonomy is not particularly important. CMV.

So... basically what I'm grasping from this is that you think it's okay to regulate what people do with their own bodies? What? Do you think it's okay for a government health inspector to record the food you eat every day and audit you for the healthiness of your diet? Do you think it's the government's role to step in and tell you that you're not getting the right medical treatments? I mean where does this end? Does the government step in if you're not spending enough time studying? What if you're studying a subject that has a lower career value? " We're sorry sir, but you can't study art, our statistics show that people with art degrees make on average $ 7, 000 less per year than business majors, your major is switched to business. " I mean broadly speaking, where does it end? When the government is making decisions on what you can and can't do based on their notion of " what is best for you " you're talking about a North Korea - style police state. They'd tell you that they're making decisions for their citizens based on what's best for their citizens.

cmv

Bodily autonomy is not particularly important. CMV.

To remove someone's body is to kill them. You can be stripped of everything else in this world and survive, but the body is necessary for life, completely. It is the one thing that cannot be given or taken without loss of life. Therefore, it is incredibly, I'd even say THE most important thing to be autonomous with the body. No benefit to society will matter if you are not alive to be part of it. If your body is harmed, damaged, or controlled you are incapable of participating in society.

cmv

Bodily autonomy is not particularly important. CMV.

Your body is not your property, your body is YOU. There is no entity that " owns " your body that is not your body itself. The idea that there is a " body " that is separate from your " self " is an idea rooted in Cartesian dualism, which is as close to a provably false philosophical theory as philosophy ever gets. You are not your brain, you are your ENTIRE BODY. As such being forced to give away parts of your body is being forced to give away parts of yourself. You wouldn't tolerate this if it came to parts of things you actually think of as " you " ( you wouldn't let people take your personality or your memory, for example ), so why tolerate it when it's your kidney instead?

cmv

Bodily autonomy is not particularly important. CMV.

Your main argument involves the sale of organs. That puts people at inherent risk. A police officer taking my car does not put me at any great risk, a kidney removal surgery could kill me. If this risk could be removed, you might have an argument, but as is, it breaks down.

cmv

Bodily autonomy is not particularly important. CMV.

Clearly infinite value has little meaning. We hold bodily autonomy to be important, and it isn't violated without ( ostensible ) reason. We recognise a violation of bodily autonomy as either punitive or preventative for greater good. For example - compulsory vaccination could become law during a time of disease. But that does not mean it isn't important. I'm not sure what your claim is. Rights are granted by social contract. When you say " inviolable " - what do you mean?

cmv

Warning : politics. I believe the stock market is evil. CMV

I realize this has already been answered, but I still felt obliged to answer this in the simplest terms I could. " Rich get richer " mechanisms don't make the poor any poorer. The stock market isn't like gambling where there is always a " winner " and a " loser ; " those who make money in the stock market don't do so at the expense of others.

cmv

Warning : politics. I believe the stock market is evil. CMV

Your complaints aren't about the stock market. They're about wealthy people, and how wealth works in our society. Go read about how a stock market works - the regulations that public companies must follow, the controls on how stocks are traded. Stock markets are the financial equivalent of Wiki. They're an open system where everything is a matter of public record, but it's easy to manipulate. My last statement is of course a total fabrication and the stock market is nothing like Wikipedia, but it's a good start.

cmv

I think online purchases should be taxed at the rate the state you're ordering from mandates. CMV

Because if the business isn't in the state from which you are ordering then the state you are in deserves no income from the sale because they have provided no service that warrants it. Here in the UK many large businesses such as Amazon are based on Jersey which is an island near France, they do this because they have lower tax rates there which increases profit. As a result this saving is passed onto the customers which is why in the UK Amazon is normally much cheaper than anywhere else and provides free delivery. But the mainland has paid no part in this transaction so they deserve no money from it.

cmv

I think online purchases should be taxed at the rate the state you're ordering from mandates. CMV

I think the real question is who should get these tax revenues? The state the company is based in, or the state the consumer lives? The company used state services to get its business started, so shouldn't the tax go to its state? But the consumer is the one paying the tax, shouldn't their money stay local?

cmv

I think online purchases should be taxed at the rate the state you're ordering from mandates. CMV

Regressive taxes are taxes on the poor. Its something Smith and Marx agreed on. Also you would be in effect suporting the old inefficent business models over the modern efficent ones, malplacing money, labor and capital in the process. If you want to tax Amazon rework the tax system to keep them from'double dutching'or'buying an overseas part'or other evasions of income tax.

cmv

I think online purchases should be taxed at the rate the state you're ordering from mandates. CMV

The state you are ordering from is the state you are in at the time of the order. If you designated it as the place the seller resides or is incorporated in, then every business would setup a shell in a foreign nation with no tax. Your country would loose out on the sales tax and on any income tax the company would have to pay on its profits.

cmv

I Believe That the Rebel Flag ( Dixie Flag ) is Just as Inappropriate as the Nazi Flag. CMV

Around 85 % of Southerners in 1860 did not own slaves and of that 15 %, 80 % owned less than twenty slaves. For the most part, racism was not by any means confined south of the Mason Dixon line. Even in 1966 Martin Luther King Jr. stated that he had not met any sort of degree of hostility towards blacks in the South as he did in Chicago. The average Confederate soldier did not fight for slavery, they fought what they thought to be a second American Revolution or because they felt that their home state ( not country or region ) under the threat of immediate occupation or simply because their entire community had already enlisted. The flag represents the respect many people feel towards what they find to be a brave and noble heritage. However, a large number of Germans knew about the oppression Jews faced ( if not the extent of the extermination camps ) yet they did not feel the moral obligation to oppose such measures in the face of such booming economic recovery. That is why such negative stigma is associated with the Nazi flag while the Confederacy was held in a higher regard.

cmv

I Believe That the Rebel Flag ( Dixie Flag ) is Just as Inappropriate as the Nazi Flag. CMV

The civil war wasn't about slavery at all. People in the north still had slaves. Abraham Lincoln had slaves. The only reason he abolished it was to get the former slaves to fight on their side. I hate to sound like an ass, but do some research before you try to form an opinion on something.

cmv

I Believe That the Rebel Flag ( Dixie Flag ) is Just as Inappropriate as the Nazi Flag. CMV

The US flag flew over genocide, racism, and slavery for 80 years before the Confederacy was established. The Union Jack and many others flew on the slave ships that brought Africans to the colonies. Personally, I think people should let the whole southern pride thing go but I understand that they like the idea of being rebels or outlaws.

cmv

I Believe That the Rebel Flag ( Dixie Flag ) is Just as Inappropriate as the Nazi Flag. CMV

I have read through this whole thread and there isn't a single response from OP. I think he got what he was looking for, confirmation bias. He got a discussion going and negative things said about the south. I had a feeling that this is what he was after when he used the term " rednecks. " He didn't want his view changed, he just wanted to stir the pot.

cmv

I believe that most of the well upvoted posts on this subreddit receive upvotes simply because they are widely held opinions amongst Redditors. CMV.

you are looking at this backwards. if someone comes here and posts an opinion i agree with, of course i am going to upvote it, because it will be relevant to me if someone changes that person's view. i am not upvoting because i want to say that their view is correct, i am upvoting because i want my view to be changed.

cmv

I believe we should keep obese, mentally handicapped, and extremely poor people that would need assistance from breeding. CMV

What else do you wish to forbid people from doing? That is a large aspect of people's lives that would be dictated by a bureaucracy. Why not forbid alcohol as well? It has no true benefit to the human race. This would reduce liver disease and cancer as well as drunk driving deaths. Why not forbid driving manually after automated cars become commonplace? Why not forbid investing unless you have truly disposable income? Better yet, tell everyone exactly what to buy so that they cannot dig themselves into an irrecoverable financial hole? Part of being free to make decisions is the freedom to make awful decisions.

cmv

I believe we should keep obese, mentally handicapped, and extremely poor people that would need assistance from breeding. CMV

I think it's important to distinguish whether you're advocating from a eugenics perspective or an ability - to - parent perspective. Because the former needs sterilization, abortion, contraception to enforce. The latter could be solved with CPS / adoption.

cmv

I believe we should keep obese, mentally handicapped, and extremely poor people that would need assistance from breeding. CMV

But do all these statistics really impact your life? These people are happy having kids, they want to have kids. And there kids are happy : being poor doesn't mean you suffer constantly, nor does being obese. Outside there is literally billions of people just doing there thing, embracing how strange it is to even live. Even in places of incredible suffering there are many, many people who just love being alive. On ads for NGO's you often see smiling children, that's not staged, they're smiling because they're happy with what little they have, they're just privileged to exist within the confines of human history. Sure, they could improve the quality of their life but that doesn't change why or how there life is valuable. Why would you ever want to constrain that? Do statistics that arbitrarily represent supposed " suffering " really make life any worse for anyone?

cmv

I believe we should keep obese, mentally handicapped, and extremely poor people that would need assistance from breeding. CMV

I was recently watching the program Skint which looks at like in low income areas here in the UK. All the people on the show were on benefits with many dealing drugs and / or shoplifting too. There was a line that stuck in my mind which was something along the lines of " Ain't nothin'to do here'cept breed and feed ". Sent a shudder down my spine. I totally understand your feelings, OP, but I genuinely believe that there is a better, more positive solution. It may seem naive but I have faith in the human race and even though there are some terrible people and situations, I genuinely believe that as a species we will eventually thrive. Rather than try and cut out the problem areas and demographics in society, we must try and better them and have faith that humanity will slowly ratchet up to its full potential.

cmv

I believe we should keep obese, mentally handicapped, and extremely poor people that would need assistance from breeding. CMV

You are proposing a sort of forced natural selection. As far as the morbidly obese goes, those " genetic markers " could be important in the case of some sort of global food crisis, in which case people with a genetic disposition towards storing fat could be the only hope for humanity, as ridiculous as that sounds. And some of the most remarkable people in history were the offspring of parents with mental illnesses, Lord Alfred Tennyson comes to mind here. Wouldn't a reasonable compromise be to at least force these people to give their children up for adoption? which is still probably not a popular stance to have, but it might go over more smoothly than forced sterilization.

cmv

I believe we should keep obese, mentally handicapped, and extremely poor people that would need assistance from breeding. CMV

First of all, from a genetic standpoint, a reduction of the gene pool would make humans as a species more vulnerable to genetic diseases Also, from an ethical stand point : who decides who is worthy of having children? Who do you define as " poor " and " stupid "? This would be a first step in taking away freedom and human rights, potentially leading to slavery, torture, etc. If you define certain people as " inferior ", why treat them equally? This would reinforce social inequalities, because you never give the chance to people being born poor to improve their condition. Also, even if a person is rich or fit that does not mean they will be a good parent Overall while it could be a could idea we as a society will mess it up because of our human nature ( we are not perfectly fair and flawless and just )

cmv

I believe we should keep obese, mentally handicapped, and extremely poor people that would need assistance from breeding. CMV

I do agree that people should think through whether children are feasible endeavour for them, but forced sterilization? I don't think so. Why? Well, at least in this society, we value our bodily autonomy. To allow forced sterilizations, regardless of whom, violates that autonomy. I don't think there's much else to it.

cmv

I don't believe illegal immigrants are taking away jobs. CMV

It is less that they take your job as it is they are a source of cheap labor. You may not want a job washing dishes or cleaning a house, but if a someone is willing to do that kind of work for for $ 4 / hour it depresses the wages of all similarly low skill jobs. If you were a high school drop out, this impacts you. It is a downward economic force on your pay, keeping wages low so that legal labor stays " competitive. " It will also mean that some jobs simply never get offered to the general public in the first place, jobs that an unemployed low skill worker might really want. While most jobs undocumented workers do and most jobs citizens do have little overlap there is still overlap, it's one of the factors for why unemployment is much higher among unski. This is a separate issue from what to do about it. People want to come to this country so badly they would break the law to do so, who are we as descendents of immigrants to tell them they can't stay? But from a purly economic side of things there is a negative impact on citizens at the lower ends of the economic scale ( though there is arguably a benefit to all citizens from having cheaper labor cost resulting in cheaper goods especially food ).

cmv

I don't believe illegal immigrants are taking away jobs. CMV

I have worked 15 years in the construction industry, residential and commercial / industrial and I can also tell you that they do take jobs from people. I was building a hospital and there were 20 or so latinos doing the dry wall work, 2 were legal and the dry wall forman paid his crew by the board not the hour. It was cheaper for his company that way. Not only is the contractor saving in wages he would pay to legal citizens, he was paying them as " sub - contractors. " Now the deal with that the company doesn't have to pay their workman's comp, unemployment, and various other bills that employers have to pay on top of the wages. Now, I will say this, I think it's great that people still want to move to American and find a better life for themselves, my grandfather came over with his family when he was 14 or so. But do it legally, if they don't they are screwing not only themselves but the citizens whose jobs they end up taking...

cmv

I don't believe illegal immigrants are taking away jobs. CMV

Just going to play the devils advocate here. If illegal immigrants were not here, the jobs they have would still be there. Since they have to be done regardless, wouldn't the employers have to offer better wages to entice the more pampered american workers? They wouldn't just shut down and go home because there wasn't cheap labor. They would have to adapt to the new labor market.

cmv

I don't believe illegal immigrants are taking away jobs. CMV

I'm a college student, and am currently on the lookout for a summer job. I'm having a really hard time finding one ( I live in a metropolitan area, so no farming / anything ) and immigrants, whether illegal or not, are taking all the jobs that you'd normally find college students working. I can't even find a restaurant to bus tables at.

cmv

I believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental protector of democracy. CMV

There are many good points below, but I'd like to add this note regarding modern armies. These days, small arms such as rifles and handguns are responsible for a low percentage of casualties, especially among modern mechanized infantry. Instead, artillery is responsible for most damage ( I think about 70 % in World War II ) followed by mortars and bombs. Chairman Mao said " Political Power grows out of the barrel of a gun " but he probably meant a howitzer cannon. Which makes me say, if you're going to say that you want the right to mount a successful rebellion, you're going to need artillery. Do you think the 2nd amendment should allow you to own such weapons?

cmv

I believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental protector of democracy. CMV

Here in England you can't bear arms ( the rare exception being farmers being allowed rifles or something along those lines ) and we seem to be doing fine, the same is true of pretty much all of Europe. The idea of civilians having access to guns seems ridiculous to me ; we have police to protect us, why the hell would I need a gun? I live in London and have never once heard a gunshot. Hell, over here, carrying a knife is enough to get yourself sent to prison. The London riots in 2011 showed that the populace is more than able of showing their true power, without guns. The government should always be afraid of it's people, not the other way around, but that does not mean people should have access to death machines. Dramatic effect.

cmv

I believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental protector of democracy. CMV

A handgun is a totally ineffective method of taking on a government, that has at its disposal thousands of soldiers, machine guns, fighter planes, bombers, ballistic missiles, tanks, nuclear submarines and on and on and on. Yet it is usually illegal to form large private anti - government paramilitary organizations, or to own machine guns, fighter planes, bombers, ballistic missiles, tanks, nuclear submarines, and on and on. Given that guns aren't a good resource for fighting against the government, and owning the means to do so effectively is ( rightly in my mind ) almost universally illegal, I don't think guns do anything to stop the spread of tyranny.

cmv

CMV I agree with white separatism

It sounds like you're not really arguing for " white " separatism, but a subset of white people. Namely, white AND christian AND politically conservative. Is that right? If so, I wouldn't say that this particular subculture is any less represented in America than the cultures of Hispanics, Blacks, etc. For example, African culture can be very different than African - American culture. None of the countries that could be considered " home " countries are as monolithic as you make out. In other words, many Blacks, Hispanics, and Indians would be as uncomfortable in their " home " countries as you are in yours... So this is kind of a global phenomenon and not something specific to white christian conservative subculture. Therefore separatism is not necessary.

cmv

CMV I agree with white separatism

What do you call Russia? Sweden? Switzerland? Poland? Greenland? Basically all of Eastern Europe? I see a bunch of countries populated nearly exclusively by white people. Why do you assume " white culture " ( which doesn't exist btw, any more than " Asian culture " does, and I'm sure France and the Ukraine would be very upset with you for assuming they have the same cultural heritage ) is so fragile it needs to be protected? And also Israel and Japan are having some serious problems due to their immigration policies.

cmv

I don't think Scotland should be independent. CMV

The UK is an outdated institution. It has FPTP, unelected second chamber, established church, seats in unelected HoL for Bishops in the established church. Control of the Westminster executive swings between two increasingly ideologically similar parties. Currently the budget for the Scottish Government is set for Scottish MSPs by Scottish MPs voting on issues that affect English constituents. All in all, Westminster is a mess, and a unnecessary one given the current political climate in Europe. The borders are down, free trade exists, EU / EFTA residents can live and work anywhere in the EU / EFTA. There is simply no need for Westminster anymore and its outdated, historical nonsense.

cmv

I don't think Scotland should be independent. CMV

Scotland would not need to be as strong as an independent nation as it would not be entangled in any foreign affairs of the UK. Similarly being independent gives them economic freedom. Furthermore Scotland can continue to develop the peace process in Northern Ireland without the UK burden.

cmv

I believe that 9 / 11 was an inside job done by the US gov. CMV

Look at it this way, they would need hunfreds of people in on this, and in order to find a hundred they would have needed ask thousands because people would outright refuse. If so where are those people? Some of them would have come forward by now.

cmv

I believe that 9 / 11 was an inside job done by the US gov. CMV

Here's a good thing to do on the conspiracy things. Step back from the arguments and just think about the human dynamics. " Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead. " - Benjamin Franklin We either need to believe that a crapload of people are conspiring to hide something for,... what? And that, they're all aligned, and nobody wants more of whatever it is, nobody tells the media, and nobody gets drunk and ego - vomits the facts at a dinner party. Or we can choose to believe that a scammer just wants to make some money from the suckers. So, I'll take " Scamming the Suckers " for $ 1000 Alex.

cmv

It is unethical to eat an animal ( unless absolutely necessary for survival ) CMV

I think you where not heading for that part of your view changed, but why is ethicaly okay, to eat an animal if absolutely necessary for survival? You argue with speciesism. If every species has the same worth for you, what would you do if I would walk up to you, a baby in one hand and a cat in the other and tell you : " I will kill one of them, you decide which. If you don´t decide, i will kill both. " What if in the one hand i have a baby and in the other hand a fly? Or a petridish with bacteria?

cmv

It is unethical to eat an animal ( unless absolutely necessary for survival ) CMV

Your first argument relies on a hypothetical, one which is highly unlikely to both happen, and one that few people would disagree with. If a superior species decides to make us cattle, so be it. Your second argument is totally subjective based off your own metric of " pleasure " and " cruelty " and you have no justification for what is actually cruel or not. Moreover, if you ever did define what makes something " cruel, " I would argue that your third point would become hypocritical or your definition would be so convoluted it would be almost meaninglessness. Alas, I'd need the definition to press forward.

cmv

It is unethical to eat an animal ( unless absolutely necessary for survival ) CMV

Are you morally opposed to an animal such as a lion eating a gazelle? We're the highest on the food chain, like any hierarchy, that means we oppose whatever conditions we please on an animal. Your right in that animals can fill pain, and they should be killed painlessly. But otherwise I don't see a problem with meat.

cmv

I think that inflation is a bad thing for the economy, CMV

Most comments talk about inflation as the lesser evil but no one has talked about how inflation can be a good thing. In the labour market, unions prevent firms from lowering wages beyond a reasonable extent and this can sometimes cause firms to lose money or competitiveness by forcing them to absorb these extra labour costs or pass them on to consumers. Inflation can help firms by decreasing real wages when the firm cannot decrease them nominally. Also, when trying to spur on investment, the central bank typically lowers interest rates. Sometimes these rates can even hit their zero - lower bound as in the recent financial crisis. Inflation gives the central bank the ability to bypass this zero lower bound with negative real interest rates ( essentially paying firms to invest ) as another strategy to create investment.

cmv

I believe that rape culture stems from women's social expectations from men and should be addressed first before it can ever be solved. CMV

Most women that I know don't expect men to pay lots of money on dinner and dates. The problem of expectations is on the men's expectation of the woman after he has bought her dinner or drinks. Most women I know would agree that people should just pay for their own meals and drinks. That way, the two people will sleep with each other if and because they actually like each other.

cmv

I believe that rape culture stems from women's social expectations from men and should be addressed first before it can ever be solved. CMV

I found that this was a pretty good article on it, making basically the same point as some other people have been ('what you're describing is rape culture'), but with a good narrative analogy. It shouldn't really be on the people being harrased to adjust their expectations, it's more up to the harrasers to knock if off. The gender roles we have are obviously the contributing factor, but we can just stop acting them out if we want. If you're not exposed to the idea that you could, or if you're worried about the consequences if you do, then obviously it's difficult - to - impossible, but these things aren't a result of unchangeably deterministic biological differences between men and women. They're complicated, high - level social interactions and we don't have to keep doing them the way we have done.

cmv

I believe that rape culture stems from women's social expectations from men and should be addressed first before it can ever be solved. CMV

Would you also say the lottery causes burglary, or the stock market causes extortion? In fact, you can see any social structure from the angle of investments and returns. There will always be people who feel like'life should be fair'and they should get returns on what they deem sufficient investment, this does not depend on the social structure.

cmv

I believe that rape culture stems from women's social expectations from men and should be addressed first before it can ever be solved. CMV

Mammals of all types have to impress their mates with feats of strength, providing the best spot / cave / tree to live and generally prove their worth. We live in a world run by money and the ability to provide and to show the quality of your station in life is often important to women looking for a mate ( not always ). As / u / RavenQuote said, " If a woman accepts dinner and drinks she should not ever have to fear that if she does not meet his expectations for willing sex then she should expect to be raped. " On a personal note : If you don't want to play the dating game you can always walk up to a woman in a bar, say " Hello, I'm [ name ], what's yours? " which is considered the best opening line you can use. If the conversation goes well you can ask them out to a coffee date or a walk through the park to get to know each other. You may meet a woman who requires the finest things to be courted but even after spending gobs of money they are fully within their rights to say " Goodbye Forever " and not get raped. Another way of looking at it is a meme I saw on / r / TrollXChromosomes : Girls are not machines that you put niceness coins into until sex pops out.

cmv

I believe that rape culture stems from women's social expectations from men and should be addressed first before it can ever be solved. CMV

Many women absolutely play into rape culture as much as men do. The most logical branches of feminism know that men are not the problem - society is the problem, and that includes the behavior of both men and women. But it doesn't mean that women need to fix their behavior before men can fix theirs. Both genders need education and awareness before it is ever going to change.

cmv

The most important function of government is stewardship, and Libertarianism is bankrupt because it doesn't account for this. CMV

I'll be gone for most of the day but as a libertarian, I did want to ask a few questions : what, personally, does your viewpoint presume that I owe towards future generations? In other words, what ground does the government have to punish me, so that it might reward future inhabitants of the planet simply on the basis that they inhabit the world after I do? The tragedy of the commons is a pitfall of libertarianism, but why must we rely on the government to solve it?

cmv

The most important function of government is stewardship, and Libertarianism is bankrupt because it doesn't account for this. CMV

I just want to point out that OP has failed to mention the words " national debt " anywhere in their OP or comments here. Money is the most objective measure of wealth available ( and by extension resources ). By that measure, governments have destroyed resources for generations to come ( see other posts here for exact numbers ).

cmv

The most important function of government is stewardship, and Libertarianism is bankrupt because it doesn't account for this. CMV

This is not quite the answer you're looking for, but I think to some degree, your criticism can be applied to most political ideologies. Communism has no mechanism for stewardship, unless the people participating in the communist system choose to make stewardship a priority. Neither does democracy - - if most people in the democracy don't care about future generations, there will be no stewardship. In a hypothetical libertarian society, it's entirely possible that many people will care about stewardship, and quite possible that many will not. I don't agree with your statement that " governments... last many generations. " There is no easy fix to the myopia of human decision making by building a " perfect " political system, be it libertarian, communist, democratic, whatever. In the end, the only way to fix our problems is for us as people to come together and decide that we want to be more than slaves to our basest instincts, and no cleverly engineered political system can negate the need for this. Regarding libertarianism, I would suggest not a counterpoint but an explanation for you : do you think stewardship is a shortcoming of the libertarian philosophy, or of individuals who identify themselves as libertarian? Because I suspect ( correct me if I'm wrong ) that you're not so much concerned that libertarianism itself places no value on stewardship, but that libertarians don't, so presumably in a hypothetical libertarian " utopia ", those individuals would not do a very good job of conserving resources for the future. This is not an issue of the philosophy ( the philosophy has plenty of flaws that have nothing to do with this ), it's an issue with the people who adhere to it with enough determination to argue about it on the internet.

cmv

The most important function of government is stewardship, and Libertarianism is bankrupt because it doesn't account for this. CMV

There is a branch of libertarianism known as left - libertarianism, which holds that natural resources have to be protected in this fashion ; unclaimed natural resources, instead of belonging to whoever gets there first, are held to be common property of everybody and treated as such. Libertarianism is based on property rights ; this change in the status of it is probably going to change a lot of the arguments a libertarian would make. I haven't actually met any left - libertarians, though, so who knows.

cmv

I believe Term Limits in a democracy are really just a lazy alternative to actively participating in the democratic process, and actually do more harm than good. CMV

I think for local officials there should be a term limit because there is a much higher chance of them being corrupt and biased towards their lobbies than someone in a much more public position. I think that for the highest level of official, the president / prime minister etc should be allowed as many terms as the public deems them good for as long as the democratic process is fair and uncorrupt. I think the main issue aside from term limits is how immune to investigation politicians are. Normally any wrongdoing is not uncovered until after their terms are up. Term limits do have their place, but there are many other alternatives.

cmv

I think Property Rights are the best way to ensure that pollution doesn't get out of hand. CMV.

I think this would work best in a slightly different way to which you suggest. What if instead of having to sue polluters everyone is given an upper limit of emissions per household per person and anything they went over they had to pay a fine / tax on? That way it would push people to be more efficient than they currently are. This would work very well in the US where emissions her house are multiple times the average European family.

cmv

I think Property Rights are the best way to ensure that pollution doesn't get out of hand. CMV.

People have already mentioned that this wouldn't work because it would be practically impossible for an individual to sue a large corporation and prove that the corporation hurt them. The other problem with this is that the damage has to happen before you can sue someone, which means people are going to get hurt and going to get sick. There would be basically nothing someone could do to prevent companies from polluting, they could only try to take money from the company after they have been hurt. In the mean time, companies would be profiting and executives getting rich. There would be companies that would pollute using chemicals that cause cancer ; years later when people start getting cancer the company would declare bankruptcy and the executives would move on to form new companies.

cmv

I think Property Rights are the best way to ensure that pollution doesn't get out of hand. CMV.

Say a business is polluting on your property, or polluting your air, etc. So you file a lawsuit based on your property rights. The business says, " Prove that our pollution is what's harming you! " Who pays to fund the research to prove your tort claim?

cmv