Comments by "Luiz Devil" (@luizdevil6855) on "Type Ashton" channel.

  1. I find it amusing that Americans use their personal beliefs to justify things in politics. I mean, for example: I'm against abortion, but I do realize its statistical usefulness in decreasing crime, so I tend to be against the government controlling it, and I'm in favor of the government making it easier to get abortion. I would never let my wife or my daughter get an abortion, but I don't think my beliefs matter in the question on public sphere, and I tend to be more utilitarian when it comes to politics.
    3
  2.  @Pheephy27  Its not that I have to "let" my wife (I'm not married yet) do anything. Its that as we are married, we form a union of shared decision, that's what marriage is, its not about love. You can love anyone you want without a social contract. Marriage is about becoming a unit, a unit should move in the same direction. Its not that I "let" or "command" her, but just that it takes 2 votes to do things when you are married, and if the woman vote no and I vote yes, then we don't reach agreement and she can't do that, we have to reach agreement or the contract is void, via a divorce. I would never let a woman do abortion, if she wants to break the marriage and leave, fine, but after she has the kid and I'll take care of the kid she doesn't want. So, in a way, she does need my permission because I have 50% shares in the "company" that is the marriage. If you think that a family is like a company and your wife is like a stakeholder, she does have to consult you, and the same way apply to the other side. If I want to do anything, I have to consult with her, and I need permission from her. Because she has 50% of the shares. That's what marriage used to mean. And the entire purpose of the "business" is literally the good of the children, killing the unborn goes against it, by definition. If a woman don't want to submit to that contract, then she won't marry me, but on the other hand, I should have no duty to take care of that child, or even contribute any income (fuck alimony laws), which is why abortion is prescribed. Woman want freedom from responsibility, that's what they want. On the other hand, man can just not marry and you get single-mother families. The contract of marriage was never about freedom, but about responsibility. The usefulness of that contract is broken when woman can unilaterally break it and man are required to keep financially supporting the family. That's ludicrous. Suffrage of woman wasn't a good thing, no one was forcing woman to marry. Sure, they having the same rights in the eyes of the law, I'm totally 100% in favor of that. But woman having freedom from all of the responsibilities in the contract of the marriage just make the point of having a contract moot. Now we need suffrage of man, just get rid of alimony altogether, that would make the contract of marriage balanced and useful again. I really think that the marriage should bind both the man and the woman to the responsibility of raising the children. So, divorces shouldn't be allowed. Yes, it takes freedom away, that's what responsibility does. You lost your freedom because you made a tiny human that has needs and now you have obligations, simple as that.
    2
  3.  @hymnodyhands  I find it ironic that the US is based on the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire were definitively the bad guys in the bible scripture, yet they think they are the good guys. Such dissonance.
    1
  4.  @ERG173  by this definition we can even have socialism and capitalism together, because one is an economical system and the other is a government program.
    1
  5.  @brokenrecord3095  That's big state for you. My point with that comment of mine is that you pay one way or another. Now what I ask is , what's the best form to offer the service to the public ? Via government or via Insurance companies ? I think you guys have a point.
    1
  6.  @TheGarryq  You're right, but I was convinced by another argument. Maybe even if they were both equally 40%, when you have a government agency running the service instead of insurance companies, the end result is better. Insurance companies basically make it overpriced because they basically collude when they insure one-another. I was just asking a question, I got my answer, having a public system is better, even thou its going to be very inefficient (as all things run by government are). You're not looking at efficiency, but coverage, everyone having access. Now I get it. Thy teaching this to our fellow Americans.
    1
  7.  @sasanach8  Maybe you are talking about EU countries. But look at any of the developing countries and see how well their corrupt government runs things. It makes the American Insurance system seems cheaper.
    1
  8. 10:37 does it matter ? as long as its cheaper. Do you really own the land ? I mean, if you could buy the land for real, you wouldn't need to pay taxes, right ? you would have sovereignty, like the government. But no, all land is basically lease or some sort of similar thing in almost all of the places. You don't really own it, heck you don't even own more than 100m underground in most places. (when I was a child and thus naive, I used to think that you would buy everything in that square plot to the center of the Earth, but that's not how it works)
    1