I assume they’re not that big into politics and just wanna appear moderate.
“Socially liberal” right up until the point that we start talking about worker’s rights, the dignity of poor people, and the exploitation of cheap slave labor on the other side of the world
Someone who is a conservative who has a gay friend or a gay kid that they love and accept.
Barely even that. Someone who likes marijuana is more likely.
I prefer to use the term fiscally responsible.
It’s fiscally irresponsible to cut taxes for the billionaires and corporations when we have record deficits.
It’s fiscally irresponsible to cut the IRS budget when that results in less revenue.
Republican voters have been brainwashed into thinking that Republicans are somehow more responsible with the economy and budget, when history shows that Republicans drive up the deficit with irresponsible tax cuts.
It’s irresponsible to cut taxes and not cut spending.
Edit: spending more than yu take in creates debt and that is not responsible
Did you ever hear about investing, which is the act of spending money and getting value back?
“I vote Republican, but I’m self-aware enough to know that I should be embarrassed about it.” (In the US)
Either “I hate poor people but I love weed” or “I’m lying because my actual views would scare people off”.
I like weed but hate taxes.
Okay… I hate taxes too, but how else do you propose we pay for things like roads?
That’s that the position for American libertarianism’s.
I don’t particularly hate taxes because I like my government services well funded.
“I’m an uninformed idiot.”
Conservatives are fiscally reckless. Look at every conservative president’s deficit spending, and economic crashes. Look at the states most dependent on federal funds.
Even if you had zero morals and voted 100% on fiscal policies, the best choice is very clearly not conservative.
I link this article every time the discussion comes up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party
The first paragraph is a doozy.
I don’t know if I’ve ever heard the quote IRL, but I’ve known libertarians and they’ve seemed fine. If all you disagree about is the particulars of economic theory it’s not really worth getting worked up about.
I imagine this person being young and male, and possibly liking cryptocurrencies.
I have. Most people who say this IRL are very Libertarian and very not libertarian. If they like cryptocurrency, it’s something new so they can feel smart.
Public service announcement that crypto isn’t intrinsically dumb, but that the most popular cryptos are, and most of the fans definitely are.
The most popular crypto is one of the few that’s p2p and well-tested.
Bitcoin? It’s a first prototype that unnecessarily guzzles computing power, and has no privacy features whatsoever. We don’t drive the Model T anymore.
They’re all p2p, I don’t know what you’re talking about there.
Yes.
That computing power is necessary to secure the network, without introducing security holes or economic rent. And the rate of production gets cut in half every 4 years. The alternatives you’ve been told about are inferior.
The Lightning Network has onion routing like Tor, and drug dealers have been using mixers for literally a decade. If there’s an inflation bug in Monero (like the value overflow incident), then that will be invisible too.
We still use steam power quite a bit, and aren’t replacing it simply because it’s old. Most new cryptocurrencies are like a Tesla, solving problems they didn’t care to understand.
If you think every cryptocurrency is peer-to-peer, then I am literally begging you to slow down and look at how they actually work before investing more. They frequently have centralized issuance, security, development, governance… you name it. It only takes one centralized part to bring down a project.
I haven’t been “told about” shit. I actually have a math background and know cryptography, and I’ve read more than a few whitepapers.
Monero does it better with actual privacy. Ripple does it with the least overhead of all. Eth changes so much I’m not even sure what all they have going on.
Mixers give a very false sense of security, relative to actual cryptography. People seem to think if you mix enough it’s the same, but actually there’s like a million holes in that, not to mention the trust in whoever’s doing the mixing.
They frequently have centralized issuance, security, development, governance… you name it. It only takes one centralized part to bring down a project.
So? Anything worthy of the title is open source, so if someone goes evil it just forks. Monero itself started as a fork of something else IIRC. The actual algorithm isn’t centralised in any of the big cases I can think of, not counting vapourware scams.
I believe that you’re extremely qualified in math and cryptography. But thinking that cryptocurrencies are all p2p, and that Bitcoin dominates the market because they don’t know this one simple thing, are both telltale signs of a novice. They’re mostly centralized scams, and the concerns you’re bringing up have been discussed to death.
Monero is a great example.
You’re correct that it was originally forked off of Bytecoin, which had a premine. So Bytecoin was not peer-to-peer, because one user (the issuer) had a different set of rules than everyone else. If you had invested in centralized Bytecoin, you would have lost money because it was not p2p. They had to start over!
The problem with relying on “actual cryptography” for privacy is auditability, like I mentioned above. When there was a bug in Bitcoin that allowed someone to give himself a bazillion BTC, we were able to catch and revert it immediately. If there is a bug like that in Monero, we won’t know until after it’s circulated as much as the premined Bytecoins did.
As someone who has used the term before.
Social liberal: I think you should be able to do whatever you want in your personal life, even if it harms yourself. I’m willing to negotiate with harming consenting adults while recognizing the possibility, even likelihood, of an imbalance of power making it difficult to properly give consent, or for it to be recognized by the public at large, e.g., maybe Amazon workers aren’t really okay with peeing in bottles because they don’t have enough time or facilities for bathroom breaks, just because they accepted the job. Doing things that harm those you have guardianship over is not acceptable because they are not in a position to give consent.
Fiscal conservative: I want money in the public trust to be spent effectively. This doesn’t mean I want less taxes, I’m in fact okay with more. A city near me has 30% of its budget dedicated to police services, yet we have some of the highest violent crime in Canada. The simple fact is, a lot of crime is driven by poverty and lack of opportunity. So why are we paying to catch and jail poor people with no skills who are trying to survive and not paying for skills training, robust childhood education, and at least minimal supports so people don’t have to be desperate enough to risk their lives and mine so they can survive? It doesn’t make sense and there’s no indication it’s working. FYI, school meal programs tend to help the local economy to the tune of about $7 for every $1 you spend on them. That sounds terribly fiscally responsible to me…
Nothing about what you describe has even the slightest thing to do with conservatism though, so I don’t know why you would describe that as being “fiscal conservative”.
Likes lgbtq, doesn’t like spending money.
