Try the political quiz

450 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

Should people who can't or don't want to work receive the same benefits as those who contribute to society?

 @9HFN6N3 from South Carolina answered…5mos5MO

Depending on the situation, those who do not work should get at least some of the benefits of those that do work.

 @9HFQKZ8 from Kentucky commented…5mos5MO

If they choose not to work that is on them and they should not get anything special treatment.

 @9HFMWP2 from Texas answered…5mos5MO

No, People who are more willing to work with their community and to make more efficient communities should have help instead of the people who don't help whats so ever.

 @9HCNSNP from Arizona answered…5mos5MO

No, Because the people who do work and contribute the society work hard for that and the ones who do nothing to help shouldn't get anything because they are waste of space that this country doesn't need.

 @9H4QRGZ from Pennsylvania answered…5mos5MO

I believe that people who do not work should not have the same benefits to people who can work because they are putting more into the community then the people who don't want to go out and get a job.

 @PlayfulJusticeSocialismfrom Ohio disagreed…8mos8MO

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

If all your basic needs were met by the government, what would motivate you to work or achieve?

 @9H4YQGX from New York answered…5mos5MO

Getting my family food and water, giving them a nice house, being able to make people happy would help motivate me.

 @9H4YYKVIndependence from Virginia answered…5mos5MO

 @9H4Z8DD from Texas answered…5mos5MO

Under a Socialist government the workers have no need to improve or develop anything better besides for personal enjoyment, thus leaving the nation cripplingly bankrupt for ideas. Nothing would ever get better and their would be no motivation.

 @9H4Z6VH from New York answered…5mos5MO

If my basic needs were met, my motivation for doing work is because I want to work and have have my needs fulfilled, so working would be easier to handle.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1mo1MO

If the guarantee of financial security was universal, how might that shape your relationships with others?

 @9LCDCZGLibertarian from Missouri answered…4wks4W

I wouldn't feel like others were only around me because of my financial situation

 @9LFKWTR from Texas agreed…3wks3W

People would feel more equal to the people around them, and it would make some feel less pitied. It would also make some people more humble.

 @9LFB46T from California agreed…3wks3W

I feel it would reduce the sort of wealth bubbles where people don't experience different walks of life that are throughout the U.S.

 @9LCDBSRDemocrat from Pennsylvania answered…4wks4W

It could make relationships more pure as everyone is technically on the same social standing.

 @9LCDBQT from Missouri answered…4wks4W

I feel like it could be a positive thing, get okay with other countries but if one side doesn't agree with a trade it could go wrong

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

Can you envision a society where people work solely for communal benefit and not personal gain?

 @9HJ6874 from New York answered…5mos5MO

Yes, but only to some degree. I only believe that wealthy companies should be taxed in order to prevent them from monopolizing certain businesses.

 @9HJ6CJPanswered…5mos5MO

No, I think people will be selfish and find ways to help themselves over other people.

 @9HJ6M6T from Missouri answered…5mos5MO

I think that there is no way there could be a society focused on communal benefit because people are self absorbed.

 @9HJ64GF from Michigan answered…5mos5MO

I think people should work for personal gain and not communal benefit because then people will stop working

 @ISIDEWITHasked…4mos4MO

How would the education system change if the job market did not value certain degrees over others financially?

 @9HVGBDJ from Nebraska answered…4mos4MO

Incomes would be more fair and skewed toward education and experience, not chosen field.

 @9HW56ZZ from Wyoming answered…4mos4MO

It would be more inclusive so people do what they want to do instead of what they need to do.

 @9HVG5Q2 from New Jersey answered…4mos4MO

We would be closer financially but the amount of work would not be the same

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia answered…4mos4MO

I mean, we should incentivize some jobs over others, but I think that it’d overall be more equitable to respect all jobs.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

Should healthcare, education, and basic necessities be free for everyone, and why do you think so?

 @9H3KQ3FDemocrat from Texas answered…6mos6MO

yes because everybody gets injured no matter your circumstances making it a neccecity

 @9H3LGZT from Oklahoma answered…6mos6MO

 @9H36NHXanswered…6mos6MO

 @9H3MQS9  from Montana answered…6mos6MO

Yes because everyone should have access to healthcare no matter how wealthy or poor they are. Education is essential in running this country it needs to be free. Basic needs such as water, food, and heat should be free for everyone. Those are elements that are needed to live if you are poor in Montana you need the food bank to be availble and a place to stay warm.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…6mos6MO

How do you perceive the balance between individual freedom and social responsibility in a society that prioritizes equal distribution of wealth?

 @9H3J8DFfrom California answered…6mos6MO

Individual freedom outweighs social responsability, because we cannot rely on a blind trust upon completely different communities, with different values to uphold their end of the bargain

 @9H3J65Dfrom Virgin Islands answered…6mos6MO

I don’t like socialism at all. I believe in individualism, free markets and respect to the private property

 @9H3JB7R from Missouri answered…6mos6MO

Businesses have the right to keep the earning of their hard work. If one businesses does most of the hard work compared to other businesses, then why should they be forced to share their earnings.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas answered…6mos6MO

"Equal distribution of wealth" means the shared democratic ownership over our own means of production, which is already the most equal combo of individual freedom and social responsibility.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…4mos4MO

Not to mention that it’s not a reduction, but an expansion of democracy, the very ideal that so many Americans love.

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…4mos4MO

Democracy is BS

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…4mos4MO

For all practical considerations, we are a democracy. A republic is a FORM of democracy, with a constitution attached to state the rights and powers of people. Unitary Executive Theory was only really interpreted to a go so far, the way it’s going to be under Trump’s administration is a MAXIMALIST interpretation. You claim to love talking about Natural Rights, and the Enumerated Powers, yet support a candidate who would try to remove 2 Enlightenment ideals in the same term: Separation of Powers, Separation of Church and State

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

If you were sure of a comfortable life without wealth, what dreams would you pursue?

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...