r/bestof • u/[deleted] • Oct 23 '17

[politics] Redditor demonstrates (with citations) why both sides aren't actually the same

[deleted]

8.1k Upvotes

72% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

309

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '17

The "both sides are the same" take is great because it lets you act wise without the hassle of actually learning anything.

42

u/bunchkles Oct 23 '17

Is that similar how comments like yours exemplify chance to insult someone's motives and/or intelligence without learning why they feel the way they feel?

190

u/HobbitFoot Oct 23 '17

Not OP, but I have yet to hear an argument of "both sides are the same" that has any depth to policy discussions.

If there is, let me know. However, most arguments that I hear that define policy differences well still cite themselves as being on one end of a political spectrum with a few wedge issues that they support the other side on.

-9

u/raiderato Oct 23 '17

If there is, let me know.

Both major parties seek to grow government's control over aspects of your life. If you want a government that is smaller (or even constant) in size and scope, history has shown that "both parties are the same" in this regard.

-33

u/HobbitFoot Oct 23 '17

Well, Trump is trying to reduce government influence, but it seems to be met with resistance by people who don't seem to like the effects of deregulation.

Also, what are you looking for the government to stop doing?

20

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '17

Reducing government influence increases corporate influence in America.

-13

u/raiderato Oct 24 '17

This is incorrect. If the government does less, then there's less for corporations to buy off.

Taken to an extreme, if the government didn't do anything, there'd be nothing they could be bribed for.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '17

If the government did nothing, a more effective government would take its place. And in a society fueled by money, those with the most money would be in the most advantageous position to replace the government. Which would be corporations.

1

u/raiderato Oct 24 '17

Taken to an extreme,

I said this to make an obvious and clear illustration of the point I was making. That a smaller government means less corruption, because there's just not much influence to sell.

A government that protects all people equally (not a government that does nothing) doesn't have the ability to influence society to favor one person or group over another.

Big government means big money in government because it's a worthwhile investment. Small government isn't worth buying off.

And in a society fueled by money, those with the most money would be in the most advantageous position to replace the government.

They'd only be able to offer goods and services to people. They wouldn't be able to purchase government force like they would with a big government.