Humans, even today, are simply animals that occasionally reproduce to pass on their traits.

In ex-soviet countries, psychologists note an increased rate of schizotypal personality disorder. This may be a result of grandiose and paranoid people surviving Stalin's purges better than a healthy individual.

Psychopathy and sociopathy are also traits that can be passed down, both from a genetic and an environmental standpoint.

In the American capitalist system, kindness is more likely to result in greater poverty than greater wealth. 1 in 100 people are sociopaths, while 1 in 25 managers are sociopaths. This trend continues upward.

At the very least, America needs a stronger progressive tax system to reduce the societal benefit of sociopathy, lest our society tear itself apart in endless self-interest.

The reason I ask is there's a lot of people who want to get rid of self-defense and don't want it to be a thing. I think these same people want to get rid of free speech. I support self-defense and free-speech but I want to get a practical idea as to why so many people don't want self-defense or free-speech to be a thing? I also want to see how this debate plays out.

This isn't specifically about 2020. More just a conversation about principles and thought encouraged by people saying the 2020 Trump protestors hate their country and are all traitors because they attempted to institute radical change -- I'm not positing that this was morally right, but also that revolution is not inherently morally deplorable.

France had so many insurrections, and most of those people loved their country/nation. It's important to delineate between the State and the Nation. Yes, even in a Democracy.

Per the Iron Law of Oligarchy, Democracy will always corrupt eventually, and it's tough to decide when a Democracy is "spent". But I don't think anyone, Right or Left, would argue against some level of corruption in our government. I think people are more open to admitting it when their party is not in power because they don't want to admit to corruption in their own ranks, but corruption is egregious across the isle.

Our nation (USA) was literally born on insurrection. It's part of our ethos, innately. Jefferson thought we should have regular revolutions to keep the powers in check and bring attention to key issues ignored by those in power, because any political system eventually corrupts and you sometimes need radical changes to fix this.

In the OG French Revolution, nobody can say the people hated France. They hated the French government and sought radical change. Same with all subsequent revolutions in France, and there were many.

Revolution can sometimes be part of the natural evolution of a Nation, and in fact usually is. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse. Sometimes for the better for a period of time, and then worse later, and vice versa. Like I'd say the French Revolution started out as worse than what came before but was ultimately a good thing overall.

Riots are (usually) smaller-scale revolts, and MLK said "Riots are the voice of the unheard" for the same reasons Jefferson posits in the linked quote when he talked about even failed revolts having purpose -- they bring attention to issues and cause politicians to pivot.

I also believe most rational people have a line that they think, when crossed, a revolution is merited. For some, it's Trump abolishing term limits. For others, it's when the White House flies a hammer and sickle over the US flag. Or perhaps when corporations act with impunity, poison our drinking water, invade our privacy, and destroy our planet (oh wait... that already happens).

I don't think revolution is intrinsically bad. And I firmly believe that whether someone thinks a particular revolt bad is where they stand on the political spectrum vs the ideology of the revolt, and how satisfied they are with the status quo. The American Revolution was a good revolt to Republicans/Liberals (classical usage of the terms, not political parties) but not to Monarchists. Jacobins hated Napoleon's coup, but Bonapartists celebrated it. Castro's revolution in Cuba was also probably a good thing for the Cuban people at large.

For the record, I don't think the US is anywhere near bad enough for a revolution. This is purely an examination on the intrinsic value of revolutions, coups, etc., and that they are not in and of themselves intrinsically bad concepts.

Talk about anything and everything. Book clubs, TV, current events, sports, personal lives, study groups, etc.

Our rules are still enforced, remain civilized.

Also; I'm once again asking you to report any uncivilized behavior. Help us mods keep the subs standard of discourse high and don't let anything slip between the cracks.

What do you all think would happen if Puerto Rico combined with the Virgin Islands, the U.S.-held Pacific Islands, Washington, D.C., all the states of Mexico, and every province of Canada became states in the U.S.? This massive decision would roughly create forty-four new states. What geopolitical, economic, and social changes would this supersized U.S. bring about? Since this super-nation would undoubtedly become the strongest in the world, would other NATO or Central and South American countries want to join it officially? Would the U.S. adopt some of Canada’s more progressive policies, or would the new Canadian states be pulled to the right? How would the overall political landscape shift and what changes would occur to the U.S. electoral map? What would it take for something like this to happen? What would happen to the Mexican drug cartels?

I guess I should start by explaining what I mean when I say "left-right value shakeup. 10 years ago for instance, "free speech" was seen as something that was almost nearly universally left-coded but on these days it's almost nearly universally right-coded, just look at pretty much any subreddit that labels itself as being free speech or anti-censorship, they are almost always more right-coded than left-coded these days.

"Animal welfare" is another thing where I have noticed this happening. After the death of Peanut the Squirrel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_(squirrel)) last month it seemed like most people on the right were the ones going on about how horrible it was while a lot of people on the left like Rebecca Watson were justifying it.

I know Michael Malice has described Conservatism as "progressivism driving the speed limit" but it really does seem that the conservatives of today are the progressives of 10 or so years ago outside of a select few issues like LGBTQ stuff. Even when it comes to that a lot of conservatives have pretty much become the liberals of 10 years ago in being for same-sex marriage.

Thoughts? Do you think I am reading too much into this?

I'm concerned with the future of the US and its democracy. While it's always had its undemocratic flaws it's still held a certain baseline requirement of democratic quality that may soon be dying. The way I see the current situation of US politics is largely three paths one less likely then the last all leading to our politics being dominated by a singular party for the next decade or so.

The democratic win

For this pathway there are a variety of ways it happens but generally the direction is still the same: Trump's term ends, he can't really do much more in politics and cant really lead the party on the national level, and the Republicans can't find anyone charismatic enough to move the trump base around towards them and so the pendulum swings back to the dems and from there they're almost insured an advantageous position (granted largely on the national level) until the Republicans pull their shit together and find someone who has the charisma to win or the trump cult dissolves and the Republican base turns back to their pre-trump era willing to follow the party elite around on the national level.

The Republican win

This pathway largely only has one way of happening: the dems STILL don't learn their lesson from the 2024 election, don't even TRY to slip in populist rhetoric in their campaigning (let alone get populist policy) and they simply are stuck as the opposition to the Republican party incapable of gathering the necessary support to win any election season (maybe one or two special elections come as shocks but the broader trend of the party will be them being screwed)

The minor party rise

One of the many minor parties finally gets to rise to fame AND influence after a mass exodus of americans giving up on the main two parties, looking for a better alternative and finding one whether because they explicitly go out of their way to find one or one of them finally get the level of attention necessary to get a major portion of the American public to back them some way or another. The 2026 midterms can be, no WILL be a HUGE signifier of whether we're on this pathway at which point, once they even have a large enough portion of congress to essentially play kingmaker (maybe 15 congress members most of which in the house) over even a single thing like the house speaker is all but certain to begin a meteoric rise from that point on.

Now this is objectively the more difficult pathway and has FAR more moments for big screw ups. I do think it's a pretty likely path at this point considering the MASSIVE dissatisfaction with the main two parties. It is probably to be done by one of the bigger or more active minor parties like the libertarians or the DSA and it's almost certainly to be a left wing party to fill the gap that has been in American politics for over a century.

I think the main thing that will decide which of these three paths the US is on is the upcoming DNC chair election because if the next chair does not push any big changes in the democratic party then it will be THE defining moment for the decaying of the democratic party. Depending on the changes the next chair DOES push for (whether that's moving to the left or to the right) we'll know whether we are led towards their unilateral rule over the country or a third party spiking to fame.

Now am I wrong? Maybe, I certainly hope so but is there really any other major direction outside of a full on revolution?

We need TWO new parties.

If Trump and his billionaire gang of fascists are going to burn it all down, then We The People need to start thinking now about what comes after, if anything.

What do American's really stand for What do American's really want? Who are we, even?

A constitutional form of government is the best that humanity has come up with for how to actually build maintain a functional society. A representative democracy -- that protects the rights of the minority -- and allows the will of the PEOPLE to be heard is the best way to determine what kind of society we all get to live in.

Corporate interests and profiteering have been allowed to replace the will of the people and have allowed for the billionaires to take control of OUR government for their own ends. This cannot be allowed to happen again.

The divisions we currently face are manufactured by these corporate interests, but they were only able to do so because there are divisions that are real and need to be addressed. Divisions about all aspects of society and the shape of the world are tangible and real and can be defined in a way that allows them to be fully addressed. A way for compromise to be found, and for common interests to be put forward, is the only justifiable basis for what comes next.

We have a two party system model that can do that, as long as neither of those parties are captured by the greed and corruption that stems from corporate control. Currently they are both captured by this rot and neither party represents the people or their interests. To rebuild, they will BOTH need to be replaced with parties that actually reflect the divisions that do exist.

The Real Divisions

What divides us most is our innate desire for change vs stability. We each seem to be born with either the motivation to leave the past behind or the motivation to protect our legacy. Both are perfectly valid ways of viewing the world and both deserve to be properly represented without influence from those who, in their greed, only seek to profit from those very real divisions.

A political realignment that fits with this human reality and prohibits the influence of greed or moneyed interest is the only path forward that does not lead to another collapse.

Ready Party ONE

Let's call this the try new and stupid things party. The curious party. The party of reckless abandon. The throw caution to the wind party. The party where everything is questioned and nothing is certain. The messy party with infighting and full of individuals that do not like to be told what to do. The party of cats.

Ready Party TWO

Let's call this the stick in the mud party. The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" party. The party of status quo. The party of caution and restraint. The party that puts the brakes on change for the sake of change. The party that is loyal to the past and listens to their elders. The good ol' dog party.

Party model

The basis for any party must be the people it represents and it must represent their views on a host of issues, it might even go as far as educating its members on issues and providing them with the information they need to make decisions about what the party stands for and what it wold be willing to accept in the name of unity.

Such a model as this has been presented before and still seems to fit the bill for how things could work for either party.

https://putpeopleoverprofit.org/umbrella.html

What do you think a party should be?

The US wants Ukraine to come to the negotiating table. And Israel. Why does it seem we do not talk about getting Syria and the rebels to come to a US mediated peace deal? We are involved. Do we not want to interfere with the Russians?

Initially I considered this more of a conspiracy theory than anything else, and while the knowledge here is documented, the premise of misuse is purely hypothetical.

Prior to the election I thought about how a Low earth orbit (LEO) satellite reconnaissance constellation would probably be one of the most effective options for enhanced border security, which made me question at that point what would stop the development of a nationwide system, or even worldwide system, because economically it’s a no-brainer. Initially I somewhat wrote off the idea.

After recently learning about Starlink’s Starshield, and their classified contract with the DOD and national reconnaissance office to develop a specialized constellation of communications and reconnaissance satellites for purposes related to “national security”, it makes me think the concept is much less far fetched than previously thought. Obviously there are very real benifits like early missile warning systems and highly secure communications, but generally the idea of constant LEO reconnaissance from hundreds or even thousands of satellites represents huge potential for abuse.

Overall I think technology like large-scale LEO satellite constellations is inevitable, like many things, but what prompted me to draft this post is how little it’s being talked about and how few people even know about Starlink, let alone Starshield. What do you think? do you think it’s a necessary technology for the government to adopt, do you have concerns about management / oversight and domestic privacy? How would those concerns even be addressed with such a cutting edge and specialized system?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/musks-spacex-is-building-spy-satellite-network-us-intelligence-agency-sources-2024-03-16/

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/northrop-grumman-working-with-musks-spacex-us-spy-satellite-system-2024-04-18/

Edit: 100% ESOP = 100% Employee Stock Ownership Plan

SOE = State Owned Enterprise

You may say its not Capitalism, and depending on your definition, you may be right, but I would argue it has enough of it in it to be considered by you: And, if you believe in democracy and freedom, people must have democratic control over their economic status.

Cooperative Capitalism: The state is, or owns key means of production in the forms of SOEs, which in turn the citizens all own shares in, which they receive profits from

• State capitalism or socialism shouldn't be a scary word to anyone, even for lassie faire capitalists. Simply put, it is necessary to create things like rare drugs, and, it checks the private sector. Most importantly, in a democratic framework, this gives citizens more direct economic/shareholder control over their lives

Cooperative Capitalism: Checks the state enterprises. All private businesses must be ESOPS or co-ops, that have the donut model built into it. I love one-vote-one-share co-ops, and they are an acceptable structure, but still, the capitalist in me believes in other cases founders should get to own more shares and control of the business they founded

• But, this doesn't mean you get to own the people who work for you. ESOPs and/or hybrid co-ops would be structured where workers' wages are set through direct democratic voting by all employee-owners.

In this link are the results of a Watson Institute (Brown University) study showing the displacement of people since the 9/11 wars in the affected areas. The numbers are about 38 million people, roughly the population of California.

This ended up with Europe steeped in a migrant crisis for years now. Additionally, the US and Canada have absorbed some of these people as well, though considering the overall numbers, it's probably negligible.

And while I don't have the numbers, we've seen US intervention in Latin America also contribute to the "migrant crisis" in the New World. Consider Obama's support of a coup in Honduras in 2009, and the consequent state of Honduras ever since.

The US has also a heavy sanctions regime on Cuba and Venezuela, perpetuating scarcity and poverty and the need for people to leave. Since 2009 the US has also sanctioned Nicaragua.

The US also supported a 2019 coup in Bolivia.

In 2004, the US, Canada and France backed a coup in Haiti.

The US war on drugs has escalated violence and corruption in Mexico.

And much more...

If the 9/11 wars generated so much displacement in the Middle East, we can also imagine proportional displacements due to the instability in Latin America, with the US playing no small role in this either.

Most migrants likely would have rather not left. People like their own culture, food, and home. Leaving also often means leaving behind family, friends, professions, whole networks built over decades...

The best way to humanely prevent migrant crises is to stop contributing to global instability through these interventions.

It's simple; American politics are simply liberals arguing with each other. It is not worth the time of anyone who wants real political change.

Democrats

• Champions Progressivism (Excessive Individualism)
• Champions Liberal Democracy (Except when the wrong person won)
• Champions Neoliberalism
• Believes that they are carrying forward the original values America was founded on
• Identity politics
• Appeal to progress
• Maintains Status Quo
• Factions that advocate for a nanny government (Same goals, different appeals)

Republicans

• Champions Extreme Individualism But With Appeal to Tradition
• Champions Liberal Democracy (Except when the wrong person won)
• Champions Neoliberalism and Libertarianism
• Believes that they are carrying forward the original values America was founded on
• Identity politics
• Appeal to tradition
• Maintains Status Quo (although sometimes reactionary)
• Factions that advocate for a nanny government (Same goals, different appeals)

Yes this includes the new Trump GOP too.

There is no political diversity except for in the third parties. There is no hope in any of the 2 parties. They are both liberals.

Classical Liberalism + Conservative Liberalism = GOP

Enlightenment Thought + Neoliberalism + Nanny Liberalism = Dems

BTW, Bernie is a Social Democrat and not a Democratic Socialist, so he still agrees with Capitalist system.

In the US, we only have a very small wing of politicians who lean mildly center-Left at most. They continue to advocate for reformist tactics and utilizing State structures to bring about change for the working class, though we see that these methods simply aren’t realizing the change I believe we need to see; at most delivering crumbs for the working class and that simply isn’t enough.

I’d argue that if we’re going to see actual change, actual liberatory change that’ll produce meaningful results for the working class, it’ll have to involve a total overhaul of the current system. I’d argue that instead of utilizing existing State structures and reformist tactics, we should engage in a Communalistic form of organization that emphasizes the creation of decentralized and self-managed communities that operate through direct democracy, dismantling hierarchical and oppressive structures, leading to true liberation and sustainable social change.

Clearly the Left needs new ideas and methods to create change that resonates with ordinary, working class people, and the mild center-Left crowd simply isn’t providing anything new, nor worthy in my view to bring this change about; especially when they just succumb to the bottom-of-the-barrel pieces of legislation that Neoliberals propose. I mean, a literal Nazi, or the very least Fascist, just won the presidency again…it’s only a matter of time before things get too bad.

I believe that in a republican government, the ideas and the sagacious judgment of policies should be the only things represented by the people, not their self prescribed identities. Reasonable discourse is a fundamental part of republican and democratic which goes back to the times of the Ancient Greeks. The only things that should be concerned with discourse in government are the actions that must be taken to promote the general welfare of the country. Yet if the racial, and sexual identities become a standard of that discourse, then the welfare of certain racial or sexual groups will be preferred over the other, leading to a justified discrimination in the name of anti discrimination. Arguments rooted by discrimination are never grounded in reason under any circumstance, but instead are grounded in biased empathy for a certain group in which the government gives favorable discriminatory treatment to one and unfavorable to the other. Our country is supposed to be represented by the general will of the people; under DEI the general will of the people can be offset by the identity of the few. Factoring one's identity does not add force to the logically validity or truth to one's convictions but only is a fallacious distraction from the substance of the argument.  I feel the country is better off sticking to time tested principles of reason instead of the fallacious Ad Hominem in both government discourse and representation of the people.

Would it not be foolish for a stranger to demand that you pay for their meal since they identify as group X? Would it not be a clear injustice for a citizen to have more voting power than you because of the color of their skin? It's true that today individuals do have unequal voting power, yet that is determined by location and justified by the mathematical calculus in combating the tyranny of the majority.

I think depoliticalization, the removing of certain sectors of governance from the democratic process and either putting them in the hands of experts, elites, or the administrative state where they no longer form a part of normal politics, is a huge issue in the modern day. In America, we can see how certain issues evolved from being the center of American politics, such a currency and foreign policy, to becoming essentially depoliticized to the point where they were things that just "happened" within the administrative state and establishment.

A lot of conservative politics in America nowadays rails against the administrative state and rule by the experts, and although I don't agree how this politics is expressed or the solutions it presents, I think the problem behind it is actually a very real one. When you take things out of the hands of democracy and put them in the hands of experts, you are inherently alienating people from their political system, and if you do this with enough sectors of government, it becomes impossible -not- to feel like there is a "deep state" running everything and that political choice doesn't actually matter.

In America, I think this kind of depoliticalization is very deeply entrenched in some fields. Foreign policy is a great example, as there is a lot of "conventional wisdom" from the foreign policy establishment that feels like it fundamentally contradicts with the values of a lot of Americans, yet even if Americans vote for a "non-interventionist" president like Donald Trump, they ultimately still get the exact same foreign policy. Trump is going to nominate Marco Rubio for Secretary of State, and establishment liberals are cheering this news that a neo-conservative is getting put in that position and that America's foreign policy is going to continue unabated, and for those of us looking at the two party's from the outside, it is hard to really see any real difference, and part of that is because the establishment is so entrenched and so resistant to any democratic change that even though one of the reasons Trump got elected to his first term on the basis of criticism of GWB's foreign policy, absolutely no changes took place. American Democracy is incapable of asserting itself over the established foreign policy regime, and I feel like that is something that should be disturbing to anyone.

You can look at different parts of the administrative state and see the same kind of depoliticalization, and ultimately, there was always going to be a reaction to this because we do live in a democracy where people do like to feel like they have a choice, even if the choice is sometimes a very bad one, like ejecting real doctors for TV ones or putting alternative medicine cranks like Kennedy in charge. Because people have become so alienated from what politics is supposed to look like in the sections of governance lost to the administrative state, the ways it tries to reassert itself over the administrative state and experts are going to be incredibly warped.

I have noticed that some people have started calling arguments "bad faith". I think this is a ruse because if there's a specific fallacy, you could point it out and explain why it is so. Simply claiming something is bad faith is a way to avoid the argument while pretending there was something wrong with the logic.

It is even in the forum rules. It is defined there as "Insincere arguments, intentional misrepresentation of facts, refusal to acknowledge valid points". What is "Insincere", "intentional", or "valid" are hardly objective.

The claim is typically that the person making the statement doesn't believe the statement being made. If I say "what if it's raining outside" when it's clearly not raining, that would be "bad faith".

But to me, an argument can only be logical or illogical, and supported or unsupported. There is no requirement that the person making the argument believe the statements being made.

Online debater David Pakman has been using this charge a lot, and I think a lot of people got it from him. He would typically lead off discussions with conservatives by asking whether the 2020 election was stolen, as a test to whether they are arguing in "good faith". This is "begging the question". So he's ironically starting off every conversation with a fallacy.

I would say based on the above definition,, this is quite a bad faith way to lead off the discussion. But you can simply point out the fallacy he's using. I wouldn't say it has no place in political debate.

So someone please explain what it means to you, and why it's important to political debate to limit "bad faith" arguments.

Talk about anything and everything. Book clubs, TV, current events, sports, personal lives, study groups, etc.

Our rules are still enforced, remain civilized.

Also; I'm once again asking you to report any uncivilized behavior. Help us mods keep the subs standard of discourse high and don't let anything slip between the cracks.

This is a very abstract concept that just came to mind, which even now is difficult for me to properly articulate, and i already know it’ll be an extremely controversial take.

I always hear the argument about how “they’re still children, they don’t even understand emotions yet” and thus the idea of gender diversity should be off limits until they’re fully developed, but isn’t this in itself a double standard? If children really are too young to comprehend gender, then how does it make sense to assign them one over the other without ever having their input?

What do you think about this concept? I assume the biggest division between people’s thoughts will work off of if you believe sex and gender are two separate concept, or if you think they’re the same thing. But I’m curious to hear perspectives from both beliefs of this concept.

Essentially what i’m questioning here is why the gender that corresponds with a child’s biology at birth is more natural / justified than anything else, including neutrality. If you think that gender shouldn’t be conceptualized until people grow up, then shouldn’t that principle extend to everyone?

And of course since this is a politically centered forum i’m trying to tie it back not just to the philosophical narrative, but also socially and politically. Thank you for your thoughts!

Before I begin to explain my reasoning for my claim, first I need to disclose what I understand is the concept of right.

A right is a type of moral maxim. This moral maxim must be universally applying and in harmony with principles of moral autonomy and freedom. What I mean by universally applying is that the claim must be general and not contradictory. For example the moral maxim “Everyone should make false promises to attain their goals” could not be ascended as a universally applying maxim since there is a logical contradiction. The contradiction being in the concept of promises, there is an expectation of truth. So if everyone made false promises, then no promises could be made since there would be no expectation of truth. The concept does not make sense. Whereas the moral maxim “everyone should not kill an innocent person” could be a universally applying maxim since there are no logical contradictions and the principle that every human is an end of itself is respected. 

Now on the principles of moral autonomy and freedom which I mentioned earlier, if we suppose that all humans (rational beings) are ends in themselves then every moral maxim must be constructed around this principle so as not to break it. Part of being an end of itself, is being an autonomous being and retaining the capabilities of choosing their own actions voluntarily. So every moral maxim in question must respect this principle since it is a necessary condition of any universal moral maxim. 

I differentiate moral duties into two (borrowing from Kant), those being duties of justice and duties of virtue. A duty of justice is a negative moral maxim or a positive to protect autonomy. The general negative form being “ought not to…”. For example a duty of justice moral maxim could be “everyone ought not to steal from another”. Whereas a duty of virtue is a positive moral maxim, in the form of “ought to …” A duty of virtue moral maxim could be “everyone ought to help a neighbor in need”.

If we suppose that the purpose of government is to promote and protect the general welfare of society, the first step of doing this is through a social contract. Certain rights are protected, others are taken away, and some are enforced.

A right is a duty of justice moral maxim, that bears a title of compulsion if not followed. For example if we analyze the 1st amendment, which protects freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, it can be seen this is an universally applying moral maxim, that respects the principle of autonomy, and warrants punishment if not followed. If we put the 1st amendment in the format of a ought statement, “everyone ought not to intrude upon a person's freedom to speech, religion or assembly”. To test if this maxim is universal we should see if there are any logical contradictions or if it can be expected that every individual in society should follow this rule. Since this maxim has no logical contradictions and respects the principle of autonomy then it can be ascended to the rank of right. 

Now what if a duty of virtue attempts to be raised to the rank of a right according to the terms I defined? Let's take the moral maxim “I should give good to those in need”. If this became a right, then it would be a universally applying maxim that bears a title of compulsion. Which means any individual who does not give food to those in need will be punished. Surely this invades our freedom to choose and intrudes upon our moral autonomy, which makes this positive right not universally applicable. A right is strict and unambiguous, and has to be followed. There are not many ways to protect citizens from cruel and unusual punishment and there are no cases where it should not be done, but there are many ways to help those in need. Forcing an individual to do a virtue against their own will invades their moral autonomy and shouldnt be a right. 

Of course food and homelessness are issues and it is the object of the government to alleviate those issues. But according to the definitions given, it would be immoral to instill positive maxims or duties of virtue as rights. Duties of virtue should be done voluntarily by individuals. As a country, voting policies that alleviate issues of society would be a macroscopic expression of the duties of virtue.  

New York State, and other states have been adding to the list of protected statuses, for things like gender and sexual orientation. Since this country is in the mood to expand protected statuses, should political party registration also be one?

The Social Security Admin moved entirely to Ohio.

Dept of Ag moved to Nebraska.

Defense Dept moved to Texas.

The Fed moved to Tennessee.

Homeland Security to Arizona.

Department of Interior to Colorado

Department of Labor to Detroit, MI.

The actual final place is not important, the breaking up of Washington is, and the influx of tax money to the entire country is.

These are the Departments:

Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Education Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Services Department of Homeland Security Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of State Department of Transportation Department of the Treasury Department of Veteran Affairs

They absolutely do not have to be centralized today, and it would certainly make lobbying more challenging.

Thoughts?

I am of the opinion that Trump's approach to the trade deficit, if realized, will be in essence a direct concession to BRICS.

In the context of trade, Trump has been dead set on 2 things:

1. Decreasing reliance on imports and reindustrializing
2. Maintaining the USD as the world's reserve currency, penalizing countries who attempt to de-dollarize

The thing is, you can't really have both. In order to reindustrialize and bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, you need a concerted policy effort to make your exports more competitive, which means lowering the value of the currency they're priced against. But if you do that, you're also challenging the role of the USD at the heart of the global financial system. Why would a country have any incentive to hold a significant portion of its assets in a currency that the US is making an active effort to devalue?

So ironically, his irrational fear of cheaper global goods and services at the expense of US hegemony would ultimately service exactly that. This gives BRICS even more of a foothold as it's becoming increasingly feasible for China and other countries to absorb whatever hits the US tries to make to their exports.

But it boils down to a choice between better jobs and conditions for US workers and the interest of Wall Street, who need a stable USD to keep foreign investment flowing into the stock market. Between the two, I think the choice will be pretty obvious, and I think those who voted for Trump in anticipation of booming domestic industries will be disappointed.

Obviously some workplaces like emergency services need to be open on Christmas Day, because you can't put people's lives in jeaopardy for one day, but it bothers me that so many places now still stay open on Christmas Day.

I get that not everybody celebrated Christmas. However, the vast majority of the world does. It's a highly important celebration, and it feels incredibly disrespectful that some places of employment don't recognize it as so.

For example, my workplace still opens on Christmas Day. They make it a part of the contract that you could work on the 25th December, but most of us only signed it because we need to make a living, and in the current economic climate you can't afford to not have a job. Luckily I have avoided working Christmas Day so far, but I absolutely wouldn't want to work it. The job I do is a basic customer service role in a call centre, and I see no reason why it should be open on Christmas Day.

I think it's time the world moved back to Dickensian times and governments put a blanket ban on workplaces opening on Christmas Day, unless it's emergency services. I don't care if you have no internet, or your phone is lost/stolen, or you have a banking problem on Christmas Day. You can wait until Boxing Day; one day shouldn't make a difference.

Anyone else agree?

I have been thinking about it a lot, and I have to present this in a more "scientific" or even geopolitical way, that, despite many claims especially from the MSM, and despite the ideas of some politicians that it is only Ukraine that is at stake now - the whole West is the target of Russian warfare, and through some simple mathematical proofs - the West is losing, and we might be heading for a total collapse.

Out of the firehose of lies that Russia used to justify it's invasion - like "protecting russian people" or "countering NATO expansion" - one seemed to be their true goal. The Multipolar World. But what it would really mean is a decoherent, chaotic, feudalistic war, plunging the Western geopolitical alliance into disarray, fully dissolving any coherency and returning to the never-ending wars of the 19th-20th century, but now with more mass casualties and WMD's. And the reason for that is resentment of the fall of the USSR, which deeply scarred and offended Putin and most of his KGB apparatus, that are now in charge. Judging by their action - that is their true goal.

Interestingly enough, in my analysis - I won't go into the usual reddit Trump hate. As in my opinion, Trump is actually not a russian asset, he is unlikely to fall into the Putin's trap (that the current government has fallen into) - but he is a dark horse and at this point it's impossible to predict his response to the global crisis.

So what is the trap exactly? The Nash equilibrium. And, generally, the game theory. The idea of game theory has shown, time and time again, with different models, with different simulations - that in a system of many actors, the one actor that decides to gain by becoming malicious and breaking the rules - the malicious actor needs to be punished disproportionately strong to end it's malicious behavior. Or, simply put - "appeasement doesn't work", because the malicious actor learn that they can escalate and gain without consequences. The problem is, the West has been slow and underproportionate in it's response to Russian escalation throughout the whole encounter (and that can be traced even back to 2014).

As of today, Russia has greatly upped their stake in a test whether their actions elicit a disproportionate response. They started by attacking European infrastructure such as underwater cables and satellites, and used an ICBM (without nuclear warhead this time) against a non-nuclear nation in the Western sphere of influence. The West hasn't responded yet. The green light to use ATACMS and Storm Shadow was a less than proportionate response - as Russian has been using Iranian and North Korean ballistic missiles for over a year now.

According to game theory - they have not been punished enough, they safely increased their stakes, and that signals them that they can with a very high degree of success increase the stakes again. Which a rational, but malicious game-theoretic actor will do. Their next step, if launching a dummy ICBM does not elicit a disproportionate response - is to launch a nuclear-tipped ICBM and probe the West's response.

And this is the tipping, the bifurcation point at which they achieve their goal. The West would not have much options, because the only disproportionate response at that point would be a full-out nuclear strike. If the West does not answer - they have achieved their victory by fully disrupting the Nash equilibrium and have fully dismantled the Western geopolitical coherency.

At that point, they can up the stakes again by performing a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear NATO member - and would not elicit a nuclear response from the West. They would not need thousands of nukes for the MAD if even 10-20 will do a job of dismantling NATO. But they wouldn't even need that. If their nuclear strike against a non-nuclear nation doesn't elicit a full-out nuclear retaliation from the West - they will effectively dismantle nuclear non-proliferation and persuade every country to seek nuclear deterrence, which would also dismantle the status quo of the current world order and plunge the world into neo-feudal "multipolar" chaos.

Tl;dr: Russia has once again upped the stakes and their bluff was not called. If this is allowed, they can win by raising the stakes and make the West fold. If the West folds to a bluff, the current status quo will be dissolved and the world will be plunged into a multipolar chaos with inevitable threat of neo-feudal nuclear wars in the future.

We tend to inherit a lot of our political views from our parents. However events can and often do shape our politics in different ways. I first became interested in politics and history when I was in middle school. For context my parents immigrated from Colombia even though schools are not explicitly catholic everyone pretty much is. Since Colombia is pretty much catholic religion is not really talked about in school. When we moved to the US my parents put me in public school. However they moved me to a baptist school in middle school after I came home talking about different religions. We lived in Florida and the baptist school was really conservative. My parents in general are very liberal but chose this school because it was the best religious school in town.

Since my interest in politics developed during my time at the baptist I was taught that the civil war was not over slavery but over state's rights you can fill in the rest as far as what other things I was taught in the school. However what stuck with me the most during my time there was how controlled everything was. We were constantly told that we were at war with the world around us. That the secular world hated us so on and so forth. We were told that the only media that was worth consuming was christian media and that an other media was not worth it. There was an incident once where a kid told me because I was listening to secular music during carline. The school decided that it would go through every students iPod to ensure that only godly content was on it. The only reason the school did not follow through is because enough pissed off parents showed at the dean's office saying they weren't going to allow that. What was crazy is that the parent of the kid who told me were furious that the school was not going to go through the student's phone. Obama won his first term and the whole school was in mourning for a month about it. When you graduated into the high school you were required to sign essentially a morality contract where you promised not hang out with public school kids, attend parties where secular music was held etc. I ended transferring to a public school because it had more AP classes. By the time I transferred out I was very right wing.

However within a year I started drifting to the left. I joined Model UN, the research required to do well in the club open my mind to things that were never talked about in my private school. Talking AP classes in US history, European History, and World History showed me how biased the information was given in private school was.

College was definitely what solidified my left wing views and values. It didn't even have to do with professor "ramming" ideology down my throat it was honestly the exposure to a variety of people. Their were not many gay people in my community growing up and what I was taught about them from my private school was definitely not good things that would be easily considered homophobia today. I met my first gay people in college and quickly realized that they were normal people that wanted the same things that I did (a job and a house for example) and not the evil caricature that was given to me. There were times when without meaning to made some of my friends more liberal just by talking to them. We were discussing illegal immigration and they asked me if I felt cheated because people were cutting in line. I told them that I actually didn't care and that I was just happy to have my citizenship. I also talked to them about the process to get my citizenship and how it took 15 years for me to go from Visa to blue passport. By the end of the conversation they shifted from thinking I should be pissed about undocumented immigrants "stealing my spot" to the immigration process is broken we should do something about it. While I was in college was around the time that conservative and especially right wing influencers start pushing the idea that college campuses are censorious, making jokes about the "tolerant" left and how it was the right wing that would be less intrusive into your life. That to me was the final straw. I had grown up in spaces controlled by conservatives and they were significantly less tolerant and censorious. It bothered me that right wing influencers made fun of professors canceling a day of class because trump won (not something I think was needed but I get it). While being well aware that when Obama won my school mourned for a month and sent fliers home.

In conclusion, my political views were shaped not by any single event but by a series of experiences that exposed me to vastly different ideologies and ways of life. From the controlled, conservative environment of a private Baptist school to the openness and diversity of public school and college, each step challenged me to reevaluate my beliefs. Interestingly, my experience is not unique—many of my friends who also left that private Baptist school have undergone similar political transformations. None of them have drifted further to the right; instead, exposure to diverse perspectives, and real-world experiences has consistently led them to more progressive viewpoints. For me, college solidified this shift, highlighting the stark contrast between the values of inclusivity and empathy I now embrace and the intolerance and censorship I experienced in my earlier years. This journey demonstrates how deeply our environment shapes us and how meaningful engagement with others can fundamentally change the way we see the world.

What do you think of the Golden Age of Immigration?

Let me set up this question with an admitted bias. I am radically pro-immigration. I believe that the easiest, cheapest and best way to secure the border, which is an important goal, is to allow millions more to come here legally and to charge a substantial entrance fee. People would not come here illegally because it would be far easier and less risky than to come here legally. Illegal crossings would be dramatically reduced if there was a way to come here legally. Some of you may be saying, "there is a way for them to come here legally!" No there is not. For the vast majority of people that want to immigrate to the US, it is just not possible. There are a few narrow categories for whom is is possible such as those with advanced degrees, those with special skills, celebrities, investors, etc. This excludes 95% of those that wish to immigrate.

I think the economic evidence in favor of immigration is actually pretty overwhelming. When you think of the golden age of immigration, does it make your proud to be an American? When you think of Ellis Island and those people from Europe queueing up at the port to show there passports, do you think, that was a good thing? About 25 million Europeans immigrated here between 1890 and 1930? Immigration Visa's were not introduced until 1917 and not required until the mid-1920's. Before that, there was a qualified presumption of the right to immigrate as long as you could prove that you had a financial sponsor and didn't have a communicable disease (unless you were Chinese due to the Chinese Exclusion Act). This openness ended with the Immigration Act of 1924 that enforced Visa requirements and established nation-based quotas.

Just as today, there was a harshly critical nativist movement during this period. They made identical claims regarding that Nativists make today. They are not like us? They don't share our values? They don't speak our language? Their food is different? They are taking our jobs and lowering our wages? They are eating our cats and dogs? Yes this is a very old immigration trope!

What is the economic consensus regarding the Golden Age of Immigration? That it was overwhelmingly positive. The data is very, very clear. America became a much richer nation as a result of the mass of immigrants that came between 1890 and 1924. In the short term and locally, it was disruptive. They might, in fact, cause lower wages and put pressure on social institutions and infrastructure. But within a generation they had created massive amounts of wealth. The first generation tended to work menial, low paying jobs and often never learned English. The second generation went to college, were bi-lingual, became doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs and generated massive amounts of wealth. The third generation didn't speak their grandparents language and are fully integrated Americans who identify with their forbears nationality only loosely.

Much of the anti-immigrant sentiment in the US seems to be based on the lump of labor fallacy. The zero-sum thinking idea that if an immigrant comes here, they must take the job of a native American rather than create new jobs.

So what do you think of the Golden Age of Immigration? And would you favor an immigration policy that truly closed the borders but made it dramatically easier for immigrants to come here legally?

Many countries around the world are struggling with a) unpredictable policy environments due to populist candidates and/or b) situations where wealthy entities can effectively buy popular votes through advertising and/or c) political deadlock. I'm wondering if there exists an indirect voting system that could reduce these issues while remaining equitable and avoiding corruption.

Here's my purely theoretical proposal. A computer algorithm divides the country into small evenly sized voting blocks, maybe 10k people per block. All residents get to cast three votes towards representatives from within their local voting block and the three candidates with the most votes are elected as Tier 1 representatives on a 3-year term. The Tier 1 representatives then form "small region" assemblies of 100 voting blocks each, meaning an assembly of 300 Tier 1 representatives represents ~1,000,000 residents. Within each small region assembly, the Tier 1 representatives elect 15 representatives from among themselves to serve as Tier 2 representatives. The Tier 2 representatives form "large region" assemblies of 1000 voting blocks each, meaning an assembly of 150 Tier 2 representatives represents ~10,000,000 residents. Lastly, the Tier 2 representatives elect n representatives to form a national assembly of 150 Tier 3 representatives. Each assembly forms committees, coalitions, elects a head speaker, etc. Besides having a head speaker, there is no executive branch. There is also no judiciary branch; if a court case challenges the limits of an existing law, the relevant assembly or committee just votes on it directly. Voting records, financial records, and criminal investigations on all representatives are made completely public. Every 12 years, a census is performed and voting blocks and regions have to get redrawn. This could be problematic, but maybe voting blocks near the edge of each region could choose which region they want to join via referendum.

Hopefully, this structure would make local and regional politics agile while national politics remain more stable/predictable while still being movable with sufficient momentum. Meanwhile everyone still gets to vote and can have personal interactions with their representatives. Additionally, my thinking is that it would be harder for wealthy entities to corrupt the system because at lower levels, they would have to be involved in tens of thousands of campaigns and at the higher levels, the representatives would be harder to sway if you can't buy votes for them or bribe them. This system has similarities to the original US senate but would control for some of the original problems (systematic alienation by race and gender, inconsistent population sizes, lack of transparency, deadlock due to checks and balances).

Build this idea out or tear it down, the choice is yours.

Trust in the federal government has declined significantly since the 1960s and early 1970s, with the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam War, and Watergate serving as catalysts for this decline. The period from the end of WWII to roughly the mid-1960s was marked by economic prosperity, as the middle class became a crucial component of American life. The American dream was widely sought after, with people believing that hard work would allow them to reap the benefits of their diligence.

During this time, Americans trusted the executive branch and its bureaucratic institutions to act with integrity and hold themselves accountable. They also had faith in the legislative branch to represent their values and desires rather than selfish financial interests. However, your average American today understands that this trust has eroded because corruption has become increasingly apparent.

Although politicians are not likely receiving envelopes under the table to do the bidding of criminals, it is clear that many represent the interests of large corporations instead of their constituents. These corporations influence politicians by facilitating reelection campaigns, and some politicians may even exploit confidential information to engage in insider trading. Meanwhile, some taxpayer dollars are funneled directly into corporations seeking to enrich themselves, while the American people struggle to afford healthcare and other basic needs.

It is abhorrent to me that both parties have capitulated to these institutions simply because they are enriched by them. Corporate lobbying has only worsened since the Citizens United decision, and I fear it may be impossible to reverse the influence of major corporations on both political parties without Congress acting against its own interests.

We need to hold elected officials accountable for their actions and demand meaningful change; otherwise, billions more dollars will continue shifting upwards until the middle class becomes extinct. The golden age of America’s economy was built by the middle class, and we must preserve this vital institution while helping the working class achieve upward mobility. No hard-working American should struggle to afford food, housing, or health insurance, yet this remains a reality for many.

How can the government regain the people’s trust? I suggest it become more transparent and less secretive, without compromising national security. Elected officials should give the public the ability to scrutinize the annual budget and understand how their tax dollars are being spent. Additionally, the government must adopt more fiscally responsible practices.

The idea of a Department of Government Efficiency is a good one, in my opinion, but I fear its implementation will likely fall short—especially if Elon Musk focuses on slashing spending on safety nets and programs that benefit working- and middle-class Americans.

Reversing Citizens United by limiting the amount of political donations corporations and influential individuals can provide would also help alleviate this issue.

What do you all think the government can do to restore the public’s faith in it?

When discussing fascism, many people immediately associate it with racism, white supremacy, or antisemitism. While these traits are historically prevalent in fascist regimes, they are not definitive characteristics of the system itself. At its core, fascism is a political-economic system where the state exercises control over the economy through a corporatist model. In this model, representatives from various sectors—business, labor, and the state—are brought together under centralized control to negotiate investments, wages, and production, ostensibly in service of national interests.

This framework describes China's economic system quite well. While officially labeled as “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” the reality is closer to corporatist Capitalism like those we saw in Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany. In China, private corporations coexist with state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and the government tightly oversees major industries. Representatives of business, labor, and the state do not operate independently but are instead integrated into state-controlled frameworks such as the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). This structure resembles the corporatist model employed in Mussolini’s Italy.

For example:

• State-Orchestrated Investment: China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) plans and approves large-scale investments. This is similar to the fascist emphasis on harmonizing industrial output with state priorities.

• Labor and Industry Mediation: Labor unions in China, such as the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, are controlled by the state, and their primary function is not to advocate for workers' rights independently but to mediate between workers and employers in alignment with state objectives.

• Nationalistic Goals: Like fascist regimes, China frames economic activity as a means of achieving national rejuvenation and strength on the global stage, subordinating individual and class interests to this goal.

What’s important here is not just China’s ethnonationalist characteristics but the economic system it employs. Fascism, fundamentally, is about organizing society and the economy to serve state-directed national goals. Racism and militarism are frequently associated with historical fascist regimes, but they are not necessary components of the doctrine. By focusing solely on these traits, many fail to recognize the systematic and material aspects of fascism as an economic model.

This reframing also allows for a deeper critique of systems beyond just historical fascist regimes. By understanding Fascism as an economic doctrine, we can assess other countries that exhibit corporatist tendencies without being distracted by the specific cultural or ideological veneers they present. Because if we associate Fascism with cultural or racial traits, we miss its true danger: a system where the economy is controlled in a way that subjugates the workers by promoting the false illusion of national harmony through Class Collaboration Recognizing these patterns is critical for meaningful analysis—and China provides a stark modern example.