Their writings seem to express a longing for Europe to return to throne and altar.

Let's imagine a "3rd world" country's government is overthrown and the new government puts in place a system based on direct democracy but with no political parties allowed. Basically a one-party state but said party has no ideology (not really a party but you get what I mean), and every adult citizen is a member of this party. In this simulation there is still a legislative branch with its Parliament.

Is this considered a democracy although no parties are allowed ?

This is a Halloween Edition

Do you ever find it amusing how a lot of those that brag about being the true patriots tend to be the most violent?

Those that lay claim to Gun Rights, Freedom and Liberty, are likely to be the ones that entertain the violent rhetoric and actually carry out their intentions.

They parade around their signias, symbols, and slogans about how American they are yet then entertain the most gross and agressive talk against their opponents they believe to be some godless demon from hell.

Of course, The Left does the same. But I have learned that The Right tends to be the force that pulls in the demented.

Those that have gone into the schools and public places to commit their fantasies have mostly been politically motivated fanatics believing minorites to be the demonic scum.

President of The Heritage Foundation, (Kevin Roberts) who helped to create Project 2025 even used threatening rhetoric against The Left should they come against this plan to overhaul the government.

The guy is a delusional homicidal fanaticist like a member of the ISIS propaganda team.

Bigots, haters, moral fundamentalists, and yes racists, all too get pulled in around this narrative that trans and immigrants are the real threat to our way of life.

Can you believe we actually have gotten to this point where 'Trans' and Drag Queens are the goat?

Isn't this what ol' Conservative Cultural America already did in its golden era under segregation and Jim Crowe?

The party of 'Law & Order' doesn't mind breaking and pushing the boundaries of 'Law & Order' so long as it satisfies its hate and twisted sadistic fantasies against the heathen of society so as to achieve its utopia.

Any thoughts on how to maintain the consent of the governed in the most peaceful manner while ensuring that unpopular but necessary actions? picking doctors over sweatshop owners to put it lightly. I'm writing a thesis

So, here’s something you don’t see every day…

https://youtube.com/shorts/5ay6Nt1eYmU?feature=share

An unconventional way to present Nietzsche but honestly, maybe that’s a good thing. Political philosophy doesn’t always need to be serious, sometimes a bit of fun helps it reach more people. And let’s be real, Nietzsche could use some air time, his ideas still hit hard.

He was all about freedom, breaking out of those restrictive norms that society just loves to throw on us. And in a world full of rules that don’t make sense half the time, maybe we should revisit his call to think for ourselves, redefine values, and challenge power structures that are more oppressive than helpful.

Food for thought.

I've recently been having this debate with lots of friends, considering the state of the world today. For me, Voltaire's Candide is one of the most important books ever written, and we need it's messages now, more than ever. Other's disagree.

I'm interested to hear what you think? Is optimism the way to go or should we be facing up to the disasters on our doorstep?

I need help deciding whether proposing an independent study on political theory is a good idea or not.

So, i’m a senior in political science with a minor in philosophy. For some background, i majored in a completelyyy different field for the first two years of my undergrad until i decided i was miserable, not interested in what i was learning at all, and failing at least a class a semester. Luckily i wasn’t set back from the switch time wise, but all my previous classes went under electives and nearly every single class i’ve taken since then has been upper level political science, and ive excelled. i absolutely love what im learning, i almost cant get enough of it. i went from almost dropping out to making the deans list in a year, it’s like i’m a completely different student.

I go to a fairly large university and the political science department has some wonderful professors who are really passionate about the field. Ive built a pretty good relationship with one of my professors who i’ve had for several extremely critical thinking classes that discuss the effects of media, science and technology, and the change of revolutionary and contemporary ideals on the alteration and dissolving of american politics. I’ve done so well in his classes, he actually asked me to TA for his science, technology, and public policy class that he nicknames the “space class” by applying political action to the success of the Apollo program since he worked for NASA for a decade. I’m super excited for this because i’d love to learn it all over again, and i wish everyone else could too, it’s an incredible class (even though it’s a 3 hour PM lecture lol).

So, to the point. class registration is coming up and ive been eyeballing the independent study option. I’m sure it’s like this at every university, but to do an independent study, you have to propose your topic to a professor and get one to sponsor you for credit. My point in saying all of the above is, i think sort of have an in, i think he would sponsor me IF i proposed a good study topic, however, i feel like the area i want to study has been significantly touched on in his classes, and i want to be able to propose something he hasn’t already explicitly thought me. I really love the idea of exploring how or why the uprise in media and technology have shifted american politics from revolutionary ideals of political freedom and action to a dissolved form of mediated democracy and totality, but that’s sort of a mix of ideas from several of his classes. He’s a huge fan of Hannah Arendt’a philosophy of the realms and political action, so I was thinking about possibly incorporating more ancient greek philosophic ideals and their reflection on early american politics and disappearance in more contemporary times. I also fell into a rabbit hole recently that somehow brought me to nikola tesla and his idea that science and discovery (including technology) are the great forces which will lead to the consummation of war, which is inherently unpolitical, and i think delving into that could be interesting and relevant.

My question is, is proposing a study with something like this a plausible option for me? i’m just nervous it’s not an original enough idea of my own to go in on. A question like “how did American political ideals go from a political revolution to a political simulation” sounds exciting to me, but i do understand that a less broad options like how digital democracy can enhance or erode democratic participation, might be better to develop, although it is a semester long study, so im not sure how narrow it’s meant to be.

This might be a ridiculous and obvious answer, but if anyone has any input, it would be greatly appreciated!

The ability and desire to trace liberal thought, from pre-liberal thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, through to Jean-Jaques Rousseau, is a fun activity, and often guides undergraduate coursework in political theory and political philosophy.

Either context may emphasize different aspects of various arguments. I'll outline a few points here, and happy to engage in discussion, offer opinions or answer questions!

Thomas Hobbes focuses on individuals, and argues that the absolutism, or perhaps the necessary end of human nature, is self-preservation. Thus, Hobbes assumes most rights are capable of being transferred to the state. Hobbes is often criticized through Leviathan, for not being more explanatory - how is it that even commonwealth and protectorate Englund, appeared in ways more advanced than what we imagine as a single-power vacuum, which people have an obligation to obey?

Locke rests his political theory, in a concept such as proceduralism - that is, procedural democracies and limited government, appear to be the conclusion reached from a modern, liberal starting position. Locke is supported, in that modern nation-state constitutions reflect many of the republican notions found in Locke, and appear to be guided by liberal values as obtained or found, through a natural philosophy which covers norms and rights which exist in nature. However, Locke can also be criticized, because it can't be clear how ideas such as freedom, or property, or the right to preserve one's life, appear to propagate the normative position we're supposed to adopt - was the 2008 housing crisis, a result of people being free to make use of their capital?

Ending with Rousseau, we see a very challenging task - and one which really pushes human faculties, to the limits. In the most precise reading, Rousseau asks us to simultaneously see humans as natural, wild creatures - we have the potential to be greedy or selfish, to put others into bondage, and we also have social instincts towards at least our families and presumably immediate society, which both live at the same time. Away from this, when man enters into a social contract as an individual, we become social and civilized - that is, we seemingly give ourselves over, in order to improve ourselves as individuals, and create a legitimate form of democracy via the General Will.

A simpler reading of Rousseau, is that freedom and potential, possibility that is an individual value, only becomes possible in a society. Proponents of Rousseau, will argue that real-world decisions, dispute in politics, and the normal limits we see people undertake, and their willingness to be governed by others, supports Rousseau's idea that we consider a wide variety of arguments, and funnel these towards a singularist notion of self-interest, held in public regard.

Detractors from Rousseau's theory, can argue that a shared idea of a General Will, which is either "real" or it's an idealist conception, is too far outside of individual human nature, to ever support a government and society. That is, Rousseau himself even undermines his idea, assuming that people are willing to give over their natural and social selves, instead of assuming that our nature is intrinsically capable of governing itself. Maybe not totally accurate, but it's hopefully interesting and close enough :)

• In political theory, questions about the origin, nature, and mechanisms of political rights are especially important. i.e, Hobbes would argue rights exists because the Sovereign, gives them to you. Locke would demand, these are laws which every person in a society is required to follow, and this occurs before the fact.
• In political philosophy, more emphasis may be placed on the metaphysics or epistemologies which underly arguments. i.e Hobbes only allows materialist, naturalist readings of human nature to be heard - on the surface, this has to be true. This contrasts with Lockean idealism - that is, Locke wants us to explore and relate our ideas to the world. We'd discover natural law has to be right - Hobbes, conversely wouldn't allow ideas and relationships, to supercede the question of what happens when people are free, what events occur, and what do our senses immediately tell us about the reality of life in the state of nature, versus what life should be like in a society.
• And, in sociology, you might explore some of this further - what gives rise to things like labour movements? Or why do people agree to specific economic systems which don't work in their interests, or which don't create representation for ownership? What counts as utility maximization? And whatever else.

I’m well read. And I assume going into any room, that everyone else is too.

I do feel obliged to “you.” So, I’ll do this. But I’ll only do it once.

I write mine like I think - In what I believe to be packed with (what I believe to be) “poetic” aphorisms. In truth, I think language too beautiful, too laden, too vulnerable, and far too valuable to ever be able to offer It the full respect It deserves. [It humbles me. It should you too].

So, I “pack.” I pack “things” within words and I’m more than happy to bite bullets on the resulting reductio’s - but it doesn’t mean I “agree” with the things I’ve packed within my word suitcases - they’re just foundation - a type of citation - I use in order to, eventually, speak my truths.

As is my use of Capitalization, Punctuation, and the words I use as my specific word “suitcases” - hence forth and in perpetuity - they are All. Intended. And they “should” make you think - that’s the intent. And make you feel, if I’m running on all cylinders…

And, quite frankly, I’m not going to do “the work” for you in unpacking them. I respect You too much for that. And why should I. If you can’t catch the “meta” - well, thats just on you.

I assume You’ve read certain “things.” Thats understood. And You, like me, even know the “backgrounds.” You’ve probably even believed a few “views” too. You certainly know all the contra’s.

So, let me define this: “Mental Masterbation” (at its absolute finest). [Boring. Yawn.]

Using…

nietzsche. he made his with a hammer. [Non-capitalization intended]

So,

You can’t build without first wiping the “old slate” clean [metaphorically]. So. Foundations! tada! [It could have been cooler…. That’s my bad…. Worse, there’s even more…]

But, nietzsche got this right: Philosophy IS the battle for the heart’s and mind’s of how “We” define “Our” reality. In that way, it’s the most important “job” there is. Being a Philosopher…

Let me borrow the thought that the “medium is the message,” for a second…

By virtue of this medium, You can comment. I think that’s really cool.

For You, it may take me some time while I digest Your thoughts before I can reply. But I will.

Otherwise, for you I can be Socratic, if need be.

But, please, and I mean this with all due respect 🫡 [I know an Emoji 🙄], please don’t just hit me up with a bunch of “copypasta” — See, I make posts. It’s all I have time for — or with some “slate-board’s quote” etc. and “expect” my respect.

I’m not interested in joining in on a mental masterbation circle jerk about which slate-boarder’s view is more accurate, etc. [QED.]. Fuck. that. I concede to your meaningless endeavor. Like when the Hulk fights Thor, I mean it’s fun, but ultimately, who cares. And, it’s not the discussion we should be having.

See, this here, what I’m doing… this ain’t for amateurs.

I, like You, “make” philosophy. We can hold and play with realities in our heads. For fun.

And, otherwise, non-intellectually - I don’t really give a fuck about “your” review. Think of this merely as an “A” to “B” conversation, and then you can simply “C” your way out.

Ok. I’m putting down the hammer now. [shakes off/out the stress - phew.]

You know, I’ve been told I’m actually fun at parties… 🎉

Drat! Why the emoji rule, Reddit? Why? Why!?!?!?

Oh, and I do edit. Mostly just for punctuation. Nonetheless, I will not stoop to revisionism and retconn’ing of prior posts - I mean what I say and when I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.

Oh, and this post is not specific to any comments I received to my prior posts. I do appreciate their thoughts and the time it took them to make their thoughtful posts.

This is my life’s work. It will come out in my time. And, until next time…

Sincerely,

Sam

everything published after may 1968 was a mistake. that entire kaleidoscope - look where its left us. fascism stalking in the wings.

we’re going back to Marx baby

What is freedom, if not the ability to be one’s self “fully” in the presence of others. But, stealing unabashedly from Leviathan, that life IS hard, brutish, and short.

Now, assuming we’re here, here now. We can all agree, I think, that we’ve all conceded “a bit” of our own individual sovereignty. Sure, I can dress “in drag” in the privacy of my own home, or decorate it on the inside however I see fit, or be “me” in all my, sometimes, admittedly, glutinous quote unquote, glory - I mean, I’m not defining “quality” just yet, so let’s shorthand it as that me qua me, me and that you qua you, you.

Sovereignty? Yep, Hobbs, Locke, Rousseau, et al. So, you know laws, etc. tort cases, militaries, religions, rulers, billionaires, industry…etc etc etc.

I mean we can all play pirate king in the privacy of our own homes but try wearing a sword to Deny’s. Ok, maybe a bad example, especially if you’re also wearing a pirate hat, but, I think you feel me. I think.

But how do we define “homes?” For some people the family home, may not be the Safest Place for individual expressions of individual sovereignty. “Home,” this implies, maybe subjective. It’s where you put your heart at… Or something. [Ouch. Remember to delete that…].

Foundations.

How we associate our subjective experiences and project them into our shared reality is ethics.  In that way, how we form our “homes” so as to either allow for or stifle individual expressions of individual sovereignty within that home, is “intimate society.”

He sat there in full drag.  “En Femme,” he’d say, and explained to me his view.  Confidence is what it boiled down to. Having enough of it to say fuck all to the world and Be Your Self.  That’s how he defined passing.  It didn’t matter how “not femme” he looked, dressed in clothes that were, at best, only appropriate for someone a decade younger.  Confidence.  Like anything else, be it sales, be trial law, be politics, be it us.  Confidence.  Good old ‘fake it tell’ you make it’ and ‘never let them see you sweat.’ Cause he did.  A lot, actually. 

Self-doubt is an ever-present ever-possibility of our human condition.  So is confidence, so is love, so is hate, even skepticism. 

So, I asked him, what if you’re wrong?  I mean, we’ve all seen the “buffoon.”  Right?  Despite the buffoon’s subjective impressions of how glorious and alive they are, objectively(?) - or maybe to a “majority of individual subjective viewers/observers?” (John Stewart Mills-vibes) - they are a buffoon. I mean, there are other people out there, right?

What is the buffoon’s subjective experience to them? He asked, as he flicked an ash off his cigarette, his full set glinting off his fingertips in electric blue flashes of color. The buffoon is overconfident, maybe, but to take it further, it bends toward narcissism. 

And what is that?  He smiled at the question.  Afterall, he knew it was the “buzz word of the age.” It “was” the era of paranoia; but that zeitgeist’s past.  Now it’s “Narcissism.”  I mean, the Eighties were a selfish decade - I know, I was there - but this new zeitgeist… is going to suck…

Anyway, I digress. I mean, really digress… Let’s start with Descartes, because he got the important part right despite “his circle.”  “I think, therefore I am.”  I exist.  Regardless of whatever his evil genius or gynie or demon threw at him, there had to be “a being there” to be fooled.  This, I exist. I experience.  I think “in” this reality as a subjective experiencing being (whether I have a body or not – I mean, let's “treat the bleeder” first). 

How we associate our subjective experience and then project it into a shared reality is called ethics.

Wait, I said.  Descartes falls apart when he tries to establish his own body, etc., how do you get to “a shared reality?”

What other choices are there?  Solipsism? Skepticism?

If we assume that we only exist and that everything and everyone else is made of “dream” or Berkeley’s “ideas,” etc., then how we act has no meaning.  We can act with impunity.  It’s the ring of Gyges, bitches!  You know, like “in our dreams.” 

Except that’s not actually how dreams work, is it.  We experience a dream as a participant, not as a god.  We “feel” it’s real and happening to us. 

In another way, how many of you have ever committed a crime?  Caught a charge?  Caught handcuffs?  Yeah, you are one special sort of sick twist if nothing else exists but “you,” and “you” end up in jail?  Consequences? Or that evil genius? 

In another way, what about people that go through life without hindrance?  You know, “the privileged” other that’s “doing better than us?”  Let’s take it behind “the vail of ignorance” for a second… you are the only one that exists, and you’re going to pick “middle fucking class?”

Nope. 

But we aren’t all billionaires, are we?  (Oh, but it does give rise to that “I’m going to unlock my inner [whatever] core and achieve! Drive that says if you work hard enough… but I digress with my digression.

But, I know I exist.  That brings me back to narcissism. 

What is it? Overconfidence?  A belief in one’s own superiority?  It’s emotional, intellectual, sometimes even abusive = solipsism on a sliding scale. Or at least someone who’s been seduced by its ease toward one end of that bell curve.  In sum, since I’m no Trump or Gates (and I reckon you aren’t either), we then have this:  

Either/Or and Another Or:

1)  We’re at the mercy of an “evil genius” or something that’s maybe a little less evil…  Are you there God, it’s me Margaret?  Or maybe KARMA?

2)  We’re at the mercy of personal hate for our individual selves (cause we it, only, baby - solipsism) - I mean, like, seriously, I have a male body?  What the fuck…etc;

3. a leadership problem.  I mean, I’d have to be one hell of a lazy self-ruler if this is my reality. 

Take your pick and go forth and “Industry!”

Or, other people exist and we’re functioning in an ever changing web of cause and effect, etc. etc. etc. 

As a result, we must interact with others.  We all exist. And since We All Exist, how we associate our subjective experiences and then project them into our shared reality, a reality full of other associated (some less associated than others, at times) subjective experiences, is called Ethics. 

Free will or not.  Our subject experiences “exist” for us, and like in a dream, one that is ultimately out of our control, and works as if free will exist.  So, it does.  And that means our choices count.  Regardless of the relativity with which we define our own subjective “Good,” our choices still count.

Ethics

Now… how Ought one act?  And how Ought we define the Good?

I’m doing Title VI training for my educational institution, and it’s talking about how hate speech that might otherwise be protected by the First Amendment is prohibited on educational campuses that use federal funding if it creates a hostile environment. This makes sense and is very fair and reasonable to me: education is something that anyone should be able to access without fear of existential threats.

What I’m wondering, though, is why stop at education? I did some Googling and am kind of sad that most hate speech in regular, day-to-day environments is considered a “hate incident” rather than a “hate crime” and is therefore a non-criminal exercise of free speech.

One could argue that educational environments should have special protections because education is something that people need in order to get a lot of different types of jobs and pursue flourishing lives, but couldn’t the same be said of, for example, grocery stores? We all need food to survive, and we should all be allowed to get food without having to deal with slurs and hate speech, so why not have something like Title VI apply to places where food is sold?

Maybe I’m discounting the “federal funding” part of Title VI and that’s the real reason that Title VI exists in educational institutions. But, that raises for me a counterargument and a question. The counterargument is that a lot of food is subsidized with government tax money, so, in a way, food is federally funded, so Title VI should apply to grocery stores and other places where food is sold. (I’m using food places as an example so much because food is a basic necessity, but other environments might also qualify.) The question is, Is hate speech protected by the First Amendment in educational institutions not using federal funding? Are there private schools where students and teachers can just throw around slurs and no one can stop them as long as the schools’ administrations say it’s okay?

I understand that the real answer is historical and comes from the fact that the right not to deal with hatred ironically has to be fought for and isn’t just granted, but I’m interested in theoretical answers.

From the point of view of this former software designer, bicameralism is redundant. I was trained to look at systems from the point of view of the user. In government, the voter is the user. The interface of the voter to the legislature is the elected representative. The voter shouldn't have to evaluate candidates for more than one legislative position.

So I was reading about AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) and saw that president Biden removed Uganda as of 2 months ago because of their anti-homosexuality bill because AGOA is also meant to encourage democratic values and human rights. Uganda’s economy really benefitted from this act, so removing them has/is/will remove thousands of current jobs and job opportunities and decline their economic growth. I understand that impacting their economy is supposed to encourage them to be better, but I feel like the effects this has on innocent people is significantly worse than our intention. Thousands of business owners and farmers will be ruined because of our expelling them from this act in our efforts to punish the government. Imagine if someone kidnapped you because your father is corrupt and immoral, and then your kidnapper tortures you and makes your father watch. That would obviously be highly frowned upon because why are you, an innocent person, being punished for the sins of your father? Why is this not the same at a government level? Why are sanctions so normalized? Simply using them as a form of motivation doesn’t feel like a good enough justification for ruining a countries economy, its like citizens are just toys to them. Does anyone disagree (and if so, why)? Is there any better form of punishment that governments could use on each other without devastating civilians?

1. Strengthening the Foundations of Liberty and Governance I believe in a strong, balanced government that protects individual liberties while promoting welfare. A responsible, empowered legislature should work alongside an effective executive branch to ensure the government serves the people. I strongly oppose executive overreach, advocating instead for a cooperative spirit between the branches of government, guaranteeing checks and balances that protect freedom while keeping order.

2. Economic Modernization and Opportunity for All I support ideas that exalt national prosperity through innovation, entrepreneurship, and infrastructure development. A modern economy must be rooted in equitable markets, fair competition, and opportunity for all natural-born and naturalized citizens. I advocate for investment in roads, bridges, technology, public transportation, and energy—that can power the future while creating jobs and expanding economic opportunity.

Additionally, I believe that all Americans, irrespective of their lot in life, should have access to the tools they need to succeed. This includes education, training, and access to funds, ensuring that our economic system works for workers and business owners. I embrace economic policies that foster upward mobility and allow for the free exchange of ideas and commerce without the specter of monopolies or concentrated corporate power. To this end, government intervention is needed to protect these aims.

3. Advancing a Moral and Free Society Society’s strength is measured by its commitment to justice, fairness, and the freedom of its citizens. I oppose the expansion of any form of servitude or economic oppression. Every citizen should have the freedom to pursue their goals without the weight of undue burdens or restrictions, but this freedom is inseparable from the responsibility we owe one another.

Protecting individual rights, and supporting freedom of speech, religious liberty, and peaceful assembly are bedrocks to this great nation. I also stand firm against forms of oppression, whether economic or social, that stifle opportunity.

4. Innovation in Governance and Reform Governments must evolve to meet the needs of a modern world, just as they did in past centuries. At its best, governance should be flexible, adaptive, and committed to reform. I support efforts to reduce corruption, increase transparency, and create systems of accountability that ensure all public officials serve the common good.

The goal of reform is not just efficiency, but fairness—ensuring that the government works for the people, not for the few. From simplifying tax codes to reforming outdated regulations, I stand for policies that empower citizens and reduce bureaucratic barriers to progress.

5. A Fair and Balanced Approach to Trade and Industry I support a trade policy that balances free enterprise with national interests, ensuring American workers, businesses, and industries can thrive in a global marketplace. While I believe in open trade and innovation, I also recognize the need for safeguards that protect domestic industries from unfair competition and exploitation.

My goal is a thriving industrial base that champions American ingenuity and manufacturing while fostering sustainable growth. I also believe that government should play a supporting role in creating the conditions for businesses to innovate, ensuring that workers are treated fairly and rewarded for their contributions.

6. Infrastructure for a Stronger Nation Infrastructure is the backbone of a thriving economy and a functioning society. I advocate for investment in physical and digital infrastructure, emphasizing public-private partnerships that can bring innovative solutions to challenges. Roads, bridges, transportation, energy grids, and internet access should be modernized to ensure that America remains competitive in a rapidly changing global economy.

I also believe in sustainable infrastructure—building for the future in a way that respects our natural resources while meeting the needs of today’s citizens.

7. Unity Through Pragmatic Solutions I believe in the power of compromise and pragmatism to achieve solutions that benefit the nation. Political divisions should not stand in the way of progress, and I commit myself to finding common ground on key issues such as healthcare, immigration, and economic policy.

Through thoughtful negotiation, I can create policies that strengthen the country without succumbing to partisan extremes. My platform seeks to bridge divides, working for solutions that benefit all Americans, rather than catering to narrow interests.

8. A Strong and Compassionate Social Policy Our society must support the well-being of every individual, with particular emphasis on creating opportunities for families to thrive. I champion policies that support family values, including access to affordable childcare, parental leave, and educational opportunities. I believe in a compassionate approach to healthcare and welfare, ensuring those in need are supported while promoting pathways to independence and success.

At the same time, I advocate for personal responsibility, encouraging citizens to take an active role in their communities, work to the best of their abilities, and contribute to the nation's prosperity.

9. Protecting American Ideals and National Security A strong defense is essential to preserving our freedoms. I advocate for a robust national security policy that protects the United States from foreign threats while promoting diplomacy and international cooperation. I believe in peace through strength, ensuring that America remains a beacon of freedom and stability.

However, I also recognize the importance of restraint and judicious use of power. My foreign policy must be guided by a deep respect for human dignity and international law, avoiding unnecessary conflict while standing firm in defense of liberty and justice around the globe.

10. Stewardship of Our Resources and Environment We are to be stewards of natural resources and the beauty of this nation for future generations. Sustainable environmental policies, rooted in both conservation and innovation, are essential to ensuring clean air, water, and a vibrant ecosystem. I support the development of new technologies to reduce emissions and transition to cleaner energy sources while maintaining economic growth and opportunity.

Conclusion: The Way Forward This vision blends the wisdom of the past with the demands of the future. Through principled leadership, pragmatic governance, and a commitment to opportunity for all, I seek to build a nation that stands strong in its ideals, united in purpose, and forward-thinking in its approach. This platform represents my belief that the best days of America are yet to come, built on the foundations of liberty, progress, and unity.

I've done it and wondered "why am I putting up a yard sign to say who I'm voting for"? Letting my neighbors "I'm one of you" or not"? I hope no one is making a decision on how many signs they see for a candidate. Now I see signs and think "good neighbor", or "watch out for this neighbor that could be dangerous". Is this a thing in other democratic countries?

Capitalism has long been the dominant system, grounded in the idea that people maximize their personal gain. This view starts from a clear, almost pessimistic, understanding of human behavior—individuals seek to benefit themselves. However, this is an overly simplistic model that ignores the depth and variety of human motivations. It rewards scarcity over value: consultants, whose skills are rarer, often make much more than nurses who work much harder and provide immense social value.

One key flaw in capitalism is the distribution of capital itself, which is often treated as a natural state. Some people are born with wealth and opportunity, while others are trapped in cycles of poverty. This imbalance is seen as a result of individual merit or failure, with poverty wrongly equated to laziness. Yet, in reality, the system makes it hard to break free. Education, housing, even basic needs are more expensive for the poor. Meanwhile, the wealthy enjoy mechanisms, like stock options and tax loopholes, that further secure their status. Being poor is costly, while being rich is lucrative.

Communism, on the other hand, tried to start from a beautiful ideal—everyone contributes according to their abilities and takes according to their needs. In practice, though, it neglected individual ambition and potential. It aimed to homogenize society, which stifled innovation and entrepreneurship. Why pursue challenging careers when everyone is compensated equally, regardless of effort or responsibility? Centralized control over human ambition led to inefficiency, corruption, and stagnation.

Many countries have sought a balance in social democracy, combining free markets with state intervention, social safety nets, and wealth redistribution. While this system has seen success, it has also created large bureaucracies prone to inefficiency. Public healthcare, for instance, either suffers from long wait times (as in the NHS) or costly competition (as in Switzerland's private insurance system). State intervention solves some problems but creates others, particularly inefficiency and spiraling costs.

Here’s where I see a potential solution: techno-socialism. What if we could combine the best of capitalism and socialism, while leveraging AI to reduce the costs of bureaucracy? Imagine a system where everyone receives a universal basic income, but additional credits are awarded for valuable contributions to society—whether it's in nursing, art, or entrepreneurship. These rewards could be managed algorithmically, with AI monitoring societal needs and efficiently allocating resources in real time.

This system would allow people to pursue their passions and strengths without being constrained by financial pressures. It could help us unlock the potential of individuals who might otherwise never get the opportunity to contribute to society—musicians who never got lessons, scientists who never had time to think about the universe, or athletes who never had access to training. By rewarding people for being the best version of themselves, we could increase overall happiness, productivity, and social value.

Of course, there are risks. If the algorithm makes bad decisions, the consequences could be serious. But even reducing the inefficiencies of human bureaucracy would bring massive gains to society. By measuring the utility of both work and non-work activities for the entire society, we could build a system that is not only wealthier but also more human. A system that rewards genuine contribution over inherited privilege, and where everyone can thrive.

Francis Ford Coppolla created a work of modern philosophy in Megalopolis. There is so much to unpack from the film, on such a variety of subjects: the morality of power, the Great Man theory of history, the decline of institutions, the corruption of the elite, time as a concept. He communicates in the language and style of classical western philosophy, the visuals, the dialogue chock full of direct quotations, the narration. A modern fable.

Did anyone else see this film? What stood out to you?

1. Societies that depend on money for a living will always have rich-poor divide. In this regard, there is no such thing as affordable housing and living wage.

2. Societies that focus on earning profit will always experience economic instability.

3. Societies that depend on an income for living expenses will always experience reduced birth rate.

4. Societies that make people afraid of going into debt by borrowing money, will cause people to be fearful of spending money.

Knowing this, and how the role of government is to help with population growth, people are to be granted free housing, free satisfying food, free college scholarships and education, free community medicine cabinet, free daycare kindergarten, along with the current free judicial system, free health insurance, free basic education. Also, people who are in debt are encouraged to better their financial literacy, and be helped with becoming monetary richer, not punished.

Singapore is an example of Heaven on Earth, with free housing for everyone, so that there are no poor neighborhoods and dirty streets, where colorful art decorations and beautiful murals are found around every street corner.

The information is also mentioned by user Sparky on PersonalityCafe.

Increasing population does not mean to allow as many Africans into the country as possible, even though everybody deserves a better governed government, but to help families save money, by providing free housing, free basic food, free daycare kindergartens, free community medicine cabinet, free or low cost maintenance and repairs, free college scholarships or education, besides the already free judicial system, free health insurance, free education. Singapore has free housing, and it is like Heaven on Earth there, with no poor streets or neighborhoods, and there are beautiful artwork around every street corner.

Please share your thoughts, questions, or opinions. Thank you for reading

History has shown social equality never to be possible or even desirable - the unintended consequences of The Fall - and Darwin is God's Apostle. If God wanted to make us like ants – trillions of identical creatures with antennae who follow orders to the letter, not unique, differently-talented and –qualified higher order beings who don’t follow orders very well (he learned that lesson in the Garden of Eden), he would have. https://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2024/10/the-myth-of-social-equality-tedious-old.html

On episode #05 we explore the philosophy of computation as it leads to CIA experiments in mind control like MK Ultra. Trevor Paglen is an artist and geographer whose groundbreaking work links new technological developments to larger political issues that are often secret or unseen. Towards the end we explore the narrative and existential similarities between AI and UFO's as a distant hope for scarcity within the crises of capitalism.

One issue morality, like single-issue politics, is never good, for it ignores complexity, the ability to hold conflicting views, to be inconsistent, and to be ignorant and brilliant at the same time https://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2024/09/can-you-love-racist-slippery-slope-of.html

In Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history,” does anyone know if he is building on Marx/hegel’s idea that the “end of history” refers to the end of the division of economic classes or if he is trying to pull off an original thesis? I’m not sure if it was Hegel or Marx who use the end of history phrase to refer to the end of economic classes. If Fukuyama’s “end of history” as it refers to world-wide democratic ideology as that which ends the potential for war, is that him building on Marx/hegel or is he seemingly using this phrase in isolation?

Slaves were auctioned openly in Philadelphia, Rhode Island, Boston, and New York. Shipbuilders and shipowners benefited from transatlantic slave trade, and their profits circulated via Wall Street throughout America. Be careful who you cancel. https://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2024/09/the-northern-slave-trade-shipping.html

Contrary beliefs do not simply define politics, but the way one behaves. One's  understanding of man’s relationship to God, secular institutions, society, and the geo-ecological environment are profoundly different. Our reactions to and sympathy/empathy for others is determined by a moral philosophy which either blesses and anoints others as brothers and sisters; or sees them as evolutionary competitors struggling for survival, dominance, and genetic longevity. https://www.uncleguidosfacts.com/2024/09/are-politics-who-we-are-defining.html