After Trump’s victory last month, I have a nagging feeling that we are living in a time that rhymes with the past. However, I’m torn between which point in history the present most closely resembles: post-Weimar Republic Germany or the massive Russian privatization of the 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  

To be clear, my comparison to the Weimar Republic is not a 1-to-1 comparison between the Nazis and the GOP. While I do believe some far-right tendencies exist within the GOP, I don’t think the average GOP voter cast their ballot with fascism in mind. Rather, what’s interesting—and concerning—is how, when things are bad, or even when people perceive things as bad, a political party can promise the world and that alone can be enough to motivate people to vote for them.  

Furthermore, the use of an “other” to blame for society’s problems remains highly effective. In Germany, it was the Jewish community; in the United States today, it’s the undocumented immigrant community. As a naturalized citizen myself, I’m likely biased, but I can’t ignore the growing anger and scapegoating directed at undocumented immigrants. The facts don’t support this anger:  

- Undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens.  

- Many immigrants are driven here due to conditions—like political instability or economic collapse—that the United States often played a role in creating.  

- The biggest economic challenges we face are not caused by undocumented workers.  

Your landlord who raised your rent by 30% isn’t undocumented. The private equity fund that bought the local company you worked for and then laid you off to boost profits isn’t owned by undocumented migrants. Our economic pain isn’t caused by those at the bottom—it’s exacerbated by decisions made by those at the top.  

This brings me to how the present also feels reminiscent of 1990s Russia. Trump’s incoming cabinet, with an estimated net worth of $250 billion, is the wealthiest in American history. That concentration of wealth mirrors the Russian oligarchy that emerged when state-owned assets were auctioned off to the politically connected elite during the country’s privatization process. Similarly, Trump’s advisors and cabinet members hold significant conflicts of interest. For example, Tesla—run by Elon Musk—has one of its largest factories in China and is the second-largest recipient of Chinese subsidies. To me, this feels disturbingly similar to the crony capitalism seen in post-Soviet Russia, where a small group of elites divided a nation’s wealth among themselves.  

Trump’s economic agenda reinforces this concern. He has promised to lower the corporate tax rate to 15%—a move that primarily benefits the wealthy. While corporations already exploit loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, further cuts are unlikely to “trickle down” to the middle and working classes. Additionally, the GOP has floated proposals to privatize the USPS, weaken or eliminate the FDIC, and cut taxes for the rich while increasing tariffs. These measures would disproportionately harm the bottom 95% of Americans while enriching those at the top.  

 The Problem with Deregulation  

History shows that sweeping deregulation often worsens economic inequality by benefiting the top 5% while harming everyone else. Here are a few examples:

1. The 1980s Deregulation Under Reagan  

- Reagan’s economic policies, or “Reaganomics,” focused on deregulation and cutting taxes for the wealthy. While these policies helped the stock market and the top 1%, they exacerbated wage stagnation and income inequality.  

- From 1980 to 1990, income for the top 1% grew by 80%, while the bottom 90% saw minimal wage growth (adjusted for inflation).  

- Deregulation of the financial sector laid the groundwork for the 2008 financial crisis.  

2. The 2008 Financial Crisis  

- The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 allowed banks to gamble with depositors’ money, fueling the housing bubble.  

- When the bubble burst, millions of middle- and lower-class families lost homes, jobs, and savings. Meanwhile, banks and corporations received massive bailouts.  

- By 2010, the bottom 90% of Americans had lost $10 trillion in wealth, while the top 10% rebounded quickly.  

3. Airline and Utility Deregulation  

- Airline deregulation in 1978 initially increased competition, but led to massive consolidation. Today, four airlines control over 80% of the market, resulting in higher fares, fees, and reduced service.  

- Energy deregulation, like California’s in the early 2000s, allowed price manipulation by companies like Enron, causing blackouts and economic chaos.  

 How This Relates to Today  

The GOP’s continued push for deregulation under Trump 2.0—whether in healthcare, the postal service, environmental protections, or consumer safeguards—follows this pattern. While the wealthy benefit from fewer rules and reduced taxes, the broader public pays the price through:  

- Rising healthcare costs if protections for pre-existing conditions are weakened or removed.  

- Higher rents and housing instability as Wall Street investors buy up properties with little oversight.  

- Lower job security and stagnant wages as labor protections are stripped away.  

 Conclusion  

For those at the top, Trump’s agenda makes perfect sense: lower taxes, fewer regulations, and friendlier policies for businesses. But for the bottom 95% of Americans, these policies risk:  

- Exacerbating income inequality.  

- Undermining worker protections.  

- Creating an economy where opportunity is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few.  

This isn’t about ideology—it’s about reality. History shows us that deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest rarely “trickle down” to the rest of us. Instead, they exacerbate inequality and leave working Americans to bear the cost.  

DEI is inherently wrong and should be done away with. They promote having diversity rather than merit. One must remember when DEI is in place you’re not creating opportunities but reallocating them. This means that people who aren’t “oppressed” now are as they were not hired/accepted due to their lack of “oppression” usually in the form of race, sex, and gender which now means they are being oppressed.
This can only create a loop were the oppressed are changing with each generation. We are in the 21st century one’s gender, race, or any other characteristic do not matter but rather their ability to perform a job or their merit when it comes to colleges.

Personally, I am supportive of ending the subsidization of delivery to rural areas with urban tax dollars. They can pay a fair market price for service under a privatized system.

Lawyers learn to give their clients zealous advocacy, given they each have the right to a fair proceeding and to have the best argument they can, if only to make the opposition do their best as well. How best do you think you could argue for people and movements and ideologies you know you disagree with?

Edit: I said best responses. I am looking for genuine arguments you can make for them, not dismissive ones that parody them.

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.

The conservative monarchists in Germany picked an excellent anthem. Few places have ever included open referenced to trade and science development, but Heil Dir in Siegerkranz did. The Internationale is an excellent banger too of a melody with lots of translations which are fun to see how they differ and what they emphasize and it substantially annoys me whenever someone makes a documentary about the USSR before WW2 and forgets that the famous anthem wasn't the national anthem back then.

The crown of St Stephen in Hungary is also a very unique and interesting kind of symbol too. Someone happened to accidentally bend the cross, and they just went with it for centuries.

A more open-ended format, here. Feel free to share your personal opinions on this topic. I'll share my in the comments.

If you went back 200 years in America, it would be hard to find someone who supported rights for black people in the ways that many people do now. Mostly all of the science at the time supported race-realism as being legitimate, meaning that most educated people understood whites and blacks, for example, to be fundamentally different, while uneducated people often held racist views as well.

If you went back 200 years, you wouldn't even be able to talk about most LGBT issues, since most of the language we use to describe LGBT identites didn't exist back then.

There are likely very similar things today, where we just don't acknowledge a group to the level we should, or where we just accept the treatment of a group as being justified because the way we think about that group on a systemic level justifies that treatment.

What do you think will be the biggest thing people 200 years from now will look back on most all of us as being dead wrong about? Similar to how many today look at old-fashioned racism and slavery, for example? Maybe it's a group you think about negatively, but you realize that your views will become outdated someday.

Basically, what group is being oppressed that most people today are blind to the oppression of? That few people are sounding the alarm to?

We aren't at the pinnacle of humanity's entire existence, I hope, so let's do some thinking to see where society can do better.

The drama and pathos surrounding the alleged murderer of the UnitedHealth CEO is similar to discussions around terrorism.

Terrorism is wrong, as is murder. But a lot of people are hearing the alleged murderer's story and asking rhetorically, "Well, what did you expect to happen?" An unfair system is going to cause suffering, and people who suffer a lot are not always going to make rational choices. They are going to get emotional, and some of them are going to crack.

There is a symptom underlying the murder that doesn't justify it, but that also comes from a very real place, and many people have their own stories about how health insurance companies have screwed them over unfairly.

What could the alleged assassin have done? In the short term, probably nothing, and he would have suffered his back pain in silence. And he was relatively well off; it didn't really give him a lot of options anyway.

In the long term, he could have tried to organize. But the deck is pretty stacked there. Health care options have not changed much since Obamacare was passed 15 years ago, and the US political system has made it very clear it doesn't want to actually fix any of the problems limiting the coverage and expense of health care.

Trump's rise to power has been a reflection of this dynamic - people don't really understand who does what when it comes to why the health insurance system in the US is the way it is. Trump comes along saying a lot of radical-sounding things, and voters respond to it, even if he doesn't actually plan to do anything different. But he gets credit for at least sounding like he understands that something is wrong, and that he will shake things up. Democrats haven't really had a rhetorical response to Trump that sounds convincing; they routinely sound like cautious and bloodless technocrats asserting that everything is fine and that it is beyond the pale to say otherwise.

Meanwhile, the system trudges along, and doesn't change, and leaves lots of suffering in its wake. This time the anger was caused by a bureaucratic and indifferent health insurance system, but across the board - from housing costs to retirement to education to wages to shootings to environmental disasters - there's a gridlock that leaves problems festering and unsolved. Veto points in our political system are myriad - anyone at dozens of different layers in our bureaucratic system can shut down any changes at any time, and organized opposition to change is fierce, able to get its message out, and well-funded. So we tinker around the edges. But not much changes.

Again - nothing justifies murder. But it's hard not to look at how much pent-up frustration is out there and wonder if we could improve society so that people were better able to get the help and resources they need.

So - what changes can be made to our health insurance system and government and economy more broadly to prevent more angry CEO assassins in the future from emerging? I don't really have high hopes. We have muddled through plenty of worse crises, though the public response to this one feels different.

In the past year we have seem the prestigious national media establishments including the New York Times, Washington Post, the Atlantic, CNN (and many more) cover for the health insurance industry, big tech, the Israeli government, as well as apply different standards to the Harris and Trump campaigns and falsely legitimizing transphobia. Plus they have long been covering for police and accepting their statements in good faith at face value.

Both the right and left have criticized "mainstream media" as untrustworthy. I used to dismiss these criticisms but now it seems more and more apparent that these criticisms are valid.

Do these sources of information still deserve to have a place in our media diet and what alternatives should replace them?

[Quick update] I am loving the conversations I’m reading here. The depth and breadth of both knowledge and passion is inspiring to see, regardless of your position.

I have seen a few comments disputing whether this act can be considered political violence at all, which I think is a valid question. I’m not sure if the answer changes the nature of my question, but I did want to share my reasoning.

I define political violence as any violent acts against an individual or group with the intent of fomenting systemic, societal change at a macro level. That was just my own definition from who-knows-where when I wrote the post? But enough comments let me to some light googling, and I do think my definition is pretty close to the one I found on Wikipedia.

For me, the murder itself would not have been political, even if the guy was killed because of the perpetrator’s dissatisfaction with health insurance. However, the bullets with words etched in make me believe the assailant wants a larger discussion on healthcare in America. Additionally, the alleged assassin’s own thoughts/posts/statement of responsibility discovered during or after his arrest lends weight to my hypothesis that this guy didn’t want to kill a man - he wanted to change a system.

Again, not sure it matters to this discussion whether it’s strictly defined as political violence or not, but enough people commented on it that I thought it’d easier to just add my reasoning to the post.

And now.. back to the original question:

I was pretty stunned when I started combing all my news/social sites to get news and reactions about the assassination. I felt like it’s possible to denounce a cold-blooded murder and still communicate that the health insurance industry is corrupt, but overwhelmingly I saw outright praise and admiration for the shooter, as well as sort of vague threats that other health insurance executives should watch out.

The conversation around the shooting just seems generally more supportive of the method and the message, in a way I don’t believe I’ve seen outside of more extremist factions and message boards.

So I guess my question is, in your opinion, is the healthcare industry so reviled as to warrant its own moral rules, and you could pretty much always expect a similar reaction, or are we getting so dulled to the idea of political violence (in the US anyway) that it is entering the zeitgeist as a legitimate tool in the activist toolbox?

I’m sure the right answer is “a little of both,” so I’m just looking for any thoughts/impressions you have had on this subject, as well as future impacts you think it might have.

Como parte de la futura generación, los adolescentes nos enfrentamos a un futuro lleno de desafíos, desde el cambio climático hasta la evolución tecnológica. Sin embargo, nos enfrentamos a una limitación clave: nuestra voz está restringida cuando se trata de decisiones políticas que nos afectan directamente. ¿Por qué se nos niega el derecho a votar y a participar activamente en la política a pesar de que, en muchos casos, estamos más informados y comprometidos que nunca?

A lo largo de la historia, se ha demostrado que los jóvenes pueden ser agentes de cambio. Movimientos como Fridays for Future han demostrado la capacidad de los adolescentes para generar un impacto global. Sin embargo, aún estamos excluidos de las decisiones que definiran el futuro.

Es hora de que la sociedad nos reconozca como lo que realmente somos: la próxima generación de líderes, pensadores y creadores. Al darnos el derecho de participar en la política, no solo fortalecemos nuestra voz, sino que también aseguramos un futuro más justo, innovador y equilibrado para todos.

Algunos puntos clave que debemos considerar:

Voto juvenil: Muchos países ya han permitido el voto a los 16 años, y los resultados no han mostrado problemas significativos. ¿Por qué no seguir este ejemplo y permitir que los adolescentes tengamos una voz en las decisiones que nos afectarán toda la vida?

Participación en debates políticos: ¿Por qué no integrar a los adolescentes en las discusiones sobre políticas que afectan a nuestra generación? Deberíamos tener un asiento en la mesa cuando se discuten temas como el cambio climático, la educación y la tecnología.

Empoderamiento juvenil: Necesitamos tener las herramientas necesarias para influir en los temas que afectan directamente a nuestras vidas. Darles a los adolescentes un espacio para expresarse y participar activamente en la política solo fortalecerá nuestras democracias.

¿No es hora de que se nos permita formar parte del cambio, en lugar de quedarnos al margen esperando que otras generaciones decidan por nosotros?

¿Qué piensan sobre este tema? ¡Es hora de cambiar las reglas y permitir que los adolescentes tengan un papel real en la política!

Shooting someone in the back, including the CEO of a health insurance company, makes you a coward, and in this case a terrorist.

A lot of people have made comments (here and probably in lots of other subs) to the effect of: “this isn’t a left-right issue.” I agree with that sentiment; this is an issue of decent people versus those willing to overlook political violence and even murder, as long as they don’t like the person being killed.

I want to have a civilized discussion on this topic and its international ramifications. Here’s how I see it:

The United States and Mexico are neighbors and close partners in addressing immigration issues. While Mexico may not be doing as much as it could, it does contribute to managing migration, demonstrating that it values dialogue and cooperation with the U.S. However, Mexico faces significant challenges in curbing mass migration to the U.S. southern border. Both countries are also deeply affected by gang activity, which fuels human smuggling operations and makes crossing the border a lucrative business. Cartels operating on both sides exacerbate the issue; in the U.S., some cartels are involved in trafficking and debt collection, while others damage border infrastructure and even fire at U.S. forces. This activity directly impacts the United States.

Both the U.S. and Mexico would benefit from a coordinated campaign against these cartels. However, Mexico struggles to defeat them in certain regions. This raises the question: why not deploy U.S. Navy SEALs?

Here’s my reasoning: sending young American service members into any conflict is a difficult decision, but this mission would be relatively small in scale, clearly tied to U.S. national interests, and well-suited to highly trained units like the SEALs. These individuals work incredibly hard to qualify for such missions and would likely welcome the opportunity to engage in a clear and impactful operation. Moreover, dismantling cartels would not necessarily face resistance or opposition from the Mexican government. Such a mission could even be carried out by invitation, minimizing the risk of diplomatic blowback.

While I’m not focusing on whether the mission would be tough to execute, I believe that it is feasible. Success could either be effective in disrupting cartel operations or, at the very least, demonstrate bold and creative leadership, such as under someone like Trump.

In Frank Herbert’s iconic Dune novels, the character Leto II Atreides implemented a harsh system of oppression known as the “Golden Path,” forcing humanity into a brutal evolutionary crisis to ensure its survival and ultimate enlightenment. Leto’s vision involved totalitarian control and religious dogma, creating unbearable conditions to provoke humanity’s eventual transcendence.

At first glance, comparing this fictional concept to the real-world reign of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei may seem far-fetched. Khamenei’s authoritarian rule — marked by the enforcement of strict Sharia law and suppression of dissent — appears rooted in maintaining power and advancing a fundamentalist Islamic ideology, rather than a grand cosmic plan for humanity’s evolution.

Yet, the unintended consequences of Khamenei’s policies may paradoxically align with the philosophy of Herbert’s Golden Path. Through decades of repression, Iran’s society has become a crucible of resistance, adaptability, and transformation, resembling the conditions that Leto II deliberately engineered to spark humanity’s awakening...

You can read the full piece here:

https://medium.com/@lisanalghaib/ali-khamenei-and-the-golden-path-of-iran-8e682d0702d4

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Obamacare has created a vastly more expensive and less efficient healthcare system. Its a complete boondoggle. Insurance coverage has been extended to lots of very unhealthy people, who are then given government subsidies to buy “ insurance” to cover their unhealthy lifestyles.

Of course insurers deny treatment, they have to.

This:

“In 2021, 36.5 million children and adolescents and 172 million adults had overweight and obesity.”

How do you insure against that? Its like saying “ I know everyone on your street loves to play with gasoline and matches. I can insure you against fire for $1. “

People need to be forced to become healthy by whatever means, particularly if you advocate for single payer health coverage.

I think we can all agree on that, right?

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's your seemingly contradictory politics that make sense once when you explain it

r/PoliticalDebate is an educational subreddit dedicated to furthering political understandings via exposure to various alternate perspectives. Iron sharpens iron type of thing through Socratic Method ideally. This is a tough challenge because politics is a broad, complex area of study not to mention filled with emotional triggers in the news everyday.

We have made various strides to ensure quality discourse and now we're building onto them with a new mod only enabled user flair for members that have shown they have a comprehensive understanding of an area and also a new wiki page dedicated to debate guidelines and The Socratic Method.

We've also added a new user flair emoji (a green checkmark) that can only be awarded to members who have provided proof of expertise in an area relevant to politics in some manner. You'll be able to keep your old flair too but will now have a badge to implies you are well versed in your area, for example:

​

Your current flair: (D emoji) Democrat

Your new flair: ( green checkmark emoji) [Quality Contributor] and either your area of expertise or in this case "Democrat"

Requirements:

• Links to 3 to 5 answers which show a sustained involvement in the community, including at least one within the past month.
• These answers should all relate to the topic area in which you are seeking flair. They should demonstrate your claim to knowledge and expertise on that topic, as well as your ability to write about that topic comprehensively and in-depth. Outside credentials or works can provide secondary support, but cannot replace these requirements.
• The text of your flair and which category it belongs in (see the sidebar). Be as specific as possible as we prefer flair to reflect the exact area of your expertise as near as possible, but be aware there is a limit of 64 characters.
• If you have a degree, provide proof of your expertise and send it to our mod team via modmail. (https://imgur.com/ is a free platform for hosting pics that doesn't require sign up)

​

Our mod team will be very strict about these and they will be difficult to be given. They will be revocable at any time.

How we determine expertise

You don't need to have a degree to meet our requirements necessarily. A degree doesn't not equate to 100% correctness. Plenty of users are very well versed in their area and have become proficient self studiers. If you have taken the time to research, are unbiased in your research, and can adequately show that you know what you're talking about our team will consider giving you the user flair.

Most applications will be rejected for one of two reasons, so before applying, make sure to take a step back and try and consider these factors as objectively as possible.

The first one is sources. We need to know that you are comfortable citing a variety of literature/unbiased new sources.

The second one is quality responses. We need to be able to see that you have no issues with fundamental debate tactics, are willing to learn new information, can provide knowledgeable points/counterpoints, understand the work you've cited thoroughly and are dedicated to self improvement of your political studies.

If you are rejected this doesn't mean you'll never meet the requirements, actually it's quite the opposite. We are happy to provide feedback and will work with you on your next application.

To me it seemed pretty cut and dry "defense of others", but the hung jury tells me not everyone agrees. So, are people allowed to defend themselves? Are they allowed to defemd others? What are your thoughts?

Liberalism, particularly in its modern neoliberal form, enables corporate dominance and perpetuates social inequalities.

The use of media, consumerism, and cultural hegemony in liberal democracies can create a "manufactured consent," subtly discouraging dissent and promoting conformity.

Liberal democracies have frequently engaged in military interventions and economic coercion under the guise of spreading freedom and democracy.

Through entertainment, consumerism and benevolent paternalism it creates an illusion of freedom and choice, masking the mechanisms of control.

We have undergone a corporate coup d'etat in slow motion and democracy is a fiction in the hands of corporate states. The consent of the governed is a cruel joke. Our politics is a form of legalized bribery.

edit: benign totalitarianism

Imagine a system where every person has a real stake in the economy, not just as a participant but as an owner. Sovereign Capitalism is built on a simple idea: the true strength of a market comes from the people who make it work. It’s about creating opportunities for everyone to succeed—not by giving handouts, but by giving everyone the tools and freedom to contribute meaningfully and share in the rewards.

In this system, businesses aren’t faceless giants controlled by a few at the top. Instead, workers and communities join together to own and manage the industries they care about. This isn’t about taking away choice—it’s about creating more of it. When everyone has a seat at the table, the decisions made reflect what’s best for the people who are actually doing the work.

Profits don’t just disappear into distant boardrooms; they go right back into the hands of those who helped create them. And because everyone has a stake, everyone has a voice—whether it’s deciding how to reinvest earnings, improve working conditions, or innovate new products that benefit the community.

Sovereign Capitalism thrives on trust, collaboration, and the belief that we’re stronger when we work together. It’s a system where ambition and integrity go hand in hand, where success is measured not just by numbers but by the well-being of everyone involved.

This is the capitalism of the future: fair, open, and driven by the people who power it. Sovereign Capitalism is about building something bigger than ourselves—together.

As a follow-up or clarifier: how does your ideology influence how you view the law as it is versus how it should be? What ideals are we living up to or missing?

The divide between Democrats and Republicans is nearly equal and equally absurd. Both parties have shifted ideologically multiple times since their inception and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future. A recent example is Republicans were once pro-free trade and pro-immigration, but have since reversed their stance.

Today, Democrats align most closely with liberalism, which advocates for equal rights for all beliefs, values, and individuals—sometimes to a fault—as long as their practices do not harm others. Republicans, on the other hand, align most with conservatism, which emphasizes traditional values, such as religious beliefs, traditional gender roles, and, ironically, sometimes Social Darwinism to explain inequality.

Despite the political divide, I believe the class divide is far greater. The political divide has been deliberately inflamed by those who seek to gain and maintain power, knowing that a divided society is less likely to challenge their injustices. In reality, the average working- and middle-class Democrat has far more in common with the average working- and middle-class Republican than either has with the elites.

We are trapped in a state of corporate feudalism, where the working and middle classes are led to believe they can climb the economic ladder and join the ranks of the wealthy, despite this being a rare occurrence nowadays for the average American. Both major political parties fail to substantially alleviate the burdens of the people and instead perpetuate the current system. This is not merely a “both sides are bad” critique, but an observation that many in both parties prioritize lobbyists over their constituents.

While Democrats and Republicans might be socially progressive and socially conservative, respectively, neither party is truly economically progressive. Republicans often demonize universal healthcare and other policies that benefit the working and middle classes, labeling them as “Socialist” or “Communist,” even though these policies do not call for the eradication of the free market or the creation of a classless society and use of a command economy. Instead, they aim to refine social safety nets and implement better regulations to prevent elites from maintaining unfair advantages.

Despite this, Republicans often oppose these programs, arguing that they increase the national debt, while simultaneously contributing to the debt themselves and opposing both reductions to the military budget and increases to the marginal tax rate. I support a strong military, but the U.S. spends three times more on its military than the country with the second-largest military in the world, so I think we would be fine with a moderate decrease in the defense budget.

Democrats recognize this but are hesitant to push for policies once championed by New Deal Democrats. Instead, they focus on social progressivism and “sticking it to the Republicans” by opposing anything they support, which often yields minimal tangible results. Liberalism promotes the idea that all beliefs should coexist and prosper, but by prioritizing certain beliefs over others, Democrats alienate social conservatives, driving them away from supporting liberal leaders—even those who are stronger advocates for economic reform.

Yes, some conservatives hold beliefs that are incompatible with the idea of coexistence, but that is the price paid to ensure equal treatment for all. It’s important to improve education so fewer people will be susceptible to beliefs that are incompatible with coexistence. In time, those beliefs could be altered or naturally replaced by more tolerant perspectives through the improvement of education. If Democrats focused on economic, healthcare, and educational improvements, they could significantly distinguish themselves from the reactionary beliefs promoted by certain Republicans and help move us past this era of hateful rhetoric and intolerance.

Because autocracy in the scientific sense-upholding views treating science as an unquestioned and centralized authority-finds itself few times aligned with those advocating for right-wing ideologies willing to work on the axis of order, hierarchy, and the promotion of such structures of power. The notion of science itself, conceptualized in terms of rigid top-down systems of knowledge, is a regular companion to centralized thought, contesting against oft-challenged conventions of already entrenched structures and accordingly, mode of application. In this context, scientific authority is not perceived as a dynamic, open area of inquiry but a mechanism employed to justify existing power structures that consequently reinforces social hierarchies based on race, class, or economic status. The very complexity arises once science is viewed as an unarguable truth that tends to thwart dissent and override dissenting opinions. Usually not to create a democratic forum but rather repress what may be perceived as disturbing proposals for emancipation, the autocratic sway espoused by science usually strengthens centrism while shutting the doors on airflow for transformations. By that token, the fake left's embrace of scientific authoritarianism is not simply intuitive respect for expertise but rather instruction on using expertise, providing a legitimation system for settling conservative norms and power balances against marginalized voices and any attempt at progressive change.

EDIT: For the record I'm not a "science denier". I'm just saying that it should be balanced with the dignity of the population and nature, and is only a mere estimate of reality, therefore it cannot be an all-knowing autocratic force.

Now that the UK labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, Tahir Ali, has proposed the enactment of sharia blaspheme laws in the UK, how long before Canada follows suit? Is such a law even necessary in the UK as it seems that insulting mohammed in the UK is already treated as a serious crime by the Labour government under at least one UK statute through the "stirring up" of racial hatred (Racial and Relious Hated Act 2006). The UK PM seems fully supportive of threats to use the judiciary to prevent attempts to criricize islam or mohammed. Should Canada follow the UK's Labour Party's example and begin the process of investigating sharia compliant blaspheme laws?

I haven't really done a final edit yet, but I'll probably do so and then post this on Facebook. Short summary: Trump's mass deportation plan faces significant logistical, financial and economic costs if attempts to go through with it.

“The question is not whether mass deportation will happen. It’s how big Mr. Trump and his administration will go, and how quickly. How many resources — exactly how much, for example, in the way of emergency military funding — are they willing and able to marshal toward the effort? How far are they willing to bend or break the rules to make their numbers?”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/21/opinion/trump-mass-deportation-immigration.html?smid=nytcore-android-share&login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock

Right now, it’s unclear what will Trump’s mass deportation plan look like? On the one hand we have people close to the administration (Stephen Miller) who want to deport the entire Illegal/Undocumented/Unauthorized Immigrant population. On the other hand, we have people like Tom Homan (former acting head of ICE under Trump’s 1^(st) administration, and future “border czar” under Trump’s 2^(nd) administration) who says that ICE will focus on deporting criminals. Who will win this battle is unclear.

But it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that Stephen Miller is going to push for the deportation of the entire population. Currently, that population is probably up to about 13+ million people. And indiscriminate mass deportation of that many people is very unrealistic, without the implementation of very drastic and draconian measures. Furthermore, it will come with a major fiscal and economic costs to the United States.

First, let’s define a few terms.

When most people talk about deportations they are typically referring to “Removals” under Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Removals are formal orders from the U.S. government that involve forcibly removing a non-citizen to another country (typically their country of origin). Removals carry a criminal penalty for any attempt to re-enter the United States before the “removal period” has expired (Removals are usually not permanent). On the other hand, “Returns” are what people might call “self-deportations.” This is when non-citizens decide to leave the United States, whether of their own volition, or because of a request from the U.S. government.  Returns do not carry any criminal penalty upon re-entry. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/removal_system_of_the_united_states_an_overview.pdf

Removals are divided into two separate categories.

Interior Removals: formal deportation of non-citizens from the interior United States. These people are typically apprehended, and removed by ICE, and have been present inside the interior United States for a long period of time. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1231

Border Removals: formal deportation of non-citizens who recently arrived at the Southern U.S Border, and are apprehended by Customs and Border Patrol Officers, or Border Patrol Agents. These people are typically placed into the Expedited Removal process under Title 8 of the U.S Code, unless they have applied for asylum. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/235.3

What is being discussed in terms of Trump’s mass deportation plan is Interior Removals, rather than the Border Removals of recently arrived migrants.   Is a mass Removal plan realistic? Probably not, given our own history and assuming we’re following the normal process of the law. So, let’s take a look at what Removals looked like under previous presidents.

The highest number of Interior Removals in a single year (as recorded) was around 237k in 2009, during the Obama administration. If we assume Trump can reach that same number per year, it will equal to 948k total Interior Removals over a four-year period (far from the entire population). During Trump’s administration, Interior Removals never even reached 100k per year. That’s fewer than 400k people removed from the interior during his entire term. If previous administrations (including Trump’s) are any indication of the future, it would be highly unlikely that we would see a second Trump administration remove all 13+ million interior immigrants in four years. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/interior-enforcement-under-the-trump-administration-by-numbers-part-one-removals/

In response to this, people typically argue, “well, most of the immigrants will likely self-deport.” Sure, we’ve seen large numbers of Returns in the past. The largest number of Returns (as recorded) was close to 1.7 million in the year 2000. And during most of the 1980’s through the early 2,000’s we saw close to 1 million Returns per year. But we haven’t seen Returns occur in those numbers since around 2008. https://www.dhs.gov/ohss/topics/immigration/yearbook/2019/table39

The main reason Returns have drastically decreased is that the Southwest border is not nearly as porous today as it was before the early 2000’s. Before the early 2000’s, we had “circular flow,” in which people would easily cross the U.S. (without apprehension) to work, and then return to their countries of origin for periods of time, before crossing and returning. But Border enforcement ramped up dramatically at the end of the 2000s, and every year since. As crossing the southwest border became more difficult, the number of returns dwindled, and so did circular flow. Migrants stopped returning home and began staying in the U.S. once they crossed the border successfully. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5049707/#:\~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20the%20hardening,quality%2C%20and%20more%20effective%20services.

As a result, increased border enforcement led to a majority of the interior migrants living in the United Sates for over 10 years https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/US.

They’ve built a life and a family here. They have also lived through past attempts at mass Removals and are not going to willingly leave everything behind knowing that they will not be able to easily cross the border again. So, it’s highly unlikely we would see massive numbers of Returns. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/04/13/key-facts-about-the-changing-u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-population/#:\~:text=The%20decline%20in%20the%20arrival,from%2041%25%2010%20years%20earlier.

At most, we might see around 2 million Returns (over 4 years) of the most recently arrived migrants. But the larger number of 11 million people, who have lived in the country for over 10 years, will require Removal. And that presents a staggering challenge. The reason is the same reason that Removals have largely remained the same between most administrations… we just don’t have the infrastructure.

ICE has limited personnel and funding to conduct Removals. Typically, they rely on their Fugitive Operations division, which focuses on people who commit Crimes, and who are already apprehended by local law enforcement agencies https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/fugitive-operations.

The process of finding and apprehending migrants is usually already done for ICE by local agencies. To ramp up apprehensions of the rest of the illegal population, it would take a massive expansion of ICE personnel, or cooperation with local law enforcement agencies to raid homes and businesses https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/enforcement\_overdrive\_a\_comprehensive\_assessment\_of\_ices\_criminal\_alien\_program\_final.pdf.

Additionally, ICE only has the funding and capacity for 41,000 detention beds https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-announces-ongoing-work-optimize-enforcement-resources.

We would have to dramatically increase funding to hold 11 million migrants in detention during Removal proceedings, and then we would still need to find more space for detention.

Even if we massively increased funding, manpower, and detention space, we would still run into issues through the court system. In Reno v. Flores (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that every migrant who has lived in the U.S. for at least 2 years is entitled to due process in Removal proceedings through the court system https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/292/.

So, all 11 million migrants who would likely be apprehended and detained for Removal would be required to go through the court system first.

Currently, there are 3.7 million cases pending in the immigration court system. The total number of judges hearing those cases is 735… total. That’s around 5,000 cases per judge on average https://trac.syr.edu/reports/734/. https://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.241021.html

This means it already takes years for cases in immigration court to be decided. If you add 11 million more cases to the current system, that time becomes much longer. It would take drastic increases in the immigration court system (support staff, building new court houses, and training judges) to meet these needs in a timely manner https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/us/trump-immigration-republicans-explained.html.

More importantly, there is no part of the Removal process that is cheap. It costs a lot of money for apprehensions, detention, court hearings, and for the repatriation flights back to countries of origin.

In 2015, AAF (A conservative non-profit agency) estimated the cost of Removal per migrant to be around $18,000 ($24,000 present day) https://www.americanactionforum.org/print/?url=https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-budgetary-and-economic-costs-of-addressing-unauthorized-immigration-alt/.

A more recent analysis from American Immigration Council estimates the cost is closer to $28,000 per Removal https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/mass-deportation#:\~:text=Removing%2013.3%20Million%20People%20in%20a%20Single%20Operation&text=If%20we%20include%20the%20costs,deportation%20operation%20at%20%24167.8%20billion.

Their estimates are conservative, but the total costs of Removals could range from $308 Billion to $364 Billion over a 4 year period. On the lower estimate, that’s $77 Billion per year, or 8x the entirety of ICE’s annual budget https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-appropriations.house.gov/files/documents/FY24%20Homeland%20Security%20-%20Bill%20Summary%20Updated%206.21.23.pdf.

Of course, there has been a lot of discussion (even from Trump, himself) about using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act as a mechanism to Remove all of the Illegal/Undocumented/Unauthorized immigrants from the Interior https://www.npr.org/2024/10/19/nx-s1-5156027/alien-enemies-act-1798-trump-immigration.

But there would likely be major legal challenges if he attempts to use it. This will cause major delays that could take several years to resolve. Unless there is a major statutory change to due process, or the Supreme Court rules in favor of such a change, the act of removing 11 million people will be a Herculean task, for which we do not have the funding or infrastructure.

Even if we greatly increase the funding, personnel, detention space, and get through the court process, there is still one final issue: the actual repatriation flights. Above all else, Repatriation is a bilateral diplomatic act. A country MUST accept a repatriation flight for the U.S. to remove a person to their country of origin. We have agreements with many countries that will accept repatriation flights of their own citizens; however, there are quite a few countries (Venezuela, Cuba, and China, for example) that either don’t accept repatriation flights, or make it next to impossible.

Unless the U.S. can find another country that will accept repatriation flights of people who aren’t their citizens, we are shit out of luck. Currently, Biden’s CHNV Parole Program is part of an agreement that allows the U.S. to deport recent border crossers from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to Mexico. But countries often renege on these types of agreements, even if it involves repatriations of their own citizens. And if you start removing millions of people per year, it’s quite possible they will simply not accept these flights.

A good example is Trump wanting to deport Tren de Aragua members back to Venezuela https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2024/11/03/tren-de-aragua-what-we-know-about-the-gang-trump-promised-to-deport/75990832007/.

I applaud Trump for wanting to remove criminal members from the TDA gang. Great! BUT… to where will he be deporting them? Venezuela hasn’t been accepting repatriation flights for years, except for a few months in earlier 2024. Sure, we can implement sanctions, but that doesn’t always help. For example, we’ve already placed sanctions on Venezuela, and they continue to not accept repatriation flights.

The point is that it doesn’t matter how much we might want to force Removals. We are always at the mercy of whatever country would be receiving those Removals.

With all of that said, if we somehow overcome the immediate financial costs, logistical issues, and other obstacles; removing 11 million people would have very negative long-term effects for the U.S. worker, and the economy. We can simply look at the research of historical examples of mass Removals and exclusions of immigrants, as well as the public sentiment that led to these policies.

First, we should look at the 1920’s. The U.S. saw a major influx of immigrants in the preceding years from the 1910’s to the early 1920’s. This resulted in an increase in U.S. citizen employment, and a boom in industrial production. Meanwhile, U.S. citizens saw no decrease in wages, and an overall positive economic outcome https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/19-005\_a4261e39-175c-4b3f-969a-8e1ce818a3d8.pdf.

But the public responded to the influx with anti-immigrant sentiment, leading to the Coolidge administration greatly reducing immigration in the 1920’s through several quotas and border restrictions. Consequently, immigrant labor was reduced, resulting in most U.S. citizens seeing no increase in their wages, and many seeing decreases among the most “low-skilled.” Furthermore, local economies adapted to the drop in immigrant labor by giving jobs to immigrants from other areas of the country, rather than U.S. citizens. Some industries, such as the agriculture sector, shifted to more automation, rather than hiring U.S. workers. And other industries reliant upon immigrant labor, such as the mining industry, saw major decreases in production. Overall, this resulted in negative consequences for local economies and workers, while leading to economic instability for many U.S. citizens https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20200807.

Next, we should look at the mass Removals of the 1930’s. Between 1929 and 1934 the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations led a largescale repatriation of 400,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans. Their reasoning for these Removals was that employment and wages among American workers would rise, helping to alleviate the issues caused by the Great Depression. Instead, the result was an increase in unemployment among U.S. citizens. Additionally, many U.S. citizens who remained employed saw a decrease in their labor market status, leading to a major loss in wages. Furthermore, decreasing the number of laborers and farm workers reduced the demand for other jobs in the local economies held by U.S. citizens, making the problem even worse https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272721001948?via%3Dihub.

Then, we come to the very famous operation of the Eisenhower administration in the 1950’s, which even Trump has cited as inspiration for his mass deportation plan. The notoriously (and unfortunately) titled “Operation W**back” of 1954 is often touted as the greatest mass deportation in U.S. history that resulted in positive economic outcomes. But the number of people deported is likely overstated, and the positive economic outcome is missing major context. Supporters cite 1.3 million deportations during the operation. But the actual historical data shows the number was about ¼ of that. Additionally, most of the “deportations” were migrant Returns. Most people left willingly without the U.S. needing to use drastic measures to physically remove them. Additionally, we saw a positive economic outcomes because the Eisenhower administration allowed legal employment opportunities to the people who left by increasing employment-based Visas https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/can-regular-migration-channels-reduce-irregular-migration.pdf. People left the U.S. and then came back through legal employment. Black market labor shifted to lawful channels which complemented U.S. workers https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/CGD-shared-border-shared-future-report-eng1.pdf. So, while Eisenhower implemented mass “deportations,” he also greatly increased available legal job opportunities for the same people he “deported.” Some great historical analysis of the time period can be found in the books by Calavita (https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/25628418) and Hernandez (https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/762395473).

Moving on, we can look at the Bracero Exclusion of the 1960’s. For context, the Bracero Program (initiated in 1942) was a series of agreements between the U.S. and Mexico, that allowed Mexican immigrants to work on farms and the railroads. But, in 1964 the Kennedy administration ended the program. His reasoning was that by reducing the size of the workforce through exclusion of Mexican workers, the labor market for U.S. citizens would drastically improve. The research shows that the Bracero program did not negatively effect wages or employment of U.S. citizens during its implementation. Consequently, when it was ended, wages grew more slowly, and employment suffered https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6040835/. In fact, employment among U.S. workers decreased as industries, once again, turned towards mechanization for production. As a result, farmers suffered long-term declines in income and land value https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20200664.

More recently, research has shown similar effects when the U.S. increased deportations, enhanced border enforcement, or excluded immigrants from the workforce.

Research looking at the years 2000-2010 showed deportations were increased, in addition to increased levels of border enforcement. As a result, low-skilled labor markets were weakened. The reduced undocumented immigrant population increased the labor costs of firms, resulting in a reduced demand for low-skilled and high-skilled workers. Low-skilled unemployment among U.S. citizens increased drastically. In contrast, legalized pathways to employment for undocumented immigrants increase the employment of U.S. citizens, and increased income for workers https://www.nber.org/papers/w19932.

Further research focused on the 287(g) program (initially enacted in 1996 as part of IIRAIRA) https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/287g-program-immigration. Studies show that from 2004-2010 there was a 7-10% reduction in administrative services https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irel.12172.  Additionally, there was a 1-2% drop in employment, among both authorized and unauthorized immigrants, and wages dropped from 0.8-1.9% https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/128/.

Perhaps the most impactful research has been on the Secure Communities deportation program between 2008-2013 https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/secure-communities-fact-sheet. The research shows that employment decreased among both low-skilled undocumented workers and U.S. citizens (even among the mid-skilled and high-skilled workers). Additionally, wages decreased by about 0.6% among U.S. citizens. Low-skilled undocumented people saw a significant reduction in employment, which also resulted in reduction of employment among U.S. citizens, more specifically in male citizens. A major reason for this was that deportations led to a major reduction in local consumption. More importantly, when 500,000 immigrant workers were removed from the labor market, 44,000 U.S. citizens lose their jobs. So If 11million immigrants are removed, 968,000 U.S. citizens will lose their jobs, in addition to seeing wages decrease among them https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/721152?journalCode=jole.

A common theme among the research is that the economy is not a zero-sum game. When one person has a job, that doesn’t mean one fewer job for another person. Additionally, the loss of that person does not mean one more job is available for someone else to take, much less a U.S. citizen. Immigrants and U.S. citizens typically work in different jobs that complement one another, rather than compete. But Industries and business owners will roll back production when they are faced with reductions in labor-supply due to immigrant deportations and exclusions. This leads to a loss of jobs, even among U.S. citizens. And instead of hiring U.S. workers, businesses will invest in other technology that use lower-skilled labor in a less intensive manner, which only further reduces the demand for U.S. citizen workers https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/126/2/1029/1869919?redirectedFrom=fulltext.  Additionally, the unauthorized population isn’t just workers, they are consumers, as well. Removing the unauthorized population means less demand for things like groceries, housing, and services, which in turn reduces demand for workers in those sectors. Again, these industries roll back production when faced with mass removals, and more citizens lose jobs. This reduces overall capital income, which in turn reduces the government revenue as well https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/38/3/449/6701682?redirectedFrom=fulltext.

The loss of workers also has a more widespread effect on the overall economy. Edwards and Ortega (2017) found that the unauthorized immigrant population contributes substantially to the U.S. economy. More specifically, they contribute about 3.1% of yearly GDP, which amounts to $6 Trillion over a 10-year period. They also found that legalizing their work status would increase their contribution of GDP to about 4.8% annually. More importantly, removing the unauthorized immigrant population (in 2017) would have detrimental effects. GDP would reduce by 1.4% in the short-term, and by 2.6% over the long-term, which would sum to $5 Trillion over a 10-year period. This would vary between states, with states like California seeing a 7% reduction in its economy, and Nevada, Texas, and New Jersey seeing a reduction of about 6%. The industries that would see the greatest impacts would be manufacturing, construction, leisure and hospitality, and whole-sale and retail. Agriculture, construction, and leisure and hospitality would see workforce reductions of 10-18% https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046217300157.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that a mass deportation plan removing 8.3 million immigrants would lead to a reduction in employment of 6.7%. Furthermore, U.S. GDP would be reduced by 7.4%. They also found that mass Removals would lead to higher inflationary costs through 2028. A major reason for this would be that up to 16% of the agriculture workforce would be removed, resulting in higher prices https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/2024-09/wp24-20.pdf.

American Immigration Council also released a report detailing the immediate fiscal costs of deporting the entire population, and the larger economic consequences. They estimated that we would see a reduction of around 1.5 million workers (13.7%) from the construction industry, 224k (12.7%) from the agriculture industry, 1 million workers (7.1%) from the hospitality industry, 870k workers (5.4%) from the manufacturing industry, and 460k workers (5.5%) from the transportation and warehousing industries. We would also see a reduction of around 1 million undocumented immigrant entrepreneurs who generate $27 billion in total business income and employ U.S. citizens. Additionally, about 8.5 million U.S. citizens are part of mixed immigrant status families. They would see their household income reduced by 62% due to mass Removals. The U.S. government would lose out on $46 billion in annual federal taxes, and $29 billion in annual state and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants also contribute to Social Security and Medicare, two programs which they will not have access to. Those two programs would lose out on annual payments of $22 billion, and $ 5 billion, respectively. We would also lose out on $256 billion in annual spending power from the undocumented population. And U.S. GDP could see a reduction between 4.2-6.8%. For context, the U.S. GDP shrank by 4.3% during the Great Recession between 2007-2009 https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/mass\_deportation\_report\_2024.pdf.

Putting aside all the humanitarian concerns that come with mass deportations, removing the entire illegal/undocumented/unauthorized population would be very bad for U.S. workers, and the overall economy. Businesses will struggle to fill essential positions and will roll back production in their respective industries. U.S. citizens either won’t be hired, or will lose jobs, as a result. And then U.S. citizens will experience even further financial strain as prices and inflation increase, even for things like groceries. So, removing the entire population would be like shooting ourselves in the foot. Instead, we should let ICE do what it already does: focus on removing people who commit serious crimes. For the population that hasn’t committed serious crimes, allow them to adjust their status, and have work authorization.

Anyway, if you've gotten this far, I'd like to hear people's thoughts and opinions. Do you think Trump will be able to accomplish this goal? To what extent? How many people will he deport? How will he achieve this? And, do you think it's a good idea?

Dark money is a direct threat to our democracy, allowing hidden donors to influence elections and policies without accountability. If we want a government that works for the people, not wealthy interests, we need serious reforms. Here are some measures we should consider:

1. Mandate Full Disclosure: Pass legislation requiring all political donations and expenditures to be disclosed, regardless of the source. Transparency lets voters know who is funding campaigns and influencing decisions.
2. End Super PAC Loopholes: Close loopholes that allow Super PACs and nonprofit organizations to hide their donors while spending unlimited amounts on elections.
3. Cap Campaign Contributions: Set strict limits on individual and organizational contributions to prevent excessive influence from a few wealthy donors.
4. Strengthen the FEC: Give the Federal Election Commission more power and resources to enforce campaign finance laws more effectively.

What do you have to say about this?

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.