In this era of global abundance, the existence of famine is a paradox that challenges our collective conscience. Historical events like "The Great Hunger" in Ireland, along with numerous famines in recent history, compel us to question the nature of famine. While natural disasters can trigger food shortages, the most devastating famines are often deeply intertwined with human actions—be they through war, economic policies, or political decisions that disregard the basic right to food.

The stark reality is that famine, in many cases, is not merely a tragedy but a tool of oppression, potentially qualifying as a crime against humanity. This brings us to the urgent need for the global community to adopt a clear stance, recognizing the criminality of famine when it results from intentional acts or gross negligence by those in power.

Criteria for Identifying Criminal Famine: Should there be internationally agreed-upon criteria to differentiate between 'natural' and 'man-made' famines? What role should intent and preventability play in defining a famine as a criminal act?

Mechanisms for Accountability: How can international bodies effectively investigate and hold perpetrators accountable for famine as a crime against humanity? What improvements are needed in international legal frameworks to address the challenges in prosecuting famine-related crimes?

Prevention and Aid: In what ways can international cooperation be enhanced to prevent future famines? How can we ensure that aid reaches those in need promptly and effectively, without being hindered by political barriers?

How can we foster a global culture that sees the prevention of famine not just as a moral duty but as a legal obligation?

I think I've read and heard a lot of reporting that Black voters are particularly pro Palestine and are unhappy with Biden due to his stance.

As an example, here's a quote from an article which I've recently read on the subject

Mr. Biden’s stance has angered crucial constituencies in Mr. Biden’s base, including young people, Black voters and progressives.

How much truth is there in this statement? My prior assumptions is usually that most Americans do not really care much about foreign policy unless they feel like it directly affects them (so in this scenario, my assumption was that the Gaza war would only really affect voting behaviors amongst Arab and Jewish Americans)

However, lots of media outlets seem to be contradicting this by suggesting that Black voters in particular are outraged by Biden's position on the I/P issue.

I was wondering if anyone familiar with the community or access to relevant polling data could pipe up? Do Black voters really overwhelmingly approve of Biden on this issue? And if they do, how important is this to them?

This isn't something I'm actually advocating for, just thought it's interesting.

The Constitution states that "all other persons" (other than free persons and 'non tax paying indians')should count as 3/5ths of a person when assigning seats. There's probably a strong argument by the letter of the Constitution that states like CA and TX should get 2-3 more reps if you really want to follow the constitution.

Edit: didn't realize they apparently do get counted, or at least factor into the estimation of the census

Or that section 2 of the 14th amendment actually got rid of the 3/5ths rule. (Even tho it wouldn't matter in retrospect as undocumented people are technically "free people" and the constitution doesn't make any distinction on citizenship regarding house seat assignment)

Everyone I see online seems to have settled in pretty clearly on either Trump or Biden (or more accurately Red/Blue). Does this really change this much offline, to the point that tens of millions of doller need to be spent on ad campaigns? Aren’t most people already locked in anyways?

Will the party engage in a post-election autopsy like the GOP did after Obama's 2nd term win in 2012? Will it move to the right on key issues? Or will it stick to its guns? What will be the consequences at the state level? Will it depend on the outcome of the popular vote?

It's January 6th, 2025 and Joe Biden has been certified as President once more.

What happens within the GOP? What happens to Trump? What happens to the RNC? Is there mass recrimination and the end of an era, or is it January 2021 all over again?

Without regard to its utility in recent times, this one is only the creation of the electoral college.

I am also going to include the 12th amendment reforms given they were done soon enough to be done by essentially the same people who did the electoral college to begin with.

The only weird thing to me is actually that they didn't involve some sort of random draw at some point which is the way the Venetian Republic, famous for its stability as expressed by its long form, name, the Most Serene Republic of Venice, chose their doges after they gained independence from the Roman Empire in the 8th Century CE and the influence of the governor of the Exarchate of Ravenna.

The Great Council of Venice, itself chosen by election from the merchants and other important people, they randomly drew 30 of their members, then 9 of them were randomly drawn and at least seven of them voted for 40 electors, who were randomly reduced to 12, of whom nine had to agree on 25 electors, who were reduced by lot to 9, of whom seven had to agree on 45 electors, who were randomly reduced to 11 of whom nine had to agree on 41 electors, a majority of whom finally chose the doge.

Hereditary monarchy wasn't the interest of the people in 1787 deciding on a government, so, how else can you choose a head of state with precedents of some kind? Direct election brings up questions of logistics, how you conduct a campaign, who has the right to vote in states as different from each other as members of the European Union with heterogenous voting laws, what happens if nobody has a majority, all kinds of issues. The state legislatures would probably choose someone who would let them do whatever they want and not enforce federal law, same with the governors of the states if they chose much like the electors of the Holy Roman Empire which was still around in 1787. The Congress or either house of it would probably want someone compliant who agrees with them and won't restrain the legislature even if they should, and anyone who had ever studied British or French history as the US constitution authors did would know what happens when regents get power over weak heads of state, ala Henry VI in England.

At least having electors would permit you to mathematically determine how much influence each state has in advance, using the census population even if adjusted for slave populations, while letting each state determine how their own electors are chosen so as to not need to harmonize suffrage laws. The electors aren't an oligarchy nor are on the payroll of any federal officer, and they don't meet together which has the risk of foreign corruption or a coup d'etat where the military just gathers the electors together to make them vote for the same person, they all meet in the state capitols where it would be really hard to carry out a coordinated coup at the same time. And if nobody has a majority as happened in 1800, then the Congress resolves the deadlock, the House resolving a presidential deadlock and the Senate resolving a vice presidential deadlock.

If you don't know how direct elections at national scales work, as they did in the 1900s and on, it would be pretty hard to devise a presidential republic in a better way in my opinion, the only major things I would have probably done at the time is to require those eligible to vote for the state legislature be eligible to vote for the electors which is the same rule for suffrage for the House of Representatives, to split up the electors somehow proportionally to the share of votes, to make the runoff in the Congress in case of no majority be simplified to one representative one vote from the top two candidates, to hold a special election to fill the remainder of the term with the convening of new electors in the event the president dies or resigns or is removed within the first three years of their term, and to make the Congressional runoff happen when the new congress gets seated, as opposed to what happened in 1800, 1825, and 1837. If I could advocate for a different fractional value for the slaves then get it as close to 0/5ths as I could bargain it for.

​

The General Election race between POTUS Joe Biden's and POTUS Donald Trump presently seems a 'toss-up' to very slightly leans POTUS Trump (https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls/president/general-election ). And there might be a considerable number of Governor Nikki Haley supporters inclined to not want to vote for POTUS Donald Trump.

"Starve the beast" is a strategy commonly attributed to the Republican Party in the United States, aiming to reduce government spending by cutting taxes, thereby decreasing government revenue. Theoretically, this reduction in income would force the government to curtail its spending, leading to a smaller and more efficient government. However, has this strategy ever been effective in achieving its stated goals?

Critics argue that, rather than reducing government spending, "Starve the beast" has consistently led to increased budget deficits and national debt. This is because cutting taxes without corresponding spending reductions does not actually decrease the government's financial obligations. Instead, it reduces the revenue available to meet those obligations, leading to borrowing and an accumulation of debt. Furthermore, the strategy can have adverse effects on essential public services and social programs, as reduced revenue can force cuts in areas like healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

Are there any examples where cutting taxes could be argued to have improved government efficiency? Are there instances in history where this strategy has worked as intended?

What might be the broader implications of the "Starve the beast" strategy on political discourse and governance? Does it have an impact on partisanship and public trust in government institutions?

Has the "Starve the beast" strategy ever been employed by the Democratic Party? For example, the Clinton administration's efforts to balance the budget in the 90s included spending cuts, but also involved tax increases. How does this compare to the typical "Starve the beast" approach?

How have fiscal conservatives responded to data from organizations like the Congressional Budget Office and the Economic Policy Institute, which suggest that the "Starve the beast" strategy has not achieved its stated goal of reducing government spending?

What lessons can be learned from the experiences with the "Starve the beast" strategy, and are there alternative strategies that could be more effective in achieving fiscal responsibility and sustainable government spending?

Additionally, how do concerns about the national debt factor into discussions about the "Starve the beast" strategy? Considering that the national debt is often held by domestic and international investors, including companies and other governments, how does this complexity impact our understanding of government finances and the implications of tax cuts?

Trump’s social media stock lost more than a quarter of its value today. X is worth about a third what Twitter used to be. Why? Don’t conservatives use social media?

I remember the fate of Air America, liberals’ answer to Rush Limbaugh. It was a dismal failure and disappeared within seven years of its founding. Liberals, it turns out, just don’t listen to that much talk radio, and when they do they prefer NPR to outright propaganda. Granted, NPR is becoming more like Air America each day, but they don’t have to sell ads to survive. X and Truth Social are most certainly for-profit enterprises. They will eventually need to show a profit or go the way of Air America.

Perhaps conservatives are just more likely to listen to AM radio and liberals are more likely to be on social media. Who listens to AM talk radio? Traveling salesmen, construction workers, and truck drivers are big consumers. None of these groups are known for their liberal sensibilities. Meanwhile who is on social media? Kids and young adults more than anyone, and they tend to be liberal.

Does this explain the fate of liberal talk radio and conservative social media? Or is there more to the story?

The Florida Supreme Court ruled that Florida's six week abortion ban can go into affection in 30 days, but allowed voters to decide if abortion rights will be enshrined in the state constitution if it passes with at least 60% in November.

Since abortion is a winning issue for Democrats and other abortion measures that have been on the ballot in other states have passed, can this help Biden turn Florida blue in November?

This is a proposal to divide all goods for personal use into three categories: necessities, luxury, and extravagant luxuries, with luxury referring to items that middle class people may occasionally buy from time to time, and the last category referring to things that ordinary people simply cannot afford at all.

For example, food, a small house (relative to the number of occupants), ordinary (non-designer) clothing, an ordinary car, etc. would be considered necessities. An ordinary person may choose to live their whole life consuming “necessities” (by this broader definition) without problems but the life might be not very fun. Necessities are totally exempt from consumption tax under this proposal.

A high end car, multiple personal vehicles (per person), international travel for leisure, a designer handbag, etc., are considered luxury, and will be taxed at 33% to 300%, under this proposal.

Private jet, yacht, etc., will be taxed at more than 300% (and the rate would keep going up with no limit) under this proposal, with global enforcement (just like the global taxation of income tax for US citizens). The IRS (or a different agency) may have a dedicated team looking at what new things are “trending” among billionaires, and add such items to the list. My questions about this proposal are:

1. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. Would this new tax collect significant amount of money?
3. Would this new tax fix (or mitigate) the most extravagant display of extreme wealth and wealth inequality in US?

(If your answer to #2 is yes, this new tax may be partially used to offset a small tax cut somewhere else)

I’ve been thinking a great deal about the situation in Myanmar recently and it all just seems utterly hopeless. There seems to be no thrust for democracy that liberal states can rally behind, all movements opposing the Junta government are fragmented and offer no permanent alternatives to the military dictatorship. Even if one were to somehow displace the junta (which is very unlikely because of the funding and weapons that the military is getting from Russia and China), it would just trigger other minority groups’ grievances, as many of the factions are based upon ethnicity. So, what’s the solution? Is Myanmar a failed state if everything keeps heading in the direction it’s going? Is there any room for America and it’s allies to get involved?

By this i mean should they get any special representation, voices, higher autonomy, their our autonomous counties or states etc.

An example of an autonomous county can be like a native land that isn’t within any other county but is within a state. it has its own charter/constitution and leadership and can create laws and ordinances.

special representation may be reserved seats in legislatures or resident commisioner positions in state legislatures.

thoughts? ideas? i’ll leave some of mine in the comments.

Since the attack on Israel on Oct 7th of last year by Hamas and the forceful response to that terrorism by Israel, many on the Left have protested Biden and those Democrats who support Israel as unacceptable to the point where some say they won't vote for Biden in November. Similarly, in 2016, a group of conservative Republicans didn't like Trump because he didn't uphold conservative values or principles and vowed not to vote for him then and for many, ever again. They became Never-Trumpers. Some even decided to support Biden and left the GOP.

Do you see a similar phenomenon happening to those who decry Biden's support for Israel and pledge not to vote for him for president? Will they become essentially Never-Biden liberals, where a noticeable few defect and even support Trump over Biden, just as some Never-Trumpers did? How would this development upend the presidential contest? What kind of visibility would these defections receive in the media?

Thought about this while reading The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and a World on Fire, an excellent book if you're interested in monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve Chair is considered by many to be the second most powerful person in the USA. With just a few words to a camera, he/she can create or destroy billions of dollars in value. They can crash the economy and cause millions to lose their jobs, or save the economy in times of extreme crises. Yet this powerful position only requires a Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. I cannot think of any other equally powerful position in the Government that is not democratically elected.

On one hand, a democratically elected Chair ensures that control of monetary policy is in the will of the people, and not in the hands of elite Wall Street bankers or out-of-touch economic professors. On the other hand, many would argue that heading monetary policy, especially for the richest country in the world, is enormously complex and requires detachment from the realm of politics, and hence should be left to the best people for the job, not with the people best at campaigning.

What are your thoughts? Should the Federal Reserve Chair be an elected position?

We are trying out a new system to accommodate academic researchers who wish to engage with this sub's users. If you are a researcher, please send us a mod mail explaining who you are, what you study, and how you wish to engage with the sub. If vetted, you will be invited to supply a short message soliciting user engagement that will be added to this post. This post will be reset and reposted monthly (or as needed, if there are no research requests).

u/pelizred: Hello everyone, I am a grad student conducting research as part of my doctoral thesis on consumption habits in consumer goods. I would like to interview politically-minded individuals regarding brand boycotts. I am particularly interested to talk to anyone that has participated in boycotts or hashtag protests because of a specific brands actions, for example beer drinkers and Bud Light last year. If interested, feel free to message me directly. Should you choose to participate, any information you provide will be anonymized. Thank you!

Not the reforms needed to make this be politically viable but the actual judicial processes themselves.

The main thing to me would be that defense counsel should be much more funded and staffed, making most elements of fines and financial contributions that might be imposed or necessary for bail scale more to the disposable income of people (Finland has an interesting fine system that does exactly that), and making drugs decriminalized just as the Czech Republic has done where and many of them legal (a maximum of 640 USD, from 15,000 Czech Koruna, for most quantities of a typical user such as 15 grams, or about half of an avoirdupois ounce).

There is a famous phrase saying that the law, such as its majestic egalitarianism, forbids to the poor and rich alike that you may not sleep on a bench. Modern concepts of the rule of law require that the law is the same for all be it to punish or reward, as the French Declaration of Man and Citizen mandates. A justice system won't be seen as a just system or part of the proper role of society if it blatantly contravenes these principles.

We all know who our nominees are going to be for the 2024 election which is Trump and Biden. Both are very unpopular and have a lot of baggage attached to them. Trump has a lot of legal troubles attached to him and Biden has concerns with his age and low approval ratings. Most people are not happy with the options they are presented and some think that both candidates are horrible or not too crazy about the upcoming rematch. Let's set that aside and if in an alternate reality that we could pick someone to go up against Trump and go up against Biden. Who do you think would a good Democrat to go up against Trump and a good Republican to go up against Biden? One I have in mind would be Romney vs Biden. Romney isn't as outspoken as Trump. He is a moderate Republican and I think he could pick up a good run against Biden. Whitmer vs Trump could be a good one because Whitmer is young and is a rising star in the Democratic Party. I think she could have a good shot at taking on Trump. Please let me know your thoughts below on which matchup against Biden and which matchup against Trump would be good ones.

It would work like this, Instead of picking just one candidate, voters rank their choices in order of preference. Your vote counts for your top choice and, if needed, your second and third choices too.
It would have multiple stages, Candidates with the fewest votes are eliminated in each round, and their supporters' votes are redistributed to their next preferred candidate. This process continues until one candidate has a majority.
The process of eliminating candidates and redistributing votes continues until one candidate secures a majority of the votes. This majority is typically defined as more than 50% of the total votes cast. Once a candidate achieves this majority, they are declared the winner of the election.
Its a pretty straight forward system, it also has been proven to work. Its used in Ireland, UK, Australia even some states like San Francisco, Oakland and parts of California.
What do you think?

A few months ago, the NYT and Siena college did a poll that showed support among for democrats non-whites has dropped drastically. Many were pulling the fire alarm at the time and claiming this would be a significant realignment of voters, similar to what was scene in 2016 with non-educated whites. It has been polled that more younger minority voters are leaning into the Conservative Party, a trend that is opposite to white voters. The current Democratic Party is shown to be a coalition party in which they wins by turning out women, educated and minority groups. If they lose their support among minorities then there are fears that democrats will no longer be strong enough as a party to compete on the national stage. This begs the question on what democrats should do if this realignment of minority voters is true and significant. How can democrats keep the minority voters supporting democrats? Is there another demographic group that democrats should pursue? Should democrats make a stronger effort to appeal more to non-educated whites? Should the Democratic Party become more socially conservative to appeal to both minority and uneducated whites?

Members of the US House of Representatives run for election every 2 years, which to my knowledge is one of the shortest term lengths for a legislative representative in the Western world.

This presents a number of disadvantages, such as requiring very frequent needs to campaign among congressmen. Assuming a candidate will start a campaign around 3 months before the election this could mean only 21 months between campaigns, reducing the time they are around doing legislative work. It also gives US representatives less time gaining experience and forming relationships within government.

It does have advantages, as I believe the frequency of elections allows for clearer mandates and the ability of a population to sooner remove a government they are unsatisfied with.

Would the US House of Representatives be better having elections once every four years, like many of its contemporaries?

How would this impact businesses? Would being forced to show pay disparity help to lessen the wage gap? Would this be a net negative or positive outcome for the average person? I'd love to hear some opinions on this thought experiment.

Biden's war chest has been bigger than Trump's for a while, but this seems to be accelerating.

War chest: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/BIDEN-FUNDRAISING/mopalzmkdva/graphic.jpg

News on $25m donations tonight - https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/28/election-2024-campaign-updates/

Over the last 3-4 years, France has seen a number of its client states in Sub Saharan African change governments via coup ("The Coup Belt"), with Russia being both an agent of change, and the remaining global power in those states.

At the same time, France is pushing for an expansion of the Ukraine conflict, and talking of putting troops on the ground.

Are France's views towards the war in Ukraine best seen in the context of their neo-imperial losses to Russia in the Sahel?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/05/niger-crisis-france-empire-africa-coup-colony

​

I understand why IVF has essentially illegal in alabama but do some Republicans actually support this or was it a 100% unintentional consequence?

I understand that IVF might sound like the opposite of laws designed to protect against abortions but the way IVF works requires fertilizing several embryos and not all will get used. I understand that the discarding of these embryos is the problem with the law. I am not here to argue politics. I have an opinion but it doesn't matter. I just wanted to know if Republicans are actually supporting the shutdown of IVF because of their handling of embryos. Even if they didn't know that would result did they still support the shutdown? Or do most Republicans want special exception for IVF or a reshaping of the practice at the very least that wouldn't result in discarding embryos (not that i would know if it's possible)?

Once again i do not need or want opinions on the issue. Im not trying to change one's mind and i know how i feel about it. I was just wondering if any meaningful percentage of Republicans supported IVF shutting down.

I know this is something that should be written in like a research paper or something, but I’m curious. I’m writing this based on my understanding of the political status of the Navajo Nation and the problems they face with their current status compared to the NMI and their status as a territory. To those of you who have an understanding of the subject, what do you think? What are the pros and cons? If this gets enough engagement I’ll probably do an expanded/ in-depth post with a lot more detail.

I am not in support of military dictatorship.

However, after watching the recent spate of military coups across the world, it makes me wonder, how did most of the world avoid falling into this trap?:

• My takeaway from CGPGrey's video Rules for Rulers is that if you keep the your keys to power happy, they will not overthrow you.
  • One of the keys to power is the military, who you can placate (e.g. shower them with money, give them control of industries) so they will not overthrow you.
  • But in that case, why aren't there more military dictatorships since a military that has been granted substantial state funds and control of industries could easily become too powerful, and thereby backstab their benefactor and be hard to dislodge afterwards?
  • Likewise, a military that is kept overly powerful, or has seized power for itself, can be used to crush the other keys to power, leaving only one key to power (the military) that needs to be kept happy.
• Militaries tend to have access to military equipment and trained soldiers that they can use to preserve their rule indefinitely. Not every country has factors that allow anti-military insurgencies to form (e.g. an armed populace or porous borders).
• Other systems of government, whether democracy, absolute monarchy, communism or oligarchy; treat the military as a branch of the state and therefore try to keep it under control. Whereas under a military dictatorship, the state and the military become one, thereby allowing the military to create a system where the state would collapse without them in charge.
• Military dictatorships can entrench themselves against foreign overthrow efforts by siphoning as much state funds as they like into military expenditure and spy agencies.

The last two administrations, Trump and Biden, have both ran huge deficits. This has not always been the case. During Bill Clinton's presidency the US government ran fiscal surpluses. Now you can argue that Covid spending was necessary and that is true. However, the need for Covid stimulus is gone. During Trump, there was also no crisis to warrant the spending. Why?

What do you think will happen to Iran in the future? Will it stay a sovereign country like it is right now? Will anyone invade Iran? Will the people revolt together or will it balkanize? Let me know your thoughts and please keep it civil my intentions aren‘t to anger anyone 🙂👍🏽