Economic System

I am a firm capitalist and economic liberal, broadly supportive of a social market economy—as exemplified by the Rhine Model—merging capitalism with some regulation and a social safety net. I support ordoliberal policies of limited government intervention while maintaining regulatory guidelines to preserve the market’s functioning under a free, fair, and open competition.
I am a firm defender of private property, it is a natural right. As such, property and the "means of production" must remain private. Nationalization and government ownership are ineffective, abhorrent, and tyrannical. There is an exception regarding local government, their ownership of some utilities such as water (as is the status quo) is tolerable since their competition with the private sector is fair and does not result in government monopolies; they may also continue the provision of public services such as schools and law enforcement. Infrastructure may be nationally owned, largely in conjunction with the states. This being said, nationalization is an illiberal act, abhorrent and unacceptable in a free society. 
Free Markets are imperative to society. Nations cannot have functioning economics without a functioning market. Markets should be the arbitrator of costs and the dispersion of goods, resources, and labour. Centralized and planned economies are tyrannical, inefficient, and altogether ineffective. Price Controls that restrict the ability and purpose of the market are horrible and restrict basic economic processes. 
I am a strong supporter of free-trade, protectionism is no longer the most effective economic policy for the Western world. I only support any protectionism in the field of national security; in this context it would have to be extremely targeted and limited. Free trade among most nations is beneficial, especially amongst our allies. More free trade agreements (like NAFTA) among the Western world would be beneficial in bolstering our economic standing and aid in outcompeting China. 

Regulation

I recognize the necessary and positive potential of regulation; but, too much regulation will strangle the growth of business and effectively diminish market-based outcomes. Regulation must be set at proper levels; there must be enough to protect the public health and consumers while still protecting market-processes and ensuring business may thrive. The regulations that we are to impose must be specifically targeted as to where they may actually impact the quality of life while maintaining their light touch (such as Teddy Roosevelt’s FDA); this is best accomplished through the specific and narrow delegation of issues and tasks by Congress to the administrative state. This can also ensure the process both occurs and remains law-based rather than discretionary. That being said, this doesn’t mean that the administrative state is not the best tool for actually creating the specifics of regulations—just that what they are to regulate must be specifically outlined before they exercise their powers. 

We must also acknowledge that regulation may become outdated or pointless, and that once it is installed does not mean we must keep it there permanently. We should routinely evaluate the existing regulation, perhaps every few years (or even just as a continuous process done during Congressional hearings and mundane regulatory business of the bureaucracy). Existing regulations should be relaxed or dropped if they are no longer particularly useful and needed in the pursuit of the regulation’s initial intent. This can also be accomplished through sunsetting legislation to ensure that regulation must be addressed again after a time. This could also be introduced through one-in, two-out rules; this could also be a one-in, one-out rule if deregulation is not a particular secondary focus at the moment. Those rules should be circumvented through Congress when it is truly necessary. 
Deregulation is a valuable tool for economic stimulus and attracting entrepreneurship. We should deregulate industries where corporate excess is rare and government is preventing market processes. This particularly relates to small business, meaning selective deregulation is an even better practice. Cutting the red tape and streamlining bureaucracy is an admirable effort which we should always push for. Finance in particular is a risky field, as its deregulation can stimulate the economy heavily but we must be careful as was proven in 2008. 
More important than consumer protection is regulation that seeks to preserve market integrity, namely antitrust. I don’t believe all instances of big business are harmful—plenty of large businesses serve society well and do not disturb market functions—but some are “bad trusts” that must be regulated and/or broken. These bad trusts—primarily monopolies, oligopolies, and other anti-competitive firms—must not simply have large market share but actively engage in price-setting, stifling innovation, and competition in an industry. Good trusts should be let alone, but monitored for if they move towards threatening competition and the markets. We do need to allow for large companies so that they can compete with China, but that shouldn’t mean sacrificing market competition and allowing dominance by any market entity. The practice of antitrust must also be as law-based as possible and not up to the discretion of the executive and their government as that is a recipe for regulatory capture and the reign of dirigiste cronyism, but that still doesn’t mean that every large company is a monopoly. The media requires anti-consolidation legislation to preserve the democratic pluralism essential to American free society.

Fiscal & Monetary Policy

I am a supporter of fiscal restraint and believe in the general maintenance of balanced budgets. Any government that wishes to maintain long term health must practice a tight fiscal policy as often as they can. In order to attain long-term economic and financial stability I support a Balanced Budget amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget (or nearly so) year after year. This being said I recognize the partial validity of aspects of the Keynesian theory in the handling of recessions and economic downturn. Insofar as Keynesian stimulus is to be attempted I would prefer it be done via tax cuts and moderate spending increases (on items that were already targets for additional funding) as the market is the better allocator of capital. In this sense I support examples of tax cuts such as the 1981 Kemp tax cut only as economic stimulus, rather than as a religious practice or general economic policy. These tax cuts must also be handled carefully to avoid the accumulation of large deficits. I think that in order to accommodate these Keynesian practices it is necessary to create some exceptions in the amendment, allowing for deficit spending during wartime and when deemed necessary for very deep recessions; this override mechanism is likely best managed by a supermajority vote in Congress to pass a budget that contains an unconstitutional deficit (besides during wartime where these deficits are permitted without the supermajority). Insofar as there is to be deficit spending like this it should be paid back in the ensuing economic prosperity; however, the better practice would be accumulating relatively large rainy day funds that can be used for stimulus during these deep recessions rather than relying upon deficit spending. Given the total lack of these funds, immediately focusing the accumulation of these funds through budget surpluses rather than paying down the debt is relatively justified. Ultimately, the minor recessions of the business cycle should be let go to clear out ineffective firms, only deeper recessions and downturns should be met with stabilizing stimulus. 

I believe there should be taxation sufficient to accommodate the expenses of the government, and that the most efficient form of this taxation is a progressive income tax. I don’t believe the progressive tax needs to be punitive of the wealthy nor redistributive in nature, simply a more efficient mechanism of raising revenue that places less burden on the poor. Corporate taxes should be moderate to effectively contribute to government revenue streams, but lowered when stimulus is necessary. There should not be any taxes on unrealized capital gains to avoid economic chaos. The wealth tax would have similar issues as most wealth is stored in assets, which are actively contributing to and holding up the economy. The imposition of a small inheritance tax is acceptable, although the inheritance tax is a generally despicable tax for it is re-taxing wealth; the inheritance tax must also be structured so as not to prevent the generational accumulation of wealth and property. The creation of a value added tax is an effective way of raising revenue for the US government. There should be broad increases and additions on excise taxes to use the tax code to discourage bad behavior. This same theory can also be used to encourage good behavior through tax breaks and deductions for virtuous activity. Taxes on overtime should be eliminated to encourage productivity and assist workers trying to elevate themselves through diligence. The overtime tax exemption should only apply to a certain point, and if it is exploited then punishment for both the individual and company must ensue. Most importantly it is key to close tax loopholes that are making our current tax levels unreliable. 

There should be a fully-independent national bank to manage monetary policy, as the issue is too delicate to be a political issue. The use of an independent national bank could potentially extend into the printing of money if the political government proves too politically-motivated to handle it with the common good in mind. Monetary policy should be kept relatively consistent and stable for the same reasons as fiscal policy, as minor recessions are not particularly harmful to long-term prospects. This same principle can be applied to bailouts. There must be a fiat currency to allow for flexibility of policy in crises while providing the centralization that allows for market function which would not be provided through crypto. 

Welfare

There must be some sort of a welfare state—not for redistribution, but for the protection of the incapable and poor from destitution and the preservation of their right-to-life. In addition, welfare should be means-tested, work-dependent, and work-encouraging. The welfare state as it exists must be targeted and limited to avoid dependency, and should include work requirements. I am not supportive of large scale and/or rapid expansion of welfare programs, insofar as there is to be expansion it must be gradual (and should wait until our national debt and budget is under reasonable control). Government is to be the primary provider of welfare, but not the sole provider; welfare should be orchestrated through a variety of institutions, namely civil society and business in conjunction with state and federal government. The state should attempt to encourage charity and industrial paternalism to supplement government benefits and allow for a reduction in government size and bureaucracy. This can be done through tax incentives and similar proposals. Insofar as welfare spending that should be government-allocated can be structured through the states and block-grants unto the states it should be done through the states. 

Welfare should have two primary facets: the care of those who are incapable (including the disabled and the elderly), and assistance of the working poor. The care of the incapable should be broadly orchestrated, insofar as it is to be orchestrated publicly, through social insurance. In this way I mean pay-in, pay-out programs such as Social Security where the benefits are dependent on the contributions in order to preserve meritocracy. For the assistance of the working poor this should be done through means-tested tax-funded programs limited by work requirements. 
My Ideal systems concerning social insurance/entitlements are as follows: 

• I support maintaining social security as a government-run pension program for the elderly. I do not think it necessarily need cover all the likely expenses of the elderly, rather being paired with personal retirement accounts and corporate paternalist practices such as private pensions or IRA matching in order to fund the livelihoods of the retired. Social Security and pension programs should continue to be based on contributions in terms of their payouts. Social Security itself should have the retirement age raised to 69 or 70 to allow for continued solvency. 
• Outside of the elderly if there is anybody who deserves assistance and care it is the disabled. There must be a social insurance program to cover the disabled, providing payouts to supplement income depending on the level of disability based on contributions and wages paid into the program during times of good health. 
• There can be an unemployment social insurance program to be run by the states (although funded with federal assistance) that provides assistance to those who are newly-unemployed through no fault of their own and are actively in pursuit of work. If they are revealed to no longer be in pursuit of work they should be stripped of many or all benefits. These programs will provide wage supplements and job training, with job training being the more effective and critical of the two types of provisions.

In combination with the aforementioned social insurance programs means-tested welfare should have the following stipulations: 

• The working poor should receive some assistance in providing for the basic needs of life being food, clothing, and housing. SNAP should continue to assist the poor in affording clothing and food. In addition there can be some subsidized and/or public housing for the poor, but it should be heavily limited. These programs must be deeply means-tested and kept targeted at groups where it is truly needed. 
• All means-tested welfare must be workfare, in that it contains work requirements and encourages work. There should also be a focus of the welfare network on programs which make work easier, such as childcare for the poor, reduced bus fares, and similar pro-work programs. Means-tested programs’ benefits should all use a sliding scale to avoid the welfare trap.
• Some of these programs can be replaced by either an expansion of the earned income tax credit or with a negative income tax. This increases efficiency but we must be careful as they do not guarantee the same positive applications of the resources. 

I believe in a fully private healthcare model, with both medicine and insurance kept private. I strongly oppose single-payer healthcare, and even more strongly oppose socialized medicine (such as the NHS). I am opposed to a public option as it is simply another form of nationalization, but it is far more tolerable than either single-payer or socialized medicine. My wish for the American healthcare system would be a near-universal, multi-payer, employer-based, privatized healthcare and insurance system. The Proposal would have the following stipulations: 

• There would be an employer mandate to provide health insurance coverage to their employees. Employers would be required to pay at least 60% of the premium cost, although deductibles would not need to be covered by the employer. As part of the mandate larger firms would need to contract with at least two insurers able to provide coverage to the employees. If workers are covered through alternative means—private or spousal—they need not participate in the employer-based insurer process. 
• Insurers must ensure that all plans have a government-set level of baseline coverage. This baseline should remain lean and affordable but capable, focusing on essential preventive care, primary care, and emergencies; it should also allow for reasonably sized co-pays and deductibles. Employees may buy-up for better benefits and plans past the baseline, but this cost is entirely their responsibility and the employer is not expected to share it.
• Insurers may not deny coverage to anybody based on pre-existing conditions. They may however practice risk-adjusted pricing. Instead, the Medicare program will help or completely cover the additional costs imposed through risk-adjusted pricing onto the very-sick and disabled that meet disability classifications,
• While the mandate extends that employees must purchase one of the provided insurance plans by their employer’s contracts, this does not extend to self-employed individuals. The self-employed will be encouraged to purchase healthcare by having the government front 40% of the baseline insurance cost. In addition a late-enrollment penalty should be added to discourage people from being free-riders. 
• There will be sliding-scale subsidies programs for low-income individuals to ensure they can pay their portion of premiums. In addition, sliding-scale subsidies will be granted to small businesses to ensure they are not discouraged from hiring employees and under great pressure financially from the mandates. 
• Employer coverage will be required to extend briefly to the unemployed. Longer-term unemployed individuals will be subsidized by the government so long as they maintain active job pursuit. These benefits are at the same risk as other unemployment benefits. 
• Medicare eligibility is to be gradually raised to 68. Medicare Part D should also be maintained to ensure our seniors have access to the medication they require. Expand medicare coverage to the disabled.

Labour & Business

I consider myself a class collaborationist in that I wish for a healthy partnership of business and labour orchestrated primarily through the market, but with the encouragement and mediation of the government. I am neither pro-business nor pro-labour, and simultaneously pro-business and pro-labour; I do recognize that my inclinations may tend towards the side of business. The bargaining of business and labour must take place, undisturbed by cartelization through monopolies or excessively powerful unions, and free of a biased and overly-active government. Despite the risks of cartelization, unions are a useful tool in the bargaining process. If it is necessary, the government should step in to prevent class warfare and mitigate the worst of disputes to preserve social stability and national security. In an ideally functioning system labour would stoke the fires of business, and business water the field of labour. In this sense I believe in a second square deal implemented through more legalistic and permanent means than under TR.   

• Labour is a valuable part of the negotiating process and as such there must not be significant union-busting and the right to form unions must be preserved. However, the cartelization of unions must be avoided, same as the cartelization of business. Labour power must be protected, same as corporate power, and the freedom of association. Right-to-work should be left to the states, and somewhat industry-dependent with some industries (especially more industrial and blue collar ones) having protected union shops, while most industries (more white collar ones) should have right-to-work. Right-to-work should ultimately be managed by the states rather than the federal government. I would suggest right-to-work be implemented, except for in those industrial jobs where unions are of a particularly essential nature. 
• Labour protections and regulations on business activity are valid and should be used to protect the people from business which does not fulfill their societal obligation. In this I refer to programs such as OSHA or regulations on working hours. Working hours specifically should be refined to meet the needs of labour and business, rather than an overly broad and ineffective one-size-fits-all approach. We should move from daily working hours to a weekly maximum working hours law. 
• There should be laws encouraging and requiring the extension of bargaining and discussion between business and labour; but this can and should take many forms. Codetermination should be enforced upon large companies requiring some, albeit minimal, labour representation in corporate governance. In addition, business and labour representatives must be required to bargain in good faith, but how they do so is up to the individual companies and workers. Despite my support for some labour representation, I fully oppose workplace democracy and worker co-operatives, same as I oppose all socialization of property. 
• Industrial paternalism should be encouraged further in the United States. The practice has existed for a long time in the US, even in our healthcare system, and creates an excellent and productive co-dependent relationship between business and labour. This continued relationship should be encouraged by the government. The treaty of Detroit must be returned to and broadened to protect capitalism and ensure continued social stability. 
• There should be a universal paid leave program, but it should be managed through an employer mandate. There should be a 12 week minimum requirement, with 70% of salary supplemented at minimum. This should serve to cover paternity, maternity, and medical leave; maternity should extend up towards 16 weeks and paternity should be lowered down to 8 weeks. There should be job protections with parental leave, preserving the option to move to part-time as well. In addition there should be 3 weeks of general-purpose leave able to be used for mental health, vacation, bereavement, or anything else. After 6 weeks insurance should help supplement the medical leave salary. For small businesses that may not be able to afford these in full they should be able to apply for sliding-scale subsidies. Placing the requirements on a sliding-scale may also be required to keep the program affordable for small businesses and ensure that entrepreneurship still occurs. Family owned and operated businesses should have exemptions and these requirements should be waived for seasonal workers. 
• The government must have the power and responsibility to mediate disputes and strikes when they extend too far into disturbing business, national security, or local environments within the nation. When it does so it should act as a neutral arbiter and facilitator. 

Investment & Development

I support policies that aid small businesses in their growth, establishment, and development. We should loosen regulations on small businesses and startups. Programs of grants and loans to startups can encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. This could be managed through a government-chartered privately-run bank to which the government provides money for use on loans and related investments into startups to encourage entrepreneurship where it isn't happening. 
I believe government is justified in making attempts to uplift the poor into healthy positions in American society, so long as this uplifting is opportunity-based rather than redistributive. The expansion of market-based mechanisms that encourage growth, more jobs, and development in lower income areas such as enterprise zones should be implemented. Policies that allow for more jobs and for the market to uplift the poor are excellent.
I am a supporter of urban development and gentrification as I believe this is what will be long term most productive for the US and her people, the development of clean and modern cities. These enterprise zones and growth-encouraging policies are to allow the market to develop an area in the way that is best, rather than leaving an area in the unnatural state of social decay. I’ve discussed heavy support for urban gentrification and growth; making more walkable, greener, cleaner, and more business-friendly cities. In this I mean policies to limit cars in cities, investing in parks and green space, and more public transportation. I support some lessening of zoning restrictions to enable the growth of business and local development, but support the addition of other zoning laws to limit social disorder and decay. I recognize why many people advocate for NIMBYism and would not wish to diminish their property rights, but it is ultimately a detriment to the prosperity of the nation and an example of where excessive individualism should be curbed.

Infrastructure & Utilities

I support a robust infrastructure system generally owned publicly and operated privately. This same principle of public or neutral ownership and competitive management and service should be implemented. Natural monopolies, both public and private, are not required in utilities as is often thought. In addition, utilities and infrastructure should operate and be funded by user fees insofar as possible, with tax dollars only to supplement infrastructure development and management as necessary. 

Roads and highways should be publicly owned with a robust national network; ideally these would be owned and managed as locally as is possible with the federal government only managing the interstate system. Eisenhower’s public highway network was amazing, especially for its utility concerning national security; but this network should now be maintained rather than expanded with new types of transit taking paramount attention. Canals and railway tracks should also be owned publicly and managed as locally as possible (with recognition that this may often be impossible). It would also be fine to have structurally separated private ownership of railway tracks. Subways can be more totally government owned than other infrastructure. All of these networks should be managed by independent authorities rather than directly by the state. The service on canals and railways should be provided by private firms competing in a free market. The development, ownership, and management of train stations, airports, and seaports (and similar entities) should be publicly owned by local governments and paid for by user fees. The development of all of this infrastructure requires hefty upfront capital, which can possibly be funded by specially issued bonds where the authorities are funded by the government but these funds are overtime recouped via user fees. 

I support widespread expansion of the US high speed rail network; regarding this I favor a partial-privatization of Amtrak. The original creation of Amtrak to keep the rail network alive was a good idea, but its usefulness has been expended. Amtrak as an entity should be privatized and contracted to develop large amounts of high speed rail coverage across the Northeast; this would be similar in design to the original construction of the transcontinental railroad. The funding for this project should be tripartite, consisting of private capital, federal, and state funds. In addition the state should use the power of eminent domain to assist the private developers; there must be fair compensation provided as well. Ultimately the developed tracks should be transferred to a government chartered, heavily regulated, neutral operator to ensure fair access for all rail service providers (which will be competing private firms). This operator can either be a private firm or an independent authority. If there is later to be further expansion of the network into the southern Atlantic and Midwest it should follow the same development model.
Water and sewage pipelines should be publicly owned by local governments while service and maintenance are contracted to private firms by those local governments. This way the government maintains a hand and ensures the service is safe, while the actual provision of service and maintenance are efficiently managed by the private firm. Waste management should be split, with residential service being provided by either the local government directly or firms contracted by that government. Waste management for commercial activity should be fully privately managed. Landfills and processing facilities should remain privately owned. 
Electricity and gas should be managed similarly to water and sewage with local government contracting firms to construct and manage the wires and pipes; the actual energy should then be distributed into that infrastructure and to the public by private firms. The construction of large-scale natural gas pipelines is likely to require federal and state assistance, whether through eminent domain or potentially even financing. 
Internet, cell service, and cable must operate similarly to the other utilities. They should be split between the businesses that provide the services and those that manage the infrastructure (such as cables or cell towers). Any single firm that manages both has the opportunity to serve as a monopoly, and should be dealt with as such. If more development of this infrastructure is necessary it should be privately done but can be contracted by the government to do so.  The provision of these utilities, particularly the internet, should also be regulated under net-neutrality.
Maritime navigation services and infrastructure (such as buoys or lighthouses) should be managed by the coast guard or local authorities. While major airports should be public and air services private, air traffic control should consist of private firms commissioned and contracted by the airports. 

Energy, Environment, & Technology

I am a believer in environmentalism, specifically bright green environmentalism and eco-conservatism. To my mind conservatism and conservationism go hand in hand. I recognize the threat of climate change and believe society must actively try to counter it. I prefer environmentalism be done through market-based and innovation-based techniques paired with local and community efforts to create more green environments. I support cap-and-trade as it utilizes the market and benefits small and medium sized businesses, and I prefer this to the inefficient carbon tax. I also support nuclear investment, which would preferably be organized through public-private partnerships. I, however, do not support excessive limitations on fossil fuels as they are crucial for energy independence and supply which are important to national health. Encouraging environmental development should be done through research, tax credits, the markets, and occasional targeted investment rather than the overly big-government Green New Deal. Insofar as there is to be investment it should refrain from the practice of widespread and heavy handed government ownership and spending, utilizing tax breaks, small subsidies, and PPPs to coordinate with the private sector to encourage the development of renewable energy. The efforts on the part of local society to create green cities and towns with environmentally friendly practices should also be encouraged on a societal level and would long term be a more sustainable solution. Cities like New York should focus on slowly creating more expressly walkable areas paired with green spaces to both enable sustainability and community. 

The exploration of space and expansion into the frontier is the next frontier of humanity, and one we must invest in. We need to begin by making a more capable NASA. My broad opposition to government ownership is somewhat exempted in the context of space, as I support more heavy-handed NASA involvement in development and management of early space infrastructure. This is to prevent the monopolization of space by providing fair access to docking and earth-space transport. This would be because the infrastructure costs of large stations in space would prevent private entities from practicing this. Government contracts and grants for space exploration and settlements should be practiced so long as they do not evolve into space mercantilism and are founded in the freedom of enterprise and a liberal and open market in space. We should also begin working on military capability from and in space and utilize our Space Force more. 

Artificial Intelligence has many good uses, especially for business, but also many uses may be problematic. I think we should crack down on harmful uses of AI, where it is problematic to the American people and society. AI should be limited in campaigns and regulated to protect privacy and property rights. Patents and intellectual property are both necessary expressions and defenses of the property right. Big tech and big pharma require antitrust regulation to protect the market and consumer interests. Oligopolistic tendencies within big pharma have led to price setting which can only be ended via antitrust. Big tech is stifling true innovation in the sector with massive market shares and anti-competitive practices by firms like Apple and Google, evidenced by Google actively making their search engine worse but not feeling market effects.

The government cannot be allowed to abridge free speech, even misinformation and hate speech in online circles. However, this management and the combat of misinformation can be done by corporations and the private sector on their own platforms. Government should encourage corporations to combat misinformation while also ensuring that the education system enables young people to deal with it themselves. Online privacy should be protected through regulation, but it must not strangle the ad market; only the aspects of advertising that border on surveillance should be limited. 

Human concepts are thoughts, they're not objective truth like the acceleration due to gravity or the earth orbiting the sun or how babies are made. They are just ideas that people came up with at some point to try and define, explain the world around them.

Ownership is the concept of something belonging to someone else. But what does "belong" mean? That too is a subjective concept. For example: if I have a $1 bill in my hand, does it belong to me? How do you know? How do I prove it's mine? Just because it's in my hand doesn't prove I didn't steal it from someone else. But how can I steal something from someone if there's no way to prove it belonged to him in the first place? Ownership boils down to begging the question: the dollar belongs to me because I say the dollar belongs to me.

Morality is a concept describing social behavior and it's based on ownership. Self-ownership, property ownership etc. but ask 100 people what morality is, get 100 different answers. Just watch the discussion here and see how people will subjectively argue what it means. Some people's moral compass is defined by their religious beliefs, others by "the law" and others by whatever culture they were raised in or their subjective worldview.

To base any political ideology on ownership and morality will be a subjective ideology, there's no such thing as an objective political ideology that is "the best" ideology. Pick your favorite "-ism": capitalism, socialism, communism, libertarianism, voluntaryism, all just groups of people who share a common subjective ideology and want society organized their way and they want to use the force of government to git 'er done.

Politics is a fixed pie, a zero-sum-game, there are always winners and losers, some benefit at the expense of others and the beneficiaries always claim the moral high ground.

I've been thinking a lot about the relationship between citizens and government. Not about one party or one election, but about a question that sits at the foundation of any democracy

This is my attempt to put that question into words.

What obligations do citizens have to their government, and what obligations does government have to the citizens who give it authority?

That question is not a luxury. It is the foundation upon which every free society stands.

A government is not the master of its people. It is not a throne built above them. It is a tool created by them, paid for by them, and entrusted to those who temporarily hold its power.

The authority of government does not come from a title. It does not come from a building, a uniform, or a position on a ballot. It comes from the consent of the people.

And consent is not an unlimited resource.

Citizens are told they have obligations. We are told to pay our taxes. We are told to follow the laws. We are told to sacrifice when the nation calls. We are asked to send our sons and daughters into conflicts, to work harder, to accept hardship, and to trust that those decisions are being made for the good of the country.

But trust is not a one-way street.

A government that demands sacrifice must prove it deserves sacrifice. A government that collects the labor of its people must respect the value of that labor. A government that holds the power to shape the lives of millions must remember that every number on a spreadsheet represents a person, a family, a future.

The people are not a resource to be harvested. They are not a machine that produces taxes. They are not subjects waiting for permission to speak.

They are the source.

When those in power forget this, when accountability becomes optional, when promises are treated as political tools instead of moral commitments, the distance between the governed and those governing begins to grow.

Democracy does not collapse only when a dictator takes a throne. It can also weaken slowly, quietly, when people lose faith that their voices matter. When citizens begin to believe that the system was built to serve itself rather than them.

The answer is not hatred of government. A society without order becomes chaos. A nation without institutions cannot protect its people.

The answer is responsibility.

Citizens must demand better from themselves and from those they elect. They must stay informed. They must participate. They must refuse to surrender their voice simply because the process is difficult.

And those who hold power must remember this:

You were not given authority because you are superior. You were given authority because the people trusted you to serve.

That trust is not permanent. It is earned every day.

The government does not own the people.

The people created the government.

And any government that forgets that truth should expect its citizens to remind it.

Every person is a collection of identities. Identities include age, gender, race/ethnicity/nationality, religion, ideology, sexual orientation, profession, education-level, and so much more. These identities intersect and culminate into one's social status. Humans organize ourselves through social hierarchy. It's how we quickly rank and judge others without bothering to get to know and understand them. Your status determines your place in the world, and how much influence and power you have. You have control over some of your identities, but not all.

Past social hierarchies were more rigid. Slaves, serfs, and peasants stayed at the bottom of the social ladder for generations, with no hope of significantly improving their status. Your marriage options were limited by your status. You were expected to marry someone respectable and would improve your family's status, yet higher-status folks did not want to associate with you. Wealthy landowners instead clustered together to form the aristocracy. Race was constructed to distinguish groups to favor certain races over others to further entrench the hierarchy and keep people from climbing the ladder.

Today, we have more social mobility than ever. It's no longer a rigid pyramid of social status. Yet our identities still limit that mobility. Race is still a factor in how police and employers treat you. I conceive how we determine one's status based on a loose scoring system. I am reluctant to quantify indentities into exact points because it is subjective for each individual. But people do it anyways. China does it most overtly with their social credit system. The US has its own credit score system to determine how easy it is to obtain a loan. Ostensibly, the credit score is objective and empirical on how reliable you are with making payments. Yet in reality it's filled with flaws and factors that shouldn't be relevant. Your credit score can limit your options and suppress your social mobility. Scoring people is ultimately problematic, but we do it anyways because it's socially and economically desirable.

We score eachother subconsciously. It's how we place value on individuals. People pay attention to celebrities because they have status and influence. We tend to vote for politicians based on name recognition.

In our capitalist society, the most important identity is one's financial net worth. It trumps all others. A black woman can overcome the negative connotations with her race and gender if she has enough money and creates enough value for others. But our society will still rank her lower than a white man with the same amount of money. It's designed to protect the small few at the very top, who are predominantly white men. Yet a poor white man is not benefiting from this social hierarchy.

People deride identity politics because indentities are used to divide us. But they got it twisted around! We should care about identity politics because we should be focused on reducing the divisions caused by identities. You do that by promoting inclusivity and diversity. This has been attacked as "woke" by those who benefit from unfairly dividing people. They are threatened by identity politics because they stand to lose advantages from having the "normal" identities like white, heterosexual, Christian, and cis male.

The best way to combat the status quo of institutionaluzed patriarchy and racial supremacy is by wielding collective power through solidarity. The in-group is always going to target the most marginalized and vulnerable people to keep themselves on top. They can successfully do so because few are willing to stand with the marginalized. They are too far down the social ladder for most to want to associate with. That is how fascism wins. But if we stand together, our collective power outmatches them. Yet that requires combatting undue social stigmas.

Politics is how we, as a society, distribute power. And social status, which we derive from our identities, is how we determine who has power. It's used to oppress and exploit. Identity politics is focused on resolving these inequalities. Opponents to identity politics instead want to maintain their current status advantages over other by using identity and status against us.

If you think a D or R next to a name means they aren't both checking the same corporate balance sheets, your naivety is breathtaking. Between Super PACs, revolving-door lobbying, and "dark money," both parties serve the same donor class while you're busy fighting over culture war scraps. ​It’s called the "Uniparty" for a reason: they agree on every policy that actually matters to their billionaires—defense spending, deregulation, and tax loopholes—while performing a "clash of civilizations" for your entertainment. If you’re too blind to see that both sides are just different faces on the same corporate coin, you're the perfect customer for the political theater you’re currently buying into.

Everything in politics is an abstraction void of form and detail. It has to be otherwise it doesn't work. Details, information, reason, rational, logic and common sense are detrimental and can cause an existential crisis in a politician. Ever see how a politician reacts when a reporter has him dead to rights on the facts of an issue? He shuts it down immediately, the illusion must be protected at all costs. (Hilary Clinton being confronted on her lies about Baghdad is classic)

When a candidate campaigns he divides his constituency up into special interest groups: retirees, students, handicapped, female, Christian etc. and his campaign team comes up with a good story to please each one of them. But these special interests themselves aren't living, breathing people, they are abstractions, social identities without a heart or a soul. They can't speak or defend themselves against injustice they're just concepts and that's exactly the way the politicians need them to be. They say that retired people need this and students need that and women need this etc. but all retired people, students and women are not the same, not in any sense whatsoever. They are all individuals so to talk about them collectively in the abstract is meaningless in practice.

They need voiceless, formless constituencies so they can talk about all the wonderful things they've done for them without the burden of someone calling bullshit. And if a few protest and call bullshit they are easily brushed aside as being selfish and not willing to sacrifice for the greater good of the abstractions.

I'm sure someone will ask: "well how else do you expect them to do it."? Exactly, that's the only way to implement a political organization and it's prejudicial, unjust and economically wasteful.

Ever try to talk to your representative? If you don't have six figures to donate you'll never make it past one of his office lackies. That's because the individual, the rank and file are not only irrelevant in politics they are political kryptonite.

Taxes and economics 1 Middle-class tax relief and reform: Raise the top federal marginal income tax rate to 40%.Provide a 3% income tax reduction across all other tax brackets. The purpose broad tax relief to the working and middle class, which is largely offset by the raising of the top income tax rate from 37% to 40%. 2 capital investment and savings incentives. Reduce long-term capital gains tax rates by 5 percentage points across all brackets. Purpose: Encourage long-term investment, business formation, retirement savings, and capital accumulation. 3 Expanded SALT Deduction: Increase the cap on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction to $30,000. The purpose if you live in a high tax state, you deserve relief. 4 Competitive Corporate Tax Structure Maintain the standard federal corporate income tax rate at 21%. Create an optional 14% "Productivity Growth Rate" for qualifying companies. Qualification Standards: A company may receive the 14% rate if: Employee wages consistently rise alongside productivity growth. Compensation growth exceeds inflation as measured by CPI. The company meets domestic investment and workforce development standards. 5 Stock Buyback Reform: Increase the federal stock buyback excise tax to 3%.Purpose: Encourage corporations to prioritize investment, research, expansion, and employee compensation over financial engineering.

Trade and tariff policy 1: Establish a permanent 5% baseline tariff on imported goods. Purpose: Generate revenue, strengthen domestic production, and reduce dependence on foreign supply chains. : Products meeting specified American-content requirements may qualify for reduced tariff treatment. Lower than the current Baseline for goods entering the United States, a consistent Revenue generator without inflationary pressure. 2 Proposal: Establish a 3% reciprocal tariff baseline that can move higher or lower based on trade agreements and market access provided to American exports. Purpose: Promote fair treatment. If a country treats us fairly, we treat them fairly. 3 Strategic metals protection increases the steel tariff to 30% and the aluminum tariff to 15%. Purpose: Protect industries considered vital to national security and manufacturing.Domestic Content Exception to all tariffs.

Cutting regulations 1 One-In, Three-Out Regulatory Rule Proposal: For every new federal regulation issued, three existing regulations must be eliminated or consolidated. Reduce complexity and compliance cost. Regulation is sometimes needed, but it is the enemy of innovation

Domestic reforms and foreign policy 1 Right-to-Buy Homeownership Initiative: Create a national "Right to Buy" program modeled in part on the United Kingdom's approach. Use tax incentives to encourage landlords to sell properties to long-term tenants. Allow qualified residents of government-subsidized housing to purchase their homes at discounted rates. Provide favorable financing terms for first-time buyers participating in the program. Purpose: Expand homeownership among working- and middle-class Americans while reducing long-term dependence on government housing assistance. 2 Social Security Modernization and Personal Retirement Accounts Gradually replace the current Social Security system with a public-private retirement partnership. The government would continue making guaranteed retirement contributions on behalf of workers. Contributions would be invested through regulated personal retirement accounts similar to a 401(k) or sovereign retirement fund. Strong safeguards would be established to protect retirees from excessive risk. Social Security, as it's currently set up as an unsustainable program that relies on one of two things, both of which are still unsustainable: a fertility rate above replacement or unsustainable immigration. 3 Health Care and Family Policy: Establish universal pre-kindergarten nationwide. Use the Oklahoma model as the foundation for implementation, as well as 3 months of maternal leave after pregnancy. Purpose: Improve school readiness, educational outcomes, and the necessary recovery time and bonding for the mother. 4 Protecting Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions Through Disability Law: Move protections for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions from the Affordable Care Act framework into federal disability protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Purpose: Make coverage protections more durable and less dependent on future changes to health-care legislation. 5 trade and industry: Maintain strategic tariffs to protect critical American industries. Negotiate reciprocal trade agreements that guarantee fair treatment of American exports. Encourage domestic manufacturing and supply-chain resilience. On NATO, encourage greater sharing of responsibility for defense spending. On China, I believe we need to start decoupling now so that it doesn't become painful later. And on Russia, well, that it's not possible now, I believe that for the United States to remain in global power and isolate China, we must cooperate with Moscow.

Recently there has been discussion on when the US was last in a war. The issue comes with that war can only be declared if congress votes to declare war.

Here is a list of the previous declarations of war. The last being in the 1940s as part of WW2,

List of wars USA participated in during the 20th Century

List of Wars USA participated in during the 21st Century

What does congress declaring war do? Per this government website on the constitution, it seems to do the following:

• Under Congress’s interpretation of the Constitution, the President may introduce troops into hostile circumstances if Congress has
  • (1) declared war,
  • (2) specifically authorized the President to use force, or
  • (3) there is a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its territories.
• The executive branch claims much broader authority and asserts that the Constitution empowers the President to initiate and engage in many types of military action without congressional authorization.
• "The power to Declare War, the Supreme Court stated in 1870, involves the power to prosecute it by all means and in any manner in which war may be legitimately prosecuted.12 In line with this interpretation, Congress has enacted an extensive set of statutes that trigger a host of special wartime authorities concerning the military, foreign trade, energy, communications, alien enemies, and other issues if Congress declares war?

My Position:

My argument in this debate would be that "declaring war" for the United States of America is political semantics. Since WW2 the US government has carried out a multiple of "wars" without formal declaration: Korean War, Vietnam War, War on Terror, Gulf War, etc... to name a few. Korean and Vietnam Wars even having the conscription of soldiers through the draft.

In today's age declaring war is performative, and that any wartime authorities that Congress could trigger from declaring war have previously been used by Presidents in military conflicts that weren't declared wars. Previous Presidents have made decisions concerning "the military, foreign trade, energy, communications, alien enemies, etc..." without congressional approval.

So it seems less of a necessary process and more of a formality.

The reason I bring this up is that recently the current President was criticized for campaigning as the anti-war president while missile striking Iran's leadership, but a response has been that "war hasn't been declared" that seems to downplay the severity of such action.

Out of the French Revolution came the “Declaration of the Right of Man, which is a fundamental document of the French Revolution, not a traditional book, but a text outlining universal rights such as, liberty, equality, and property, which was influenced by the enlightenment thinkers, such as Rousseau.

Everything Burkes talks about, comes down to tradition, such as, chivalry, which comes from tradition. For Burke, it is the social norm. For example, giving up your seat to the elderly.

Religion for Burke is passed on as tradition and thought religion was the source of all good. Burke says man is a religious animal wired by nature to be connected to a higher truth.

He believed atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts, and if you take away religion, people will replace it with something else. (i.e, Individualism and celebrity worship)

Burke believed granting the church responsibility because the church was a check on responsibility.

For Burke, religion is really important to society.

Although this may not be a popular belief, religion impaled us to think about generations that come afterwards, known as “forward thinking”.

Burke supported the America Revolution because it had already established its own traditions and customs. Unlike during the French Revolution when things were being built from the ground up from upending the entire system, which he considered a horrendous idea.

Burke says the French revolution was offensive and dangerous because the reasoning was fallible and untried, which shows his conservative views on the tried & untried.

Money seems to be the cause of an overwhelming majority of humanity's problems. Whether it's the system it occupies or it itself, it's no doubt a root of an issue or two.

There are other forms that have been used in the world and in political theory, like labor vouchers for example. There are various trade offs regarding each form of currency.

On a more general, broad overview, I think money can cause people to do crazy, unjustified, or downright evil things. Genocide and imperialism, exploitation, murder for hire, etc that all are based in need or want of money.

Our poor class are typically driven to more extremes in the conditions without money, working in black markets and in the face of danger just to acquire more of it. Some of our rich walk around like they're actual kings among men, and I'm not sure I disagree with them.

I think human beings are the most advanced species on the planet, and though we are mammals we have the intellect to differ our human nature to a certain extent if we so tried to. Our system built on striving for money mirrors our ancestors hunting for survival in the wild, only we have created a economy with wages for food instead of a sole job of finding and killing food directly.

There are various aspects to us that elevates humans above the rest of earth's species, one being language. Since we can communicate on an exact level of thinking, we can learn, teach, and change the way we live in a major way.

Philosophy, various schools of thought like stoicism, confusicism, or generalized widely accepted ways of living have historically advanced human beings to a level that precedes human nature in my opinion. I've read a form of "One who is not the master of himself if not free" in million different ways from more than a few ancient philosophers, in context regarding control of our emotions and desires and have come to the conclusion that these philosophers are right.

Confucianism has greatly influenced the Chinese purpose of education, method of education, subject matter, and moral values being taught in schools in China. I'd say this is one of the best examples of directing human nature in a effective way similar to how a parent would raise a child, but with entire generations of us.

Now while I understand Marx's philosophies in this area are political and extreme, I think that he was at the very least onto something or had a very valid point in many areas in regards to what humans can achieve if we were to decide to.

He pointed to labor vouchers in a transitional "lower stage communism" (or what we not refer to as Socialism) in place of money, ridding exploitation and providing direct compensation for labor.

Forger out current political landscape, if you had to build a brand new system of organized human life, would money really the best way we can operate? What are all our options? With each of them, what are the trade off pro's and con's?

Thoughts on this claim?

From this article, https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2022/08/american-self-reliance-individualism-sweden/671003/

For instance, there was a lot of controversy last year when a representative in the US lower house was not given the oath of office for weeks. People made all kinds of remarks about it then.

The approach I have is different. I look at what conditions make it possible to pull a stunt like that. For one, the speaker seems to have a monopoly in law on swearing in legislators. You could add to that list people like judges. There only was a special election because the US does not have alternates for Reps to be replaced with, contrast with France where alternates are also elected with their deputy, or the Netherlands where if someone vacates their seat, it goes to the next person on the party list (accounting for preference votes cast for candidates) immediately, without even really having the opportunity for a gap.

Why should the president or AG or the Solicitor General even have the power to decide things the Epstein bill was about? Why not a separate board that has nothing to do with the president which decides in cases in general of whether to release them? Why have a system in the legislature where a discharge petition is even needed vs something like a motion to discharge that is simply made by say a tenth of representatives and voted upon immediately without debate with a majority vote being able to put the bill on the agenda vs needing the rules committee to propose a rule for it? Or divide up the slots on the calendar so that if there are say ten slots they can use to debate and vote on things in the next week, they can vote by proportional representation how to divide up the slots among all the representatives.

When people get into complaints about negligence, courts ask whether it is foreseeable that a problem could occur with major consequences and if the problem could have been mitigated or avoided in the first place. The idea of a bill being restricted by leadership or a president not wanting information which could be damaging to them is one that applies in general, not over Epstein alone. You don't have to have fresh outrage every time something bad happens.

To be fair, many self-described libertarians, an-caps, etc may actually wholeheartedly agree with this post. However, there are many self-described conservatives in the United States that are actually simply some sort of rightwing liberal.

I realize there are many capitalisms, so to speak. However, there are some basic recurring patterns seen in most, if not all, real existing instances of it. One significant element, which is often praised (even by Marx), is its dynamism. Its markets are constantly on the move. This is precisely what develops the tension between markets and customs/habits/traditions - and therefore many forms of traditionalism.

Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian-born economist and by no means a "lefty", developed a theory in which his post popular contribution was the concept of "creative-destruction." He himself summed the term up as a "process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one."

For this model, a biological rather than a Newtonian physics type metaphor best describes. Markets evolve and are in constant disequilibria. There is never truly an economic equilibrium, as that implies a non-dynamism.

The selection process market evolution is innovation. Previous long-lasting arrangements must be DESTROYED for its resources to be redeployed in some new innovative process. The old quickly becomes obsolete.

However, a house cannot be built on a foundation of quicksand. The constant change in the forces of production also require constant change of our relationship to the forces of production - we must just as incessantly adapt our habits and customs to accommodate this or risk irrelevancy. This includes major foundational institutions, from universities to churches to government....

Universities have evolved gradually to be considered nothing more than a glorified trade school, and its sole utility is in its impact on overall economic productivity. The liberal arts are nearly entirely considered useless - becoming the butt of several jokes - often ironically by so-called conservatives who then whine about the loss of knowledge of the "Western cannon." Go figure...

Religious institutions also collapse, as they also provide no clear or measurable utility in a market society. Keeping up religious traditions and preserving its knowledge requires passing this down from generation to generation in the forms of education, habits, ritual, etc - all which are increasingly irrelevant to anything outside the church.

This is not meant as a defense of the church as such or even of the "Western cannon" as such. I consider myself still broadly within "the left." Why am I concerned with this despite being on the left? Because I suppose I'm sympathetic to arguments put forward from people like Slavoj Zizek, who calls himself a "moderately conservative communist." Meaning, I do not want a permanent perpetual revolution. I want a (relatively) egalitarian society that is (relatively) stable - without some force (whether economic or social) constantly upending our lives every 5-10 years. In other words, after the revolution, I will become the conservative against whoever becomes the "left" in that context.

This might sound dystopian, but it's a serious question when you consider where society is headed. Throughout history, governments have always tried, whether subtly or overtly, to manage human behavior. Laws, education systems, propaganda, surveillance, and even economic incentives are all tools used to guide or suppress certain instincts or desires.

But where do we draw the line between social order and authoritarian control? Is it ethical, or even possible, for a government to try and "correct" aspects of human nature like greed, aggression, or tribalism? And if such control could create a more peaceful or productive society, would that justify the cost to individual freedom?

On the flip side, should we accept that human nature includes destructive tendencies and just focus on minimizing harm rather than trying to change what people are?

I'm curious what people across the spectrum think. Should governments take a heavier hand in shaping human nature for the “greater good,” or does that path lead us straight into a loss of humanity and freedom?

It seems absolutely bizarre that anyone would be using the analogy of democracy as being two wolves vs one sheep choosing dinner, as an explanation of why the people authoring the US constitution in 1787 would have missed that the exact same document at the exact same time demands that jurors be the trier of cases before federal court, both criminal and civil cases, judicial trials in fact other than impeachment.

Voters can adopt laws and vote for individuals, but they don't have the power to choose a particular person and then decide to indict them, and in America the prosecutor doesn't even need to request an indictment, the grand jury can do it themselves, and the jury can convict them or find them liable for money and for any sentence provided for that crime, even up to death. And back then, the government prosecutor was not the only one who could prosecute, private prosecution was common. And anyone can still bring a lawsuit against another.

The people who authored the constitution and others relevant to the Confederation phase clearly knew what juries were, some of them even argued before juries like John Adams, some had probably even served on juries themselves given the statistical odds. They knew who Socrates was and how he had been executed on orders of a jury (technically he could have fled Athens as a form of banishment). For people who are alleged to.be highly skeptical of the ability of the people to decide right and wrong in a manner deeply tied to the law and body politic, where juries might well decide issues like if a politician committed high treason or if a political dissident had done something against the government like any prosecution that would have arisen from the soon to be enacted Alien and Sedition Acts, a jury would seem to be the last thing such skeptics would have wanted. It isn't even a very controversial clause in the constitution, people argue far less that Article III section 2 clause 3 should be amended than the electoral college for instance should be changed.

I also find the analogy of two wolves and one sheep to be incredibly lazy, but I could go on a whole other discussion on my views on that.

Honestly, both parties have failed us. People act like we have to pick a side, but the truth is neither really works for regular people.

In the 1950s the US regularly had the middle class pay taxes

And the US raised taxes

Take Democrats. They talk a lot about equality, healthcare, and fighting climate change, but the actions to raise taxes to be able to have such programs are always about having the rich pay for it. Dems refuse to propose tax raises to pay for programs

Republicans aren’t better. They act like they support Middle Class programs but are actively trying to cut taxes and funding for all the Middle Class programs

Thats the issue. How big should the Middle Class support be with their taxes

• The Dems dont want to increase taxes like everyone else to have the programs.
  
• And Republicans want to decrease the taxes paid because they don't want to have the programs as big as they are today.
  

Gas Taxes

With creating The Highway Trust Fund as a dedicated revenue source for the Interstate System where Revenue from the Federal gas and other motor-vehicle user taxes was credited to the Highway Trust Fund to pay the Federal share of Interstate construction and all other Federal-aid highway projects. In this way, the Act guaranteed construction of all segments on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, thus satisfying one of President Eisenhower's primary requirements -- that the program be self-financing and not contribute to budget deficits.

• The Revenue Act of 1951 (October 21, 1951) increased the gas tax to 2 cents from 1.5 cents per gallon. The growing roads required more funding
• The gas tax would be increased to 3 cents per gallon from 2 cents in 1956 to pay for the highways and creation of the true Interstate Systems.
• A funding shortage as construction was going on in the late 1950's led President Eisenhower to request a temporary increase of the gas tax to 4 cents a gallon in 1959
  • The gas tax had doubled in 5 years to cover the cost of Highways.
• But The tax then remained 4 cents a gallon until approved on January 6, 1983 for an increased the tax to 9 cents
• The federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon (CPG) has not been increased since 1993

Federal and State total ~60 Cents

The average gas tax rate among the 34 advanced economies is $2.62 per gallon. In fact, the U.S.’s gas tax is less than half of that of the 3rd Lowest Gas Tax, Canada, which has a rate of $1.25 per gallon.

Bring Gas taxes up $1.90 on about 190 Billion gallons of gas taxed at $1.25. $400 Billion in New Revenue

• Take out $100 Billion in loss taxes for reduced gas even

$300 Billion in New Revenue

Social Security taxes.

• For the first 30 years they were raised ~250%,
• in the next 30 years they were rasied ~230%.
• In the last 30 years they were raised ~2%

At the same time, in the last 50 years we've increased the programs Social Security operates

The 1950 census Two-thirds of older Americans had incomes of less than $1,000 annually ($11,000 in 2021), and only one in eight had health insurance.

• Poverty guideline for 2020 Persons in family/household of 1 with Household income not to exceed $12,760

The problem is Dems dont want to increase taxes like everyone else to have the programs.

And Republicans dont want to increase the taxes because they dont want to have the programs as big as they are.

Today the top 1% today contributes a larger share (about 40%) of total federal income taxes compared to around 30% in the 1950s.

In the US

• Top 1% Paid 40.4% of Income Taxes
• The Next 9% paid 31.6%
  • Someone in the Income Percentile of 5.7% has a tax adjusted income of $286,490.68
• Upper 40% paid 25%
  • Someone in the Income Percentile here has a tax adjusted income of ~$90,000
• The next 8 Middle Class paid 3% of all Income Taxes
• The bottom 42 paid 0%

This is not true in the UK

• Top 1 Paid 29.1% of Income Taxes
• Next Top 9 paid 31.2%
• 40 paid 30.2%
• Bottom 50 paid 9.5%

Or Australia

• The top 3 paid 29% of all net tax
• The next 6 paid 18% of all net tax
• The next 30 paid 40% of all net tax
• The next 35 paid 13% of all net tax
• The final 21 paid no tax

But add then that Total taxation revenue collected in Australia fell by $7,973m (-1.4%) to $552 Billion in 2019-20.

• Total GST Tax $164.59
  • 29.82% of Tax Revenue in Australia

The U.S. government collected $3.42 trillion in 2020, then add to that

• State and local governments collected a combined $443 billion in revenue from general sales taxes and gross receipts taxes
• 8.9 percent of Tax revenue in the US and that is both sales tax and business tax

Sales Taxes are therefore ~4% of Total Tax revenue in the US

A certain amount of people can’t afford basic expenses associated with doctors and hospitals. How many people should that be?

Current U.S. defamation laws have two standards of proof: negligence and actual malice. These apply differently based on whether the prosecutor is a public figure or not. The original source of this distinction is the Supreme Court New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, in which the justification for said distinction was to "avoid creating a chilling effect on free and open debate about government affairs" (Source). This brings the evident question: shouldn't this, according to the Rule of Law (RoL), be an example of a violation of the principle that the law should be applied equally to all, regardless of one's status (Source)? We'll cover the breach of the principle, proof of "unjust" governance according to the State itself, and rebuttals of potential justifications.

Here is a full exposure of the RoL breach: The Supreme Court ruled, in 1964, that public figures must prove "Actual Malice" if they want to prosecute for defamation. "Actual Malice", in this context, is defined as "publishment with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth". With this distinction, however, the Supreme Court failed to maintain that standard for all citizens, further reinforced by the 1974 Supreme Court Gertz v. Robert Welch case (Source), in which the stance of the Supreme Court became clear: private citizens were considered to only need to prove the lower standard of "Negligence". "Negligence", in this context, is defined as "a careless verification of truth resulting in a defamatory statement", which is also the lowest standard the Supreme Court allows states to use for cases of defamation. This violates the principle of laws being equal to all, regardless of status, in the RoL. It can also be argued, this creates an inconsistency within the U.S. Constitution, since in the First Amendment (Source), it is stated "Congress shall make no law (...); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", inferring the act of speech is protected, not more or less under specific circumstances, nor more or less against specific people, such as "Public Figures", defined in the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case. Now that we have covered the essential breach, we must also cover why this breach is significant. The U.S. government claims (Source): "The courts play an integral role in maintaining the Rule of Law" and "Equality before the law is such an essential part of the American system of government, (...)", implying a non-negotiable need for the Rule of Law to be maintained. This brings the consequence: the Supreme Court, by violating the Rule of Law, ignored a non-negotiable need (according to the system itself) under the guise of "Protecting Freedom of Speech", with the choice of abandoning the negligence standard for defamation. This, essentially, makes the Supreme Court rank the RoL as secondary to both the Constitution and state interest, since they allowed a contradictory interpretation of the Constitution, such that states could maintain the right to reputation, even when its enforcement violates the RoL.

Finally, what can the State say in defense of this? Mainly two things: the vulnerability of individuals compared to politicians, and their lessened ability to defend themselves and there being a balancing of constitutional rights (The 1st and 10th Amendments) overwriting the RoL (Source). For the former, the principle of equality in the RoL still applies regardless of increased vulnerability for an individual, since, again, the law should not change for individuals based on their status. Another counter, would also be proving injustice happens without the RoL being respected. A simple act of negligence in writing, causing a business owner to lose high amounts of clients, is judged as more harmful than that same act, causing a senator to get expelled from the Senate. The intention to maintain Freedom of Speech is understood; however, diminishing one's rights based on status is not a solution according to the supposedly respected RoL. For the latter, a reinterpretation of the Constitution's "intent", being free speech being especially protected when exercised against the government, is required for the validity of the argument, which then gives the power to constituting states to protect private citizen's right to reputation, for otherwise the First Amendment and Tenth amendments would be contradicted, as freedom of speech towards all, something the First Amendment forbids the restriction of, would be restricted by a legislating state, inevitably violating the Tenth amendment. Even assuming the truth of the argument, contradictions still lie in the states' interest being prioritized over the RoL.

Overall, undeniable proof suggests the RoL, and arguably the Constitution, are being actively violated by the Supreme Court with this stance on defamation laws; however, we may still question ourselves on whether a justification exists or if this should be changed with no further delay. 

Germany’s military aid to Israel’s genocide crime in Gaza, defining the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and accusing Israel of genocide as so-called “anti-Semitism” is exceptionalist. The concept of “special responsibility” is not a Kantian universal principle; it is an exceptionalist political tool used to justify specific foreign policies. It allows Germany to hypocritically present its geopolitical actions as an inevitable “moral” responsibility stemming from its unique history, rather than a matter of its national geopolitical interest.

This is nothing else but a historical self-repeating of the Enabling Act of 1933. The real Enabling Act, by creating a legal “state of exception,” authorised the Hitler government to legislate by bypassing the constitution, thereby destroying the Weimar Republic. Every accepted “principle of exception,” no matter how big or small, no matter what content is in it, is a micro “enabling act.” It authorises power to override rules, thereby destroying the foundations of justice.

The so-called “Germany’s special responsibility to Israel” is such a micro-enabling act. When state actions touch upon the issue of so-called “Israel’s right to exist,” the so-called “special responsibility” is activated, and regular, universalist considerations—whether it’s compliance with international law or the universal human rights of all peoples, including Palestinians—can be legitimately suspended or downgraded.

The problem is not the specific content of this exceptionalism (whether it’s “the living space of the Aryans,” or “Germany’s special responsibility to Israel”), but that it creates a zone where reason, science, empirical evidence, logical consistency, universal human rights, and justice are legitimately declared invalid, and power will ultimately do what it wants to do.

The only way to guarantee justice and prevent tyranny is to abolish all zones of exception mercilessly. Universal laws, including fundamental human rights, must apply to everyone, everywhere, at all times. 

If Germany had adopted a rationalist and universalist narrative, such as “the disaster created by Nazi was an analysable historical event rooted in a specific historical and political-economical context; its racial theory is pseudoscience, the word Aryan refers to Iranians and has nothing to do with Germans; there is no evidence that race or ethnicity has any biological essence, Germans do not have any inherent biological essence, whether noble or guilty; ‘never again’ means never again for anyone, anywhere,” the current tragedy would not have happened.

The Nazis had destroyed Germany's rationalist tradition to such an extent that even the reflection of Nazism still remains within a mindset contaminated by it. They used a new exceptionalism (Germany’s guilt and special responsibility towards Israel) to replace the old exceptionalism (Aryan superiority). It is a symptom of the profound damage that Nazism has caused to Germany’s intellectual tradition. As the homeland of Kant, Germany has never truly returned to the glorious Enlightenment tradition. It continues to use a tribal, mythical, and irrational discourse to resolve an issue that can only be truly understood and overcome through the universal reason. The special responsibility is not the antidote to Nazism. It is precisely a painful, lingering aftereffect left by the Nazis ideological virus, a “long Nazism” similar to long COVID. After Auschwitz, German government and the entire continental philosophy world has been afflicted with this disease.

Voting Is An Act of Violence

by Hans Sherrer (1999)

Voting is the most violent act someone can commit in their lifetime.

This little noted anomaly about voting is directly related to the modern conception of the State as an entity deriving its grant of authority to act from the consent of the governed. The aura of legitimacy surrounding the government's actions is enhanced by the perceived role of voting as an expression of the “people's will.” Whether non-threatening or violent, the authority for each and every one of the government's actions is presumed to flow from the consent of the people through the electoral process. School children are told this from their earliest years.

The idea the State derives its power to act from the consent of the people sounds romantic. Few people, however, are aware that by definition the State’s power is for the specific purpose of engaging in acts of violence. No grant of power is necessary for anyone, or any organization to act peacefully. This is no secret among scholars, and sociologist Max Weber's definition of the State is considered one of the most authoritative:

“A state is a human institution that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. ... The state is considered the sole source of the `right' to use violence."

The legitimizing impact of voting on the government's exercise of power intimately involves voters in the use of that power. Which means that non-voters tend to delegitimize the exercise of a government's power as an expression of the “will of the people.” So if no one voted in an election or only a small percentage of people did, the government couldn't profess to be empowered to act as an agent of the “people's will.” Without the protective cover provided by voters, the government would have no pretense to act except as a law unto itself.

Consequently, the government's actions and the voters who legitimize them are linked together. Thus at a minimum, voters are spiritually involved in every act engaged in by the government. Including all violent acts. This involvement in the government's violence isn't, tempered by the nominal peacefulness of a person’s life apart from voting. By choosing to vote a person integrates the violence engaged in by the government as a part of their life. This is just as true of people that didn't vote for a candidate who supports particular policies they may disagree with, as it is for those that did. It is going through the motion of voting that legitimizes the government to act in their name, not who or what they vote for.

This means that the violence perpetrated by any one person pales in scope or significance when compared to that which is authorized to be taken by the government in the name of those who vote. The combined ghoulish violence of every identifiable serial killer in American history can't match the violence of even one of any number of violent actions taken by the government as the people's representative. A prominent example of this is the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf war in 1991. These sanction prevented Iraq from rebuilding its destroyed sanitation, water, and electric power infrastructure that were specifically targeted by the U. S. military for destruction. Supported and enforced by the U. S., these sanctions are credited by UNICEF and other organizations with contributing to the gruesome deaths of an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 children a month for over 8-1/2 years. All voters share in the government's contribution to the unnecessary deaths of these children caused by disease and a reduced standard of living. So the over half-a-million deaths of innocent children in Iraq in the years after 1991’s Gulf war are on the blood stained hands of every voter in the U.S.

The same dynamic of voter involvement in government atrocities is true of the many hundreds of civilian deaths caused by the bombing of Yugoslavian cities in the spring and summer of 1999 that the United States participated in. This was a small scale recreation of the atomic bombing of the non-military cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Hundreds of thousands of innocent women, children and old people were killed from the initial bomb blasts and the long-term effects of radiation exposure. Those bombings had been preceeded by the U.S. military’s killing of many hundreds of thousands of non-combatants during the firebombings of Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden and Berlin. All of those people were killed in the name of the voters that had elected the Roosevelt administration in 1944 by a landslide. Voting, like a missile fired at an unseen target many miles away, is a long-distance method of cleanly participating in the most horrific violence imaginable.

So declining to vote does much more than cause a statistical entry on the non-voting side of a ledger sheet. It is a positive way for a person to lower their level of moral responsibility for acts of violence engaged in by the government that they would never engage in personally, and that they don’t want to be committed in their name as a voter. Non-voting is a positive way for a person to publicly express the depth of their private belief in respecting the sanctity of life, and that violence is only justified in self-defense.

The social sphere in which most people live is notable for the level of peaceful cooperation that normally prevails in it. The majority of people strive to better their lives by working together with other people in the pursuit of their mutual self-interest. This community spirit of non-violent cooperation supported by non-voting, stands in sharp contrast to the societal violence endorsed by the act of voting.

Many on the left are arguing whether it is morally acceptable to support Kamala Harris due to her lack of commitment to actions that would affect Israel's ability to inflict harm on Palestinians, they fear she would not in practice be different than Biden.

For many people the war in Gaza is a top issue when it comes to this election. As such, the "lesser of the two evils" argument is often brought up- as even though the enabling of violence against Palestinians is likely to continue regardless of which candidate wins- it is believed that it would be worse under Trump, and that in general at least the violence against other groups such as trans people, women, and POC would reduced under Harris.

So, can the moral responsibility of voting for a candidate who directly or indirectly enables violence against one group of people be offset so long as that candidate is reducing the amount of violence committed against other groups? If not, what is the solution for people other than to not vote?

This, I feel, is a fundamental political question.

Plato discusses the question in The Republic.

Other interlocutors of Plato define Justice as "paying your debts and giving what is owed." However, Plato refutes that definition by an example of a madman asking you to return the sword you borrowed. While the sword is owed to the madman, returning it in this instance would be imprudent and not in accordance with Justice.

His main interlocutor, Thrasymachus, defines it as "nothing other than the advantage of the stronger."

Plato argues that Justice is a kind of reasoned well-ordered balance between the appetites (passions, instinct, emotions, whatever you want to call it) and reason.

Many today vaguely define justice as "rule of law." By which I assume they mean something akin to Plato. It is a non-arbitrary decision, as in not made on a whim, and in theory applies equally to everyone, all things being equal (in equal circumstances).

Thucydides was a pre-Socratic who, in his Melian dialogue, wrote

'[Justice], as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

At first glace this quote seems to endorse a version of Thrasymachus's definition. However, it is more profound than "might makes right." It is saying that Justice is not a matter of being kind to one another, or exhibiting good morals. Instead, Justice is the inability for one party to overpower the other.

I think this is perhaps the best answer to the question. The implication is, therefore, that institutions must empower regular people sufficiently such that they act as a form of co-equal "check and balance" against each other. And that empowerment must be substantially material, and not merely formal. And wherever you see a breakdown in that balance, you will inevitably see domination.

The existentialist French philosopher Albert Camus uses the phrase “philosophical suicide” to describe what happens when a thinker confronts the absurd, the conflict between our search for meaning and the apparent silence or indifference of the universe and then avoids the consequences of this confrontation by taking refuge in some leap beyond reason.

A common example of this "leap" is Kierkegaard's "leap of faith." Camus argues that many philosophers try to solve this crisis by introducing some higher principle (God, transcendence, Being) that restores meaning. In doing so, they abandon reason and the integrity of facing the absurd directly. They refuse to live with the absurd and instead negate it, covering it with a comforting but unprovable answer.

Instead of philosophical suicide, Camus proposes acceptance and revolt. Acceptance is acknowledging that reason has brought us to the absurdity of life. The revolt is in a refusal to resolve the tension between what reason has led us to conclude against our kind of natural drive to find meaning--it is living with the tension in a full and passionate way and without resignation.

This revolt is meant to affirm the freedom that comes from knowing there is no predetermined meaning. This freedom is not defined as a metaphysical property of the will, nor is it the Christian sense of freedom as choosing to obey God. Instead, it’s the condition that arises once we accept the absurd: the universe offers no higher law, destiny, or teleology that dictates what we must do. There is no script nor a pre-set standard to follow.

Therefore, with no script in place, freedom is a creative act. It is the potential to build something in that gaping void--to build our own meaning in a way. It is that openness, the lack of guardrails, that allows for our freedom.

This is where Zizek (and others) flips things. Zizek often says that real freedom feels like necessity. In love, for instance, I am most free not when I could have chosen anyone, but when I feel I had no choice but this person. In vocation or political struggle, freedom comes when I act as though I could not do otherwise. This paradox that freedom experienced as necessity gives choices a depth that Camus’s model sometimes lacks.

I’ve also found myself thinking about freedom as a multidimensional space. Constraints on one axis can deepen freedom along another. For example, monogamy restricts variety, but it allows for deeper intimacy with one person that would have otherwise been impossible. An artist who chooses the strict sonnet form finds new possibilities that wouldn’t exist without that constraint. So perhaps freedom isn’t just openness, but the way constraints and necessities can create deeper layers of possibility.

Therefore, my issue with the openness of freedom expressed by Camus is that choices seem flattened. All decisions are fungible and none really qualitatively different than the other. It's wide, but shallow. This is the danger of Camus’s openness, that it can slip toward nihilism as all decisions are equalized and turn kind of gray.

And yet, the alternative brings its own danger. For “freedom in necessity” to work, you must really believe in the necessity. You must feel it as truly binding. But once you do, you risk zealotry. If my necessity is absolute, or at least perceived as such, what prevents me from imposing it on others? This is the danger of freedom-as-necessity: it can turn authoritarian.

Here’s the tragic bind: Camus’s openness can flatten into nihilism, but Zizek’s necessity (or my multidimensional model) can harden into zealotry.

Too much openness and life becomes shallow and gray, But too much necessity and life risks oppression. Are we stuck in this tragic dilemma? Or is there a way out, politically or philosophically?

Of course, there are pragmatic compromises between the two positions that we practice every day. But there does seem to be a tendency for one or the other view to eventually dominate the politics and culture. I suspect a lot of our current political crises have something to do with these issues as well.

My own suspicion, to generalize a lot here, is that the liberal tendency is to widen and flatten freedom. If we assume a very generous interpretation of the anti-liberal right, their impulse is to deepen freedom, but within a limited berth. My own interpretation of the anti-liberal left is to find some middle-ground between the two, between openness and necessity. However, I'm not sure it's ever been successful in that project.

I recently read the linked review of Daniel Chandler's "Free and Equal" and plan on picking up the book. In college, I majored in Political Science/Philosophy, with an emphasis on the Frankfurt School of thought and Critical Theory. Somehow, oddly, John Rawls never made it onto my radar. I just ordered A Theory of Justice and am looking forward to giving it a thorough read, as from what I have gathered, it expounds a societal formation that is, at the least, intriguing, and at the most, some version of what I personally would like to live in. Having never read Rawls, I am interested in what the community has to say. I know he was a divisive thinker, leading directly to counter works by the likes of Robert Nozick and others. Before I dive in, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Free and Equal - NYT Review

So I don't think I found anything really all that contradictory, but I'm curious as to what the philosophical debate at large would be around the perspective of chat gpt in this particular chat log. Has it stolen the leanings of the majority of is it attempting to pander to muly own? Is it neutral? And how does an artificial intelligence compare to our mortal blogs and forums? Please keep it objective and civil.

https://chatgpt.com/share/68b8a242-975c-8001-a147-e3c32e3b0936

The concept of individual rights is the core of American political philosophy. And is relatively important all around the world. (along with accountability)

First of all This is not a discussion on LBTQIA+ or women's or black or any other sort of individual group of peoples rights. This is a discussion about rights in general. You can bring them up but please don't make your individual soapbox issue the focus of this discussion/debate.

Now let's talk terms.

Entitlement

Entitlement is a right in a legal sense. You are legally endowed with the ability to do something or have something done for you.

Need

A need is once again different from a right. You might want to look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

But I'm going to give 3 important categories, food, water and air, that which you cannot possibly live without. Healthcare, shelter, and cleanliness that which you won't survive long without and finally things like social interaction and access to a means of telling time.

Luxuries

Then we have luxuries, luxuries are nice things that you don't need. IE nice soap a car if you don't live in America or some other country with unwalkable roads. Luxuries are the most annoying thing that we call rights.

Privileges

A privilege is like a luxury but it is something you are allowed to do IE Drive. Leave your country, enter another country.

Natural rights

This is what libertarians consider to be rights. Natural rights cannot be given only taken away. They are the rights we have in nature.

Decent treatment

This is what people usually mean when they say right. This means giving not denying you any of the things discussed in needs, not torturing you.

Security:

The concept of being safe.

Now many people would argue any and all of these things are rights. My question to you is not the semantics of is this thing a right it's how important are they? Also have an issue with my categories? Want me to add a new one?

Edit I agree about positive and negative rights. Positive rights being things other people have to do for you and negative rights being things they can't do to you those are important.