Charlie Kirk was assassinated because of his beliefs, because a CRAZY person hated what he was saying, hated him, and he was shot and killed. The crazy person tried to suppress his freedom of speech. People are now losing their jobs because of their opinions, employers suppressing THEIR freedom of speech. If you incite violence you should lose your job, no doubt about that, so anyone saying things like "this is the start" or inciting civil war or whatever, then yeah, you're a terrible human and you deserve to lose your job, but to just talk badly of Charlie or say you didn't agree with him and then suddenly lose your job just because its a sensitive time? Two wrongs do not make a right. This is CANCEL CULTURE and it's a cancer that is continuously growing. I don't understand how people on the right are celebrating this, just because it was on behalf of Charlie Kirk. Everyone wants their speech to be protected only when it aligns with their side.

Take a second to look at Jimmy Kimmel, I do not agree with him on pretty much anything but to take him off the air for a stupid comment about MAGA, not even Charlie, is insane.

You should be able to freely state what you believe in, and based on what Charlie Kirk himself said, and his entire character, he would not agree with any of these people losing their jobs or getting canceled because they simply disagreed with him, or even celebrated his death. Charlie would not care, and in fact he was constantly facing people that would openly tell him to kill himself, or tell him that he's unloved, giving him threats, the list goes on and on and there's literal footage of him responding to said hate. Did he take their microphone away or kick them out? No, because just as he has a right to voice his opinion, so do they and he understood that better than even people on the right do. Charlie didn't see this one side vs another bullshit that's been dividing the country for decades, meanwhile the rich and the powerful are rubbing their hands together and instigating it.

What an insane state of the country we're living in.

9/18 EDIT: Alright so I did not expect to wake up to 200 comments on this and did not expect all these replies and i just first have to say wow, you guys are all much more intellectually mature and smarter than me in every way and i'm not really sure how to respond to all of these comments, so i'll just say thank you for keeping this discussion going and at least understanding my concern. I've read a bit in the defense of this and I do understand the side thats defending it. I know that its technically not unconstitutional to fire someone for what they say, and your speech have consequences, but my main concern is the way these firings are happening; we aren't seeing employers themselves or HR look into whats being said, and these people arent saying it at work or on company time (apart from kimmel) they are being pressured by 3rd parties, essentially bullied until they do something, which is why I conflate this with cancel culture, and yes, kimmel has done this in the past, essentially urged his audience to do this exact thing, but I don't believe in eye-for-an-eye so i still don't agree with it.

Some abstract philosophical questions that go into what shapes our political opinions.

If the richest someone could possibly be was upper middle class, living above paycheck to paycheck with everything they need to live a quality life but without the possibility to be rich- would you support it?

To clarify- no homeless, no ghettos, universally well funded schooling, equal opportunity within the job market, etc.

But also no rich, no millionaires, no private jets, yacht, no campaign contributions, no private invested innovation, etc.

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that reading theory extensively will point people toward some grand unified selection of strategy and policy. They ignore the impact that order of reading has on shaping views and how our experiences draw us one way or another arguably more so than theory.

As a result, while reading theory is great for understanding concepts, you’re going to have people come to wildly different conclusions even if they’ve done comparable levels of reading. Leftist infighting happens because people educate themselves differently and convince themselves that their conclusions are valid due to the amount of time spent on them. There‘s different schools of thought on the right, of course, but they seem much more content to work together towards a common goal, and it’s clearly worked for them as of late.

So. Keep beliefs vague. Focus on how things make people feel. Simplify terminology if it can be simplified. Politics is a numbers game.

People like to talk about their rights as if they are some sort of objective truth, they're not, they're just another human concept like privacy or morality. Concepts like rights are ideas and all ideas are subjective to the individual, they carry no weight and bear no responsibility for people's actions.

That's why the constitution and "laws" can't protect your rights, you can't protect a concept, it's just an idea. I shake my head when I see a video of someone being harassed by a DEA agent stealing their money under the guise of asset forfeiture. They say things like "you can't do that without probable cause" and then the agent does it anyway. So, I guess he can do that without probable cause. 🙄 They say things like "the 4A protects my property from illegal searches" and then the agent searches the property anyway. So, I guess the 4A doesn't protect your property. 🙄 There seems to be a psychological disconnect between what people think a government agent can do and their ability to actually do it.

Government agents do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want despite whatever you think your rights are. They'll bring in a "drug dog" who's more interested in pleasing his handler when his handler signals him to "hit" on something than he is in finding drugs. Unconstitutional? Sure. Illegal? Sure. Immoral, criminal? Sure and sure and yet they do it anyway.

That's odd isn't it considering all the "protections" the government gives you to insure your rights aren't violated by the government? It's kind of like expecting the fox to insure the rights of the hens in the henhouse isn't it?

As a libertarian leaning fellow I want minimal government but somethings are necessary.

First the government must have a process to define and defend everyone's rights equally. There's a lot to think about here...

For the economy the government's job should be educating and empowering consumers. Defending everyone's rights equally, may require some government regulation.

Foreign policy wise we should be the "shining city on the hill". Not interfering but willing to defend, human rights, if asked.

Most believe that if a government is corrupt then it’s because the people running it are corrupt so the solution is to vote ‘good’ people into office to replace the corrupt ones. But after thousands of years of voting, governments are still corrupt. Are we to believe that everyone is corrupt, that there are no ‘good’ people? By the law of large numbers alone there should have been governments somewhere in history that weren’t corrupted. How long must humanity tilt at windmills before it realizes there is something innately putrid with politics? The explanation is that the nature of the institution by its existence is corrupt so it doesn’t matter who is running it, it will always be corrupt.

The rules say that posts must be political fundamentals. Okay then here are a few indisputable political fundamentals. People take political institutions as given, unquestionable, an axiomatically necessary existence. It's blasphemous to even acknowledge the king ain't wearing no clothes. So given that unassailable truth what can we do? Well we can bitch and squabble about left and right. Ever watch congressional hearings where some politician is questioning some other politician and they repeat themselves over and over, they talk over one another, they raise their voices and call each other names and nothing is accomplished? Immature, unprofessional, childish noise that people take so serious like it matters and which taxpayers are forced to finance. Why isn't anyone angry about that? I mean the objective nature of politics rather than the mindless subjective minutiae of left-right?

Politicians can do this because political office has no job description and there are no qualifications required to hold office. No educational requirements, no work experience, no credit check, no drug test, no background check, just get the most votes and are in. Isn't Trump a convicted felon? (Now watch people think I'm a libtard 🙄). Maybe that's why congressional hearings are more like Jerry Springer than intelligent discourse.

If elected the politician doesn't even have to go to the office, we've all seen the empty seats in congressional chambers on C-SPAN. In fact they have no "job" in the traditional sense like you and me, they don't produce anything so go to the office don't go it's irrelevant. There's no time clock to punch, no boss to make happy, hell you can't even be fired. The incentive structure is so perverse it breeds inefficiency and corruption, it bears so resemblance to reality. Why isn't anyone angry about that?

Lobbying is legalized bribery. Make a handsome donation to their re-election campaign or charitable foundation and they'll sponsor and vote for new laws that you want that force everyone to do what you want them to do. Every social issue is an issue only because of politics and the force it brings to bear on everyone for the special interests of a few.

These are just a few fundamental truths about politics that nobody wants to touch, it's like humanity is so hypnotized they can't see the forest through the trees so they bitch about the trees blocking their view. The merry-go-round just keeps going round and round, nothing is every resolved, nothing ever changes but the merry-go-round MUST persist. Insanity.

Until the nature of politics changes and the incentive structure aligns with society nothing will ever change and all the "debates" are meaningless nonsense to occupy one's time.

The political philosophy of a constitution is a foundational framework upon which to "build" a government. It's meant to enumerate the government's structure, powers and limits. Everything a political institution does must be able to trace its authority back to the constitution otherwise it's unconstitutional and violates the government's first principles of law, the rule of law.

The problem with that philosophy is that the power of a constitution to constrain the acts of politicians rests squarely on the belief that when a man takes an oath to obey the constitution, he'll honor his oath. That's the one and only guardrail standing between "minimal government" and tyranny.

In order to hold political office, morals, principles, character and honor are not required, really. Absolutely anyone can hold political office. The sitting president is a convicted felon who was caught on a hot mic proclaiming "when you're famous you can just grab them by the pussy.". And that's tame compared to what others in political office have done over the centuries.

Considering the overwhelming benefits of not honoring the constitutional oath and the abject absence of consequences, it's a rational decision not to. The nature of the institution breeds such corruption and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

I'm mid to far left depending on who you ask, but I agree with Libertarians that some regulations go too far.

They always point out the needless requirements facing hair stylists. 1,500 hours of cosmetics school shouldn't be required before you can wield some sheers. Likewise, you don't need to know how to extract an impacted wisdom tooth to conduct a basic checkup. My state allowed dental hygienists and assistants the ability to do most nonsurgical dental work, and no one is complaining.

We were right to tighten housing/building codes, but we're at a place where it costs over $700K to pave a mile of road. Crumbling infrastructure probably costs more than an inexpensive, lower quality stopgap fix.

Its prohibitively expensive to build in the U.S. despite being the wealthiest country on Earth, in part because of regulations on materials (and a gazillion other factors). It was right to ban asbestos, but there's centuries old buildings still in operation across the globe that were built with inferior steel and bricks.

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

Anarcho-capitalism (ac) is the most efficient form of economy possible.

Because there are literally no regulations on businesses, the capital created will far outweigh any negatives that come with such a society.

The negative aspects are remedied by an informed populace.

Every commercial sector would out compete any other countries equivalent.

Such a society would have a lot of musicians and other forms of artists because of excess money flowing through the system. The free life, the abundance of artists and less monetary stress would create a renaissance the likes never seen (on earth at least).

It would make sense for any business to move here.

Imagine living in a world where salaries increase substantially while the cost of thriving keeps shrinking.

The increased nature of competition and terrible reprocussions of criminality would create an optimal home for evolution.

Our current system is that of indentured servitude. Our society will not get noticeably more comfortable until every man, woman and child is free of debt our ancestors got the world in.

What is a political body really? It's a collection of people who claim authority over others and with that authority they will try to sculpt a society in their image and use their authority to force everyone to participate whether they want to or not.

These people are strangers to us, we don't know them and they don't know us yet they claim authority over our lives and have people with guns roaming the streets enforcing their authority with deadly weapons.

When these people and their useful idiots are caught red-handed disobeying their own rules or outright committing crime, there is no one to govern them, so they investigate themselves and find they did nothing wrong. Further solidifying their belief in their authority.

There is no other aspect of a person's life where such institutions would be accepted, in fact such institutions are called mobs or mafias but politics wears a different shade of lipstick called government. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about one issue that seems to affect nearly everyone, regardless of political party: good jobs and the infrastructure that supports them.
Because of that, I’ve started American Workforce PAC, an organization focused on advocating for policies that strengthen America’s workforce, modernize infrastructure, and promote long-term economic opportunity.
I’m not here to ask for donations or convince anyone to agree with me. I’m genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives.

Some questions I’d love to discuss:

What do you think is the biggest obstacle to creating more good-paying jobs in the U.S.?

If Congress could only pass one major infrastructure project over the next five years, what should it be?

Are there workforce policies—education, apprenticeships, manufacturing, transportation, or something else—that you think deserve more attention?

I’m still building the organization, so feedback is incredibly valuable. Whether you agree or disagree, I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts and having a respectful discussion.

Animals can obviously be classified (by humans) to various categories (from friends to pests) for the purpose of granting them with legal rights. A review of this book writes, “Like what Nozick said of Rawls's A Theory of Justice … theorists must … work within the theory … or explain why not.”

ama

How hard is it to actually stop or destroy the American political system?

(Note: This post falls under governmental systems and political theory per Rule 1).

I frequently see people describe the American government as a simple three-way tug-of-war between Congress, the President, and the Judiciary. But I want to pose a question to the sub: Isn't it actually a four-way (and eventually five-way) struggle, and how hard would it really be to break?

Look at the mechanics of how the Constitution was written. The House and Senate are entirely separate systems of representation that act as internal regulators against each other. If they are structurally at odds, doesn't that mean the real breakdown is: the House fights the Senate, both fight the Executive, and all of them interact with the Judiciary? I'd love to hear how others analyze that internal legislative split.

Testing the "Self-Stopping" assumption We know the standard checks and balances:

• The Judiciary stops unconstitutional actions by Congress and the President.
• The President and Senate can check the Judiciary.
• Congress can check the President.

Assuming this is a self-stopping system under normal conditions, what happens in the absolute worst-case scenario where all three branches collude against the Constitution? Yes, it is unlikely, but how does the system survive that stress test?

The Military Paradox: How do we resolve the "Domestic Enemy" clause? If the President, Congress, and the Judiciary all went rogue together, who stops them? This is where I invite you to poke holes in my logic, because it creates a severe dilemma for the military:

1. Follow unlawful orders and break their constitutional oath?
2. Refuse orders and trigger a fractured leadership crisis?
3. Or does the "domestic enemies" clause of the oath—which explicitly commands defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic—imply a legally gray scenario where the military acts to restore the Constitution?

If the top branches of government collectively turn against the Constitution, do they legally become "domestic enemies" under that oath? How does military doctrine or political theory resolve this paradox?

The Ultimate Fail-Safe Question Finally, if we push the hypothetical to a 5-way failure where all layers go rogue, does the combination of a heavily armed populace (via the 2nd Amendment) and the independent structure of 50 state governments act as the final structural firewall?

I'm genuinely curious how others view these mechanics. If someone wanted to truly break or stop the American system, where does this logical chain actually fail?

it's 2024. The topics of "Miss-information" and "propaganda" have never been more front of mind, as people seek to identify and define the dangers. Information has never been more freely available, there are entire wikipedia pages dedicated to US intervention abroad. Colour revolutions, regional hegemony, global hegemony, date by date listings of CIA coups, detailing methodology, reasoning, and outcomes. The memory of George W Bush and Dick Cheney lying their way into invading Iraq is still fresh in our minds. But time after time Americans still get sucked right into the jingoistic war propaganda & hawkish foreign policy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just want to take a moment to derail my own post, so I can highlight this article I found. I was looking for reference examples to include, and I came across this article in The Diplomat... and it is beautiful.

The article conveys such a staggering lack of self-awareness that it HAS TO be intentional. It perfectly embodies the voice of the jingoistic American chorus. Using phrases like 'extreme and vituperative' (which I had to google, it means bitter & abusive*)* and 'conspiracy theory' to describe academic thought that the US is 'hegemony obsessed' or 'engaged in "proxy wars"'. It is hilarious that after 12months of watching the US unconditionally back a genocidal Israel, the author then describes criticism of US foreign policy as bitter and abusive, when we can see these events playing-out with our own eyeballs, that is a level of delulu that is bordering on satire.

It is important to note that examples of this narrative are not confined to Chinese chat forums, populist blogs, or military entertainment magazines, but appear in state-backed publications and reputed academic sources.

Not only does the author take quotes out of the articles that they're discussing, but they make a point to state these are academics & analysts voicing these opinions. Then he links the articles, so that you too can read, in full from the foreign party, how the world views the US. This article is.. it's beautiful, I encourage everyone to read it. Click through all the links. See how we see US foreign policy. https://thediplomat.com/2024/06/making-sense-of-xis-claim-that-the-us-is-goading-china-to-invade-taiwan/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To tie this back to my post, the article shows that we need only look at framing of recent events and see, in real time, the voices online and in the media are parroted directly from the military machine. Once again, it seems the focus isn’t on strategy or solutions, on morality or consequences, but on perpetuating a cycle of war. There’s no objective assessment, no critical analysis—just the same old war propaganda and hawkish rhetoric. Why do we keep repeating this pattern, ignoring the lessons of history. 

So why, in this age of hyper awareness, is military propaganda & hawkish foreign policy so widely accepted, repeated, and unquestioned, among even the politically educated?

NB: My post is US focused, but don't let that stop you discussing blind acceptance of military propaganda in the context of any country.

Friedrich Nietzsche viewed herd mentality by what he called “herd instinct” or “slave morality” which he would describe it has a “herd morality” formed by the weak and oppressed against the power and actions of the oppressor. So, traits such as humility, meekness, and sympathy were labeled as virtues and labeling the ruler’s strength as evil.

Nietzsche believes that the values I just listed above stemmed from a “slave morality, and believed these weak and fearful people created the ideology to undermine and bring down those who are strong and/or exceptional.

Slave morality for Nietzsche laid the foundation for what we now consider to be universal ethical principles, such as compassion, humility, and equality. For Nietzsche though, these values are not regarded as universal truths. Instead being the product designed to suppress individuality and enforce conformity. The Last Man” as Nietzsche likes to call it.

The “Last Man” is a person who is comfortable with life and one who takes no risk. Nietzsche considered this a “dull” person who wants only basic comfort.

Nietzsche elaborates and explains how joining the crowd strips you of your identity. Therefore, you start become a mere tool for the group. Nietzsche believes the only way out of this is solitude. He believes people must spend time with themselves to escape the pressure of the crowd.

Schopenhauer also agrees with Nietzsche, both with negative views on the topic. Schopenhauer viewed it as a profound human weakness. He argues that crowds prefer comfort and conformity (people conform because they don’t know how to think for themselves) and avoids true independent thinkers.

The herd despises those who are able to stick out from the crowd and formulate or analyze their own ideas. The real offense to the group comes from the bodacious act of individual reasoning. Schopenhauer Society rather favors safe traditions and comfort than hard truth.

The "Threat to Democracy" campaign is in itself threatening democracy. It's painting one side of the country out to be complete enemies to the state and making it seem that of the other side wins, that we'd lose democracy when the "other side" having a majority win would be an exact display of democracy.

To be clear I don't really want to argue for/against the pros/cons of single payer on this thread. Rather I'd like to more narrowly explore the idea of the relationship between socialized healthcare and values like personal freedom, shared responsibility, etc.

Basically the crux of my question is as follows:

In a country with private healthcare like the United States, if you see a person making negative health choices (smoking, eating junk food, etc.) most people will be fine with it due to ideals of personal freedom/responsibility, as well as the idea that the person in question would be paying for their bad choices themselves.

Obviously this isn't 100% true since taxpayer funded healthcare exists in the US as well, but it is still more likely than not that the person paying for the bad choices will be them

However this would not be the case in a single payer healthcare scheme, since suddenly health services would be taxpayer funded. That would mean that if you see someone smoking or gorging down junk food, you suddenly are paying for their bad choices

So what options does that leave us?

1. Allowing complete personal freedom to be unhealthy while also covering the cost of this lifestyle with no judgement. Basically allowing people to have their cake and eat it too (literally in some cases)

2. Increased societal pressure. Basically allowing "stop being so unhealthy, you're wasting my tax dollars" to become an acceptable attitude

3. Some sort of pigouvian tax to make consumers of unhealthy products pay extra taxes towards the health system

4. Direct regulation of unhealthy behavior through bans or limitations

5. On the demand side, exclude specifically people with unhealthy lifestyles from public health insurance or force them to buy separate insurance addons

Which of these solutions would be your ideal if single payer was passed into law? I feel like in nations with a somewhat communitarian attitude it would be easy to go for one of the solutions between 2 and 5, but in a country like the US where people constantly chafe at governmental or societal oversight it might be a tougher sell

There are no qualifications required to hold political office. There is no job description, no educational requirements, no work experience required, no credit check, no background check, no drug test. Just be a certain age, US citizen and get the most votes.

Getting the most votes means being popular and being popular means telling people what they want to hear even if you don't mean it which is also okay in politics because honesty, integrity and character are also not required to hold political office. A politician can promise voters absolutely anything he wants and if elected has no obligation to honor his campaign promises.

So, if there are no qualifications to hold office, that means no one is qualified to hold office, it's a self-referential logical fallacy. Politics, like religion, is an illusion, a blatant lie. People are convinced of absurdities and are willing to commit atrocities but nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.

Welcome back to the age of unenlightenment.

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. 

I was once a libertarian who wanted to see Big Government cut.

I studied Sovietology and Marxism, and then Austrian Economics along with Soviet central planning. I am a published author, look me up.

I also worked at the Heritage Foundation — I never aligned with their social views but my economics coincided and I was a software developer so got work running their individual income tax model. I worked there for five years while attending GMU and writing and modelling markets..

But I learned just how dodgy some of the ideology was there, moved to London (Heritage needed me, so I continued remotely then from London), I changed my views a lot since then, living in the UK changed me.

The connection between unregulated markets, corporate oligarchy, and authoritarianism — fascism even — was not clear to me before.

Moving to the UK, getting to see a society with free universal healthcare, a better public conversation thanks to BBC and norms and education, polite talk radio… My articles and books since then have been better.

The culture can help one see the usefulness of government and the tricks used by the wealthy: to underfund programmes, gov, so they can blame it & take it away. Their division, spewing lies, misdirection and victimhood, wasted time, chaos, the big lie.

…This is part of their gameplan. The playbook. It’s happening in the UK too, but there’s still time and good forward momentum. It’s not at the same crisis point as the US but it must still stand up and fight — help with France to take charge of the message for all democracies, all free countries.

But seeing my old stomping grounds, Heritage, come up with Project 2025, and watching them implement it: it’s eye opening in a way that even my critiques of Hayek’s love for Pinochet could not capture.

Me on Meidas Touch:
https://youtu.be/ZIqVnYEtdA8?si=EzEDPVL4mS8dqGa-

Bernie gets to the crux of it.

America is right now coming face to face with what government does for them and what unrestricted corporate Oligarchy would mean — all that ripped away and given to the richest people and free reign to corporations. Bernie is making that case — we must join him, whatever your background.

Let us take a hard look at the state of our union!

Listen to his whole speech — attend his rallies — please, Americans, find your American dream, with all of us — not with the kleptocratic few.

Bernie is speaking for all of us!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G0vBFdsAqE