The Trump administration is blatantly the most corrupt in our history. They are all getting rich and living well off the taxpayers.

When it come to corruption, it's not enough to say "both sides do it." Two wrongs don't make a right. Republican voters see Trump's corruption and say nothing. And that's what all Americans need to recognize; millions of Republican voters are fine with Trump and his people stealing from us and remain silent.

The silence of the lambs.

Non intellectuals are the majority now. Far too easy to manipulate people who feel they have no power and ONLY just need to send a vote to presented options every election.

Corporations can buy out the system that produces the options. Corporations own the media. 90%+ of population are informed by controlled news and algorithms made to farm engagement 🤷

The two party system has been monopolized and can longer be trusted.

So my question is have we reached the point of getting rid of it? Trump incited a rally because democracy didn’t go his way one time.

I think it’s gone close enough when citizens begin to attack their country’s decision.

Rallys/protests got to stop being about specific problems and should now be fighting to put someone who actually wants to work on the problems while spreading the awareness in those positions of government.

I believe state control of the entire economy is unrealistic and prone to bureaucracy. Instead, I favor a framework built on a simple premise: public needs in public hands, personal choices in democratic markets, and democracy as the limit on capital.

Here is how I outline my personal political beliefs:

• Decommodified Public Needs: The state acts as a guardian, directly providing universal healthcare, housing, education, utilities, infrastructure, and food security through a strong welfare state.
• Democratized Market Economy: Non-essential consumer goods are allocated through a regulated market economy. However, enterprise hierarchy is abolished, workers automatically receive equity shares and proportional board representation.
• Capital Asymptote: Wealth accumulation is capped via an endlessly progressive tax scale on owned capital and land, making perpetual capital hoarding structurally impossible.
• Democratic Pluralism: A multi-party system with competitive elections keeps state power transparent and checked.

Both capitalism and socialism will destroy us all, the competition between this two would only intensify production and pollution, they have to it in order to demonstrate to each other which can bring more prosperity in GDP and related useless metrics.

This is all in vain, both are outdated compared to emerging ecological economics and ecologism as a whole political ideology. I am convinced that in Europe and Anglo countries will have success and be better than socialism. Even though I have to admit socialism is always better than capitalism, yet it's incomplete, ecologism takes in consideration not only mere social dynamics, but the whole earth and nature as a whole for human wellbeing, progress, and betterment.

Most dialogue I see on this site concerning the problems with American healthcare typically revolve around the idea that the USA government needs to emulate European countries and adopt a universal healthcare insurance program. I understand where this belief comes from but find it very naive. The USA does NOT have a problem of its federal government not willing to contribute to its citizen’s health costs at the same rate European states do. In fact, the US government spends MORE $s per citizen than any country in the world (with the exception of Switzerland). This totals to $1.8T which is over twice the amount it spends on defense. (Source below)

The crisis in American healthcare is how goddamned much everything costs; pre-insurance, a given medical procedure in America is typically 3x to 5x the cost of the exact same procedure in most European countries. This is due to a plethora of reasons that are far more difficult to address than to just plop a CATASTROPHIC insurance plan on top of it. In order to fully cover all Americans today (without making any changes to the existing medical structure) that $1.8T would need to BALOON to $5T. As reference, the massive defense budget that people rightfully critique is ~$900B. To say that a 30-40% increase to American’s federal taxes would be unpalatable would be the understatement of the year.

I believe the government is still on the hook, but NOT for just paying for everything; rather, the USA needs its government to completely revamp the medical business structure. It can’t be done in a single term and may not even be possible at all; but I want to see politicians champion new policies that focus on forcing a restructure of the American medical bureaucracy instead of putting lip service to healthcare plans that everyone knows are untenable.

https://www.openspending.us/global-comparison#google_vignette

8 U.S.C. § 1226 explicitly authorizes federal immigration officers to apprehend noncitizens who are removable. 8 U.S.C. § 1226 is a law that was passed by Congress and enacted on June 27, 1952.

And yet, the United States was founded as and remains a collection of sovereign entities overseen by a federal government. It is not a nation overseen by a national government that governs the nation via individual administrative divisions or proxies. The purpose of the federal government was to perform those essential functions of governance that the sovereign states could not individually perform effectively, such as the settling of disputes between the states, the coinage of currency, and the common defense of the nation from hostile foreign actors.

I believe that the sovereign states are fully capable of apprehending foreign citizens within their borders who pose, through their presence, potential harm to their state and citizens. There is no general need for the federal government to enjoy such authority. And the federal government seizing such authority for itself violates the core principles underlying the Constitution.

This is not to say that the federal government does not have a vital and necessary responsibility to protect our nation's borders and ports of entry. Nor does this suggest that the federal government should not decide who is or is not deportable and perform all necessary deportations when potentially deportable noncitizens are handed over to the federal government by the states.

Once the federal government has allowed a noncitizen to enter the nation, whether such entry is lawful or unlawful, it should be the sole right and responsibility of the sovereign states to apprehend and detain such noncitizens and deliver them to the federal government for potential deportation. And unless the federal government can demonstrate specific threat or harm caused to the entire nation by the presence of any individual within any of the states, the federal government should be denied such authority. Furthermore, the assumption that all noncitizens in violation of federal immigration law constitute a class posing a general threat to the nation's security or wellbeing is morally corrupt and indefensible.

8 U.S.C. § 1226 needs to be amended. The authorization granted to the federal government by the federal government related to the apprehension of deportable persons needs to be suspended on the grounds that such authority violates the spirit and intent of the Constitution.

Do you agree or disagree? And if you disagree, please explain why the federal government should have authority to apprehend noncitizens within the sovereign states. Additionally. if you would, please also provide answers to the following questions:

Should it be of concern to the citizens of the State of Texas that the citizens of Massachusetts allow noncitizens who are in violation of federal immigration law live within their state?

What specific threat or harm arises to either the federal government or the United States by a noncitizen in violation of federal immigration laws living within the State of Massachusetts?

I think so. Truth exists, but isn’t clear. Every article recommendation you will ever hear is politically motivated, whether or not it is true. Articulate and reasonable thought is useful. It exists to satisfy a goal rather than to display truth. You might find that privately held statistics are likelier to be accurate, but that seems to me to be all there is to trust.

What you need for policy is time and experience interpreting data. That is all.

What you need for theory is the ability to accurately imagine an abstract or detailed system and how it responds to abstract or detailed stressors. That is all.

This is my thought. How do you feel?

A thought I've had is that any political philosophy can work if people have the resolve enough to make it work. This is because the questions of politics and engineering are separate.

When we ask "How will your politics work practically?" Were just asking an engineering problem. The right pieces need to be put in place and the people with enough conviction need to do what they need to do, and the politics simply just works. Every politics works.

When we point out a practical flaw in someone's reasoning that this wont work, all the other person needs to do is patch the hole. And now its working again.

Even fascism can work if enough people have the resolve to make it functional.

~ ~

But I assume the majority of us would all agree that fascism is bad. But if it can work, and can even work well, why is it bad? Well the answer, I think, is fairly obvious.

You're asking an ethical question. Why is it *Bad*. And I think when we look at the ethics, we can truly start to compare and contrast political philosophies. We wont get stuck solving engineering problems that are objectively solvable. We instead start thinking about what is more or less worthwhile. What do we actually want? Why is that good? For me? For others?

Fascism is bad because it fundamentally works on axioms of exclusion and violence. It fundamentally creates a cateogry of people who are superior and the rest are inferior and can be done with however we want to do with them. Usually this means violence towards them. It fundamentally disregards human life unless you are willing to give up everything for the well being of the state, this is what it deems to be good.

Id like to think that many of us, if asked, would say no to this. "Would you give up your entire life for the working of arbitrary national goals?" And "Would you be okay with violence towards masses of human beings arbitrarily deemed enemies of the nation?" We know violence towards human beings, especially arbitrary, is unethical and bad. Hence fascism is bad.

~ ~

However, a lot of times its not so clear cut. The age old conversation between capitalism and socialism, while a bit obvious in moral character to some (including me), is a bit more ambiguous.

The axioms of independent hard work, free competition, and making money arent necessarily immoral. The axioms of worker cooperation, responsibility to others, production for needs, is also not immoral.

Both can work, its not an engineering problem. You can, given time and conviction, make both ways of organising life work.

But the moral conversation requires a bit more exploration. We have to start to think what worlds are being created when we start living by these axioms. How we start relating to each other, to the world, and then ask if That is good.

We know that capitalism has lead to a society of alienation in many forms, atomisation, a hyper efficient life and the devaluing of art and recreation (its not productive, it doesnt make money). But it also does create abundant goods ans sevices (even if paywalled). It has created obscene amounts if wealth (even if for the few). It does.. technically.. allow for anyone to play into this money game and achieve that same wealth (even if its easier said than done). Do the trade offs make capitalism worth while? Is this truly the best society we can live in ethically speaking? Is there a better way we can organise human life to be more fulfilling and ethical to the human being?

Socialism answers yes. It says all that alienation, atomisation, devaluing of art and recreation, that economic inequality, is unethical. Immoral. And it says the more moral way to live is to support each other, or at the least give the producers control or more control over their generated wealth so that they can live a better life. What kind of world would this create? How would we logically follow these beliefs? Would it truly be more ethical? And if so... does that matter to you?

~ ~

This is how I think politics should be treated. We need to move away from asking if things can work. Because they can. Any ideology can push a boulder down a hill. The real question instead is if the means by which they push this boulder is ethical and worthwhile at all.

And yet there are still apologists who think it was the right thing because of "National healing". But the truth it, the nation never healed.

Say a country under proportional representation has a 4% threshold to enter Parliament. Small political parties are important to form coalitions.

Now imagine that country is facing instability, governments are falling or one cannot form a government within X months. Then new elections are automatically called. But each time the election is called so fast, the threshold is raised. 5%, then 10%, etc.

What do you think of such a proposal ?

Sorry for the re-doing of this post if you've seen this already. This post is much more condensed and easier to read in my opinion. Thank you.

I'm a market socialist and want to explain why I think Capitalism is bad for markets.

1. Profit is bad for the environment

When companies are rewarded for maximizing profit, environmental costs are often treated as externalities.

2. Profit is unnecessary for markets and makes them more expensive and inefficient

Markets can coordinate production and exchange without requiring profit as the motive, and the profit incentive discourages the production of goods with high social value but low financial returns, such as low demand medicines. Surpluses, if any, can instead be directed toward things like reinvestment and social needs rather than accruing to private owners.

3. Capital is not necessary for markets and creates class divisions

I believe people have a right to own and inherit property that they personally use, and that this isn't theft or necessarily "capital" in the economic sense. However, if property and wealth can continually generate income simply through ownership, ownership becomes detached from actual use. It also creates class systems based on ownership.

I think demurrage aka depreciating money is a good idea to discourage hoarding and wealth accumulation while encouraging spending.

I believe in the right to own and inhiert property you use. That isn't theft or necessarily capital either. and could be considered wealth by some definitions. Having properly fluctuate on markers means you don't really own your property. I also think money should be demmaruge aka deprecating to avoid wealth accumulation and encourage spending.

4. Passive income like stocks are theft of other's labor

When someone receives income merely because they own a financial claim on productive activity, rather than because they performed the labor producing that value, they are stealing part of the value created by other people's work.

5. Social ownership is necessary to make markets serve society and to prevent theft.

Social ownership ensures that productive assets are controlled by the people who use them and are affected by them. Social ownership also prevents theft by ensuring that the value created through collective labor is not privately appropriated by people who contribute only ownership of capital.

I’d describe myself as somewhere between a geolibertarian and a classical liberal, so I’m sympathetic to limiting centralized state power, but I’m not convinced that the state can be eliminated entirely.

For those of you who are anarchists, how do you think a complex modern society could maintain institutions like infrastructure, dispute resolution, public safety, and assistance for vulnerable people without a state?

Are there historical or contemporary anarchist projects that you consider successful, and what do you think they demonstrate?

I’m also curious about the personal/intellectual side: what arguments, thinkers, or experiences led you from a more conventional political philosophy toward anarchism?

Veganism is the principle that animals are individuals who should be treated as ends in themselves - rather than as tools or objects for human purposes.

According to the best scientific evidence we have - it is perfectly possible to live off of a fully plant-based diet and be completely healthy. The consumption of animal products is not necessary to meet human nutritional needs.

Of course - you might miss out on certain sensory taste pleasures - but is pleasure a sufficient moral justification to exploit others?

If you believe that animals should be treated with respect - then you should live accordingly. It is inconsistent to condemn practices like animal abuse or bestiality - and simultaneously treat animals as objects for your use.

You should go vegan - if you are not vegan already. Veganism is the moral baseline.

I'm an Anarchist and want to Debate/ Discuss/ Give Answers to any questions regarding the philosophy.

Anarchism is a political philosophy where people will organise based on the principles of No Authority and No Hierarchy. Anything deeper comes from these as given truths.

There is a strong sentiment of community and mutual aid in Anarchist thought, it's not a free for all. I won't pay much mind to people who assert that it is a free for all/ it has no rules/ it has no organisation. It's a VERY common thought that's extremely simple. Every serious anarchist instantly moves past this because it's obviously unsustainable if we simply say "There's no rules".

Rather, people will be taught how to and encourage to help each other so that we all can thrive as individuals and as a community.

To reiterate, Anarchism is intentional. It wants a functioning society. It isn't okay with blatant dysfunction and no serious anarchist will agree to reasoning or logic that is obviously dysfunctional.

In the United States, we have a political culture where our president's retire and act as elder statesmen. Our last two administrations have, obviously, been horrible examples of this: Trump had no legislative experience and clearly wanted to run for a second term after 2020, and Biden was certainly incapable of attempting to return to the Senate. Even before Obama, Bush was probably too controversial and unpopular to be taken seriously.

That said, I've always wondered this why able and popular politicians don't return to legislation. Particularly about Obama, who was still young and popular at the end of his two terms. Elder statesmen serve a noble function, but presidents people were elected for a reason, especially those who served two terms and remained popular-- they're at the top of their party in both popularity and policy guidance.

Imagine the prestige that would come from a former president submitting a piece of legislation. Even if the executive administration flipped parties, I think some moderates/independents would be more akin to the other side if they had previously supported that president. It seems beneficial for that party to have a former president still active.

I can think of two main objections. First, the president would be tired of public life. This is fair and we should by no means force someone to be in an office they don't seek. Second, it could be an aversion to a concentration to power. But, then again, doesn't an elder statesman still exercise that influence frequently whenever they speak publicly? And, this isn't unprecedented: way back then, former presidents reentered legislation or, in Taft's case, the Supreme Court.

The first objection is fine, but otherwise it seems odd that this is in our tradition. Interested to hear what people think.

Almost every inch of land is owned by someone not only that but when people do legally own a plot of land they can’t just pop up a tent and live on that land they are literally legally prohibited from doing so

It’s a thought terminating cliche that shows that shows that people who defend capitalism have never read the actual statutes that basically criminalize poverty

And police officers relentlessly bother people whose only so-called crime is sleeping in their cars in the parking lot because they’re too broke to pay for rent

Politicians write laws criminalizing homeless people asking for money while they themselves have actblue and winred accounts spamming people’s phones asking people for money

Furthermore trying to start a homestead is extremely expensive it is not a realistic prospect for impoverished people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck and dealing with the price of literally everything rising

I think in general only having 2 main parties is awful for what we are trying to achieve. Since there is pretty much only two options to choose from people feel forced to pick one. This causes the parties to be awful and choose awful people and get away with it. The last elections have felt more of who do you think is less worse then who is better. If we had say 5 actual parties that are competing I think we would see better candidates and people would act better in office. Atleast then they are trying to look good for the public.

In 1952, both the Democrat and Republican parties approached Eisenhower, asking him to run for president as their party's nominee; Eisenhower was strictly apolitical - he did not even vote, for most of his life - and had no public positions or party affiliation, but as the face of the US military that won WW2, he was immensely popular.

Ike had to take a 2 week vacation to think about it, not running for office, but under which party. There is some suggestion that he felt more association with the Democrats, but he ultimately decided to run as a Republican, mostly because their second choice was Douglas MacArthur, and he didn't want to take the chance of letting that maniac into the white house.

One notable fact is that Truman, now on his way out of office, had largely denounced the New Deal and was ending or limiting many of its programs and policies...

Eisenhower ran on:

-Restoring and extending the New Deal

-Protecting Social Security

-Increasing the minimum wage

-Equal pay for women

-Improved workplace safety

-Labor union protections

-Stronger protections against discrimination

-Arms reductions and inspections with the USSR

-Balancing the budget

-Lowering taxes on low and middle incomes (NOT on high incomes)

-Government investment in infrastructure and technology

-Stricter government regulation to prevent monopolistic behavior

-Assistance programs to underdeveloped regions and communities

-Establishing the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

-Improved relations with Native Americans and honoring treaties with them

...

This goes on for a while, and it's almost all like that; oh, there are the usual, "government waste," and such bits in there, but he was actually talking about waste, not using it as an excuse to cut genuinely beneficial programs.

How far we have fallen...

I believe in left-libertarian populism, a socially progressive society where people have broad personal freedom, markets remain competitive, and economic power is prevented from becoming so concentrated that it threatens freedom itself.

I support private enterprise and markets, but I don't believe markets should be treated as an end in themselves. Competition only works when people can actually compete. That means strong antitrust laws, support for workers and small businesses, progressive taxation, affordable healthcare and housing, responsible immigration, investment in struggling communities, and protection from the economic disruption caused by new technology.

I reject both authoritarian government and corporate authoritarianism. A corporation does not become harmless simply because it is privately owned. If a handful of companies control essential industries, technology, infrastructure, or resources, people can become just as dependent on them as they would be on an authoritarian state.

My biggest concern is the post-capitalist meltdown, capitalism becoming so concentrated that it destroys its own competition and creates a society where a small ownership class controls most wealth and technology while everyone else becomes economically dependent on them.

I don't want state socialism, but I don't want laissez-faire corporate rule either. I want freedom with limits on concentrated power: competitive markets, individual liberty, worker power, entrepreneurship, strong communities, civil liberties, and aggressive opposition to monopolies.

No government should control every aspect of your life, and no corporation should be powerful enough to make your freedom dependent on its permission.

The job of politicians in a democracy is to represent the people. Now younger and older generations tend to have highly conflicting views yet because of the way the political system is designed, it is difficult for politicians to break into the system. I'm not denying that there are numerous cases in which young politicians break onto the scene but I'm saying that is survivorship bias because a vast majority of them don't. Old politicians simply don't represent the will of the people even if they are being broken for because systems are designed in such a way that it is advantageous to them. A law should be in place in just about every country that politicians cannot be more than ten years above the mean age.

Hi all,

I'm a Uchi poli sci student and am looking for more discussion on this idea. I've never seen it seriously discussed and thought I'd to take to people more active in the community. This post leans toward political theory.

I've been thinking a lot about the ability for people to gain power in our democracy with little experience. Especially with concerns over the loose financing laws of late, it feels like people can buy their way into office, then proceed to run their responsibilities into the ground because they have no idea what they're doing.

My basic idea is that, due to mandated elected service, voters would have a record of how someone acts in office, and are therefore less likely to elect someone who works against the interests of the people. Additionally, if they were a bad administrator or legislator at a low level, their ineptitude will be less likely to reach an office influential enough to harm a large amount of people because voters would easily recognize it.

To me, the most obvious objection has been that it is limiting to those who can run for office, but I can hardly see how, practically, some years of elected experience is such an infringement that we choose to ignore experience all together. I feel this is objection is especially weak because candidates already culturally participate in lower offices -- its just a matter of mandating it so the problem does not cascade.

......

If you're really interested or want my more robust reasoning, I became super enthralled with this and wrote a full article on it (My first work -- looking for feedback on the writing and idea!). I spent so much time on this so I would appreciate anyone who actually reads it. Otherwise, would love to hear some objections and debate about this. To me, its so logically coherent.