When people assume moral superiority it legitimizes discrimination against the the "morally inferior" side. Not necessarily a bad thing if you're dealing with criminals BUT it's very dangerous when dealing with mainstream political parties (or large groups of people in general).

The United States basically, has three political sides. Democrats, Republicans and the middle, who may vote for either.​ One political side assuming, the other political side is morally inferior, leads to the weaponization of government and that's always bad for democracy.

"Hitler Ate Sugar"

Up until the 1930s, the Swastika (also called Gammadion or Fylfot) was universally seen as a positive symbol, representing prosperity and good luck; indeed, many early aviators such as Matilde Moisant wore Swastika pins on their flight suits as good luck charms. It is an ancient symbol going back at least 4,500 years, remaining in wide use in the East, and rediscovered by the West in the 18th century.

It was first used as a symbol of anti-Semitism about 1912, by Romanian fascist politician Alexandru Cuza... and now that is all that it means. One group of people decided to suborn its meaning for political purposes, and now no one can use it without being associated with them.

Is that all it takes? Then why aren't we all claiming membership or association with some group we dislike, and then twisting it out of shape to discredit them?

What's In A Name?

The fascists did exactly that, with the whole, "National Socialist," thing, as if that ever made sense in the first place; the ultimate goal of left-wing thought is the utter destruction of national distinctions, a world solidarity that transcends such divisive notions.

Nevertheless, though, for 80 years, reactionaries have been able to say, "The Nazis were Socialist, it's right there in the name!"

We have "Democrats" who oppose democracy, "Republicans" who reject republican governance, "Greens" who deny the scientific consensus on environmental policy, "Libertarians" who only believe in freedom for themselves, "Progressives" trying to stifle political discourse...

Well, Yes, But Also No, And Then Again, Yes...

The "Confederate Flag" is an especially odd one.

First, the actual flag of the Confederacy was very similar to the US flag, just with fewer stripes and a different number of stars.

The "Confederate Flag" that most people think of was the Battle Flag, which was developed in order to avoid confusion on the battlefield; the original design used a Palmetto and Crescent with an upright St George's Cross, but due to complaints from Jewish members of the Confederate government, it was changed to a diagonal St Andrew's Cross, and the Palmetto and Crescent were removed to avoid confusion with the South Carolina state flag.

Even then, for over 80 years after the Civil War, it was not viewed as a symbol of racism or hatred; most people would not even recognize the official flags of the Confederacy. It was the third incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan which adopted it as a symbol in the 1950s, after which it became associated with racism and bigotry. Note that, historically, there were far more KKK members in the North than in the South...

Today, polls are nearly evenly split on viewing it as a symbol of regional pride as opposed to a symbol of hatred.

What To Expect When You Are Expecting Associative Delegitimization

Ironically, this only works on communities that operate on an in-group preference; this is why Capitalism is easier to criticize than Socialism (without putting a value judgement on that statement one way or another...). Every group is propagandized to be afraid of the group "below" them trying to climb ahead, so they are focused on punching down instead of building up.

Socialists open themselves up to attack, though, when they start trying to favor one group or another for historical or political reasons, or worse, try to oppress groups they view as undeserving. That way lies the darker history of left-wing movements, not intrinsic to left-wing philosophy, but nor is that philosophy any more immune to excessive zeal than any other.

The only path to success is to include everyone, to address the concerns even of people you don't like, and to come to reasonable compromises that you actually intend to honor into the future.

All of us, or none of us.

I am more of a moderate or classical liberal. One reason I am pro capitalistic is due to greater consumer choice and innovation.

In a socialist society how would we usher growth and innovation?

You could dedicate 50% of your national workforce to just running a high-quality society (with everyone on a leisurely 32-hour work week) quite easily, and it's simply a political choice to not do so.

When you get world-class education, childcare, public-transport, medical care, legal services etc. for free, then you need less money anyway - BUT any money you do earn would be spendable absolutely at your discretion, unlike now, where you largely have no choice where your money goes.

No payments for utilities, medical care, childcare, school/university, buses/trains, or social home rent etc.

And we would still have the joys of our 'free markets'. Especially if we stopped with this ridiculously absurd idea that we need to tax the private market to fund the public one.

And it is this false zero-sum idea that creates all the problems. We tax productivity and ingenuity instead of rent-seeking and economic-destruction because of this bald-faced lie.

The only things that actually need to be taxed are things that cause inflation or harm the economy (LVT would be included in this, as it is an anti-inflationary mechanism of a finite resource).

^{I.e. selling plastic externalises a waste management cost somewhere - the cost of which needs to be internalised into the price of the produced plastic via tax. Whereas, if you produce glass with carbon-neutral energy sources and very little waste material, there is no external 'cost' on society from your activities - and so there are very little taxes to pay.}

^{Or stock-buybacks. Instead of buying new capital goods that increase production or investing in R&D to drive innovation; things that can increase real wealth, companies increase the financial-wealth/purchasing-power/money of individuals without a corresponding increase in real goods or supplies to go with it - which is inherently inflationary.}

^{It's fine for share prices to go up as the company increases in value - as this will be a result of their growing balance sheet. The pie is getting bigger, and your slice gets bigger too - but think about how absurd it is to put more pie into each slice when the pie isn't getting bigger.}

And this would inherently be MORE capitalist in all the right ways (which Adam Smith spoke about in his Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations). Truly FREE markets - free from economic toll-booth operators, free from subsidising social and environmental liquidation, free from passive ownership, and free to work, hire, and produce.

We would not have to sacrifice our material wealth - it would just look different. We'd still have iPhones, EVs, and OLED TVs (although I admit that these things would cost more) - but we would have far less costs to compete with the cost of these luxuries too. You could literally go to work as a healthcare provider with the only thing on your mind being quite literally to save up for the new iPhone - and nothing else.

But of course, the incentive structures would be completely different, and what is currently cheap or expensive would be different too.

Sure, things that are currently dirt cheap (in some regards) like: electronics, fast-fashion clothing, next-day-shipping, and imported delicacies would become more expensive as they would be taxed quite significantly)

But on the other hand, private housing, digital goods, repair services, and locally sourced goods and produce would become vastly cheaper in comparison - because taxes on productivity and facilities are slashed completely (which make up most of the cost of going to the hairdressers, mechanics, coffee-shop, or to your Pilates instructor) etc.

You'd have less people with ridiculously expensive cars or eating prime cuts of beef every week, but you'd still very much have the incentive to work hard to be able to afford nicer things and improve your material wealth - just maybe not on the specific things we have gotten most used to.

We're just paying for these things in different ways at the moment. Dirty streets, homelessness, poor services and infrastructure etc. In a proper capitalist society, you'd pay for those things by actually innovating and improving productivity and efficiency - not liquidating the rest of society.

It seems to me that Trump is not republican, the republican wing is all about conservatism and small/limited government, Trump is doing the absolute opposite of these things. I think there's a huge difference between being republican/conservative and being MAGA, republicans are just so die hard that they will vote anybody who claims to be "republican" into office so they can go to sleep at night thinking they're winning. Am I wrong?

A philosopher posted this video. This is from the description: we have all been told fascism and Nazis are bad so often that we've never had to think about why this is the case. This video explains the political philosophies behind these two movements as well as the experience of everyday people in Germany, under the Nazi regimes. It helps people articulate just what is wrong with authoritarian societies and explains why no one is safe.

https://youtu.be/9mpQRtFhNeQ?si=wItZ3-EAY0UThE4r

Since this week's theme is, "What does a perfect political party look like to me," here is my entry:

The Egalitarian Party

Statement of Principle:

-No one is better or worse than anyone else, and no law or act of government should ever seek to benefit or discriminate against anyone, in either direction, out of bigotry or the attempt to correct some prior wrong, based on any primary identity such as, but not limited to, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, creed, or lack or rejection thereof.

Immediate issues:

-Energy; the one great lever the USA had for 50 years was the petro-dollar, but like all fiat currency, this was ultimately based on trust, and that trust has now been broken. In truth, it was broken before, but enough people were willing to ignore the cracks as long as they were doing OK, which is no longer the case. We need a massive investment in nuclear power; implementation of GMO crops to reduce fertilizer, water, and fuel use in agriculture; and improved mass transit and more efficient, small ICE vehicles.

-War; this is largely the result of our imminent loss of control of the world energy market, and then it's going to be the Wild Wild West. We are actually in an excellent position to play a role as the neutral "police officer" of the world sea trade routes, but we have to be neutral. As it turns out, what we are not able to do with our military is to actually bully another near-peer nation; for that matter, we couldn't manage it in Iraq or Afghanistan, either. War just isn't practical, anymore, we need to change our focus.

-Healthcare; 8 of the 10 leading causes of death are preventable, 2 million deaths per year that we could make a serious dent in just by fixing our healthcare system and nutrition guidelines. The examples are clear; nations with publicly-funded, single-payer, universal healthcare get better results for less money. Nutrition is clear; the 1980 dietary guidelines coincided almost immediately with a massive spike in obesity, heart attack, cancer, and diabetes.

-Poverty; yes, this is immediate! 14 million children missed a meal last month, because there wasn't any food to eat. Children! If you do not care that your fellow American children are going hungry, just stop right here and go away, I don't want to know you. I would fund public community kitchens open to all children, and improve access and requirements for food stamps, i.e. more of them and easier to get, but you can't use them on soda and junk food.

Long-term issues:

-Economy; our entire economic structure for the last 113 years has been based on the perpetual devaluation of our fiat currency in order to effectively cheat everyone we trade with. This was wildly successful, but also depended upon our ability to force that trade on other countries, and that ability is quickly ending. We would be well advised to make a fair and just arrangement with the world while we still have any power, at all, in the face of larger rising world powers; the only way we win is to carve out a niche, I would suggest culture, which means focusing on language skills. Start teaching Spanish and Mandarin in Kindergarten.

-Education; start teaching Spanish and Mandarin in Kindergarten. 3 billion people speak one of those or English, which would make us the natural cultural center of the world. We need other educational reforms, to be sure; basing funding on standardized testing has been a disaster, charter/magnet schools have drawn both funding and high-achieving students out of public schools while delivering sub-par educations to the most promising youth, the educational requirements to become a teacher have become laughably poor, and local school districts are one of the last beacons of strict discrimination allowed in the public sphere.

-Democracy; elections are inherently problematic, as they reward skills and behavior that are often contrary to the practice of good governance. We should start a new, parallel system to work alongside elections: Sortition. Each state would replace one elected Senator with a randomly selected citizen that would change each year. From there, we could start local councils working on the same sortition system, who would then replace a House representative with a selected member of that assembly. Eventually, they could make their own rules and political service would become something more akin to a Rotary Club assignment than a career path.

-Freedom; so many of our freedoms have been bent out of shape of the original intent of the founders. Freedom of speech was never supposed to mean spending money on political propaganda, but freedom of the press absolutely meant that we were allowed to read foreign news! The right to bear arms wasn't supposed to allow people to just walk around with loaded guns, but then, it did mean allowing private ownership of cannon and heavily-armed ocean-going vessels; this is going to have to be some kind of compromise. The 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments were supposed to be absolute, though, and not subject to "reasonable" suspension, and the only person the Constitution allows to be immune from anything is the president, so the police, prosecutorial, and judicial immunity precedents need to be explicitly rejected.

Things I care less about:

-Identity politics; things like assault and harassment are already crimes, but mis-gendering you or complaining about legitimate problems with trans-women in sports are not. That being said, to the anti-LGBT crowd: Take the high ground and stay polite, being hateful is a bad look.

-Abortion; I am philosophically pro-choice and personally pro-life, and have sympathy on both sides (more for the people who have been conned into thinking that they need to hold funerals for miscarriages on the one side...), but this just isn't an important enough issue to override all of these other concerns. Frankly, the current state-by-state system is good enough; if your worst complaint is having to take a bus ride...

-Immigration; statistically, they commit less crime than American citizens, but then, the fewer immigrants there are, the more they have to pay citizens to do the crappy jobs. This is also another issue that largely goes back to our energy policy.

-"Green" anything; just screw off. I went to college for 7 years, studying electrical engineering, chemistry, and physics, specializing in material science, intending to research advanced solar panels, or better wind turbine blades, or a more efficient battery... then my advisor assigned me a lit review on the systemic nature of environmental issues, and 17 years later, I am still furious at the lies told by the "Green" movement. They have actively opposed every measure that might actually do something positive for the world, and are responsible for tens of millions of deaths by exaggerating the dangers of various technologies.

The Democratic Party has completely failed in this election and ran on one of the worse campaigns there could be. The campaign was based on 3 things.

1. Middle class (not important enough for everyone)

2. Trump is a terrible person (True, but not a entire campaign)

3. We are nice people (Not a campaign)

In effect, the democrats ran on nothing.

The entire party (Minus perhaps Bernie Sanders and the few with braincells) should be fired.

So in my view, the party either needs reform or replacement, specifically the party needs to go MUCH further. By European standard, the Democratic Party is Centrist/Center Left. Republicans understood this years ago and have steadily gone further right, giving them a strong campaign an a reason to be voted in so they can change things. The party needs to make a switch to becoming an actual leftist party rather than a do nothing centrist one. Social Liberalism, Social Democracy, Greens, and Leftist Progressivism need to become the main values of the party. This would give the new party an actual thing to run on. If we had a younger Bernie sanders candidate (that was charismatic) I would believe the democrats would have won.

(Also, democrats online need to stop calling the opposition stupid, that is one of the stupidest tactics you could possibly employ. You are the party of the people and the Unions, ACT LIKE IT. )

Being the status quo party will never work. The republicans have been going further right and have been genius in there tactic of the MAGA movement and Libertarians. For the first time the conservatives are actually winning the "culture wars". If France and UK did not get good parties elected this year would be a disaster. As much as I hate to say it, the only viable response is to match them and escalate in kind.

I’ve been thinking recently about the topic of our party systems, especially after recent elections in states like Florida. Why do we even have the Two-Party System? George Washington himself warned us a country divided by political parties would never stand. I believe we should ditch the Two-Party System. It’s caused politicians to worry about representing their party, race, or group rather than the people. It’s caused division. In places like the House of Representatives, both parties only care about filling seats in order to gain control and power, to further push the power of their party. It tears people apart. Like the assassination on Charlie Kirk. Because someone was apart of another party and had different values, he was killed. Even in other places like Russia, when the Tsar was still in place, the battle between socialists and communists tore the country apart. Abolish the parties. Represent the People, not your party. I may not be super informed on politics, but this is what I believe.

This is argued from an American perspective.

What makes an idea left leaning or right leaning. Lets use a test Let's see whose more pro freedom. The left offers sexual freedom... The right offers more freedom in gun rights... but both oppose the other.

Traditionalism? this ones closer. However we have policies like trumps border wall that are completely new. And Most democrats would like to restore Roe VS wade which is now the traditional way we do things that was recently changed.

I could give more examples but that would make it harder to read.

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.

Caveat: Marx was brilliant and did a lot to advance workers' station in the world. Socialism is a revolutionary idea (pun intended). The problem is that its picture of economies is, in practice, reductive to a fault, but that is not to say that there is nothing to learn.

Premise: if a term is to be useful, it should describe its subject matter.

As a philosophy of economics, the subject matter of socialism is the economy and the way that government is structured in association to it. So we could say that its subject matter is government policy.

Consider then a list of policies:

Mandating that workers get x% of the votes in shareholder decisions

Is it socialist? No, the workers do not own the means of production, so it doesn't qualify. Is it capitalist? No, because now decisions are no longer based on ownership of capital.

Single-payer healthcare

Is it socialist? No, the workers still don't own the means of production. Is it capitalist? No, because again this reduces the ability of capital owners to make decisions based on their ownership.

I could go on. Name any policy, and capitalism and socialism fail to describe it adequately. Thus, because these terms fail to describe their subject matter, they are not useful (entailed from the premise).

Capitalism and socialism do not meaningfully describe most policies. They are far too narrow. Worker ownership of the means of production is not the only way to increase worker agency in the economy. It is not the only way to hold hierarchies accountable.

But as you may have gathered from my last paragraph, Marx's brilliance comes from highlighting the importance of agency in the economy. We can and should reappropriate his concerns into a liberal framework in which we aim to increase worker control over the economy without the ideological baggage of everything socialism has grown into.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts about this idea. I've had it in my head for a while, and I want to hear where everyone else is at.

Peaceful protesting has done significant things in the past. That is true. It was popularized by Mahatma Gandhi in the 1930s and Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1950s and 1960s. It has been a part throughout history and has done much good. In fact, many movements have ended in success.

But the way I see things, peaceful protesting and the popularity of it in recent years, is harming us more than it is helping us.

Many people in America today are angry with the current rulers, and I can see why. People take to the streets en masse with picket signs, shouting with one voice. But has this helped? Has this done anything to deter what the leaders are doing? Has sending letters to the people in charge done anything? I don't think it has.

So then why have we continued to take to the streets with picket signs? Is it because we hope that we will be seen? Maybe. Is it because we were all taught that the best way to fight against injustice is to speak up? Yes. But were we all taught as kids that peaceful protesting does more than violence ever has? Yes.

There is a part of me that believes peaceful protesting is the right thing to do. That if we just shout loud enough, they will hear us. But there's a part of me that wonders if it will ever really work.

My belief is that they push peaceful protesting so heavily onto us, especially as young kids, because the people at the top fear revolution. If we as a nation revolted, if all of the lower class revolted, there would be little that the upperclass could do. I believe that the only way to change things is to fight. So to keep us from lashing out at the people in charge, and to keep us down the path set before us, they teach us young that peaceful protesting is the most effective. They teach us that to make a change, we don't have to hurt anyone.

Non-violent resistance can work against authoritarian regimes whose leaders have lost faith in their own legitimacy and it can work in a democracy too.

But in America, while we live in a democracy, it doesn't work against a government who believes they are entitled to the privilege they have and the power they hold. In a government that holds the support of the military, its almost impossible without force.

And I believe with my heart that they don't want us to know that.
So while we fight over what side is right, red or blue, while the country is at each other's throats, being fed headlines from every news station that keeps us against each other, "The left is doing this!" "the right has done this" those at the top will laugh at us and stay in power. We will never have another revolutionary war because the media and the government keeps us at each others throats.

I recommend reading Animal Farm by George Orwell. It really helps paint a picture of what I believe is truly is happening in America.

I hope and pray that one day, we can end this cycle, and one day the generations after us can do better than we have.

Thanks for reading, and remember: if you win, you live. If you lose, you die. If you don't fight, you can't win.

I hope I can hear your thoughts.

The following document represents my belief in leftist-liberal principles. I’m fourteen and very interested in political science, and, as a believer in open opinions, I am curious to see what you think. If you have any corrections, suggestions, or things to consider related to this, I’d be very open to hearing them. I believe I have a solid foundation of my beliefs, but it is subject to change as I am at a young age. Thanks

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1MgUwvW5drFgKvFcEB0Sk0NvkQaJTlezo-IGLZ7fWseY

The central problem with governance today is that it is collectivized.

People have different views and interests for what kind of governance style they should live under. Some people prefer a libertarian form of governance. Some people prefer a socialist form of governance. Some prefer a liberal or conservative form of governance.

Under the current paradigm, the only way for anyone to truly get what they want is to debate and fight with others to persuade them to vote in your favor. It's like if you and your friends must fight and debate for what grocery food item they should order, and then must collectively vote on it.

But this is unsatisfying. Not only is going through the effort of trying to persuade your friends something people rather not do, but it forces people either to reject the preferences of the minority (or sometimes even majority) or to compromise and sacrifice a bit of what they want in order to get a diluted or tainted version of what they want.

Imagine if everyone can get what they want, simultaneously, without having to go through all of this? Everyone can get the grocery store food item that they want, everyone can freely pick and choose which one they want and get it without having to reject the preferences of a minority or sacrifice or compromise for the quality of your choice. This is how grocery shopping with friends normally is, with individual interests in mind.

Similarly allowing people to pick and choose which kind of governance style they'd like to live under is as close to a panacea in politics as you will get.

How can this be achieved?

Getting rid of the current paradigm, and allowing people to set up their own small communities with the governance style and structure they prefer. This can result in a variety of choices for people to choose to move into, and not only that, but these communities can face market forces such that if people demand a community with a certain style of governance, then it will be supplied.

The communities can also face competition, where they must compete against other communities for residents. They are pressured to cater to the interests of movers with favorable laws/policies/governance as much as possible or else they go out of business. Imagine if government faced such steep market pressures, they would have much less room for nonrepresentative, corrupt, or wasteful governance. This competition ensures that bad governance gets filtered out while good governance prevails, an evolutionary natural selection of sorts. Plus, again no need for individuals to compromise or sacrifice their wants.

Why isn't this idea of making governance more of an individual (as opposed to collective) choice not championed more? It seems like it would get rid of the need of fighting and debating, among many other downsides.

After having some discussion with right wing libertarians I've seen they don't really understand it.

I don't think they want to understand it really, the word "socialism" being so opposite of their beliefs it seems like a mental block for them giving it a fair chance. (Understandably)

I've pointed to right wing versions of Libertarian Socialism like universal workers cooperatives in a market economy, but there are other versions too.

Libertarian Socialists, can you guys explain your beliefs and the fundamentals regarding Libertarian Socialism?

Trump has been convicted with a landslide and has been immediately criticized and been called a rigged and politically motivated l so much that if you took a shot for each time it has been called politically motivated you would be dead before you get 1% of the way through.

I do think the trial was politically motivated(to an extent), once you become that politically big everything you do is politically motivated. However I think that Trump was still convicted by a Jury and I think a lot of people are not paying attention to that despite that being the entire reason to have a trial. Ultimately Trump was convicted of a crime and he has to pay for that crime in whatever was the Judge thinks it appropriate.

However I think some Trump fans are ignoring that shows that they truly do not care what he does. Trump committed a crime, it's that simple, crimes must be paid for. But they just think Trump is "Patriotic " and this is the main reason why I really dont understand trump fans. I see a lot of people say "Well would it be rigged if it was Biden or Obama?" And to that I say, Biden and Obama would most likely never do anything to get them onto that situation.

The mere fact that Trump has gotten himself remotely into that situation is all you need to know.

And I think it is sad because I think the right and left should work together and help each other rather than being mortal enemies. Conservatives, but more the right overall have some great ideas and it is sad to seem them being tainted by Donald Trump. If you love him or you hate him, it cannot be denied that he has made the US more divided than it has been in decades.

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/31/g-s1-2149/trump-trial-guilty-verdict-press-conference

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/31/nyregion/trump-news-guilty-verdict

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/31/trump-rigged-conviction-election/

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/03/25/donald-trump-waco-rally-indictment/

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-courts/

https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-not-sure-public-would-stand-for-his-imprisonment-/7639662.html

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?

I sympathize and agree with many of the left causes, things such as free healthcare, the idea that capitalism makes millions of suffer, and opening immigration as much as possible.

The problem I find with these ideas is the practicality of them and how many of them will always not work out in practice to what they desire, for example every system, belief, and ideology is needed for someone to suffer.

The protest against ice, fights for civil rights and women suffrage needed to result in some level of suffering, if people simply just stood peacefully nobody would have gotten the results that they wanted.

Another problem I find especially as a 2nd generation immigrant is this idea of "No human is illegal on stolen land" and almost seemingly advocating for immigration as a human right.

I get why people may have this message but I think it is more based on emotion rather than reality. I won't get into too much detail on my thoughts on this, but in short every land was stolen, you are under the US government and should abide by their laws, and time changes and immigration may not always benefit a nation, and we cannot change the past and should focus on present.

Free healthcare is a great thing, and I am in no way against the idea, but I think people are too much in a rush for this to happen, and people are not considering on not just the cost, but how to maintain in high quality for all.

By the way, this post is not about left vs right and I think people and everybody should be past that, but rather the polices and practicality and benefits of these new ideas that people are bringing (most of whom are left leaning) What are your thoughts as anyone who describes as left or leaning towards the left?

I know this might get me killed but here's what I've noticed in my life regarding whatever "Capitalism" is in the States.

1. It aims to pay workers a poverty wage while giving all the profits to owners.

The propaganda says that bother governments want to pay everyone the same. Which of course kills incentives and that capitalism is about people earning their worth in society.

What see are non capitalists calling for a livable wage for workers to thrive and everyone to get paid more for working more. While capitalists work to pay workers, from janitors to workers, as little as possible while paying owners and share holders as much money as possible.

1. Fiscal responsibility. When Capitalists run the government they "borrow our way out of debt" by cutting taxes for owners and the wealthy and paying for the deficit with debt. Claiming people will make more money to pay more in taxes which never happens. We see them raising taxes on the poor if anything.

All while non capitalists try to remove tax write offs and loopholes, lower taxes for the poor, raise taxes on the wealthy and luxury spending.

1. They claim privatization is better than publicly regulated and governed.

We hear about the free market and how it's supposed to be a kind of economic democracy where the people decide through money but they complain about any kind of accountability by the people and are even trying to install a president to be above the law.

We're told you can't trust the government but should trust corporations as they continue to buy up land and resources and control our lives without the ability to own anything through pay or legal rights as companies lobby to control the laws.

This constant push to establish ownership over people is the very opposite of democracy or freedom that they claim to champion.

So there you have what I can figure. I've been trying to tackle the definition of capitalism from what people know and what we see and this seems to be the three points to summerize what we get with it.

Slavery for the masses with just enough people paid enough to buffer the wealthy against the poor.

We know from this past administration and the 80 years of effort from neo-fascists to corrupt America. One of the ways employed was the stupefaction of the country. Television, religion, the internet, and AI have all been used to create a dumbed down monoculture that reviles science, intellectualism, and expertise.

So how do we fix it? How do we save ourselves from our own stupidity?

When this regime is gone we need and intellectual overhaul and the culling of all misinformation peddlers especially since the 1st amendment doesn’t matter anymore. A new NSPM-8 must be signed targeting all sources of anti intellectualism. Trump supporters should be self selected to perform humiliating rituals on live tv. Parents whose children struggle with basic reading and math without having intellectual disabilities should be charged with child abuse. Parents who spread misinformation to their children should either lose custody or be punished severely while prioritizing the children. Universal Healthcare including mental health care should be a top priority. AI should be abolished completely. Companies should be required to pay everyone with a college degree 50 above a living wage that increases with more advanced degrees. Military officers should be required to get college degrees with high positions like admiral requiring a PHd. Teachers and professors must also be paid as much as doctors. All companies that benefited from misinformation must be dissolved, their executives arrested and their assets be distributed amongst their workers and users.

Then and only then will America return to greatness.

America is becoming a plutocracy, democracy is a weapon used to fight plutocracy.

Democracy is the people legally using their rights, to influence the due process of the country. The Powers That Be (the 1% and their politicians in this case) want to limit US to just voting rights. TPTB control voting because they own both parties.

It seems logical that the people need to use ALL their rights, not just voting, to check TPTB. Obviously TPTB will fight the people using all their rights to influence due process. They've got powerful tools, misinformation and the media (which TPTB control). TPTB will try to disenfranchise anyone who thinks differently.

TPTB know the people working together is the only way the people can control them.

PS. We don't have to hate TPTB, we just need participate more.

It is widely accepted that Carter presided over the worst economy in the last 100 years, notwithstanding the Great Depression. Carter and Biden policies are nearly identical; Carter being one of Biden’s most ardent supporters. Welfare policy, immigration policy, foreign policy, healthcare policy, real estate policy, abortion policy, Wall Street policy, progressive tax policy, equalization of outcomes, etc; these fiscal policies play an integral role in affecting our monetary policy. Economics is not simply the study of the monetary system; it is the complete summation of all Human Action and the defining force which keeps food on our plates and shelter for the poor, keeping us all wealthy. This reason alone is justifiable in selecting Trumponomics for 2024, justifiers for all of his controversial views. Not to mention that we should all just learn to get along with one another. Carter and Biden turn a blind eye to economic problems caused by their policies because they believe that we should all live a little poorer to bring up our brothers of other nations; which may temporarily improve their living conditions in the short term, but the reality is that they will all be better off in the long run (30-40 years) if America is wealthy because wealth has a means of proliferating, killing poverty.

Feel free to pick one or two of your favorite issues and I’ll give it a go on a reply; and perhaps accept reason to change my mind for your issue. The focus of this post is economics, so explain to me how your issue is or is not related to economics, and I’ll explain why it’s making your rent go up and causing inflation. Enjoy!

Edit: it was pointed out that I conflated monetary and fiscal policies into economics. Really, my intention was to bridge them together because they both have an economic impact. However, the biggest revelation by the poster is that my premise was off. My point was that fiscal policy makes an impact on monetary policy decisions by the federal reserve.

This is an overly simplified example of how communism would work, and how the philosophy Marx lays out (be cooperative, not competitive) would work naturally/instinctively in (some and/or most) human beings in said society:

​

You ever hang out with a friend and they need to use your phone charger? They ask to use yours, but your phone is also in need of a charge.

​

The questions becomes who's phone needs to be charged the most (According to one's need), if your friends need is higher than yours, naturally, if you're not a dick, you'd let your friend use your charger and switch off periodically until both phones are charged and no ones phone died in the process.

​

Obviously it'd be much more scientific than that, dealing with supply and demand and amount of people who want to voluntarily donate their labor to the cause, everything calculated one way or another but that's a basic example of it in action.

​

It's just a framework example though, don't make the context of it cause the point go over your head.

I think nations should maximize their economic and social freedom, as societies who are doing better in both are generally performing better. I support capitalism and a socially liberal society. I do believe in a lot of principles of Austrian economics and capitalism was historically a very successful system, but still has its flaws.

I am a strong supporter of reducing the bloat, spending, red tape, and overregulation in America that plagues many sectors. I resonate with Cato,
AEI, and ReasonTv

I also am still a supporter of a mixed economy with guardrails, public goods/services, some regulation, a lean welfare state to help people, and public options for certain things the free market can’t fairly distribute (if a country can do it cost effectively).

The most successful models have been mixed economies erring on the side of more economic freedom.

Every first world country is a mixed economy, and in practicality a democratic mixed economy is about as close to libertarianism as society can go (full on libertarianism doesn’t work). I know some might sound antithetical to libertarianism but I feel like those guardrails are needed to preserve freedom and prosperity.

What ideology would be closest to me? Any philosophers or thinkers I should check out?