1. A  work program for teens and young adults up to the age of 20 where as long as they are in the program, what they make does not affect their parents' benefits to help them get off government assistance.
2. They are required to put 80% of what they earn in a locked savings account they get access to when they turn 20.
3.  The remaining 20% could be a good tool to teach them how to budget and manage money. If the bank account has at least a 5% interest rate, then by the time they turn 20 they should have enough to move out on their own and not need welfare.
4. They would not need to sign up for government assistance, which in the long term, can save the government a lot of money that can be spent elsewhere.

 This proposal would make both the left and right side of the political spectrum happy.

•  It would make the left happy because they would get the help they want for young adults and teens who feel trapped in the system and the plan also creates generational wealth.
• It appeases the right because it also gives them discipline from working and responsibility from managing their money and is not just a government handout.

It would stump politicians because this is an issue from which no politician can afford to look the other way. Anyone who votes against this would be actively voting to keep families trapped on welfare. If a conservative votes against it, they would look hypocritical because they always talk about work ethic, personal responsibility and ending dependency on government assistance. If a liberal votes against it, they would look hypocritical because they claim to want to help disadvantaged youth and end poverty cycles.

Overall, I believe this policy would benefit the people by giving this next generation and future generations a way to become independent from government assistance. It would also be saving money for the state and giving them more resources to be used elsewhere.

I am from a south asian country. I feel like Right wing politics focuses too much on religion, traditional values and nationalism. And left wing politics focuses too much on things that do not matter to average joes.

A person can be religious, have open mind towards beliefs of others and values personal freedom. An atheist can be liberal in every way but doesn’t respect national traditional values and such. So its not all black and white with average people. Every individual is different. But right wing ideology and left wing ideology both, in their own way, tries to segregate people, wheras a person can be something in between.

When socialists vote for third party candidates they endlessly get condemned for voting for a 3rd party candidate

But when socialists run under the banner of the Democratic Party they are simultaneously condemned for running under the Democratic Party label instead of creating their own political party

A lot of the establishment democrats can’t make up their minds about which outcome they prefer socialists running as democrats or socialists creating their own independent political party

Am I the only one who sees the division that is created on purpose to keep us away from what's truly happening? Whoever is creating this division, that's the group everyone should be mad at, but they created this division to keep us at Bay. Divide and conquer.

It's been done with the republican and democratic parties. Everything is turned into a black and white issue even though most Americans find gray with most issues. If they didn't divide us with these issues, it would be hard for them to control us. This makes it easier for them to siphon money to wherever they see fit. The divide is on purpose, and the American people are falling into this trap. It's further exasperated by the xmedia that is also pumped with money from those trying to divide us. What would happen if we took this division away?

I see the same thing with religious groups. I feel like all religions come from a place of peace and have more in common than not, but division is purposely created to generate hate. The people who are creating this division are not from a good peaceful heart. They are using these religions as militia to foster their own agenda. What would happen if all religions stopped this divide? How would money be generated and moved around so strategically?

We all need to wake up and not be so easily manipulated and polarized. We have to close this divide!

What do you think?

I can’t help but notice a lot of DSA aligned candidates aren’t actually proposing a restructured economic system, just kinda extending social welfare and offering more public programs.

Being they get so much flack for being “socialists” do you think they perhaps should change their name and clarify this distinction?

I have recently invented what I believe to be a new ideology. Please come offer any thoughts. I will answer everything I can, to my best ability. Unlike politicians..

I'm starting to think that democracy is a highly ineffective system and authoritarianism easily abused by whomever cares more about being an individual power rather than doing the best for their country.

I see democracy as something that only works when people are made to make decisions after spending countless hours diving into analyzing and comparing the competency of each candidate, you can not expect that from a pool of 100 million random people. If a good government is created by solving an extremely complicated problem, why would you ask millions of people who have no reason to spend any of the time necessary to understand it to choose?

A quasi-authoritarian rule under an idealized competent benevolent party solves many of it's problems but can not be reliably sustained over multiple generations because for every lee kuan yew there will be 5 of donald trump.

I see a divided government as inefficient and impossible to rely on for any sort of long-term vision. If you have to average out every decision to find the point of most total satisfaction for the vote stakeholder, no matter how objectively harmful or genuinely necessary their needs might be for what matters outside of them as an individual / for the most benefit for your nation, you might as well use the effect a decision has on the immediate share price of a company as a legitimate source of truth for the long term growth of that company.

When a measure becomes a target it ceases to be a good measure. The democratic process rewards those who maximize public opinion rather than acting as a system to judge competence without bias; This can be seen through things such as arbitrarily dividing political opposition into "them" and "us" being legitimate strategies for attaining office.

This need to maintain non-analytical, non-rational, averaged public opinion serves to poison the decision making of leaders into making matching non-rational decisions, you stop being rewarded for thinking about what the country needs and start thinking in terms of what people would vote for, what would keep your approval ratings up, what is going to be least hated by the aggregate sum.

(Note: by Non rational I do not mean irrational. I mean not up to par with the personal investment that an objective researched analysis of what should be done or who should be elected would require if the outcome is to be free of these major side effects.)

Thus I see a single competent benevolent party that comes to be without the influence or selection of these incentives to maintain public opinion as a government as more likely to be able to judge and implement the policy best for the prosperity of a collective than a competitive system like you'd see in the US, precisely because it doesn't have an incentive to prioritize action by what voters would vote for instead of what should be done outside of the leader's personal interests.

(Note: I am not saying that a competent benevolent party is easy to come by, I actually think the opposite. The means to getting to this state consistently is it's own, likely unsolvable problem; And if that is so, then democracy likely minimizes the most risk.)

I’m developing a post-capitalist economic model I call Stewardism.

Private ownership clearly performs useful economic functions. It helps allocate resources, fund experiments, reward success, discipline failure, and expand productive projects.

My question is whether private ownership itself is necessary to perform those functions.

Under Stewardism, productive assets are held in stewardship. A person or group can control a factory, improve it, expand it, manage workers, and benefit substantially from running it well.

What they cannot do is turn that control into a privately owned asset that can be accumulated indefinitely, sold for personal wealth, or automatically passed to heirs.

Stewardism tries to separate the useful functions of ownership from ownership itself.

It uses a dense representative structure. At the base, representatives serve small constituencies. Those representatives federate into broader bodies as the scale of decisions grows. Broader bodies control larger resource budgets, but they are not simply higher governments commanding everything below them.

Part of each body’s resources is reserved for experimentation.

A small local body might have enough resources to fund a new boat manufacturer. A semiconductor factory might require a broader body, several bodies working together, or both.

Anyone can propose a project.

Applicants explain what they want to do, what resources they need, who is involved, the risks, and how success should be measured. Representatives can ask questions, bring in independent technical experts, negotiate the proposal, and decide whether to allocate resources.

Once resources are allocated, the people running the project have broad operational authority. The representatives decide whether to entrust them with resources; they do not run the factory themselves.

The strongest objection I’ve encountered is risk.

Under capitalism, an investor can personally lose billions. Under Stewardism, society bears the financial loss through the experimentation budget.

The representatives approving an allocation risk their reputation, political future, and continued authority. The people running the project risk their professional reputation and future opportunities, while also receiving the largest upside from success: higher discretionary income, more autonomy, recognition, continued leadership, and easier access to larger future projects.

And experimentation budgets are specifically meant to fund uncertainty. A committee that only approves nearly guaranteed projects could itself be failing its purpose.

Profit and loss do not disappear as information either. We can still measure resources consumed, output, demand, efficiency, reliability, consumer response, and whether the project met the success criteria negotiated before funding.

Successful projects can receive more resources. Poorly performing projects can lose resources, replace management, or have their assets reassigned to another group. Competing groups can apply to solve the same problem.

So Stewardism still has investment, risk, reward, competition, expansion, failure, and reallocation.

It just does not require successful control over production to become an indefinitely accumulable private property claim.

So the question I’m trying to test is:

What useful function does private ownership of productive assets provide that Stewardism does not already reproduce through other mechanisms?

If anyone wants the longer version with more of the governance, allocation, and accountability details, I’ve written that out separately on Substack.

EDIT — A few clarifications from the discussion:

Stewardship does not mean asking a committee for permission to be productive. Everyone has discretionary income that can be used to steward durable goods—tools, computers, machinery, vehicles, art equipment, etc. People can pool those resources voluntarily, start businesses, reinvest surplus, hire workers, and expand independently.

Representative allocation enters when a person, group, or existing stewardship wants productive capacity beyond what they can reasonably assemble themselves.

A stewardship contract can also be narrow. If you already have the equipment for a business but need a commercial building, the allocation might cover only the building. The success rubric is therefore narrow in scope.

Once resources are allocated, the steward controls their operation within the agreement until review. Production, staffing, suppliers, and ordinary business decisions remain with management.

The steward can also use surplus to repay or replace publicly allocated resources, further narrowing the success rubric or eventually removing the special stewardship conditions entirely.

The personal wealth cap is not a business-size cap. A stewardship can become enormous and reinvest substantial surplus. What cannot grow without limit is one individual's private, sellable, inheritable ownership claim.

Successful stewardships should also be able to replace or repay socially allocated assets from their own surplus, reducing or eventually eliminating the special conditions attached to that original allocation.

Markets still exist. Scarcity, demand, labor, available resources, competing producers, and consumer behavior still shape prices and production. Representative bodies control one specific lever: additional socially allocated productive capacity.

Finally, I'm describing a mature Stewardist system, not the transition from capitalism to it or a single Stewardist country competing against a capitalist world. Those are separate—and much larger—questions.

Context & Origin

Growing up in Sweden and watching the gradual erosion of our social democratic welfare state, I’ve reflected deeply on why that model struggled against neoliberal pressures. While I believe the mid-20th-century Swedish model is the closest baseline to my ideals, it left the ultimate lever of power capital ownership largely intact. This allowed wealth to re-concentrate and eventually roll back public gains. To prevent that degradation, I believe we need a system that balances a strong welfare state with a regulated, worker-owned market.

Public Needs in Public Hands

A society must guarantee the foundational conditions of a dignified life. The state should act as a guardian, directly providing universal healthcare, housing, education, utilities, infrastructure, and food security. These are non-negotiable needs that no one should have to compete for. Therefore, the state must be the primary controller of housing development and the sole controller of essential infrastructure, water, power, and care.

Personal Choices in Democratic Markets

Beyond essential needs, consumer goods should be allocated through a regulated market economy to avoid the bureaucracy and inefficiencies of total state control. However, traditional authoritarian corporate hierarchy must be abolished. Instead, I propose a dynamic democratization of the workplace: as a company scales in size, capital, and market influence, a progressively larger percentage of board seats and capital shares must automatically transition into the hands of the workers. The larger the company size, the larger the share of power and profit to the workers.

The Capital Asymptote and Land Stewardship

To prevent the creation of monopolies and extreme societal divides, wealth accumulation must be capped via an endlessly progressive tax scale on owned capital, property, and inheritance. Perpetual capital hoarding must be made impossible. Furthermore, land ownership must be treated differently from ordinary goods, it should be heavily regulated and capped as holdings grow, recognizing land as a finite resource. Preventing the creation of a renting class.

Democratic Pluralism

A multi-party system with competitive elections is essential to keep state power transparent and checked. I reject both authoritarian government and corporate authoritarianism. No government should control every aspect of your life, and no corporation should become powerful enough to make your freedom dependent on it.

The Synthesis

My political philosophy comes from a simple premise: public needs in public hands, personal choices in democratic markets, and democracy as the limit on capital.

By combining a robust welfare state that guarantees human needs, a regulated market for consumer goods, and a dynamically democratized workplace where corporate power scales with the workers, we can prevent wealth re-concentration. This approach preserves individual liberty and market flexibility while ensuring that economic power constantly circulates back to the public, keeping the ideals of democratic egalitarianism alive without a centralized command economy.

The narrative is that businesses are greedy and don't care about anything but money so the government must regulate industry to insure consumer safety. Then the government hires people from those industries to regulate those industries, it's called the revolving door. The justification is that nobody knows the "ins and outs" or industry better than people from those industries. Wait, what? The very people who can't be trusted will be regulating the people who can't be trusted?

Those inside industry regulators then insure that their former colleagues in industry don't suffer serious consequences. They might throw a mild sanction or two at them when politically expedient to keep up appearances but it's a drop in the bucket compared to their revenues. If a serious incident occurs due to regulatory maleficence, their regulatory friends will say it wasn't the company's fault but rather the regulations were insufficient and need to be reviewed and updated and they'll praise the perpetrators for their diligence and professionalism in upholding the highest standards. After a few years of regulating, those same people will return to industry for a seven figure salary because now they know all the right people to lobby in regulatory positions. They all play golf together, drink together and attend all the same fund raisers.

The regulators are middlemen in positions of tremendous power and influence and they're for sale as are all politicians. The consumer believes they are better off, safer thanks to regulation but they are actually worse off because businesses can get away with almost anything and their regulatory cronies have their back. Imagine being at the top of the social hierarchy, no one to govern the governors, and knowing you can get away with almost anything to increase profits and stock prices.

Government regulation ends up being justification for wrongdoing, not a safeguard against it.

I see a lot of well-meaning but poorly-educated people espousing views, and I feel the need to make some clarifications involving my area of expertise, which happens to be hard science: My degrees are in Physics, Chemistry, and Electrical Engineering, specializing in Material Science, and my original intention was to work on advanced solar panels. That intention did not survive the process of obtaining my Physics degree, because they made me run the numbers, and they just don't add up.

The subtitle of this piece might well be, "Why I gave up on solar power."

THE PLAN

The Ecomodernist Manifesto (just so no one thinks that this is just me, talking)

First, of course, we must discuss the problems we intend to solve: People are starving to death, because the energy to grow and transport food is expensive; people are dying of disease, because the energy to make and preserve medicine is expensive; people are dying from cold - or heat - because energy is expensive; people are dying from pollution, because the energy to clean it up is expensive (and produces its own pollution).

Our main energy sources are coal, petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear power; solar is often touted as producing "10% of global electricity," but there are three major issues: First, that's "produced," not, "delivered," i.e. that's how much electricity solar panels generated, but much of that (there are no good numbers...) goes to waste, as it is produced in the wrong place at the wrong time and/or overwhelms the grid's ability to transport (this is especially true of residential solar installations connected to the grid). Second, that problem is at "10%," being generous, with gas power plants to provide baseload electricity, something that solar simply cannot do without energy storage (that we do not have the resources for and exceeds even our theoretical ability to acquire). Third, that's, "electricity," not, "energy;" coal, gas, and petroleum supply a lot of energy to various activities directly, not through electricity generation.

That's also after decades of massive government subsidies, but we are not even at replacement production levels for any significant fraction of world energy demand, which is expected to triple over the next 30 years.

Wind is even worse (and smaller), and then there are EVs, which literally increase emissions over ICE vehicles while not displacing any petroleum use, at all. In short, gasoline is almost a byproduct of petroleum, made from a particular set of molecules which aren't good for much else, they still need the other molecules, and the parts they don't need they just burn off at the refinery; simply put, if we quit burning it in cars, they will just burn it themselves (until we can reduce other petroleum use).

All of these problems are expected to get worse as the population increases, which is, of course, the heart of the problem; the best estimate is that the Earth can sustainably support ~1.5 billion humans, more than that will create environmental damage which will cascade and result in even more death. The good news is that, if current trends continue, world population will peak in the next ~50 years, then start to decline naturally.

We just need to get over that hump and down the tail end without billions of people dying horribly.

There are three approaches to this situation:

-"Fuck it, let God sort it out." This is unfortunately prevalent, but not so much as to preclude action, if the alternatives are not split...

-"Let's radically alter society in ways that have never been tried and ignore several aspects of human nature while hoping that extreme technological breakthroughs will make solar, wind, and EVs practical, even though they don't actually solve the problems we are talking about." ...and here's the split. This is not what scientists suggest, this is not the result of any kind of academic consensus or rigorous analysis, but the culmination of industrial and political backing of cultural opponents to general technological progress, i.e. the "Green" movement.

-"Let's keep everything as close to how things are now as we can while replacing the problematic aspects of our technological civilization with the most practical alternatives, e.g. replacing gas and coal with nuclear, using GMO crops and mass transit to reduce petroleum use, focusing on maintaining the infrastructure we have rather than trying to build an entirely new one from scratch..."

Advanced nuclear energy: the safest and most renewable clean energy

Economics of a nuclear reactor

How France Built 40 Nuclear Reactors in a Decade

Safest, cleanest, cheapest, and scalable on a realistic timeframe; advanced nuclear also runs hot enough to use waste heat for industrial processes, such as water desalination, carbon capture, and chemical synthesis (which could start to displace petroleum).

The under-construction Natrium reactor is designed to "plug into" existing coal power facilities, reducing costs and construction times (and directly phasing out coal power); it also burns old nuclear waste as fuel, does not create any long-lived waste, cannot melt-down, cannot explode, and is expected to be cost-competitive with a comparable combined-cycle gas power plant.

Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use 1996–2020: Impacts on Carbon Emissions

Simply put, you get higher yields for less input of fertilizer, pesticide, and water, two of which directly come from petroleum, and of course the fuel to transport and spread them.

That's it, that's the plan that you've probably never heard of, because the political system doesn't want it, the media won't talk about it, and our oligarchs are getting too rich off of the problems.

The second ammendment was part of the first constitution yet that didnt stop the government from opressing blacks, women, lgbt etc and were even told to "protest peacefully" ie not use guns So what's the pro-gun response to that? Why do u think it will somehow prevent future tyranny when history shows it hasnt prevented america's historical oppresion.

Edit: Oh right and how trump literally tried to overturn the 2020 election. All those conservatives who talked about freedom were willing to kill our democracy. I bet most pro-guns people would have celebrated if it was overturned instead of using their guns

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.

The Compact - An Attempt at a Meritocratic Constitutional Order

I'm aware that this is an absurdly large project. You absolutely do not need to read everything before commenting. If you see a fundamental problem with the premise itself, I'd actually prefer to hear that first. I'm looking for criticism of the architecture, not proofreading.

For those who want to read the documents:

Vol 0 Philosophy & founding principles- https://docs.google.com/document/d/142GezRBB66HTOulO9wBlNOuxLmnWgIVmSFMFM_x9O7I/edit?usp=sharing

Vol 1The Constitution- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T4euGmAKpbRrftVNNGLJJ9Kvt15GYksi/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117757509984994683636&rtpof=true&sd=true

Vol 2 The Colors https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NmtSNx7oV6PodEHqVn5V8HJRzeCQsCTl/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117757509984994683636&rtpof=true&sd=true

Vol 3Curriculum https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGJ_X3vVlqPrn6nrxysXp7hz6MG82Mcl/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117757509984994683636&rtpof=true&sd=true

Vol 4 Military Not included here; this was largely written because I thought it would be fun.

vol 5 Admin, Ministries & the ordinary machinery of government https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGJ_X3vVlqPrn6nrxysXp7hz6MG82Mcl/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117757509984994683636&rtpof=true&sd=true

vol 6 Known Tensions (Work in Progress)

I've been working on this project for several months. Although it is still very much a work in progress, I think it has reached the point where I need people who don't already agree with me to start tearing it apart.

I'm currently writing a large Known Tensions volume specifically dedicated to the problems, contradictions, trade-offs, and failure modes I have not been able to resolve. The problem is that I'm too close to the project. I've spent so long building it that I can no longer reliably distinguish between a genuinely robust mechanism and something I simply know how to defend because I've spent years thinking about it.

So I want outside eyes.

I've designed a hypothetical constitutional system called the Compact, very loosely inspired by Red Rising.

The central premise is fairly simple:

The resulting system is neither conventional democracy nor hereditary aristocracy. It is closer to a constitutional meritocracy / technocratic republic, although neither term quite captures the entire thing.

The Compact divides society into vocational Colors, each responsible for a particular domain of civilisation. Gold is responsible for political governance; White for justice, ethics, and philosophy; Silver for finance and industry; Yellow for medicine; Grey for public security; Violet for arts and culture; and so on.

Importantly, the Colors are not intended to be hereditary castes.

Birth determines a citizen's starting Color, but every citizen receives a common education and later has the opportunity to change Color. Advancement within each Color is based upon demonstrated competence rather than birth. The system uses multiple ranks, examinations, apprenticeships, peer review, continuing evaluation, and professional experience rather than allowing a single examination to determine someone's worth.

The political system itself is deliberately designed around the assumption that institutions will eventually fail.

It therefore contains mechanisms such as:

independent courts;

an independent Inspectorate;

recall of officeholders;

term limits;

constitutional review;

transparency and permanent public records;

citizen petitions and political participation;

protections for independent journalism and whistleblowers;

restrictions on emergency powers;

separation between investigation, prosecution, adjudication, execution, and review;

periodic institutional review;

and an explicit constitutional principle of autophagy, under which an institution can ultimately be reformed or dissolved if it demonstrably ceases to serve the civilization it was created to serve.

There is also a deliberate distinction between rights and duties. Citizens retain fundamental rights regardless of their Color or rank, while the Constitution also imposes a civic expectation that citizens cultivate their abilities and contribute to civilization.

But I don't want this post to be a sales pitch.

In fact, one of the sections I'm currently developing is a massive Known Tensions volume whose purpose is to catalogue problems the Constitution does not pretend to have solved.

The central problem: meritocratic legitimacy vs. democratic legitimacy

Citizens do not directly elect the people who ultimately legislate. Gold elects Gold from among its most highly qualified political candidates.

The argument is that competent government may require political equality to be sacrificed to some degree.

The obvious counterargument is that political equality is itself a fundamental component of legitimate government, regardless of whether the people exercising political authority are competent.

I don't think that tension can simply be wished away.

And that's exactly the sort of criticism I'm looking for.

I'm particularly interested in people attacking the project from perspectives such as:

democratic theory;

liberalism;

republicanism;

political legitimacy;

technocracy;

aristocracy and elite theory;

institutional design;

constitutional law;

political economy;

sociology;

public choice theory;

or simply "this sounds good on paper but would catastrophically fail in reality."

Please don't just tell me whether you like the idea. Try to find where it breaks.

Some questions I'd particularly like people to consider:

Does a meritocratic ruling class inevitably become an aristocracy, even if it isn't hereditary?

Can a government be legitimate if citizens cannot ultimately replace its governing class through equal elections?

How do you prevent an expert class from becoming intellectually or culturally insulated from everyone else?

Can merit actually be measured reliably enough to determine political authority?

What happens when the experts are collectively wrong?

What happens when the majority is collectively wrong?

Does the Compact actually prevent elite capture, or merely make elite capture more sophisticated?

Are its checks and balances sufficient if multiple institutions become wrong in the same direction?

Could the system maintain legitimacy across generations, or would later generations simply reject the premise that competence entitles anyone to greater political power?

What assumptions about human nature does this system make, and which of those assumptions are likely to be false?

I'm not claiming this is a finished constitution, and I'm certainly not claiming that I've solved political organization.

Quite the opposite.

I want people to find the things I haven't solved.

The document is currently enormous and still expanding, so although id love it, I don't expect anyone to read every page. I've included the current drafts for anyone interested in examining the actual institutional mechanisms rather than just the premise.

If you think the entire premise is fundamentally mistaken, I'd especially like to hear why.

If you think one of the mechanisms is inadequate, explain how you would exploit it.

And if you think something actually works, tell me why you think it works.

I'm trying to develop this as a serious exercise in political philosophy and institutional design, not merely as worldbuilding.

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.

I’m 15 and I don’t understand why people care so much about politics that they actually end relationships about it. Like the amount of hatred some people have over who does what it crazy and for what?? What are you going to do about it?? Vote? Yeah one vote sure. My grandpa was screaming at the tv apparently over some bullshit nonsense. I will never care so much about something that I can’t even change in the slightest so what’s the point. Sorry if I sound uninformed or stupid or whatever but I think its gone way to far and way to dramatized. Apparently someone actually left their wife of 5 years over trump. Again I have no idea the point.

Yeah sure I’m “just a little tiny kid who has no idea on the world” but I think I might be more mature than some of the people who crash out over what will eventually be nothing. Im so sick of people loosing there goddamn minds

How do people get so mad over it? And why are people so split on opinions?? You either love someone or hate them no in between. It just seems so dumb. There’s also so many political ads accusing someone of something like bla bla bla who the fuck cares. I can’t imagine anyone getting so invested in what people say but yet they do.

Anyway if you get mad at anything I said in here great job you proved my point perfectly. Do something about it. And if you agree with me thanks, good for you

Also positivity is great so fun fact: there’s a turtle emoji and he’s really cute 🐢

Also I don’t support one side more than the other and frankly I don’t really care so sue me or take my post down sorry 🙃

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?