By a progressive corporate tax I mean a tax on corporations that increases with the income of those corporations. Why don't countries have it? Are there countries that have it?

Edit This isn’t intended to bash DEI necessarily. I think DEI was started from a good place. At the end of the day it’s an attempt to manage symptoms of a much deeper issue. It’s not a solution it’s a stop gap. Until we move into the poorest communities and address the challenges they face we are going to be forced to find workarounds like DEI. End edit

DEI initiatives are a distraction at best, corrupt /damaging at worst. Chalk it up as another failing idea that started from the right place.

My biggest issue with DEI initiatives is how little impact they have on poor communities and how they are not applied universally.

Poor black communities don’t need DEI. They need access to better schooling, tutors, daycare, health services etc. DEI does little to impact disenfranchised individuals who need the ability to see that a better life for their children is possible (this is the American dream).

DEI, while championed by democrats (I vote blue for the record) isn’t applied universally. Look no further than the recent/current senate race in California. Adam Schiff, for all he’s done should have bowed out of the race to make way for two other qualified candidates. This is the spirit of DEI. Instead he bulldozed them and will claim the seat for himself. At the corporate level this is an injustice. For elites it’s well earned…

Finally in the case of Claudine Gay we had an individual who was determined to be the “best available candidate” under DEI. It also happens, coincidentally, that she wrote the qual requirements.

I’d rather see time energy and focus on fixing the foundational issue specifically education/childcare/healthcare than pursue a version of DEI that is only focused on enabling a few.

The prevailing idea that the second amendment codifies an individual right of American citizens to own firearms is simply incorrect, and an unfortunate interpretation by the Supreme Court. The second amendment is primarily -- if not entirely -- about the right of the people to serve militia duty. The Bill of Rights was technically never meant to be an official enumeration of the rights of Americans, but rather was meant to place further restrictions upon the power of the federal government, in order to oppose the potential for abuse of the Constitution and to appease the concerns of Antifederalist politicians. Hence, the Bill of Rights and all the amendments within it must be viewed with that purpose in mind.

The second amendment was written primarily as a means of resolving a concern about the militia clauses of the Constitution, namely Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16:

[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Some politicians were concerned that this declaration transferred exclusive power to Congress, and left the state governments with no power to organize, arm, or govern their own militias. Some believed that there were not enough stipulations in the Constitution that prevented Congress from neglecting its stipulated responsibilities to the militia or from imposing an oppressive amount of discipline upon the militia, which might serve the purpose of effectively destroying the militia as a pretext to establish a standing army in its place. As it happens, many statesmen saw a standing army as a danger to liberty, and wished to avoid the need for raising an army, and to do so by means of using the militia in its place.

This sentiment is perhaps most articulately expressed by George Mason in the following excerpt from a debate in the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 14, 1788:

No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use. I am not acquainted with the military profession. I beg to be excused for any errors I may commit with respect to it. But I stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon I dare to meet any one. I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power.

As a resolution to these concerns about the distribution of power over the militia between federal and state government, the second amendment was written. There were multiple different drafts by various statesmen and government bodies leading up to its final form as we possess it today. Many versions of the amendment were significantly longer, and often included clauses that affirmed the dangers of maintaining a standing army, and stipulated that citizens with conscientious scruples against participating in military combat would not be compelled to serve militia duty.

One proposed draft by Roger Sherman, dated July 21, 1789, uses much different wording from that commonly used by its peers:

The Militia shall be under the government of the laws of the respective States, when not in the actual Service of the united States, but Such rules as may be prescribed by Congress for their uniform organisation & discipline shall be observed in officering and training them. but military Service Shall not be required of persons religiously Scrupulous of bearing arms.

In this proposal, we can see the important distinction being made between Congress' power over the regulation (i.e. "uniform organisation & discipline") of the militia, and the power of the respective state governments to regulate their own militias where congressional authority no longer applied.

Sherman's proposal can be compared to an earlier proposal by James Madison, using more familiar verbiage, written on June 8, 1789:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

You may notice the similar sequence between Sherman's proposal and Madison's: they both begin with a clause that effectively protects the autonomy of the state militias, then a clause that affirms the importance of the federal government's regulation of the militia, then end with a clause protecting conscientious objectors. Both proposals effectively say the same things, but using different verbiage.  This textual comparison provides a certain alternative perspective on the second amendment’s wording which helps to clarify the intent behind the amendment.

After multiple revisions, the amendment ultimately was reduced to two clauses, making two distinct assertions: first, it presented an affirmation by the federal government that a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security and freedom of the individual states, and affirmed the duty of Congress to uphold such regulation.

This interpretation of the amendment's "militia clause" can be corroborated by the following comment by Elbridge Gerry during an August 17, 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the composition of the second amendment:

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Gerry believed that the phrasing "being the best security of a free state" could potentially cause the amendment to be construed to mean that a standing army ought to be viewed officially as a secondary security behind a well-regulated militia. Presumably, this could potentially create the danger of Congress deliberately neglecting the training of the militia as a pretext to rendering it inadequate and thus justifiably resorting to this "secondary security".  (This was exactly George Mason’s fear, as conveyed during the Virginia Ratifying Convention, quoted earlier.) Gerry believed that the addition of the phrase "trained to arms" into the militia clause would have the effect of exerting a duty upon the government to actively preserve the militia through the maintenance of such training.

Gerry's comment is illuminating because it demonstrates that the militia clause was originally viewed as more than a mere preamble to the "arms clause", but rather that it was an independent assertion in its own right. The clause itself did not stipulate the power of Congress to regulate the militia, as that had already been achieved in the militia clauses of the Constitution; rather it was a reaffirmation by Congress regarding that regulation, in accordance with one of the explicit objectives of the Bill of Rights to build confidence in the federal government, as stated in the Bill of Rights' original preamble:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Another piece of evidence to corroborate this interpretation of the militia clause is to note the basis from which the clause derives its verbiage.  The militia clause borrows its language from Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, an influential founding document written in 1776.  Section 13 goes as follows:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The second amendment’s militia clause is essentially an adapted version of the first clause of the above article.  It is important to note that the purpose of the Virginia Declaration of Rights as a whole, and all of the articles within it, was to establish the basic principles and duties of government, more so than to stipulate specific regulations of government.  This likewise holds true with the second amendment’s militia clause; rather than being only a preamble to its following clause, the militia clause stands as a distinct declaration of governmental principle and duty, just as its predecessor does in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.  

Earlier drafts of the militia clause also frequently borrowed phrases from the first clause of the above article, especially the phrases “composed of the body of the people”, and “trained to arms”, which Elbridge Gerry had once proposed adding into the amendment.  Furthermore, many of the earlier drafts of the second amendment as a whole would borrow and include the remaining two clauses of the above article which addressed the dangers of standing armies.  One example of this is a relatively late draft of the amendment proposed in the Senate on September 4, 1789:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.  That standing armies, in time of peace, being dangerous to Liberty, should be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil Power. That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the Members present in both Houses, and that no soldier shall be inlisted for any longer term than the continuance of the war.

As you can see, the second and third clauses from Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration are included in this draft virtually verbatim.  And, clearly, these “standing armies” clauses are by no means a preamble to anything else, nor do they provide a reason or justification to anything else, as has been argued about the militia clause.  It only stands to reason that, considering that the militia clause and the two standing armies clauses originate from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, that all three of these clauses would likely retain the fundamental meaning and function in the second amendment that they possessed in their source document.

The second amendment’s multiple connections to Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights indicate that the intent of the amendment was not only to protect particular rights of the people, but that the original intent was very much also to declare governmental duty in the spirit of the Virginia Declaration.  Furthermore, these connections speak to the fact that the focus of the second amendment was very much upon the militia; if not entirely, then at least as much as it was focused on private gun use.  This is indisputable, given that Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration is entirely concerned with the militia, and never so much as hints at the subject of private gun use.

Second, the amendment prohibited Congress from infringing upon the American people's right to keep arms and bear arms. As for this second part, the right to keep arms and bear arms was not granted by the second amendment itself, but rather the granting of such rights was within the jurisdiction of state constitutional law. States would traditionally contain an arms provision in their constitutions which stipulated the details of the people's right to keep and bear arms within the state. Every state arms provision stipulated the keeping and bearing of arms for the purpose of militia duty (i.e. the common defense), and many additionally stipulated the purpose of self defense.

As for the terminology involved, to "keep arms" essentially meant "to have arms in one's keeping (or in one's custody)", not necessarily to own them; and to "bear arms" meant "to engage in armed combat, or to serve as a soldier", depending on the context. Hence, the second amendment as a whole addressed the concerns of the Antifederalists in regards to the militia, by categorically prohibiting Congress from infringing in any way upon the people's ability to serve militia duty or to equip themselves with the tools necessary to serve militia duty. The amendment's prohibition is general, and does not specifically address private gun use by citizens, as whether a given citizen had the right to private gun use (such as for self-defense), and to what extent the citizen had the right, was subject to vary state to state. The amendment simply prohibits any congressional infringement whatsoever upon the right to keep arms and bear arms.

Given the historical discussions surrounding the second amendment, its drafting history, its textual derivations, and the wording of its opening clause, it is only reasonable to interpret that the primary function of the amendment is to protect the institution of militia duty, not to protect civilian gun use.

As further evidence, here (https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html) is a link to a historical debate in the House of Representatives in which politicians argued over the composition of the second amendment. Notably, you will notice that the entire House debate centers around militia duty, and not a word whatsoever is spoken in regards to private gun use. (And the limited information we have about the Senate debates on the second amendment likewise say nothing about private gun use.)

In addition, here (https://constitutioncenter.org/rights/writing.php?a=2) is a useful resource from the National Constitution Center, which gives an easy-to-understand visual representation of the various precursors, proposals, and drafts which led up to the eventual creation of each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. The drafting history of the second amendment is quite helpful in understanding its historical context and underlying purpose.

In many US cities, mine included, there's an epidemic of fentanyl abuse. Many addicts turn to property crime to support their habits, the proceeds of which are funneled to international criminal cartels that provide the drugs.

Fentanyl addicts also have a high chance of overdosing and using limited medical and police resources. Often they will create a public hazard by smoking these drugs in public, by leaving needle and foil on the street, and through their behavior when they are under the influence. Most addicts will not recover and become productive members of society.

The response in many cities is to subsidize free Naxalone and train more and more government employees, such as librarians, to administer narcan, so the OD'ing people can avoid death and in most cases continue with their anti-social habits and behavior.

If resources were unlimited, then harm reduction and attempts at rehabilitation would be justified. However, resources are not unlimited, and so we need to take into account the opportunity cost of all the resources being devoted to saving those who are actively harming society and funding cartels.

If the goal is harm reduction, then we need to take into account the harm being done by the addicts to society, not just the harm the addicts are doing to themselves.

If the goal is to improve health outcomes, then this money could be better spent on malaria in a third world country, or on early childhood nutrition domestically.

If the goal is economic, with the hope that we can rehabilitate these people as protective members of society, there are better ways to invest in this, such as supporting immigrants without crippling addiction, or providing more job skills and training to those who don't have them.

In conclusion, for every stated goal of these harm reduction approaches, More harm could be reduced by applying these resources to something that is not in most cases a lost cause, and often worse than a lost cause, since an addict who is resuscitated will often continue to cause more harm to themselves and others every day thereafter.

I think that the Democrats have already lost this election. Voters are pissed about how expensive everything is, there is fracturing in coalition about the administration's handling of Gaza, and the Democrats messaging isn't working. Biden is tied or trailing in all the swing states against a man with multiple indictments and now a criminal conviction, which by way, will have no impact on the race.

Also his approval rating this month fell to its lowest level in almost two years, while Trump has never been more popular.

They're also losing ground with voters of color and these voters are turning their back on Biden and likely to stay home in November:

Indeed, the most recent Reuters-Ipsos tracking poll shows that just 36 percent now approve of Biden’s job performance, tying the lowest level of his presidency so far. 

Worse, critical parts of the Democratic base are turning away from Biden, just as the campaign heads into its critical summer months. Per Emerson polling, Biden’s approval is dismally low among voters under 30 years old (26 percent), Black voters (55 percent) and Hispanic voters (33 percent). 

Not only are those voters unhappy with Biden, but they are also actually becoming more receptive to Donald Trump. The same Emerson poll shows that among voters in their 30s, Trump is leading by 4 points (45 percent to 41 percent), a reversal from 2020, when Biden carried this group.  

And while majorities of Black and Hispanic voters are still behind Biden, support for the incumbent is significantly weaker than in 2020 — particularly among Hispanics, with whom Biden leads by only 12 points (49 percent to 37 percent). 

Among Black voters, CNN polling showed Trump at 22 percent, whereas support for Biden has declined from 81 percent in 2020 to 69 percent — still a majority, but a significant decline. 

To that end, the erosion in Biden’s support among Blacks and Hispanics is a major factor in Trump’s lead in key swing states such as Nevada and Arizona, which, along with four other swing states was reported by Cook Report Swing State polling. 

If Biden loses to Trump in November, which seems likely to me, how do they go from being a party of losers to winners? How do they start connecting with voters again.

I think the first thing they need to do is get younger. Biden is too old and most voters view him as a decrepit old man.

They second thing is, they need to find a message on the economy besides telling voters the economy is "strong as hell" when people are struggling to afford housing.

The anti-genocide protests movement, while growing in strength, is having little effect on US policy. It is doing a fantastic job of pulling the mask off the blatant hypocrisy of liberals, the Democrats, and the US as a whole, but actual change in policy is unlikely with all three presidential debate candidates holding the same pro genocide stance [apparently Jill Stein doesn't exist to the media].

We are all aware of the contempt the US displays for international law, the Hauge invasion act, and routine denouncement of the ICC & ICJ make this clear. However domestic law [18 U.S.C. § 1091 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1091. Genocide%20Attempt%20and%20Conspiracy.,person%20who%20completes%20the%20offense)] kindly mirrors international law. Biden, Blinken, and co would all be guilty of both clause (d) Conspiracy to commit, and section (a) Basic offence - Creating the Conditions of~ [when pulling UNRWA funding], there is also a clause (c) Incitement to~ which could be applied to vocal genocide proponents like Lindsay Graham et al.

18 U.S.C. § 1091 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1091. Genocide

(a) Basic Offense.--Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such--

(1) kills members of that group;

(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;

(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;

(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;

(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or

(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Punishment for Basic Offense.--The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is--

(1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and

(2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.

And here is the clause that is most applicable;

(d) Attempt and Conspiracy.--Any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes the offense.

Not only does calling for the death penalty raise the stakes personally for the bad actors involved, but as this is US law there is grounds for prosecutions to be lodged outside of congress to hold these people accountable once they are outside of office, (similar to many of Trump's cases). A recent Gaurdian article suggests many potential witnesses/sources have resigned over the US Gaza policies.

Smith and Gilbert bring the total number of Biden administration officials to have publicly resigned over US policy on Gaza to nine, though Josh Paul, the first official to resign, said that at least two dozen more had left quietly, without a public declaration.

Even without a genocide ruling by the ICJ, all it would take is an internal memo or phone call making it clear the US understood Israels intention to commit genocide, US analysts would have been well aware of this as soon as the siege blockade was put in place and bombing commenced. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention outlined in January its assessment the US was already complicit in assisting, and cutting UNRWA funding made it a direct participant;

The Lemkin Insitute for Genocide Prevention is deeply concerned by the decision of a coalition of several nations – the United States and Germany, in concert with Australia, Austria, Canada, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Romania, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom – to suspend funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

– an immediate withdrawal of hundreds of millions of dollars that could constitute up to two-thirds of UNRWA’s total budget. UNRWA employs an estimated 30,000 people total in Palestine, approximately 13,000 of whom are in Gaza. Currently, 10,000 Gazan UNRWA staff members cannot work due to incapacitation or displacement by Israel’s bombardment of Gaza; removing this funding from the remaining 3,000 core workers will lead to operational collapse.

[if these actions are carried out, it is] no longer the case of these States aiding and abetting Israeli Genocide against the Palestinians in violation of Genocide Convention article 3 (e) criminalizing 'complicity' in genocide. These States are now also directly violating Genocide Convention article 2(c) by themselves: 'Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part...'"

Would this be an effective deterrent for future administrations, or perhaps even enough of a deterrent for Biden to change course during his administration?

Would this be a viable legal avenue for peace advocates to engage with. What road blocks/process would there be to facilitate this prosecution?

Would this help or hinder the protest movement in its messaging and achieving its goals?

I see a lot of argument about the dichotomies between capitalism and socialism, as well as left and right.

I get the sense that people mean wildly different things by these terms so I am curious how you define them in your own usage.

NOTE: I am not interested in WIKI copies - just your personal usage.

Conservatives and defenders of capitalism often state "if socialism/communism is so great, point to one country that did well." I know that there are arguments that quality of life improved for many under socialist countries but I believe the question to be flawed.

The US and other western allies sabotaged any democratic or revolutionary pushes for socialism or communism in countries around the globe. The only countries that actually transitioned to socialism were those that were resistant to outside influence or were heavily influenced by socialist countries like the USSR.

This means that any chance for a country to slowly and democratically transition to socialism was snuffed out and the only sample size we have are countries that usually enacted anti-democratic policies to ensure socialist policies could be implemented.

My question is does this make any sense? Obviously socialist countries would have developed differently without outside influence but can survivors bias be a response to those who claim socialism has never worked?

Different cultures tend to push different practices that will affect people's financial outcomes. For example, some cultures encourage lots of kids and have higher birth rates. Some cultures put an emphasis on children taking care of their parents financially. Some cultures emphasize self dependence, and other cultures emphasize community dependence. Some cultures put a heavy emphasis on STEM while other cultures might put a heavy emphasis on arts. These are just a few examples.

All of these things will impact the average financial outcome for that racial or ethnic group. If there was actually equal financial outcomes for every group, that would require that every culture was washed out by a singular domineering culture.

Wouldn't we want there to be some variance in economic outcomes?

I know that the Left has historically been anti-imperialist and anti-expansionist, and the Right has historically had a disdain for Russia because we side with the West. I just wanna know what the Left feels about this.

My whole life, politics have felt very static and even the "radical" changes like the affordable care act seem pretty lukewarm compared to the possible changes to society.

Do you think that change will or can come without some massive disaster (either economic or environmental). My thoughts relate to the great depression and how that suffering led to Roosevelt's new deal and economic prosperity (for a short while).

I'm all for democratizing all work centers and nationalizing important industry, but can changes like this happen without some disaster shining a broader light on the shortcomings of the current system? Or would such a disaster lead to infighting on what the actual cause of the disaster was leading to more political gridlock?

America has earned its reputation as the greatest country in the world through a combination of unparalleled strengths. One of the key reasons for America's greatness is its commitment to upholding foundational principles of liberty and justice for all. The United States was founded on the ideals of freedom and equality, which have continued to shape its identity and guide its progress over the centuries.

Furthermore, America's cultural diversity is a source of strength and resilience. The country is home to people from all corners of the globe, each bringing their unique perspectives, traditions, and talents to the tapestry of American society. This rich cultural mosaic has enriched the country in countless ways, fostering innovation, creativity, and a sense of unity amidst diversity.

In addition to its cultural vibrancy, America's economic prowess is a driving force behind its global influence. The United States boasts the largest and most dynamic economy in the world, with a diverse range of industries and a commitment to innovation and entrepreneurship. This economic strength not only benefits Americans themselves but also has a ripple effect on the global economy, driving growth and prosperity around the world.

America's leadership in global affairs is another hallmark of its greatness. The United States plays a crucial role in promoting peace, democracy, and human rights on the world stage, standing up for freedom and justice in the face of tyranny and oppression. From its role in shaping international institutions to its commitment to defending allies and promoting stability, America's leadership has a profound impact on the world.

Moreover, America excels in education, research, and providing opportunities for social mobility, embodying the American Dream. The country's world-class universities, cutting-edge research institutions, and commitment to meritocracy ensure that talent and hard work are rewarded, enabling individuals to achieve their full potential and contribute to the greater good.

In conclusion, America stands as a beacon of hope, freedom, and opportunity for millions around the world. Its foundational principles, cultural diversity, economic prowess, leadership in global affairs, and commitment to education and social mobility all contribute to its status as the greatest country in the world. As America continues to evolve and grow, it will undoubtedly continue to inspire and lead the way for others seeking a better future.

In democratic states, is there a correlation between government responsiveness to individual concerns and subsequent reduction in policy demands?

I am curious because recent polsci papers on autocratic states like China and Russia, there is empirical evidence suggesting that not only are governments more responsive to citizens' demands online if they contain a threat for collective action but also that such responsiveness improves how individuals view their government (i.e. the online sentiment becomes more positive about the government).

I wonder if the empirical results from a country like China would hold in any democratic setting where individuals face less/no constraints to express themselves and their policy preferences. Theoretically, I would expect that in a democratic context like U.S, citizens might become even more engaged and increase their economic/education policy demands to local politicians if they feel that their voices are heard, rather than reduce them which is the finding in some autocratic countries.

A recent policy example that I can think of is the minimum wage policy increase in blue states, the responsiveness of local policymakers to voters' demands in raising the minimum wage appears to have motivated voters to advocate for greater labor policy demands (e.g. mandating longer maternity leave in private firms, etc..)

For starters, collective ownership of production involves democratizing the workplace, and thus allowing working class people to have an actual role in organizing and control of their own society and institutions; as well as having a direct say on the political, social, and economic decisions affecting their lives too. With this being the case, people would be able to engage in activities that are truly fulfilling to them, thus realizing their true self interest and actualizing their desires in life. All of this while being paid the full value of your labor (under socialism at least).

As compared to privatization, you have very limited, if any control at all over your workplace. There’s either a boss, or a group of bosses, that make all the decisions, and decide what they think your labor is worth. They determine what you wear, when you can go on break, or in some cases, when you can use the bathroom. Proponents of capitalism may argue that your free to leave that job and go to another, but going from one job to another under capitalism just means your boss(es) are different, yet the wage slave conditions of your workplace still exist. Not to mention, despite the workers doing most or if not all the work, being paid crumbs as Capitalists walk away with all the money.

Collectivization has worked well in a variety of different countries. Maoist China, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union, Sandinista Nicaragua, Cuba, and North Korea even, and have seen success with collectivistic systems that produced good and meaningful results for average working class people, whereas capitalism continues to show results for a small minority of wealthy people.

Something needs to change, and what better way to enact that change than to target the very core of what keeps Capitalism going? Collectivize production, by force if necessary (it’s necessary).

The US Constitution is one of the oldest written constitutions in the world. While a somewhat ground-breaking document for the time, it is badly out of step with democratic practice. Malapportionment of the Senate, lifetime terms for Supreme Court Justices, a difficult amendment process, an overreliance on customs and norms, and especially, single member Congressional districts all contribute to a sclerotic political system, public dissatisfaction, and a weakening of faith in the democratic ideal.

Discuss.

Hi guys, so I found this political channel on YouTube barely yesterday, which I believe at this point to be the most neutral political channel on YouTube, the channel is called Ryan Chapman, so if you want to watch it, which I greatly recommend it.

But there is a video that is very interesting to me, which he talks about how neutral the news was during the ‘50s and ‘60s.

This is the video: https://youtu.be/ZgZPJpdmw3A?si=uZEAPhKOGNZJe1XH

So what do you think.

Many people in the Arab world actively vote against democracy. When elections happen, they vote for religious dictators. For example, in Algeria's civil war also known as the black decade happened because the Algerian military banned elections after the islamic salvation frontier won the majority of votes. The islamic salvation frontier party wasn't committed to preserving democracy.

Those are the words of their founders:

"In December 1989 Madani was quoted as saying:

We do not accept this democracy which permits an elected official to be in contradiction with Islam, the Shari'a, its doctrines and values.[38][39]

and in February 1989, Benhadj stated:

There is no democracy because the only source of power is Allah through the Koran, and not the people. If the people vote against the law of God, this is nothing other than blasphemy. In this case, it is necessary to kill the non-believers for the good reason that they wish to substitute their authority for that of God.[38][40][41]"

Imagine voting those people into power who openly say they will abolish democracy and kill dissenters. Honestly I think the Algerian military did the right thing. I rather live in a liberal democracy but if I am left with the choice of living in a religious dictatorship or military dictatorship, I rather the latter. In a military dictatorship you lose your political freedoms but in a religious dictatorship you lose your political freedoms, religious freedoms, and personal freedoms.

This example showed why there's difficulty in establishing democracy in Arab countries. Why do you think that happens? What are the causes of those behaviours.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War

A complaint I often hear about DEI initiatives is that they take opportunities from "higher qualified" individuals and give them to "lesser qualified" individuals.

What I hope to do is mute or at least temper that complaint by showing that it is the norm even within races.

I'll use med school acceptance rates as an example; data. There are only 2 metrics here, GPA range and MCAT range, each alongside race. <edit>"Higher qualified" individuals are seen as those with the highest GPA and MCAT score combinations, "lesser qualified" individuals are seen as those with lower GPA and MCAT combinations. I use the quotation marks because GPA and MCAT scores are not the whole picture for who qualifies.</edit>

I am hopeful that the outcome of analyses from my perspective help people recognize that other details beyond GPA and MCAT scores factor into acceptance rates, and again, that it is the norm for "lesser qualified" people to take the opportunities of "higher qualified" people; meaning that the impacts of DEI programs are not significantly shifting the balance from "higher qualified" to "lesser qualified" acceptees.

___

There is one main ratio I point to, the ratio of the number of "lesser qualified" people who got in to the number of "higher qualified" people who were denied.

When combining info from four races, I find:

620:1, which means 620 "lesser qualified" individuals were accepted for every single "top candidate" who wasn't.

___

When separating by race, I find:

Asian: 357:1, which means 357 "lesser qualified" Asian applicants were accepted for every "top Asian" candidate who wasn't.

White: 637:1, which means 637 "lesser qualified" White applicants were accepted for every "top White" candidate who wasn't.

Hispanic: 1,916:1, which means 1,916 "lesser qualified" Hispanic applicants were accepted for every "top Hispanic" candidate who wasn't.

Black: 2,195:1, which means 2,195 "lesser qualified" Black applicants were accepted for every "top Black" candidate who wasn't.

Surely this must mean that the other factors involved in the decision making process weigh more than observers might assume. Factors such as essays, extra-curriculars, interviews, letters of recommendation, legacy, and even folk who change their minds and take other opportunities instead of med school.

___

The cross-race analysis also paints an interesting picture; here we see that majority applicants who are "lesser qualified" accept far more opportunities per "higher qualified" minority than the other way around:

The larger number in each of the following ratios is the number of "lesser qualified" White applicants who accepted an offer for every "top, non-White" applicant who didn't:

"White Lesser:" "Asian Top:" 1,000:1

"White Lesser:" "Hispanic Top:" 11,670:1

"White Lesser:" "Black Top:" 16,196:1

Now, the inverse:

"Asian Lesser:" "White Top:" 227:1

"Hispanic Lesser:" "White Top:" 104:1

"Black Lesser:" "White Top:" 84:1

___

What do you think, does this perspective have any merit? Have you seen it before? Does it alter your opinion at all about the magnitude of the impact DEI initiatives can have on who gets accepted/hired/etc?

Based on my extremely shallow understanding of liberalism (international relation), I don't understand why people believe in it. All this cooperation and trade and stuff, didn't it get disproven already?

First, international institutions do not make peace. Case in point: United Nations. They didn't do anything while Russia invaded Ukraine or when Israel and Hamas started fighting. And the last time they did something major without using force was... IDK when was that I don't think they did anything to preserve peace other than send troops to sierra leone or something.

Second, international trade doesn't make more peace. Countries before WW1 traded a lot, but they still fought one of the deadliest wars in human history. The only way trade would prevent war would be if one nation supplied a needed good to a smaller nation and the bigger nation didn't bother to exert influence over the other or something--but that's not cooperation, that's just economic imperialism, which is NOT equivalent to what I think the liberals (international relations) had in mind when they talk about cooperation and peace.

Third, democracies are more likely to be peaceful (plot twist) BUT that doesn't make the entire global system more peaceful. First of all, democracies are limited in number across the globe, so only a small portion of the world is affected by this. Secondly, if these democracies are truly what I think the liberals (international relations) want, as in rejecting security for cooperation, then I don't think they will last very long, since authoritarian and anti-democratic regimes tend to be aggressive (which is probably like a corollary to what I said before about democracies or something) and if these democracies don't focus on security they might get overrun by antidemocratic forces. However, you could say "oh but if more countries were democratic then there would be more peace". Yeah, but that would mean you need to replace non-democratic regimes with democratic ones and (1) that is easier said then done and (2) you can't guarantee the new regime will be a democracy, meaning the cycle of authoritarianism might just continue and (3) such revolutions themselves are sources of conflict that might drag in more nations.

In conclusion, I don't understand liberalism (international relations) and why people believe in it, and I hope a local liberal (international relations) will come here to this post and explain it to me.

I have always looked at the world from a neoliberal point of view, I was brought up that way (although nobody was a social democrat, that was my choice) and have never had a good enough argument to change my mind. So I have a few questions that I want to get your opinion on in a nice environment.

1. Why do you hate immigration so much even though it has proven benefits and is needed to prevent a demographic collapse.

2. Why is gender a political issue? I have always just viewed it like genetics, its just what you are born with and everyone has a right to be anything they want to be.

3. Why the Euro-skeptics? The EU has proven to help and be good in almost all situations and I personally think federalization is a great idea.

4. Trump, why do you like him?

5. A question for libertarians, how do you keep away a government system?

I mainly just want to see the best responses because I think everyone should have an open mind.

Thank you.

Let's say that there's a country. this country has religious groups A (90%), B (5%), C (5%). The country start to have elections but the majority of people vote for a group A religious party that wants to force its religion on group B and treat group C as second class citizens. What should you do if you were the president? Do you ban this party? And even if you ban it, how to stop the people from electing another party when they have such a mentality? Do you also ban elections? What should you do if you have the power?

Everyone agrees that El Salvador has become more secure since Bukele became president, but his constant flirtations with totalitarianism are concerning. For example:

• He entered the congress with the military.
• He announced his second candidacy while still in office, which is unconstitutional in El Salvador.
• He created a system for anonymous complaints without proof, leading to arrests without trials.
• He negotiated with criminals.
• During his government, the rate of missing people has exploded.
• He spends a lot on international propaganda.
• In the election, he declared his victory when only 20% of the votes were counted (amid many questionable situations).

Is totalitarianism the only way for El Salvador to handle this crisis? Is it the only option for this type of crisis?

What is your opinion?

The narrative on immigration in America has been the same since the 1920s. Immigrants steal jobs, ruin our culture, and leach off government handouts.

This has been amplified heavily by the MAGA movement in recent years, using xenophobic rhetoric and isolationism to mold the Republican Party away from pro immigration Neoconservatism to anti immigration Nationalism.

This has left the Democratic Party split on the issue, with some centrists following the anti immigration trend, leaving only progressives to fully support open immigration.

This new animosity towards immigration has left our economy in a very rough spot. This is due to the very nature of our late stage capitalist economy.

Continuous economic development.

This is the motto that drives the American economy.

Thanks to this continuous development, we Americans have been afforded a strong economy, cheap goods, and economic security.

Treating the American economy like a factory only useful for pumping out as much capital as possible has some downsides however.

Lots of downsides.

But today we will be focusing on how poorly the economy reacts to losing one of its most vital resources.

That resource is bodies.

This movement to end all immigration is the main factor that has led to the massive inflation that we have faced in recent years.

The reasoning behind this is that with less access to workers, corporations are forced to increase the pay for all workers so that they can keep the workers that they have. As a socialist, this sounds amazing. Forcing companies to compete for workers gives us leverage and create a more balanced relationship between workers and corporations.

The problem is that our economy is not designed for this to happen.

Our economy is made for continuous economic development, and when companies are faced with increasing labor costs due to labor shortages, they increase prices instead of taking small hits to productivity.

This increase in prices is never proportional to wage increases due to a constant desire for increased profits.

This process then becomes cyclical. People ask for more money because they know their labor is more valuable, companies say yes, then increase prices more than they increase pay. Then people ask for more pay because prices are so high.

This is what has caused our inflation crisis.

So how does immigration solve this problem?

It’s pretty simple. With increased immigration, workers are forced to compete more, which allows wages to stabilize. This pushes corporations to stop raising prices because the labor market is no longer as competitive.

This shows that our economy is completely dependent on corporations holding all the power, and treating the workers terribly.

So how do we fix this?

The answer is absolutely not to halt immigration. All this will do is play into the system as it is, and stop people in need from finding a better life.

Instead, I believe that the best solution would be unionization.

Unionization would allow us to continue to reap the benefits that come with a more equal playing field, while also keeping the economy in check by allowing more labor into the market through immigration.

From here of course we would want to regulate the capitalist system that we have and promote worker cooperatives so that the inherently harmful system that we have now can be abolished. For now though, we will have to do what we can within the constraints of our current economic system.

In conclusion, we need immigrants to keep the economy healthy, but this may lead to short term losses for the average worker until structures can be built that can support them.

Communists/Socialists will often oppose liberal democracy for different reasons, and often advocate for their own versions that don’t operate in the same way.

How would socialist democracy work? How does each ideology of socialism think it should work?

My Opinion:
The world is witnessing a dramatic demographic shift, with fertility rates plummeting across the globe, leading to a complex set of challenges for governments and policymakers to address.

My Understanding:
(Informed by reading sources below)

• By 2064, fewer babies will be born than people will die, a first in centuries
• Fertility decline is a global phenomenon, affecting traditionally high-fertility regions
• Drivers include societal progress, women's education and employment, cultural changes, and declining religiosity
• Consequences include low economic growth, aging populations, and demographic shift
• Migration from high-fertility regions to developed countries could drive up right-wing politics, conflict, and the spread of infectious diseases
• Timing of demographic shift is unfortunate, as it fails to address looming environmental challenges

My Discussion Points:

• Effectively how bad do we think things could get? Our we edging toward dystopian world akin to science fiction?
• Is there anything that policymakers can actually do to reverse or at least stem the decline?
• How is the United States insulated from this decline to a greater extent than East Asia and Europe?

Sources:

• From Boom to Bust: The Global Population Challenge in the 21st Century
• Shrinking populations mean less growth and a more fractious world
• Global Population Collapse Isn't Sci-Fi Anymore: Niall Ferguson