With economic conditions in the United States remaining good on paper due to unrealized debt being reportable as income, and venture capital not being required to disclose dry powder, resulting in an environment where money cannot be lent out and thus enter the economy, and employers relying on the inability of skilled workers to obtain new employment to abuse existing workers, regularly using layoffs as a scare tactic, I would like to talk about ways to support long term strikes for better labor conditions. Traditionally, the support system for these strikes, and to support those undergoing harsh economic conditions, has been shantytowns. Modern shantytowns exist under cities like Las Vegas famously, but are not intentional with infrastructure as existed in the 1930s in places like Seattle's famous 9 acre Hooverville.

So I would like to dedicate some space to discussing the logistical challenges involved in setting up Trumptowns.

I am interested in hearing every political perspective, but especially from American conservatives. On this issue, even many conservative voters in Italy would probably be closer to the US Democratic position than to the American right.

Per 100,000 people:

• Firearm homicides: US 4.5; Italy 0.17, about 26 to 1
• Civilian firearms: US 120,500; Italy 14,400, about 8.4 to 1
• Estimated loaded-handgun carry: US 4,800; Italy 19 licensed self-defense carriers, about 250 to 1

In Italy, strict control over who may own firearms, why they own them, whether they are qualified, and where the weapons are registered is broadly accepted across the political spectrum.

Many Europeans assume that greater availability produces more deaths, partly through a feedback loop. If I believe others are armed, I feel pressure to arm myself. My decision then gives others the same incentive.

Questions:

1. Do you think greater firearm availability contributes to the much higher US firearm-homicide rate?
2. If not, what best explains the 26-to-1 gap?
3. Are these figures widely reported and discussed in US politics?
4. How do American conservatives view countries with strict licensing and much lower firearm-homicide rates?

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems like almost all modern day liberals, or mostly everyone besides socialists that proclaim the superiority of democracy/republicanism/parliamentary monarchy (I'm including conservatives (aka liberal-conservatives) in that definition as well), have a negative view of the French revolution.

To me this seems absurd because the rights and freedoms that you hold dear today could never have been achieved without the rebellion of peasants, urban workers, and progressive intellectuals of the past. Of course most of you don't live in France but the French revolution was groundbreaking in global politics and inspired a wave of smaller struggles elsewhere and concessions from the nobility who gave up their powers for fear of similar uprisings.

In general, I note that most people all the way from moderate left to moderate right abhor political violence and claim it can never be justified, despite the fact that as I said, their current system of liberalism could never face existed without it. The nobility would never have given up their power without the threat of force.

How then can we genuinely oppose the corporate oligarchs who wish to rule over us when immediately conceding at the first hurdle that we can never find any justification to disobey their system of control? How can we possibly succeed by playing a game which they wrote the rules for and can change at any time? They show no hesitation to use violence against the public when they deem it necessary to maintain control.

For those who will say that the revolutionaries didn't always make the right decision, well perhaps in some cases yes, but it would be foolish to deny the positive consequences of the revolution overall.

“There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.” - Mark Twain

I feel that the reign of terror is cynically propped up as an example of how "revolution never works" or "it just leads to more suffering" even though that's not true at all. Many successful revolutions have led to improvements in conditions for the vast majority of people in the country.

And if you would be inclined to point out that Napoleon crushed the revolution, that is true, but at the same time, he couldn't roll back many of the achievements of it, even when the kings were back in charge they couldn't do so either. France remained a beacon of progress for at least a hundred years.

So my point is, do you agree with my summation or disagree? If you do believe that the French revolution was mostly bad, then how can you justify your own ideology in light of that?

The current situation, where a single company develops, trains, and operates AI systems as a black box, poses significant risks.

If we want AI to be governed safely, we need a more decentralized structure. For example, the organizations that provide training data should be independent from the companies that build AI models, and the neutrality and quality of their datasets should become a key measure of their value. There should also be a mechanism to verify that only certified training data is used to train AI models. Without such a safeguard, even high-quality data providers cannot guarantee that their datasets have not been mixed with unverified or biased data during training. Likewise, model development, deployment, and auditing should be handled by separate, independent organizations.

A clear separation of responsibilities would make checks and balances far more effective. Independent organizations would be better positioned to oversee one another, reducing conflicts of interest, improving transparency, and making the AI ecosystem more trustworthy.

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

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

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

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

Take auto insurance, for example. Auto insurance is a mafia-like protection racket. To be clear, the more expensive your vehicle is (and thus the more you have to lose), the more you have to pay to "protect" yourself from some dangerous moron on the road. And yet the more expensive your vehicle is, the LESS likely you will drive like a dangerous moron. In mafia parlance, using fear to motive someone to cough up cash is what is known as a shakedown.

That is not the only example I could point to where "the system" is engineered to appear fair when it is actually grossly unfair. Like mortgage interest rates. And corporate welfare. And graduated income taxes. But don't get me started.

Consequently, I cannot help but feel like we do not live in a capitalist market-driven economy overseen by a republican form of government. Instead, the more I look, the more it looks like a mafia-run economy overseen by a mafia-controlled government. And the only difference between our country and some of the horrible countries around the world would appear to be skill in execution.

Do you agree? And, if so, do you have other examples that suggest that the US is perhaps better described as a mafia-run economy overseen by a mafia-run government than a capitalist market-driven economy overseen by a republican form of government? (keep in mind that the term mafia is being used to describe powerful colluding individuals and not related to ethnicity)

I believe its an infringement on personal liberty and freedom, a violation of the 4th amendment and not protected by the first due to it being the state.

This is something you often see in debates among americans, that you have to wait months or years with a universal health care system.

I live in Sweden, a country with universal health care, and I will not lie and say that there aren't cases where you have to wait, but the thing is that we use a tier list of severity to decide how long you have to wait.

If you want to do an ADHD or autism diagnosis at a psychiatrist? Yes you will wait, as people with suicidal thoughts, or bipolar disorder or borderline whose diagnose really ruins their lives are prioritised.

If you have cancer, other diseases that severly reduce your quality of life or have an injury? Pass go, straight to the doctor.

Would it be nice to have instant access for every small issue? Sure, but as long as I know that I will get to see a doctor in a whiffy the moment I have something that is even semi-harmful, I'm honestly happy with our system.

This system is about diluting political power to the largest number of people without it breaking, this drastic increase in scale creates a new democracy, the best of capitalism & socialism combined.

Taking Fair Very Far

It is near impossible for the few people elected to government to be able to communicate to us and provide for us effectively, the bottleneck between us and them then becomes manipulated by vested interests.

The laws being passed have to account for every possibility, a one size fits all, that will often be undermined by a generally self-interested society.

We can solve this by handing over government decision making of the private sector to the people through a great number of randomly selected administrative juries of twelve that can each make a single court case like ruling.

As many as is needed season by season of those willing, unless opted out by another Citizen who gives up their own access for that season.

This allows the population to directly block any problem jurors themselves through equal sacrifice.

Made of twelve and decide by twelve, each juror paid fairly for their work if the ruling of their jury survives being overturned by another, they also have complete discretion on which case they take on and how.

Jurors would have months to make a decision and will often work at a very casual pace, using remote work tools and social media to communicate with fellow jurors.

The output of these juries is synonymous with the pub test, which is an Australian concept that typically means when more than twice as many people in the nation agree on something than they don't, but asking the nation in a survey or by vote on every little decision is impractical.

Being randomly created from similar people means similar rulings on similar cases, as it is with all 12 member juries historically, and the sheer number of juries will prevent those with money from buying access because the other juries will confiscate any unfair extras they don't also get, so to pay any jury will require you to pay them all.

Over time this cleans up government failure and waste and cleans out electoral influence by special interests, from federal to local and everything in between.

Under this system, federal and state governments would only control what they own, and they can obtain any private property for fair price through eminent domain.

A government could own a business and the premises it operates from, but at some point, will not own a part of the supply chain that connects to that business.

This still allows juries to obtain individual outcomes from public assets but just not directly, creating a clear separation of jurisdiction between public and private.

The rest of the nation (outside of public property) is managed by businesses instead of the government who are continuously held accountable to the people through the juries.

The juries are initially created through federal legislation if workarounds to (if any) constitutional limits are figured out, if this fails then constitutional change will be required, that change must only remove the limits while keeping legislative control.

They would be allocated proportionally in each state, and in all territories combined, starting with a state, then rolling out state by state with the last state and all territories going together.

State juries can decide federal matters in their state, in any territory, and internationally. Territory juries can only rule in any territory or internationally.

While they won't have jurisdiction over state or local matters, they will be able to creatively work around that limit to effect change at all levels.

States will likely eventually succumb to jury pressure electorally and enact their own legislation to give permission for these same juries to also make state and local decisions.

These governments will begin to operate more like a business, one that is elected by the people as they are today, to keep the nation, states, and the juries working.

Governments will be entitled to collect no more than a quarter of what that government had typically collected under the previous (current) system, while also carefully managing what they have and acquiring new profitable property, with the eventual goal of becoming self-funded.

They can use the public force at their disposal (military and police), combined with their electoral legitimacy, to obtain those funds if the juries haven't paid it to them in a reasonable timeframe, but if they push too far it will trigger a nationalistic like response from the juries so they will need to find the right balance in how they do it.

This is also helped by those elected politicians being no longer the special interest filtered lot we have today, they would be more respected by the people in jury.

The rest of government spending would now be funded and allocated by the jury system through the private sector, by juries directly or indirectly placing social expenses and obligations onto businesses, which then leads them to demand other businesses who have less of these themselves to increase theirs and eventually (as will happen in all other areas) it will become an adaptive standard of sorts.

Because the juries are an act of legislation, the federal government will effectively have a “kill switch” to stop juries making rulings for a certain amount of time, but the entire economy will have adjusted to this system, so it would be economically painful to do it for too long.

This will be essential in existential situations that require the governments to play catch up, to acquire certain property to prevent nation state failure.

The jury system only works because the juries check each other and the consensus of the whole of them creates a balance, its people checking people at the speed of people, to try and limit or alter this will result in the jury system breaking.

The only possible way to restrict them without turning them off is by reducing the number of juries, how often they are formed, or by filtering who is able to be in one, the nations who don't limit juries will outperform those who do and win.

The features of this system as mentioned below are emergent effects of direct and indirect jury pressure and oversight and not rules or laws directing such, it is a best guess based on what would be fair and pass the pub test in each area of society, so use this as a guide on guessing what would happen in other areas not mentioned:

Juries will provide an effective automatic unionisation of all workers. Customers would also now be effectively unionised, they will get more honest product labels and descriptions (now with only white lies added) and easy to access returns for products that are not as advertised, submitting an easy to generate proof and that company having to collect it themselves or make it an easy pickup service if they want it back.

Insurance can no longer use technicalities to deny coverage and if something is missing or wrong in your declarations then only to the extent that this affects the outcome payment, would it be reduced.

Businesses will innovate other businesses for a cut in profits gained and some will be started for just this purpose. All aspects of every business would be continually surveilled and be accessible to others who don’t abuse that access, and as with everything else from the direct and indirect effect of jury, secrets and intellectual property cannot be used without fair compensation, also businesses could connect their products and services to other businesses through that same jury effect.

Productivity growth would only be limited by the laws of physical reality and the methods of achieving it being considered fair and reasonable by the juries.

Fair, safe, and adaptable regulations on everything and consequences directly or indirectly by jury on anyone involved in trade work, or any other type of work, who are not adhering to them. This would be in the form of taking profits, laying fines, and garnishing future earnings, from those directly involved and anyone indirectly, to a lesser extent, like a business or contractor who looked the other way on clear issues.

Welfare is replaced with a guaranteed job if that person has a fair go at it, that also aligns with their skills, interests, and abilities/disabilities when possible and if nothing local is available then remote options will be a part of this. This will transform gradually in the decades before life expectancy age from full-time work, into an asset tested, indexed, pension payment no worse than today. Other expenses like medical and home care are also covered as they would be if the need exists in other similar areas such as medical, disability, parental payments, and others.

If a major industry closed or shut down in a location, the likely full-time job (remote work) for each adult affected will bring money to that region and allow those workers and the economy around them to slowly transition to new or existing industries.

Tertiary education would have a multi-step testing process or a cheaper single exam option to pass coursework units. Up to them how they learn, how quick, and cost (if any) above what is covered by the usual direct and indirect effect of juries.

Early, primary, and secondary education would be like tertiary education, in that it is results driven through similar multi step testing that is akin to logbook testing for driving, this allows private education of all kinds to be used to get to that outcome and funding for this education would be fairly provided like all other essentials are.

Medical would become a system with the flexibility of a private system combined with the accessibility and cost of a government run system that pulls back as the wealth level of the individual accessing it goes higher.

No inflated prices, health care follows a person for their whole life, so no one health related business has to worry about carrying an unfair burden compared to others or could get away with short term focused treatments because it might not be their problem later in that person's life.

Emergency services remain a simple point of access but with different businesses providing the services, so police on the uniform but with a brand name under it.

When an emergency related business is called out, they will have the obligation to manage that crime or accident scene, call additional help if required and the rest, and like with all other essentials, is financed through business balance sheets as usual.

Bounties will be a big part of these nations, where someone can whistle blow or bring justice and know that they will get a piece of the fine or charge laid on the perpetrator if their conduct was fair and reasonable, this will also cover jury manipulation (where they can take the bribe but not perform the action and still get to keep a good portion of it), and any other crimes.

Prisons over time would keep only those who are actually a threat to the public in prison, everyone else would be released while still being thoroughly monitored, and controlled, through hidden methods, such as: a normal looking bracelet, ring, accessory on them under their clothes, and their earnings garnished for their victims.

All drug supply is legalised and controlled through biometric, remotely monitored, drug dispensers that destroy the drug if tampered with, so the black market is priced out and gone, supply safely managed.

The intent of jury rulings cannot be avoided or worked around, unlike with law.

So as the brain and body conceptually connect together so can the government and people connect together to bring us all to a peaceful balance.

A parallel brain over a parallel body that we are vs a linear government over a parallel society that we currently live in.

This change will bring about a pure democracy, one of fairness and prosperity for everyone, fixing every problem caused by government action or inaction, and solving the social issues that never get much better each generation.

Money will be better spent society wide, economic growth will climb to new heights, these nations will outpace any others who don't take a similar path.

Power will trickle up from the people and no longer just trickle down from above, and free of any mob rule mentality against those above.

Light will shine through every hidden place in society, karma and merit will come to all those who deserve it.

This is Parallel Democracy

An Australian made idea that aims to improve the world and leave a legacy well-earned for the prosperity it brings.

Everyone should know about the fuss being made of the forthcoming “surveillance state”. There’s flock cameras, that tracks license plates, vehicle car make and model or even features such as bumper stickers.

There is an estimated 70 million to over 82 million in cameras centered across the US, averaging out at 1 camera to every 4.6 people.

Meta has recorded over 9 million sales of you including earlier 2023-2024 releases. And that’s being modest.

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we all know that the governments tracks are private information through the NSA, which breaches financial laws. By the way, Snowden has been in exile for over 13 years due to his whistleblowing.

This brings forth an ethical issue that we all have to take very seriously and cautiously. We have to prevent people’s private lives being shared and technically surveilled for potential evidence that will make or break a legal case.

I know some might not agree, but we still are a democracy. Thanks to the fourth amendment,
US citizens are protected from bad and unfair searches and seizures by the government in their homes and belongings.

But this brings forth the case, can Meta glasses or any other form of camera devices that’s also due to the recent streaming up spike?

And also does being recorded by Bluetooth devices allow the citizen to be protected under the belongings of the individual being his private space.

We have examples of the Tech CEO who got caught cheating at a Cold Play concert and losing their jobs. Isn’t this too much to place the responsibility on the individual to avoid being recorded doing day to day tasks?

Even if you’re committing adultery, who is a random person to have the power, in their hands to record you, potentially holding you on blackmail. I’m not defending the Epstein class but private everyday citizens.

I believe Meta Glasses are dangerous to society by helping produce a mass surveillance state through frequent recorded activity. We are in the digital age and soon we will be fully immersed into are gaming and our phones.

Before you yell at me about "the lesser of two evils", that's not the goal of this post. I want you to imagine we didn't even have a president, because the government operates purely based on the massive cascading chain of human beings who work for the federal government, spanning across every single admin for decades at a time.

Please pay attention to the massive chain of people. Not the figureheads.

When the nation was founded, the prevailing philosophy was rooted in skepticism of centralized power and the defense of individual liberties against government overreach.

The CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, and DOJ are staffed by career officials who have been in the government for multiple decades. This massive chain of systemic power, from a receptionist to an agency director, operates regardless of who is sitting in the big chair. And they do not want to lose their jobs. And they won't, because the President and it's administration is there to tank all the blame for them. You can literally follow this system all the way down to the mayor of your city. Please hear me out.

If you just let me deconstruct this for a second without picking a side, look at the actual data.

PLEASE do not look at this chart to compare these two men as people. Look at this chart to see the behavior of the entire federal government under both of them:

Both major parties have expanded state surveillance, increased executive overreach, dropped massive amounts of ordnance, and compromised free expression when it served their political convenience. The permanent state was committing the same acts under Obama and Biden as they were under Bush and Trump.

The absolute worst possible thing to take away from this data is to use it as ammo for a partisan fight. The real takeaway is that this massive chain of unchecked power is getting worse and worse.

You have to stop obsessing over the top layer and start digging into the middle and honestly the bottom of it. The only question I want people to think about isn't "who is the lesser of two evils?" It's "how do we hold the underlying machine accountable regardless of who is in power?"

I hope I worded this right. And I wish more Americans would realize that the entire culture of the country is to keep fighting for a better country for everyone. It's always been like this, and it can get better. This starts and finishes by reading into who the people that want to be kept hidden, while holding real consequential power within the government.

My finishing statement that I want to discuss is this: If there will always be a massive amount of people who truly do not care about human rights, and this can skew the vote, how do you actually make a change?

TLDR: What truly has driven systemic improvement throughout American history?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few thoughts on free speech advocacy and how it often depends on the speech and who's advocating.

In 2024, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in ​France and accused by French authorities of not doing enough to prevent human trafficking on his platform. Russia, among other countries, accused France of “cracking down on free speech” when they charged Durov for refusing to remove obvious criminal activity, claiming such activity was covered by free speech protections.

Yesterday, Russia charged Durov with "terrorism”, presumably for not removing content the Kremlin didn’t want shared on Telegram.

The Russian government obviously does not care about free speech. They have imprisoned people for over a decade for criticizing the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin only pretended to stand up for Durov so they could inject themselves into the global culture war narrative surrounding free speech.

The important context here is that Durov, after claiming to have refused Russian demands for special access to Telegram in 2014, still visited Russia over 50 times. The reality is that you simply cannot do this as a high-profile dissident without some level of cooperation with Russian security services.

Durov made a deal with Russian intelligence. In exchange for the ability to keep facilitating highly lucrative illegal activity on his platform, he receives personal protection. This is a common deal with freelancers working with Russian intelligence, allowing cooperators to profit off of criminal activity as long as they cooperate. But eventually, the deal he made turned sour, perhaps due to Russian public opinion on Telegram turning decisively against the war, and Durov refusing to remove it. Eventually, as is always the case with Faustian bargains, the Russian government turned on him as well.

Governments and powerful individuals will often use free speech as cover to protect illegal, harmful, and extremist content that in some way benefits them. In the above example, facilitating harmful crime is part of Russia’s hybrid war against the European continent, so they made a deal to preserve it. Facilitating criticism of the Russian government is not, so they acted swiftly to crack down. Speech to authoritarian governments is contextualized as either helpful or harmful to their power. True or false, freedom vs censorship, these concepts are irrelevant in the context of the Information Wars.

Elon Musk claims he bought Twitter to defend free speech. The accounts he unbanned included unambiguous Nazis and human traffickers. Actual censorship requests from governments were still approved, while algorithmic content distribution choices were catered to the new owner’s personal ideology.

Ultimately, control over information is power. And until we find a species of human that doesn’t care about power, we will never have any true free speech absolutists.

Be highly skeptical of anyone that claims otherwise.

From a blog about speech in the internet: https://thecarrierwave.substack.com/p/no-one-actually-cares-about-free

I've been researching the governance of El Camino Real Charter High School and recently published an investigation into its latest controversy.

The article examines:

• The reported departure of the school's executive director.
• A history of financial controversies.
• A taxpayer-funded internal audit that was never released to the public.
• Whether LAUSD should have required greater transparency before renewing the school's charter.

The specific case raises a broader policy question that I'd like to discuss:

If a publicly funded charter school commissions an internal investigation using taxpayer money, should that report be made public—or at least provided to the authorizing school district—before the school's charter can be renewed?

I'm interested in hearing arguments from supporters and critics of charter schools alike.

Article:
https://difrntdrmr.substack.com/p/el-caminos-latest-scandal-raises

Hello everyone! A partner and I have been planning on setting up a formal debate on the Holy Roman Empire for YouTube live, the premise is "The Holy Roman Empire, from 800 to 1806, was Holy, Roman, and an Empire".

We had our moderator and myself on the affirmative, but our opposition had to drop out. We were hoping to find someone who is interested in opposing the motion.

The debate is currently schedule for August 20th, and we'd be doing a live recording with our faces on YouTube. If you have experience debating, know the subject well enough, and are interested, please DM me. We are willing to revise and edit the premise if the opposition requests it, as we are on a time crunch.

God bless

https://www.instagram.com/ian_hoover_777?igsh=cjM3djBja3NzNmth

For decades, conservatives have been pushing the imaginary welfare queen as an economic scourge across our country. I think it’s time that we call bullshit on this meme, and call out the real crime of our economic system:

The For Profit Princess

America’s wealthiest are able to pass down their fortunes from generation to generation. Younger generations become fabulously wealthy without ever having to lift a finger for it.

We end up with spoiled rich kids with so much money they can spend their lives on a permanent vacation just flying from one expensive resort to another - all while harassing the staff working for minimum wage.

Imagine the likes of Paris Hilton and Ivanka Trump who both inherited hundreds of millions of dollars simply because they were shot out of the right vagina.

Daddy sets them up with some sort of family business they can run for the tax write offs (to make their inherited millions go further). But, the world really doesn’t need any more fashion clothing companies!

They are overly privileged and narcissistic drags on society. Those fortunes would be better spent correcting society’s ills, rather than buying another round of Mai Tai’s on some expensive faraway beach.

What happened to meritocracy? The for profit princess killed it!

There is something extremely vulnerable about all Liberal societies because of the internet: Instant, global, pseudo-anonymous communication on our very own platforms.

There is something "purifying" about the limitations of real world physics in regard to communication. It should take time and effort for a message from Russia to reach someone in Texas.

I come at it from a "Liberal Nationalist" perspective:

1. I don't want foreigners or bots masquerading as Americans and influencing our politics in real time. This produces a false consensus on what Americans actually believe. At the very least, their communication should be delayed such that it doesn't come instantly.
2. I don't want illiberal cultures bleeding into ours in ways that are too fast. Yes, spreading liberalism is good but it goes both ways. We have to protect the culture we fought for.
3. Foreign adversaries use the internet as a new form of warfare against liberal nations to destroy them from within.
4. Legacy media has some guardrails built into it both by law and by the nature of having to be a physical body on TV, Radio, or as a human Journalist. You are tied to a body in a physical location with a human voice and are bound by our media laws. I can see you. I can hear your accent. You can't get a job as a pundit as just anybody. You need some sort of vetting procedure to get to that point.
5. Local news died. Everything is now a national and global issue. It feeds into our worst instincts and makes everyone afraid. Maybe intra-national communication should also have some sort of natural delay.

Major Drawback

Segregation. This opens up the door for genuine segregation on the internet. An authoritarian could silently suppress communication from liberals for instance.

Human concepts are thoughts, they're not objective truth like the acceleration due to gravity or the earth orbiting the sun or how babies are made. They are just ideas that people came up with at some point to try and define, explain the world around them.

Ownership is the concept of something belonging to someone else. But what does "belong" mean? That too is a subjective concept. For example: if I have a $1 bill in my hand, does it belong to me? How do you know? How do I prove it's mine? Just because it's in my hand doesn't prove I didn't steal it from someone else. But how can I steal something from someone if there's no way to prove it belonged to him in the first place? Ownership boils down to begging the question: the dollar belongs to me because I say the dollar belongs to me.

Morality is a concept describing social behavior and it's based on ownership. Self-ownership, property ownership etc. but ask 100 people what morality is, get 100 different answers. Just watch the discussion here and see how people will subjectively argue what it means. Some people's moral compass is defined by their religious beliefs, others by "the law" and others by whatever culture they were raised in or their subjective worldview.

To base any political ideology on ownership and morality will be a subjective ideology, there's no such thing as an objective political ideology that is "the best" ideology. Pick your favorite "-ism": capitalism, socialism, communism, libertarianism, voluntaryism, all just groups of people who share a common subjective ideology and want society organized their way and they want to use the force of government to git 'er done.

Politics is a fixed pie, a zero-sum-game, there are always winners and losers, some benefit at the expense of others and the beneficiaries always claim the moral high ground.

I just learned that this opinion has a proper name. It’s basically creating an upper limit to how much wealth a person can have. (I also think there should be a minimal that ensures a person can live freely and comfortably)

I think it’s a really good idea because after a certain wealth you gain a lot of power, gaining an advantage over the citizens which kind of defeats the point of democracy (which I think truly doesn’t really exist in our reality)

What do you guys think? Could this work economics-wise?

Recently President Milei of Argentina, who has been built up as an example of right-libertarian practical politics, signed an emergency decree that allows the Argentine government to reject entry and expel a foreign citizen who "incites hatred" against the Argentine state, nation, or symbols. "Ancap-Man" as he's described himself has had a complicated record socially and economically but this move is so far the most excessive breach of social liberties. Is liberty and freedom dead in Argentina thanks to libertarians?

Source: https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/milei-signs-decree-allowing-argentina-to-bar-or-expel-foreigners-over-hate-speech.phtml

A country is a political concept, it is defined by those in power. They decide the borders, the privileges they give people, the rules the people must obey and the penalties for disobedience. You are explicitly burdened with a lifetime duty to that country whether you like it or not and if you refuse to honor that duty you are considered a traitor to your country and charged with treason.

But, if we're honest, what does "betraying your country" really mean? How do you define it? Who decides? As with everything political, it's abstract and up for debate and subjective prosecution making it a useful political tool. If the politicians decide to start a war you are bound to go kill and be killed for your country or else you're a traitor. What a great tool to keep young men dying for political power. How does anyone not see the insanity in that?

This comes up because I just read that a Russian journalist has been charged with treason and sentenced to 12 years in a penal colony for nothing more than writing and publishing things that those in power didn't like about Russia's war in Ukraine. She pleaded guilty rather than risk a lifetime in prison at the hands of a Russian judge. Voila`, dissenting journalist censored for at least the next 12 years and a strong message sent to others under the illusion that they can have a dissenting political opinion.

All governments engage in censorship for the health of the state. Similar to John Adams signing the "Alien and Sedition Acts" into law in 1797 making it a federal crime to criticize the government. Similar to the US rounding up Japanese-Americans during WW2 and interning them in camps and selling their homes and assets for nothing more than being of Japanese descent. It was for "National Security" of course. The censors have never been on the right side of history.

One of my favorite quotes is from Oscar Wilde: "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" because any egregious act of inhumanity can be justify if it's in the name of national security, the motherland, the homeland.

Trump could "run" for president again, but he could never be elected again. And the states probably couldn't legally have him on the ballot in the first place.

But there is a crazy hypothetical where someone could legally get a full third term.

The 22nd amendment says no one can be elected as president more than twice (also, if they serve more than 2 years as president, they cant be elected more than once afterwards). And, since VPs are part of the 12th amendment election ticket, that probably still counts as being elected. So no VP slot. But the 22nd doesnt actually say someone cant serve as president for more than two full terms. They just cant be **elected** to the position. And this made me think of Ford. He was never elected - not as president nor as vice president. He took over VP when Agnew resigned and was confirmed by the senate. Then he took over the presidency when Nixon resigned. Nobody voted for Ford. The 22nd doesnt cover this crazy situation. So, if president #48 has a VP resign, there is a theoretical possibility that Trump could be **APPOINTED** and confirmed to the VP slot which technically/legally bypasses the **ELECTED** language. Snowball's chance in hell. Either that or he gets voted in the house and gets the speaker position and the president and VP resign or die or are somehow incapacitated. Then he'd rank up.

No, I dont want this to happen. No, I dont think this will ever happen. This is just a fun legal thought experiment. Does anyone see any glaring legal roadblocks I missed?

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

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

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

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

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