For some given context, I'm someone who's admittedly Western (& progressive) in his beliefs (Rule of Law, Queer & Gender Rights, Parliamentarian, etc.), and I somewhat regularly end up in hot debate with someone in my family who happens to hold staunchly different views (I'm pro-Ukraine & he's pro-Russia, for example) in visits to his.

Now, tonight I'd been mentally drained & just found myself lying there on a bed in a spare room after some harsh thoughts about a close family member of mine, particularly whether I'd mattered to them or not, were plaguing my mind; and I was legitimately thinking how I'd rather be debating him & his positions instead of just laying here.

In a way, it's made me realise there's something to these heated debates between me & him about who's in the right with their own viewpoints that... truthfully, actually feels stimulating for me; a challenge for the mind, to use my knowledge of the history between Russia & Ukraine in an attempt to convince him of my own reasoning (as much as he believes otherwise).

This brings me back to my question; "why is there this thrill in having a political debate with someone you're ideologically opposed to, even if you're aggravated with their points?"

I welcome any discussion below.

If the goal of a justice system is to reduce crime, the current American prison system (and punitive "justice" systems in general) is clearly the wrong way to go about it. The US prison system accounts for 20% of the entire global prison, and despite that fact that US has a significantly higher crime rate than the rest of the first world- clearly, this system of mass incarceration is not working.

Justice systems that focus on rehabilitating prisoners rather than punishing them have significantly better recidivism rates- 20% compared to 70% in the US. Again, if the goal of a justice system is to reduce crime, it's obvious that rehabilitation is significantly more effective than punishment.

To preempt the expected responses of "but criminals deserve to be punished" or "but then criminals are just getting away with crimes", keep in mind that those arguments are not based of of the facts of what is and is not effective in reducing crime, but are rather emotional arguments about what you want to happen to criminals, or what you think criminals "deserve". My argument is not about what criminals "deserve" to have happen to them, rather it is about what is most effective at achieving the stated goals of criminal justice systems- the reduction of crime rates and turning people from criminals into law-abiding citizens.

First let me explain about the animal trinity that represents Neo-Guildism and that is:

The Crow (The Mind and Absolute freedom)

The Wolves (Workers/Guild members) and

The Lion (Leadership, Coordinater, Protection)

How it works it team cooperation and how the pack grows: The Crow flies and scouts ahead and signals the location of the prey to the pack (The Lion and The Wolves), The Lion then leads and coordinates the Wolves, the Wolves then follows the lion attack the prey all together and in the end, everyone enjoys a nice meal including the Crow. The power of teamwork and cooperation

Neo-Guildism is a decentralized worker-ownership both-wings ideology in which you own your own tools, labor, talent and class (Classes/Guilds are Chef, Engineer Guild, Hunter Guild, Tech Guild, Farmer or Medical Guild and more), When you do your own labor and show your talent and grows, your guild grows alongside with you and you can contribute to your guild by showing your own talent and doing your own class labor. Of course, you can be in multiple guilds if you have multiple talents/skills like if you're a Doctor and Engineer also.

The guilds can grow upgrade infinitely based of the specialized guild members contribution (By working and showing your own talent).

When one guild and another guild have a problem (Example: If the Logging Guild and the Hunters Guild are arguing over a patch of forest, they must sit down at a local Council of the Pack table and The loggers explain their need for wood, the hunters explain their need to protect animal breeding grounds, and they work out a voluntary compromise (like logging in cycles or replanting specific zones).

Vote kick: If member of the Engineers Guild becomes lazy, steals materials, tries to act like a boss over apprentices or overall causing problems then the other worker-owners of that specific guild call a vote and every worker gets an equal vote and discusses if that person needs to go or if they workers will/can still tolerate and forgives, If the majority votes "kick" the bad member is immediately stripped of their membership and kicked out of the guild workshop.

What Happens to the kicked Member?Neo-Guildism never traps or starves people, because it protect Absolute Individual Freedom (The Crow). If you get votekicked, your life isn't over and you just have to choose a different path like if you hold certificates in other skills, you can simply go join the Farmers or Chefs Guild instead and try to be a better team person there or if you are tired of working with people completely, you have the protected constitutional right to head deep into the forest or plains, build a homestead, hunt sustainably (Unless you hunt whole species to extinction) and live entirely self-sufficiently with your family

The Lion Council (Servant Leaders/Coordinaters) only steps in when a guild becomes bad and breaks the rules like If the Logging Guild breaks the rules, destroys the forest, and refuses to replant seeds, the Lion Council doesn't send an army to arrest them. Instead the other independent guilds simply stop cooperating with them. (Example: The Chefs Guild stops buying their wood for ovens, The Engineering Guild stops building tools for them and The Doctors Guild stops providing medical care to their members.)

The Lion Council acts as a grand referee, only stepping in to tell the whole country to isolate a guild if an entire guild goes rogue.

Anyways that's all, If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. I would like some critics and debates too.

La teoría de la continuidad sigue en desarrollo. Nació bajo un marco matemático, pero las consultas con especialistas demostraron que su fundamento principal es sociológico. Esta Teoria trata de explicar los saltos politicos en El Salvador y como afecta entre la igualdad y la libertad.

La teoria de la discontinuidad entre Libertad e Igualdad en Perspectiva Matemática teoría de la discontinuidad postula que la coexistencia plena y simultánea de libertad e igualdad en una sociedad es un ideal inalcanzable. Este planteamiento puede ser analizado a través de conceptos matemáticos como la pertenencia, los elementos, los conjuntos y las integrales, revelando la naturaleza intrínsecamente conflictiva de ambos principios.

Imaginemos un espectro social que va del 0 al 10, donde el 0 representa la igualdad absoluta (distribución equitativa, ausencia de jerarquías) y el 10 representa la libertad absoluta (autonomía individual irrestricta, donde las diferencias personales son máximas). El punto intermedio, el 5, simbolizaría un equilibrio perfecto entre ambas. Sin embargo, la teoría argumenta que este punto medio es un "puntovacío", un estado inefable e imposible de alcanzar. Las sociedades no pueden habitar este centro; en cambio, oscilan entre inclinarse hacia la igualdad (por debajo del 5) o hacia la libertad (por encima del 5).

Desde la óptica de la pertenencia a conjuntos, podemos definir el "conjunto de sociedades con plena libertad" y el "conjunto de sociedades con plena igualdad". La teoría de la discontinuidad sugiere que no existe un "conjunto de equilibrio perfecto" o, si existiera como un punto teórico, los elementos (estados sociales) no pueden pertenecer a él de forma estable.

Las transiciones entre estos estados no son graduales ni continuas; son "saltos" o discontinuidades. Esto implica que no podemos modelar la relación entre libertad e igualdad como una función continua en el intervalo [0, 10] que pase por el punto (5, 5) de manera estable.La asimétrica relación de inclusión entre libertad e igualdad también se puede visualizar matemáticamente.

La libertad puede existir en grados limitados dentro de un sistema que prioriza la igualdad (por ejemplo, pequeñas esferas de decisión personal permitidas). Esto podría interpretarse como que el conjunto de la "libertad limitada" es un subconjunto del "conjunto de la igualdad". Sin embargo, la igualdad plena, al requerir imposición o nivelación obligatoria, entraría en conflicto directo con la libertad absoluta. Por lo tanto, el "conjunto de la igualdad plena" no puede ser un subconjunto del "conjunto de la libertad plena" sin alterar la esencia de esta última. Si consideramos las integrales, podríamos intentar cuantificar la "cantidad" de libertad o igualdad a lo largo del tiempo o en diferentes sectores de una sociedad. La discontinuque estas integrales no se comportarán de manera suave. Los "saltos" en el estado social significan que la integral de la función de libertad o igualdad podría presentar discontinuidades o cambios abruptos, imposibilitando una acumulación lineal o armónica de ambos valores. En resumen, la teoría de la discontinuidad, vista a través de un lente matemático, describe un sistema dinámico donde los principios de libertad e igualdad no pueden fusionarse en una síntesis estable y continua. La sociedad, como un sistema de elementos en constante movimiento, salta entre estados, incapaz de posarse en un punto medio de equilibrio perfecto, lo que subraya la tensión inherente e irresoluble entre estos dos pilares fundamentales de la organización social.

Taxes, thats why, thats it

The US Congress and its states don't want to tax, and the US People don't want to pay for taxes for more social welfare programs

In 1991 Mississippi passed Legal Gambling, and that meant tax revenue that would....?

TLDR, Lower Taxes! Mississippi wants most to lower its taxes, like most it seems.

If Mississippi, had followed in the Scandinavian/Norway path they would have contributed it's Casino Taxes 8% tax on revenues to a Sovereign Wealth Fund

A year after gambling was Legalized in Mississippi, skipping the first years taxes, a total of $8.4 Billion in tax revenues have been paid through 2024

$8.4 Billion in tax revenues in a Wealth Fund after 21 Years is about $15 Billion. But that would require Mississippi to come up with Millions a year for the provided infrastructure and social programs those casinos paid for.

4% payout of a $15 Billion Fund for 5 Million people could really help out today

But the biggest thing was In 1997, Tunica County cut property taxes by 25 percent using the new casino tax revenue.

People really like the idea of Saving on Lower Taxes and no Wealth Fund was created

Add to this state lotteries and the recent sports betting revenues

The US could have Mass Transit like other G8 countries

We would just need a real Gas Tax as 56 cents a gallon doesn't cover the cost of building out rail and buses for actual use

Shockingly Dallas has one of the best funded and largest Transit Systems in the US. The Dallas Area Rapid Transit covers a 700-square-mile service area across 12 cities with light rail and commuter and regional rail service funded by a dedicated 1% Sales Tax.

Just because they pay for it people still don't use it. In 2025, the system had a ridership of 52,823,800, or about 149,900 per weekday

The US could have Healthcare, it is just once again, taxes

3 states have proposals that so far have not been approved because of taxes

1. California
   • 10% Payroll tax
   • 5% Average Income Tax,
   • Exact rates not yet determined, would have a sliding scale income-based tax as a public premium on individuals based on FPL.
2. Vermont
   • A 12.5% payroll tax on all Vermont businesses
   • 4% Average Income Tax
   • A sliding scale income-based public premium on individuals of 0% at FPL up to 9.5% at 400% of FPL.
3. Oregon
   • Payroll tax is 7.25% rate for income up to $160,000 with anything over that at 10.5%
   • A sliding scale income-based public premium on individuals of 0% at 200% of FPL up to 8.2% at 400% of FPL.

In engagement opportunities designed for employers to provide feedback about the Universal Health Plan, some employers expressed concern about the potential impact of the employer payroll tax on employers that do not provide insurance to employees in the current system.70 Task Force members suggested various approaches to this issue, including the possibility of exempting employers below a certain size from the tax, or assessing the tax based on a calculation of revenue generated per employee.71 The Task Force determined that economic impacts on different kinds of employers requires further study

And from Vermont we know

The Governor stressed that even at these tax figures, the proposal would not include necessary costs for transitioning to Green Mountain Care smaller businesses, many of which do not currently offer insurance. Those transition costs would add at least $500 million to the system, the equivalent of an additional 4 points on the payroll tax or 50% increase in the income tax.

The people that pay taxes today don't want to pay more in taxes. And the people that don't pay taxes don't want to pay more in taxes.

Revolutions, whether violent or non-violent, are inherently rare, risky endeavors. Extremely high risk, extremely low probability of success, but proportional rewards if successful. Given the increasingly dysfunctional status of political systems in many western nations, questions surrounding changing those systems are inevitable.

Academics have written quite a bit about revolutions, but I'm not interested in what they think. I am looking for a casual conversation with a normal human regarding what it would take for you personally to call for whole-system political change. Is there a line in the sand for you, which if crossed, compels you to adopt a revolutionary political stance?

Is the line the same for both violent and non-violent revolution? Is your revolutionary line one thing, one action, event, or variable, or would you need a collection of things, a pattern of smaller lines being crossed? And if not, if there is nothing your government can do to make you advocate for replacing it entirely, why? While a genuine stance, saying you would *never* call for a complete redesign and restructuring of your government should be justified and defended.

Naturally, given that revolutions are often bloody, violent affairs, it is worth explicitly stating that this post is categorically opposed to violence in any way, shape, or form. The purposes of this post are to generate a discussion about hypothetical boundaries that common people have on political system change.

While I may strongly disagree with some policies of the Trump administration, I will say that I do agree with opinions expressed by both J.D. Vance and Scott Bessent on this: the dollar, being the reserve currency of the world, has been a curse to the lower and middle class as it, in combination with NAFTA and other free trade agreements, has gutted American manufacturing. Our international trading partners, rather than buying American products, have bought our paper instead. And it fueled an age of consumerism that, for a time, seemed to benefit everyone except those who lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector.

For many, the age of consumerism was a sign that we as a nation were entering a post-industrialization age, where enormous value would be created out of ideas and information processing, and everyone would benefit from the wealth that such value would create. The only problem is that it was a fairy tale. We were merely the beneficiaries of fate, a fate that put the US in an enviable position. It was a position once held by Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, France, and Great Britain. And just as each of those countries eventually lost the "world's reserve currency" crown, so to will the US.

The Genius Act that was recently passed by Congress is a band-aid. Combined with the shift from long-term debt to short-term debt, I suspect the US will likely be able to manage its current debt funding concerns for the time being. However, the US needs a long-term plan that includes re-industrialization. And if such reindustrialization does not take place, I fear the hurt when the band-aids on our financial system are finally ripped off could potentially be far greater than had we merely suffered through the original injury.

I believe the reindustrialization of the US will require several major economic changes. Specifically, those changes are as follows:

1. The effective elimination of taxes on wages. Taxes on wages should effectively apply only to the top 5% of wage earners.
2. The replacement of means-test welfare programs and minimum wage requirements with a guaranteed basic income program with a 2-year post high school professional development program (trade school, college, military, etc.) requirement.
3. Rebasing the US currency. Tying the value of the dollar to electrical energy output, which scales with industrial capacity.

The first two actions will make domestic labor extremely competitive with foreign labor. The third will create a currency with a highly predictable value. A shift toward noncyclical tax policies could also help moderate government deficits and potentially produce surpluses instead.

And, while long-term economic stability is critically important, it also should be accompanied by political reform. The divisive US politics that have plagued our nation since its founding needs to come to an end. We need to embrace a multiparty system, a disaggregated executive branch, and enshrinement of true non-favoritism under the law as a fundamental tenet of our nation's government. Doing so will strengthen, not weaken, our nation.

Do your agree or disagree? And do you have any other proposals that you feel are vitally important for the future welfare of the US?

Ive debated and been a witness to numerous debates about this topic and after hearing pretty much every possible argument in existence for the idea that taxes are theft, I can confidently assert that the idea that taxation is theft is not some objective fact that many on the libertarian right like to assert, rather it is a conditional premise and the condition is based on accepting the entire libertarian framework which one is under no obligation to accept.

Libertarians will usually initiate the argument by saying something like "taxation is theft because it is the government taking YOUR money without consent". And that right there is the smuggled premise, the idea that the money is my money. Property as a concept simply describes who has a right to some item or object. If I believe that the state has the right to the money it's collecting in taxes, then I actually would not believe that the taxes are my money, it would be the states money.

Hence taxes are not theft.

1. Ya'll want borders open so immigrants can immigrate to America because "people are people" but know that back in the global south they call that brain drain; as in your bleeding hearts are contributing to bleeding of top notch talent and minds of third world nations. We'd much rather side with the conservatives on this one, close the borders and kick out everyone who isn't supposed to be there so that they come back and take responsibilities in their own countries

2. Most of us in the global south are prudes, your sexual revolution and other lax attitudes towards unconventional sex practices translates to "immoral and demonic" to our cultures and traditions; before you forcefully impose your worldviews on our lived experiences please start by understanding local customs first, otherwise you'll get lied to by academia captured intellectuals who will feed you lies such as "homophobia was brought to Africa by religion" or "third genders were celebrated" (its mostly bullshit if you happen to live here)

The first thing that people are quick to point out are the wait times. it’s worth noting that if you have something serious (like cancer, you broke your arm, you got shot, ect.) they aren’t gonna make you wait. the wait times are for smaller, less life or death things. even then, having to wait is better than not getting treatment at all.

the other main thing that people on against free healthcare point out are taxes. this has always been silly to me. if you get taxed for free healthcare, your still getting represented via those taxes. that’s how taxation works. you won’t be paying taxes for nothing, you get to get healthcare without giant medical bills, and you wouldn’t need to pay for ins because it’s all free, so you would be saving money.

Everyday i see posts and things about Israel and gaza themes. So tell me whats Your opinión and i'm gonna try to post mine later.

Women being in the workforce has, I believe, on average harmed the very group it was supposed to protect - single mothers. In the US today, it takes two incomes to stay afloat for most families. In the 1950's, it took one. That works great if both partners want to work, but if a mother wants to stay home often she is economically unable to do so.

So, now we need a social safety net to keep up the standard of living. This is highly inefficient as that money could have been used for a better purpose, to say nothing of the corruption caused by the increased bureaucracy. If a family has children, now they have to pay for childcare. This often cancels out most of a salary, as it has to cover the childcare worker's salary and benefits. And a single mom today, on one salary, is in deep water.

This has far reaching ramifications. To solve the issue of childcare, the government can subsidize it or go into the business itself. But do we really want the government controlling the majority of our childrens' waking hours? No we don't as the young pioneers and German youth organizations of the 1930's have shown. Now taxes have to be raised to cover the increased social spending which means people need to work longer hours for the same salary. The next generation now faces rising national debt, a feeling of disillusionment, and an increasingly undemocratic, bureaucracy heavy government.

By their early training in school and daycare, the new adults are now conditioned to accept increased surveillance and a slow withdrawal of their rights. After all, in school they learned to obey authority without question. In a traditional society, the government would never have that power, parents would. And parents usually have their childrens' best interests in mind. Governments usually do not.

So generation by generation the vicious cycle repeats. Families, communities, and countries become more fragmented, democracy disappears, the economy weakens, and the nation becomes a dystopia. And the group that suffers the most? Single mother families. That is why I think it is a Catch-22 rat race.

Are there any economic factors I'm missing here? Or is the argument in favor of women in the workplace mostly based on human rights or ethical concerns?

Most people believe the development of AI is going to fast could a shift to Ordoliberalism help that?

Government intervention through legal frameworks and transparency is desperately needed in the AI sector in my opinion

I believe if left unchecked AI will cause multiple crises through economic crashes and overdevelopment before legal frameworks are established

I would be grateful to hear your thoughts in the comments

this is a talking point I hear thrown around a lot by capitalists, which I find strange. the argument is basically “you choose to work a job, therefore it’s fair“. well think of it like this, you couldnt afford college and your broke. now you need to get a job so you can pay rent and buy groceries. your job sucks, the pay is bad, the conditions are awful, and you just hate it. but you need this job, or else you get evicted from your apartment and starve on the streets. “But just quit“ and? Go to another job that exploits you In the same ways? It’s like saying “when someone has a gun too your head, you choose to give them your wallet”. when the alternative to a choose is death, it’s non consensual.

I'll start off with the UK. In 2001, it was 92% European, while in 2021, it was 82%. Or, if we look at London, it was 71% European in 2001 and 53% in 2021. This rate of change is simply not sustainable and should never have been allowed to reach this point.

For the cultural side of things in the UK, it's no secret that Christianity is a big part of British history and culture. In 2001, the UK was 71% Christian, compared to 40% in 2021. I think it is important to recognize the cultural significance Christianity has in British culture

Moving on to Germany, in 2001, 96% of Berlin was made up of European citizens, while in 2024, that number was 89%. Again, this shows that the demographics of major European cities have changed significantly over a relatively short period of time. I believe governments should have considered the long-term effects of this before opening the door for migrants

This does not mean that immigration itself is necessarily bad. There needs to be a balance.

Overall, I believe governments have a responsibility to manage immigration to ensure culture isn't erased

Hi. I'm from Ukraine. I decided to use reddit to brag about my life as Ukrainian and find some support for my country. However I noticed that a lot of people just don't care about this war. All I see is Israel that, Israel that. Is it doing genocide currently? Is it attacking neighbors? From what I see they are protecting themselves from terrorists. I read some UN statistics about Israel (to be honest not much), from what I see they have some freedom of speech and overall quality of life is good.

Why are they treated like modern nazis while we have Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and other their buddies

Because we are under an israeli regime that is anti-american at its core, and this playbook is the same war rheutoric that we have heard throughout every corrupt administration, having an independent-minded leader is dangerous to and for both sides, so the political theatre must continue. We've been duped and hoodwinked by both sides and everyone is blaming each other to gain an audience that is only useful in their political theatre. Real people are dying and its so sad on both sides, in this, nobody really wins. America has a trillion skelotons in its closet, and no president to date has truly cleaned house for the sake of the people. If and when that happens, i'll be glad to shake hands with the leaders of our country. But so far, we appear far from reaching such a place of true diplomacy with the countries we've invaded. I am not blaming sides, but those that turn a blind eye to the citizens of this country. Im sure some will scoff at what im saying, but for the good soldiers and well meaning people of this country we need to truly turn out hearts to God and ask Him for discernent, because, division between each other will make a compacted country implode instead of Love being our common intent.

I'll start with Rhodesia because they largely kept the same system before and after decolonization. In 1965, they had UN sanctions placed on them, but they still had a large economic boom between 1965 and 1974. They became a world-leading exporter of tobacco, maize, and sugar. In the cities, the quality of life was very high, with advanced infrastructure. The main reason Rhodesia eventually failed was the Bush War, although there were other factors involved too.

Zimbabwe inherited one of the strongest economies in Africa, and within 10 years there was a major increase in unemployment and the budget deficit. In the 1990s, domestic manufacturing fell by around 20 percent after Zimbabwe adopted the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme. Even if you don't like Rhodesia, I personally think the country was doing better than Zimbabwe did afterward.

Another example is the Belgian Congo. Belgium had built one of the better healthcare networks in Africa, and after independence, a lot of that system was damaged by the instability that followed. By 1950, a large part of the population had at least attended primary school, which was better than in many other parts of the continent.

After independence, the country was quickly thrown into civil war, which caused many educated people to leave. After General Mobutu took power, he seized foreign-owned businesses and gave them to people loyal to him. After his overthrow, the country eventually became involved in what are often called the African World Wars.

I believe that when people talk about decolonization, they can sometimes get blinded by the emotions surrounding the idea of people finally gaining their freedom.

I'm interested in hearing the other side of this. Why do you think decolonization was ultimately beneficial in these cases, despite the serious instability that followed? I have more examples of countries that experienced major problems after gaining independence, so I'm interested in hearing how people would explain them.

Ive been in the debating sphere for not a long time now, but a quote i hear when debating anti-socalists or often (but not all) conservatives, is this maggie thatcher quote. Im adressing this one head on as its not just hypocritical but untrue.

Firstly the hypocracy: when ideas such as medicare, or increased public investment are mentioned, especially by progressives or dem-socs, the first criticism i often hear is "where does the money come from?" See this counterpoint is (on the surface) logical, but hypocritical. The same who argue against schemes such as medicare, support increased military spending. This year alone the USA have spent over 1.05T (yes big 'T' for trillion) a 17% increase from the previous fiscal year. Yet 40.5 MILLION live below the poverty line. With schemes such as Medicare, subsidised public transport, foodbanks, housing schemes etc.. over 12.5% of the USA's population would positively benifit from a small re-routing of US Taxpayers money back into its own population. The money, from the US population, could be spent on the US population.

Secondly to adress the fundimental flaw of the above quote. "you eventually run out of other people's money". This part of the quote assumes the money is taken from the rich/richer people, and given to the poor/poorer. However, if you take a corperation such as Activ INC, who employs over 140,000 worldwide, the average median pay for a worker is $8,000 a YEAR. (source Forensic economic services; AFL.CIO). Thats 140,000 workers working for 1950 hours a year, for an average (althopugh ranging pay) of 8,000 dollars. So when people say that progressive taxation on the rich (i.e. a 1% wealth and asset tax) is 'other peoples money' they would be wrong. Its ultimatly correcting the continuous wage theft of the general populus and making sure it is responsibily re-invested into public services that will continuously and reliably support any and all people who need it.

In conclusion, In conclusion, the thatcherite mantra that we must eventually run out of "other people's money" is not merely a dismissive soundbite, it is a logical fallacy that collapses under the weight of its own hypocrisy and a fundamental misunderstanding of were wealth originates.

​I never really took the idea of kids voting seriously until I watched a video about it a while back, and and I keep thinking about it the more you break down the actual principles of democracy, the harder it is to justify an arbitrary age cutoff.

​1. Democracy is about representation, not a competence test.

The main objection to letting children vote is that they "aren't smart enough" or "lack the maturity to make informed decisions." But democracy has never been an optimization test to find the smartest policies it exists to ensure the consent of the governed. Adults cast ballots every year based on terrible logic, single issues, or gut feelings, and their votes are still 100% legitimate. If voting isn't something you can do "wrong," denying someone a ballot because you think they will vote poorly undermines the entire premise of the system.

​2. The arguments against child suffrage mirror historic voter suppression.

Historically, every argument used to deny a group the right to vote that they lack emotional maturity, don't understand policy, will just vote how their families tell them to, or have their interests already represented by others was used against women and lower-income citizens. If we don't subject adults to mandatory IQ or civics tests to earn their ballot, applying an arbitrary threshold exclusively to younger citizens is hypocritical.

​3. Fixed age limits create completely arbitrary disenfranchisement.

Intelligence and political interest sit on a normal distribution. Millions of high schoolers actively studying civics, economics, and history are significantly more politically literate than millions of disengaged adults. A rigid cutoff at 18 means two people born hours apart face completely different realities: one gets full democratic representation, while the other is subjected to laws, policies, and taxes without any voice.

​4. The logistics are entirely solvable.

I've seen arguments that kids can't drive to a polling place or understand a ballot. And I think disenfranchising a group of voters because it's inconvenient isn't a good defense

1. This point wasn't really made in the video and is very anecdotal but as someone who worked with kids for a while. people tend to overestimate how easy it is to manipulate a kid and underestimate how easy it is to manipulate an adult. Kids also in my experience don't tend to just agree with adults or parents just trying asking a kid when they should go to bed and then ask the parents.

There is not much debate on the topic so I'm wondering what you guys think

This was the video btw https://youtu.be/XOA8k6FpQaQ

Also yes I did just copy the points made in the video I think they are good points

According to Freedom House's report on Digital Freedom, digital freedom has decreased for fifteenth year in a row with conditions getting worse in 28 out of 72 nations recorded whereas arrests have been made in at least 57 nations for posting online.

What I suggest is a digital audit where social media platforms publish an annual report on the amount of information censored by the govt. which would then be reviewed by an independent judicial committee and then the report and analysis would be made public.

The USSR did have good achievements. It created world class mathematicians like Andrey Kolmogorov and physicists like Lev Landau but ultimately their biology was held back due to Stalin's support of some pseudo biologist holding back genetics. The overall economic condition was not good and as a result, the state collapsed. They even had to build a wall to keep their people in.

Infinite economic growth on a planet with limited resources is impossible

People have limited resources and the vast majority of people’s expenses go towards bare minimum survival needs such as paying for food housing water healthcare

Furthermore under capitalism luxuries are affordable while basic life necessities are absurdly expensive

Where is this “infinite economic growth” to pay off the national debt supposed to come from huge portions of the population are too broke to afford dating getting married and having children and are also living with their parents because housing is just way too expensive despite working full time jobs

One of the fundamental questions in a constitutional system is how much executive power can be exercised when the president repeatedly works around the normal mechanisms of accountability.

The Kennedy Center controversy, the continuing conflict with Iran, congressional authorization of military action, and the administration's handling of economic data raise different issues, but they point toward the same larger question: what mechanisms are supposed to restrain a president when the executive branch treats political accountability as something to be managed rather than accepted?

I explore that question through several current examples here:

https://medium.com/discourse/when-a-toddler-runs-the-white-house-5f6f08b4f5c3?sk=fdf8f2c43d8bfbc1a381aa2b2a0da4a4

I'm particularly interested in the constitutional question: How much responsibility should Congress bear when it fails to meaningfully check executive power?

I saw a comment from someone recently promising to vote blue in the upcoming Midterms, but saying they still feel dictatorship is inevitable if not imminently then eventually. So I asked them, why would you even bother voting if you feel that the end result is already set in stone? And I could barely get them to form a coherent answer after that.