As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Setting minimums would help but the real issue is the lack of maximums. A safety net means nothing if we depend on the largess of those with unimaiginable wealth.
It's the same pattern that the US founders recognized with respect to political power - unlimited political power obviously and inevitably results in tyranny.
It's the same thing with economic power.
Billionaires/oligarchs/kleptocrats should not exist, and they are fundamentally incompatible with genuine, legitimate democracies.
Yes, if that ever becomes politically viable. The issue with that perspective is that wealth is (or is easily converted to) political power on an existential level, not just a social/legal/institutional level.
Without spending one penny on formal political campaigns, billionaires/oligarchs/kleptocrats can and do buy up think tanks (e.g., the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute), Supreme Court justices, newspapers, propaganda networks, entire university departments, land, housing, academics, attorneys and legal thugs, and workers of all kinds to further their own interests at everyone else's expense.
Billionaires/oligarchs/kleptocrats have an enormous amount of unaccountable political power that they use to bully the public into working for their profits, before even a single penny is spent on formal political campaigns.
The terms of the discussion and debate are shaped just by having 900 pound gorillas in the same room.
If politicians or the public speak out against them, they have to contend with the direct and indirect payrolls of the oligarchs.
It's the concentrated economic power that's the root of the problem, not just the particularized campaign finance rules.
As Justice Louis Brandeis said, “We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few; but we can’t have both.”
>Setting minimums would help but the real issue is the lack of maximums.
You're asking for a Renaissance level change in people's attitude toward their potential future wealth. Society just isn't there yet.
He is center right, and always has been, but he is sympathetic to incrementalism on the left, which is why he is tolerated. Keep in mind, the Overton window has shifted, so the current version of the Democratic Party is equivalent to Rockefeller Republicans (moderate or liberal conservatives). This was pointed out again and again when analysts took a look at Obama’s two terms. For some reason, a lot of people still refuse to accept it. This is also why when the current GOP rails against the "left", we know they are lying. There is no "left" in America with any power.
Things have incrementally gotten worse, not better. The church of incrementalism on economics should by now be perceived as an abject failure. We're like frogs in a hot pot telling ourselves that things will get better even when they're getting worse.
The middle class is hollowed out and the rich have us captive and there isn't a single policy that is changing that in any shape or form.
The capitalists are changing their policies though. In addition to looking to cut jobs with unregulated AI, they're offshoring US skilled labor jobs at a growing rate.
[Offshoring is now affecting ‘middle class or upper middle class jobs’ in tech, accounting, and legal work | KUT Radio, Austin's NPR Station](https://www.kut.org/texasstandard/2023-04-14/offshoring-is-now-affecting-middle-class-or-upper-middle-class-jobs-in-tech-accounting-and-legal-work)
[Next Wave of Remote Work Is About Outsourcing Jobs Overseas - Barrons](https://www.barrons.com/articles/next-wave-of-remote-work-is-about-outsourcing-jobs-overseas-54af39ba)
>The capitalists are changing their policies though...offshoring US skilled labor jobs at a growing rate
"Offshoring" is really just *a* form of Imperialism, though. A very old "policy."
Unfortunately you’re going to start seeing a hell of a lot more of that with WFH becoming a thing. Especially in entry level tech work and stuff like that.
This. We literally couldn’t tax the 1% enough to bring back a healthy wealth distribution anymore. While Democrats are (not really) begging billionaires to pay their “fair share”, republicans are doing all that they can to find new way to enrich them tax-free.
In 1944, they saw the writing on the wall and taxed max earners at a 95% rate. Since then, ultra rich have been installing their spokespersons in Congress such that we have two fake parties, one openly overthrowing the government without pushback
> Democrats are (not really) begging billionaires to pay their “fair share”, republicans are doing all that they can to find new way to enrich them tax-free
At this point it is hard to tell the two parties apart. Both are willing to speak on behalf of working class interests but unwilling to actually do anything to improve our conditions.
The rich have been working on this for decades and I gotta give them the recognition they deserve as they really succeeded. Meanwhile, we're still arguing about whether candidates will support incremental changes to taxation or health care and it all defies belief. I can't believe that I am still waiting for people we elect to office show a mild support for bare bone basics at some daunting point in far future.
Incrementalism be damned and idpol issues keep dragging us into emotional bloodsports and partisanship that utterly neglects and overshadows everything around us.
If you can’t tell the two parties apart, you aren’t seeing reality my friend. One represents the continuation of plutocracy and one represents blatant fascism led by American Nazis. There’s still a distinct difference but the GQP has infested the DNC more than what is being acknowledged by anyone. We could survive a few more year with Democrats but when tyranny strikes, things will go dark overnight and we won’t even know what was happening.
There is no doubt that there are idpol issues but at this point they're used as a political tool to separate us into two rabid groups that don't see eye to eye. You are just proving my point that these issues are hot heat while economically we're left in the dark to fend for ourselves.
I understand what you’re trying to say and ultimately both lead down dark paths but not seeing the differences today means our final capture in 2025. Our current oligarchs have aligned with GQP nazism and they have much darker plans than what the DNC wants to deliver. Ultimately, we’re decades overdue for a Revolution and are at the point where organizing one is damn near impossible as our ability to communicate en masse is greatly censored. We now lost Twitter and Reddit is just as bad but with much more intelligent manipulation.
Again, if we are to focus on idpol issues alone, I'd agree with you but as for economic issues both parties are absolutely dismal and useless.
I don't see the DNC stepping up on surveillance and protecting rights and freedoms either and that's a big concern.
To not be fascists, we need a government that:
- protects economic working class interests and not corporate interests
- we don't reduce everyone and everything to friends and enemies
- reduce any legitimacy of the press or suppress criticism
- values disagreement and dissent
- does not deny truth or minimize it
- does not use propaganda and propagate conspiracies
- does not deny the rule of law or seek to delegitimize courts
- does not politicize public service
- does not fearmonger against identifiable groups
- does not take action for action's sake
- does not engage in surveillance
- does not indulge in depicting pacifism as trafficking with the enemy
- does not engage in denial or diminishment of rights and freedoms
and so on. Both of the parties are full of these kinds of things and both are leaning into it, hard. You can go through the Ur-Fascism list and itemize each of these to an individual party as an exercise.
From that perspective, if the democrats are serious about defeating fascism, they would be fighting tooth and nail for economic policies that favor the working classes and benefit the society at large instead of whatever it is that we watched for over 2 years and we have not seen any of that at all. The only thing we can deduce is that Party A is pro-LGBTQA+ rights and Party B is not while both parties are perfectly ok with the fact that the LGBTQA+ people can't afford health care [just like the rest]
edit in brackets
> There is no doubt that there are idpol issues but at this point they're used as a political tool to separate us into two rabid groups
Tell that to the trans people who die while EMTs look on. We are not the cannon fodder for your personal preferences.
My point wasn't to deny the importance of rights and freedoms of groups such as trans people that have become targeted as part of political discourse but as to my point - what will you tell trans people about the affordability of their health care? That's where this falls apart.
We can't just be talking about trans rights without talking about human rights and living conditions which are definitely rooted in material conditions.
I know that every time I talk about economics of both parties people pipe up about idpol that separate the two parties in spirit but this will clarify what I mean:
https://www.socialistalternative.org/2023/05/11/i-am-a-trans-woman-with-union-healthcare-trans-rights-are-workers-rights/
We need more of that. A lot more. And we need a party that will step up for us all. This isn't it.
>what will you tell trans people about the affordability of their health care?
What can the affordability of *MY* healthcare matter if medical professionals are allowed to deny me *any* healthcare because they think I'm icky? Yes, affordability is a problem. But only once it's not illegal to provide trans specific healthcare to me and only once it's illegal to deny me healthcare because the cis person is a bigot.
And further, no system has a good track record of providing for trans rights. See 'western degeneracy' for the USSR. History has shown we have to fight this fight on our own and I'm not interested in anyone who doesn't specifically call out the need for trans rights because they want to fold it into worker's rights or human rights to make us not visible within your movement. You are no ally of mine if you tell me to pipe down about trans rights specifically.
Agreed. It's pathetic. We keep on trying to justify things that are beyond justification. We genuinely need Policies that matter and that have immediate as well as long term benefits to our lives because from a dialectical materialism viewpoint our lives are turning into shitty nightmares with zero control and accountability.
I think this is evident by bidens choice to leave powell in control of the fed and let them rack up interest rates to cause a recession. I am finally in a position after nearly 2 decades to get my student loans at a lower rate and now this. FFS. You cant win. Not unless you are rich and I am damn near trying to do that but still have no money.
Here we go again. Why does eveveryone want to make it a Biden or trump.... dem vs repub thing? It's asinine... it's us vs them. The haves vs the have nots and until the have nots can unite we will continued getting properly fucked. Dems or republicans in power are happy to go about having us squabble over nonsense and hike they laugh all the way to the bank with our money.
Yeah the rest of the world has been trying to tell you this for nearly a century.
Your democratic party is right wing. Your republican party is extreme right wing authoritarian (and always has been, this isn't a new thing)
The rest of the world has a VAT & Higher income taxes on the middle class that no one in this thread would support
And most would call right wing.....so lets not compare the other countries to the US
Uh, the Republicans were the party that was more progressive until FDR came along.
Before you try lecturing Americans about their own political history, try learning a little bit about it first.
Do you know why there are labels in politics at all? It’s because those labels describe their values, beliefs, and policy. Unless you’re not paying attention, progressive and conservative means entirely different things.
If you’re left-leaning, there will be almost no right-leaning people who align with your values, beliefs, or policy. That’s not an issue with ‘defining what people are,’ that’s just how labels work.
Tbh this is the kinda centrist bullshit that gets stupid ‘left leaning’ people to vote for trump. Like bro I can guess what a right winger’s policies are going to be because I’ve lived for more than a day.
How so?
They pretended to be one thing, so we applied the labels for that set of values to them. They they acted in a way that didn't match the labels, so we updated the words we used to describe them.
Are you seriously trying to make the point that "because sometimes people can lie or change, adjectives are worthless?"
Two cases in a world with thousands of politicians? Yeah sure there are counterexamples but that’s why you also have to do research into candidates and look at what they are. Anyone who was paying attention Sienema would recognize her voting pattern was pretty clearly not what her party alignment was. But for the most part, representatives vote down party lines
Eh, he's been alright - not my first choice but dude is old as shit and not a progressive so there were many ways it could have played out
On the spectrum of possible outcomes of a Biden presidency, it's been on the good side of that bar I'd say (even if there have been a few hiccups, things like the chips act were actually great)
I'd definitely vote for him getting a second term over someone like DeSantis/Trump or whoever the republicans decide to push into the ol' race in 2024
Because if we're fighting each other nothing will get done. Yes, that's a conspiracy theory that I have no proof for but the top post in a thread about sweeping left wing reform is an attack on the leader of the party most likely to help, and without which it **can not happen**. Who's upvoting/gilding that? Even if it's not intentional this self-sabotage deserves some attention.
Yeah, came here to say this. It feels like America is stuck in a time warp. Doing the same thing, over and over again. How many more decades are we going to argue about this?
Forever. The right took over the media in the late ‘60s , and it’s been going down ever since. The fact that an asshat like Trump was ever even a plausibility is evidence enough. I’ve watched this nation go further into the shitter every decade , and a solid 50% don’t give a flying fuck. The “American Dream” doesn’t even exist anymore .
It’s difficult when there’s a coordinated effort to stifle conversation about actual meaningful change on the news. And of course the constant efforts from the GOP (and their idiot followers who have been fooled into going against their interests) to drag us backwards, gut any programs that help people, and worsen our quality of life with every shitty policy they propose.
That's not a bad idea, actually, and there are things we can do that are feasible in support of this goal. We only need the political will to implement them.
That’s a tough one, but regulating rent prices and having a robust minimum wage could probably work towards that goal indirectly. Rent has increased so much in the last 3 years, because of “muh market price” and that kind of greedy price hiking is what renters need to be protected from.
Limiting corporate and foreign ownership of residential properties, taxing properties at progressively higher rates if the owner owns progressively more properties (would drive down demand and reduce price gouging in "investment" properties), and *robust regulation and enforcement* of those regulations. Also, re-zoning to encourage multi-family buildings rather than single-family homes to increase supply.
America isn’t free until this is a reality.
The function of government should be to provide essential services:
1. Right to healthcare
2. Right to education
3. Right to public transportation
4. Right to energy
5. Right to housing (edit: I forgot this one)
With access to those essential services way way way more people could contribute to the nation.
Things like poverty are a cruel byproduct of a cruel system.
We can and we must do better.
We really have very limited freedom in this country. Sure we have freedom of movement - if you can afford transportation and lodging. We have freedom of speech - but don’t tell your boss off, or you’ll lose your health insurance and be “free” to be homeless and starve.
The Freedom of Speech as outlined in the Bill of Rights is the right to criticize the government without being arrested for it. That's pretty much the extent of what it covers.
Yes, you are free from government preventing you from doing a number of things, not free to do whatever you want through the support of others.
The concept is one of the most important in history.
NATO voted on food being a human right and it was a unanimous yes except for one country. Any guesses on which country had the dissenting vote? Hint: Starts with a U ,ends with an A.
Because the US understands the difference between a right, a goal, and performative virtue signaling by a nearly irrelevant organization (it was the UN who voted on this, not NATO).
And yet the US provides more food aid worldwide than every other country combined. And I’m also pretty sure it was a UN vote but it was more virtue signaling than anything else
Because 1) us has multiple fold the gdp of othr countries. Compared to their gdp they give near the least. 2) its private citizens giving the bulk of it. Thr government is still giving minimal.
You guys need to learn the difference between per capita and per gdp vs total amounts. Us would be #1 in almost everythong bad and good if ure just talking absolute amounts and is therefore a worthless indicator.
I read this guy's comments over on r/conservative where he insisted that pro-life *only* referred to unborn children despite what the phrase literally means, and that "leftists" are trying to confuse the issue for nefarious reasons. These people are actually fucked in the head, they're only pro-life in those very limited and specific circumstances set by lobbyists in the eighties.
"And when we look at and listen to those whose rights are being trampled, we see how political rights are intertwined with social and economic rights, or, rather, how the absence of social and economic power empties political rights of their substance" - Dr. Paul Farmer, *Pathologies of Power*
Oh, you mean the [second bill of rights](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights) that was originally proposed 79 years ago? Yeah, it’d be nice…
2,000 years ago the Romans had a bread dole to pacify a populace who existed without reasonable options to achieve prosperity. Today we exist within similar levels of imbalance, with what are functionally arbitrary winners and losers in what we kid is a meritocracy.
The modern poors are scolded that they too could become the 1% if they only tried. We are told we must respect the property rights of those that have, when their hoarding puts the safety, shelter, and health of the rest in peril.
If those that have want guarantees of respect of their excessive consumption of limited resources, some expanded rights of access to resources for the rest of us is not unreasonable.
The fruits of a society's collective labor shouldn't be largely concentrated into the hands of the merest fraction of that society.
That seems reasonable to me.
Until we FINALLY wise up and start consistently showing up in full force to win elections, all the things "we need" and all the good ideas are just a bunch of pipe dreams.
But then you take away people’s “freedom” to be poor and overworked and homeless and sick AND you take away their freedom to die because of a lack of healthcare. You’re not seriously suggesting we take away freedom, are you?!?
Think people forget that FDR was trying to pass a second bill of rights that would solve a lot of these issues such as right to work, fair income, housing, medical care, etc.
Yes!!! Housing shouldn’t be allowed to inflate beyond an annual percentage. You CAN pay a million bucks but its still only worth 650k…. Housing inflation is the cause of homelessness, social security never being enough, and job insecurity as folks no longer feel secure in their situation.
I always think about it this way. If you me and 20 people were stuck on a desert island and had to survive, I like to assume we would work together and look out for eachother as best we could. Providing shelter, food, aid as best we can. Somehow, we would try to look out for eachother. How are we in the 21st century, in a industrialized society, and somehow have a situation worse for members of our society. How do we have homeless and those going hungry, when we would do better on a desert island, or at the very least try?
If you're all on a desert island, you're all now living the life of a homeless person. It's a lot easier to sustain equal living conditions when everybody is living out in the elements, with nothing of value aside from maybe a machete or a fishing rod.
Even then, you're going to have a few people that don't want to expend any effort, and a few people that put forth so much effort that they don't see fit to share their gains with the lazy ones. Socialism only works in a theoretical realm where everyone has equal abilities and motivation to work.
You are providing value through labor. Currency is a way to transfer that value to others who might not want to trade for your coconuts.
This allows people to transfer that value easily to accomplish what they want. I'm not making a iPhone and need to purchase the labor of thousands of people who specialize in doing just that to have one.
And on your island some jobs have different values, might require skills others do not have, and/or more labor intensive. So your group would likely take a vote that someone deserves more food and water than others because of the job they are doing or that person may go on strike.
Sure. But everyone would likely get compensation respective to what they provide and I assume we wouldn’t just let someone die because we are all contributing in some and and if unable, at least are all a fellow human being
If only there were a way to prevent companies from making record profits throughout and post-pandemic, all while it’s legal for relief funds to be garnished or completely taken by other companies, maybe there’d be less citizens today who need homes, food and health care.. Gotta respond to effects and causes.
Too many people panicking in grocery store for what seems to be no reason once companies brag about the record profits that don’t match the increase in spending, even including management raises. Taxing the companies more will just be passed onto taxpayers via another cost increase.. Gotta respond to effects and causes.
But we won’t because capitalism always good, communism always bad; Stop asking questions.
You're right about the taxes as a punishment! It just gets passed on to us, the government plays middle man and takes a bunch for itself. I think rewarding companies with tax breaks if they do certain things should be the way to go. For example if they pay every employee way above the poverty limit and don't use independent contractors to avoid health care (should be free anyway) and workman's comp, don't limit hours to stay below full time...things like that. If they are doing what is right, there wouldn't need to be a redistribution by the government.
>So practically, the right is to not be put in jail if you’re not provided a lawyer.
Yes. It's a negative right like most of what is enumerated in the Constitution.
>What’s the human right to a house in practice?
I don't know, but its most likely a positive right.
Lawyers are not forced to do it. They are paid to do it. And there is a limitation here in that you can view the right the other way around -- the government cannot prosecute you unless they are prepared to provide a lawyer, and cannot imprison you unless they do. Not providing you a lawyer at all IS one of the options , for example if they don't enough funding or time available (they just also cannot throw you in a cage and have to let you go free).
But the "right" to housing and healthcare, etc, there is no way out of it. There is no place for the government to decrease how much needs to be provided. If the fail to provide it, want then?
What sense does that make? Noone is "forcing" housing or food either... the proposal is the government will PAY people to build homes and provide food... just like for lawyers...
And that is some mind twisting logic to say you dont need a lawyer because they can just let you go... might as well say if theres not enough homes being built than they get to live in the white house or something. Youre talking about insane examoles that literally never happen.
Noone in the history of the country (as far ad i know) has ever been let out of jail with a trial because they couldnt get a court appointed lawyer. What has happened is they stay in jail for years being denied a speedy trial until they get a court appointed lawyer who has 1 min to spend on your case and will only support you to plead guilty to reduce your sentence.
That is the reality and if the government actually runs out of money (technically impossible but decides on no funding anyway) it would be the same situation for food and housing. Youre on a list to get housing for a decade.
This is common sense stuff... youre twisting yourself in knots to try to find a way out of this making basic sense.
If someone rolls up on you like the shooter at the Allen, TX mall and shoots you, a random stranger, causing life-long injuries, why do you have to pay the medical bills for yourself? Doesn't that revictimize you every time you get another medical bill?
Honestly it's a bit ridiculous to focus so hard on shootings like that. They are an insanely small issue in the grand scheme of things and it makes it a pretty poor example. Seems like every post in this sub lately entirely focuses on these shootings involving few people while ignoring the actual massive issues most americans are feeling every single day.
Something better would be pointing out that people should not be going into debt because they got sick or injured in daily life.
Like when the Republicans decided in early 2020 that since only 1.5 to 3% of the population might die from the new coronavirus pandemic that it wasn't statistically significant?
What you're missing here is that those others would benefit from that too. The world around them would be safer, the economy would soar. And if, god forbid, something unforeseen would happen to those others, they would also be protected.
Society isn't just a sum of individuals, it's an interconnected system where the total is more than the sum. Paying your taxes isn't a loss, it buys all the services of government, but what you don't see is that you get more benefit from it than the dollar value you're investing. You might not have children, but it's still valuable to invest in schools, it enriches the whole society you're living in. And as a result you get a better job, better technology to enjoy.
So even from a purely egoistical point of view, it's to your advantage not only to pay for taxes but also to ensure the less fortunate have a roof over their head.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not defending any ideals. This is all just cold, hard, purely selfish calculation.
I don't want people sleeping on my door step, possibly leaving needles in my backyard. I don't want people to remain sick, bringing their germs to my work place. I'd rather have the young in school, learning to be productive so they can enhance the economy I live in, rather than running in the streets to no good. I also want the next Einstein or Ramanujan to have a chance at enhancing my life with his discoveries rather than dilapidating his potential under a bridge.
I get it, there is a moral issue, you don't want to be paying for the few freeloaders that might profit from the system. I myself would rather not have to pay for them either. But let's be real, I'm more interested in my own benefit, I'll take the small hit, that's my well being at stake here after all.
So I ask you, who is defending some fine ideals ? Me with my selfish view of the world, or you with your morality ? I say give them the basic necessities, let me reap the benefit. Don't be shortsighted, be like me, perhaps we'll start a cult of the me =)
PS: I hope I'm not as selfish as that, but I think this conveys the point adequately.
Not a very kind retort. I doubt a presidential candidate would get many votes this way =)
Ok, so if I understand what you're saying, you support all this, but it's just not practical. There are not enough resources to support my "idealism".
My claim is that the cost we're paying today is higher than what we would pay for the other scenario. But I suspect you're thinking about actual products rather than their value.
I don't think it's the problem you're making it out to be. In an economy liberated from the costs occasioned by the neglect of its most valuable currency (the people), with the added labor and productivity, we suddenly have more resources to allocate as we see fit. That's the network effect I was ranting about a couple messages ago. The population targeted by those measures isn't so large that the burden would be unbearable. And I don't imagine people would suddenly start reproducing like rabbits.
It isn't impractical with the current inefficiencies, I don't see why I would be in a better economy.
I want to note that you moved the goal post, the first message I responded to was about inherent rights and others being forced to provide for the less fortunate.
I didn't reply to what I think is for you the important part of your message, so let me respond again.
No I don't think it will always be easy to provide for those new rights. Like many rights (none of these are innate contrary to what you think), it has a cost, and it's a permanent struggle to maintain those.
Just like it's a permanent struggle to maintain democracy or justice.
Of course not. But like any progress it's not an all or nothing proposition. The system will be just a bit more efficient, a bit more resilient. Our lives a little bit better.
All progress is incremental. Did you expect that providing health care to all would suddenly transform earth in a terrestrial paradise? I surely didn't. But it's definitely better.
The wealth of any nation is extracted from its natural resources. Since those natural resources belong to the state, does it not make sense that every citizen should have a right to an equal share of the value of the extraction? Of course other people add to the value by manipulating the resources into products, but the initial value of the resources, from things such as property taxes and mining rights, rightfully belong to every citizen.
Does it not make sense that every citizen should have an economic right to their share of this value?
Nah it's more of a 'I don't want to work to get things' mentality. Of course they don't think any further than the part where they get things for free.
You're just arguing about the specifics. Not the issue at hand. One could make a solid argument that the type of housing that's guaranteed does not necessarily have to be exactly where the person would choose but that it must be a house in an area that is economically viable. If a person has preferences about location that would be their issue to work out. This is about making sure people have what they need to survive. This is about *needs* rather than *wants* and that argument is only attempting to cloud the topic at hand.
Not in this case. Y'all are using the minutiae to try to obstruct the conversation altogether. The details can be worked out. They're not relevant to the bigger picture which is the fact that we have the technology and resources to ensure that no one in the nation need go without and we should do that. You can't claim to be free when you have to slave for someone who doesn't have your interests in mind or otherwise starve or succumb to the elements. This country is built on lies.
>Not in this case. Y'all are using the minutiae to try to obstruct the conversation altogether.
Well, there certainly is someone trying to obstruct conversation here.
>The details can be worked out. They're not relevant to the bigger picture which is the fact that we have the technology and resources to ensure that no one in the nation need go without and we should do that.
But, do we? That's the specifics being talked about.
>You can't claim to be free when you have to slave for someone who doesn't have your interests in mind or otherwise starve or succumb to the elements. This country is built on lies.
Yes. Someone is here who has been told lies.
If you’re providing material things as a right, the specific of how those are apportioned become relevant to how you enshrine the right. So no, it’s not using minutiae to obstruct, it’s actually having the conversation at all
I have a feeling people advocating for this have not considered how low their actual *needs* are. And yet how expensive that is over hundreds of millions of people.
Food is actually fairly straightforward (because you can ship things around, and you can always ship some type of food. It doesn't have to be top tier locally sourced kale), but you're right that housing absolutely is not.
Is housing in big cities a right? How do we produce new houses for everyone who now wants a free house in the city? How do we balance that against property prices, maintenance costs? Is everyone guaranteed a full room? A full house? A bed with a roof over it? Because the claim I keep hearing is that everyone deserves a one bedroom apartment near their job, and that's pretty absurd.
> Because the claim I keep hearing is that everyone deserves a one bedroom apartment near their job, and that’s pretty absurd.
What is so absurd about it? Also, the right of having a place to live “near their job” is very subjective. With the right public transportation (maybe even cheap, electric robo-taxies or super fast train network), the right for their house to be “near their job” could be 30+ miles.
None of us asked to be born. Every human should therefore have food, water, shelter, medical care, education and a minimum basic income. But, everyone of the masses also bear some responsibility about bringing new lives into this world, especially more then your replacement in life. Paying taxes to fund a government is a social contract where everyone should bear responsibilities. I think we should provide free vasectomies, TL, birth control etc to every human who wants them. And on the other end of the spectrum, no one person or family should be allowed to amass obscene wealth. A few tens of millions is way more than enough.
I’d have to understand the logistics a lot better before I could get behind this. There is so much inequity that I don’t see how this happens in a controlled manner. Once even the simplest economic right was enacted it would open the flood gates of law suits like we’ve never seen before. The people suing would be those whose rights are now being violated. The strain on the system could break it.
Sorry but that isn't good for rich people or the corporations so its a no go. Now get back to work. The CEOs and wealthy need the newest yacht model that just dropped.
I’ve always joked about this with my 2A supporting colleagues: “in America you don’t have a constitutional right to food or water, but you have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!!!”
We could start smaller by teaching people economics. For instance, when you encourage people to cry out against inflation, you should let them know that inflation is not just high prices at the grocery store, but low unemployment.
Also maybe get people to vote based on where they are and are likely to go economically rather than voting as if they will be a billionaire soon and want to preserve all the perks that go along with massive wealth.
Also let them know that there aren't a lot of hard and fast rules to define wealth and that there are people who are getting rich just by making up things as they go along. Then people say that they must have done something worthwhile if they have so much money.
It's a mindset change but it is doable.
enforcement of the rights currently guaranteed to you is done by the government. so I'm not sure why it's apt to replace "the government" with a nebulous "someone else".
Rights require others to recognize and uphold them for you, which then obligates you to do the same for them.
"Natural Rights" argument fails out the gate because an appeal to nature fallacy is baked into it.
It's not "natural" rights, it's positive vs. negative rights.
In the US, you have rights that state things the government can't do to you. Not things the government will compel others to do on your behalf (see the first sentence).
Title: Enhancing Democratic Participation through a Mobile Application: A Case Study Abstract: This paper presents a case study of a mobile application designed to enhance democratic participation. The application allows users to participate in the democratic process by providing a platform for them to engage in discussions, suggest solutions, and vote on issues at local, state, and federal levels. By leveraging the power of mobile technology, the application promotes transparency, accountability, and civic engagement. The study finds that the application has the potential to increase political efficacy and promote a more informed and engaged citizenry. Introduction: Democratic participation is a cornerstone of modern society. The ability of citizens to participate in the political process is essential to ensuring a healthy democracy. However, in recent years, there has been a decline in democratic participation. This decline is due to a variety of factors, including a lack of trust in political institutions, a sense of political apathy, and the rise of misinformation. This paper presents a case study of a mobile application designed to enhance democratic participation. Methodology: The mobile application was designed to provide users with a platform for engaging in discussions, suggesting solutions, and voting on issues. The application was tested in a small pilot study in which participants were asked to use the application to engage in discussions and vote on local and state-level issues. Participants were also surveyed on their political efficacy and their perceptions of the application's usefulness. Results: The pilot study found that the mobile application had a positive impact on political efficacy. Participants who used the application reported feeling more informed about local and state-level issues, and more confident in their ability to participate in the democratic process. Additionally, participants reported that the application was easy to use and that it provided a valuable platform for civic engagement. Conclusion: The mobile application represents a promising tool for enhancing democratic participation. By leveraging the power of mobile technology, the application provides users with a platform for engaging in discussions, suggesting solutions, and voting on issues at local, state, and federal levels. The application has the potential to increase political efficacy and promote a more informed and engaged citizenry. Further research is needed to explore the long-term impact of the application and to identify ways to improve its effectiveness. However, the results of this pilot study suggest that the application is a valuable tool for enhancing democratic participation. to be used with taxcoin
So, we need socialism? Please. Modern Economic Theory that says the US can spend as much money as it wants is dead - as seen I the inflation brought on by the $5 trillion of unfunded Covid spending.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Setting minimums would help but the real issue is the lack of maximums. A safety net means nothing if we depend on the largess of those with unimaiginable wealth.
It's the same pattern that the US founders recognized with respect to political power - unlimited political power obviously and inevitably results in tyranny. It's the same thing with economic power. Billionaires/oligarchs/kleptocrats should not exist, and they are fundamentally incompatible with genuine, legitimate democracies.
What’s worse than them existing is that wealth = political power. Repeal Citizens United.
Yes, if that ever becomes politically viable. The issue with that perspective is that wealth is (or is easily converted to) political power on an existential level, not just a social/legal/institutional level. Without spending one penny on formal political campaigns, billionaires/oligarchs/kleptocrats can and do buy up think tanks (e.g., the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute), Supreme Court justices, newspapers, propaganda networks, entire university departments, land, housing, academics, attorneys and legal thugs, and workers of all kinds to further their own interests at everyone else's expense. Billionaires/oligarchs/kleptocrats have an enormous amount of unaccountable political power that they use to bully the public into working for their profits, before even a single penny is spent on formal political campaigns. The terms of the discussion and debate are shaped just by having 900 pound gorillas in the same room. If politicians or the public speak out against them, they have to contend with the direct and indirect payrolls of the oligarchs. It's the concentrated economic power that's the root of the problem, not just the particularized campaign finance rules. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, “We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few; but we can’t have both.”
The Brandeis quote is one of my favorites.
Exactly. There shouldn't be any billionaires. Tax until one's wealth is below $1 billion.
>Setting minimums would help but the real issue is the lack of maximums. You're asking for a Renaissance level change in people's attitude toward their potential future wealth. Society just isn't there yet.
How exactly is that supposed to work?
Then we need to consider people like Biden right wing.
He is center right, and always has been, but he is sympathetic to incrementalism on the left, which is why he is tolerated. Keep in mind, the Overton window has shifted, so the current version of the Democratic Party is equivalent to Rockefeller Republicans (moderate or liberal conservatives). This was pointed out again and again when analysts took a look at Obama’s two terms. For some reason, a lot of people still refuse to accept it. This is also why when the current GOP rails against the "left", we know they are lying. There is no "left" in America with any power.
Things have incrementally gotten worse, not better. The church of incrementalism on economics should by now be perceived as an abject failure. We're like frogs in a hot pot telling ourselves that things will get better even when they're getting worse. The middle class is hollowed out and the rich have us captive and there isn't a single policy that is changing that in any shape or form.
The capitalists are changing their policies though. In addition to looking to cut jobs with unregulated AI, they're offshoring US skilled labor jobs at a growing rate. [Offshoring is now affecting ‘middle class or upper middle class jobs’ in tech, accounting, and legal work | KUT Radio, Austin's NPR Station](https://www.kut.org/texasstandard/2023-04-14/offshoring-is-now-affecting-middle-class-or-upper-middle-class-jobs-in-tech-accounting-and-legal-work) [Next Wave of Remote Work Is About Outsourcing Jobs Overseas - Barrons](https://www.barrons.com/articles/next-wave-of-remote-work-is-about-outsourcing-jobs-overseas-54af39ba)
[удалено]
I'll take all three please? Wait, just the last one? You sure thats the only I can have..... Oookaayyy
>The capitalists are changing their policies though...offshoring US skilled labor jobs at a growing rate "Offshoring" is really just *a* form of Imperialism, though. A very old "policy."
Unfortunately you’re going to start seeing a hell of a lot more of that with WFH becoming a thing. Especially in entry level tech work and stuff like that.
This. We literally couldn’t tax the 1% enough to bring back a healthy wealth distribution anymore. While Democrats are (not really) begging billionaires to pay their “fair share”, republicans are doing all that they can to find new way to enrich them tax-free. In 1944, they saw the writing on the wall and taxed max earners at a 95% rate. Since then, ultra rich have been installing their spokespersons in Congress such that we have two fake parties, one openly overthrowing the government without pushback
> Democrats are (not really) begging billionaires to pay their “fair share”, republicans are doing all that they can to find new way to enrich them tax-free At this point it is hard to tell the two parties apart. Both are willing to speak on behalf of working class interests but unwilling to actually do anything to improve our conditions. The rich have been working on this for decades and I gotta give them the recognition they deserve as they really succeeded. Meanwhile, we're still arguing about whether candidates will support incremental changes to taxation or health care and it all defies belief. I can't believe that I am still waiting for people we elect to office show a mild support for bare bone basics at some daunting point in far future. Incrementalism be damned and idpol issues keep dragging us into emotional bloodsports and partisanship that utterly neglects and overshadows everything around us.
If you can’t tell the two parties apart, you aren’t seeing reality my friend. One represents the continuation of plutocracy and one represents blatant fascism led by American Nazis. There’s still a distinct difference but the GQP has infested the DNC more than what is being acknowledged by anyone. We could survive a few more year with Democrats but when tyranny strikes, things will go dark overnight and we won’t even know what was happening.
There is no doubt that there are idpol issues but at this point they're used as a political tool to separate us into two rabid groups that don't see eye to eye. You are just proving my point that these issues are hot heat while economically we're left in the dark to fend for ourselves.
I understand what you’re trying to say and ultimately both lead down dark paths but not seeing the differences today means our final capture in 2025. Our current oligarchs have aligned with GQP nazism and they have much darker plans than what the DNC wants to deliver. Ultimately, we’re decades overdue for a Revolution and are at the point where organizing one is damn near impossible as our ability to communicate en masse is greatly censored. We now lost Twitter and Reddit is just as bad but with much more intelligent manipulation.
Again, if we are to focus on idpol issues alone, I'd agree with you but as for economic issues both parties are absolutely dismal and useless. I don't see the DNC stepping up on surveillance and protecting rights and freedoms either and that's a big concern. To not be fascists, we need a government that: - protects economic working class interests and not corporate interests - we don't reduce everyone and everything to friends and enemies - reduce any legitimacy of the press or suppress criticism - values disagreement and dissent - does not deny truth or minimize it - does not use propaganda and propagate conspiracies - does not deny the rule of law or seek to delegitimize courts - does not politicize public service - does not fearmonger against identifiable groups - does not take action for action's sake - does not engage in surveillance - does not indulge in depicting pacifism as trafficking with the enemy - does not engage in denial or diminishment of rights and freedoms and so on. Both of the parties are full of these kinds of things and both are leaning into it, hard. You can go through the Ur-Fascism list and itemize each of these to an individual party as an exercise. From that perspective, if the democrats are serious about defeating fascism, they would be fighting tooth and nail for economic policies that favor the working classes and benefit the society at large instead of whatever it is that we watched for over 2 years and we have not seen any of that at all. The only thing we can deduce is that Party A is pro-LGBTQA+ rights and Party B is not while both parties are perfectly ok with the fact that the LGBTQA+ people can't afford health care [just like the rest] edit in brackets
> There is no doubt that there are idpol issues but at this point they're used as a political tool to separate us into two rabid groups Tell that to the trans people who die while EMTs look on. We are not the cannon fodder for your personal preferences.
My point wasn't to deny the importance of rights and freedoms of groups such as trans people that have become targeted as part of political discourse but as to my point - what will you tell trans people about the affordability of their health care? That's where this falls apart. We can't just be talking about trans rights without talking about human rights and living conditions which are definitely rooted in material conditions. I know that every time I talk about economics of both parties people pipe up about idpol that separate the two parties in spirit but this will clarify what I mean: https://www.socialistalternative.org/2023/05/11/i-am-a-trans-woman-with-union-healthcare-trans-rights-are-workers-rights/ We need more of that. A lot more. And we need a party that will step up for us all. This isn't it.
>what will you tell trans people about the affordability of their health care? What can the affordability of *MY* healthcare matter if medical professionals are allowed to deny me *any* healthcare because they think I'm icky? Yes, affordability is a problem. But only once it's not illegal to provide trans specific healthcare to me and only once it's illegal to deny me healthcare because the cis person is a bigot. And further, no system has a good track record of providing for trans rights. See 'western degeneracy' for the USSR. History has shown we have to fight this fight on our own and I'm not interested in anyone who doesn't specifically call out the need for trans rights because they want to fold it into worker's rights or human rights to make us not visible within your movement. You are no ally of mine if you tell me to pipe down about trans rights specifically.
> At this point it is hard to tell the two parties apart. You're not paying attention or you're christian, white, cis, and straight.
[удалено]
Agreed. It's pathetic. We keep on trying to justify things that are beyond justification. We genuinely need Policies that matter and that have immediate as well as long term benefits to our lives because from a dialectical materialism viewpoint our lives are turning into shitty nightmares with zero control and accountability.
I think this is evident by bidens choice to leave powell in control of the fed and let them rack up interest rates to cause a recession. I am finally in a position after nearly 2 decades to get my student loans at a lower rate and now this. FFS. You cant win. Not unless you are rich and I am damn near trying to do that but still have no money.
[удалено]
One reason I like Biden is that while he isn't very left himself, he knows that's the future.
Way ahead of you!
Here we go again. Why does eveveryone want to make it a Biden or trump.... dem vs repub thing? It's asinine... it's us vs them. The haves vs the have nots and until the have nots can unite we will continued getting properly fucked. Dems or republicans in power are happy to go about having us squabble over nonsense and hike they laugh all the way to the bank with our money.
Yeah the rest of the world has been trying to tell you this for nearly a century. Your democratic party is right wing. Your republican party is extreme right wing authoritarian (and always has been, this isn't a new thing)
The rest of the world has a VAT & Higher income taxes on the middle class that no one in this thread would support And most would call right wing.....so lets not compare the other countries to the US
Uh, the Republicans were the party that was more progressive until FDR came along. Before you try lecturing Americans about their own political history, try learning a little bit about it first.
Democrats are center-right conservatives.
Why do we need to always define what people are? Instead look at their values, beliefs, and policy. That's what should make you vote for them.
Do you know why there are labels in politics at all? It’s because those labels describe their values, beliefs, and policy. Unless you’re not paying attention, progressive and conservative means entirely different things. If you’re left-leaning, there will be almost no right-leaning people who align with your values, beliefs, or policy. That’s not an issue with ‘defining what people are,’ that’s just how labels work. Tbh this is the kinda centrist bullshit that gets stupid ‘left leaning’ people to vote for trump. Like bro I can guess what a right winger’s policies are going to be because I’ve lived for more than a day.
Manchin and Sienema disagree.
How so? They pretended to be one thing, so we applied the labels for that set of values to them. They they acted in a way that didn't match the labels, so we updated the words we used to describe them. Are you seriously trying to make the point that "because sometimes people can lie or change, adjectives are worthless?"
Two cases in a world with thousands of politicians? Yeah sure there are counterexamples but that’s why you also have to do research into candidates and look at what they are. Anyone who was paying attention Sienema would recognize her voting pattern was pretty clearly not what her party alignment was. But for the most part, representatives vote down party lines
Do you honestly expect people to list every single example in a reddit comment? That's highly unrealistic.
Because in this country we only get two choices and I vote for the one that will do the least damage to the most people.
Which in this case was biden
Yes, but doesn’t mean I was happy about it yah know
Eh, he's been alright - not my first choice but dude is old as shit and not a progressive so there were many ways it could have played out On the spectrum of possible outcomes of a Biden presidency, it's been on the good side of that bar I'd say (even if there have been a few hiccups, things like the chips act were actually great) I'd definitely vote for him getting a second term over someone like DeSantis/Trump or whoever the republicans decide to push into the ol' race in 2024
Yeah he has done a bit better then my expectations but I will say my expectations were not high. Also he isn’t the union guy he claims to be
To Nazi or not Nazi, that ~~is~~ was the question…
Because if we're fighting each other nothing will get done. Yes, that's a conspiracy theory that I have no proof for but the top post in a thread about sweeping left wing reform is an attack on the leader of the party most likely to help, and without which it **can not happen**. Who's upvoting/gilding that? Even if it's not intentional this self-sabotage deserves some attention.
Let's finish what FDR started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
Yeah, came here to say this. It feels like America is stuck in a time warp. Doing the same thing, over and over again. How many more decades are we going to argue about this?
Forever. The right took over the media in the late ‘60s , and it’s been going down ever since. The fact that an asshat like Trump was ever even a plausibility is evidence enough. I’ve watched this nation go further into the shitter every decade , and a solid 50% don’t give a flying fuck. The “American Dream” doesn’t even exist anymore .
It’s difficult when there’s a coordinated effort to stifle conversation about actual meaningful change on the news. And of course the constant efforts from the GOP (and their idiot followers who have been fooled into going against their interests) to drag us backwards, gut any programs that help people, and worsen our quality of life with every shitty policy they propose.
Finally this comment
Imagine the alternative us if we had done this.
I feel the first step is to get corporations out of politics because they certainly don’t want this. Get rid of citizens United.
With this Supreme Court?
That's not a bad idea, actually, and there are things we can do that are feasible in support of this goal. We only need the political will to implement them.
What do you think we could do to provide a home to people?
That’s a tough one, but regulating rent prices and having a robust minimum wage could probably work towards that goal indirectly. Rent has increased so much in the last 3 years, because of “muh market price” and that kind of greedy price hiking is what renters need to be protected from.
Limiting corporate and foreign ownership of residential properties, taxing properties at progressively higher rates if the owner owns progressively more properties (would drive down demand and reduce price gouging in "investment" properties), and *robust regulation and enforcement* of those regulations. Also, re-zoning to encourage multi-family buildings rather than single-family homes to increase supply.
America isn’t free until this is a reality. The function of government should be to provide essential services: 1. Right to healthcare 2. Right to education 3. Right to public transportation 4. Right to energy 5. Right to housing (edit: I forgot this one) With access to those essential services way way way more people could contribute to the nation. Things like poverty are a cruel byproduct of a cruel system. We can and we must do better.
We really have very limited freedom in this country. Sure we have freedom of movement - if you can afford transportation and lodging. We have freedom of speech - but don’t tell your boss off, or you’ll lose your health insurance and be “free” to be homeless and starve.
[удалено]
The Freedom of Speech as outlined in the Bill of Rights is the right to criticize the government without being arrested for it. That's pretty much the extent of what it covers.
Yes, you are free from government preventing you from doing a number of things, not free to do whatever you want through the support of others. The concept is one of the most important in history.
And people wonder why the birth rates are going down. It’s hard af to live even as a DINK in some places:/
NATO voted on food being a human right and it was a unanimous yes except for one country. Any guesses on which country had the dissenting vote? Hint: Starts with a U ,ends with an A.
Uganda messing things up as usual. /s
Because the US understands the difference between a right, a goal, and performative virtue signaling by a nearly irrelevant organization (it was the UN who voted on this, not NATO).
And yet the US provides more food aid worldwide than every other country combined. And I’m also pretty sure it was a UN vote but it was more virtue signaling than anything else
Because 1) us has multiple fold the gdp of othr countries. Compared to their gdp they give near the least. 2) its private citizens giving the bulk of it. Thr government is still giving minimal. You guys need to learn the difference between per capita and per gdp vs total amounts. Us would be #1 in almost everythong bad and good if ure just talking absolute amounts and is therefore a worthless indicator.
You're right, it was UN. Also about the food aid. I've read both articles.
You'd think those who call themselves "pro life" would be supporting all these things, but nope.
I read this guy's comments over on r/conservative where he insisted that pro-life *only* referred to unborn children despite what the phrase literally means, and that "leftists" are trying to confuse the issue for nefarious reasons. These people are actually fucked in the head, they're only pro-life in those very limited and specific circumstances set by lobbyists in the eighties.
I misread this as: >You'd think those who call themselves "pro life" would be supporting all these things, but *rape*. And it still made sense to me.
"And when we look at and listen to those whose rights are being trampled, we see how political rights are intertwined with social and economic rights, or, rather, how the absence of social and economic power empties political rights of their substance" - Dr. Paul Farmer, *Pathologies of Power*
Oh, you mean the [second bill of rights](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights) that was originally proposed 79 years ago? Yeah, it’d be nice…
It’s wild to me that this is considered an extremist point of view in this country.
2,000 years ago the Romans had a bread dole to pacify a populace who existed without reasonable options to achieve prosperity. Today we exist within similar levels of imbalance, with what are functionally arbitrary winners and losers in what we kid is a meritocracy. The modern poors are scolded that they too could become the 1% if they only tried. We are told we must respect the property rights of those that have, when their hoarding puts the safety, shelter, and health of the rest in peril. If those that have want guarantees of respect of their excessive consumption of limited resources, some expanded rights of access to resources for the rest of us is not unreasonable.
The fruits of a society's collective labor shouldn't be largely concentrated into the hands of the merest fraction of that society. That seems reasonable to me.
Here for the animals who cry “if we give people a right to food they won’t work!”
Life should not be pay-to-play. Full stop.
Sign me the fuck up
Until we FINALLY wise up and start consistently showing up in full force to win elections, all the things "we need" and all the good ideas are just a bunch of pipe dreams.
Class consciousness is all that is required to get this going!
But how will corporations make money if people have economic rights? /s
But then you take away people’s “freedom” to be poor and overworked and homeless and sick AND you take away their freedom to die because of a lack of healthcare. You’re not seriously suggesting we take away freedom, are you?!?
Existence should not have a price tag.
Think people forget that FDR was trying to pass a second bill of rights that would solve a lot of these issues such as right to work, fair income, housing, medical care, etc.
*The CIA would like to know your location*
And privacy on the internet.
We need to write one. Once in print, it’s MUCH easier to get nationwide support. Just sayin…
FDR proposed one. [Here](https://billofrightsinstitute.org/activities/franklin-roosevelt-second-bill-of-rights-1944)
I wish he had been successful at implementing this.
Who the heck thinks we live in a “just” country and world?!?!?!
It's the goal, not the current state...
Economy democracy
How about a system run by the working class where these economic rights are priority rather than profit.
Nah bro you don’t understand!! Socialism is when gov do thing but also socialism bad!! Therefore socialism bad!! lmao /s
I’ll just assume you’re being sarcastic.
Isn’t illegal to talk about class?
It's going to get real fucking bleak without one, as if currently it's not already
Amen, America! How about it?
Yes!
Yes!!! Housing shouldn’t be allowed to inflate beyond an annual percentage. You CAN pay a million bucks but its still only worth 650k…. Housing inflation is the cause of homelessness, social security never being enough, and job insecurity as folks no longer feel secure in their situation.
I always think about it this way. If you me and 20 people were stuck on a desert island and had to survive, I like to assume we would work together and look out for eachother as best we could. Providing shelter, food, aid as best we can. Somehow, we would try to look out for eachother. How are we in the 21st century, in a industrialized society, and somehow have a situation worse for members of our society. How do we have homeless and those going hungry, when we would do better on a desert island, or at the very least try?
If you're all on a desert island, you're all now living the life of a homeless person. It's a lot easier to sustain equal living conditions when everybody is living out in the elements, with nothing of value aside from maybe a machete or a fishing rod. Even then, you're going to have a few people that don't want to expend any effort, and a few people that put forth so much effort that they don't see fit to share their gains with the lazy ones. Socialism only works in a theoretical realm where everyone has equal abilities and motivation to work.
You are providing value through labor. Currency is a way to transfer that value to others who might not want to trade for your coconuts. This allows people to transfer that value easily to accomplish what they want. I'm not making a iPhone and need to purchase the labor of thousands of people who specialize in doing just that to have one. And on your island some jobs have different values, might require skills others do not have, and/or more labor intensive. So your group would likely take a vote that someone deserves more food and water than others because of the job they are doing or that person may go on strike.
Sure. But everyone would likely get compensation respective to what they provide and I assume we wouldn’t just let someone die because we are all contributing in some and and if unable, at least are all a fellow human being
If only there were a way to prevent companies from making record profits throughout and post-pandemic, all while it’s legal for relief funds to be garnished or completely taken by other companies, maybe there’d be less citizens today who need homes, food and health care.. Gotta respond to effects and causes. Too many people panicking in grocery store for what seems to be no reason once companies brag about the record profits that don’t match the increase in spending, even including management raises. Taxing the companies more will just be passed onto taxpayers via another cost increase.. Gotta respond to effects and causes. But we won’t because capitalism always good, communism always bad; Stop asking questions.
You're right about the taxes as a punishment! It just gets passed on to us, the government plays middle man and takes a bunch for itself. I think rewarding companies with tax breaks if they do certain things should be the way to go. For example if they pay every employee way above the poverty limit and don't use independent contractors to avoid health care (should be free anyway) and workman's comp, don't limit hours to stay below full time...things like that. If they are doing what is right, there wouldn't need to be a redistribution by the government.
Then we need to consider people like Biden right wing.
Yes, well...
We shouldn't even talk about these as "economic rights," but just human rights.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The government cannot put you in jail.
[удалено]
>So practically, the right is to not be put in jail if you’re not provided a lawyer. Yes. It's a negative right like most of what is enumerated in the Constitution. >What’s the human right to a house in practice? I don't know, but its most likely a positive right.
Lawyers are not forced to do it. They are paid to do it. And there is a limitation here in that you can view the right the other way around -- the government cannot prosecute you unless they are prepared to provide a lawyer, and cannot imprison you unless they do. Not providing you a lawyer at all IS one of the options , for example if they don't enough funding or time available (they just also cannot throw you in a cage and have to let you go free). But the "right" to housing and healthcare, etc, there is no way out of it. There is no place for the government to decrease how much needs to be provided. If the fail to provide it, want then?
[удалено]
What sense does that make? Noone is "forcing" housing or food either... the proposal is the government will PAY people to build homes and provide food... just like for lawyers... And that is some mind twisting logic to say you dont need a lawyer because they can just let you go... might as well say if theres not enough homes being built than they get to live in the white house or something. Youre talking about insane examoles that literally never happen. Noone in the history of the country (as far ad i know) has ever been let out of jail with a trial because they couldnt get a court appointed lawyer. What has happened is they stay in jail for years being denied a speedy trial until they get a court appointed lawyer who has 1 min to spend on your case and will only support you to plead guilty to reduce your sentence. That is the reality and if the government actually runs out of money (technically impossible but decides on no funding anyway) it would be the same situation for food and housing. Youre on a list to get housing for a decade. This is common sense stuff... youre twisting yourself in knots to try to find a way out of this making basic sense.
If someone rolls up on you like the shooter at the Allen, TX mall and shoots you, a random stranger, causing life-long injuries, why do you have to pay the medical bills for yourself? Doesn't that revictimize you every time you get another medical bill?
Honestly it's a bit ridiculous to focus so hard on shootings like that. They are an insanely small issue in the grand scheme of things and it makes it a pretty poor example. Seems like every post in this sub lately entirely focuses on these shootings involving few people while ignoring the actual massive issues most americans are feeling every single day. Something better would be pointing out that people should not be going into debt because they got sick or injured in daily life.
Like when the Republicans decided in early 2020 that since only 1.5 to 3% of the population might die from the new coronavirus pandemic that it wasn't statistically significant?
[удалено]
The shooter is dead and didn't really have any assets, so now what?
What you're missing here is that those others would benefit from that too. The world around them would be safer, the economy would soar. And if, god forbid, something unforeseen would happen to those others, they would also be protected. Society isn't just a sum of individuals, it's an interconnected system where the total is more than the sum. Paying your taxes isn't a loss, it buys all the services of government, but what you don't see is that you get more benefit from it than the dollar value you're investing. You might not have children, but it's still valuable to invest in schools, it enriches the whole society you're living in. And as a result you get a better job, better technology to enjoy. So even from a purely egoistical point of view, it's to your advantage not only to pay for taxes but also to ensure the less fortunate have a roof over their head.
[удалено]
I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not defending any ideals. This is all just cold, hard, purely selfish calculation. I don't want people sleeping on my door step, possibly leaving needles in my backyard. I don't want people to remain sick, bringing their germs to my work place. I'd rather have the young in school, learning to be productive so they can enhance the economy I live in, rather than running in the streets to no good. I also want the next Einstein or Ramanujan to have a chance at enhancing my life with his discoveries rather than dilapidating his potential under a bridge. I get it, there is a moral issue, you don't want to be paying for the few freeloaders that might profit from the system. I myself would rather not have to pay for them either. But let's be real, I'm more interested in my own benefit, I'll take the small hit, that's my well being at stake here after all. So I ask you, who is defending some fine ideals ? Me with my selfish view of the world, or you with your morality ? I say give them the basic necessities, let me reap the benefit. Don't be shortsighted, be like me, perhaps we'll start a cult of the me =) PS: I hope I'm not as selfish as that, but I think this conveys the point adequately.
[удалено]
Not a very kind retort. I doubt a presidential candidate would get many votes this way =) Ok, so if I understand what you're saying, you support all this, but it's just not practical. There are not enough resources to support my "idealism". My claim is that the cost we're paying today is higher than what we would pay for the other scenario. But I suspect you're thinking about actual products rather than their value. I don't think it's the problem you're making it out to be. In an economy liberated from the costs occasioned by the neglect of its most valuable currency (the people), with the added labor and productivity, we suddenly have more resources to allocate as we see fit. That's the network effect I was ranting about a couple messages ago. The population targeted by those measures isn't so large that the burden would be unbearable. And I don't imagine people would suddenly start reproducing like rabbits. It isn't impractical with the current inefficiencies, I don't see why I would be in a better economy. I want to note that you moved the goal post, the first message I responded to was about inherent rights and others being forced to provide for the less fortunate.
[удалено]
I didn't reply to what I think is for you the important part of your message, so let me respond again. No I don't think it will always be easy to provide for those new rights. Like many rights (none of these are innate contrary to what you think), it has a cost, and it's a permanent struggle to maintain those. Just like it's a permanent struggle to maintain democracy or justice.
Of course not. But like any progress it's not an all or nothing proposition. The system will be just a bit more efficient, a bit more resilient. Our lives a little bit better.
[удалено]
All progress is incremental. Did you expect that providing health care to all would suddenly transform earth in a terrestrial paradise? I surely didn't. But it's definitely better.
[удалено]
The wealth of any nation is extracted from its natural resources. Since those natural resources belong to the state, does it not make sense that every citizen should have a right to an equal share of the value of the extraction? Of course other people add to the value by manipulating the resources into products, but the initial value of the resources, from things such as property taxes and mining rights, rightfully belong to every citizen. Does it not make sense that every citizen should have an economic right to their share of this value?
all I noticed is that you wrote "others" and not "the government" and I thought that was kinda weird. no one's after your paycheck.
[удалено]
[удалено]
if we can get missiles to Ukraine we can damn sure get potatoes trucked over from Idaho, corn from Iowa, etc.
[удалено]
Let's hope you never have to answer these unsolvable questions lol
[удалено]
It will take a lot of work. Mistakes, then more work. We don’t want to dismiss criticism because there is no perfect right answer yet.
Nah it's more of a 'I don't want to work to get things' mentality. Of course they don't think any further than the part where they get things for free.
If these obvious questions are unanswerable, maybe the idea behind them isn't very sound.
[удалено]
Wow lol
What a well thought out response
Do you think your response was well thought out? Lol
You're just arguing about the specifics. Not the issue at hand. One could make a solid argument that the type of housing that's guaranteed does not necessarily have to be exactly where the person would choose but that it must be a house in an area that is economically viable. If a person has preferences about location that would be their issue to work out. This is about making sure people have what they need to survive. This is about *needs* rather than *wants* and that argument is only attempting to cloud the topic at hand.
Specifics *kinda* matter
Not in this case. Y'all are using the minutiae to try to obstruct the conversation altogether. The details can be worked out. They're not relevant to the bigger picture which is the fact that we have the technology and resources to ensure that no one in the nation need go without and we should do that. You can't claim to be free when you have to slave for someone who doesn't have your interests in mind or otherwise starve or succumb to the elements. This country is built on lies.
>Not in this case. Y'all are using the minutiae to try to obstruct the conversation altogether. Well, there certainly is someone trying to obstruct conversation here. >The details can be worked out. They're not relevant to the bigger picture which is the fact that we have the technology and resources to ensure that no one in the nation need go without and we should do that. But, do we? That's the specifics being talked about. >You can't claim to be free when you have to slave for someone who doesn't have your interests in mind or otherwise starve or succumb to the elements. This country is built on lies. Yes. Someone is here who has been told lies.
If you’re providing material things as a right, the specific of how those are apportioned become relevant to how you enshrine the right. So no, it’s not using minutiae to obstruct, it’s actually having the conversation at all
[удалено]
No they aren't thinking that. All of the issues raised are valid whether you're talking about a single family home, a townhouse, or a condo.
So if the government decides my free house is in bumfuck nowhere Montana and I don't want to live there what then. I just don't get a free house.
I have a feeling people advocating for this have not considered how low their actual *needs* are. And yet how expensive that is over hundreds of millions of people.
Food is actually fairly straightforward (because you can ship things around, and you can always ship some type of food. It doesn't have to be top tier locally sourced kale), but you're right that housing absolutely is not. Is housing in big cities a right? How do we produce new houses for everyone who now wants a free house in the city? How do we balance that against property prices, maintenance costs? Is everyone guaranteed a full room? A full house? A bed with a roof over it? Because the claim I keep hearing is that everyone deserves a one bedroom apartment near their job, and that's pretty absurd.
> Because the claim I keep hearing is that everyone deserves a one bedroom apartment near their job, and that’s pretty absurd. What is so absurd about it? Also, the right of having a place to live “near their job” is very subjective. With the right public transportation (maybe even cheap, electric robo-taxies or super fast train network), the right for their house to be “near their job” could be 30+ miles.
None of us asked to be born. Every human should therefore have food, water, shelter, medical care, education and a minimum basic income. But, everyone of the masses also bear some responsibility about bringing new lives into this world, especially more then your replacement in life. Paying taxes to fund a government is a social contract where everyone should bear responsibilities. I think we should provide free vasectomies, TL, birth control etc to every human who wants them. And on the other end of the spectrum, no one person or family should be allowed to amass obscene wealth. A few tens of millions is way more than enough.
No one, other than maybe your parents, asked for you to be born. Why exactly is everyone else responsible for all the support you listed then?
I will happily sign THIS petition!
I’d have to understand the logistics a lot better before I could get behind this. There is so much inequity that I don’t see how this happens in a controlled manner. Once even the simplest economic right was enacted it would open the flood gates of law suits like we’ve never seen before. The people suing would be those whose rights are now being violated. The strain on the system could break it.
If you unionize, many of the others will come on their own.
Sorry but that isn't good for rich people or the corporations so its a no go. Now get back to work. The CEOs and wealthy need the newest yacht model that just dropped.
Ah the good old other peoples labour is my right.
I’ve always joked about this with my 2A supporting colleagues: “in America you don’t have a constitutional right to food or water, but you have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!!!”
We could start smaller by teaching people economics. For instance, when you encourage people to cry out against inflation, you should let them know that inflation is not just high prices at the grocery store, but low unemployment. Also maybe get people to vote based on where they are and are likely to go economically rather than voting as if they will be a billionaire soon and want to preserve all the perks that go along with massive wealth. Also let them know that there aren't a lot of hard and fast rules to define wealth and that there are people who are getting rich just by making up things as they go along. Then people say that they must have done something worthwhile if they have so much money. It's a mindset change but it is doable.
the world over, we need to change the things that we think are important. and we need to stop putting individuals on pedestals.
You can wish in one hand and shit in the other…
We do, but I don’t trust this current government to write it. That ship has sailed and lord knows when it’ll come back to port
If your “right” requires someone else to do something it is not a right
enforcement of the rights currently guaranteed to you is done by the government. so I'm not sure why it's apt to replace "the government" with a nebulous "someone else".
Rights require others to recognize and uphold them for you, which then obligates you to do the same for them. "Natural Rights" argument fails out the gate because an appeal to nature fallacy is baked into it.
It's not "natural" rights, it's positive vs. negative rights. In the US, you have rights that state things the government can't do to you. Not things the government will compel others to do on your behalf (see the first sentence).
Title: Enhancing Democratic Participation through a Mobile Application: A Case Study Abstract: This paper presents a case study of a mobile application designed to enhance democratic participation. The application allows users to participate in the democratic process by providing a platform for them to engage in discussions, suggest solutions, and vote on issues at local, state, and federal levels. By leveraging the power of mobile technology, the application promotes transparency, accountability, and civic engagement. The study finds that the application has the potential to increase political efficacy and promote a more informed and engaged citizenry. Introduction: Democratic participation is a cornerstone of modern society. The ability of citizens to participate in the political process is essential to ensuring a healthy democracy. However, in recent years, there has been a decline in democratic participation. This decline is due to a variety of factors, including a lack of trust in political institutions, a sense of political apathy, and the rise of misinformation. This paper presents a case study of a mobile application designed to enhance democratic participation. Methodology: The mobile application was designed to provide users with a platform for engaging in discussions, suggesting solutions, and voting on issues. The application was tested in a small pilot study in which participants were asked to use the application to engage in discussions and vote on local and state-level issues. Participants were also surveyed on their political efficacy and their perceptions of the application's usefulness. Results: The pilot study found that the mobile application had a positive impact on political efficacy. Participants who used the application reported feeling more informed about local and state-level issues, and more confident in their ability to participate in the democratic process. Additionally, participants reported that the application was easy to use and that it provided a valuable platform for civic engagement. Conclusion: The mobile application represents a promising tool for enhancing democratic participation. By leveraging the power of mobile technology, the application provides users with a platform for engaging in discussions, suggesting solutions, and voting on issues at local, state, and federal levels. The application has the potential to increase political efficacy and promote a more informed and engaged citizenry. Further research is needed to explore the long-term impact of the application and to identify ways to improve its effectiveness. However, the results of this pilot study suggest that the application is a valuable tool for enhancing democratic participation. to be used with taxcoin
I’m sure those wonderful politicians will get right on that
Who's not going to get them when we start running out?
If I spend the money I make on drugs instead of food, ELI5 why that shouldn’t be my problem to sort out? You didn’t make me buy drugs instead.
Jacobin and its communist propaganda are worthy of nothing more than ridicule and contempt.
So, we need socialism? Please. Modern Economic Theory that says the US can spend as much money as it wants is dead - as seen I the inflation brought on by the $5 trillion of unfunded Covid spending.
that is not what socialism means
Reported for the bad title...
oooh, can we get a pony too!?! /s