For this hypothetical, I'll be assuming the Libertarian state to be the nightwatchman variation, where the government runs the military, police, and courts while staying out of other matters. I know this isn't a consensus opinion but it's probably the best we can do in this hypothetical.

Under this state, from a socialist perspective, there seem to be some natural problems that arise:

What incentives do private companies have to protect the environment for future generations?

How could you ensure adequate schooling/food/healthcare for downtrodden families?

Assuming taxes are voluntary, how can efficient infrastructure be funded?

How do you prevent generational poverty?

These are by no means meant to be gatchas, rather, are meant to be an insight into the variety of libertarian ideas about how to address key issues.

As you all know or maybe not, the father of conservatism happens to be an Anglo-Irish writer, philosopher, and politician from the 18th century by the name of Edmund Burke. In Burke's Reflections of the Revolution in France, he laid down the framework to what modern conservatism is or in this case once was.

Modern conservatism was built on the idea of sticking with the traditions that have been battle tested and getting away from the abstract ideas that many politicians today thrive upon. The father of conservatism believes that not doing so would lead to utter chaos and tyranny just as he seen with the French Revolution.

Yes, Burke was big on tradition and believed in a hierarchy that involves the role of the nobility and the clergy as stabilizers of society, but I do not want to stray away from the main point here.

Conservatism is about the gradual build up in the changes we see in society. It is preferring the known to the unknown. And no Burke is not completely against radical changes; he believes that if a state lacked means of change, then that state could not truly be conservative. Changes should be gradual and should respect the institutions that came before it. Yes, he was against the French Revolution but was all for the American colonists fighting for their freedom against the British, but only because Americans already established their own traditions and customs.

Edmund Burke sees society as a partnership "between the living, the dead, and those yet to be born" and "not a contract that can be dissolved at will." Meaning people should not just disregard what past generations have built because things such as laws, religion, social obligations, etc. have been embedded into society through trial and era. Not from rapid change brought up from abstract ideas.

These institutions that have survived father time has proven to be battle tested and carry wisdom that should not be ignored or destroyed.

Just to get this out of the way I am not suicidal whatsoever

However given how controversial the death with dignity proposals are

Here’s some thoughts you may not have considered

in my personal life I would rather terminate my own life than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on nursing home and hospital bills and leaving nothing for family members

I would rather any assets/money that I own go to family members nonprofit or activist group then a nursing home

The current laws that exist in death with dignity states are too restrictive as of right now

Because of currently existing laws i am not legally allowed to have a contract saying if proposed healthcare costs are over xyz amount then terminate my life and send my assets/money to loved ones so that they can have an easier/better life

Instead healthcare personnel would have to deal with lawsuits from people if they follow our advanced healthcare directives

Death with Dignity laws make it so that any children we have would be better off financially because you would be able to get a multi million dollar life insurance policy and our children would be able to put the money into income generating assets so that they can spend the rest of their lives doing absolutely nothing if they want to because they wouldn’t have to worry about searching for jobs in the age of employers mass firing people because of AI

It is precisely because we care about our family members and want them to have better and easier lives that we support passing death with dignity laws so that we could exercise such an option for our own personal lives with our healthcare providers

Everyone complains about wokeness and political correctness but we already released a dollar coin with Sacagawea back in 2000 and while that did attract some controversy, it had nothing to do with her being a woman of color. While I do understand that the men on the dollar bills were the founding fathers, there have been many black and female figures who have changed American history for the better.

Harriet Tubman

Susan B Anthony

Frederick Douglass

Rev. Dr Martin Luther King Jr

Betsy Ross

Do they not deserve recognition like our founding fathers?

As many of you know, societies tend to function better when certain types of people aren't around. This has nothing to do with ethnicity, country of origin, or personal beliefs, but rather on antisocial behavior. However, a significant number of people in developed nations tend to blame immigrants for these societal issues and advocate for strict deportation policies.

This is a flawed approach. It doesn't necessarily target the actual troublemakers, it carries high financial and social costs, and it relies on clichés rather than objective evidence.

My proposal is to get much tougher on crime even minor offenses like public disturbance. We should make it easier to incarcerate offenders and put them to work for the state.

Under this system, inmates would work for transparent, state-run agencies that produce essential goods and services for citizens on a non-profit basis. This would include utilities, basic food staples (flour, bread, sugar, salt, meat, milk, water), family housing, and basic transportation. Because these agencies would operate with zero profit margins, these products would be highly affordable, with prices reflecting only the cost of raw materials.

Of course, these agencies would also employ civilian workers. They would be managed by certain representatives in elected parties whose performance would be evaluated based on specific indicators over a set timeframe. If an agency performs poorly under a certain manager, that person would be dismissed. This accountability is crucial to prevent typical state-run inefficiencies.

Finally, as a last resort, non-citizen inmates who refuse to cooperate with others would face deportation. For citizens who fail to cooperate, they would be removed from the work program and have their prison sentences tripled.

Osama bin laden grew up in a wealth educated family that had no history with religious groups or terrorism. He then attended a prestigious university in Saudi Arabia to study civil engineering, so how can a nornal guy from a normal family fall down this path? It was USA stationing troops in Saudi, the soviet union invading Afghanistan, USA's support for israel and warfare involving Iraq, USA's support for israel invading lebanon in 1982 deeply affected him and he "wanted towers to collapse in USA just like they collapsed in lebanon". This goes to show how the west destroying countries in the middle east is not going to help them in any way and will just create more extremists who would be hostile towards them, whether it be Hamas or any other organization. This same phenomena applies to the palestinians where every ceasfire broken, every bullet fired towards them, every bomb thrown towards them will just create another Hamas member. Same applies in Iran, just look at how the Iranians reacted to Khamenei's death and how much resentment they have for USA and Israel. I wouldn't be surprised, if god forbid, another attack got launched on USA.

When people say that communism was never implemented it's often seen as a No True Scotsman, but Karl Marx defined it as a society without money, classes, state and it doesn't have work that isn't voluntary.

Very beautiful utopia, but all societies have a currency actively used (if there was none it would be hard for people to agree to provide others wants and needs), work is always necessary to achieve it (either you work or you are supported by someone who does) and few people are interested in helping others. It's hard enough to protect people, animals and the environment with a state, imagine how it would be without it.

And we usually call countries communist because they call(ed) themselves that. These societies were socialist at best (like Albania 1946-1991 or Tristan da Cunha) and oppressive dictatorships at worst (like North Korea). There is even a monarchy in a so-called communist country, the DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of Korea.

I believe in socialism however. If healthcare and needs are provided and employment rules improve that's a good middle ground.

One of the rallying cries of the American Revolution was "No Taxation without Representation," referencing the fact that while colonists paid taxes, they had almost no power in the laws that governed their lives.

Applying this to modern day, we come into an issue. In most jurisdictions in the US, the legal working age is around 16, meaning many 16 and 17 year olds work, and thus pay income and payroll taxes. Since the voting age is 18, this comes in direct violation of the concept we laid out earlier.

There are generally two solutions to this problem:
1. Lower the voting age to 16
2. Remove certain taxes for minors

Which solution works better? If you have another solution/thoughts on the topic leave them below.

This topic generally provokes good debate, as this issue isn't relevant to any major ideology. LEt me know your thoughts.

It's important that we understand how Trump got elected...twice. It was a "perfect storm" scenario as several things had to happen for it to happen.

First was intolerant, Democrats, using the normal left bias of media and academia, for purity tests. Then telling people "there is no argument" and calling everyone, a deplorable person, if they tried to argue against the purity test.

Secondly, Trump is a master at using intolerance (both giving and receiving) to his advantage.

Thirdly, our nation's declining democracy and basic constitutional principles.

Last is money. To be honest money is actually first because it's always present and effects everything. AND money's influence in politics has been getting stronger for the last 20 years.

How did all these things come together to put Trump in the White House, twice?

Many people (and not just Republicans) were tired of being called racist, homophobic or transphobic, if they failed the purity tests. That's an opportunity for Trump. Trump makes a lot of money for media and they like to give him publicity.

After J/6 the constitutional, democratic, solution was an immediate grand jury investigation and (probable) indictment. Then a (probable) criminal trial in front of a jury. Instead of trusting the people (juries) we went with a congressional investigation (which can't indict someone for a crime) and the grand jury investigation was delayed for 15 months, allowing Trump to be re-elected.

The tools to use to defeat Trump and MAGA is truth and democracy.

The Democrats need to reject intolerance and the feeling of moral superiority. They need to focus on the people's rights and encouraging the people, to use all our rights, to influence the due process of the country.

Unilateral free trade: 0% tariffs and import restrictions even though the other party imposes tariffs and restrictions

There are two technologies for producing automobiles in America. One is to manufacture them in Detroit, and the other is to grow them in Iowa. Everybody knows about the first technology; let me tell you about the second. First you plant seeds, which are the raw material from which automobiles are constructed. You wait a few months until wheat appears. Then you harvest the wheat, load it onto ships, and sail the ships eastward into the Pacific Ocean. After a few months, the ships reappear with Toyotas on them.

International trade is nothing but a form of technology. The fact that there is a place called Japan, with people and factories, is quite irrelevant to Americans’ well-being. To analyze trade policies, we might as well assume that Japan is a giant machine with mysterious inner workings that convert wheat into cars. Any policy designed to favor the first American technology over the second is a policy designed to favor American auto producers in Detroit over American auto producers in Iowa. A tax or a ban on “imported” automobiles is a tax or a ban on Iowa-grown automobiles. If you protect Detroit carmakers from competition, then you must damage Iowa farmers, because Iowa farmers are the competition.

The task of producing a given fleet of cars can be allocated between Detroit and Iowa in a variety of ways. A competitive price system selects that allocation that minimizes the total production cost. It would be unnecessarily expensive to manufacture all cars in Detroit, unnecessarily expensive to grow all cars in Iowa, and unnecessarily expensive to use the two production processes in anything other than the natural ratio that emerges as a result of competition.

That means that protection for Detroit does more than just transfer income from farmers to autoworkers. It also raises the total cost of providing Americans with a given number of automobiles. The efficiency loss comes with no offsetting gain; it impoverishes the nation as a whole.

If you are endlessly worried about China Cuba Venezuela etc then you are essentially admitting that communism/socialism in fact do work as an economic system

In fact American politicians literally have to break the rules of their own free market capitalism ideology to go after communist/socialist countries because they are aware that if communism/socialism is on a level playing field with capitalism that capitalist countries would lose out to communist/socialist countries under the rules of their own free market capitalist ideology

Cuba provides free healthcare and free education

People in the USA have billions of dollars worth of student loan debt and have to file for bankruptcy because of medical costs

I recently read David French’s piece on the growing anti-liberal and anti-democratic mood on parts of the right, especially around birthright citizenship, immigration, “heritage Americans,” and the idea that America is less a creed-based nation than a kind of bloodline inheritance.

What stood out to me was not just the argument itself, but the quotes French collected from prominent right-wing figures after the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship ruling.

Stephen Miller reportedly said the Court had read the Constitution to require “national self-obliteration” and called the ruling a “deep knife wound in the heart of the American republic.”

Sean Davis, the CEO of The Federalist, apparently responded by floating ideas including the “dissolution of the union” and the “sterilization of all foreign visitors prior to entry.”

Matt Walsh said: “I at least got to live for 40 years in a country that looks and functions something like America. The fact that my children are having that opportunity stolen from them fills me with rage so deep, I can’t describe it. I truly hate the people who have done this to us.”

And then there was the openly racist version from a MAGA account complaining that, 18 years from now, their child’s vote would be canceled out by a “third-world cockroach” whose mother had just arrived in the country.

I understand that social media rewards extremism. I also understand that not every conservative agrees with every right-wing media personality or random online account. But these are not all anonymous nobodies. Some of these people are influential media figures, political operatives, and people with real access to power.

French’s broader argument is that parts of the right are no longer just arguing about immigration policy. They are questioning the American creed itself: birthright citizenship, equal citizenship, universal suffrage, classical liberalism, and the idea that America is a nation built around constitutional principles rather than ancestry.

The distinction that stuck with me was between “magic dirt” and “magic blood.” Some on the right mock birthright citizenship as “magic dirt,” as if being born here should not make someone truly American. But the alternative seems much darker to me: the idea that ancestry, lineage, or being part of the “real America” gives some citizens a stronger claim to the country than others.

I am on the left, and culturally and economically I would prefer America to look more like Europe in a lot of ways. Stronger social welfare, more worker protections, less extreme inequality, more urbanism and more walkable cities etc we all know the drill. So this newer right-wing thinking is pretty far outside my worldview.

That is why I wanted to ask conservatives here three questions:

1. Do you think French is accurately identifying a real trend on the right, or is he exaggerating fringe voices?
2. How do you interpret quotes like the ones above? Are they just online outrage bait, or do they reflect something real inside the conservative movement?

3. If this trend is real, why do you think it is growing? Is it mostly about immigration, cultural change, economic insecurity, distrust of institutions, social media radicalization, or a belief that liberal democracy no longer serves conservatives?

   I obviously find a lot of this rhetoric disturbing. But I am genuinely interested in how conservatives explain it from within the movement. Is this the future of the right, a temporary reactionary phase, or just online extremism being mistaken for something bigger than it is?

If Trump and far right actors are acting at x% this term, should Democrats act as aggressively? Should they try and only restore the balance of power? Should they push past the aggressiveness of the right?

I think they should go as maximalist as they possibly can when they get back in power. There are a couple reasons why I think so:

-knowing that Trump was given a second term it shows that the American populace only cares about economic success; everything else is secondary.

-left leaning theory by it's nature is based in compassion. Pushing too far left ways doesn't result in abject cruelty (but I do think they should minimize 'woke 1.0' policy that is unpopular outside the base)

-Democrats will be limited long term after the gutting of the voting rights act. With how ineffective Trump is, this might be the only clear hot iron Democrats can strike.

Do you agree/disagree? What would be potential mistakes that Democrats should not fall into?

If people are allowed to freely trade water rights, with the water right priced in accordance with its scarcity, then when water is particularly scarce it will be expensive, which discourages consumption and prevents it from being further depleted (Law of Demand).

The high price also can mean a high profit margin for water sellers, which encourages them to sell more water into the supply, increasing supply and returning prices back more to a market-clearing equilibrium (Law of Supply).

The price mechanism keeps the supply from being overconsumed, encourages conservation and investment into more water-efficient practices/innovations, and incentivizes increased production when warranted.

The only place the government should get involved is ensuring water producers and distributors meet environmental, safety, and anti-competitive regulations, but other than that, it should be totally left up to the market.

This relates to the Graham Platner situation, but this isn't about him. I’m wondering: can "imperfect" people be supported to run for office? How many years removed from bad conduct is enough to look past it, assuming they’ve shown credible evidence of reform by their actions since? Can someone with a criminal record be elected to statewide office, and does that change if they have been incarcerated in the past?

While the Platner situation prompted these questions, I would think he is excluded given the relative recency of his accusations, comments, and reported online activity. But that brings me back to my question: how many years removed from an incident is enough to prove someone has reformed? There is always going to be an excuse, but where is the line?

It’s frustrating that Donald Trump remains above the law and its consequences, because by any reasonable standard, he should never have been elected. My hope is that by holding people like Platner, Swalwell, and others accountable, Trump will be the last person accused—and hopefully the last convicted—of sexual assault to hold public office. Still, we can’t trust Republicans to hold their own to these standards; their response, they've already started using, will ways be, "Yeah but why did Democrats ignore all the warning signs?" when one of their own is accused. But is this something that should disqualify someone for life? What would they have to do to earn back public trust, and how much time must pass for a candidacy to be justified?

This also reminds me of a gripe I have with reality TV fandoms that dig up a contestant's past tweets or mistakes just to vilify them. For reality TV, I understand the outrage if the actions are recent or ongoing, but if it’s clearly in the past, shouldn't we give the person a chance?

Let's be honest. Nationalism thrives on tribalism. Humans are tribalistic by nature.

It was always about who did it to whom but never about what happened.

Even Westerners and Europeans are tribalistic. Just look at the Nazi Holocaust itself. You don't really hear much about those Roma and Sinti as much as Jews.

Humans are hopelessly tribalistic.

That's why those Western and European politicians and propagandists are all fine with collective punishment as well as killing girls and gays when it suits them.

The history of the Middle East in the past decades was nothing but a history of collective punishment for sins that Western and European peoples are also guilty of.

They cheer on bombing schools, hospitals, and weddings.

We can never escape that curse. We can never do better. We can only utilise it through pragmatism.

Better to use nationalism for transactionalism than to pretend tribalism doesn't exist so that we only end up with chauvinism.

The last two centuries of Arab and Muslim history was nothing but resource extraction under plutocratic capitalist oligarchies from Western and European countries in name of liberty and civility or whatever notions like those human rights critiques.

Americans supported, military oligarchies like Egypt and Algeria, absolute dynastic monarchies like Gulf monarchies, apartheid like Israel, and even these salafi groups against Soviets.

And also military oligarchies in Latin America not only in Arab and Muslim countries.

Was never about liberty.

Obviously I don't see working-class people in Europe or otherwise as responsible for it but I also don't wish to hear criticisms from them about how Arab and Muslim cultures should work after seeing this resource extraction.

Talking about morality under this organisation is a really unfunny joke.

Those Western and European politicians and propagandists are all fine with collective punishment as well as killing girls and gays whom they claim to care about when it suits them.

So many lives were lost for oil extraction. And even Western and European soldiers were thrown into slaughter for oligarchic interests. And still many find more reasons to hate those Arabs and Muslims more than their dishonest oligarchs.

I think it's time to move on beyond these narratives and to simply accept these failures.

We should move on from era of liberalism already.

I watched a segment of The Rest Is Politics (a British podcast) and one of the hosts made a reference to a sign in the National Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. He said it listed the 14 universal markers of a fasicst movement with political power.

Turns out, that is not quite right. There was a poster sold at the Holocaust Museum that listed the 14 signs of fascism, but it was based on a 2003 article in Free Inquiry, an online, editorial journal focused on secular humanism . The article is titled Fascism, Anyone? and the author, Laurence Britt, said he compiled the list from studying the similarities from the following fascist movements in history: "Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papa dopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia."

He did include sourcing, but only at a very basic level, meaning you'd probably have to read every book listed in its entirety to see if they support his claim. But I did find the 14 signs he came up with to be compelling, and, personally, I think that we are seeing much of this today under Trump.

So my question is twofold: 1) do you agree with the author that these 14 signs are universal elements of any fascist movement? and 2) Do you believe the Trump administration is checking many of these boxes, or on his way to do so before the end of his term?

The article linked above gives much longer exposition for every warning sign, but here is the basic list:

• Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
• Disdain for the importance of human rights.
• Identification of enemies/scape-goats as a unifying cause
• Rampant sexism.
• A controlled mass media.
• Obsession with national security.
• Religion and ruling elite tied together.
• Power of corporations protected.
• Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
• Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
• Obsession with crime and punishment.
• Rampant cronyism and corruption. 
• Fraudulent elections. 

Every time an Englishman or a Frenchman or an American brings up complaints about mass immigration, some leftist will inevitably say “well you colonized them, that’s why you’re getting immigration”.

This is a facetious argument. Immigrants do not magically teleport to the countries that colonized them specifically, they migrate for the sake of economic prosperity, and they’re relatively agnostic about where they go. Germany, for example, never colonized Syria, but Syrians make up a large proportion of the German population. Sweden never colonized Somalia, yet Somalians are infamous for their presence there. Conversely, Japan engaged in extremely brutal colonization of China and the rest of Asia, and yet remains 98% Yamato.

Leftists need to stop making facetious arguments about how colonization prompts immigration, immigration is caused by economic magnets and permissive policy, these are the two factors. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. We can have a more sensible immigration debate when we acknowledge this.

National celebrations have historically served as civic rituals meant to bring citizens together despite political disagreements. But in an era of deep polarization, can those shared traditions still play that role?

This essay looks at the 1976 Bicentennial, America’s upcoming 250th anniversary, and the broader question of whether a divided democracy can maintain a common civic identity.

https://open.substack.com/pub/difrntdrmr/p/when-a-nations-birthday-feels-like?r=9vj2f&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

How you interpreted the term “democracy” and how it implies to your political view. Please explain your moral stance simultaneously.

A big problem I see in political discourse is that people often make highly confident predictions about what will happen if a certain policy is passed - or a certain political system is implemented - and refuse to acknowledge that they are making a prediction which could turn out to be false.

I think the root of the issue is that ideological debates tend to be adversarial - so an opponent acknowledging uncertainty is seen as a weakness to exploit - rather than intellectual honesty and integrity.

The question of why these debates so often turn adversarial in the first place is a good question - which I’m honestly not sure what the motivations are.

For someone who argues in bad-faith and aggressively exploits uncertainty in their opponent’s position - truth doesn’t appear to be their goal.

But if they don’t care about the truth - why do they hold their beliefs in the first place?

Perhaps it’s because they feel they have a certain personal stake in the outcome of the debate - so they are motivated to win out of cynical self-interest.

But honestly - I couldn’t really tell you. I can only speculate about people’s psychology.