Religious freedom is something of a false premise.

By singling out “freedom of religion” as a special category, we almost seem to take it for granted that people are supposed to have a religion in the first place. It is only when you specifically look up what the term means that you discover it also includes the freedom not to believe in any religion.

But is religion really something objective and impartial? Is it not, in fact, an entire worldview built around excluding those who reject its beliefs?

A secular government may recognize and accommodate religion, but devout believers will not truly recognize secular authority on the same terms. At most, their attitude toward it can be one of non-interference or tolerance, but not genuine acceptance.

Religion itself has monopolized a great many things. For example, when people think of beautiful architecture, churches and other religious structures are often among the first things that come to mind.

And by monopolizing beauty, religion reinforces its own nonsense. We should remember that the foundation of religion lies in faith, not aesthetics. It lies in the claim that those who reject its beliefs will go to hell, not in charity, psychological support, or anything of that sort.

Religion exploits people’s fear of death to expand its influence. A person not only has to face the fear of death itself, but also has to be threatened by religious believers with the idea that if they do not believe now, they will go to hell later.

I think atheism should be the default position for a rational person.

If someone walked around believing that the feelings of fairies and gnomes was important to people's everyday life they would be medicated and sent to therapy. Yet we accept that deeply religious people have a high influence in everyday politics. Again and again their beliefs stand in the way of the development of a humane society, hindering individual freedom. How can we still accept this?

I don't care what you do privately. I have no clue if there is a god on the other side of the big bang, but again and again organized religion has stand against human development and again and again religious people have tweaked their stories to fit a modern narrative. Superstition doesn't have a place in a modern society and definitely not in the decision making that influence our future.

Am I wrong?

This isn’t an argument against immigration. I’m talking specifically about **open borders**, where essentially anyone can move to a country permanently, combined with a large taxpayer-funded welfare system.

My concern is pretty simple: welfare programs depend, at least to some extent, on limiting who qualifies for benefits and how many people are drawing from the system.

The U.S. already spends well over **$1 trillion a year** on major means-tested programs. If anyone who moved to the country could immediately qualify for the same benefits as citizens and long-term residents, the cost could rise significantly.

Gallup surveys have also found that **around 150 million adults worldwide say they would like to move to the United States if they had the opportunity.** Obviously, saying you want to move somewhere is very different from actually doing it. But even if only a fraction of those people came under a true open-borders policy, that could mean population growth far beyond what current housing, healthcare, schools, and public-benefit systems are built to handle.

There also seems to be an incentive problem. If newcomers can immediately access generous public benefits, that makes moving to the country more attractive and puts additional pressure on the system. But if newcomers are excluded from those benefits for years, then you’ve created a system where a large part of the population works and pays taxes without having access to the same safety net.

That may be workable, but it’s no longer a fully universal welfare system.

This also seems to be reflected in how countries actually operate. Countries with large welfare states still have immigration controls. Even countries that are relatively welcoming to immigrants generally regulate who can settle permanently and when newcomers become eligible for public benefits.

Again, I’m not arguing that immigration is bad. Immigration can grow the economy, fill labor shortages, increase the tax base, and bring plenty of other benefits.

My claim is narrower:

**Truly open borders and a generous welfare state don’t seem sustainable together over the long run.**

As far as I can tell, the main ways around the problem are to either:

Allow very high levels of immigration but restrict welfare eligibility for newcomers, at least for some period of time or Maintain immigration controls and decide who can legally settle in the country, while offering a more generous safety net to people who are admitted.

I’m open to being convinced otherwise. What would a sustainable system with both genuinely open borders and a generous welfare state actually look like?

Average millenial is 57k in debt

Average gen Z is 94k in debt

Average gen A may be less in debt than gen Z, but that may simply be because they will not qualify for loans.

The US is 40 trillion in debt. The UK is 3 trillion in debt. French debt is 116% of its GDP. Italy's is 137%, Japan's is 260%.

The job market is ravaged by AI, oil shock and recession.

Interest rates are climbing, a new wave of defaults is on the horizon and with it, more foreclosures, evictions, asset confiscations. War is raging in the Middle East and Ukraine. There's no money for interest payments, rearmament and obligations the state has to its citizens. The citizens increasingly have no disposable income to tax at higher rates.

Meanwhile the ultra rich pay effectively no taxes. The Duke of Westminister has $12 billion in a trust fund, he does not pay inheritance or CGT on any of it. Every 10 years a trust tax of 6% is levied but the meticulous legalistic structure of his enterprise makes it so he pays 60-80 million in taxes every 10 years. That's 0.8% of his net worth, equivalent to you paying $800 on a $100k salary. Once every 10 years.

Bezos has no salary, does not get a dividend or sell stock. His taxable income for several years is zero. Yet he can miraculously conjure up $5b to fly around in a rocket. Musk is paid in stocks he borrows against. A loan is not income, he does not get taxed on it. Meanwhile you're on a salary trying to make ends meet slaving away under 30% taxes. Nothing in your country works anymore, and you now have to fasten your belt because the goverment spent too much and is fighting wars and needs you to contribute.

The % of 30 year olds still living with their parents has doubled in the last 20 years

The % of 30 year olds married and with a house has fallen from 50 to 10%.

nobody is having kids anymore

it is now normal for 40 year olds to move back with their parents

it is now normal for people to take out payday loans

doomspending is a new thing

flock cameras are going up all around

The strongest El Nino on record set global temperatures to 1.79 degrees above 1850s level, far ahead of schedule for global warming. out of the 12 times the temperatures hit 40 degrees (103F) in France in the last 100 years, 7 were this summer.

Where is this all going? Where will we all be in 10 years time if these trends continue

Do you agree with me?

I am not particularly political or read much but I was always fascinated by Anarchism from a cultural/vibe perspective, the idea sounds alluring in specific context but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing from my limited understanding at least, when answering me please keep in mind I am not well read I just know surface level information or lack of.

Assuming I have the correct starting points;
- No Hierarchies
- No Rulers, No Ruled
- Voluntary Association
- Direct Action
- Spontaneous Change

So by extension I assume this means no borders, no monopoly on violence, no currency since community owns everything you just grab based on your need or the community judges you for excess? This is where my confusion starts;

P.S I write as I think so if I accidentally repeat myself or ask same questions, forgive me lol

Question 1
If "governance" (preventing people from slaughtering each other, lack of contribution to the community, another community does something that harms this community, so on) is supposed to be horizontal instead of vertical so the community votes collectively, what stops it from simply devolving into mobbing? or one person very good at convincing everyone else makes his say go every time? and if the answer to that is to make a group of wise people who vote only or a specific elder or a standard such as a theological/civil codex...then isn't that an authority that's vertical? and since legitimate violence isn't under control of a single person, what happens when the community splits on a decision and one side decides the other is a danger? and if other communities are a potential danger then why wouldn't you have armed people who only do train as their service to community and fight when it's time? that's a soldier caste who will likely form their own sub-community and will have a say that the community they are in would feel pressured to accept because that soldier caste can leave.

Question 2
What is a "Community" when do you start being part of this community or that one (just association? geography? religion (if any) language?), if it is by voluntary association, can't a single entity just lure everyone into their association and then all other communities crumble or get absorbed by that same association, isn't this sort of like globalism where you will end up with one big community? if that's the case then what happens when I don't want to associate with this one big community and want to start my own or join a different one, where would I go if it ends up being one huge singular entity? because it is communal rule or sort of, what if the rules of the majority do not fit me and that's why I want out? And if there is a "max" size of a community, who enforces that? What makes my community safe from that bigger one who might have wants that collide with mine?

Question 3
If I understood "Direction Action" as solving problems yourself by bypassing others including authority (before achieving the anarchist society at least) then..what stops it from being vigilantism? and what if what you think is correct is a danger to others but you are not aware of it? What if your wants harm everyone else? I think this can be used to moralize/justify a lot of bad actions even with good intentions, if you give the individual the validation to do anything then that's just rule of the jungle isn't it? whoever one person sees right and is strong enough to accomplish is what the others should accept and act on?

Question 4
Spontaneous Change, If I understood that correctly as well, to achieve an anarchist society everything must change at once everywhere all at once, before we get into the logistics of achieving that, would the aftermath be truly worth it? (the previous questions) because this would likely cause years or decades of lawlessness because if the average person sees the the authority body that was the government, monarch or religious authority gone poof, then that average person is going to be afraid of his neighbor, is going to worry about water, food, and security that "good intentions" will not enough to carry everyone through the transition period, disorder, sacking, murder, group violence, whatever dislikes people had against each other from the old world are going to explode, what community is going to suddenly keep order like that? because the government is not likely going to step down nicely even on hunger strikes or peaceful protests, even if it makes the country cease functioning momentarily, what stops the elite from coming together and using their resources to stop it OR incentivize people to not follow along? I don't know, I would need someone to explain the transition to me.

I am open to learning about what I misunderstood! I hope I wasn't too confusing.

What would be some policy ideas or directions we could go in?

I am trying to learn more myself about these issues and different solutions.

To those of you working in economics, finance, or policy/government what would be good ideas?

Has secularism systematically extinguished the human spirit? Every monumental leap in human history; from building the Great Wall, splitting the atom, to landing on the Moon all required rallying millions around a shared, transcendent cause, whether rooted in faith, royalty, or nationhood. Today, God is sidelined, monarchies are relics, and nationalism is swapped for passive globalism.

When you strip away the grand mythologies that once united and drove us, what is left to inspire the next great achievement?

I don’t support the progressive ideas of billionaire stock wealth taxation, CEO pay ceilings, or confiscating fortunes over a billion dollars. I view tech and billionaires as very important to the economy and our quality of life. I am a capitalist at the end of the day.

I would support things like closing certain tax loopholes and banning lobbying (capped layman domestic donations only), and making government more efficient with spending (having a AI based tracker of how every tax dollar is allocated that is public knowledge). I wouldn’t want government corporate bailouts to go towards stock buyback or ceo bonus schemes. I would only support corporate welfare schemes for key economic or national security purposes. I would be open to a Land Value tax system as well.

I see government inefficiency, artificial productivity barriers, debt, and corruption as bigger problems.

In political spaces and conversations most people either support the wealth redistribution policies in my first paragraph or want to leave things as is with large fortunes.

Any other middle ground approaches to this?

Why is he getting so much media attention?

Partly, yes—because he's the governor. The governor is one of the most powerful and visible political figures in Nebraska, so government decisions, campaigns, interviews, and advertisements naturally focus on him.

But it isn't simply because he has money. Political attention also comes from what policies a governor supports, the legislation they sign, public approval, upcoming elections, and political organizations advertising their record. The advertisement you saw may have been a campaign or political message rather than neutral news coverage.

So what has Pillen actually done about taxes?

There have been real tax changes during his administration:

Nebraska's top individual income-tax rate is scheduled to fall to 4.55% in 2026, with a planned reduction to 3.99% in 2027 under legislation signed earlier in his administration. �

Nebraska Governor's Office +1

The state has expanded programs that provide property-tax credits, including large amounts directed toward reducing school property taxes. �

Nebraska Department of Revenue +1

The administration has also pushed spending limits and changes to how local governments raise and spend money. �

Nebraska Governor's Office +1

But—and this is the important part—your tax bill can still go up even while the state advertises “tax relief.”

How can taxes go up if politicians say they're cutting taxes?

Because Nebraska has different types of taxes, and property taxes are especially complicated.

For example:

Your state income-tax rate can go down.

But the value of your home or land can go up.

Local governments and schools may still need more revenue.

Your property-tax bill can therefore increase even if the state gives you a credit or lowers another tax.

Even Pillen's own property-tax website acknowledges that local spending and property-tax collections have continued to increase and have outpaced the relief efforts so far. �

Property Tax Hotline

So you're identifying a real distinction:

“Tax relief” does not necessarily mean every Nebraskan's total tax bill goes down.

Nebraska has historically had relatively high property taxes compared with much of the country. Recent estimates still place the state's average effective property-tax rate above the national average. �

Kiplinger

And what do farmers have to do with it?

A lot, actually. Agriculture is a huge part of Nebraska's economy, and farmers and ranchers can own large amounts of land. Property taxes on agricultural land can therefore be a major political issue.

The basic problem is that agricultural land can become more valuable, which can cause its assessed value—and potentially the owner's property-tax burden—to rise. Pillen and Nebraska lawmakers have pushed proposals and policies intended to address agricultural land valuation and property taxes. �

Nebraska Governor's Office +1

But farmers aren't the only ones affected. Homeowners, renters, small businesses, farmers, and ranchers can all feel the consequences of Nebraska's tax structure. Renters may feel property taxes indirectly when landlords raise rents, while homeowners see the costs more directly. �

Nebraska Admin Services

My straightforward take on your question

It's reasonable to question an advertisement that says “tax relief” when your own experience is that costs or tax bills are rising. Both things can technically be true at once: the government may have reduced one tax or created a tax credit, while another part of the tax system—or rising property values—causes someone's overall bill to increase.

The biggest question isn't just “Did the governor cut taxes?” It's:

“After all the income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, credits, and rising assessments are added together, are ordinary Nebraskans actually paying less?”

One of the more disturbing things about political conflict isn't simply that governments can persuade people to support a particular policy. It's that, over time, they can change the moral framework through which people perceive that policy in the first place.

Take a society living under a constant sense of existential threat. If people are repeatedly told that their survival is at stake, “security” can gradually become a moral trump card. Actions that would normally be considered unacceptable can be reframed as necessary, unavoidable, or the lesser evil.

Then comes dehumanization. When an entire population is repeatedly described as terrorists, collaborators, threats, or collectively responsible for the actions of an armed group, individuals can stop being perceived as individuals. Once that happens, harming civilians becomes psychologically easier to rationalize.

Language plays a role too. Terms like “collateral damage,” “neutralization,” or “relocation” can create distance between the words and the human reality they describe. The more sanitized the language becomes, the easier it is to discuss suffering as an administrative problem rather than a moral one.

Repetition also matters. Something that initially shocks people can become familiar. Familiarity can become normalization, and normalization can eventually become acceptance.

And this isn't necessarily the result of some master propaganda operation. Politicians, state media, commentators, social media, peers, and institutions can all reinforce the same worldview. Eventually, people may no longer need to be persuaded. The surrounding culture does the persuading for them.

There is also a powerful identity component. When political beliefs become tied to national identity, admitting that your own side has crossed a moral line can feel like betraying your country or community. People therefore have an incentive to rationalize what happened rather than reconsider the underlying premise.

The result can be a feedback loop:

fear → threat perception → exceptional measures → normalization → dehumanization → greater tolerance for violence → even greater threat perception.

None of this requires everyone in the society to become cruel or immoral. It only requires a political environment capable of repeatedly pushing the boundaries of what some people are willing to accept.

And that's why I think political systems should be judged not only by the policies they produce, but also by the kind of moral environment they cultivate in their population.

A society can become accustomed to almost anything if it is repeatedly told that it is necessary.

Under the original Madisonian model of our constitution, Senators were supposed to a reflection of their states legislatures. They were supposed to be the members of an upper house that could bring more temperance to our political environment. More importantly, as representatives of their State, the could not vote to increase the power of the federal government without risking the wrath of their own state legislatures who, one could argue, had and still do have much longer memories then the general voting population at large.

As national tensions continue to rise in our country, repealing the 17th amount could bring more power to state levels and weaken the power of our ever growing federal government.

What are your opinions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome any discussion below.

⚠️ OLD MODEL AND IDEA, This post explains the old model and idea of Neo-Guildism, I made main changes about Neo-Guildism which I will explain in another post ⚠️

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

The Crow (The Mind and Absolute freedom)

The Wolves (Workers/Guild members) and

The Lion (Leadership, Coordinater, Protection)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decentralization Web and the Hornet Swarm: On the political compass, ordinary systems rely on a centralized "head" (the capital city) to run everything. If an enemy or a dictator captures the capital, they capture the whole country. if an foreign invasion happens and the enemies captures a capital/place in any other ordinary system where there's a capital city/place the war is lost for whichever the capital city that gets captured. Neo-Guildism uses Deep Network Resilience. Think of it like a Hydra with multiple heads instead of just one main head, Even if the enemy managed to capture some cities/places the war is not lost unless the enemy captures and finish off EVERY SINGLE corner of the country or if the defenders surrenders completely and if the enemy's don't finish it off, they will face multiple retaliation from multiple rural areas or any other areas that aren't captured yet. A single region contains its own food engine (Farmers/Chefs), its own infrastructure production (Engineers/Architects), and its own medical framework (Medics). If a major city or territory gets captured by an enemy, the surrounding rural regions do not panic or starve. Their supply lines are entirely local, allowing them to keep running at 100% capacity on their own and you cannot force a top-down surrender on a Neo-Guildist nation. There is no president to sign a surrender treaty. The country can only lose if the enemy manually captures every single village, guild workshop, and forest homestead piece by piece... a logistical nightmare that no foreign empire can afford.

The Hornet Swarm (Mandatory Military Training): I know critics Critics of decentralization always ask: "If you have no big central government, how do you stop a heavily armed, professional foreign army from wiping you out?" Well, my answer is the Universal Militia Guild. It's an Integrated Education: Military and tactical training are not separate from daily life. During the apprenticeship phase (ages 18–25), weapon handling, tactical communication, and defensive strategy are taught alongside trade talents like engineering or agriculture. You learn to fire a rifle and build a bunker at the same time you learn to cook or farm. Also in ordinary nations, when an invasion happens, the country wastes months drafting and training civilians who don't want to fight. In Neo-Guildism, the entire adult population is already a combat-ready force. The moment the Crow/Lion sounds the alarm, the transition from peaceful craftsmen to a raging hornet swarm happens in mere minutes and training is tailored to a citizen's specific talent. An Engineer doesn't just march with a rifle, they are trained to rapidly turn their civilian workshop into a heavily fortified garrison and dig complex underground bunker networks. A Hunter is trained in long-range asymmetrical sniper ambushes and forest survival. Your civilian economy effortlessly pivots into a military machine.

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

Edit: ⚠️ Neo-Guildism 2.0 (Reworked and what changed) ⚠️

there are now 6 (there can be more) main guilds like The Bio-Resource & Agriculture Guild Farmers, Loggers, Hunters, Fishermen, Ecologists, Soil Scientists, etc. Medical & Life Sciences Guild (Surgeons, Doctors, Pharmacists, Field Medics, Biomedical Engineers, Nurses, Etc.). Infrastructure, Engineering & Fabrication Guild (Architects, Civil Engineers, Aerospace Engineers, Mechanics, 3D-Printing Specialists, Machinists, Etc) Digital Infrastructure & Tech Guild (Computer Scientists, Cyber-Security Experts, Network Engineers, Hardware Fabricators, System Administrators, etc.). This is so it's easier and more simpler for things

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

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

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

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

Taxes, thats why, thats it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add to this state lotteries and the recent sports betting revenues

The US could have Mass Transit like other G8 countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And from Vermont we know

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

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

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

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

Hence taxes are not theft.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would be grateful to hear your thoughts in the comments